Burden of Proof ?

If there is a disagreement, on whom does the burden of proof lie? For example, if two people are arguing over the existence of God, how is it determined who needs to prove their position?
*

 
Do share your immediate thoughts or reactions on this issue? We value your views! Login Now! or Sign Up Today! to share your views with us.. Gurfateh!

I think whenever there is a disagreement, it should not be about who is winning and who is losing. It should be more about, "What can I learn from this to better myself and help those around me?".
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/interfaith-dialogues/567-burden-of-proof.html
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=567

The question should be whether or not people are willing to listen to the reasons why someone else might have different beliefs than them. In this way, it creates an atmosphere of understanding rather than competition.

as a joke in our philosophy dept used to go that a person who believes in the existence of God doesnt need any arguments in its favours and a person who doesnt believe in His existence, no matter what arguments u believe he wont budge.and this would make whole of our department useless.

as said by eclectic above the arguments or in apositive way if we say discussions are only useful if both parties are willing to listen. and i feel that burden of proof lies on both not on any one particular.

What I think is when there is argue ment like this

If the believer is true believer than burden of proof lies on god itself as i think god is not such a dead thing that you have to argue on his behalf for his existence

There's actually a real definition for this.

Anways, I'll try to write what I think:
The burden of proof lies upon anyone who makes a positive assertion. For example, the statement that God exists is a positive assertion compared to saying God does NOT exist. In order for the burden of proof to lie upon the negative assertor, the first statement MUST already be true. To prove God does not exist, that is taking the reference viewpoint that God does exist, hence you are proving against the other. For a diety such as God, which over timeless history has never been proven to exist, the burden of proof always lies on the one making the positive assertion.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=567
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=567


One individual says, "Pink bunnies exist orbiting Pluto". The other says "They do NOT exist". Proof lies upon the one saying that they do exist, because if proof lied upon the 2nd individual, than that would already be in reference that the bunnies did exist or at one time existed, hence he is now proving they don't exist. Although with modern science, the 2nd person could also prove this. But, that is relatively new science.
Just like Darwinian theory of Evolution shattered religious theory when it first came about.

Science will once again, prevail

Let us consider 2 statements and assume that none of them have been proved.

1: A is TRUE.
2: A is FALSE.

Let us consider A to be "GOD".
Obviously, both statements are logical opposites of each other. And according to simple logic, we could infer that one of them must be false. Now, someone states that supporters of statement 1 are under larger burden to prove its correctness rather than supporters of statement 2. According to mathematical(scientific) logic, proving the correctness of any one of the statements should be enough to disprove the other. Hence, there is no question of burden of proof if we think in terms of science.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=567
But, according to sociology, the burden always lies on the group with the lesser number of supporters. Hence, if supporters of statement 2 are lesser than supporters of statement 1 then the burden would lie on group 2 and not on group 1. But that in itself does not prove the correctness of any one of the statements. In the above case, there is an equal chance for any one of the statements to be correct. Hence, it is not right to give more weightage to any one of them.

I'll just jump to the topic that obviously led to this thread because I wish to share some thoughts with all of you. So, in a nutshell, here they are...

My thoughts on science and our quest for perfection and the question about God:

