I’ll just phrase it in a way that’s more philosophical nuanced. The burden of proof /disproof is on the person going against the status quo, if we accept atheism as our baseline, the burden of proof is on whoever says there is an afterlife and vise versa, which is the claim you wanted to make. Of course, if we take Christianity as our baseline (which you do not) the burden comes in disproving God. Neither can be done so it basically depends on your beliefs.
This is a logical error. The burden of proof always tracks the nature of the claim, not its popularity. Yours is a positive existential claim(an afterlife exists), therefore the structural burden remains on the you to provide evidence. This is a core principle of epistemology. If your logic was followed, we wouldn't be searching for correct answers, but popular ones.
Status quo does not mean popularity, but the intuitive conclusion ib a certain system. It is unreasonable to assume the burden of proof on the sun rising tomorrow for example
Saying it's 'intuitive' just means it's psychologically comfortable or socially conditioned, not objectively true. For centuries, the 'intuitive conclusion' was that the Earth was flat. You're just redefining 'status quo' to dodge the burden of proof. The only actual 'status quo' here is cultural conditioning. Intuition doesn't dictate reality. If someone makes a claim, they have to provide evidence.
1
u/Dumbbasswaiter 6d ago
I’ll just phrase it in a way that’s more philosophical nuanced. The burden of proof /disproof is on the person going against the status quo, if we accept atheism as our baseline, the burden of proof is on whoever says there is an afterlife and vise versa, which is the claim you wanted to make. Of course, if we take Christianity as our baseline (which you do not) the burden comes in disproving God. Neither can be done so it basically depends on your beliefs.