nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + + + +
Sillybear25' edit comment
Is there a reason that legal proofs should not be included in this article? In summary, a criminal case is considered "proved" if the prosecution case can be made "beyond reasonable doubt", and a civil case is considered "proved" if the case can be made on the basis of more likely than not (although I'm not a lawyer and don't know the proper terminology). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
Is there a reason that legal proofs should not be included in this article? In summary, a criminal case is considered "proved" if the prosecution case can be made "beyond reasonable doubt", and a civil case is considered "proved" if the case can be made on the basis of more likely than not (although I'm not a lawyer and don't know the proper terminology). [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:28, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
== Sillybear25' edit comment ==
In removing the "Biblical Proof" section (which I'm not reinstating because I don't really understand what it was getting at), he said, "''the bible doesn't give proof. the point of religion is tthat it is faith-based, and cannot be proven. That's why not everyone is a Christian. See Douglas Adams's Hitchhiker's Guide for the reasons)''". When oh when are bibliosceptics going to stop telling Christians what the basis of their beliefs are? "Faith", in the Bible, is ''not'' something without evidence. It is ''trust, based on evidence''. Sure, there may not be scientific/mathematical/etc. "proof", but neither is it evidence-free. And citing a work of fiction in support...??? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)