This thread seems to have mutated into something that it was not at first. If you all will remember, it started out as discussing who must prove God: the theists (putting it diplomatically) and the atheists. I shall try to preserve this with my post.
I submit that the burden of proof lies with the atheists to disprove God. (Note that at this point I am not pushing the existence of the Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Greek, Ramenite or Pastafarian faith, for these are forms which are of no use without the entity God) Consider that man, even by your evolutionary calender, thought of a being higher than themselves long before they considered denying it. I have read many philosophers (theologians, mostly, but Descartes was there too) who have argued that man has within him a concept of some higher being. Regardless of whether or not God actually put a notion of Himself within His creation (as I believe He did, however some of you may disagree lol), you will notice that it occurred to man to doubt God's existence before it occurred to him to prove it. Even the Native Americans and Aztecs, before being exposed to missionary efforts, had such a concept. We hear of the Great Spirit as an ancient teaching of the Native Americans, indicating that they accepted another, perhaps creator force.
In the past, atheists have tried to disprove God, but they have failed. C.S. Lewis, for example, once fought bitterly to disprove God's existence, but eventually was cornered with His stark reality. He later wrote that "If I find in myself a desire which nothing in this world can fill, I can only conclude that I am meant for another world." (paraphrased) By this, Lewis implied that something higher than himself (I know you guys are all getting so sick of that term by now) must have instilled that desire within him in order to seek it out. Blaise Pascal spoke of a God-shaped hole in every man's heart which nothing else can properly fill. Perhaps it was this God-shaped hole that caused man to believe in God before he questioned Him.
Each society, throughout history, has been based on the belief of some higher power. Just because all the residents of these societies don't subscribe to the foundational beliefs does not mean that the beliefs are absent. Again, looking back through history, you will find that most early civilizations were based around the worship of one pantheon or another. Those who doubted the fixture of their culture weren't widely known and celebrated for most of history. Only recently (and by recent, I mean within the last 500-600 years) have the atheists come into the open.
Now, throughout this thread, gravity has been brought up many times. I would like to point out that, while gravity was not understood for much of man's history (however long you want to say that is), it was not widely believed that we were all being pushed downwards. It was not believed that tiny strings (of what I have no idea. Still haven't had that blasted theory explained to me) were holding us down. In fact, it wasn't widely believed that gravity was the unifying theory (if you will). Our predecessors simply did not consider it at all. Had Newton skewed the facts to say that part or Xenu's evil plan was to imprison all life on earth on the ground by use of alien force fields that ran on baked beans, it would have been accepted (had they known about the wild and wonderfully stupid world of Scientology) until someone else had the guts to challenge Newton.
But suppose Newton did get it wrong. Suppose some scientist comes along, wipes his nose (and a few other places) with Newton's ideas on gravity and says "THIS is how it really is!" and proposes a crazy theory that sounds totally outlandish but is completely right once it is studied and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the scientific method (it was hamsters, and not baked beans, for example). Are those who believed in gravity before the awesome power of hamsters was fully understood now thought to be irrational? Or are they only thought irrational when they cling to their long-held beliefs, deny the power of hamsters and just say no to Xenu?
What I hope you have gathered from the crazy (and hopefully entertaining) example above is that just because an idea that was widely accepted (and even held to be gospel, if you will pardon the irony) is challenged by something that seems to (remember, it's impossible to %100 prove something) make sense (Giant hamsters can turn turbines efficiently and are the answer to the energy problem. There's no way to prove me wrong without testing it first, so my idea stands. Screw hybrids! Screw ethanol! Let's go hamster!) doesn't mean that the original idea is wrong.
So, in closing, the burden of proof lies with the atheists because theirs is a position that was adopted in opposition to the one that was generally accepted at first. Thank you, and may the hamsters be with you.
I submit that the burden of proof lies with the atheists to disprove God. (Note that at this point I am not pushing the existence of the Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Greek, Ramenite or Pastafarian faith, for these are forms which are of no use without the entity God) Consider that man, even by your evolutionary calender, thought of a being higher than themselves long before they considered denying it. I have read many philosophers (theologians, mostly, but Descartes was there too) who have argued that man has within him a concept of some higher being. Regardless of whether or not God actually put a notion of Himself within His creation (as I believe He did, however some of you may disagree lol), you will notice that it occurred to man to doubt God's existence before it occurred to him to prove it. Even the Native Americans and Aztecs, before being exposed to missionary efforts, had such a concept. We hear of the Great Spirit as an ancient teaching of the Native Americans, indicating that they accepted another, perhaps creator force.
Actually, Rooster, what you are saying is the burden of proof lies with someone making a claim. Therefore an Agnostic who questions whether there is or isn’t a god is the only person who doesn’t necessarily have to explain himself because god damn it everyone is freaking nuts and the only reasonable position is to be an fing Agnostic. (Leaning Atheistic or towards theism, whatever but always questioning) The second you completely dismiss claims without testing them (or considering at least) you have closed yourself off from the chance of you being wrong. Therefore, because an Agnostic does not put forth a claim to have all the answers (or even most of them) the burden of proof lies with everyone else making the claims.
However, saying this from what we have discovered over time is that almost all modern religions (especially the big ones) are pretty much bullshit and we have presented the evidence of this and it is easily found with some research. So it's religions turn to present proof.
In addition Scott, were you up to freaking 2 am last night writing that? Good thing you don’t actually do work at work! Jesus!
Just an additional note, this is why someone believing in the telepathy or talking to the dead or something has the burden of proof on them. While the Skeptic does not have to prove himself. He is the questioner and therefore is asking for evidence, not making a claim that needs to be supported, he is questioning another's claim.
Actually, Rooster, what you are saying is the burden of proof lies with someone making a claim. Therefore an Agnostic who questions whether there is or isn’t a god is the only person who doesn’t necessarily have to explain himself because god damn it everyone is freaking nuts and the only reasonable position is to be an fing Agnostic. (Leaning Atheistic or towards theism, whatever but always questioning) The second you completely dismiss claims without testing them (or considering at least) you have closed yourself off from the chance of you being wrong. Therefore, because an Agnostic does not put forth a claim to have all the answers (or even most of them) the burden of proof lies with everyone else making the claims.
You are right. I hadn't factored in the agnostics. And you are also right in that I was saying that someone who is making the claim must prove it. The atheists, as I argued, are the ones with the newer idea, and therefore hold the burden of proof because mankind as a whole accepted God's existence. They are the ones making the claim, you might say. Now as for the agnostics, they do seem to fit into a gray area, don't they? Clearly the burden isn't on them.
Rooster: I conted that the belief in a higher power has never really been "generally accepted," because as long as that belief has been around, there have been those who object to it. This is an issue that is constantly under debate at all levels.
