Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
When you're debating "burden of proof" with someone who asserts that "all propositions are a priori 50/50", I think it's actually a decent analogy.
It might have been fairer for someone to have told you that they are talking about Bayesian probability (oh yeah, and that you are arguing against a mathematician
). Funnily enough, this is something I too didn't really follow, until I saw it discussed on this sub-forum a few years back.
As for burden of proof, consider the following:
1 - Person A asserts that X is the case
2 - Person B, unconvinced, asks person A to justify their position
3 - Person A provides their justification for why X is the case
4 - Person B either accepts the justification (The End) or rejects it *
In case you are too wrapped up in X being "God exists", imagine instead that X is "the Earth is a globe" or "the Holocaust happened". There exist real Person B's who deny the evidence, for these examples. Don't you think they need to justify why they reject the evidence they have been presented with? In which case...
5 - Person B, in rejecting the justification, has a burden to justify why they rejected Person A's justification
* a binary outcome for the sake of argument