Summations Only

Uh, no, it does not require that the conclusion get thrown out unless evidence could be presented that would show that God planted it.Since that is impossible, we must go with what can be demonstrated.Where is the problematic worldview?

Is it a good idea for you to try to tell me what I would do?I do believe that all evidence could be planted by God and I have been on a jury (but get turned down far more often) and I did not find my beliefs sufficient reason to think any evidence was planted.Folk often claim that the evidence was planted, by the police, the CIA, the FBI, an enemy, person or persons unknown, and it is possible that those claims might be true.But juries seldom buy the planted evidence ploy.Years ago there was a magician that did his act during dinner at the Hyatt on Hilton Head, and I saw people sit in chairs that were not there.In the case of the chair, you test enough for you to be satisfied there is a chair there and then act on what you can know.

It's likely a good thing that you are not me then.I have no idea whether God does plant evidence or not, but I do know that I see no way to ever test whether God planted the evidence or not, and so I simply exclude that possibility unless someone can show sufficient evidence to convince me that is that given case God did plant the evidence.I also know that the police could plant evidence, or the CIA or FBI and in fact have done so in the past, yet I do not assume that just because they have done it in the past that they did in the case under question without strong evidence that they did it.

I understand that we always make decisions based on incomplete information.I may even believe that in the case under discussion that God planted the evidence, but also that my belief does no qualify as "reasonable doubt".I am not okay with the death penalty even when there is overwhelming evidence, and certainly not okay with sending innocent people to prison, but understand that I must weigh the evidence, not my beliefs.

Too funny.Asked and answered many, many, many times. In fact you even quoted the answer to your question.

Again, see the answer to Straggler in the message above. AbE:Hopefully we all make similar decisions constantly. We have things we believe (she loves me, he is envious, I hate brown ties) but we try to separate personal beliefs and our duty to actually weigh the evidence presented when acting as a jury.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Is any evidence that God planted the finger prints submitted?If not, then I don't see much choice but to disregard that position even if I believe it is true.Again, please stop telling me what I would think or do.Edited by jar, : left out "but"

If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered?I doubt you can point to anyplace where I said that the scientific evidence should be thrown out.You're the one that seems to want to throw the scientific evidence away, not I, so it seems that it is YOU that has the problematic worldview.But if creating strawman arguments makes you happy, please continue.

When you are called to be on a jury you are charged to set aside personal beliefs and to make a judgement based solely on the evidence presented.

Short answer = YES.

HUH?Maybe it's a language problem or some words left out but I don't understand what you are asking there? I do see the question mark at the end though.

Okay, but you are not me.I hold very strong beliefs but also understand that there are times that I must set aside my personal beliefs. In this particular case I am charged to make a decision based solely on the evidence presented. I may well believe that the FBI or CIA planted the evidence and know with a very high confidence level that both organizations have the capability to manufacture and plant evidence and that they have done so in the past, but even if that was claimed during the trial, unless evidence to support that claim was also presented, I must disregard my belief.

Sorry but what you advocate seems irrational. The CIA and FBI are also capable of hiding the evidence of them planting evidence so well that it is often decades before it is discovered that they did plant evidence. It seems to me to be the height of irrationality to then consider that they might have planted the evidence and then hidden the evidence that they planted the evidence and ... on down the rabbit hole.I see no problem. I try not to follow white rabbits down the rabbit hole.

Kinda.The actions cannot be evidenced or the entity performing the actions but the results can be evidenced.I believe that very strongly.However in the example under discussion, being on a jury in a trial, we are charged to put aside personal beliefs and to make a decision based solely on the evidence presented.We need to deal with the evidence presented.

I doubt that you can find where I suggested that you should consider God?