mornelithe on 29 June 2015
Esiar said:
The burden of proof isn't logical in every circumstance. If one makes an orignal claim that someone didn't rob a store, and someone says otherwise, it's unfair that only the one saying he didn't rob has to try to prove their point. Although it is logical for a Theism vs Atheism argument. |
Wouldn't it be equally illogical to make a claim that someone didn't rob a store, before any accusation has even been made? Would that not raise more questions that answers? What possible reason would someone have to defend themselves from a non-accusation?
