Q. Isn't the burden of proof on you to prove it?
A. No. You're the one claiming that NASA can send men to the moon, robots to mars, and space ships into the solar system. We're not claiming those things.
=Burt’s Answer: Red-herring, the thing that is being claimed is that the earth is flat. And anyway science proceeds by falsification.=
A fundamental tenant to the Zetetic philosophy is to search, or examine; to proceed only by inquiry; to take nothing for granted, but to trace phenomena to their immediate and demonstrable causes. Zeticism is a philosophy of skepticism against the fantastic and unobservable.
You're the one making all of these fantastic claims. You're the one claiming that space ships exist, government contractors can land man on the moon, send robots to mars, and that we can do all of these amazing never before done things.
=Burt’s Answer. These things are plausible under the spherical earth theory (oh, dear “claims” really?) which has stood the test of scientists for well over a hundred years.=
The burden is on you to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.
=Burt’s Answer: Red-herring, see above. Plus that nasa “can’t do all of that stuff” is not actually as simple claim as it seems (because you have to bring in the help of an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, occams razor, my friend; NASA can do that stuff.)=
If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?
=Burt’s Answer: Actually FET is not that simple, it actually has many counter-intuitive notions, like: the earth is uniquely flat, compared to all over celestial objects, this one glaring anomaly needs to be explained. Where are the anomalies in the Spherical Earth Theory?=
In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on skeptics to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?
=Burt’s Answer: like you say “the burden of proof is on the claimant” and the thing being claimed is that the earth is flat=
Another example - A company called Moller International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim without evidence that the Sky Car is working and ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?
The burden of proof is always on the claimant and never on the skeptic.
=Burt’s answer: The fact is, if you are just a s(c)eptic, why does it matter that the earth is flat? Even if the spherical earth theory is wrong , that does not make the flat earth theory correct.
In this case I would be the s(c)eptic.=
“The burden of proof is on you.”
=Burt’s Answer: Exactly wrong – The burden of proof is always on the claimant. Not on “you”=