☀️ JOIN SPN MOBILE
Forums
New posts
Guru Granth Sahib
Composition, Arrangement & Layout
ਜਪੁ | Jup
ਸੋ ਦਰੁ | So Dar
ਸੋਹਿਲਾ | Sohilaa
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਿਰੀਰਾਗੁ | Raag Siree-Raag
Gurbani (14-53)
Ashtpadiyan (53-71)
Gurbani (71-74)
Pahre (74-78)
Chhant (78-81)
Vanjara (81-82)
Vaar Siri Raag (83-91)
Bhagat Bani (91-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਝ | Raag Maajh
Gurbani (94-109)
Ashtpadi (109)
Ashtpadiyan (110-129)
Ashtpadi (129-130)
Ashtpadiyan (130-133)
Bara Maha (133-136)
Din Raen (136-137)
Vaar Maajh Ki (137-150)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗਉੜੀ | Raag Gauree
Gurbani (151-185)
Quartets/Couplets (185-220)
Ashtpadiyan (220-234)
Karhalei (234-235)
Ashtpadiyan (235-242)
Chhant (242-249)
Baavan Akhari (250-262)
Sukhmani (262-296)
Thittee (296-300)
Gauree kii Vaar (300-323)
Gurbani (323-330)
Ashtpadiyan (330-340)
Baavan Akhari (340-343)
Thintteen (343-344)
Vaar Kabir (344-345)
Bhagat Bani (345-346)
ਰਾਗੁ ਆਸਾ | Raag Aasaa
Gurbani (347-348)
Chaupaday (348-364)
Panchpadde (364-365)
Kaafee (365-409)
Aasaavaree (409-411)
Ashtpadiyan (411-432)
Patee (432-435)
Chhant (435-462)
Vaar Aasaa (462-475)
Bhagat Bani (475-488)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੂਜਰੀ | Raag Goojaree
Gurbani (489-503)
Ashtpadiyan (503-508)
Vaar Gujari (508-517)
Vaar Gujari (517-526)
ਰਾਗੁ ਦੇਵਗੰਧਾਰੀ | Raag Dayv-Gandhaaree
Gurbani (527-536)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਹਾਗੜਾ | Raag Bihaagraa
Gurbani (537-556)
Chhant (538-548)
Vaar Bihaagraa (548-556)
ਰਾਗੁ ਵਡਹੰਸ | Raag Wadhans
Gurbani (557-564)
Ashtpadiyan (564-565)
Chhant (565-575)
Ghoriaan (575-578)
Alaahaniiaa (578-582)
Vaar Wadhans (582-594)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੋਰਠਿ | Raag Sorath
Gurbani (595-634)
Asatpadhiya (634-642)
Vaar Sorath (642-659)
ਰਾਗੁ ਧਨਾਸਰੀ | Raag Dhanasaree
Gurbani (660-685)
Astpadhiya (685-687)
Chhant (687-691)
Bhagat Bani (691-695)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਤਸਰੀ | Raag Jaitsree
Gurbani (696-703)
Chhant (703-705)
Vaar Jaitsaree (705-710)
Bhagat Bani (710)
ਰਾਗੁ ਟੋਡੀ | Raag Todee
ਰਾਗੁ ਬੈਰਾੜੀ | Raag Bairaaree
ਰਾਗੁ ਤਿਲੰਗ | Raag Tilang
Gurbani (721-727)
Bhagat Bani (727)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸੂਹੀ | Raag Suhi
Gurbani (728-750)
Ashtpadiyan (750-761)
Kaafee (761-762)
Suchajee (762)
Gunvantee (763)
Chhant (763-785)
Vaar Soohee (785-792)
Bhagat Bani (792-794)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਿਲਾਵਲੁ | Raag Bilaaval
Gurbani (795-831)
Ashtpadiyan (831-838)
Thitteen (838-840)
Vaar Sat (841-843)
Chhant (843-848)
Vaar Bilaaval (849-855)
Bhagat Bani (855-858)
ਰਾਗੁ ਗੋਂਡ | Raag Gond
Gurbani (859-869)
Ashtpadiyan (869)
Bhagat Bani (870-875)
ਰਾਗੁ ਰਾਮਕਲੀ | Raag Ramkalee
Ashtpadiyan (902-916)
Gurbani (876-902)
Anand (917-922)
Sadd (923-924)
Chhant (924-929)
Dakhnee (929-938)
Sidh Gosat (938-946)
Vaar Ramkalee (947-968)
ਰਾਗੁ ਨਟ ਨਾਰਾਇਨ | Raag Nat Narayan
Gurbani (975-980)
Ashtpadiyan (980-983)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਲੀ ਗਉੜਾ | Raag Maalee Gauraa
Gurbani (984-988)
Bhagat Bani (988)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਾਰੂ | Raag Maaroo
Gurbani (889-1008)
Ashtpadiyan (1008-1014)
Kaafee (1014-1016)
Ashtpadiyan (1016-1019)
Anjulian (1019-1020)
Solhe (1020-1033)
Dakhni (1033-1043)
ਰਾਗੁ ਤੁਖਾਰੀ | Raag Tukhaari
Bara Maha (1107-1110)
Chhant (1110-1117)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕੇਦਾਰਾ | Raag Kedara
Gurbani (1118-1123)
Bhagat Bani (1123-1124)
ਰਾਗੁ ਭੈਰਉ | Raag Bhairo
Gurbani (1125-1152)
Partaal (1153)
Ashtpadiyan (1153-1167)
ਰਾਗੁ ਬਸੰਤੁ | Raag Basant
Gurbani (1168-1187)
Ashtpadiyan (1187-1193)
Vaar Basant (1193-1196)
ਰਾਗੁ ਸਾਰਗ | Raag Saarag
Gurbani (1197-1200)
Partaal (1200-1231)
Ashtpadiyan (1232-1236)
Chhant (1236-1237)
Vaar Saarang (1237-1253)
ਰਾਗੁ ਮਲਾਰ | Raag Malaar
Gurbani (1254-1293)
Partaal (1265-1273)
Ashtpadiyan (1273-1278)
Chhant (1278)
Vaar Malaar (1278-91)
Bhagat Bani (1292-93)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਾਨੜਾ | Raag Kaanraa
Gurbani (1294-96)
Partaal (1296-1318)
Ashtpadiyan (1308-1312)
Chhant (1312)
Vaar Kaanraa
Bhagat Bani (1318)
ਰਾਗੁ ਕਲਿਆਨ | Raag Kalyaan
Gurbani (1319-23)
Ashtpadiyan (1323-26)
ਰਾਗੁ ਪ੍ਰਭਾਤੀ | Raag Prabhaatee
Gurbani (1327-1341)
Ashtpadiyan (1342-51)
