If the basic premise of the case was to prove the existence of ONE deity -- any deity -- beyond the shadow of a doubt, who would win?
Who would be the prosecution, and who would be the defense? Why?
2007-07-12 03:03:52 · 24 answers · asked by Deke 5 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
When I ask "who would be the prosecution", etc., I meant which side of the argument, not what specific figureheads.
2007-07-12 03:07:42 · update #1
Atheism, obviously, because it's the only rationally justifiable position.
2007-07-12 03:06:10 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
The notion of prosecution and defense are inappropriate for an intellectual debate, and prejudice the scenario in which they meet.
Remember that in order for a prosecutor (who deal only in criminal matters in the USA) to bring charges against an individual, the prosecutor must first prove to a grand jury that there has been harm done (laws have been broken), and that the individual being charged was likely involved, before the case actually gets taken before a trial jury.
So frankly, the court room trial idea is really a rather absurd and inappropriate way to have such a debate.
As for the merits of either side, frankly, the information is totally inconclusive. We as humans don't know enough about the universe to be able to claim one way or the other. Hardened atheists and theists alike can't possibly prove either side in a way which removes doubt.
2007-07-12 03:13:42 · answer #2 · answered by notheory 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
"Beyond the shadow of a doubt" makes it impossible for Theism to win this case. There is historical evidence and circumstantial evidence but it can not be proven to that extent. The belief requires some faith.
This would also be true for scientific theories such as evolution, big-bang theory, etc. It is quite difficult to prove anything "beyond the shadow of doubt".
2007-07-12 03:14:51 · answer #3 · answered by Truth is elusive 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Judge and Jury would have to be robots programmed to understand law, logic, and reasoning, either that or they all should be agnostics.
Theists would be the defense on the Charges of False advertising and fraud, as well as tax-fraud.
Nobody would win, God can neither be proven or disproven, however when religion attempts to enter the domain of Facts using creationism and other security blankets as explanations of holes in the bible, then they will be subject to the process in which an opinion goes through before becoming fact.
2007-07-12 03:13:43 · answer #4 · answered by Ian G 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Honestly, neither should be able to win in a courtroom. There is supposed to be a separation of Church and State. Since a judge has no official ability to rule over one religion or the other, than it's a moot point.
2007-07-12 03:07:48 · answer #5 · answered by Lord Havick 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I picture something from the original planet of the apes, where the ape judges are the theists, while atheists are charleton heston. He has logic and proof on his side, and is the defense. The prosecution is sitting in their see no evil hear no evil speak no evil stance while Heston is speaking the evidence to prove his case. In the end the ignorant apes will throw out the case and raise holy hell against us for our heresy.
2007-07-12 03:09:00 · answer #6 · answered by PoseidenNeptuneReturns 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No theism could not win, it is here-say evidence. But I sure don't want to think about another trial like the Snopes Monkey Trials again, no repeats please!
Oh! Atheists with their need for evidence would prosecute.
2007-07-12 03:07:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
The jury pool would be 91% theist and only 3% atheist in America. I am sure you have a "logical" explanation on who would win.
Have "FAITH" dear friend in God.
Romans 10:17.
Isaiah 45:18
2007-07-12 03:22:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Atheists would win.
They would be the defense, since the prosecution is responsible for proving its claim beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are plenty of reasons to have reasonable doubt.
The biggest difficulty would be finding an impartial judge.
2007-07-12 03:09:00 · answer #9 · answered by Brent Y 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
People who believe in god would have to be the defendant's side. And we atheists as the prosecution, sounds accurate. Unfortunately if it's played out in front of a jury, chances are a few of them would be helplessly biased by their own beliefs and it would be a hung jury.
2007-07-12 03:11:31 · answer #10 · answered by RealRachel 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
well, Theists would be prosecution, atheists would play defenders and of course Atheist will win!
why?, simply because the theists group would offer evidence of the deity from the book of there religion aka Quran, Old testament, new testament, Zabor.
But no court at least in USA would take that evidence as a valid evidence and there only evidence would be shot down!
example Dover Trail Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Kitzmiller won! and so only Evolution is thought in there science classes!
2007-07-12 03:06:44 · answer #11 · answered by Love Exists? 6 · 2⤊ 4⤋