Moir.Adrian
New Member
Every individual has a universal right to be defined as a person at all times under Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Equality in order that no individual should ever be subjected to unfair treatment or discrimination before the law. So the universal law of human equality is in place so that we each have security of person before the law, because without security of person before the law, then laws cannot protect you as an individual.
If society is to improve, rather than spiral out of control to the point of no return, then the theory of evolution must be challenged from the premise of law, because no scientist has the right to redefine what the human being is before the law for reasons relating to human equality and equal rights. So in order for human equality to be sustained, then a universal definition of a person is required; and the universal definition in place to define a person with as distinct from the animals, as from law, derives from the theological term, conscience.
The Universal Law of Human Equality is not just a theoretical concept, but a self-evident legal standard instead, because all human beings have been endowed with conscience by their Creator, and it is from the conscience that our convictions derive from, which is how we make our decisions, and our decisions are subject to the universal principle of human morality, which cannot be justified by nature alone, because nature is defined as property. So if our inalienable rights have derived from nature, then mankind is thereby the property of the State, which forms the basis for human slavery, because both the animals, and nature, are defined as property, legally speaking. But if inalienable rights derive from the Creator, then mankind is thereby independent of the State in terms of ownership, and is therefore, sovereign.
Therefore, laws in society should reflect upon the universal standard for human equality in order to sustain a population peaceably, because international human rights law has acknowledged the human conscience as the basis for human equality and human freedom thereby. Under Common law, the burden of proof is upon the individual who is making an assertion against another individual, such as the plaintiff in Case law. While the defendant has a universal right to remain silent before their accuser.
So when a person is demanding evidence for the existence of God, they're usually referring to a visual or physical appearance of the Creator, as from United States Constitutional law, and Commonwealth Theology. But the evolutionary notion that chemical reactions can become self-aware over time is the very thing that requires physical proof, rather than the individual who has placed their faith in God their maker. So the burden of proof here is upon the one claiming to have physical evidence of chemical reactions becoming self-aware over time, rather than the individual who has placed their faith in God, because it is the Creator who is defined as self-evident before the law due to the existence of the human conscience, which in turn, forms the basis for human rights and equality.
So for this reason, Atheism will appeal to an inquisitional method of questioning, whereby the Atheist shall ask the questions, and thereby demands an answer in order to satisfy their own conclusions. When it is the Atheist who is not entitled to an answer based on their personal conclusions, because it is the Creator who is defined as self-evident before the law, rather than the Atheist and their theoretical assertions.
Citation:
What is the difference between burden and standard of proof?
The burden reflects which side must prove its case and the standard dictates how convincing that proof must be. The standard of proof refers to the extent to which the party with the burden of proof has to prove its case (or an element of its case). The higher the standard of proof, the more difficult it is for a party to meet their burden of proof. In general, the higher the stakes are, the higher the standard of proof will be. So, a prosecutor in a criminal case has to meet a very high standard of proof, because a defendant's liberty is on the line.- Source; Online Legal Encyclopedia
If society is to improve, rather than spiral out of control to the point of no return, then the theory of evolution must be challenged from the premise of law, because no scientist has the right to redefine what the human being is before the law for reasons relating to human equality and equal rights. So in order for human equality to be sustained, then a universal definition of a person is required; and the universal definition in place to define a person with as distinct from the animals, as from law, derives from the theological term, conscience.
The Universal Law of Human Equality is not just a theoretical concept, but a self-evident legal standard instead, because all human beings have been endowed with conscience by their Creator, and it is from the conscience that our convictions derive from, which is how we make our decisions, and our decisions are subject to the universal principle of human morality, which cannot be justified by nature alone, because nature is defined as property. So if our inalienable rights have derived from nature, then mankind is thereby the property of the State, which forms the basis for human slavery, because both the animals, and nature, are defined as property, legally speaking. But if inalienable rights derive from the Creator, then mankind is thereby independent of the State in terms of ownership, and is therefore, sovereign.
Therefore, laws in society should reflect upon the universal standard for human equality in order to sustain a population peaceably, because international human rights law has acknowledged the human conscience as the basis for human equality and human freedom thereby. Under Common law, the burden of proof is upon the individual who is making an assertion against another individual, such as the plaintiff in Case law. While the defendant has a universal right to remain silent before their accuser.
So when a person is demanding evidence for the existence of God, they're usually referring to a visual or physical appearance of the Creator, as from United States Constitutional law, and Commonwealth Theology. But the evolutionary notion that chemical reactions can become self-aware over time is the very thing that requires physical proof, rather than the individual who has placed their faith in God their maker. So the burden of proof here is upon the one claiming to have physical evidence of chemical reactions becoming self-aware over time, rather than the individual who has placed their faith in God, because it is the Creator who is defined as self-evident before the law due to the existence of the human conscience, which in turn, forms the basis for human rights and equality.
So for this reason, Atheism will appeal to an inquisitional method of questioning, whereby the Atheist shall ask the questions, and thereby demands an answer in order to satisfy their own conclusions. When it is the Atheist who is not entitled to an answer based on their personal conclusions, because it is the Creator who is defined as self-evident before the law, rather than the Atheist and their theoretical assertions.
Citation:
What is the difference between burden and standard of proof?
The burden reflects which side must prove its case and the standard dictates how convincing that proof must be. The standard of proof refers to the extent to which the party with the burden of proof has to prove its case (or an element of its case). The higher the standard of proof, the more difficult it is for a party to meet their burden of proof. In general, the higher the stakes are, the higher the standard of proof will be. So, a prosecutor in a criminal case has to meet a very high standard of proof, because a defendant's liberty is on the line.- Source; Online Legal Encyclopedia