ਰਾਗੁ ਜੈਜਾਵੰਤੀ | Raag Jaijaiwanti
Gurbani (1352-53)
Salok | Gatha | Phunahe | Chaubole | Swayiye
Sehskritee Mahala 1
Sehskritee Mahala 5
Gaathaa Mahala 5
Phunhay Mahala 5
Chaubolae Mahala 5
Shaloks Bhagat Kabir
Shaloks Sheikh Farid
Swaiyyae Mahala 5
Swaiyyae in Praise of Gurus
Shaloks in Addition To Vaars
Shalok Ninth Mehl
Mundavanee Mehl 5
ਰਾਗ ਮਾਲਾ, Raag Maalaa
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
Latest activity
Videos
New media
New comments
Library
Latest reviews
Donate
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
Sign up
Log in
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Burden Of Proof ?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="snavneet" data-source="post: 4099" data-attributes="member: 334"><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><strong><span style="color: darkorange">Sat Sri Akaal to all!</span></strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Pyaare Etinder Veerji, I'll respond to your post soon. Till then here is my latest response to SIkh Veerji.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Pyaare SIkh Veerji,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Thanks for your reply. I'm very happy to know that you're learning from our Satguruji in order to find out about God. Now, I'll respond to your previous post.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">I had to separate legal cases from social issues because both are settled in a totally different way. And, hence the burden of proof in both these cases cannot be compared. I also discussed your examples in good detail, telling you how they cannot be related to social issues. I hope you went through all my responses. Now, consider our current argument:</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">snavneet says: Burden of proof is different in legal and social issues</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">SIkh says: Burden of proof is same in every case (It is on the one who makes the positive statement)</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Now, we both are trying to prove statements that are almost opposite in meaning. And, yet, we both keep coming up with points to support our claims. So, aren't we sharing the burden of proof equally in this case? You were confident in the beginning that this burden is same in every case. I came up with some examples that proved otherwise. So, you again had to go and find more examples (or proofs) to support your claims, like some of the legal examples in your previous post. So, it was a two way process all along, wasn't it? In the above case, how can you decide which statement is positive and which is negative? Assertions cannot be negative statements. Inherently, assertions are positive statements. I can consider my statement to be an assertion and you can consider yours to be an assertion because for both of us our statements are positive. For you, my statement is negative and for me your statement is negative. That is the reason we have debates and arguments. If one side already knew that the other's statement is positive and their own negative then there wouldn't be any debate or argument. Then, there wouldn't be any legal cases or social issues. What I mean to say is that the burden of proof is different in every case. You cannot generalize it by saying that it always lies on the one making a positive statement because for me my statement is positive and for you yours is.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Now, let's consider the example you gave about the Civil Rights Movement in America. If all white men felt that blacks were inferior then indeed they would've to prove how and why. But, if you sift through the pages of history, you'll find out that they could never prove that blacks were inferior. But, did that make any difference. In any case, the blacks had to suffer for many decades. The blacks surely knew that they were not inferior and they all would've been furious when the whites made those foolish claims. But whom would they go and appeal to? All their appeals would've fallen on deaf white ears of that time! So, in this case we cannot even divide the burden of proof amongst the blacks and whites because the blacks