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)

[The Mad Haranguer]

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)

None of the above. Belief in God is "properly basic," just as belief that the universe is comprehensible is properly basic.

[Zzyzx]

.
Concerning the level of "proof" or evidence to be accepted in debate with Theists, I suggest provisionally using the same level of proof and evidence they stand willing to accept for the existence / validity of ANY proposed "god" or "spirit" -- particularly those which are said to contradict the one being promoted / defended.

In my years of debate with Monotheists, I do not recall even one ever accepting that proposition. The attitude seems to be, "The evidence I present in favor of my favored 'god' (religious stories, hearsay, testimonials, conjecture, opinion, unverified claims, dogma, etc) should be accepted as evidence and proof, but exactly the same things presented in favor of competing 'gods' is not acceptable" -- and "All 'gods' except my favorite are false, even though the evidence presented is equal".

[Crazy Ivan]

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)

None of the above. Belief in God is "properly basic," just as belief that the universe is comprehensible is properly basic.

The thread is about the burden of proof applicable to the "god exists" claim, or other theistic claims that imply knowledge, as opposed to belief. No one is asking you to prove you believe in god, or claiming your belief has a burden of proof.

[Flail]

.
Concerning the level of "proof" or evidence to be accepted in debate with Theists, I suggest provisionally using the same level of proof and evidence they stand willing to accept for the existence / validity of ANY proposed "god" or "spirit" -- particularly those which are said to contradict the one being promoted / defended.

In my years of debate with Monotheists, I do not recall even one ever accepting that proposition. The attitude seems to be, "The evidence I present in favor of my favored 'god' (religious stories, hearsay, testimonials, conjecture, opinion, unverified claims, dogma, etc) should be accepted as evidence and proof, but exactly the same things presented in favor of competing 'gods' is not acceptable" -- and "All 'gods' except my favorite are false, even though the evidence presented is equal".

I accept this standard as reasonable,logical and applicable. I would add that the burden of proof for all theists' god claims should be to present verifiable evidence proving those claims 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I reason that the same burden of proof applied in American jurisprudence to convict criminals should apply to Christianity's eternal sentence on non-believers.

[The Mad Haranguer]

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)

None of the above. Belief in God is "properly basic," just as belief that the universe is comprehensible is properly basic.

The thread is about the burden of proof applicable to the "god exists" claim, or other theistic claims that imply knowledge, as opposed to belief. No one is asking you to prove you believe in god, or claiming your belief has a burden of proof.

And my answer was "none."

None of the "masters" taught with an objective understanding in mind. Why should those who learned from them be any different in this regard?

[Crazy Ivan]

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)

None of the above. Belief in God is "properly basic," just as belief that the universe is comprehensible is properly basic.

The thread is about the burden of proof applicable to the "god exists" claim, or other theistic claims that imply knowledge, as opposed to belief. No one is asking you to prove you believe in god, or claiming your belief has a burden of proof.

And my answer was "none."

None of the "masters" taught with an objective understanding in mind. Why should those who learned from them be any different in this regard?

Then the "masters" obviously didn't teach anything debatable. Yet you're the one that joined a debate forum that requires claims to be substantiated with evidence/logic. "Subjective logic" is obviously an oxymoron. And as far as evidence goes, do you think for one second the forum demands evidence that is only evidence to the one presenting it, i.e. "subjective evidence"? You're obviously angry at the forum, and its rules, so why do you take it out on the people that abide by those rules?

[Flail]

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)

None of the above. Belief in God is "properly basic," just as belief that the universe is comprehensible is properly basic.

The thread is about the burden of proof applicable to the "god exists" claim, or other theistic claims that imply knowledge, as opposed to belief. No one is asking you to prove you believe in god, or claiming your belief has a burden of proof.

And my answer was "none."

None of the "masters" taught with an objective understanding in mind. Why should those who learned from them be any different in this regard?

I am not certain to whom you refer when you use the term 'masters'. If you are referring to eastern religions and philosophies such as Buddaism and Daoism, those masters did not make absolute truth claims about specific gods but rather had a more general philisophical, all inclusive thought process about creation and living. Since they did not make absolute truth claims about the existence of particular supernatural beings, nor attribute condemning judgments to them, they had no debatable burden of proving any truth claims. Their thinking and philosophies are excellent considerations regardless.

[The Mad Haranguer]

Then the "masters" obviously didn't teach anything debatable.

In the objective sense, you are quite right. There is more than one way of knowing. There are at least three: fact, relational and experiential.

"Subjective logic" is obviously an oxymoron.

No, it's not:

log-ic [ljjik]
n
1. philosophy theory of reasoning: the branch of philosophy that deals with the theory of deductive and inductive arguments and aims to distinguish good from bad reasoning
2. system or instance of reasoning: any system of, or an instance of, reasoning and inference
3. sensible argument and thought: sensible rational thought and argument rather than ideas that are influenced by emotion or whim
4. reasoning of particular field: the principles of reasoning relevant to a particular field
5. relationship and pattern of events: the relationship between specific events, situations, or objects, and the inevitable consequences of their interaction
6. comput circuit design in computer: the circuit design and principles used by a computer in its operation

Where is the word "objective"?

And as far as evidence goes, do you think for one second the forum demands evidence that is only evidence to the one presenting it, i.e. "subjective evidence"?

Nah. I'm just more impatient with atheists' endless hairsplitting over matters that have no relation to life or religion than religionists' misapprehensions of religion.

[Crazy Ivan]

In the objective sense, you are quite right.(...)

And that is the only sense I'm interested in, and the only sense relevant to the readers. There is no place in debate for the "subjective sense". There are one or two subforums here for story-telling, but this isn't one of them.

Where is the word "objective"?

You're offering definitions, and you ask where the word "objective" is? It's obviously implied in each one. Have you ever heard of "subjective definitions"? Each definition is objective, you choose the one that conforms to the context in question and it applies equally to everyone. "Logic" as it applies in debate means the same to everyone.

Nah. I'm just more impatient with atheists' endless hairsplitting over matters that have no relation to life or religion than religionists' misapprehensions of religion.

You need not manifest yourself when you think these matters are being discussed.

[The Mad Haranguer]

In the objective sense, you are quite right.(...)

And that is the only sense I'm interested in, and the only sense relevant to the readers. There is no place in debate for the "subjective sense". There are one or two subforums here for story-telling, but this isn't one of them.

That being the case, neither you nor the "readers" are interested in life-as-it-is.