Reasonable Doubt

Today I am thinking about reasonable doubt, I feel that if a person can live or die in a court of law (especially since the United States has Capital Punishment) and according to our laws, a person cannot be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. If a reasonable doubt is a criteria for judging the guilt or innocence of an individual why can't we apply the same principles to religious claims or any claim in this regard. According to a law dictionary, beyond reasonable doubt is defined as - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. I found a good explanation on Infidel.org by a retired lawyer "In law there are generally three degrees of sufficiency of evidence. They are, in ascending order: 1) preponderance, 2) clear and convincing, and 3) beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove something by a preponderance of the evidence is to weigh the evidence on each side of an issue, declaring the side with the most evidence to be proven. This is the standard applied in most non-criminal trials. The clear and convincing standard is often required when one party is trying to prove something that is out of the ordinary, that is, something which doesn't ordinarily occur. An example in law would be trying to prove that someone who signed a deed or will did so against his will. That is so rare in the ordinary course of things that whoever makes such a claim must provide considerable evidence to support it. The beyond reasonable doubt test is used primarily in criminal trials, where the prosecution is required to prove its case with so much evidence that no reasonable person could doubt the accused guilt. “Man with no heart: Miracle and Evidence by Richard Packman. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. All three methods are methods of judgment that are pragmatic and used everyday in issues in courts of law that range from mundane events like will disputes to life and death cases, such as Capital Punishment cases. Therefore starting with preponderance is there more evidence for the existence of a creator than there is not? I won’t go through the arguments because they have been debated back and forth since at least the Enlightenment and the bottom line is if something natural can equally explain the natural then there is no need for a supernatural entity. Clear and convincing simply means extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you claim a miracle then the party making the miraculous claim is responsible for presenting the evidence to back-up the claim and if a natural explanation is plausible then the extraordinary evidence must be empirical. Christians often use Romans 1:20 as their evidence for the Biblical God existence, Paul wrote in Romans 1:20 " For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Nevertheless, creation does not present a complete unveiling of God's character. If creation reveals God's wisdom and power, then it gives us a very imperfect presentation. The fall of man doctrine if accepted means creation is under the curse and is flawed because it has been stained by sin. As a result, a flawed creation cannot be an ideal way for revealing an invisible God and hence, the testimony of creation or the argument from design is incongruous. Beyond a reasonable doubt, given two or more explanation which of the two is more practical or reasonable? I will use evolution versus creationism to discuss beyond reasonable doubt. What is the more practical explanation for explaining that humans and chimpanzees share 96 to 98% of the same DNA and both have a vitamin C deficiency; does this means we come from a common ancestor or is a supernatural explanation feasible? Which is more reasonable? If we remove our biases then it is more practical we share a common ancestor and this explanation is more reasonable. Therefore, before we take a leap of faith, when there is evidence, we should go with the evidence. Think about it....