How should an asymmetry in the burden of proof be defined?

[Strelok]

Burden of Proof Scale [0-6 ; higher = more burden]

0 - I do not know if God exists or not
1 - It is likely that God does not exist
2 - God does not exist
3 - It is likely that God exists
4 - God exists
5 - God cannot exist
6 - God can't not exist

--Why does asserting "God exists" or "God likely exists" carry more burden?

This is because the opposite is a negative which bears less of a negative by it's nature. Asking for proof of a negative would be a logical fallacy - unless the 'positive' assertion has already been established in a scientific consensus.

--What is the burden of proof?

The burden of proofi s a concept of an obligation on a party to provide sufficient establishment for their position. All parties bear some level of the burden of proof (except for the most neutral stance possible) but there is a definable asymmetry.

------------------------------

That is how I view it. What do you think?

[Space Thug]

This is because the opposite is a negative which bears less of a negative by it's nature. Asking for proof of a negative would be a logical fallacy - unless the 'positive' assertion has already been established in a scientific consensus.

I like very much this one. It's elegant.

The burden of proof is a concept of an obligation on a party to provide sufficient establishment for their position. All parties bear some level of the burden of proof (except for the most neutral stance possible) but there is a definable asymmetry.

My problem with this one is that all other cases but the first seem to have another quality as statement for me. You have a negation (I don't know if). The other cases would, if you complete them, start with an affirmation (I know that, etc.).

It can well be that this is irrelevant for your test schema.

[Vizsla]

1a There are a vast number of alternative gods and alternative explanations for everything other than God. As one possible truth among billions of possible truths the probability of God being true must be infinitesimal. So the burden of proof for ‘God exists’ is extremely high. Therefore 3, 4 and 6 are false and we should lean towards 2.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Most of your propositions seem to be devoid of any content. And then, ultimately, despite the distortions of Scientific thought, a thing can only exist, or not exist.