Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[SteveII]

It is obvious that more is better.

By your own protestations I thought we weren't discussing likelihood of truth here; only differentiation?  This is where the question-begging comes in, but I'll get to that.

 First, 'It's a fact because it's obvious,'  is neither an argument, nor evidence.  You're simply re-asserting that more testimony of a supernatural claim equals better evidence for that claim.  Further, we have provided examples which demonstrate this assertion to be patently false.  So, as of right now, you have failed to foster a case for why Christianity is different from other religions so as to excuse it from special pleading, because the reason you've put forth for what differentiates it (it has more testimony, which means better evidence, therefore different) has not been supported; only asserted.

No, it is not an argument...it remains just...obvious that more testimony is better than less. The contents of the testimony is irrelevant. Believing a claim because of more testimony over one with only one, is no longer special pleading--because, for the last time, it is a justification to treat the circumstances differently. I think you are confused that proof or fact has to be part of the equation. It does not. You could be dead wrong but you wont be engaging in "Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Just substitute 40,000 testimonies against one. Would you still claim special pleading to believe the 40,000? No, a normal person would not and it's the same principle--just a difference in scale.

Now in addition to more, you have different kinds (categories) of information (refer to letters a through k below for the different kinds of information). Other religions don't have other kinds of information to consider to support the initial (often singular) claim.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.  What you have is a bunch of people telling the same supernatural story to other people, and then those people telling more people.  Often the details of the story don't even agree with one another.  That's all one category, Steve:  here-say.  No different from any other religion.

For the last time, my list of letters a through k are examples of information not available to support other religions. It is quite a bit of information and context prior to any testimony. The stories do agree with each other in ALL meaningful ways (to say otherwise is just buying into silly atheist propaganda and makes you sound ignorant of the facts). The early church--of which 100% were witnesses to some or all of the public events (another differentiation to all the other religions) of Jesus' ministry, did not believe because of hearsay. 

hear·say
ˈhirˌsā/
noun

1. information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor.
   "according to hearsay, Bob had managed to break his arm"
   
   

and more specifically the list of points in letters a through k below. There is absolutely no circular arguments because again, there is a list of reasons to infer the conclusion.

This is where the question begging comes in.  A through K are not reasons; they're rationalizations for believing in a supernatural claim without evidence.  Testimony of a supernatural event is not the evidence, it's the claim.  And, this is exactly why you prefaced your entire argument with:

"For the sake of the argument, let's assume testimony is evidence."  

In other words, "Let's assume, for the sake of the argument, Christianity is better evidenced than other religions."

You knew full well that without that unsupported assumption built in, your argument would be one giant, empty circle.  So, let's look at it again, shall we?:  
'It's not fallacious to accept Christianity as more likely to be true, because Christianity is more likely to be true.'

Absent any actual evidence, which supports the truth of Christian supernatural claims, this is 100% begging the question.  I mean, you could say, 'it's not fallacious to accept Christianity over other religions because it is better evidenced,' but you'd still have to back up your assertion/assumption of ancient testimony as evidence.

Not at all. Rationalization is reasoning. It is not  pieces of information. My entire list was pieces of information. Testimony is an assertion of fact. To deny that it is evidence of something is just plain stupid. You are buying a stupid argument that you have to give up. One last attempt. John saw Mary run out of the house, around the tree, and back into the house and writes it down in his diary. Are you really going to say there is no evidence that Mary ran out of the house around the tree, and back into the house? I didn't say proof, I said evidence. Of course there is.

Evidence/facts/information along can never convince anyone of anything. It will always need the application of reasoning as to the conclusion.

You have no evidence, and your reasoning is fallacious.

Again, the no evidence thing makes you sound really stupid. You think my reasoning is fallacious because you either struggle with the definitions or create your own. I can't help that.