Burden of Proof

[Darkstar]

Which is more logical, to assume all unproven claims are false, or that all unproven claims are true? By your logic, all gods ever claimed to exist must exist, because no one can prove they don't

Also, it seems rather paradoxical that you ask us to prove this. By your method, we wouldn't have to prove it; you would have to prove otherwise. Of course, then we would be using our method in which case we would have to prove our own claim.

If you think about it logically, the obvious answer is that the claiment must provide proof (or at least reasonable evidence). Let's phrase it another way: if claims don't require proof, what do you do when two people make opposing claims?

[Cinjin]

---

Hmmm, it seems obvious to me that this "non-religious" thread is merely a christian grasping at straws in the hopes of establishing some kind of theoretical benchmark from which to quote from in the event of future religious debates regarding proof of god. I think you know good and well that if you somehow established this theory of yours without god being interjected, it would only serve to bolster any future reference you might make to this thread.

It's ridiculous. Call it an axiom, don't call it an axiom, call it whatever you want. The burden of proof belongs to the person making a claim and that fact is non-negotiable, regardless of the pseudo philosophical drivel you attach to it. If you make the claim, than you are required to defend that claim if you want anyone to accept it as truth.

Who gives a shit how you label it? That label will not excuse you from providing evidence for your arguments in future threads.

---

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

---

I see, so you're okay with appealing to ignorance, that seems kosher? All that nonsense about fallacy this and fallacy that is for pansies, real logic doesn't need that kind of stuff, right? None of the gradually more elaborate explanations (in all of the different ways they've been offered - so as to help you understand) worked for you?

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

---

[The Grand Nudger]

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

You need to read (any) of my explanations again. The issue, is that if a claimant does not support their own claims they do not have a valid argument (they have not accepted/met the burden of proof), if they insist that another must disprove their claim - they do not have a valid argument(they have shifted the burden of proof). It's an issue of using logical fallacies...and this is all that the shorthand phrase "burden of proof/shifting the burden of proof" means.........

If you're having trouble with this, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how and why we attempt to leverage logic or reason.

[Mark 13:13]

Which is more logical, to assume all unproven claims are false, or that all unproven claims are true? By your logic, all gods ever claimed to exist must exist, because no one can prove they don't

Also, it seems rather paradoxical that you ask us to prove this. By your method, we wouldn't have to prove it; you would have to prove otherwise. Of course, then we would be using our method in which case we would have to prove our own claim.

If you think about it logically, the obvious answer is that the claiment must provide proof (or at least reasonable evidence). Let's phrase it another way: if claims don't require proof, what do you do when two people make opposing claims?

I accept you ask valid questions but its not an obvious answer and I have already shown that the french civil legal system operates on the opposite maxim so the answer its obvious doesn't qualify as a proof.

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claimant all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is a description of a type of argument which may be leveraging (several) logical fallacies Mark. Tell me precisely what is difficult to understand about this.

To say
"The burden of proof is on the claimant"
is to say that arguments by assertion are not valid.

To say
"You are shifting the burden of proof"
is to say that appeals to ignorance are not valid.

[Darkstar]

---

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claiment all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

DO NOT continue copying and pasting the same post for multiple replies. This is considered SPAMMING and you can be BANNED forthright for this action. You may feel free to contradict any and all members you wish, but you will abide by the rules.

Let this be your unofficial warning and move on.

---

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claimant all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

...well I'm not actually laughing, more of a chuckle.

Moving on!

I accept you ask valid questions but its not an obvious answer and I have already shown that the french civil legal system operates on the opposite maxim so the answer its obvious doesn't qualify as a proof.

I just got back from a three week haitus, so I didn't read your comments about the French legal system. Regardless, if we assumed every claim to be true without evidence then you must also accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because you cannot prove it doesn't exist.

[Mark 13:13]

Which is more logical, to assume all unproven claims are false, or that all unproven claims are true? By your logic, all gods ever claimed to exist must exist, because no one can prove they don't

Also, it seems rather paradoxical that you ask us to prove this. By your method, we wouldn't have to prove it; you would have to prove otherwise. Of course, then we would be using our method in which case we would have to prove our own claim.

If you think about it logically, the obvious answer is that the claiment must provide proof (or at least reasonable evidence). Let's phrase it another way: if claims don't require proof, what do you do when two people make opposing claims?

I can allow them both to present their cases without worrying about burden of proof and decide the outcome based on that without giving one side of the argument any handicap by default.

[The Grand Nudger]

Your constant moaning about the burden of proof seems to imply to me that you worry about it very much.

[Mark 13:13]

---

DO NOT continue copying and pasting the same post for multiple replies. This is considered SPAMMING and you can be BANNED forthright for this action. You may feel free to contradict any and all members you wish, but you will abide by the rules.

Let this be your unofficial warning and move on.

---

No one has proved that the burden of proof is with the claimant all they have done is make claims it should be based on custom and practice, or on fanciful ideas on how the universe of logical discussion would break down without proving or testing these ideas. You claim the burden of proof belongs to the person making the claim so now follow your own maxim the one you love so much and PROVE YOUR CLAIM. let me see proof and not conjecture, assumptions and bias.

...well I'm not actually laughing, more of a chuckle.

Moving on!

I accept you ask valid questions but its not an obvious answer and I have already shown that the french civil legal system operates on the opposite maxim so the answer its obvious doesn't qualify as a proof.

I just got back from a three week haitus, so I didn't read your comments about the French legal system. Regardless, if we assumed every claim to be true without evidence then you must also accept the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because you cannot prove it doesn't exist.

I do not need to accept a statement like the above FSM is true by my logic because you make the assumption that logic is the only basis one which one must accept a claim, I am free to believe it or not based on the complex processes that I as a human being, evaluate any claim made. Logic is one among many both conscious and unconscious processes.

[Edwardo Piet]

Interesting and at least seemingly non-biased of you to say that, although I, perhaps, don't fully understand your point.