God on Trial

god on trial

God on Trial

 

Should we question the things we have been told to believe or should we just believe them without evidence out of fear of punishment from some cosmic cloud deity? In the legal world evidence is required to support all claims, why do we give religion a free pass?

What evidence could be presented to validate this claim? Many would say the Bible, but the Bible is not proof of anything.  A book that was written by a few men based on the writings of a handful of people from thousands of years ago that was translated hundreds of times into many different languages should not be considered as anything more than a book of fables. Do you know anyone that actually witnessed God or Jesus? As far as we know there are four main people that can testify on behalf of these stories, but they are nothing more than anonymous fictional characters with no last names. The entire story relies upon four men who all we know are named Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark. I say they are anonymous because nothing else is known about them.

Imagine a police officer filing a police report about a crime and naming four people named Matthew, Luke, John, and Mark … no last names, no addresses, no phone numbers … nothing more than just first names.  Then to make it worse, these 4 anonymous people cannot be called upon to even testify because no one knows where or who they are. Would this case hold up in court? Would this case even be charged by a competent district attorney?

If this case were brought to trial, who would we call as witnesses? What evidence could be presented other than the written testimony of 4 anonymous men that no one knows anything about or how to locate them? Could God Himself be called to testify on His own behalf?

If we were to examine and treat this as we would any standard judicial proceeding this would be thrown out of court, so why is this any different? All other things in life we require evidence for except in this one area where we are expected to accept it on mere faith alone.

If we were to treat faith and religion in the same manner as we do with matters of the legal world and our justice system, what would happen if using those same rules of evidence that we do in any other judicial matter we put God On Trial?

Imagine if you will a court setting with a judge, jury, prosecutor, and defense attorney. To get in the right frame of mind, imagine this as a Monty Python skit.

God on Trial-

Judge: Mr. Prosecutor you may call your first witness.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, the State would like to enter the testimony of Mathew into the record.

Judge: Is Mathew in the courtroom?

Prosecutor: No Your Honor, Mathew could not be here today.

Judge: Then how will he testify if he is not present?

Prosecutor: Your Honor, I have his testimony written down.

Judge: Is this a sworn testimony?

Prosecutor: Well, not exactly Your Honor we were not able to get his testimony directly from him.

Judge: Well why not?

Prosecutor: Because he has been dead for many hundreds of years Your Honor.

Defense Attorney: Your Honor I object! The State can’t use the testimony of a non-sworn witness that has been dead for hundreds of years.

Judge: Objection sustained. Mr. Prosecutor do you have any other witnesses?

Prosecutor: Well, yes Your Honor I do. I would like to enter the testimony of Luke into the record.

Judge: Luke, please take the stand.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, Luke also could not be here today.

Judge: So how is he going to testify?

Prosecutor: I have his testimony written down Your Honor.

Judge: Is this Luke of the living Mr. Prosecutor?

Prosecutor: No, Your Honor, he is deceased as well.

Defense Attorney: Your Honor, once again I object on the same grounds!

Judge: Objection sustained! Mr. Prosecutor, do you have any actual witnesses that are alive and here today that can take the stand?

Prosecutor: Your Honor, I do have two other witnesses, but unfortunately they are also deceased and all I have is their testimony written down on paper from hundreds of years ago. May I enter into the record the testimony of John and Mark Your Honor?

Defense Attorney: Your Honor this is an outrage and I object!

Judge: OBJECTION SUSTAINED! Mr. Prosecutor, do you have any evidence at all to support your case other than the writings of 4 anonymous men from hundreds of years ago that no one knows anything about other than their first names?

Prosecutor: Yes Your Honor I do, as luck would have it all four of these men happen to have their testimony entered into this book called the Bible. I also have great faith that all of this is true.

Defense Attorney: Your Honor, I call for an immediate dismissal of this case with prejudice!

Judge: Case dismissed with prejudice, and I will be drafting a formal complaint to the Bar for wasting my time with this matter Mr. Prosecutor!

In the legal world, this would end something like this. In the faith world, we are supposed to ignore all of the rules of evidence and blindly accept and promote this nonsense.

The Bible

 

 

The Burden of Proof

 

proof

The Burden of Proof

 

In legal matters, as well as most other things in the real world, the burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. If someone accused you of murdering someone and you were charged with the crime of murder, during your trial it would be up to the State to “prove” beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the murder that you have been accused of. Indeed as it should be the ‘burden of proof’ would be on the person or entity making the claim. It would not be up to you to prove you did not commit the murder, and this, of course, is how it should be.

Most things in life operate this way … except in the area known as religion. I have been asked before to prove there is no God, and although I believe the evidence weighs heavily in my favor, I can’t prove a negative. I also do not have to because the burden of proof in this lies with the one making the claim, the theist. Someone could not claim to be an atheist had there not been a theist first. I could not claim to not be something without knowing what it is that I am claiming not to be.  It stands to reason the theist made the claim and has the burden of proof in this matter.

If I were to make the claim that I have little green men living under my bed, and at night they come out and talk to me, most people would assume that the burden of proof lies with me to substantiate this claim. It would not be up to others to prove I do not have little green men hiding under my bed; because it would be impossible for them to do so, you can’t prove a negative. I might say they only talk to me or that only I can see them making it impossible for anyone to prove that I am wrong. But since I am not able to prove my statement, most sane and rational people would discount my claim as the ramblings of a mad man.

Should we give any more credibility to someone making the claim for a God without first demanding they give proof to their claim?  Why do we not demand the same proof for this claim as we do everything else in life?

God On Trial