I'd also just like to throw this out, because Rym and Scott quite often teeter on the edge of trying to do too much with science: the scientific method cannot be used to evaluate the general notion of the existence or non-existence of any sort of higher power. Period. We can use logic, reason, and the scientific method to deconstruct all the claims around said divinity, but it cannot impugne the divinity itself. For example, we can demonstrate the secular origins of the Bible, but doing so does not necessarily mean that you have also demonstrated the non-existence of its god. Also, disbelieving a scientific principle is not necessarily irrational, as long as you use rational methodolgy to question it. Remember that scientific analyses have a 95% confidence limit; that 5% is much larger than it sounds. So, statements like this:
All of the evidence we have suggests that your beliefs, which you are free to continue believing in, have a 99.99999% chance of being absolutely false.
are not in line with scientific thinking. I'm not saying that Scott has suggested as such, I'm just saying not to misinterpret it as being such.
Yea, that’s sort of what I was getting at Whaleshark (in my earlier thread), Science has no method to disprove a generic god. However, it can test all the whacky claims made (like whether prayer helps heal other people).
So, in closing, the burden of proof lies with the atheists because theirs is a position that was adopted in opposition to the one that was generally accepted at first.
Looks like the burden of proof lies on you( just assuming that you are Christian). Lets see, you need to disprove the Roman gods, the Greek gods, the Egyptian gods, the Viking gods, the Hindu gods...
I submit that the burden of proof lies with the atheists to disprove God.
If that's true, then you have an equal burden of proof to prove that there isn't an invisible unicorn in my room, that there aren't teapots on Mars, and that there isn't a mysterious, invisible, gravity-free extra moon orbiting the Earth. The burden always lies with the person making the extraordinary claim. To argue otherwise is to deny logical thought.
I have read many philosophers (theologians, mostly, but Descartes was there too) who have argued that man has within him a concept of some higher being.
You can argue anything. The key is that none of those philosophers could provide a single shred of evidence.
you will notice that it occurred to man to doubt God's existence before it occurred to him to prove it.
Source?
We hear of the Great Spirit as an ancient teaching of the Native Americans, indicating that they accepted another, perhaps creator force.
So your argument is basically that, because primitive, ignorant people believed in something, that somehow lends validity to the belief?
In the past, atheists have tried to disprove God, but they have failed.
How so? God is disproven by default for the 100% lack of evidence. How exactly did these atheists try to "disprove" the notion? How exactly did they "fail?"
Again, looking back through history, you will find that most early civilizations were based around the worship of one pantheon or another.
Again, you're citing the old practices of ignorant people as evidence.
C.S. Lewis, for example, once fought bitterly to disprove God's existence, but eventually was cornered with His stark reality.
How is this a useful citation? What "stark reality" are you talking about? C.S. Lewis is by no means an authority, and his personal beliefs are not evidence of anything beyond his personal beliefs.
Blaise Pascal spoke of a God-shaped hole in every man's heart which nothing else can properly fill.
Pascal's Wager has been clearly and totally shown to be fallacious. Furthermore, you're again citing another person's personal belief as opposed to actual evidence.
Now, throughout this thread, gravity has been brought up many times. I would like to point out that, while gravity was not understood for much of man's history (however long you want to say that is), it was not widely believed that we were all beingpusheddownwards. It was not believed that tiny strings (of what I have no idea. Still haven't had that blasted theory explained to me) were holding us down. In fact, it wasn't widely believed that gravity was the unifying theory (if you will).
...
But suppose Newton did get it wrong. Suppose some scientist comes along, wipes his nose (and a few other places) with Newton's ideas on gravity and says "THIS is how it really is!" and proposes a crazy theory that sounds totally outlandish but is completely right once it is studied and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the scientific method (it was hamsters, and not baked beans, for example). Are those who believed in gravity before the awesome power of hamsters was fully understood now thought to be irrational? Or are they only thought irrational when they cling to their long-held beliefs, deny the power of hamsters and just say no to Xenu?
I don't want to sound rude, but here is where you shoot yourself in the foot particularly well.
See, your main argument before was that many people believed in something, so therefore it must be lent credence. Here, however, you now make the exact opposite argument. If the "hamster" as shown to be real, and gravity were shown to be wrongly explained, then anyone who didn't accept the better theory would be an irrational person. People accepted Newton's laws because they were readily observable and easily repeatable. To deny them is to deny logical thought.
Holding on to a clearly unproven, fallacious, or disproven belief is irrational no matter how old or dear that belief may be. You've now argued against your own position...
There's no way to prove me wrong without testing it first, so my idea stands.
You're not serious with this statement, are you? That's a terribly ignorant, illogical, and intellectually dishonest stance to take. If this statement is true, then you can't argue against the following: "You can't prove that I'm not god, so my idea that I'm god must stand."
The atheists, as I argued, are the ones with the newer idea, and therefore hold the burden of proof because mankind as a whole accepted God's existence.
This is an equally poor statement that has zero logical basis. (Nevermind that fact that you're already assuming a lot without very much citation to back it up). By your logic, the very first irrational belief system mankind conceived must be true, and all more modern irrational beliefs bear the burden of proof. An irrational idea is still irrational no matter who said it first. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the extraordinary claim.
disbelieving a scientific principle is not necessarily irrational, as long as you use rational methodolgy to question it.
This is the imporant part of all this. No theistic argument has EVER demonstrated rational methodology.
This is why I hate the very concept of this thread, it's noone's place to say what is and isn't delusional!
It's clearly delusional to believe in and accept something extraordinary despite a total lack of evidence.
Say someone believes that there is an invisible cucumber following them around. They pray to it, sacrifice to it, worship it, talk to it, etc... Are you saying I can't call this person delusional?
Religious ideas aren't somehow immune to criticism or "sacred." They are simply ideas like any other, subject to the same scrutiny as any other idea. Saying there is a god is no different than saying there is a space cucumber. If someone believing in a space cucumber is delusional, then someone believing in a god is equally delusional. The belief in "god" is not special or different from any other belief.
Nay-sayers, it is not your burden to provide evidence, but it is also not your place to press your ideas on the other side.
If asking for evidence and making logical statements is "pressing for your side," then feel free to call it that.
Believers, while your side bares the burden of proof, it is not your specific job to provide that evidence. You have your religious leaders to do that for you.
Yes, trust the authority of people who have a vested interest in maintaining for belief in their sky man. Don't think for yourself.
If this is your belief, do not feel that you need to convince others of it. And that goes double for the atheists.
It's not a matter of convincing. If someone makes an unreasonable claim, it is intellectually dishonest to not call them on it and ask for backing. You can not let an unfounded and extraordinary statement stand unquestioned.
