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

Post Reply New Topic

I was speaking about it being presented in a US courtroom. Go down south, and oh man, it's a winner! Then off to the NASCAR races!

Yeah, in that case it wouldn't even be much of a trial.

But something tells me the OP had an impartial judge in mind.

Crap, I live in California, they can't even figure out what a vegetable is.

Isn't it an illegal sexual act?

Does the OP envision God as the plaintiff, or as the defendant in this hypothical civil suit ( apparently you have opted out of making this a criminal case in which the burden of proof is 'beyond reasonable doubt' instead of just "a preponderence of evidence")?

Are you say: suing God for the wrongful death of the citizens of Sodom and Gomarah?

Or is God suing humans for the wrongful death his son?

How should we conceptualize this courtroom drama?

A mailman will walk in with a huge bag of children's letters to Santa Claus, shortly followed by another one with a huge bag of children's letters to Charles Darwin

Consider it a civil case.

Plaintiff and defendant would be played by the roles of believers and non believers. Which side would be which however. The judge would have to be an impartial civil court judge.

I've talked with a lot of atheists and theists alike and the one common theme I get from the atheist side is "The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim". Well in a civil case the burden of proof can be satisfied without direct evidence or clear and convincing evidence, only a preponderance of the evidence is required. Well the one making the claim would be the theists so I guess that would put them in the plaintiffs box. The plaintiff is always the one making the claim initially, and the atheists would have to fill the role of the defendant.

To clear things up a bit, I chose a civil court because they are designed to resolve disputes, and this is a dispute not a murder trial for example.

Lee Strobel did put together a book that takes place on rather similar lines to what this thread is proposing. It was called 'The Case for Christ: A Journalist's Personal Investigation of the Evidence for Jesus'. I have not actually read it, but I am told that while it is directed towards a popular audience it is mostly quite good.

I personally would not approach the question like this, instead I would pick up something like 'Mere Christianity' or 'The Skrewtape Letters'. Atheists, especially like the sort I was, are far more likely to be suddenly ambushed in the heart than they are to change their mind based upon a reasoned argument. Most hold their views for non-evidential reasons, in my case I preferred the idea of a world with no God.

When I became a Christian it was not by reading both sides and deciding from there, though others have done this and that is perfectly acceptable. Like Peter Hitchens, the sudden realization that the main reason he was in favor of disbelief was that he really preferred a society where he was unaccountable put him on an intellectual path to faith. For myself, I went to Church with a girl I very much liked the look of and was surprised by the holy sprint and was unable to deny the truth of the matter any further. FYI, I did not end up getting the girl but I did walk away with something rather more profound.

Is everybody talking about a prima facie case standard???

By "hard history" standards, the closest standard to be met is the existence of "Pontius Pilate" as established through meager bits of evidence. Evidence for "Saint Paul" is a bit more, but his record is "later", and about as relevant to the relevant hard history as "Elvis" is to be useful in establishing the existence of "Bigfoot".

"History" created well after the events, isn't factual history of the events. The "hard history" of Moses has this major limitation too, as Moses is not evidenced by any timely artifacts, and is no where mentioned in any history other than that of remote derivative religious texts, which fail the standards of "hard history".

Now, by "soft history", the Martians have already visited, and they created the artifacts in the Peruvian deserts, and kicked out Bigfoot because he weighed too much for the trip back. Such soft history is better categorized as hypotheticals more fit for the "fiction" section of a Library.

With "things" more to date, a prima facie case of something like an "impairment" from the "Autistic Spectrum Disorders", needs more than mere medical evidence to be prima facie establishing evidence for ADA coverage.

"Evidence" could be tainted by prejudice, as in the court concluding that autism is a disqualifcation under the ADA. Or, as on an old Tom Snyder talk show, Robert Conrad making the argument that the slogan "In God We Trust" on most all U.S. currency legally meant that "God" was already recognized and established as a legal entity that everyone concurred with in this "Christian Country" by engaging in any financial transaction. This is much the same as the "Two-Ton-Ten-God Rock" in the God Fearing South.

With individual religious beliefs, the courts exclude "cults", "loners", and "contrary practices" from "evidences", much as only Senator Hatch's "religious practice" exclusion is allowed for only SSI disability claims and any "medicine versus God" conflicts.

Tadzio

source, please?

Hey, now, are you saying that artichokes aren't vegetables?! Heretic!

I haven't seen them myself, but hopefully they are soon to be photographed and put online like the Codex Sinaiticus has been, and the Dead Sea scrolls are about to be. Now all these documents are locked up in special rooms with very limited access. Putting them online is a really great thing I think.

Until I see some actual evidence of this claim, I'm going to assume that it's false. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and supposed claims of 'proof' of biblical events are routine, and routinely falsified - from the supposed 'ark' in Turkey that turned out to be some rock formations that vaguely resembled a lozenge shape, to the supposed 'family tomb of Jesus,' these things are a dime a dozen and have been since Chaucer's time at least.

The problem with the God debate is that we're no longer just talking about evidence, we're talking about arguments and metaphysics at this point. With real world issues, we can leave this all cut and dry, but with a God, we end up having to respond to "Well, what if the perfectly good and all-powerful being thought that some evil tested moral character?" and all sorts of those other kinds of considerations. Given that courts don't focus on anything that abstract, it is difficult to talk about what a court would say.

If we held that a court used scientific evidence, Occam's razor, and a relatively common-sensical interpretation of reasonable theological claims, then I think most God ideas would be invalidated. However, what we end up with in practice is efforts about how high the bar should be set, and so on, and various arguments for higher skepticism on this that and the other.

It's not so much of a court argument, as it is an apologetic summary of various interviewed people who favor the Christian view. Lee Strobel's writings are known for simply being this.


This is always a very difficult issue. Most people hold their views for non-evidential reasons, and most people have reasons that are underdeveloped in some form or fashion. I would imagine that most intellectual atheists would count as people who hold their views for evidential reasons. I mean, I think the evidence clearly goes against Christianity, it's just mostly the sort of evidence that a court is not reasonable as a forum to deal with.


While I've heard stories of claimed intellectual conversions(some have doubted many of these stories). I've more often seen this approach supported by atheists, with atheists having done both and becoming atheists because of that.


And some people are looking for, are open to, are easily persuaded by, etc, these kinds of things. These experiences exist in nearly every culture, as no faith I am aware of lacks experiential proof. Surely religion does represent some path towards a reconciliation of certain impulses for some people. I mean, I know that religion would bring harmony towards some of my impulses, I just do not regard religious claims as correct and because of that they would intensify a lot of other conflicts to a dramatic degree. I mean, the divine has nothing to offer if I do not think it sensibly fits into the picture provided by the natural world, and for the most part, the divine really just seems to be something squeezed into a margin or mystery, rather than a central part of any basic process.