Evolution, the Bible, and the 3.5 Million Dollar Violin - my article

[The Grand Nudger]

You only gave an example of one instance where personal testimony wasn't enough to convince you of an event.

Because you only gave one example where you thought it was. We could wade through examples all day long and personal testimony still won't have any effect o the probability of an event. Since we're on the subject of what I personally find convincing (or in this case, completely unconvincing) I'll reiterate what I have already said. You probably wouldn't find this tale convincing either. You certainly wouldn't see the police investigating the incident if all we had was such testimony. There would have to be something else -you know, items missing, signs of struggle, damage to the premises or property, etc. Even so, I wouldn't hit the streets looking for mario and luigi, and neither would you, imho.

However, from that it doesn't follow that personal testimony is irrelevant to the probability of an event.

If you want to pretend that we're having a debate (so that you might mention that such does not follow such and such) then build an argument. At the moment you're simply pleading.

As for the mario example, I can't believe you wont consider this extraordinary.

I would, had you not taken steps to make it mundane almost immediately. Still, it being a case of teens dressed as video game characters is in no way equivalent to this god bullshit bandied about, and yet it still remains -less than likely-.

Fundamentally our difference seems to be that you consider God as extraordinary as a purple flying elephant with a fairy godmother while I do not.

A position assumed to evade cognitive dissonance, in all likelihood.

However, the case that God is so unlikely as that, I have never seen defended sucessfuly against objections which leads me to believe it is only perpetuated by appeals to ridicule, uncommon presuppositions (like the apparent "self-evidence" that there is no God), and irrational appeals to emotion.

I'm sorry, again, do you think we're having a debate? I hope not, because you'd have to argue for those objections (not just say they exist and are successful) else you're arguing by assertion. You must show "uncommon presuppositions" else it's a strawman, and you must show these "irrational appeals to emotion" -see above. None of this is a problem if we're having a discussion. In a discussion I simply call massive BS (and you get to call BS as well, if you like).

If your atheism must rely upon the assumption that your opposition is self-evidently irrational, you have built a tower on a sand dune and it will collapse.

Good thing my atheism isn't built on assumptions, eh? Nevertheless, aren't we discussing the likelihood of an event being affected by personal testimony? Whats wrong with exploring that? Would you care to give me a single example of a persons testimony influencing the likelihood of the event which they are relating by testimony? I wasn't aware that human speech had the power to bend the cosmos -after the fact- by the simple telling of a tale. You seem to disagree, so have at it.

Let me distill this for you. Essentially our conversation would seem to boil down to this (I'm leaving the probability of an event based on testimony aside because it is fucking ridiculous, go argue with a child about the magical power of words, I'm not interested)

-If you have reason to trust a person, you have good reason to believe that the events they relate in testimony actually happened-

No, you don't. At best, at the very best, you have reason to assume that they believe that their testimony is an accurate assessment of an event. I've already explained to you why this is insufficient, but if you need me to explain this again just say the word.