RE: Evidence to Convict?
August 3, 2017 at 1:48 am
(This post was last modified: August 3, 2017 at 1:54 am by Amarok.)
(August 3, 2017 at 1:04 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: And anyway, the poll itself is a false dichotomy. Yes, the testimony IS evidence but it may not be ENOUGH evidence, by itself, to land you a conviction. Hence the statement: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If eye witness testimony from 11 people isn't even necessarily a slam dunk for the prosecution in a run-of-the mill assault case, then what grade of evidence should we be demanding for claims of the messiah?
Hint: More eyewitnesses does not necessarily equal a higher likelihood that the claim is true.
Let me ask you this, RR:
What if we found a document dated 15 years ago that describes testimony from 11 anonymous people (we don't know anything about them other than their first names, and we have no way of tracking them down to conduct interviews) who claimed you hit a man in the head with a chair in 2002. The alleged victim is also not available for interview as he has since passed away. Should you be charged with this alleged crime? Should you be convicted based on the testimony described in my document?
Add to that the claim he hit him with a chair by screaming booty luscious and the chair levitated then struck him. I ask do you think any judge would buy that or are they also begging the question?
As for the gospels they have already tried this court room bullshit and it's been thoroughly debunked. You can't treat the bible as a court narrative. Any more then you can treat biblical studies as proper history because it isn't.
(August 3, 2017 at 1:04 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: And anyway, the poll itself is a false dichotomy. Yes, the testimony IS evidence but it may not be ENOUGH evidence, by itself, to land you a conviction. Hence the statement: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If eye witness testimony from 11 people isn't even necessarily a slam dunk for the prosecution in a run-of-the mill assault case, then what grade of evidence should we be demanding for claims of the messiah?
Hint: More eyewitnesses does not necessarily equal a higher likelihood that the claim is true.
Let me ask you this, RR:
What if we found a document dated 15 years ago that describes testimony from 11 anonymous people (we don't know anything about them other than their first names, and we have no way of tracking them down to conduct interviews) who claimed you hit a man in the head with a chair in 2002. The alleged victim is also not available for interview as he has since passed away. Should you be charged with this alleged crime? Should you be convicted based on the testimony described in my document?
Not to mention some of the 11 admit they were not witnesses and that it's impossible that they were the witnesses in the document because they were all dead by the time it was written. And we have clear evidence of a different narrative that was snuffed out (regardless of Roads denials ) And even earlier reports from the only possible witness call into question the later. I could go on but I think that's enough.
Seek strength, not to be greater than my brother, but to fight my greatest enemy -- myself.
Inuit Proverb
Inuit Proverb