Onus Probandi (Burden of Proof) Does NOT EXIST

My only fear here is that this will be taken as a theist verses atheist issue, rather than an issue judged on the relative merits of the arguments and logic presented. This applies to a great span of different topics and should be reviewed with that in mind. It's a sad fact that many people today seem to think that if they can find a contribution to a web page which defends their position, that there is no longer a need to consider the logic (or lack thereof) in defending any particular position. And while the Pro protests greatly to the logic presented, all one need do is ask him what evidence he can provide for the claim that fairies and Leprechauns don't exist, and he suddenly assumes the same stance he denies atheists in regard to the question of God's existence. I've challenged him at least a half dozen times to offer evidence for the non-existence of fairies and Leprechauns, and he evades or ignores it each and every time. That evasion illuminates the veracity of my side of the issue. Yet he continues to return to the claim that atheists should somehow be able to provide evidence of God's non-existence, to support their stance, rather than recognizing that the inability to provide evidence to support a claim of existence, is sufficient to support a claim of non-existence. Non-existence is always supported by a lack of evidence for existence. That's how it works when you can't find your car keys, when your child isn't in their room, when your car isn't where you parked it, and when you can't find the pride of lions in your living room. When you note that there is no evidence supporting existence, the automatic logical conclusion is non-existence. When you try to report your car stolen, should the officer require that you present evidence that the car is gone? Or is that not already evident by the fact that it isn't present? The Pro then tries to tell us that "innocent till proven guilty" and "guilty till proven innocent" are equally logical positions. He does this to avoid admitting that it is logical to first have to present evidence of a crime, and present evidence to connect the accused with that crime. So he insists that "innocent until proven guilty" is an arbitrary standard, not based on logic. For support, he points to the fact that some systems evade that logic and simply insist that the state is right, until proven wrong. And yet, when the legal system is used by the Con, he immediately claims that's not pertinent, and tries to claim that the issue at hand is a philosophical issue. What's good for the Pro, isn't allowed for the Con. When the Con focuses exclusively upon the logical system of Onus Probandi (rather than any form used in any legal system), he then claims that logic is not employed in determining the burden of proof and instead claims, "The default position is an assumption established by the system one is working in". So he want s the reader to believe that the logical "burden of proof" is established by an arbitrarily assigned default position, rather than admitting that the default position is based in logic. But the logic is, as I have said, that the default conclusion (based on the "default evidence"), already supports one of the two positions. And it is the position contrary to the default conclusion which holds the burden of proof. For example; we find no evidence consistent with the existence of fairies. So the "default evidence" is that there is no evidence for the existence of fairies. The "default conclusion" is therefore; fairies don't exist. So only the one claiming that they do exist must provide evidence to fulfill their burden of proof. And he seems fine with that when it comes to fairies. But when it comes to God, he tries to reverse the argument. Apparently, God is allowed special-pleading. And then he claims that I just made up the concept of "default evidence", but then he turns around and says "it's what is evident". Okay. I don't care what you choose to call it. There is obvious evidence even before a given issue is turned over to debate. And that evidence determines the "default conclusion". And the default conclusion does not bear the burden of proof. 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." Only the one presenting the "new or remarkable idea" holds the burden of proof. God isn't new, but in that the concept violates the laws of physics and is devoid of supporting objective evidence, it is most certainly "remarkable". http://www.qcc.cuny.edu... - "The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence." For anyone who doubts this; give it a try. Present evidence for the non-existence of fairies, Leprechaus, gremlins, unicorns, etc. Can you do it? This is the challenge the Pro continues to run from, yet he somehow still insists he's right in expecting atheists to do what he can't do. http://logical-critical-thinking.com... - "The negative proof fallacy is where one assumes something is true if it cannot be proven false. It can also happen when one assumes that something is false if it cannot be proven true." How does anyone ever support non-existence? It is always by the lack of evidence for existence. If I didn't exist, I would leave no evidence. And yet, the Pro demands evidence for non-existence. http://www.nizkor.org... Listed under "Fallacy: Burden of Proof" "You cannot prove that God does not exist, so He does." - FALLACY http://wiki.ironchariots.org... - "In an argument, the burden of proof is on the person making an assertion. That is, if a person says that the moon is made of cheese, then it is up to that person to support this assertion. Demanding that the other party demonstrate that the moon is not made of cheese would constitute shifting the burden of proof." - "Since the theist is the one making a positive claim, it is the theist's job to demonstrate that a god exists. " No matter how many links are posted which all utilize the exact point of contention which lead to this debate, the Pro continues to insist that he is correct, and continues jumping back and forth in his contentions of what is necessary, and by what standards. I may have lost track, but I believe his current stance is that "Burden of Proof" is an arbitrary standard, applied at the whim of the system designer, rather than a standard constructed on the basis of logic. And I disagree. It is never logical to expect anyone to produce evidence of non-existence, as evidence always supports existence. I can't point to anything and then proclaim, "see, it doesn't exist". That only works to support existence. Non-existence is supported by the lack of evidence for existence. When there is no evidence for existence, the default conclusion is non-existence. Onus Probandi does not apply a burden of proof to support default conclusions. - IT COMES DOWN TO LOGIC - I could spend my entire day listing site, after site, which supports my position and clearly refutes the position held by the Pro. But this really comes down to a matter of simple logic. If one asserts that something does exist when there is no obvious evidence to show that it does, it becomes their burden of those making the claim, to provide the evidence showing that it does indeed exist. Vote Con - burden of proof falls to the one making an assertion contrary to the obvious evidence at hand. And to try to shift that burden to the side which is consistent with the obvious evidence, is to commit the fallacy of "shifting the burden of proof".