Witness Evidence

[robvalue]

This whole thread is an argument from ignorance, I have concluded.

If witness testimony is not obviously flawed, and there's no other evidence to consider that contradicts the testimony, it should be assumed to be true by default, RR would have us believe. If this isn't what he is saying, then he is simply agreeing with us that disbelief is the default and judgement should be reserved until supporting evidence is produced. Of course he's conflating disbelief with belief to the contrary, intentionally or otherwise, to try and make our position look less favourable.

However, as soon as we switch to claims from other religions, or just anything that goes against Christianity, I bet the logical fallacy becomes all too clear and the rules would change in an instant. Suddenly the motivation would become suspect, whereas it was always given a free pass before.

I just met Allah! He's the one true God! Yahweh doesn't exist, Allah told me!

Now, any Christian will instantly dismiss this as a complete lie, because they consider my motivation to be in question. However, the claim should instead be met with the same scepticism as any other claim, and it should fail for that reason, since I'm providing no evidence.

If you're considering very unusual claims, questioning the motivation is really just confirmation bias at work. Objectivity should be key if you're at all interested in actual truth. Considering motivation is fine for everyday claims, it's a way of stopping yourself being conned. But once you're dealing with substantial and extraordinary claims, you really need to just focus on the available evidence. Even if someone has "no reason to lie" and "appears to be telling the truth", that still doesn't guarantee that what they think is the truth actually is the truth. People are absolutely amazing at being mistaken, particularly regarding extraordinary things.