A person is free to make such extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims. They must, however, be prepared to accept criticism of these claims. In this thread, most of these claims have been used in some manner of support for other unsubstantianted and extraordinary claims. It is mere rational discourse to logically refute them.
Anyone who cannot take criticism of an idea they put forth really shouldn't be participating in a rational discussion.
So, if Rym and Scott were having an argument and Rym made the ordinary claim of, "Scott, why did you drink the last of the apple juice and put the near empty container back in the fridge?" Who would have to prove what?
1) We all know that Scott is partial to Apple Juice. 2) We do not know if Scott has a history of putting near empty containers back in the fridge. 3) We also know that there currently is a near empty container of apple juice in the fridge.
"Scott, why did you drink the last of the apple juice and put the near empty container back in the fridge?" Who would have to prove what?
In this case, since the claims are ordinary, there would be no contention. I would ask Scott that question and accept his answer. If he said "I didn't: it must have been someone else," I would have no reason to disbelieve this statement.
Now, if he said that, and I knew that no one had visited our house in the previous several weeks, then said claim would move from ordinary to extraordinary and require some backing.
"Scott, why did you drink the last of the apple juice and put the near empty container back in the fridge?" Who would have to prove what?
In this case, since the claims are ordinary, there would be no contention. I would ask Scott that question and accept his answer. If he said "I didn't: it must have been someone else," I would have no reason to disbelieve this statement.
Now, if he said that, and I knew that no one had visited our house in the previous several weeks, then said claim would move from ordinary to extraordinary and require some backing.
So, if we add: "4) No one other than Scott and Rym have been in the house all day long." How would that change things? would it still be up to Rym to prove guilt or Scott to prove innocence?
How would that change things? would it still be up to Rym to prove guilt or Scott to prove innocence?
This comes down to logic.
We'll assume the following:
Apple Juice container found in fridge empty. Only Rym and Scott have access to fridge.
Logically, we can add the following reasonable assumptions:
The guilty party is aware of his guilt. The innocent party is aware of his innocence.
Thus, there are three possible answers:
Rym is the cause. Scott is the cause. One of the assumptions was made incorrectly.
As there is only a single state change up for debate, the matter become an either/or situation:
(Rym EXCLUSIVE OR Scott is the cause) EXCLUSIVE OR (An assumption is incorrect).
In this case, the matter is already settled unless one of the parties chooses to lie. Proof is inherent in the logical analysis of the situation.
In the case of a lie, the truth of innocence is still known to the innocent party. He can thus logically assume that the other party is guilty, and cannot be faulted for making this assessment. Still, no conclusion can be had to the argument, even though the truth is known to both. This impasse can occur only when one or more parties in an argument choose to be intellectually dishonest. In a pure situation with all things being equal, an arbiter cannot make a determination beyond the statement that "one of you is lying, barring a fallacious assumption."
Now, this is not a pure situation where all things are equal. There is additional evidence which can break the impasse.
"We all know that Scott is partial to apple juice."
In this case, it is now more likely that Scott was the cause. The more partial Scott is to Apple juice compared to Rym, the more likely it is that his intereaction was the cause. This is not proof, but it places the burden of proof closer to Scott.
All other things being equal, Scott must now refute this evidence with equal or superior evidence. If he does not, an arbiter can reasonably make the statement that "Scott is likely the cause." As this evidence is fairly weak, Scott could refute it with equally weak evidence, such as "I'm partial to it, so I'm more careful with it: I wouldn't leave an empty bottle, wasting space that could be used to chill a full bottle."
Now, if we add statement: "Rym does not drink apple juice," things chance considerably. This means that Scott is much more likely the cause, barring the possibility of intellectual dishonesty or malice on the part of Rym. Scott would now bear the burden of proof, and have to show that Rym is the liar, or that Rym does indeed drink apple juice, to shift the burden of proof back.
The burden of proof can be shifted back and forth. Some forms of proof themselves require other proof. Some forms are stronger than others. Scott's or Rym's fingerprints on the bottle would constitute much stronger proof than anecdotal evidence of Rym's malice or Scott's forgetfulness.
The arbiter weighs the evidence and counterevidence and makes a conclusion when either all evidence has been presented.
The key here is that all of this occurs, in the case of the apple juice, only if a party is intellectually dishonest or deceitful. The entire exchange could occur before the arbiter despite both parties knowing full well the truth.
The burden of proof always falls, in the end, back onto the person making the unbacked or disputed claim. Here, as there is evidence that Scott drinks apple juice and Rym does not, and barring any evidence of Rym holding malice and intent to act on said malice, the burden of proof falls squarely on Scott, who now has to make the claim that someone other than him moved the juice, which is an extraordinary claim. It is extraordinary in that is challanges one of the asumptions of the argument.
Now, if both parties are intellectually honest and trust one another, then and only then can assumptions be fully challenged. If both Rym and Scott declare innocence, and trust one another, then it can be assumed that the third asusmption is incorrect, and they can then seek out the real truth.
Back to the dang and 100% original issue of relgions being 'delusions', huh? This is why I hate the very concept of this thread, it's noone's place to say what is and isn't delusional! People are not the same and definitions are different as well. For God's sake, some people are skeptical of anything and everything because it's rational to do so, but in reality the world sees it quite differently. Such a person may not bet a penny on a 50/50 odds bet but a lot of people might bet their life savings. Just like belief, religion and personal conviction, rational thought is largely PERSONAL. Oh, and now I'm done with this thread. I'll be quite honest, I need to cool off and forget this entire thing.
Wow. I don't even know where to begin. You counter my factual and logical statement that you are delusional by saying it's not my place to say it. Why don't you try countering my logic and evidence with some logic and evidence? If I say the sky is blue and you say green, you will not win the debate by saying that it's not my place to tell you what color the sky is. Go look at the definition of delusional. Definitions are different you say? Well, I guess communicating with you is pointless then if you decide on your own definitions. For your information, I use the commonly accepted definitions in the dictionary. The definition of delusional in the dictionary is holding a false belief. Let's ignore your false belief that a deity exists and look at another false belief. You falsely believe there are 50/50 odds of there being a deity. There are not, nor have there ever been, 50/50 odds on god.
Let's pretend we're in a world with no evidence. We don't know anything. We have to guess how the world works. Let's start counting the possible explanations of the universe with one god. Now let's add in all the possibilities with multiple gods. Now let's add all the possibilities with different combinations of natural, supernatural, female, male, genderless, alien, good and bad gods. Oh wait, there are infinity different possibilities with gods. OK, so let's count the possibilities without gods. What's that you say? There are also infinity possible explanations of the universe that do not include the idea of god or gods. There are infinity different possible explanations for the universe in total. Some include deities, and some do not. Without evidence, all of them have an equal chance of being correct, as far as we can know. That chance is one divided by infinity. That's effectively zero.
