Let's put the Christian God on trial and see what shakes loose.
As with any trial, we need some basic parts. We need at least one of the following, but could also have multiples of each:
1) a prosecutor (the person who will be trying to attain a "guilty" verdict for god existing. This person will be trying to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a god does in fact exist and that this god is specifically the Christian god)
2) a defense attorney (the person who will be examining the prosecutor's evidence and logic to find flaws. This person is attempting to attain a "not guilty" verdict, indicating that the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that a god exists and/or that the christian god exists specifically)
3) Specialists for examination and cross-examination (this could be anyone who is a scientist on the forum and could be a specialist for questions pertaining to science, or someone who is sufficiently qualified with respect to the Bible and Christian dogma/beliefs. The specialist is not someone who is levying charges, but someone who will either validate or invalidate the arguments/rebuttals of the Defender and/or prosecutor)
4) A judge (only one of these. The judge's job in this case will not be to render a verdict but instead will be the mediator/arbiter of the trial. I'll take on this role but I will also note that I am a geologist and may also appear as a specialist because that sounds like an interesting job for me)
5) Jury Members (we can have many of these, but the jury will primarily be the audience observing and reading the arguments. It would be nice to have the Jury members identified beforehand though, so any volunteers here will be good. Jury members aren't expected to engage in the debate between the prosecution and defense, or their discussions with specialists or the Judge. The judge may render instructions to the jury. It might be a good idea for a jury member to create a second thread for discussion of the "trial" so that the jury can deliberate on topics raised herein)
As with any trial, we also need some ground rules:
1) be as cordial as possible. Leave the insults at home. If you want to be a prick about something, please do so in another thread (such as a discussion thread for the jury members)
2) present relevant links to corroborating information when presenting an argument. This may not be necessary always, but if asked for a reference or citation, one must be given.
3) Specialists can be called by either defender or prosecutor, and can be called to present said citations and references. The specialists need to identify what their expertise is on
4) The goal is to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a god is guilty of existence" as opposed to "god is innocent of existing" as only the positive claim can be verified. Prosecuting attorneys can't simply pass the burden of proof of on the defender and say something along the lines of "prove god doesn't exist." The Prosecuting attorney(s) must accept that it is their burden to prove god and not the defenders burden to prove no god.
5) We will try to keep things moving along a reasonable timeline. While it might be unreasonable to expect daily participation, the conversation should at least advance weekly (even if it only advances slowly over that timeframe).
6) The basic structure will be as it would be in a court of law. We will give an initial opening statement to both the prosecutor and defender (if multiple sign up, then we will give each "attorney" a shot at an opening statement if they so wish, but let's restrict it to no more than 3 opening statements per side. Prosecution first, then defenders)
7) After the opening statements, the prosecutor gets the first go. They can call "witnesses" or specialists and present their evidence to back up any claims from their opening statement(s). We will limit this to one post for the prosecutor(s), and then give the defense one post for response.
8) Because of rule 7, it would be a good idea to have a system in place for the "attorneys" to use for responding if there are multiple attorneys for either defense or prosecution. Maybe a rotation? If there are 3 defenders, then they go in order they signed up (same for prosecutors). If the "attorneys" wish to work out a different way of responding (such as private messaging to decide who should respond and how), then they just need to let the judge know that they have a plan in place
9) if the sides have multiple attorneys, then I encourage them to have a system in place for them to communicate with one another. A side thread or private messaging, depending on whether or not you want the discussions in public or private. Obviously anything written in a public thread, could be permissible in the "trial"
10) The judge isn't there to decide which arguments are "right" or "wrong" and is instead primarily there to do 3 things: a) keep the conversation progressing, b) enforce the rules (if additional rules are needed, then the rule list will be amended and everyone will be notified in the thread), and c) determine when it is appropriate to end the "trial" and ask the jury to consider a ruling
11) If at any point someone in one of the roles wishes to recuse themselves, they simply need to let the judge know. As long as the necessary roles remain filled, then the trial will continue, but if any of the necessary roles are vacant then we will need to fill it again before proceeding.
So, if people are interested, then the first thing we need to do is fill the aforementioned roles. Once we have all of the necessary roles filled, we will give the prosecuting attorneys time to construct their opening statements. If the trial makes it to that point, then we will make the accompanying discussion thread after the prosecution gives its initial opening statement.
