Onus Probandi (Burden of Proof) Does NOT EXIST

Onus Probandi is the rules of logic defining who has the "burden of proof", as well as who does not hold a burden of proof. The Pro side of the argument is based firstly, upon ignorance of the term used in the debate. While they have argued by presenting multiple sources which give the literal translation of the Latin "Onus Probandi", they have demonstrated a failure to understand that it is not just a phrase meaning "burden of proof", but a system of rules regarding burden of proof; when it applies, why it applies, and to whom it does (or does not), apply. That's right, "burden of proof" doesn't always apply to everyone on all sides of an issue. That's the entire point of the "Onus Probandi" system! But don't take my word for this. Despite being retired from a 30+ year career in law enforcement, I would not ask that you take my word on the basis of argumentum ad verecundiam. That would be improper. So I offer you the following link which explains that not all sides suffer the burden of proof. http://en.wikipedia.org... Of primary importance among the information found here is the statement, "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation resting on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position." (Emphasis added) Please don't overlook this. There is a default position, and a challenging position, often referred to as the "negative claim" and "positive claim". And only one of them ("a party" in the above statement) holds the burden of proof, as the opposite side is the default position and needn't be defended against any allegation devoid of evidence. And this is a simple matter of logic. The one seeking to shift the conclusion away from the default, holds the "burden of proof". The one holding the default position has no "burden of proof". And the default position, is the conclusion as it is supported without the interjection of evidence from either side. If a vehicle is clearly visible resting in a field, the grasses and weeds crushed beneath the tires, no light passing through the body and dust clearly blowing around the vehicle rather than through it, the default position is "the vehicle exists". That is the conclusion without anyone presenting any additional evidence. The burden of proof would then fall to anyone asserting "the vehicle does not exist". However, if the field is open, dust is blowing across it unimpeded, plants are showing no signs of being crushed under tires, and light is passing normally without any obstruction by the body of a vehicle, the default position becomes "the vehicle does not exist", while the challenging position (the "positive claim"), becomes "the vehicle does exist". The position which stands without the presentation of additional evidence from either side, is the default position. And under Onus Probandi, the default position does not hold a burden of proof. In the court room under Onus Probandi (and all logical methods), one has no responsibility to defend against a claim or allegation; but only against the evidence supporting that claim or allegation. Where no supporting evidence is offered, the default side is automatically upheld, without any burden of proof. This is the primary rule of Onus Probandi, and the Pro challenger would have known that had they done sufficient research. When alleged to have committed a crime, it is not the allegation itself against which you must defend, but against the evidence supporting the allegation. It is the evidence you must defend against. If there is no evidence to support the allegation, you are innocent by default, and hold no "burden of proof". This is commonly stated "innocent, until proven guilty". In other words, Onus Probandi requires that the positive claim (the allegation), be supported with evidence. And until/unless that evidence is presented and sufficient to overwhelm the default position, the default position (innocence), is the automatic conclusion, without any burden of proof. Once again; innocent (default position), until proven guilty - the one attempting to alter the conclusion from the default, is the one (the only one), who holds the burden of proof. A little thought demonstrates the logic which necessitates such a methodology. As an example; were I to allege that the Pro has committed a murder, can they present a defense based on evidence, against only that allegation? They have no information, aside from a blanket allegation. They have no body, no method of death, no details, no timeline, no forensics, no crime scene, no evidence ... nothing. No indication of a crime. And thusly, they have no method of defence. Until evidence is provided to support the allegation (the "positive claim"), there is no possible response that can be offered to defend the plea of innocence - which is the default position. If the Pro wishes to challenge that, I openly invite them to explain how one defends against an allegation, which is utterly devoid of any supporting evidence. It can't be done. The same applies outside of the field of law. If I assert, "talking rocks exist", but offer no evidence to support the assertion, there is no evidence against which to defend. So the "default" (the conclusion supported without either side presenting evidence), holds no burden of proof, and remains the rational "default conclusion". And yet it is at this point where the Pro insists it becomes the responsibility as the bearer of the burden of proof, to demonstrate the non-existence of talking rocks, rather than correctly noting that until evidence is presented to support the assertion that talking rocks exist, the default position holds no burden of proof. Replace "talking rocks" with "God" and you have the exact situation which spawned this conflict. Whenever stating against the default, the burden of proof is automatically assumed. The side holding the default position, does not hold the burden of proof, as there is no evidence against which to defend. And the default is that which is supported if no evidence to the contrary is provided. Allegations devoid of supporting evidence do not warrant a burden of proof, so the default position remains the appropriate conclusion, without submitting any evidence. As for the allegation that this violates the "scientific method", that is absolutely incorrect. This IS the scientific method. Science does not hold any burden of proof, against that for which there is no evidence. That is a fundamental premise of science methodology. Until you have evidence which challenges the default position (the "negative claim" - the claim which stands without any additional evidence), the "default position", stands and holds no "burden of proof". "You committed a murder" cannot be defended against via evidence. If no information accompanies the allegation, no contrary information can be presented (aside from denying the allegation itself). The response "no I didn't" is not found to be compelling, nor is the assertion "yes you did". That's not the way evidence works, yet that would be the only possible procedure were the Pro to be correct. Evidence must be presented against the default conclusion, and until that evidence is presented, no burden of proof is held by the default conclusion. If you believe people should be convicted and sentenced on an allegation alone (with no supporting evidence), then vote pro. If you believe evidence is a necessary component in challenging default conclusions, then vote con. "Innocent until proven guilty" is not just a standard of law and a standard of logic, but the recognition that only the side challenging the default conclusion holds a burden of proof.