RE: If theists understood "evidence"
October 8, 2018 at 12:14 pm
(This post was last modified: October 8, 2018 at 12:41 pm by RoadRunner79.)
(October 8, 2018 at 12:13 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:(October 8, 2018 at 12:05 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I'd agree... Testimony which is embarrassing or condemning is stronger, and one is less likely to make up those details. I also agree with corroborating evidence. But testimony is evidence it seems
Of course it is - but poor evidence. On it's own it rarely is enough to be used alone in criminal court to convict. Sadly, unless of course your skin is dark. Then it seems to be more weighty.
Well then, if the best you have is poor evidence, then set the Pudding man free!
Also, I have posted before, but you can easily google, and find many lawyers who will disagree with you. If you only have a single witness, it may be a little dicey, but even then it can still convict, and is still given as evidence. I only see this claim from atheists... I wonder why that is?
It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. - Alexander Vilenkin
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther
If I am shown my error, I will be the first to throw my books into the fire. - Martin Luther