So I went looking for evidence of a soul...

[fr0d0]

We're talking visual anomaly that could be explained many ways.

Doesn't a witness provide corroboratory evidence/ confirms what someone else says? Considering the spirit there can be no corroboration.

[Rhizomorph13]

Sae,

I guarantee that if there was hard evidence that contradicted what the witness said, the testimony would be thrown out. A court is NOT a laboratory and a court proceeding is NOT an experiment. What passes for evidence in a court does not define what passes for evidence everywhere else.

You must consider the topics in any possible court case to understand why personal testimony works as evidence. It only relates to natural physical entities like gun, knife, person, time of day, ya know, basically objectively provable things so there is no need for scientific evidence. If a witness ever brought testimony that they were remote viewing a scene of a crime, their testimony would be thrown out because remote viewing is not considered believable.

Rhizo

[Violet]

Sure, and the witness could have been paid off, hallucinating at the time, memory wiped, mentally unstable, anything really. If there was no corroboration as far as a spirit or soul goes... then there would be no organized religion. Take Christianity for instance... if Arcanus says something: you usually agree with it. That is corroboration with Arcanus's statement. A soul or spirit should be no different.

[Rhizomorph13]

Sae,

Sure, and the witness could have been paid off, hallucinating at the time, memory wiped, mentally unstable, anything really. If there was no corroboration as far as a spirit or soul goes... then there would be no organized religion. Take Christianity for instance... if Arcanus says something: you usually agree with it. That is corroboration with Arcanus's statement. A soul or spirit should be no different.

This idea commits the argument from popularity fallacy. No amount of people agreeing adds weight to a proposition no matter how many people seem to agree. Fr0d0 makes a good point and thoughts along those lines have led me to believe that personal experience is not evidence.

Rhizo

[fr0d0]

I can agree to have an experience in line with both our understanding of our faith. We have common understanding and justification but the experience remains entirely personal.

[Violet]

Sae,

I guarantee that if there was hard evidence that contradicted what the witness said, the testimony would be thrown out. A court is NOT a laboratory and a court proceeding is NOT an experiment. What passes for evidence in a court does not define what passes for evidence everywhere else.

You must consider the topics in any possible court case to understand why personal testimony works as evidence. It only relates to natural physical entities like gun, knife, person, time of day, ya know, basically objectively provable things so there is no need for scientific evidence. If a witness ever brought testimony that they were remote viewing a scene of a crime, their testimony would be thrown out because remote viewing is not considered believable.

Rhizo

That's the thing about witnesses... unless hard evidence presents itself: their testimony is considered highly. What passes for 'evidence' in court... is no different than what passes for 'evidence' in a laboratory... unless a double standard is held in one of the two... which is unreasonable.

How does remotely viewing a crime make it any less a crime... or any less believable? You may have stumbled on the crime scene by chance... but stumble upon it you did. Evidence comes in many forms... fingerprints, chemical processes, odors, tools present, wether a person saw a person killed... walked in as the murderer was leaving... stumbled on the body hours later... or discovered the bones after fifty years.

Personal testimony is something we take on faith... as with the accuracy of our evidence. I believe I presented my existentialist stance to you not so long ago?

---

Sae,

Sure, and the witness could have been paid off, hallucinating at the time, memory wiped, mentally unstable, anything really. If there was no corroboration as far as a spirit or soul goes... then there would be no organized religion. Take Christianity for instance... if Arcanus says something: you usually agree with it. That is corroboration with Arcanus's statement. A soul or spirit should be no different.

This idea commits the argument from popularity fallacy. No amount of people agreeing adds weight to a proposition no matter how many people seem to agree. Fr0d0 makes a good point and thoughts along those lines have led me to believe that personal experience is not evidence.

Rhizo

So our experiences mean nothing at all? It is evidence, as evidence is the assumption that we can trust knowledge, which is assumed to be right. I know I missed my bus this morning, and had to catch it somewhere else... that is purely from personal experience. I might have been hallucinating, or other such things... but I know it happened... I have faith in my correctness here. Here I am giving personal testimony that I missed my bus... and you would have to take this evidence on faith in my testimony (Or deny it).

Personal experience is not perfect evidence... but no other evidence is so perfect either. Even at the fundamental of all logic (1=1)... I am presuming that I have thought correctly on this issue. Essentially: we can know nothing without faith... faith in reasons... faith in others... and faith in ourselves.

[Rhizomorph13]

Sae,

A laboratory and a courtroom are different venues with different rules that govern them. I don't believe anyone can win a case through testimony alone. You will have to support that assumption with some evidence.

As for remote viewing here is why it is not considered valuable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing

I wasn't talking about viewing from a remote location but "remote viewing" the concept of extruding astral substance and then projecting your conscience into that substance to travel somewhere and gather intel.

Rhizo

[Violet]

Exactly It is the same in a laboratory: you cannot convince many through testimony alone

Oh, you meant paranormally *catches on*. I misunderstood Interestingly enough... the paranormal can appear in personal testimony. Whenever a witness mentions anything about 'God', they are referring to a ridiculous paranormal concept.

What is considered evidence in a laboratory is no different than that of a courtroom... and the standards placed upon that evidence are no different. Sure, different rules govern them... but the concept of evidence does not change.

[fr0d0]

Yet you can swear on the bible in court

[theblindferrengi]

I always found that weirdly ironic, I personally if ever need be would swear on the koran, not because I'm Islamic (I'm not), but because WHY NOT? I am kind of a cynical person though.