Is this legal proof God exists?

Question

Since torture is admissable evidence in some courts under US jurisdiction...
Women have in the past been tortured and admitted to having sex with the Devil
The Devil is well known to have been created by God
God Exists

the question is legal proof not absolute proof or does god actually exist. This arguement supports the notion that if you were submitting this to a court of law that God would exist!!

thanks James for at least having an answer addressing the fact that I asked for a legal proof not some christian existentialist arguement a la Kierkegaard

Answer 1

You could probably get Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy to sign off on it.

Answer 2

You need to take a logic class, my friend. This is one of the faultiest arguments I've seen on here in ages. For one thing, there is no logical connection to any of the points you make. The first point is irrelevant to the entire argument, because even if torture happens somewhere, that does not mean that the torture somewhere else has anything to do with it. Those women tortured in the past were just that: in the past, and somewhere else. Has nothing to do with the United States. The second point does not prove the existence of the devil at all, because they could have lied, and being tortured almost ensures that they did. Of course a woman would admit to having sex with the devil if she was being tortured: that's what they wanted the women to say! Thus, even if your point that the devil was created by God were true, it doesn't prove a thing. There is no logical connection here at all.

And that doesn't take into account the fact that every point you make above is individually dubious in the first place.

Answer 3

If that question got you about ten feet closer to the straw, you might be close enough to grasp at it.

Re your additional details: There are two problems with this as a legal proof. The opposition to this case would have no problems finding stronger precedents contradicting your assertion that testimony acquired during torture is legally admissible. All legal precedents in civil or criminal courts are going to be quite old, and precedents originating from military tribunals, or militarily related procedures are not going to carry a lot of weight in a civilian court.

The second problem stems from the third step of your proof. That the devil is "known" to have been created by god is unverified, unverifiable, and, in any case, heresay, acquired from an unreliable second-person source. The assertion, as you present it is not "known".

Additionally, you are citing god as a legitimate entity, in his alleged role as the creator of the devil, before you have proven that he actually exists. Since this god has not been legally proven to exist, has no birth certificate, no death certificate, no tax records, or any public or private records, of any kind, he cannot be considered a legal entity, therefore, any and all paternity claims (fathering the devil) will be considered invalid. In short, even in a legal proof, you can't include god as part of your proof that god exists. Even a person as ignorant as a judge understands the concept of self-referential proof.

Answer 4

I prefer r/l logical proof that God exists. Like the second law of thermodynamics and the concept that there can be no life except of previous life of a like kind. -spontaneous generation cannot happen.

If you wish to prove that the second law of thermodynamics is flawed; and if you wish to believe in spontaneous generation, I can't stop you. If you can't prove those things then you are operating out of belief. Not rational thought or concrete reality.

Please allow those of us who do understand rational proof of God to maintain our reasonable practices and moral values based on God's teachings as we can best understand them.

Christians, at least, are willing to allow you to continue your silly belief that there is no God.

Answer 5

not even logical. observe:

In logic, an argument is a set of statements, consisting of a number of premises, a number of inferences, and a conclusion, which is said to have the following property: if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true, or highly likely to be true. An argument is thus an attempt to demonstrate that the truth of the conclusion follows from the truth of the premises, and the role of the inferences is to illustrate why this connection exists.

An argument proceeds from premises to inferences to conclusion by employing a particular form of reasoning. If the reasoning is deductive, then the argument attempts to show that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. If the reasoning is inductive, the argument may show only that the conclusion is highly likely to be true if the premises are true. Other forms of reasoning are also used, with corresponding variations in the precise sense in which the conclusion follows from the premise.

Answer 6

No. But there is legal proof that the 'belief in God' exist

Answer 7

Sounds like you are talking about the inquisition . . .
You would probably admit to having sex with the devil too, to stop the torcher if you were being torchered.

Answer 8

That whole statement really doesn't make much sense, but I'll say this: Any woman who says "I had sex with Beelzebub!!!" has got to be a few fries short of a happy meal.

Answer 9

Is there legal proof that you can think or understand logic?

Answer 10

Is there proof that there isn't a God? I don't think so. It is based on faith.