(September 12, 2017 at 3:22 pm)SteveII Wrote:(September 12, 2017 at 9:46 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: If that is supposed to be an argument in favor of your claims, it's an argument from ignorance. And you know what that's worth. 'Maybe there's evidence that would back me up but it's lost' is something I would never say, because, frankly, it's pitiful. [1]
What do you imagine rebuttal evidence would look like? [2] Pliny saying 'I heard there were no dead people walking around Jerusalem the other day'? Without corroboration, all you've got are assertions and claims; and they're in the form of hearsay, to boot.
In the thread on testimony as evidence, I maintained that testimony alone is not evidence at all, but an assertion or claim. There may be elements within the testimony that make it more or less plausible, and there may be other testimony it can be compared to that allow us to evaluate the plausibility better. That analysis can be evidence, but the testimony in itself is exactly what you are trying to determine the truth of. For mundane claims of little consequence, we usually take people at their word, because it makes living with each other easier and usually doesn't matter. You're not making a mundane claim of little consequence though, are you? [3]
More is not necessarily better. One verifiable miracle that accomplishes the physically impossible would be worth more than the entire Bible plus the entire history of all Abrahamic religions in establishing the existence of the supernatural. [4]
1. I am not making any argument about what the evidence concludes. I was undercutting your argument that there would be 3rd party evidence.
2. Could be anything related to the events in question (i.e. nope--I was there). In fact it could be anything that would support an alternate theory (i.e. someone that reconsidered their part in the conspiracy when things got serious).
3. I understand your point about evidence. However the point is testimony is the only type of information conveyed to us about historical events. To dismiss it entirely is not a tenable solution because you would have toss out billions of things we believe to be true about history. If you are going the route of the testimony of the NT contains miracles and is therefore an exception, then you are begging the question. For those following along, it would be question begging because you would be saying the testimony of miracles is not true because miracles can't happen--setting up a circular argument that never allows for the possibility of a miracle.
4. The people of the NT claim they verified the miracles. I choose (because of a cumulative case for Christianity) to take them at their word. I don't think believing those that claimed to have verified is unreasonable--especially since there is no evidence to weigh against them.
Unless you are using an extremely broad definition of "testimony", there are many sources of information we can gather about historical events. And we may, as time goes on, dismiss and revise much of what is considered history. That's the strength of the scientific method, and the weakness of religion. And I disagree with your begging the question comment. Saying that the testimony of miracles is evidence of christianity is assuming the validity of miracles. As there have been no miracles proven to have occurred, it would be begging the question, as I understand it. But, as you said, it's all a matter of opinion whether you believe your evidence leads to your conclusions. There is nothing that makes an objective person look at it and logically deduce that the bible is a true story. You believe because you want to believe, just like everyone else who believes.
"The last superstition of the human mind is the superstition that religion in itself is a good thing." - Samuel Porter Putnam
