(January 30, 2015 at 11:41 am)SteveII Wrote: Um, hearsay is certainly evidence. The absence of evidence is not evidence. Would the letters of John, Peter and James by hearsay? You also need a reasonably explanation why the first Christians acted on the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.
I had a guy tell me (first hand account!) he was abducted by aliens, anally probed (he sorta dug it), they fed him eggs Benedict and sent him on his way with $100 for his troubles. To this day, they still exchange birthday presents. That is hearsay. It doesn't help the case to say, 500 guys were abducted by aliens....500*0 is still 0.
Is hearsay admitted in court? Is eye witness testimony better than physical evidence? Nope and nope. Physical trumps eye witness, every time. Why is that Steve? Think about it.
You need a reasonable explanation for why the first Muslims believed Mohamed received revelation from Allah and acted on that belief.
Your argument is exactly the same.