Burden of Proof Fallacy Fallacy

The Burden of Proof Fallacy Fallacy occurs when it is assumed that something is either true or false unless proven otherwise. This often takes the form of claiming that the person making a claim has the burden of proof and the person denying the claim has no burden of proof. However, the denial is a claim. It is a claim that the other claim is not true. Therefore, by the same rule, the denier has the burden of proof as well. The problem with the burden of proof idea is that there is no desire for truth, but only a desire to win an argument by any means possible. This results in insincere people trying to phrase their statements in ways that only demand evidence from others without ever denying any claims. At the same time, when someone makes a claim, that person ought to be able to articulate why he or she believes the claim to be true. They have no responsibility to prove the claim to anyone. In fact, you cannot prove the existence of the Sun to someone who doesn't want the Sun to exist. When "burden of proof" is used as an argument from ignorance and a way to avoid truth, then it is the Burden of Proof Fallacy Fallacy.

Examples of the Burden of Proof Fallacy Fallacy

A truth claim is made by one party (for instance, God exists). Another party takes the contrarian position but fails to state that position. Then the contrarian insists on proof, generally taking the position that nothing can be proven by any means. When the contrarian is asked to defend the contrarian's own position, the contrarian insists that there is no position to defend.

A truth claim is made by one party (for instance, "I know Christ and He leads me from moment to moment. I'm learing to hear His Voice and to respond in obedience."). Another party takes the contrarian position, stating that God cannot be known. Then the contrarian insists on proof, generally taking the position that nothing can be proven by any means. When the contrarian is asked to defend the contrarian's own position, the contrarian insists that the burden of proof is on the first person to make the claim. However, the contrarian is also making a claim. The contrarian's claim is that the contrarian knows the inner spiritual experience of every person who has ever lived and the contrarian knows that no one can know God.

"Naturalism (or Atheism/Materialism/Evolution/Big Bang) is the default. You have to prove to me that it isn't true. The burden of proof is on you, not me."

The logical fallacy here is the assumption that naturalism is true without any proof. What the person making this claim ought to do is to either demonstrate that naturalism is absolute and true (don't know how one would do that, though) or else to admit that it is irrational to believe in naturalism. If naturalism were reality, why would anyone who believed in naturalism try to shift the burden of proof?