Now, let's toss some evidence into the mix. Let's say we get some evidence, say that gravity exists. So now we take those explanations of the universe that describe gravity as is supported by the evidence, and we give them better odds than the other explanations. Then we get a little more evidence and we narrow the possibilities down further. Eventually we collect mountains and mountains of evidence and narrow down the possibilities even more. We still haven't completely ruled out any of the possibilities. There are still infinite possibilities. However, only a few billion or trillion of those possibilities have supporting evidence. Therefore, those possibilities are more likely. There has never been evidence supporting explanations of the universe which include any deity. Before we had evidence for anything, religious explanations had a one in infinity chance of being correct. Now, seeing that there is evidence for non-religious explanations and still no evidence for religion, they have even less than a one in infinity chance of being correct. You aren't making a 50/50 bet as Pascal falsely believed. If the bet were 50/50, I would also bet on god. You are making a bet with infinitely worse odds than 00 on a roulette wheel.
Another thing. People of faith select only one possible explanation of the universe and believe it to be true. People of reason and science, using their evidence, don't select just one. They select an insanely large number of possibilities, but a number less than infinity, that all fit the evidence. It could be this explanation with a big bang, or it could be that one with dark matter. It could be this one with both, or it could be that one with neither. There are many possible explanations that are supported equally by the evidence we have. Scientists treat all those possible explanations supported by evidence equally. So even without changing the odds of any one explanation, scientists have a better than one in infinity chance of being correct because they accept many possibilities. Faith can only get you one possibility, and that one possibility still has a 1/infinity chance of being right. When you take evidence into consideration, faith in god has less than a one in infinity chance of being correct.
As for so-called agnostics, they fall into two categories. One category are people who are theists who want to maintain the appearance of rationality. Not much can be said about them other than that they are easier to talk to than completely irrational theists. The second category of agnostics are just wussy atheists afraid to upset anyone or engage in unpleasant debate. If you were seriously agnostic through and through, you could never say anything. You couldn't be sure 1+1=2. You'd have to put a question mark as the answer to every problem on every test in school. If you recognize that you can't be sure 1+1=2, but you still live your life accepting that 1+1=2, then the only difference an agnostic has is a semantic one. You simply bring forth and pay much more attention to the .000001% chance of 1+1 not being equal to 2. Proper atheists also recognize that small chance of 1+1 not being two, we just thing is is necessary to constantly draw attention to the fact that there is a ludicrously small chance than 1+1 is not 2. If you claim to be agnostic, but live your life as if there were no god, you are just an atheist who draws lots of attention the fact that you know you are possibly wrong in order to avoid unpleasant conflict with irrational human beings.
I think what I've learned from this is that maybe those wussy agnostics have a smart game going on. I can think of few things more frustrating than attempting rational discourse with irrational intelligences. People with real faith truly are irrational and delusional through and through. Even if you present them with all the evidence, logic and reason in the universe, it won't matter. You could show them right in front of their faces the secret to doing a magic trick, and they will still believe you used real magic powers. They are completely unwilling or incapable of reason. Trying to help them usually isn't worth the effort. To back up this claim, I present this discussion as evidence.
What if we take this into a court of law, how are things changed?
Ha! I started writing something about that, and decided no one would care. How wrong I was =p
Of course, there is another view of all this.
As we are determining guilt of a malfeasance, there is more to consider. A court of law does not merely decide the truth, but it has the power to act on that decision with force. The US legal system always places the burden of proof on the accuser, and assumes innocence until proven guilty in order to allay the possibility of that force being misused. You have to present evidence against someone in order to bring them to trial: by default they are not guilty and must prove nothing.
Choosing whether or not to go to trial is much like the above. The accuser does not have to prove their case fully, but they must present evidence to convince an arbiter that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant is guilty. I would have to present my evidence that Scott is the cause.
In an actual trial, we in practice hold the accuser's claim to always be extraordinary, and as such we always require extraordinary proof. The defendant is innocent in the eyes of the arbiter unless such evidence is presented and verified.
In our case of the Apple juice, I could be reasonably sure that Scott was the cause with certain kinds of evidence. I could make the logical conclusion that Scott was the cause, and I could not be faulted for such a conclusion. I might not be able, however, to convince a court arbiter (judge/jury) of the same, as they require a very high level of evidence consistent more with extraordinary claims than ordinary ones.
While this can lead to situations where most people agree that a person is guilty of a crime, yet they are still found innocent, it provides a statistical safeguard against finding an innocent person guilty.
There is also a different level of proof required for a civil trial as opposed to a criminal trial. This is why O.J. was acquitted in his criminal trial but found guilty in his civil trial.
So, if Rym were suing Scott in a criminal case he would have to proof his case beyond a shadow of a doubt while if he was only pursuing a civil case the burden of proof would not be near as high.
Thanks Rym you just answered all of the follow-up questions I was prepared to ask!
What if we take this into a court of law, how are things changed?
In a court of law we say that someone is innocent by default unless guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The reason for this is because it is our philosophy that it is better to have ten guilty people go free than to convict one innocent. I agree with this philosophy. You may not. If you disagree with this philosophy, then you might want a court to be guilty until proven innocent. You could theoretically have a court where neither innocence nor guilt is the default. This would be a crazy court. It would be a court that would do a very poor job of delivering justice, but a very good job of entertaining me and wasting people's time.
There is also a different level of proof required for a civil trial as opposed to a criminal trial. This is why O.J. was acquitted in his criminal trial but found guilty in his civil trial.
So, if Rym were suing Scott in a criminal case he would have to proof his case beyond a shadow of a doubt while if he was only pursuing a civil case the burden of proof would not be near as high.
In a criminal trial I believe you need to show that someone is guilty of the charges against them beyond a reasonable doubt. In a civil case you only need to demonstrate that they are responsible for the damages you are suing for.
You could theoretically have a court where neither innocence nor guilt is the default.
I think that would come down to a court where, by default, it takes no action. This isn't much different from our current court system, except that, instead of no action, a person will be found "innocent," which has the added effect of making them immune to future prosecution for the same offense.
Of course, we can have effectively such a ruling with a hung jury.
So, if Rym were suing Scott in a criminal case he would have to proof his case beyond a shadow of a doubt while if he was only pursuing a civil case the burden of proof would not be near as high.
It's not quibbling to say that the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and not "beyond a shadow of a doubt".
If Rym took a criminal warrant, he'd have to (in Kentucky) go file a warrant in the County Attorney's office. A County Attorney (the prosecutors who only deal with misdemeanors) would review the warrant and decide whether he believed there was probable cause. If he didn't he would tell Rym to die in a fire. If he did, he would schedule a mediation. Scott would be notified but not subponaed. If the mediation produced a result, then everyone would be happy. If not, the warrant would go to warrant court.