almost had no rights. The arbiter of a case/issue, be it legal or social should be an impartial one. In this case, the arbiters were mostly all whites and that too racially motivated ones, so there wasn't any case at all. And for a very long time, whites kept the blacks enslaved without even proving that they were inferior. If the whites could state even one point that would prove the blacks inferior then even the blacks would have to respond by bringing forth points that would prove otherwise. The whites didn't prove a thing but they ruled over the blacks and nothing could stop them. This is an example of autocratic governance where the blacks had no rights and the burden of proving themselves equal to the whites was always on them. And, then came Abraham Lincoln, who had very liberal and rational views about society and wanted to abolish slavery, but even he was assasinated by a racially motivated white person because Lincoln openly supported the viewpoint of equality among blacks and whites. And most of the white Americans still continued to believe that blacks were inferior up until the middle of the 20th century. I suppose it was Martin Luther King who had to take the ONUS (BURDEN) upon himself to prove that blacks were not inferior, he was the one who PROVED it. He made the whites give equal rights to the blacks. Remember, the whites never proved the blacks inferior, but still treated them as inferior. Inspite of this Mr. Luther had to fight for the rights of blacks and had to prove that they were not inferior. Now, I'll provide a more recent example to you, which concerns our Sikh community and in the end I hope you agree to some extent that the burden of proof is never the same in every case. You must be knowing that recently the French government banned all external religious symbols worn by students to schools. Now, this law also disallowed Sikh students from wearing Pagdee to school. Now tell me, is this right according to you? Did the French prove that wearing a Pagdee would harm their society in anyway? No, they did not. But, the law was made to pass, WITHOUT PROOF. Now, on whom does the burden lie, in this case. The burden lies on us. Sikhs have to somehow prove to the French government that their Pagdee cannot harm french society in any way, isn't it? In this case, we are not slaves of the french government and hence there is a good chance that we might be able to effect a positive decision in our favor through global support. Let me summarize. The french made a claim, an assertion but did not prove it. But they passed a law based on it. And, we could do nothing about it. Why? Because there are barely 7000 Sikhs in France. Now, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on us and not on the French government! If 51% of french people were Sikhs then such a thing wouldn't have happened. The burden in this case lies on the group with lesser number of supporters. According to you, if the french came up with an assertion(positive according to them) they should prove it first and only then do something based on it. But this did not happen. I feel that the French have ignored the fact that the world has now become a global village and that Sikhs all over the world will fight for their community in France. I hope this simple and relevant example justifies my claim thoroughly.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">The above example about Sikhs in France simply confirms that your claim cannot be justified.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Dear Veerji, I'm happy to see that you've read and understood most of my points. So, I hope that you now agree to some extent that the existence of God can be proved to oneself by following the path laid down by the Satgurus. It is not about me proving to you or you proving to me. It is all about proving it to oneself, by walking the path. That's all. Actually, we are both under NO BURDEN at all! We are just making it sound like it is a burden.