Difference between revisions of "Talk:Proof"
(Legal Proof) |
(Sillybear25' edit comment) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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) | ||
Revision as of 02:36, April 5, 2007
Tsumetai-- I think JC's contribution was helpful. Some scientists might not recognize a concept called "biblical proof", but that's the whole point, really. The mathematical and scientific and religious meanings of "proof" are NOT THE SAME. Maybe that's why creationists get so confused about the theory of evolution. They are accustomed to religious proof (believing certain things are facts, based on faith), and they don't understand that science never tries to "prove" "facts". So I am going to revert to include JC's part on biblical proof.
- I'm not against a section on biblical proof per se. Just not that one. The definition of 'God' is already in the God article, and as for the statement that proof of all things can be found in the Bible...well, I invite anyone who believes that to provide a proof (or disproof) of, say, Goldbach's Conjecture. Tsumetai 06:23, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Legal Proof
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). 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...??? Philip J. Rayment 22:36, 4 April 2007 (EDT)