If the standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt”, then of course the jury acquits because as is evident there’s lots of reasonable doubt.
Would you "convict" God of existing? (i.e. as a jury member, does he exist beyond reasonable doubt?)
Isn’t that a little arrogant? Even for a Christian?
I think the better question would be (to use the OP’s odd phrasing): Would you convict God of NOT existing?
AS noted; reasonable doubt and faith go hand in hand. However, you don’t need any faith to NOT believe in something. So I’d be currious how that poll would turn out compared to this one.
Doesn’t get past the Grand Jury due to lack of probable cause. Actually you wouldn’t even can a judge to sign to original warrant due to no PC.
There will always be reasonable doubt because all reasonable people understand that to come to a completely correct conclusion every time we must have 100% of the information and have the wisdom to correctly interpret that information 100% of the time. Since no one has the information nor the wisdom required all our conclusions, are are open to being flawed.
So it really depends on what your definition of reasonable doubt is. To me the first cause philosophy stands and that in itself is enough proof of God to put His existence beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunately what is reasonable is riddled with our biases.
I am a theist, and though I do believe he exists, I voted no. That’s actually kind of the point, that his existence isn’t provable scientifically. That is, I believe that God’s manner of manipulating existence isn’t through super-natural means, as in reaching in and changing things, but rather through the initial set up state and laws, and so anything and everything is indistinguishable from natural law really only leaving the question of how did we get here. And, really, that wouldn’t be enough to be beyond a reasonable doubt. And, for the record, if the question were reversed and he were being charged with not existing, I would also answer no.
Atheist. No. But it would be cool serving on a jury of his peers.
How the hell would anyone know? We haven’t heard this defense or prosecution. My guess is that I wouldn’t, since I’ve read a lot of arguments for the existence of God, many by very smart people (Aquinas, Lewis, Polkinghorne, etc), and I find them lacking. But maybe the prosecutor has some incredible argument and evidence I’ve never seen before. How would I know?
This is sort of like having a jury full of eye witnesses, character witnesses, and testimonial experts.
You might be able to argue God from philosophy or personal experience, but there is currently no physically verifiable evidence, and that’s the kind of evidence I’d need to “convict”.
IANAL but it seems that in a court at Common Law, you could not even muster up clear and convincing evidence, never mind beyond reasonable doubt. All you’d have is some witness testimony and a lot of hearsay and speculation, with the witnesses’ testimony being mostly based on subjective experience and interpretation.
You seem confused as to what an atheïst/agnostic IS.
You can’t be a atheist and believe in god, in fact the essential part of the job description is you have to deny her existence.
You can’t be agnostic and have an opinion on the matter.