The Onus of Proof

I was told the "onus of proof" is on the person making the extraordinary claim.

Someone please explain how this is different than saying:

If you have a position I don't agree with, you have to prove to me I am wrong and you are right.

I think it's only an extraordinary claim if a lot of people are saying so. What that "a lot" ratio has to be, I think, is another area we could debate but won't because that will only complicate matters.

I make an extraordinary claim like, "There is an alien living in my salt shaker"

That might require me to prove that if I want to be taken seriously. That seems very logical.

I make an extraordinary claim like, "A widespread EMP blast wouldn't actually make your Bitcoin worthless or take down the network permanently."

Now, I'm told, the onus is on me to prove my claim. How would one even prove such a thing? Short of trying to do the EMP attack, which (FOR THE RECORD I am not doing.... I don't see how the proving this would look.

It's proving a negative condition. It's like me trying to prove that if Unicorns were real, the wouldn't be that pretty. I'm basing it on their being wild animals and pooing on themselves and not showering and our drawing them as mythical.

See where I'm going?

People like to hurl this "onus of proof" weapon at you because you challenged their worldview.

***The whole maneuver is a way of not having to actually use their logical faculties to engage with you in a debate. Be careful not to fall for the "onus of proof" retort if you are making a logical or philosophical claim.

If you are doing it with theological matters, that is another difficult (and probably ill-advised situations) to use the "onus of proof" defense on either side, but especially the pro-God side. You having to prove premises is a condition to each party in every debate. So, while one side may attack the truth of the other's premises, that right exists on each side.

In cases where the claim isn't fantastical but is rather logical in nature, there is no onus of proof on either side. Usually these are hypothetical situations where all we have are logic and data and reason. Otherwise, we're just seeking group-think conformity and don't care what position we arrive upon. Let it just be backed by the person with the loudest voice or lease flexibility in their positions, amirite?