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">It is good to know that you're learning from your Satguru. But, I request you not to read it like a book. Read it without the bias that the world has created in you. Please, it is a humble request from your brother. And, you will definitely change, I can promise you that right now. Just be totally aware of what you're reading and understand everything thoroughly, don't continue reading without understanding. Keep persisting, question the Satsangat. Put up your doubts online, so that we all can help each other to discover the facts. I'm satisfied to know that you've atleast agreed that God's existence can be proven by personally following the path of the Satgurus.</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">More later...</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px">Bhull Chukk Di Khima Mangdey Hoe...</span></p><p> <span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="snavneet, post: 4099, member: 334"] [size=2][b][color=darkorange]Sat Sri Akaal to all![/color][/b] Pyaare Etinder Veerji, I'll respond to your post soon. Till then here is my latest response to SIkh Veerji. Pyaare SIkh Veerji, Thanks for your reply. I'm very happy to know that you're learning from our Satguruji in order to find out about God. Now, I'll respond to your previous post. I had to separate legal cases from social issues because both are settled in a totally different way. And, hence the burden of proof in both these cases cannot be compared. I also discussed your examples in good detail, telling you how they cannot be related to social issues. I hope you went through all my responses. Now, consider our current argument: snavneet says: Burden of proof is different in legal and social issues SIkh says: Burden of proof is same in every case (It is on the one who makes the positive statement) Now, we both are trying to prove statements that are almost opposite in meaning. And, yet, we both keep coming up with points to support our claims. So, aren't we sharing the burden of proof equally in this case? You were confident in the beginning that this burden is same in every case. I came up with some examples that proved otherwise. So, you again had to go and find more examples (or proofs) to support your claims, like some of the legal examples in your previous post. So, it was a two way process all along, wasn't it? In the above case, how can you decide which statement is positive and which is negative? Assertions cannot be negative statements. Inherently, assertions are positive statements. I can consider my statement to be an assertion and you can consider yours to be an assertion because for both of us our statements are positive. For you, my statement is negative and for me your statement is negative. That is the reason we have debates and arguments. If one side already knew that the other's statement is positive and their own negative then there wouldn't be any debate or argument. Then, there wouldn't be any legal cases or social issues. What I mean to say is that the burden of proof is different in every case. You cannot generalize it by saying that it always lies on the one making a positive statement because for me my statement is positive and for you yours is. Now, let's consider the example you gave about the Civil Rights Movement in America. If all white men felt that blacks were inferior then indeed they would've to prove how and why. But, if you sift through the pages of history, you'll find out that they could never prove that blacks were inferior. But, did that make any difference. In any case, the blacks had to suffer for many decades. The blacks surely knew that they were not inferior and they all would've been furious when the whites made those foolish claims. But whom would they go and appeal to? All their appeals would've fallen on deaf white ears of that time! So, in this case we cannot even divide the burden of proof amongst the blacks and whites because the blacks almost had no rights. The arbiter of a case/issue, be it legal or social should be an impartial one. In this case, the arbiters were mostly all whites and that too racially motivated ones, so there wasn't any case at all. And for a very long time, whites kept the blacks enslaved without even proving that they were inferior. If the whites could state even one point that would prove the blacks inferior then even the blacks would have to respond by bringing forth points that would prove otherwise. The