Witness Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

---

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.

---

Are there reasons for interest yes. However this motivation has nothing to do with the discussion. I will say that I have not, and still do not have any intention in changing the thread into a history of the Christian Faith post. There would have needed to be more success here and in the "extraordinary claims" thread for me to even consider it (by success I don't necessarily mean agreement with me, but at least rational discussion)

Earlier in this thread someone said that I need to do some self reflection, and consider that I may be wrong. That is the intention here. To critically look at testimony, what makes it strong evidence and what is weak about it. However I am then criticized for it, and many assumptions and accusations made about my integrity.

There are three ways to gain knowledge. Through logic/reason, personal experience, and testimony from others. I wished to discuss the latter. I have had a number of people of conversations where people outright deny testimony in certain situations. In others they lean towards scientism. I believe both are incorrect. This is not to say that every testimony is good, or that science is not profitable for knowledge. To just deny testimony or automatically label them as fables is to remove a key portion of our path to knowledge.