In any debate, question, or critique, we first have to set up a modus operandi or an agreed means of communicating and understanding. For that we need to set up what may be termed: "standards of evidence". This is absolutely essential in any discussion. The debate/discussion can end up going on mindlessly without goal or conclusion because a standard on which to judge evidence, facts and opinions was not set up initially.
For example, for the proposition that G-d necessarily exists, we need to:
a.) Define what is meant by G-d.
b.) Define what is meant by Existence.
c.) Define what is meant by G-d Existing
d.) Define what is meant by evidence
e.) Define what one would expect to encounter as admissible evidence for c.)
f.) Propose that if indeed that the definition of evidence in defined in d.) and analyzed in f.) were to be found then definition c.) must necessarily be true.
This means of establishing a standard of evidence is not simply for this kind of debate, but for many different applications and ranges. We judge the standard admissible in a court of law as reasonable evidence for a conviction, or beyond reasonable evidence. What is meant by evidence is also a pre-condition to establishing facts and propositions being true.
Often in many debates, we find that the arguments run counter-intuitively precisely because different standards of evidence are being employed. Often the undercurrent of the argument is "accept our standard of evidence".
The first question in any debate is simply: "What is the standard of evidence being applied to here?" In Torah Judaism, the standard of evidence is defined by the Torah - the Torah itself provides us with a standard of evidence by which to judge evidence, facts and opinion. The Torah itself provides us with a model on how to judge prophecy, on how to establish veracity. The Torah also defines precisely what is meant by a revelation narrative, and how a revelation narrative is to be verified as true.
In this respect we must be careful in our usage of terminology. What do we mean by "proof" or "true". Is proof: "100% veracity"? We don't live like that, we don't demand 100% proof, so when we judge evidence we have to be careful as to what is meant by 'proof' - do we expect or infer 100% proof which is impossible or virtually impossible to achieve, and isn't meaningful, since we don't act or behave or rely on extremes which require 100% proof of certainty? We don't, and therefore to expect it in other areas is to require logic to its absurdity.
