Onus Probandi (Burden of Proof) Does NOT EXIST

Firstly, allow me to point out the shifting of goal-posts on the part of the instigator (the "Pro"). They started by saying that my position is that "Onus Probandi (Burden of Proof), Does NOT EXIST". In fact, they selected that as the title of the debate. But when I showed in round 1, that the rules of "Onus Probandi" most certainly do dictate that only the subject attempting to shift the conclusion away from the default position, holds the "burden of proof", they shifted to claiming that I'm applying the "legal Onus Probandi", rather than the philosophical or logical ("debate"), onus probandi. So I will start by pointing out two things; firstly, there is only one standard of onus probandi. To suggest one standard for debate, another standard for philosophy, and a third standard for rules of litigation, would be to suggest that two accepted forms are illogical. However, there is only one standard of onus probandi, because it is based upon the need for a logical methodology in all cases. Secondly, this is not a philosophical issue as it pertains to the existence or non-existence of suggested entities, such as God, unicorns, fairies,, gremlins, mermaids, etc. Any time the default evidence (the evidence which is obvious before either pro or con present evidence for their position), is contrary to a given claim, the one making that claim assumes the burden of proof. The other side is already supported by the default evidence. In the examples provided, the default evidence is consistent with non-existence. A lack of evidence for existence, leaves a default conclusion of non-existence. So anyone suggesting that fairies, unicorns, gremlins, God, or mermaids do indeed exist, thereby assumes the burden of proof - because they are proclaiming the default conclusion to be false, and the default conclusion, is based on the default evidence. Only if and when they present evidence to support their claim, does there become a burden of proof to defend the default conclusion. Though this should be clearly evident and logical to anyone, there are multiple sources to support and explain this further. I'll provide a few. http://rationalwiki.org... - "Burden of proof" or in Latin, onus probandi, is the obligation that somebody presenting a new or remarkable idea has to provide evidence to support it. http://www.qcc.cuny.edu... The above link cuts directly to the exact controversy which lead the Pro into instigating the debate, and names precisely the issue at hand, and clearly states that his side - (the side counter to default evidence), holds the burden of proof. And this is his objection exactly. He holds that despite his claim being opposed to the default evidence and the default conclusion, that anyone denying his claim accepts the burden of proof. The very first lines offered state very clearly that he is incorrect, and thusly, that the Con is completely correct in this case. http://logical-critical-thinking.com... Here it is again at a site dedicated to the rules of logic. It utilizes the specific example which caused the Pro to instigate this debate, and clearly states that his claim is a "fallacy". All one need do is to attempt to apply his suggestion - that both sides hold an equal burden of proof - to a number of real world examples to instantly recognize why his suggestion failed. Consider the claim... - 1. "I can walk through solid walls." If you challenge that claim, do you hold the burden of proof to show they can't walk through walls? - 2. "My grandmother is a space alien." He claims anyone disagreeing must support that challenge with evidence against grandma being a space alien. - 3. "I can pulverize a solid 10-ton bolder with my bare hands in 10-seconds." If the person offers no evidence to show that they can, does the doubter hold the burden of proof to show that they can't? In each of these examples, the claim is contrary to the default conclusion, based on the default evidence. We know that people cannot walk through solid walls. We have no evidence (or inferior evidence), to support the claim that they can. We have no evidence - or weak evidence - to suggest that space aliens even exist on Earth, let alone that they are breeding here. So the default evidence concludes to the contrary of the claims. And human hands are too easily damaged to impart sufficient energy to 10-tons of solid rock to produce pulverization so quickly. So in all three of these examples, the person making the claim holds the burden of proof. The person denying the claims holds no burden of proof, as they hold the default conclusion, which is already supported by the default evidence. The Pro even goes so far as to suggest that legal Onus Probandi can uphold either "innocent until proven guilty", or "guilty until proven innocent", which is a purely false claim. If that were true, then in court rooms invoking Onus Probandi, we would not find the exclusive methodology of "innocent until proven guilty". That is the only premises supportable under Onus Probandi. And the same logic applies to every use of Onus Probandi. It doesn't change, invert or reverse depending upon application. It remains always that the one making the claim contrary to the conclusion drawn on the default evidence, is the one holding the burden of proof - in law, in science, in logic, in philosophy and in debate. I can only suggest that the Pro is somewhat confused with his smoke and fire example. Clearly, if we have no evidence consistent with a fire, then the claim that there is a fire is contrary to the default evidence, and holds the burden of proof to show evidence consistent with a fire. Until that is done, the default conclusion bears no burden of proof, as it is already supported by the default evidence. In regard to his statement "Proof is only in Math and Alcohol so 'Burden of Proof" as it applies to a debate is clearly nonexistent", I again must suggest confusion on his part. He's quoting me with "proof applies only to maths and alcohol", but connects it to a false conclusion. My part of the statement is fully true. And the only point I was making is that the correct phrase should be "burden of evidence", because "proof" is a fallacious concept aside from maths and alcohol. The concept of "proof" holds that evidence can exist which is so completely compelling, that no one could possibly deny the conclusion drawn upon that evidence. If that concept weren't false, then the evidence we have to show that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, would instantly change the mind of a flat-Earther. It would "prove" them wrong. Yet the Flat-Earth society still exists, and its members adhere strongly to their belief that Earth is flat. The evidence doesn't sway them. People commonly accept or reject evidence on subjective standards. The idea of "proof" suggests that people always accept or reject evidence on objective standards. So the phrase "burden of proof" is more correctly stated "burden of evidence". No one can actually "prove" anything to anyone sufficiently dedicated to disbelieving it. It is because this is recognized in science - as well as the need to adhere to science methodology - that science often quotes "'Proof' applies only to maths and alcohol'. Science does not subscribe to the concept of proof - and for very good reason. It's a fallacy. Please take note of the goal-post shifting perpetrated by the Pro, read the arguments and the references, and recognize that only the one making claims contrary to the default position holds the burden of proof. And Onus Probandi applies equally to law, logic and philosophy, and doesn't change from one field to the next. "Burden of proof" is always applied to the side rejecting the default evidence, not on the side holding to the default conclusion.