For those who are mostly convinced that God does not exist, here is something to ponder upon. We humans are the best creation of this perfect science. I hope all agree with that.But, look at us, we are not perfect. Science - evolution - nature - has worked really very hard to make us imperfect. A perfect phenomenon or machine is consistent in space and time. But, look at us, none of us behave consistently. We are all different - unique. We are not perfect in so many ways. I hope you agree with that. Furthermore, we are imperfect creations of science, which is supposed to be perfect. Now, why would perfection create imperfection to discover perfection all over again? I say this because we, imperfect creations of a perfect universe, are seeking perfection in everything we do. But, was it really needed in the first place? What is the need for life to exist, if every system worked perfectly without it? Every living thing is imperfect because it has a choice and every dead thing is perfect because it has no choice. Every dead thing behaves according to the perfect laws of science/nature. Unlike the dead things, could we attain perfection and still be alive and aware? Think about this. Look at the highest form of life - us. We are unpredictable. For a human being, one cannot say that if these are the inputs, this and this will be the output. It is just not possible. Then how can an imperfect being know for sure what perfection is? Only a perfect being can know that. How can an animal or a plant know the value of gold or diamonds? Even a human without the knowledge of such precious items would actually not consider these items valuable. Then how can we, imperfect beings, know for sure what perfection is, until we attain that realization? Maybe, someday, we may discover all the laws of science that govern nature. What does that make us? Do we become perfect? We will still remain the sloppy creatures that we are with perfect gadgets in our hands. We will still compete with each other to own these perfect gadgets, to be superior than the others. We cannot become perfect by owning perfect things. So, science is irrelevant if we have to become perfect. How many of us have ever seen a perfect human? Please think about it. Have you ever seen such a human firsthand? Then again, such perfect beings have existed and we've atleast heard or read about them. Our Satgurus for example, were perfect. Why? Because they were always at peace with the Creation. They were always satisfied with what they had and got. Now, they were the beings who actually knew who God is because God as we know, is supposed to be perfect in every way and only perfect beings can truly identify and know God. Even, science, which is perfection cannot help imperfect beings to identify the perfect God. The controllers of science have to become perfect to know perfection. It is not just about having faith. It is about reaching a level of perfection at which you can see the Truth for yourself. Now, please don't oppose these ideas for the sake of opposition. Think on your own about what I've said without using the negative bias that the world has created in your mind about the existence of God. If you continue trying to prove that God does not exist then you will perish before you can ever reach a solution. My request to anyone who is trying to oppose these ideas is that, please try and prove the existence of God JUST TO YOURSELF and you'll find a solution to life's greatest question faster than you could ever have thought. More later...
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=567

Humbly yours.

Dear Savneet ji
Think on your own about what I've said without using the negative bias that the world has created in your mind about the existence of God. If you continue trying to prove that God does not exist then you will perish before you can ever reach a solution. My request to anyone who is trying to oppose these ideas is that, please try and prove the existence of God JUST TO YOURSELF and you'll find a solution to life's greatest question faster than you could ever have thought. More later...
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=567

It was really nice and well written response and really liked your argument of using small life time in proving god exist seems more rational than proving other wise as at end of one search we will find all prevading god and at the end of other argument just nothing .

Sat Sri Akaal Ji.

My dear SIkh saahib, in your previous post on this thread, you've mentioned that "over timeless history, God's existence has never been proven." I feel it is not right to say such a thing. From all your posts it is quite obvious that you're a very knowledgeable person. But, do you really feel you've sifted through every page of timeless history. It is never right for a scientist to totally deny a possibility. Infact, if you go through the writings and learn about the lives of many of the great Satgurus and Saints, you'll find all the proofs you desire. Our Satgurus have made our quest a lot easier by blessing us with Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji. If we devote ourselves to learning from our Shabad Guru, we will find every proof we want about God.