There the County Attorney would pretry the case with Rym and Scott's attorney. If they could reach a plea agreement it would be over. If not, then they would set a trial date. If the warrant charged a felony, there might be a probable cause hearing in which the warrant court judge would decide whether there was probable cause to hold the case for the grand jury. The judge decides probable cause exists in 99.9% of cases she hears. If the grand jury hears evidence and decides there's probable cause, they indict and the case goes to circuit court. In circuit court the Commonwealth Attorney (the prosecutors who only deal with felonies) would try again to negotiate a plea, but the stakes would be higher. Again, Scott could have the case set for trial if he didn't want to plead.
At trial in both district and circuit court, the standard of proof would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Kentucky (my jurisdiction before I moved to the D.C. area), the attorneys are specifically prohibited from trying to define proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a question for the jurors to decide. I've seen them decide that lay witness testimony is good enough and I've seen them decide that expert witness testimony and even lay eye-witness testimony is not good enough.
At any rate there are two burdens Rym would have to overcome in order to see Scott rot under the jail: probable cause (laughably easy) and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (harder but sometimes easier than mathematical or scientific proof)
If Rym sued civilly, he wouldn't have to show probable cause. He'd just have to file a complaint. At trial, he'd just have to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence (that it was more likely than not).
In criminal cases, the jurors would have to be unnanimous either way. In civil cases, only 3/4 would have to agree.
One thing that bothered me about the law is the "jury of your peers" portion of law.
Can this be taken to mean that the jury should consist of people similar to the accused or the plaintiff?
Should Scott have a jury comprised of people who like apple juice? Can Rym make sure some of the people on the jury think "soda burns" is wildly funny?
If it were a jury of peers of the defendant and the crime was one of murder should they go to the local prison and get a bunch of murders for the jury pool?
It doesn't mean 12 convicted felons. This is hard for many defendants to understand. For example, I had a guy who wanted to try to use the defense of self defense for an incident in which he emptied a pistol shooting at his wife and then reloaded to shoot at her boyfriend. I couldn't convince him that most jurors wouldn't bite on that. Twelve convicted felons might - notwithstanding whether the defense was available as a matter of law.
For example, I had a guy who wanted to try to use the defense of self defense for an incident in which he emptied a pistol shooting at his wife and then reloaded to shoot at her boyfriend.
When I was in the service (California) one of the guys on post was arrested after a bar fight for assault and battery. He was a very large man of Samoan descent and after hitting the guy he proceeded to grab a large heavy item and beat the crap out of him, leaving the guy in a mess of blood and pain.
He used self-defense as his reason and he got off.
You might wonder how, after hitting someone and beating them to a bloody pulp, he got off on a self-defense stance? Well, this guy was big, real big. When he was being cross-examined he explained to the prosecutor (jury trial) that all his life he has always been bigger than the people around him. "When I hit someone, they go down and stay down," he calmly stated, "but this guy, I hit him and he did not go down. This is the first time in my life this has ever happened. I was terrified. I knew that if I did not get him to go down I would probably be dead! I have never been so scared in my entire life!"
The jury bought it and he got off on some lesser charge and had to do some community service.
Let me just restate that this guy was huge. He was the type of guy who could hand you an engine block with one hand and not even grunt. We used to joke that he could put a tank barrel over one shoulder and walk it across the motor pool!
Just so. For the purposes of this thread, the test can be understood to be whether a reasonable person in the circumstances could have formed a resonable belief he was in imminent danger of harm. Please note, anyone seeking to flame me, that I am aware of variations in this defense by jurisdiction and that there have recently been new developments, even in KY.
I've used that defense in a case in which a huge guy smacked down a small female co-worker. My guy said the girl was coming at him with a box cutter.
You probably wouldn't get a judge to even allow you an instruction of self defense in a case where your defendant reloaded a firearm. There is an imminence element to the defense and the act of reloading would most likely defeat it.
So, if Rym were suing Scott in a criminal case he would have to proof his case beyond a shadow of a doubt while if he was only pursuing a civil case the burden of proof would not be near as high.
Folks are correct. The burden of proof at a criminal trial is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. What hasn't been said is that the proof for the vast majority of civil cases is a "preponderance of the evidence." In other words... my 51% versus your 49%.
In Kentucky (my jurisdiction before I moved to the D.C. area), the attorneys are specifically prohibited from trying to define proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a question for the jurors to decide.
That's a crazy rule. Juries decide the facts - not the law. "Reasonable doubt" is a legal definition. The last time I checked it was an adversarial system. Why shouldn't the parties be allowed to argue their interpretation of the case? True... the facts are in dispute, and not the law. (The judge reads the law.) Still... it's entirely appropriate to argue how those facts fit the law.
In my jurisdiction the question is not for the jurors to decide. The judge reads a definition of "reasonable doubt." The definition specifically says that it does not mean beyond all "shadow of a doubt."
Here is a nice little example of the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt."
You are approaching an intersection. You have a green light. A car is coming from a street that has a red light. The car will hit you if it doesn't stop. You continue through the green light.
Why did you continue? Because you believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the other car would stop and not hit you.
Did you know that beyond any shadow of a doubt? Of course not. He could have been suicidal. He could have been asleep. The possibilities are endless.
You probably wouldn't get a judge to even allow you an instruction of self defense in a case where your defendant reloaded a firearm. There is an imminence element to the defense and the act of reloading would most likely defeat it.
What if he shot them and they did not die? I know if I dropped a full clip into someone and they kept coming after me I'd sure as hell reload!
The idea is that each juror is supposed to be able to decide for himself what proof beyond a reasonable doubt is and whether the Commonwealth has met the burden. We can tell them that there is no higher burden and we can argue all day that the Commonwealth hasn't met the burden. We just can't define what it actually is.
As far as I can see, Rym and Scott's insistence that the burden of proof lies upon those who claim the existence of a god is based on the premise that the statement "There is a god" is an extraordinary claim. But the dispute seems to me to be about the validity of that initial premise. Those who claim the burden of proof lies with the atheists seem to be saying (correct me if I'm wrong) that the existence of god is an ordinary claim, due to the fact that a lot of people have believed in god for a very long time.
How does one determine whether a claim is ordinary or extraordinary? Does the "general consensus" have anything to do with it, even implicitly? Can it be proved that the claim "The universe was made by a creator" is extraordinary, while the claim "The universe exists without a creator" is ordinary? Anyone?
