LOL -- You give it up, and then you take it back! You can't help but make yourself look less and less informed about the world around you. PLEASE continue down this line of false assertions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by d2_e4
No, the burden of proof does not always lie with the party making the claim.
The philosophical burden of proof lies with the one making the claim.
Quote:
In both a civil and a criminal legal context, you can have affirmative defenses, where the burden of proof shifts to the defendant.
The only times I can think of where the defendant has to make an affirmative defense is when the defendant willingly offers up an explanation. But in that case, they've made a claim, and are the ones that need to prove it.
Quote:
In non-legal contexts, Occam's Razor tells us that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The burden of proof is on the party making the more far-fetched claim.
Ummmmmm... no. Just.... no. If we both offer up an explanation of something and one is simpler than the other, this does not mean that the one offering up the simpler explanation doesn't have to prove their claim. Occam's Razor is a plausibility heuristic, not an argument.
Quote:
Regardless, the statement "the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim" is nonsensical, because any statement any party in a debate makes can be characterized as as "claim" by this definition. Do you mean literally the person who spoke first or something?
I literally mean "the burden of proof lies with the party making the claim." If both parties make claims, they both bear the burden of proof.
Quote:
So, again - you propose that god exists, I propose that he doesn't. Where does the burden of proof lie?
It lies with both people because they've both made a claim.