The burden of proof has already been sufficiently provided by Christianity. Just because many people don't accept it doesn't mean it's not acceptable.

I’m curious what you count as “proof”

I would posit this is likely where we diverge

Absolutely this is where we diverge. The nature of logical fallacies is that you generally can't recognize when you're committing one. In this case one of us is, and by definition neither can know which. To resolve that, I don't rely entirely on myself, but examine the logic of many others, which I'm sure you also do. But again where we differ is that I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good moral character as well as high intelligence and much knowledge, such as John Henry Newman.

> examine the logic of many others

>I only trust the logic of those who have proven to have very good moral character as well as high intelligence and much knowledge

Can you explain your epistemological system in more detail?

For example, would you claim that the process of logic that Franz Haber used on matters about Chemistry to create fertilizer, is incorrect because he used the same methods (in conflict with the proscription of their use by the Hague) to invent chemical warfare gasses that killed thousands in WWI?

What about Bill Shockley? He was an ardent white supremacist yet we live on top of his research in semiconductors

Yeah see there's the logical fallacy. Thanks for confirming.

Please point out the specific fallacy