Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Harry Nevis]

Thank you for acknowledging me.  Some people just stop responding which I find rude, considering I do take the time to give thoughtful responses; snark non withstanding. 😏


Again...you're just asserting that witness testimony counts as evidence, and now you're declaring winner of a debate we just had on the subject, which was FAR from settled when you and Road dropped out.

Your entire argument here, in defense of special pleading charges, hinges on us accepting your assertion of witness testimony as evidence.  Obviously, I'm no expert on formal argument structure, but your position in the OP looks something like this:

1. Witness testimony is evidence
2. Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions 
3. If Christianity has more witness testimony than other religions, then it has more evidence 
4. Since Christianity is better evidenced than other religions, special pleading does not apply

No one here (except Road) accepts premise 1.  And, if you can't get 1. by us, you can't get to 3.  If you can't get to 3., then you haven't justified your conclusion.  Asking us to accept without question, or assume for no other reason than the success of your argument that testimony is evidence, is absolutely unfair and to me, a dishonest debate tactic.  Your opinion that our objections to the arguments for "witness testimony is evidence" are nonsense, is just that.  An opinion.  It has no bearing on anything in this argument regarding special pleading.


Is that not what you're asking us to do?  I mean, isn't that your whole thing? That the Bible; the Christian testimony, is the evidence?  Aren't you the one who gets bent out of shape every time someone tells you, "the Bible is the claim, not the evidence"?

You do know that not considering testimony as evidence is a very fringe idea, right? Most people here (even atheists) do not hold to that. In fact every legal system in the world illustrates that point quite clearly. Additionally, you would have to discard 99% of what we know about any history because...well...it is just people writing down what they think happened. Let it go. It really does sound silly.

Do you see that what you are calling evidence is not for what the bible claims to be?

---

You do know that not considering testimony as evidence is a very fringe idea, right? Most people here (even atheists) do not hold to that. In fact every legal system in the world illustrates that point quite clearly. Additionally, you would have to discard 99% of what we know about any history because...well...it is just people writing down what they think happened. Let it go. It really does sound silly.

Now who's sounding silly?  History is accepted by having corroborating evidence.