Testimony is Evidence

[SteveII]

You are basing your whole position on witness testimony being "inherently unreliable as a form of evidence"

That's because it IS.  I'm sorry you don't like that fact, but your inability to accept demonstrable facts you don't happen to care for is not really my problem.

is not the case that once a matter gets to some subjective threshold of consequential, we discard witness testimony.

Lol, Steve.  You suck at this, you know that? Please point to where in my previous response to you, I said anything about discarding testimony?  Straw. What I said very clearly was, once a person gets to that subjective threshold they should (if they want to have rational beliefs only) withhold belief in that claim until more reliable, corroborating evidence is found.  Either your reading comprehension sucks, or you're playing stupid.  Either way, I'm getting bored quickly.

For the fourth (and last) time, tell me why this is not more accurate:

1 A witness's recollection could be wrong
2 The witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record serve can minimize the possibility of error
3 The context of the event can minimize the possibility of error
4 Therefore the reliability of testimony varies depending on the witness and the context.

More accurate than what?   Your logical argument is not, and never will be, "more accurate" than actual evidence, Steve.  It's irrelevant in the face of actual evidence.  There is no rational case to be made for believing in supernatural claims SOLELY on testimony of any kind.

The reason you are not getting what I say is I have been trying (to no avail) to show you that the issue is way more nuanced that your simplistic approach--NOT that I don't understand you. 

Simplistic view: Witness testimony being "inherently unreliable as a form of evidence" needs more evidence for serious stuff if you wish to be "rational". 

More nuanced understanding: It depends.
1. This is apparent in the fact that we rely on testimony alone in hundreds of categories millions of time an hour all over the world--many in very serious situations. Why? Because we have background information that helps us determine if we can rely on it: the witness's character, cognitive ability, subject knowledge, experiences, and track record as well as the context of the event. For all these reasons, witness testimony is constantly rationally relied on. You have failed over and over to address this point.
2. You admit the threshold for needing more evidence is subjective. Having differences in thresholds between people significantly undermines your simplistic view by making it a matter of opinion. And if this threshold is a matter of opinion, then so is your determination of when it is rational to believe it. 
3. Witness testimony can corroborate witness testimony. Wouldn't two or more people testifying to a fact increase the likelihood that it is true? At some point, the adjective 'unreliable' does not apply to any of their individual testimonies and would be considered strong evidence and rational to believe the claim.
4. Sometimes witness testimony is all that is available as evidence. If that is the case, under your simplistic view, you could never rationally hold a belief in serious matters based on testimony--no matter what the circumstances.

Your response to my little syllogism is confused. It was clearly in response to your simplistic view of the universal unreliability of witnesses (way back)--not as an alternative to other evidence. I think it more accurately characterizes what we are talking about than you propose. 

Most of you think that I am trying to prove my belief in Christianity rational. I am not. I have engaged only in philosophically discussing the topic and I have supported each premise and critique with reasons. Constantly trying to pull my personal beliefs in shows you are not willing to engage in the topic for the topic's sake, but would rather posture for some argument/conclusion not being made.