page contents Paste your Google Webmaster Tools verification code here Skip to content

[avatar user=”Neil Brown” size=”thumbnail” align=”left” /]

Hi Randal. I apologise for the tardiness of my response. My evenings of late have been dominated by a battle with a pair of swallows who wish to construct their nest directly over my front door. I have to open an umbrella before braving the front porch….

You stated that the “jury convicts due to their certainty.” While I am largely ignorant of the minutiae of judicial proceedings, I believe certainty to be extrinsic to them. I am unclear as to what degree of assuredness might constitute reasonable doubt. I suspect it is subjective.

Can we legitimately claim that the murder weapon’s possession (or lack there of) forensic evidence does not sway the jury on their confidence scale. If the murder weapon were covered in fingerprints, if the prosecutor were able to present it, in addition to the video surveillance, would it not increase the level of certitude, would it not strengthen the case? If so, the absence of forensics must diminish (to some extent) that level of assuredness.

You defined evidence as “anything that influences an individual to believe that a particular assertion is true or false.” You explained (rightly so) that the more evidence we have the more confident we can be and that the cosmological argument constituted evidence for God. Yet should that evidence which originally bolstered your confidence, be refuted, your confidence would persist, unmolested, at its lofty locale.

Pardon my bluntness, but do you think that this way of coming to truth is a sincere one?





Published inThe Cosmological Argument