"Jurors are not restricted to the testimony of others, they are also permitted to examine physical evidence where available."

Absolutely. But the actions of many are to convene court, install themselves as both judge and jury, deny the entry of evidence, refuse to call witnesses, and then pronounce a favorable verdict. No one tolerates it in the legal world. That it should be tolerated in the logical world is no less a travesty.

"And courts do not demand proof of a negative"

My whole point is that from a logical perspective, it is a meaningless position to take. If one asserts that proof is necessary in the substantiation of an argument, to then take a position that nothing can be proven is outright contradiction and hypocrisy! What one should say instead of "it can not be" in such a case is rather "what conditions would be possible" and test for them. I agree with Sherlock Holmes when he stated "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Since we have eliminated the possibility of confirming the position (that death constitutes a termination of consciousness), we must move on to what is possible to test: its opposite.

"And saying “I might be able to prove this hypothesis in the future” does not justify belief in it today."

Justification is wholly a value judgement - an opinion. It is your value judgement and you are wholly entitled to such, but what you are actually asserting in the statement quoted above is one of the following:
1) I do not value the potential search for an answer as worthy of my time/energy
OR
2) I do not want to know what the answer is
In the one you are asserting that I should share with you an apathetic viewpoint on the matter while in the other one of willing ignorance. Why should I be satisfied with either of these options when the third - a pursuit of the answer - may be available?

That's an old debating fallacy. You cannot prove a negative. I say there are Coca Cola factories on Pluto. You say that's ridiculous. I say prove it. C'mon people, we can do better than that.

Utlimately, every choice of belief is personal, is it not? One may choose to remain in ignorance, adopt a stance based on the testimony of others, or actually carry out a test and become one's self a testator. But observations and conclusions are never made by a group, but by individuals acting in their own interest. That they may form into groups based on shared beliefs is an after-effect, however.

Jurors are not restricted to the testimony of others, they are also permitted to examine physical evidence where available. And courts do not demand proof of a negative (i.e., “Consciousness continues after death. Prove it doesn’t.”). And saying “I might be able to prove this hypothesis in the future” does not justify belief in it today.

Your logic is flawed. The concepts of Consciousness and Death are not dependent on the single abilities of one person. They are an everyday observance by individuals of others.

The further we go back into the past, the more hard evidence is replaced by speculation and myth. The ancient Greeks and Romans probably had thousands of personal testimonials as to the nature and power of their gods. After 2000 years it is difficult, probably impossible, to separate the real Jesus from the mythical one.

Alleged miracles prove nothing, and are used by their claimants to demonstrate the supposed unreliability of our senses and rational faculties. Those who accept such assertions without demanding hard evidence are more easily persuaded to adopt beliefs such as consciousness after death.

So let's examine the cases:

Case #1: Consciousness terminates with Death.
A. Perception is a function of consciousness.
A -> B. Description or proof is the result of perception.
C. Consciousness ceases with Death.
B & C -> D. There can be no perception of Death.
Ergo, there can be no substantiation of such a case.

Case #2: Consciousness does not terminate with Death.
A. Perception is a function of consciousness.
A -> B. Description or proof is the result of perception.
!C. Consciousness does not not cease with Death.
B & !C -> !D. There can not be no perception of Death, i.e. perception is possible.
Ergo, there can be substantiation of such a case.

So of the two, we have one case which renders itself immune to logical proof and the other which avails itself of a proof pending the test of a successful hypothesis. The real question is the devising of such a test, as Death appears to be a one-way ticket in either case. How does one go about testing for the presence of consciousness beyond Death? Can we define what consciousness is or even how it begins any more than we can posit its extinction?

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not merely "possibilities" backed by nothing other than speculation and personal testimonials."

When a case goes to court, jurists are not asked to render judgment based on their personal experiences or involvement in the crime itself. They are restricted to the testimonies of others, are they not? Really, what you are saying here is that because you yourself have not had a personal involvement that you doubt anyone else could have either. Skepticism, however, is not proof. The only way to obtain proof is to examine the one case which has a potential proof and devise a test for authenticity. Barring that, you are left to the realm of pure speculation - nothing more, nothing less.

