Burden of Proof

In layman terms: If a person claims something is a fact, it is their buobligation to prove it. It's not the obligation of others to disprove it. This is often brought up in arguments between religious people and atheist.

Religious person: "I know for a fact that there is a God!"

Me: "Can you prove it?"

Religious person: " Well, you can't disprove it!"

Me: "That's not how it works. I'm not obligated to disprove god. You're obligated to prove the existence of God. You're the one who made the claim. If I told you that bigfoot is real, I would have to prove it to you. You wouldn't have to disprove it to me."

Atheist: "I know for a fact that there is no god!"

Me: "Can you prove it?"

Atheist "I don't have to prove a neg..."

Me "Wrong! If you claim that it is a fact that there is no god, you make it a positive. You DO now have burden of proof."

by TN agnostic December 26, 2021

burden of proof

Your responsibility to prove or provide evidence for a claim you have made, without being allowed to change the subject or avoid backing up the claim. The sister term to a burden of proof is a red herring (a logical fallacy tantamount to derailing). When someone has the burden of proof and doesn't want to back up their statements, they will usually either commit a blatant red herring and try to sidetrack the conversation or try to shift the burden of proof onto the other person. Since few people can clearly list their beliefs and evidence about global warming, economic models and policies, and cause-and-effect social claims ("legalizing marijuana will make everyone into a drug addict!"), this will remain a major problem for many years to come.

Guy 1: There is indisputable proof that God exists. Guy 2: May I see this proof? Guy 1: No. It is your job to prove that God does not exist. Guy 2: I do not have the burden of proof here. I claimed nothing.

Guy 1: Donald Sterling is a terrible person. He should lose all of his money, his job, and never be seen in the public eye again. Guy 2: Can you defend the claim that he's a terrible person? Guy 1: I know him well, on the basis of hearing a phone conversation of his. All people like him are the same. They are racists and they need to go down! Guy 2: Slow down there. You have a burden of proof to prove that 1) he's a terrible person. 2) you can judge someone enough based on a brief phone call to know they're a terrible person 3) all such people need to go down (whatever that means). Guy 1: I'm not going to discuss this! He's a racist and that's it! Guy 2: Please be a mature adult and respect that to continue this dispute, you must address your own burden of proof.

by Eric Kazinsky May 31, 2014

Burden of proof

That's not what's happening here and what IS happening here is that you're being obtuse WITH ME about a burden of proof that you don't actually ever have to meet when it comes to your own religion and you're putting on this charade for everyone because you don't like that I said you have a fat, pink pussy.

Hym "So you're applying to burden of proof to me that you yourself never have to meet and a vapid, antagonistic skepticism about something that is clearly actually happening to me AND this is purely motivated by your own religious moral confusion regarding your own religion. But it's nice to see that you can just change your religious beliefs over night as though it's a hat or a t-shirt and the sole impetus for that change in your faith is nothing more that a fat, catholic, cock getting shoved into an equally fat, pink pussy."

by Hym Iam December 17, 2025

Arbitrary Burden of Proof

The meta-fallacy where one side is forced to prove every assertion, back every claim, and satisfy every demand for evidence, while the other side can simply move goalposts, demand new sources, dismiss evidence as insufficient, and never provide anything themselves. The arbitrary burden of proof is the debate equivalent of one person carrying a piano while the other skips ahead, occasionally turning around to complain that the piano-carrier isn't keeping up. It's how conspiracy theorists can demand that scientists prove negatives (prove that vaccines don't cause autism, prove that the moon landing wasn't fake), while offering no proof for their own claims and dismissing any evidence against them as part of the conspiracy.

Example: "She was trapped under an arbitrary burden of proof. Every time she provided a source, he moved the sourcepost. Every time she met his standard, he raised it. After two hours, she'd provided twenty sources, and he'd provided zero. When she asked what he believed, he said 'I'm just asking questions.' The questions were infinite, the answers were never enough, and the burden was hers alone."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Burden of Proof Inflation

The tactic of inflating the burden of proof beyond reasonable standards, demanding impossible levels of evidence while offering none in return. Burden of proof inflation is what happens when one side demands "proof" that would satisfy a mathematician while offering "evidence" that wouldn't satisfy a toddler. It's the logic of "prove vaccines are safe" (impossible standard) while accepting "I read on Facebook that they're dangerous" (no standard at all). Burden of proof inflation is a favorite of bad-faith arguers, who can always demand more, always raise the bar, always find the evidence insufficient. The cure is recognizing that burden of proof is not infinite; reasonable standards exist, and they apply to both sides.

Burden of Proof Inflation Example: "She provided study after study showing vaccine safety. He dismissed each one—too small, too old, too biased, too something. Burden of proof inflation had raised the bar beyond any possible reach. When she asked what evidence he would accept, he said 'I'll know it when I see it.' He never saw it."

by Abzugal Nammugal Enkigal February 17, 2026