Roles to be filled:
1) Judge: TheBeardedDude
2) Prosecuting attorney(s):
3) Defense attorney(s):
4) Specialists:
5) Jury:
As with any trial, we need some basic parts. We need at least one of the following, but could also have multiples of each:
1) a prosecutor (the person who will be trying to attain a "guilty" verdict for god existing. This person will be trying to show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a god does in fact exist and that this god is specifically the Christian god)
2) a defense attorney (the person who will be examining the prosecutor's evidence and logic to find flaws. This person is attempting to attain a "not guilty" verdict, indicating that the evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate that a god exists and/or that the christian god exists specifically)
3) Specialists for examination and cross-examination (this could be anyone who is a scientist on the forum and could be a specialist for questions pertaining to science, or someone who is sufficiently qualified with respect to the Bible and Christian dogma/beliefs. The specialist is not someone who is levying charges, but someone who will either validate or invalidate the arguments/rebuttals of the Defender and/or prosecutor)
4) A judge (only one of these. The judge's job in this case will not be to render a verdict but instead will be the mediator/arbiter of the trial. I'll take on this role but I will also note that I am a geologist and may also appear as a specialist because that sounds like an interesting job for me)
5) Jury Members (we can have many of these, but the jury will primarily be the audience observing and reading the arguments. It would be nice to have the Jury members identified beforehand though, so any volunteers here will be good. Jury members aren't expected to engage in the debate between the prosecution and defense, or their discussions with specialists or the Judge. The judge may render instructions to the jury. It might be a good idea for a jury member to create a second thread for discussion of the "trial" so that the jury can deliberate on topics raised herein)
As with any trial, we also need some ground rules:
1) be as cordial as possible. Leave the insults at home. If you want to be a prick about something, please do so in another thread (such as a discussion thread for the jury members)
2) present relevant links to corroborating information when presenting an argument. This may not be necessary always, but if asked for a reference or citation, one must be given.
3) Specialists can be called by either defender or prosecutor, and can be called to present said citations and references. The specialists need to identify what their expertise is on
4) The goal is to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a god is guilty of existence" as opposed to "god is innocent of existing" as only the positive claim can be verified. Prosecuting attorneys can't simply pass the burden of proof of on the defender and say something along the lines of "prove god doesn't exist." The Prosecuting attorney(s) must accept that it is their burden to prove god and not the defenders burden to prove no god.
5) We will try to keep things moving along a reasonable timeline. While it might be unreasonable to expect daily participation, the conversation should at least advance weekly (even if it only advances slowly over that timeframe).
6) The basic structure will be as it would be in a court of law. We will give an initial opening statement to both the prosecutor and defender (if multiple sign up, then we will give each "attorney" a shot at an opening statement if they so wish, but let's restrict it to no more than 3 opening statements per side. Prosecution first, then defenders)
7) After the opening statements, the prosecutor gets the first go. They can call "witnesses" or specialists and present their evidence to back up any claims from their opening statement(s). We will limit this to one post for the prosecutor(s), and then give the defense one post for response.
8) Because of rule 7, it would be a good idea to have a system in place for the "attorneys" to use for responding if there are multiple attorneys for either defense or prosecution. Maybe a rotation? If there are 3 defenders, then they go in order they signed up (same for prosecutors). If the "attorneys" wish to work out a different way of responding (such as private messaging to decide who should respond and how), then they just need to let the judge know that they have a plan in place
9) if the sides have multiple attorneys, then I encourage them to have a system in place for them to communicate with one another. A side thread or private messaging, depending on whether or not you want the discussions in public or private. Obviously anything written in a public thread, could be permissible in the "trial"
10) The judge isn't there to decide which arguments are "right" or "wrong" and is instead primarily there to do 3 things: a) keep the conversation progressing, b) enforce the rules (if additional rules are needed, then the rule list will be amended and everyone will be notified in the thread), and c) determine when it is appropriate to end the "trial" and ask the jury to consider a ruling
11) If at any point someone in one of the roles wishes to recuse themselves, they simply need to let the judge know. As long as the necessary roles remain filled, then the trial will continue, but if any of the necessary roles are vacant then we will need to fill it again before proceeding.
So, if people are interested, then the first thing we need to do is fill the aforementioned roles. Once we have all of the necessary roles filled, we will give the prosecuting attorneys time to construct their opening statements. If the trial makes it to that point, then we will make the accompanying discussion thread after the prosecution gives its initial opening statement.
Roles to be filled:
1) Judge: TheBeardedDude
2) Prosecuting attorney(s):
3) Defense attorney(s):
4) Specialists:
5) Jury:
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/FJovzGlbuoEXm/giphy.gif)
