I've stated before, that the intent in this thread is to discuss the merit of personal testimony. It appears however for some, that they are incapable of doing so without making other assumptions. I see that it has even degraded into deferment to attacking the persons of apologist, rather than the arguments. Motives are even questioned, in the statement " Constantly having to assess every truth/knowledge claim, not just on merit, but also through a filter of potential impact to the Jesus narrative must be exhausting". However this motive can go both ways. In my view, in a thread to talk about witness testimony in general; it hasn't been I who has brought up the claims of history of Jesus. For myself the hyper skepticism and pseudo skepticism is very reassuring. If you want to talk about the merits, then lets do so equally, and see where we stand. If you want to attack personal testimony on a general level, then others are free to use this, in regards to the testimony of science or history, for which they have no other evidence, other than the testimony. We cannot trust what people say (no matter how good the testimony is) right?. We can just apply hyper skepticism to whatever we want to deny or find difficult to believe. Or does the experience of others count as evidence?
It was asserted, that some just have a need to win (and I assume this was meant to be about me). I am willing to admit that I am wrong, but you are going to have to make an argument for the general principles, which I can apply universally. Attacking the person, or alluding that I or others are dishonest is not going to cut it. The merit of the evidence, is going to depend on the details of the evidence, not what it shows. It's merit may also depend on how well it demonstrates what is being claimed.
I am not saying, that we cannot be critical of witness testimony. Someone had referenced the miracle of the sun in Portugal. I think that some of the critical views in the link provide a good explanation. It accounts for the variance in testimony, and including some believers who had opposing testimony. It also explains why it was not seen in other locations. We have to include all the evidence, when evaluating a claim. Also, I think that it is important to note, that testimony can only tell you what they had seen. The meaning or reason for it, however is another matter.
It was asserted, that some just have a need to win (and I assume this was meant to be about me). I am willing to admit that I am wrong, but you are going to have to make an argument for the general principles, which I can apply universally. Attacking the person, or alluding that I or others are dishonest is not going to cut it. The merit of the evidence, is going to depend on the details of the evidence, not what it shows. It's merit may also depend on how well it demonstrates what is being claimed.
I am not saying, that we cannot be critical of witness testimony. Someone had referenced the miracle of the sun in Portugal. I think that some of the critical views in the link provide a good explanation. It accounts for the variance in testimony, and including some believers who had opposing testimony. It also explains why it was not seen in other locations. We have to include all the evidence, when evaluating a claim. Also, I think that it is important to note, that testimony can only tell you what they had seen. The meaning or reason for it, however is another matter.
