Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

The Burden of Proof states nothing like this. The Burden of Proof states that the person that makes the claim has to prove them. This rule is solely your. Keep in mind that making a negative claim is different from claiming that a claim is wrong. In fact, if I made a claim, and demanded you to prove me wrong, you would be correct to say that you are only under obligation of doing so if there is any "substance behind" my claim.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof#Holder_of_the_burden You should read this.To return your example back at you, assume that I insist that Obama is not American. This is a negative claim, since a negative claim is defined as a claim where I affirm that something (Obama) does not have a certain property (American citizenship), even if I word it affirmatively (Obama is a foreigner), but even if it is a negative claim, I am only under obligation to disprove it if there is a reason to believe your claim (Obama's parents are imigrants).You restated what I said in different words.Therefore, we can conclude that it does not matter if the claim is positive or negative, all are under Burden of Proof, and please do not confuse making a negative claim with demanding negative proof in the future.I didn't. You misunderstood my informal language apparently, when I stated:This is about Burden of Proof. When you make a positive claim about reality, it is expected that you defend that claim using either logic (this is where mathematical proof comes in, but it only applies to logic) or through evidence. If you lack evidence the default position is "negative."Think of it like "Innocent until proven guilty" only we're talking about claims and "unconvinced until evidence is provided."The burden of proof exists because without it, any claim no matter how absurd would be on equal footing with its denial.True. Science cannot prove anything in the formal sense, formal sense being defined as mathematical proofs that are beyond doubt, but what is your point, really? Are you arguing for a position of existencial nihilism or are you just arguing that if something cannot be proven beyond doubt, then it is not proven at all? Sure you've heard of the Theory of Justification, right?I was explaining the difference between scientific and logical knowledge.Wrong (or maybe you really act like this, I am now not that sure anymore). You simply do not believe the person. There is a difference between not believing the person and claiming the person to be a liar, by affirming the opposite to be true until evidence is presented.Denying a claim does not make the implication of liar. Denying and not believing are for the purposes of this discussion the same, unless you are trying for a semantic debate.So, no, you are not demanding scientific evidence, you are only demanding scientific evidence? Is it? Because I see no difference between 'scientific evidence' and 'evidence that passed under rigorous academic and scientific scrutinity.'Scientific evidence must pass through scrutiny from the scientific community and must meet their criteria for methodology. Academic evidence is more broad, but still under scrutiny from qualified experts, the important difference being that philosophical and logical evidence may be accepted.In other words, scientific evidence or evidence that has been reviewed by experts who are reliable, skeptics, and so on.I'd like to review all of them with you, then. I think they stand to a lot of scrutiny.You're free to, but just because you're convinced doesn't mean they'll get past me. You make many assumptions about nature that these arguments rely on.Good, then we agree that one can accrue knowledge that one can affirm to be true solely through Philosophy? And thus, demands for scientific evidence, in detriment of philosophical reasoning is mere scientism?I would argue that philosophical reasoning and scientific reasoning are two spheres of methodology for obtaining knowledge that have some overlap, with the chief important difference that science requires that its claims be tested for accuracy using a methodology which requires objectivity. Philosophy is mostly obsolete for this purpose and has been relegated to the role of determining soundness of ideas that are untestable, subjective.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.