Another statement you made was that "Darwinian theory shattered religious theory when it first came about." I don't understand how it shattered anything. What Darwin found was how species evolve through natural selection. Now, tell me, if I could understand Einstein's theory of General Relativity just like Einstein did, would that make Albert Einstein any less deserving of his discovery or fame? So, if Darwin found out how species evolve then does that make God non-existent or any less deserving of what He did by Creating the Creation? Veerji, frankly speaking, there are a very few truly religious people in this world, you could probably count them on your fingertips. The rest of us are just struggling with the basics. The so-called religious people of Darwin's time would have probably thought that Darwin was defying some religious concept. But, let me assure you that he probably upset only these so-called religious people who like to remain in the public eye. The truly religious people of that time would have been happy to know that someone has discovered yet another law, rule or process within God's Creation. Do you know that most historians with a scientific outlook like to glorify the achievements of man and project religious groups as a defeated and frustrated band of people. Well, the so-called religious people that most of these historians talk about are not the truly gifted religious ones. The gifted ones rarely come into the public eye and if they do come to the notice of the historians, they are generally ignored because the historians turn a blind eye towards them considering them to be a part of the rest. Well, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji can easily give you the discerning eyes to differentiate the noble, gem-like religious people from the huge number of hypocrites. What these hypocrites during Darwin's time didn't know was that God created the Universe and defined the laws that would govern everything. God's well defined laws do everything on their own! God defined the limits, the constants, the variants when He Created the Universe, due to which, over time everything has evolved. So, the origin and evolution of species is also a result of God's setup. This is what the so-called religious people of Darwin's time failed to understand and it is their ideas that the historians have projected. Truly, religion is not against discovery or invention because all we do in the process is understand God's Creation better. Now, if Darwin had ever come across Guru Nanak Dev Ji, he would have truly understood the crux of what he had discovered! But, it is so very hard to find true Gurus and Saints. Believe me you, they are very rare! Another thing that I want you to know is that there is something within every being in nature, which has always been the same, it is unaffected by space and time and neither is it bound by them. It is what God is truly interested in. It is the "You" in you and the "I" in I. This thing never evolves, infact it doesn't need to. It is perfect and it is within us, lying undetected till now. Only the truly Awakened ones - the Satgurus - know about this "thing". This "thing" is what reveals God to you. When someone talks of self-realization, this is the "thing" that they want to realize. Just like you need a telescope to look at distant galaxies, which are invisible to the naked eye, similarly, we need this "thing" to know God. This "thing" is the ONLY way to know God. And, science is not yet refined enough to know this "thing", due to which it denies its existence. This thing is your soul. Your soul is a backdoor into the "Real Existence". The true existence cannot be had after death if one does not attain it when one is alive. That is the reason why truly religious people never come into the public eye until they attain the real existence, because firstly life is short and being born as a human is also very rare. But once this state of total awareness is attained, you see these pure souls venture out all over the world helping people to reach the same state. This real existence is the existence in union with the whole, which is God. Just like God has many names, so does this state of existence. Sri Krishna called it "Moksha", Jesus called it "Paradise" (Swarg), Gautam Buddha called it "Nirvana", Mahavir called it "Kaivalya" and our Satgurus called the real existence by all these names and many more! So, my dear dear brother, I just request you to learn more about the actual teachings of these awakened souls before commenting on the religious paths that they instated. Many Sikhs including me, although I know too less, would be highly delighted to help you on this path of acquiring the true knowledge of God and the ways and means of reaching the Creator.
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=567
Reference:: Sikh Philosophy Network http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/showthread.php?t=567

I don't know if I could reach the depths of your mind with this post, but I humbly request you to pursue religious knowledge without the bias towards science. Prove to yourself that the soul exists, that God exists instead of leaving that to others because nobody has the time to prove such things to others, the reason being that very few actually know the hidden truth. Inspite of all you know about science, just imagine for a moment, what if all this really does exist? Wouldn't you be missing everything? Wouldn't you be just left dabbling with meaningless worldly things? Tell me, why would 10 of our Satgurus and all the Bhagats in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji constantly keep telling us to follow the true path? What is there in it for them? Are they asking you for a favour? Think about it. Ever since my first post on your earlier thread, I really wanted to meet you and talk to you about all this because writing down something that I can only feel is very hard! Frankly, I was just like you once and many years back I argued just like you do now. And, I see a reflection of myself in your posts. And, I don't want you to waste time worrying about what science has proved till now or will continue to prove. After all these years, I've just realized that what has to happen, will happen. Science will progress, it will conquer the stars, but it will never conquer the inner self. And that is the real quest. Our personal quest. Science might be a group effort, but self-discovery can come only through one's own efforts. So, please, my dear brother, try to understand me. Truly embrace Shabad Guru in your life and let It reveal to you, your inner self. You may continue to gain worldly knowledge, but don't let it become the basis of your life. It cannot teach you how to live life and how to discover the truth. Only Satguru Ji can. I've spent many years of my life gaining a lot of the knowledge of the world. And, can you guess what I've realized? That it can only help me to earn a living, that's it. In the end, when the moment of death comes, it will come to no avail. And, then, when the truth is revealed to me only for a moment before I'm reborn into this world as someone else, my soul will ache with infinite discontent because I would have again missed the greatest opportunity of uniting with my Beloved Lord, God. And, our Satgurus don't want any of us to face that terrible moment.

Maybe you've already heard of this quote from the great scientist Albert Einstein, but I'll quote it anyway:

"Religion without Science is blind and Science without Religion is lame."

So, there is nothing wrong in learning about science because it is an instrument that can help you survive longer and better. It will also help you AVOID the superstitious, ritualistic and hypocritical people who want to trap you. But, WITHOUT truly following the path (religion) that your Satguru has laid down for you, you are going nowhere...