Comments
I submit that the burden of proof lies with the atheists to disprove God. (Note that at this point I am not pushing the existence of the Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Greek, Ramenite or Pastafarian faith, for these are forms which are of no use without the entity God) Consider that man, even by your evolutionary calender, thought of a being higher than themselves long before they considered denying it. I have read many philosophers (theologians, mostly, but Descartes was there too) who have argued that man has within him a concept of some higher being. Regardless of whether or not God actually put a notion of Himself within His creation (as I believe He did, however some of you may disagree lol), you will notice that it occurred to man to doubt God's existence before it occurred to him to prove it. Even the Native Americans and Aztecs, before being exposed to missionary efforts, had such a concept. We hear of the Great Spirit as an ancient teaching of the Native Americans, indicating that they accepted another, perhaps creator force.
In the past, atheists have tried to disprove God, but they have failed. C.S. Lewis, for example, once fought bitterly to disprove God's existence, but eventually was cornered with His stark reality. He later wrote that "If I find in myself a desire which nothing in this world can fill, I can only conclude that I am meant for another world." (paraphrased) By this, Lewis implied that something higher than himself (I know you guys are all getting so sick of that term by now) must have instilled that desire within him in order to seek it out. Blaise Pascal spoke of a God-shaped hole in every man's heart which nothing else can properly fill. Perhaps it was this God-shaped hole that caused man to believe in God before he questioned Him.
Each society, throughout history, has been based on the belief of some higher power. Just because all the residents of these societies don't subscribe to the foundational beliefs does not mean that the beliefs are absent. Again, looking back through history, you will find that most early civilizations were based around the worship of one pantheon or another. Those who doubted the fixture of their culture weren't widely known and celebrated for most of history. Only recently (and by recent, I mean within the last 500-600 years) have the atheists come into the open.
Now, throughout this thread, gravity has been brought up many times. I would like to point out that, while gravity was not understood for much of man's history (however long you want to say that is), it was not widely believed that we were all being pushed downwards. It was not believed that tiny strings (of what I have no idea. Still haven't had that blasted theory explained to me) were holding us down. In fact, it wasn't widely believed that gravity was the unifying theory (if you will). Our predecessors simply did not consider it at all. Had Newton skewed the facts to say that part or Xenu's evil plan was to imprison all life on earth on the ground by use of alien force fields that ran on baked beans, it would have been accepted (had they known about the wild and wonderfully stupid world of Scientology) until someone else had the guts to challenge Newton.
But suppose Newton did get it wrong. Suppose some scientist comes along, wipes his nose (and a few other places) with Newton's ideas on gravity and says "THIS is how it really is!" and proposes a crazy theory that sounds totally outlandish but is completely right once it is studied and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the scientific method (it was hamsters, and not baked beans, for example). Are those who believed in gravity before the awesome power of hamsters was fully understood now thought to be irrational? Or are they only thought irrational when they cling to their long-held beliefs, deny the power of hamsters and just say no to Xenu?
What I hope you have gathered from the crazy (and hopefully entertaining) example above is that just because an idea that was widely accepted (and even held to be gospel, if you will pardon the irony) is challenged by something that seems to (remember, it's impossible to %100 prove something) make sense (Giant hamsters can turn turbines efficiently and are the answer to the energy problem. There's no way to prove me wrong without testing it first, so my idea stands. Screw hybrids! Screw ethanol! Let's go hamster!) doesn't mean that the original idea is wrong.
So, in closing, the burden of proof lies with the atheists because theirs is a position that was adopted in opposition to the one that was generally accepted at first. Thank you, and may the hamsters be with you.
However, saying this from what we have discovered over time is that almost all modern religions (especially the big ones) are pretty much bullshit and we have presented the evidence of this and it is easily found with some research. So it's religions turn to present proof.
In addition Scott, were you up to freaking 2 am last night writing that? Good thing you don’t actually do work at work! Jesus!
Just an additional note, this is why someone believing in the telepathy or talking to the dead or something has the burden of proof on them. While the Skeptic does not have to prove himself. He is the questioner and therefore is asking for evidence, not making a claim that needs to be supported, he is questioning another's claim.
I'd also just like to throw this out, because Rym and Scott quite often teeter on the edge of trying to do too much with science: the scientific method cannot be used to evaluate the general notion of the existence or non-existence of any sort of higher power. Period. We can use logic, reason, and the scientific method to deconstruct all the claims around said divinity, but it cannot impugne the divinity itself. For example, we can demonstrate the secular origins of the Bible, but doing so does not necessarily mean that you have also demonstrated the non-existence of its god. Also, disbelieving a scientific principle is not necessarily irrational, as long as you use rational methodolgy to question it. Remember that scientific analyses have a 95% confidence limit; that 5% is much larger than it sounds. So, statements like this: are not in line with scientific thinking. I'm not saying that Scott has suggested as such, I'm just saying not to misinterpret it as being such.
How so? God is disproven by default for the 100% lack of evidence. How exactly did these atheists try to "disprove" the notion? How exactly did they "fail?" Again, you're citing the old practices of ignorant people as evidence. How is this a useful citation? What "stark reality" are you talking about? C.S. Lewis is by no means an authority, and his personal beliefs are not evidence of anything beyond his personal beliefs. Pascal's Wager has been clearly and totally shown to be fallacious. Furthermore, you're again citing another person's personal belief as opposed to actual evidence.
I don't want to sound rude, but here is where you shoot yourself in the foot particularly well.
See, your main argument before was that many people believed in something, so therefore it must be lent credence. Here, however, you now make the exact opposite argument. If the "hamster" as shown to be real, and gravity were shown to be wrongly explained, then anyone who didn't accept the better theory would be an irrational person. People accepted Newton's laws because they were readily observable and easily repeatable. To deny them is to deny logical thought.
Holding on to a clearly unproven, fallacious, or disproven belief is irrational no matter how old or dear that belief may be. You've now argued against your own position... You're not serious with this statement, are you? That's a terribly ignorant, illogical, and intellectually dishonest stance to take. If this statement is true, then you can't argue against the following: "You can't prove that I'm not god, so my idea that I'm god must stand." This is an equally poor statement that has zero logical basis. (Nevermind that fact that you're already assuming a lot without very much citation to back it up). By your logic, the very first irrational belief system mankind conceived must be true, and all more modern irrational beliefs bear the burden of proof. An irrational idea is still irrational no matter who said it first. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the one making the extraordinary claim. This is the imporant part of all this. No theistic argument has EVER demonstrated rational methodology.
Say someone believes that there is an invisible cucumber following them around. They pray to it, sacrifice to it, worship it, talk to it, etc... Are you saying I can't call this person delusional?
Religious ideas aren't somehow immune to criticism or "sacred." They are simply ideas like any other, subject to the same scrutiny as any other idea. Saying there is a god is no different than saying there is a space cucumber. If someone believing in a space cucumber is delusional, then someone believing in a god is equally delusional. The belief in "god" is not special or different from any other belief.
