Debate: Does God exist?
Side: yes

You should read this.For any given argument (e.g., the existence/nonexistence of fairies), both sides of the proposition carry a burden of proof.The emphasys is mine, and thanks for making my point for me. Yes, the burden can be assymetrical. It does not excuse you of the Burden of Proof. As per the article's example: "In this case, the party making no claim about fairies has no burden of proof." The party making a claim that fairies do not exist still have burden of proof. Less, but it exists.And that was what I stated previously. The default position is not the negative, but no position. One making a negative claim still have the burden of proof.I am sorry but you should really read the whole article to avoid shaming yourself like this. You just supported my own point while trying to disagree with it.You restated what I said in different words.Yes, I did. And demonstrated that the Burden of Proof applies to positive or negative claims. Obviously, you insist on being correct because you insist that making negative claims is the same as making no claims.I didn't. You misunderstood my informal language apparently, when I stated:When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim If you lack evidence the default position is "negative."I did not misunderstand your language. You stated that only positive claims need proof and that the default position is negative. Both statements are wrong. Both kinds of claims need proof and the default position is neutral, as in, "I don't know." It is about time you give up and accept that your claims were wrong.I was explaining the difference between scientific and logical knowledge.No one disputes such differences. What we dispute is the claim that only scientific knowledge has weight as evidence.Denying a claim does not make the implication of liarMe: - I can fly.You: - No, you cannot.You just called me a liar.Denying and not believing are for the purposes of this discussion the same, unless you are trying for a semantic debate.Sorry, but you don't get to decide semantic meaning of expressions. Those expressions means what they mean, and they do not mean the same thing. Just because you, unilateraly, decided that they mean the same thing, "for the purpose of this discussion", doesn't make it true. You are not Humpty Dumpty. If you wanted them to mean the same thing, you must state it together with your arguments. Mind you, I would have never complained if you had done it.We can, from this point forward, assume that they mean the same thing, yes.In other words, scientific evidence or evidence that has been reviewed by experts who are reliable, skeptics, and so on.Let's drop the scientific, and stay with academic, ok?You make many assumptions about nature that these arguments rely on.We all make assumptions. In all your arguments, you assume evolution to be true. I usually attempt to make the least assumptions with my arguments, though.I don't believe that philosophy can determine the truth of anything non-conceptual however, because although you can engineer sound logical arguments using it, you ultimately rely on premises that MAY be true, indeterminate.So does science. No matter how much you try to whirl your argument, the point is that everything relies on assumptions. Have you learned nothing from Newton's Gravitation Laws? We assumed them to be true, and worked with them as if they were true, till we found out that they weren't really true always. Then we got something better. And we also assume it to be true, until proven otherwise. In the end, science also relies on premises that may be true, but you can't state with all certainty.