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)

[Flail]

It concerns one's own life. So it's the individual's own responsibility to figure things out. No one else cares. Who should be more caring about your own life anyway.

But in a debate forum, does one who asserts a thing as 'truth' have a burden of proof, a burden of persuasion, of going forward with evidence or reason to carry the day, or is a simple recapitulation of 'faith' sufficient?

[Harper Prefect]

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

The question may be unanswerable in the sense that God cannot be proven or dis-proven, and any evidence given for either side would not be, in any way, conclusive to the opposition.

This is a somewhat complicated claim, so allow me to expand:

The existence of God cannot be proven because (in the Christian worldview) salvation requires "faith," which is defined by St. Paul as "the evidence for things not seen." In other words, it is 'belief despite a lack of evidence.' Evidence or proof would deny faith, therefore God cannot provide proof of his own existence. This, in psychological circles, is sometimes referred to as a "self-fulfilling delusion"

The existence of God cannot be dis-proven because any evidence given for non-existence (fossil records, textual evidence, etc.) is automatically ruled inadmissible due to the previously-described self-fulfilling delusion: "fossils were put there to test our faith," and so forth.

The inability to dis-prove God's existence is the main complaint that scientifically-minded people have with religion. Scientists believe in evolution because it CAN be dis-proven so easily but has stood the test of time. [If you want to disprove evolution, find a 3-million-year-old fossilized rabbit]

So, to return to the original question as to burden of proof: when you ask that of a religious person, you're not really speaking the same language. The "proof" is that they believe, just as St. Paul described.