Bhul Chukk Di Khima Mangdaa Haan.

The fact that the question still exists today of whether God exists or not, and there has never been a true monopoly over the answer, shows that God's existence has never been proven thoroughly enough. No one questions the basis of evolution as much, because its widely accepted as true. (The basis of it, not every detail that has been listed). There IS a POSSIBILITY of God's existence, but my views are that is very, very small. A mere possibility does not provide sufficient evidence for existance. There is also a possibility that Hell exists, and Satan is God's rival.

Now, if we devote ourselves to LEARNING the Guru's shabad which clearly depicts that we should learn, and contemplate it. CONTEMPLATE, means to sit and discuss the ideas presented and if they help you, heal you in anyway.

Quote:

Another statement you made was that "Darwinian theory shattered religious theory when it first came about." I don't understand how it shattered anything. What Darwin found was how species evolve through natural selection. Now, tell me, if I could understand Einstein's theory of General Relativity just like Einstein did, would that make Albert Einstein any less deserving of his discovery or fame? So, if Darwin found out how species evolve then does that make God non-existent or any less deserving of what He did by Creating the Creation? Veerji, frankly speaking, there are a very few truly religious people in this world, you could probably count them on your fingertips. The rest of us are just struggling with the basics. The so-called religious people of Darwin's time would have probably thought that Darwin was defying some religious concept. But, let me assure you that he probably upset only these so-called religious people who like to remain in the public eye.

See, your getting it mixed up. Remember, there are NUMEROUS religions in the world, and they differ in their perspective. Christianity and Judaism say God DIRECTLY created Humans. Adam and Eve, the original sin.
Sikhi does not state explicitly what God's creation was, so we intrepret as we like. If it were true that God directly created humans, I'm sure you would be taking the stance that Sikhi states God created humans directly and so forth, and not saying God was just the creator of the beginning.

Quote:

The truly religious people of that time would have been happy to know that someone has discovered yet another law, rule or process within God's Creation. Do you know that most historians with a scientific outlook like to glorify the achievements of man and project religious groups as a defeated and frustrated band of people. Well, the so-called religious people that most of these historians talk about are not the truly gifted religious ones. The gifted ones rarely come into the public eye and if they do come to the notice of the historians, they are generally ignored because the historians turn a blind eye towards them considering them to be a part of the rest. Well, Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji can easily give you the discerning eyes to differentiate the noble, gem-like religious people from the huge number of hypocrites. What these hypocrites during Darwin's time didn't know was that God created the Universe and defined the laws that would govern everything. God's well defined laws do everything on their own! God defined the limits, the constants, the variants when He Created the Universe, due to which, over time everything has evolved. So, the origin and evolution of species is also a result of God's setup. This is what the so-called religious people of Darwin's time failed to understand and it is their ideas that the historians have projected. Truly, religion is not against discovery or invention because all we do in the process is understand God's Creation better. Now, if Darwin had ever come across Guru Nanak Dev Ji, he would have truly understood the crux of what he had discovered! But, it is so very hard to find true Gurus and Saints. Believe me you, they are very rare! Another thing that I want you to know is that there is something within every being in nature, which has always been the same, it is unaffected by space and time and neither is it bound by them.

So the historians depicted the "truly religious people" wrongly, but you managed to have it all figured out?...Your mistaken, Darwins theory of evolution shattered theological stances that MANY religions took. And in the last sentence, you state there is something within every being in nature, which has always been the same....that does not prove God exists, your simply assuming there is something, you must prove it with evidence.

Quote:

It is what God is truly interested in. It is the "You" in you and the "I" in I. This thing never evolves, infact it doesn't need to. It is perfect and it is within us, lying undetected till now. Only the truly Awakened ones - the Satgurus - know about this "thing". This "thing" is what reveals God to you. When someone talks of self-realization, this is the "thing" that they want to realize. Just like you need a telescope to look at distant galaxies, which are invisible to the naked eye, similarly, we need this "thing" to know God. This "thing" is the ONLY way to know God. And, science is not yet refined enough to know this "thing", due to which it denies its existence.

But you've managed to find this "thing". If you've found it, why can you not show prove to everyone that it is clearly and distinctly there. I'm sure scientists know more than you do about their field of study.

