RE: Witness Evidence
November 21, 2015 at 6:52 pm
(This post was last modified: November 21, 2015 at 6:59 pm by bennyboy.)
Okay, RR, let's just get to the elephant in the room. Sometimes testimony, however weak and unreliable it is, is the best source of information we have access to. So if one of my kids breaks a flowerpot, I'll ask the most trusted one who dunnit, and I might even act solely on that basis. But that's not really because I consider the testimony good evidence; it's because it lets me make a quick call and get back to watching the game.
However, I (can I say we?) suspect that you are trying to establish testimony as a possible "best" source of information, not in specific senses like this but in a general sense, and that once you've established the validity of testiomony as a source of evidence, you're going to start shoveling religious bullshit and saying, "You weren't there so you have to accept the testimony given in Scripture." We have pre-emptively announced that we think this kind of testimony is invalid for a variety of reasons.
I, for one, seriously doubt you have a deep and abiding interest in the nature of testimony for its own sake. I believe we've seen right through you from page one, and that you've been working very hard to pretend this discussion is about anything else than an indirect attempt at proselytizing.
Tell me I'm wrong about you. Tell me this thread isn't about using people's wishy-thinking and thousands-year-old documents as a foundation for the "reality" of Jesus Christ my Personal Savior, for whom there is no better evidence.
However, I (can I say we?) suspect that you are trying to establish testimony as a possible "best" source of information, not in specific senses like this but in a general sense, and that once you've established the validity of testiomony as a source of evidence, you're going to start shoveling religious bullshit and saying, "You weren't there so you have to accept the testimony given in Scripture." We have pre-emptively announced that we think this kind of testimony is invalid for a variety of reasons.
I, for one, seriously doubt you have a deep and abiding interest in the nature of testimony for its own sake. I believe we've seen right through you from page one, and that you've been working very hard to pretend this discussion is about anything else than an indirect attempt at proselytizing.
Tell me I'm wrong about you. Tell me this thread isn't about using people's wishy-thinking and thousands-year-old documents as a foundation for the "reality" of Jesus Christ my Personal Savior, for whom there is no better evidence.
