Burden of Proof

[McCulloch]

Keith Lehrer has stated that "generally arguments about where the burden of proof lies are unproductive. [...] In philosophy a different principle of agnoiology [the study of ignorance] is appropriate, to wit, that no hypothesis should be rejected as unjustified without argument against it. Consequently, if the skeptic puts forth a hypothesis inconsistent with the hypothesis of common sense, then there is no burden of proof on either side …"

In debate, the burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. That is to say, if you make an assertion then you are responsible for supporting that assertion with evidence. You cannot get away with, "well, it cannot be disproven."

Whenever a person offers a proposition, the person offering the proposition has the burden of proof. If I, as an agnostic, say “we cannot know whether gods exist”, then the burden of proof is on me to prove that we cannot know.

If an theist asserts that his god exists, then the burden of proof rests with him to prove that his god exists.

If an atheist asserts that gods do not exist, he assumes the burden of proof to prove that gods do not exist.

[OnceConvinced]

That seems fair and reasonable to me

[McCulloch]

Just a quick note. This is the definitions and explanations section not one for debate. If any one disagrees with the definition, start a thread in one of the debate forums. I did try to keep this definition even handed and neutral.