I am not defending Judaism or Christianity with the following statements. Jews would claim that their deliverance from Egypt via the ten plagues was extraordinary evidence, the vast majority of which have been explained recently as a series of naturally occuring, albeit rare, phenomena. The Christian claim of resurrection certainly falls under the category of extraordinary evidence. The number of personal testimonials to that resurrection was not a small number. According to Paul, it was in the range of 500. It certainly is possible that 500 people could be deceived.

The possible responses to Jesus' alleged resurrection are that he was a liar, was a lunatic, or was telling the truth. Objectivists have chosen to say he was a lunatic or a liar. That is a valid response, but such claims ought to be substantiated. If someone called you a liar or lunatic without substantiation, you would quite correctly sue for defamation of character.

RE: "Faith only has a meaning if consciousness exists beyond death . . . " Carrying this logic to its conclusion: There is no real evidence that consciousness exists beyond death; therefore there is no real evidence that faith has a meaning.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not merely "possibilities" backed by nothing other than speculation and personal testimonials.

Sing it, Daddy Warbucks! ;)

Again, really, what we come back to is Death. Faith only has a meaning if consciousness exists beyond death, which is why atheists can not grasp the meaning of faith nor its application in the realm of "religion". It requires a mindset that posits a possibility rejected by atheists.

Lol. Love it!

If you take the Bible at it's word, Moses and the people of Israel took the straight route to the "promised land". When they got to the borders, scouts were sent out to survey and all but two (Joshua and Caleb) came back and said that although the land appeared good, they assayed the existing people as too militarily strong. Because of their lack of faith (despite seeing the miracles leading to their expulsion from Egypt, Pharoah' armies drowning, a pillar of fire/cloud of smoke which traveled with them, 80,000 swallowed by an earthquake, etc.), God told Moses that the Israelites weren't ready to inherit the land. So they turned around and wandered until all those of that generation (except Joshua and Caleb) were dead, at which point they were able to cross the Jordan into the land. It should be noted, however, that Moses himself was forbidden from crossing into the land. At that point Joshua was appointed as the new ruler.

Just FYI, but Jesus is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Joshua. By the time of the events of the New Testament, the most prevalent language - most especially in commerce and philosophy - was Greek. The original five books attributed to Moses are part of the Pentateuch (penta meaning five in Greek) and Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy all are Greek words: Genesis meaning beginning, Exodus meaning literally "road out of" and Deuteronomy meaning "second law" (because the first law on the stone tablets was broken over the golden calf). Leviticus was a reference to the Tribe of Levi who was given charge over the Ark of the Covenant and authorized to act in the rites of the temple. Numbers is just exactly that: the numbering or census of the people.

A couple of months ago I looked up that standardized Gulch board put-down "mysticism" word and found out all religions do indeed fall under that definition.
That left me feeling cheated.
I want my magic wand and pointy-tipped Gandalf the wizard hat.
At least the mystics in The Dark Crystal were kinda cool~

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRSjh...

"Your 1st example is not faith."

All philosophical study and examination begins with proper definitions. The definition of faith used by Objectivists is a straw man - an anti-definition. I can't logically accept any such. Ayn Rand herself said that the only proper definitions of things talk about what something is - not what something isn't. It's the same reason we struggle with dark matter because so far, we know it exists but we can not properly define it because we can not interact with it.

I have appreciated your rational approach and thank you for your time.

"The sun will come out tomorrow..."

In a free society --
It's your right.
I don't, it's my right
So...what else is new?.

The word “faith” has more than one meaning. “Faith in the future” means confidence that it is likely (but not guaranteed) that the future will be better than the past or the present. “Faith in an all-powerful creator” is belief in a conscious supreme being, usually accompanied by some “divine revelation” (which varies with the sect one was born into) that must also be accepted on faith.

When dealing with philosophical issues, it is important to define the specific meaning of “faith” that is being discussed. One can have confidence in the future and still be an atheist.

I'm going to blast out Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" from my open window this Sunday.

Thank you JB.
I never thought of that. But I'm afraid that can't be true since there were a lot of women tagging along.