whites didn't prove a thing but they ruled over the blacks and nothing could stop them. This is an example of autocratic governance where the blacks had no rights and the burden of proving themselves equal to the whites was always on them. And, then came Abraham Lincoln, who had very liberal and rational views about society and wanted to abolish slavery, but even he was assasinated by a racially motivated white person because Lincoln openly supported the viewpoint of equality among blacks and whites. And most of the white Americans still continued to believe that blacks were inferior up until the middle of the 20th century. I suppose it was Martin Luther King who had to take the ONUS (BURDEN) upon himself to prove that blacks were not inferior, he was the one who PROVED it. He made the whites give equal rights to the blacks. Remember, the whites never proved the blacks inferior, but still treated them as inferior. Inspite of this Mr. Luther had to fight for the rights of blacks and had to prove that they were not inferior. Now, I'll provide a more recent example to you, which concerns our Sikh community and in the end I hope you agree to some extent that the burden of proof is never the same in every case. You must be knowing that recently the French government banned all external religious symbols worn by students to schools. Now, this law also disallowed Sikh students from wearing Pagdee to school. Now tell me, is this right according to you? Did the French prove that wearing a Pagdee would harm their society in anyway? No, they did not. But, the law was made to pass, WITHOUT PROOF. Now, on whom does the burden lie, in this case. The burden lies on us. Sikhs have to somehow prove to the French government that their Pagdee cannot harm french society in any way, isn't it? In this case, we are not slaves of the french government and hence there is a good chance that we might be able to effect a positive decision in our favor through global support. Let me summarize. The french made a claim, an assertion but did not prove it. But they passed a law based on it. And, we could do nothing about it. Why? Because there are barely 7000 Sikhs in France. Now, the BURDEN OF PROOF lies on us and not on the French government! If 51% of french people were Sikhs then such a thing wouldn't have happened. The burden in this case lies on the group with lesser number of supporters. According to you, if the french came up with an assertion(positive according to them) they should prove it first and only then do something based on it. But this did not happen. I feel that the French have ignored the fact that the world has now become a global village and that Sikhs all over the world will fight for their community in France. I hope this simple and relevant example justifies my claim thoroughly. The above example about Sikhs in France simply confirms that your claim cannot be justified. Dear Veerji, I'm happy to see that you've read and understood most of my points. So, I hope that you now agree to some extent that the existence of God can be proved to oneself by following the path laid down by the Satgurus. It is not about me proving to you or you proving to me. It is all about proving it to oneself, by walking the path. That's all. Actually, we are both under NO BURDEN at all! We are just making it sound like it is a burden. It is good to know that you're learning from your Satguru. But, I request you not to read it like a book. Read it without the bias that the world has created in you. Please, it is a humble request from your brother. And, you will definitely change, I can promise you that right now. Just be totally aware of what you're reading and understand everything thoroughly, don't continue reading without understanding. Keep persisting, question the Satsangat. Put up your doubts online, so that we all can help each other to discover the facts. I'm satisfied to know that you've atleast agreed that God's existence can be proven by personally following the path of the Satgurus. More later... Bhull Chukk Di Khima Mangdey Hoe... [/size] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Discussions
Interfaith Dialogues
Burden Of Proof ?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top