Debate: Does God exist?
Side: No

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.Also look at:There are any number of factors which can influence the symmetry of the burden. Two of the most common are  How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant).  Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative).This is the base of what I use. Since I deal with audacious claims all the time, the burden lies on them.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.The context is god, an audacious claim. So, I'm correct. Context matters you know.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.The context was audacious claims like god, this being a god debate after all.I said: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."I didn't say that only positive claims require proof, but in the context of the debate we were talking about a positive claim, god, and so of course that's what I elaborated upon.Me: - I can fly.You: - No, you cannot.You just called me a liar.Liar implies deception. The correct word is "unsubstantiated."Let's drop the scientific, and stay with academic, ok?Why?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.You make assumptions that you aren't even aware of, is what I was saying.Also, I don't need to assume that evolution is true, I can claim knowledge that it is.So does science.Which is why we experiment to test those premises.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.We found that Newtons laws break down at relativistic magnitudes, or the very small, but they didn't suddenly become false for what we used them for the past three centuries.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.It isn't a binary state. The new models are always conditionally true. The thing about science is that, unlike philosophical reasoning, it tests its premises which means we can claim a degree of certainty. In purely logical arguments the premises are never tested.