Look. I'm going to be really, really basic and simple with this. So you don't confuse yourself any further. The baseline [i]is[/i] that (Object/incident/action of interest) [i]does not exist/has not happened in the world[/i]. Period. The end. The baseline is that [i]it[/i] simply [i]is not a thing at all, [/i] whatever [i]it[/i] happens to be. That is the baseline. Not (Object/incident/action of interest) [i]might not[/i] exist or have happened. Empirical Proof does not deal in "Maybe" or "what if" or "perhaps". It deals in absolutes. In concretes. So to put it out there, one last time. The baseline is that the Positive absolutely and beyond a reasonable doubt does not exist nor has it occurred in our world. And the one with the burden of proof must prove [i]beyond a reasonable doubt[/i] that the Positive, does in fact exist and has occurred in the world.

Legally the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.

Who is claiming that X incident happened in the world. Against the innocent baseline that X incident did [i]not[/i] happen in the world.

That's not how it works. That's where the difference in scientific and legal baseline comes into play. If I claim I saw a shark with 8 legs walking across the neighborhood and my friend refuted that claim, the burden of proof would be up to me a common knowledge and what we know would say the baseline is that it doesn't exist. If you said there were rivers on Mars 100,000 years ago and I said there werent, the burden of proof would lie in whoever made the claim, for or against. In this case the baseline would be the unknown and the burden of proof is on the prosecutor

The hell do you mean that's not how it works? That's exactly how it -blam!-ing works you idiot. Burden of proof lies on the one making the claim. I.e. The prosecutor claims that the defendant is guilty. The burden of proof states that the defendant has [i]not[/i] committed a crime and is innocent until proven guilty. Holy shit you must me one hell of a dense dumbass.

You're stating one example. Yes, proof is in the one making the claim, for or against. As I said, if you are the one refuting existance of something you must prove it I can say "the big bang never happened, prove me wrong". Just me saying prove me wrong like a 12 year old doesnt mean it's on you to actually do that. This is getting nowhere as you are caught in your narrow cardboard box, unable to find a way out. Have fun tomorrow (you know what I mean)...I'm out

You're still on this tangent thinking that the burden of proof is relative. That the burden is on the one saying that the other is wrong. It's not. It's not relative to anything. And it's not for or against. It's for. Solely for, and not against. I don't know where you're getting this idea, but it's not how it works. The only one being a 12 year old is you, trying to argue that it is what it isn't. It's not a cardboard cut out box, dumbass, it's an established reality. Someone's view point doesn't dictate who has the burden of proof. The burden of proof is dictated by the established normality. In the case of religion, as was the original topic, the norm is that there is no God. The burden of proof, thus rests on the party stating that, despite the norm, God does exist. It's that simple. There's no workarounds. No shortcuts, no ifs ands or buts, aside from someone who doesn't understand how the principal works showing their ass.

That's not what the law or statistics would say, but whatever. I told you I'm done. Not letting you continue to suck me into your vortex of one sided thought

You must be even more dense to think a prosecutor would make a case for a defendant being innocent.