Witness Evidence

[RoadRunner79]

Lastly, as stated before; much of (at least my) scientific knowledge is based on the observation and testimony of others.

When you reply to this post, use an abacus, and see how far that gets you. After you realize you cannot post with that sort of computer, perhaps you can take a few minutes to ponder exactly how the principles which govern your computer's operations were discovered.

Here's a hint: it wasn't eyewitness testimony.

Dumbfuck.

How do you know how the principle of the operation of a computer where discovered?

[downbeatplumb]

When you reply to this post, use an abacus, and see how far that gets you. After you realize you cannot post with that sort of computer, perhaps you can take a few minutes to ponder exactly how the principles which govern your computer's operations were discovered.

Here's a hint: it wasn't eyewitness testimony.

Dumbfuck.

How do you know how the principle of the operation of a computer where discovered?

The history of computers is well known and taught at schools, at least I was taught about it. (Modern computers were developed first in England so we could beat hitler).

[Cato]

You do seem to be validating that multiple witnesses are better testimony.

I most certainly am not. I will take one Enrico Fermi for every 500 idiots claiming to have seen a ghost without evidence. It's the methodology, not the number of people; or the particular person for that matter. This has been explained to you in various ways so what remains for anyone that cares enough is to determine if your demonstrated obtuseness is natural or an intended evasion tactic. If the former, you may still find some willing to work this through with you. Based on what I've seen I'm leaning towards the latter which means I'm wasting my time.

[robvalue]

Apologetics is just one long swamp of dishonesty. I suppose once people get waist deep in it, they don't even notice they are being dishonest anymore. Just one more false equivocation rather than consider they might actually be totally wrong.

I'd love to help people improve and learn too, but if they are unwilling and just hell bent on making themselves feel like they're winning all the time, it's impossible.

After 19 pages, I still don't know what the actual point here is. Believe whatever witness testimony you want.

[Cato]

I agree. I feel bad for some of them. Constantly having to assess every truth/knowledge claim, not just on merit, but also through a filter of potential impact to the Jesus narrative must be exhausting.

[Thumpalumpacus]

How do you know how the principle of the operation of a computer where discovered?

Because I've read up on the history of science.

I'd recommend you do so as well. You might learn something.

[RoadRunner79]

How do you know how the principle of the operation of a computer where discovered?

Because I've read up on the history of science.

I'd recommend you do so as well.  You might learn something.

Ok... because of testimony then right?  Or are you going to show me history here based on physical evidence alone?

[Edwardo Piet]

Here's the thing with many false claims: they are believed by stupid people.  And here's the thing with people: many of them are stupid.

These two obvious statements, taken together, really should be an end to this thread.

Q.F.T and Q.E.D!

[Thumpalumpacus]

Because I've read up on the history of science.

I'd recommend you do so as well.  You might learn something.

Ok... because of testimony then right?  Or are you going to show me history here based on physical evidence alone?

Actually, in my computer science class we took apart a computer, as well. In my chemistry class, we mixed stuff up. And in my biology class, we grew living things. That's how science works. You should try it some time.

Your attempt to equivocate normal reportage such as the history of the computer with extraordinary claims of deities -- because everyone here knows that that's what you're angling for, you're not fooling anyone -- said attempt is nonsense. The history of the computer is mundane. The history of deities is fictional. Any attempt to equate the two is dishonest.

[RoadRunner79]

I've stated before, that the intent in this thread is to discuss the merit of personal testimony. It appears however for some, that they are incapable of doing so without making other assumptions. I see that it has even degraded into deferment to attacking the persons of apologist, rather than the arguments. Motives are even questioned, in the statement " Constantly having to assess every truth/knowledge claim, not just on merit, but also through a filter of potential impact to the Jesus narrative must be exhausting". However this motive can go both ways. In my view, in a thread to talk about witness testimony in general; it hasn't been I who has brought up the claims of history of Jesus. For myself the hyper skepticism and pseudo skepticism is very reassuring. If you want to talk about the merits, then lets do so equally, and see where we stand. If you want to attack personal testimony on a general level, then others are free to use this, in regards to the testimony of science or history, for which they have no other evidence, other than the testimony. We cannot trust what people say (no matter how good the testimony is) right?. We can just apply hyper skepticism to whatever we want to deny or find difficult to believe. Or does the experience of others count as evidence?

It was asserted, that some just have a need to win (and I assume this was meant to be about me). I am willing to admit that I am wrong, but you are going to have to make an argument for the general principles, which I can apply universally. Attacking the person, or alluding that I or others are dishonest is not going to cut it. The merit of the evidence, is going to depend on the details of the evidence, not what it shows. It's merit may also depend on how well it demonstrates what is being claimed.

I am not saying, that we cannot be critical of witness testimony. Someone had referenced the miracle of the sun in Portugal. I think that some of the critical views in the link provide a good explanation. It accounts for the variance in testimony, and including some believers who had opposing testimony. It also explains why it was not seen in other locations. We have to include all the evidence, when evaluating a claim. Also, I think that it is important to note, that testimony can only tell you what they had seen. The meaning or reason for it, however is another matter.