Burden of Proof

[Flail]

Using American Jurisprudence as guide, are the developed judicial Burdens of Proof applicable for proving a god? Our judicial system is time tested as a reliable, although not perfect, method of testing and proving claims. It is governed by specific rules of evidence as discussed on other threads. Those rules dictate what types of evidence are admissible as reliable and trustworthy and what evidence is not.

Burdens of Proof are distinct from rules of admissable evidence. The claimant always has the burden of proving his claim by the evidence to clear certain standards or hurdles. These burdens are higher the more there is at stake. If someone's life or liberty is at stake(criminal law), the claim must be proved by evidence that is so strong and so convincing to the trier of fact(judge or jury) that it is 'beyond a reasonable doubt'; if punitive and compensatory damages are at stake(fraud, intentional tort), the claim must be proved by 'clear and convincing' evidence; if only compensatory damages are at stake(negligence,unintentional torts), the claim must be proved by a 'greater weight' of evidence, ie 'more probably true than not true'.

Question for debate:
Which of these Burdens of Proof should apply for evidence proving any 'God claims' or proving that a God exists?

1. Beyond any doubt(certainty).
2. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. By clear and convincing evidence.
4. By a greater weight of evidence, 'more probably true than not true'.
5. Other(explain)

[Lux]

Question for debate:
Which of these Burdens of Proof should apply for evidence proving any 'God claims' or proving that a God exists?

1. Beyond any doubt(certainty).
2. Beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. By clear and convincing evidence.
4. By a greater weight of evidence, 'more probably true than not true'.
5. Other(explain)

I'm going to go with curtain number 2, "Beyond a reasonable doubt". I'd like to note that a supernatural claim, in my opinion, leaves a lot more room for reasonable doubt than any mundane claim, so I think it would be much harder to prove that Jesus came back to life after being dead for 3 days than to prove that a person is a serial killer.

I don't think "clear and convincing evidence" is enough to conclusively prove the existence of a god, but I can say that if I was presented with it I would reconsider my position very seriously.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 9:

If one is teaching children that others are judged to hell by a god or if someone is recruiting terrorists to further the purpose of a god....there is arguably quiet a bit a stake.

I think I'm misunderstanding the point of the OP, so I'll hush up for now.

[Flail]

From Post 9:

If one is teaching children that others are judged to hell by a god or if someone is recruiting terrorists to further the purpose of a god....there is arguably quiet a bit a stake.

I think I'm misunderstanding the point of the OP, so I'll hush up for now.

The OP seeks to debate what Burden of Proof a theist should have when advancing particular God claims. 'Historicity' claims are another matter and largely irrelevant to claim that a purported historical figure was a God or communicated with gods. On another post a question about evidence is being discussed. What kind and quality of evidence should be acceptable for theists when advancing god claims? It seems that theists want no burden of proof and no strictures on types and quality of evidence. They don't have to prove their god claims...they are just the absolute truth...end of story. They don't have to limit themselves to verifiable,credible, trustworthy evidence...what is said in their holy book is just the absolute truth...end of story. How is reasonable debate possible with such unreasonable conditions? If someone has no burden of proof and if everything imaginable will qualify as evidence, then 'anything can be the cause of anything'. If one comes to his position by dogma and indoctrination, don't expect to find anything but dogma and indoctrination when you go looking for reasoned evidence. Rather than getting anything reasonably verifiable as evidence, you will get a quote and a ritual and a promise to 'pray for you'.

[Crazy Ivan]

By definition, I consider "proof" the body of evidence that objectively demonstrates truth beyond any doubt.

It seems to me there are two major claims as far as "god" is concerned:

For claims that "god exists", "proof" is naturally required, and the claimer should be able to provide that body of evidence that demonstrates truth beyond any doubt.

For claims that "my belief that god exists is reasonable", I think "beyond reasonable doubt" applies quite logically.

[Flail]

By definition, I consider "proof" the body of evidence that objectively demonstrates truth beyond any doubt.

It seems to me there are two major claims as far as "god" is concerned:

For claims that "god exists", "proof" is naturally required, and the claimer should be able to provide that body of evidence that demonstrates truth beyond any doubt.

For claims that "my belief that god exists is reasonable", I think "beyond reasonable doubt" applies quite logically.

Works for me. What type and quality of evidence would you consider 'admissible' to advance these claims in attempts to satisy the burdens of proof?

[Crazy Ivan]

Before asking for evidence supporting the existence of a "god", and if I'm honest about considering it, I need an answer to the following question:

For any evidence for a "god", in what way can I not claim "that's just evidence for an evolved intelligence, advanced enough to provide it"? When evidence is able to make that distinction, I will honestly consider it as "proof" of "god". Since humans can only acquire information through their senses, and their manipulation doesn't seem all that difficult even where we stand now, how does anything ever prove a "god", as opposed to any advanced intelligence, evolved in this universe, which is always more likely to be real, given there's actual evidence to support such an hypothesis?

I suppose that as far as proving "reasonable belief" goes, a standard must be provided by the believer and accepted by the non-believer. Both must believe in a thing that is agreed upon as "borderline" believable. Only with equal or more evidence, does "god" become reasonably believed in.

[Flail]

Before asking for evidence supporting the existence of a "god", and if I'm honest about considering it, I need an answer to the following question:

For any evidence for a "god", in what way can I not claim "that's just evidence for an evolved intelligence, advanced enough to provide it"? When evidence is able to make that distinction, I will honestly consider it as "proof" of "god". Since humans can only acquire information through their senses, and their manipulation doesn't seem all that difficult even where we stand now, how does anything ever prove a "god", as opposed to any advanced intelligence, evolved in this universe, which is always more likely to be real, given there's actual evidence to support such an hypothesis?

I suppose that as far as proving "reasonable belief" goes, a standard must be provided by the believer and accepted by the non-believer. Both must believe in a thing that is agreed upon as "borderline" believable. Only with equal or more evidence, does "god" become reasonably believed in.

Fair enough. But what would be reasonably considered as 'admissible evidence' to advance a 'god claim' toward carrying a burden of proof?

[Flail]

Flail wrote:

What about the 'context' of a debate wherein someone is making these claims as truth claims? Do you have an opinion within that 'context'?

McCulloch responded:

Like, as I have said, If someone were asking me to commit my life to a faith, then beyond a reasonable doubt.

(emphasis added)

Do theists accept this Burden of Proof for their 'God claims'?

[Flail]

Crazy Ivan wrote:

For any evidence for a "god", in what way can I not claim "that's just evidence for an evolved intelligence, advanced enough to provide it"? When evidence is able to make that distinction, I will honestly consider it as "proof" of "god".

This is an excellent question. Assume that eventually some verifiable evidence becomes available as to a definitive supernatural entity with supernatural powers. Would this be enough to advance the hypothesis that there were 'gods'? How could we determine if such a being was a 'god' or the 'God'?

[Crazy Ivan]

This is an excellent question. Assume that eventually some verifiable evidence becomes available as to a definitive supernatural entity with supernatural powers. Would this be enough to advance the hypothesis that there were 'gods'? How could we determine if such a being was a 'god' or the 'God'?

We can't logically make that assumption since anything with "verifiable evidence" cannot be "supernatural" by definition.