(March 19, 2013 at 11:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: One would imagine that the jurors would not have to be told that simply because ten people believed in something that wouldn't make it true. Laying aside ad pops, testimony is definitively and demonstrably unreliable as evidence.

Apparently not so to the credulous - then again, that's why they're credulous.

In Arif Ahmed’s debate with William Lane Craig he said differing experiences of God ought to be dismissed because they were like members of an audience looking on stage and one sees a goat, another sees a sheep, another sees a dog, etc. etc.

But interestingly in Mr Ahmeds example, they ALL see SOMETHING on the stage!

Link to that debate here http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392

Ah, before I forget, and because we often see analogies to courtrooms in these sorts of discusions, I wanted to drop something in to mull over.

The point of a defense or prosecution is to build a compelling case, the accuracy of the statements made in that case is secondary to their persuasiveness. Consider, for example, that if your client admits his guilt to you, or you have very good reason to believe that his guilt is real and culpable - you still have to mount a defense - or refer him/request that he be referred to someone who can/will do so. If the man committed the crime, the defense will not be accurate - but it must be persuasive or it will not be successful (if you don't make the attempt you have violated the mans right to a trial by a jury of his peers and adequate legal counsel - if the client wishes to plead not guilty you cannot, as his attorney, enter a plea of guilty or nolo on his behalf). Similarly, if you are prosecuting someone it will be of very little use to mount a prosecution which is factually accurate but utterly lacking in persuasiveness. Perhaps, if you wanted to make some observation of the accuracy of a god claim, you should avoid invoking the spectre of courts. What goes on in, or is admissible/inadmissible in a courtroom is probably a great indicator of what we find persuasive, but it is not a reliable indicator of what is accurate.

(March 19, 2013 at 11:30 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote:

(March 19, 2013 at 11:25 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Hang on! YOU are the one who appealed to ''ad pop'' when you said everyone would believe without question if everyone agreed with the testimony.

You clearly misconstrued and misunderstood what I stated. If there was real evidence to support that multiple religious testimony was an accurate portrayal of a real deity, then everyone would believe in that deity without question. Since that is not the case, the testimony is unreliable and does not prove the existence of a deity.

Does it matter how many people agree that the testimony is valid or doesnt it?

Whether or not a person considers testimony valid and whether or not the testimony is accurate and factual are entirely different propositions Lion.....A great many people might decide that it is valid, and based upon it, subscribe to a belief in it's contents. That wont make it any more "right" - nor will it make it any more "wrong". Similarly, the reason ad pop is a fallacy is not that it will lead to a "wrong" conclusion - but that it cannot garuantee a "right" conclusion (this is true of all fallacies). We can (and sometimes do) come to a conclusion that is "right", or accurate despite or in spite of having completely fucked up the process of reaching that conclusion.

The analogy fails, in that, if many people see physical things, we know people can see physical things. So if many people saw a person killing a person, we know for sure, this can be seen, and it makes no sense for people to be hallucinating it.

But seeing Jinn or Angels or hearing God, that is not known to happen for certain like seeing physical things.

At most, the testimony of many people, show people aren't all making it up.

But there is another explanation. It's called "hallucinations".

Mr Infidel said [I'm paraphrasing] if everyone agreed that the testimony was valid, then everyone would agree that the testimony was valid.

Since when did sense and hallucination co-habitate? People do hallucinate mundane things on a near constant basis.

(March 19, 2013 at 11:54 pm)Lion IRC Wrote: Mr Infidel said [I'm paraphrasing] if everyone agreed that the testimony was valid, then everyone would agree that the testimony was valid.

You seriously must learn some reading comprehension skills and cease misconstruing my comments.

(March 19, 2013 at 11:55 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Since when did sense and hallucination co-habitate? People do hallucinate mundane things on a near constant basis.

10 sane people hallucinating the same murderer the same victim, the same place, etc...that's not logical. But in a court room, it's always about beyond reasonable doubt. Because 100% certainty won't be achieved except rarely.

But the case of God, Angels, Jinn...there is an explanation, and that is the role of dogma and religion with mental illness or hallucinations.