why would the burden of the proof be on the believer? if because of my belief, i can get my stuffs to work and you don't believe and can't get it to work. why would it me to prove it to you? for example, if the fire walker that can walk across the burning coals and doesn't get burn, but you can't. why would the fire walker has to prove in some physics/chemistry/biology/whatever to you? take something closer to home, taking Ikeda sensei when he said "i moved my inside", is it his burden to prove to you that his techniques worked and your couldn't because he actually either moved his inside or not?
Of course, no proof is required for anyone to believe what they want to believe. If all you have to say is, "I believe X, and you can't prove otherwise," then of course you are correct.
But If I say (as I did) that there is no such thing as ki
, anyone who wants to dispute that is burdened with evidencing the existence of ki
. You can't dispute my disbelief by saying that I can't prove it. In a contest between belief and non-belief, the burden of proof is on belief.