Burden of proof for god's existence in a legal setting?

Post Reply New Topic

On one side you have the theists, the other you have the atheists.

Theism claims god exists, atheists claim god doesn't exist.

In a court of law for example one does not require proof by clear and convincing evidence in a civil debate, and I would assume this would be a civil debate. One side only needs to produce a higher preponderance of the evidence than the other.

The text in bold is really the crux of my question, were I to assume I was on the right track?

Give me your thoughts.

*edit for typo.

You're already mis-stating the issue. It should be:

Theists claim god exists, atheists claim there is no evidence that god exists.

Atheists do not affirm the statement "I believe there is no God" (some do, but as a group they don't), they affirm the statement "I do not believe there is a God". These two statements are logically different.

In the first statement, the belief is a positive action--an action of agency. The atheist has weighed all evidence and drawn a deductive conclusion. In that case, they would need to provide evidence to prove their claim.

In the second statement, they are not stating a belief--that is, they are not committing an action of agency. Rather, they are refusing to affirm a belief because they have judged it lacking.

While some atheists are anti-theists (they will affirm the first statement), most of them will only affirm the second statement, and all of them will admit that the proposition is an unfalsifiable, which means that whether they admit it or not, affirming the first statement requires making a leap of faith, since there will never be concrete evidence.

Also, it's impossible to prove a negative. You can't prove something does not exist, you can only test the hypothesis that it does. If the hypothesis is falsified, then it is wrong. Proving the absence of something under all circumstances is literally impossible for any human to do, outside of proving it a mathematical impossibility (which is still falsifying the single hypothesis of the mathematical conjecture).

tl;dr - It's logically impossible to prove that there is no god, all you can do is prove that the places (real or spiritual) religious people claim he occupies do not contain him.

I'm religious, but I feel a need to put in a word for anti-theists here:

I'd like to meet the judge who has the chutzpah to issue a Writ of Habeus Corpus to the leaders of a church to "produce the body" of God...

The OP already assumes 'god' is a well defined concept, which is not the case. Therefore no debate is even possible.

all relgiious people are atheists, to a point

Ah.

In this case, the writing of the official Roman government scribes that followed Jesus, writing down what they saw is applicable. They recorded what they saw under pain of death for falsehood or obvious omission. Multiple scribes were employed to follow Jesus. So, therefore, the official records of a legal recognized government confirms those events happened.

The Jewish scribes recorded the same events, and they also employed multiple scribes to follow Jesus. Since they were an officially recognized government as well, that would be two sets of official records of a legal recognized governments that confirms those events happened.

I doubt the Jewish scribes were under the same pain of death, yet their writings correlate with the Roman scribes.

In a court of law, this is called a "slam dunk"...(sorry about gloating, but we Quakers so rarely get the opportunity...)