Yes, trust the authority of people who have a vested interest in maintaining for belief in their sky man. Don't think for yourself. It's not a matter of convincing. If someone makes an unreasonable claim, it is intellectually dishonest to not call them on it and ask for backing. You can not let an unfounded and extraordinary statement stand unquestioned.
A person is free to make such extraordinary and unsubstantiated claims. They must, however, be prepared to accept criticism of these claims. In this thread, most of these claims have been used in some manner of support for other unsubstantianted and extraordinary claims. It is mere rational discourse to logically refute them.
Anyone who cannot take criticism of an idea they put forth really shouldn't be participating in a rational discussion.
So, if Rym and Scott were having an argument and Rym made the ordinary claim of, "Scott, why did you drink the last of the apple juice and put the near empty container back in the fridge?" Who would have to prove what?
1) We all know that Scott is partial to Apple Juice.
2) We do not know if Scott has a history of putting near empty containers back in the fridge.
3) We also know that there currently is a near empty container of apple juice in the fridge.
Now, if he said that, and I knew that no one had visited our house in the previous several weeks, then said claim would move from ordinary to extraordinary and require some backing.
We'll assume the following:
Apple Juice container found in fridge empty.
Only Rym and Scott have access to fridge.
Logically, we can add the following reasonable assumptions:
The guilty party is aware of his guilt.
The innocent party is aware of his innocence.
Thus, there are three possible answers:
Rym is the cause.
Scott is the cause.
One of the assumptions was made incorrectly.
As there is only a single state change up for debate, the matter become an either/or situation:
(Rym EXCLUSIVE OR Scott is the cause) EXCLUSIVE OR (An assumption is incorrect).
In this case, the matter is already settled unless one of the parties chooses to lie. Proof is inherent in the logical analysis of the situation.
In the case of a lie, the truth of innocence is still known to the innocent party. He can thus logically assume that the other party is guilty, and cannot be faulted for making this assessment. Still, no conclusion can be had to the argument, even though the truth is known to both. This impasse can occur only when one or more parties in an argument choose to be intellectually dishonest. In a pure situation with all things being equal, an arbiter cannot make a determination beyond the statement that "one of you is lying, barring a fallacious assumption."
Now, this is not a pure situation where all things are equal. There is additional evidence which can break the impasse.
"We all know that Scott is partial to apple juice."
In this case, it is now more likely that Scott was the cause. The more partial Scott is to Apple juice compared to Rym, the more likely it is that his intereaction was the cause. This is not proof, but it places the burden of proof closer to Scott.
All other things being equal, Scott must now refute this evidence with equal or superior evidence. If he does not, an arbiter can reasonably make the statement that "Scott is likely the cause." As this evidence is fairly weak, Scott could refute it with equally weak evidence, such as "I'm partial to it, so I'm more careful with it: I wouldn't leave an empty bottle, wasting space that could be used to chill a full bottle."
Now, if we add statement: "Rym does not drink apple juice," things chance considerably. This means that Scott is much more likely the cause, barring the possibility of intellectual dishonesty or malice on the part of Rym. Scott would now bear the burden of proof, and have to show that Rym is the liar, or that Rym does indeed drink apple juice, to shift the burden of proof back.
The burden of proof can be shifted back and forth. Some forms of proof themselves require other proof. Some forms are stronger than others. Scott's or Rym's fingerprints on the bottle would constitute much stronger proof than anecdotal evidence of Rym's malice or Scott's forgetfulness.
The arbiter weighs the evidence and counterevidence and makes a conclusion when either all evidence has been presented.
The key here is that all of this occurs, in the case of the apple juice, only if a party is intellectually dishonest or deceitful. The entire exchange could occur before the arbiter despite both parties knowing full well the truth.
The burden of proof always falls, in the end, back onto the person making the unbacked or disputed claim. Here, as there is evidence that Scott drinks apple juice and Rym does not, and barring any evidence of Rym holding malice and intent to act on said malice, the burden of proof falls squarely on Scott, who now has to make the claim that someone other than him moved the juice, which is an extraordinary claim. It is extraordinary in that is challanges one of the asumptions of the argument.
Now, if both parties are intellectually honest and trust one another, then and only then can assumptions be fully challenged. If both Rym and Scott declare innocence, and trust one another, then it can be assumed that the third asusmption is incorrect, and they can then seek out the real truth.
What if we take this into a court of law, how are things changed?
Let's pretend we're in a world with no evidence. We don't know anything. We have to guess how the world works. Let's start counting the possible explanations of the universe with one god. Now let's add in all the possibilities with multiple gods. Now let's add all the possibilities with different combinations of natural, supernatural, female, male, genderless, alien, good and bad gods. Oh wait, there are infinity different possibilities with gods. OK, so let's count the possibilities without gods. What's that you say? There are also infinity possible explanations of the universe that do not include the idea of god or gods. There are infinity different possible explanations for the universe in total. Some include deities, and some do not. Without evidence, all of them have an equal chance of being correct, as far as we can know. That chance is one divided by infinity. That's effectively zero.
Now, let's toss some evidence into the mix. Let's say we get some evidence, say that gravity exists. So now we take those explanations of the universe that describe gravity as is supported by the evidence, and we give them better odds than the other explanations. Then we get a little more evidence and we narrow the possibilities down further. Eventually we collect mountains and mountains of evidence and narrow down the possibilities even more. We still haven't completely ruled out any of the possibilities. There are still infinite possibilities. However, only a few billion or trillion of those possibilities have supporting evidence. Therefore, those possibilities are more likely. There has never been evidence supporting explanations of the universe which include any deity. Before we had evidence for anything, religious explanations had a one in infinity chance of being correct. Now, seeing that there is evidence for non-religious explanations and still no evidence for religion, they have even less than a one in infinity chance of being correct. You aren't making a 50/50 bet as Pascal falsely believed. If the bet were 50/50, I would also bet on god. You are making a bet with infinitely worse odds than 00 on a roulette wheel.
Another thing. People of faith select only one possible explanation of the universe and believe it to be true. People of reason and science, using their evidence, don't select just one. They select an insanely large number of possibilities, but a number less than infinity, that all fit the evidence. It could be this explanation with a big bang, or it could be that one with dark matter. It could be this one with both, or it could be that one with neither. There are many possible explanations that are supported equally by the evidence we have. Scientists treat all those possible explanations supported by evidence equally. So even without changing the odds of any one explanation, scientists have a better than one in infinity chance of being correct because they accept many possibilities. Faith can only get you one possibility, and that one possibility still has a 1/infinity chance of being right. When you take evidence into consideration, faith in god has less than a one in infinity chance of being correct.