Quote:

This thing is your soul. Your soul is a backdoor into the "Real Existence". The true existence cannot be had after death if one does not attain it when one is alive. That is the reason why truly religious people never come into the public eye until they attain the real existence, because firstly life is short and being born as a human is also very rare. But once this state of total awareness is attained, you see these pure souls venture out all over the world helping people to reach the same state. This real existence is the existence in union with the whole, which is God. Just like God has many names, so does this state of existence. Sri Krishna called it "Moksha", Jesus called it "Paradise" (Swarg), Gautam Buddha called it "Nirvana", Mahavir called it "Kaivalya" and our Satgurus called the real existence by all these names and many more! So, my dear dear brother, I just request you to learn more about the actual teachings of these awakened souls before commenting on the religious paths that they instated. Many Sikhs including me, although I know too less, would be highly delighted to help you on this path of acquiring the true knowledge of God and the ways and means of reaching the Creator. I don't know if I could reach the depths of your mind with this post, but I humbly request you to pursue religious knowledge without the bias towards science. Prove to yourself that the soul exists, that God exists instead of leaving that to others because nobody has the time to prove such things to others, the reason being that very few actually know the hidden truth. Inspite of all you know about science, just imagine for a moment, what if all this really does exist? Wouldn't you be missing everything? Wouldn't you be just left dabbling with meaningless worldly things? Tell me, why would 10 of our Satgurus and all the Bhagats in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji constantly keep telling us to follow the true path? What is there in it for them? Are they asking you for a favour? Think about it. Ever since my first post on your earlier thread, I really wanted to meet you and talk to you about all this because writing down something that I can only feel is very hard! Frankly, I was just like you once and many years back I argued just like you do now. And, I see a reflection of myself in your posts. And, I don't want you to waste time worrying about what science has proved till now or will continue to prove. After all these years, I've just realized that what has to happen, will happen. Science will progress, it will conquer the stars, but it will never conquer the inner self. And that is the real quest. Our personal quest. Science might be a group effort, but self-discovery can come only through one's own efforts. So, please, my dear brother, try to understand me. Truly embrace Shabad Guru in your life and let It reveal to you, your inner self. You may continue to gain worldly knowledge, but don't let it become the basis of your life. It cannot teach you how to live life and how to discover the truth. Only Satguru Ji can. I've spent many years of my life gaining a lot of the knowledge of the world. And, can you guess what I've realized? That it can only help me to earn a living, that's it. In the end, when the moment of death comes, it will come to no avail. And, then, when the truth is revealed to me only for a moment before I'm reborn into this world as someone else, my soul will ache with infinite discontent because I would have again missed the greatest opportunity of uniting with my Beloved Lord, God. And, our Satgurus don't want any of us to face that terrible moment. Maybe you've already heard of this quote from the great scientist Albert Einstein, but I'll quote it anyway: "Religion without Science is blind and Science without Religion is lame." So, there is nothing wrong in learning about science because it is an instrument that can help you survive longer and better. It will also help you AVOID the superstitious, ritualistic and hypocritical people who want to trap you. But, WITHOUT truly following the path (religion) that your Satguru has laid down for you, you are going nowhere... Bhul Chukk Di Khima Mangdaa Haan.

Your last paragraph is true, but you do not need to believe in a God above us all that makes it true. God can be inside us, and can have a different scientific name, its just the thing that makes us want to help end human suffering, gives us a purpose to go end it. You can supress it if you want, but its still there.

This God differs from a God that creates all and stands above us, and we are governed by it.

G.O.D. - Gaining One's Definition.

I make the claim that I do not believe in a God above us, who controls things, and sends down a Messiah every now and then. If anything, I'd probably be more along the lines of a agnostic-deist. I do not think the Gurus were "God-sent", or Jesus was "God-sent". I do not believe in prophecy. I do think the knowledge described in Sri Guru Granth Sahib Ji is of enormous value. But, I do think it was written as a direct reference of God's existence. The authors, after all, I regard as humans. I do not believe in a Superhuman, or Superman.

I do believe human nature is to be good and kind, and this must be flourished to end human suffering. I do think that this should be the goal in anyones life, and as I described my "re-incarnation" theory in the other thread, I do believe their are distractions to this goal.

Hope that clears my stance up a little on this topic.