As for so-called agnostics, they fall into two categories. One category are people who are theists who want to maintain the appearance of rationality. Not much can be said about them other than that they are easier to talk to than completely irrational theists. The second category of agnostics are just wussy atheists afraid to upset anyone or engage in unpleasant debate. If you were seriously agnostic through and through, you could never say anything. You couldn't be sure 1+1=2. You'd have to put a question mark as the answer to every problem on every test in school. If you recognize that you can't be sure 1+1=2, but you still live your life accepting that 1+1=2, then the only difference an agnostic has is a semantic one. You simply bring forth and pay much more attention to the .000001% chance of 1+1 not being equal to 2. Proper atheists also recognize that small chance of 1+1 not being two, we just thing is is necessary to constantly draw attention to the fact that there is a ludicrously small chance than 1+1 is not 2. If you claim to be agnostic, but live your life as if there were no god, you are just an atheist who draws lots of attention the fact that you know you are possibly wrong in order to avoid unpleasant conflict with irrational human beings.
I think what I've learned from this is that maybe those wussy agnostics have a smart game going on. I can think of few things more frustrating than attempting rational discourse with irrational intelligences. People with real faith truly are irrational and delusional through and through. Even if you present them with all the evidence, logic and reason in the universe, it won't matter. You could show them right in front of their faces the secret to doing a magic trick, and they will still believe you used real magic powers. They are completely unwilling or incapable of reason. Trying to help them usually isn't worth the effort. To back up this claim, I present this discussion as evidence.
Of course, there is another view of all this.
As we are determining guilt of a malfeasance, there is more to consider. A court of law does not merely decide the truth, but it has the power to act on that decision with force. The US legal system always places the burden of proof on the accuser, and assumes innocence until proven guilty in order to allay the possibility of that force being misused. You have to present evidence against someone in order to bring them to trial: by default they are not guilty and must prove nothing.
Choosing whether or not to go to trial is much like the above. The accuser does not have to prove their case fully, but they must present evidence to convince an arbiter that there is probable cause to believe that the defendant is guilty. I would have to present my evidence that Scott is the cause.
In an actual trial, we in practice hold the accuser's claim to always be extraordinary, and as such we always require extraordinary proof. The defendant is innocent in the eyes of the arbiter unless such evidence is presented and verified.
In our case of the Apple juice, I could be reasonably sure that Scott was the cause with certain kinds of evidence. I could make the logical conclusion that Scott was the cause, and I could not be faulted for such a conclusion. I might not be able, however, to convince a court arbiter (judge/jury) of the same, as they require a very high level of evidence consistent more with extraordinary claims than ordinary ones.
While this can lead to situations where most people agree that a person is guilty of a crime, yet they are still found innocent, it provides a statistical safeguard against finding an innocent person guilty.
So, if Rym were suing Scott in a criminal case he would have to proof his case beyond a shadow of a doubt while if he was only pursuing a civil case the burden of proof would not be near as high.
Of course, we can have effectively such a ruling with a hung jury.
If Rym took a criminal warrant, he'd have to (in Kentucky) go file a warrant in the County Attorney's office. A County Attorney (the prosecutors who only deal with misdemeanors) would review the warrant and decide whether he believed there was probable cause. If he didn't he would tell Rym to die in a fire. If he did, he would schedule a mediation. Scott would be notified but not subponaed. If the mediation produced a result, then everyone would be happy. If not, the warrant would go to warrant court.
There the County Attorney would pretry the case with Rym and Scott's attorney. If they could reach a plea agreement it would be over. If not, then they would set a trial date. If the warrant charged a felony, there might be a probable cause hearing in which the warrant court judge would decide whether there was probable cause to hold the case for the grand jury. The judge decides probable cause exists in 99.9% of cases she hears. If the grand jury hears evidence and decides there's probable cause, they indict and the case goes to circuit court. In circuit court the Commonwealth Attorney (the prosecutors who only deal with felonies) would try again to negotiate a plea, but the stakes would be higher. Again, Scott could have the case set for trial if he didn't want to plead.
At trial in both district and circuit court, the standard of proof would be proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In Kentucky (my jurisdiction before I moved to the D.C. area), the attorneys are specifically prohibited from trying to define proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a question for the jurors to decide. I've seen them decide that lay witness testimony is good enough and I've seen them decide that expert witness testimony and even lay eye-witness testimony is not good enough.
At any rate there are two burdens Rym would have to overcome in order to see Scott rot under the jail: probable cause (laughably easy) and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (harder but sometimes easier than mathematical or scientific proof)
If Rym sued civilly, he wouldn't have to show probable cause. He'd just have to file a complaint. At trial, he'd just have to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence (that it was more likely than not).
In criminal cases, the jurors would have to be unnanimous either way. In civil cases, only 3/4 would have to agree.
Can this be taken to mean that the jury should consist of people similar to the accused or the plaintiff?
Should Scott have a jury comprised of people who like apple juice?
Can Rym make sure some of the people on the jury think "soda burns" is wildly funny?
If it were a jury of peers of the defendant and the crime was one of murder should they go to the local prison and get a bunch of murders for the jury pool?
Yes, I am being facetious here, can't you tell?
He used self-defense as his reason and he got off.
You might wonder how, after hitting someone and beating them to a bloody pulp, he got off on a self-defense stance? Well, this guy was big, real big. When he was being cross-examined he explained to the prosecutor (jury trial) that all his life he has always been bigger than the people around him. "When I hit someone, they go down and stay down," he calmly stated, "but this guy, I hit him and he did not go down. This is the first time in my life this has ever happened. I was terrified. I knew that if I did not get him to go down I would probably be dead! I have never been so scared in my entire life!"
The jury bought it and he got off on some lesser charge and had to do some community service.
Let me just restate that this guy was huge. He was the type of guy who could hand you an engine block with one hand and not even grunt. We used to joke that he could put a tank barrel over one shoulder and walk it across the motor pool!
I've used that defense in a case in which a huge guy smacked down a small female co-worker. My guy said the girl was coming at him with a box cutter.
You probably wouldn't get a judge to even allow you an instruction of self defense in a case where your defendant reloaded a firearm. There is an imminence element to the defense and the act of reloading would most likely defeat it.
In my jurisdiction the question is not for the jurors to decide. The judge reads a definition of "reasonable doubt." The definition specifically says that it does not mean beyond all "shadow of a doubt."
You are approaching an intersection. You have a green light. A car is coming from a street that has a red light. The car will hit you if it doesn't stop. You continue through the green light.
Why did you continue? Because you believed beyond a reasonable doubt that the other car would stop and not hit you.
Did you know that beyond any shadow of a doubt? Of course not. He could have been suicidal. He could have been asleep. The possibilities are endless.
Yet you went through the intersection.
How does one determine whether a claim is ordinary or extraordinary? Does the "general consensus" have anything to do with it, even implicitly? Can it be proved that the claim "The universe was made by a creator" is extraordinary, while the claim "The universe exists without a creator" is ordinary? Anyone?