Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[The Grand Nudger]

Testimony is an assertion of fact. If you believe the person you accept the content of the testimony as fact. If you accept someone's testimony as fact, you have evidence to support a conclusion.

No, if you accept someones testimony as fact, then you've accepted someones testimony as fact.  I could have sworn we'd discussed this before.....everyone accepts their religions religious testimony...thats a job requirement for being in that religion. That doesn't mean that, by sheer acceptance of the stories people tell, they all have evidence to support their conclusions.

That somebody somewhere believes in something is not evidence of that something. You don't believe that it is any more than I do - no matter what lies you feel compelled to float for christ, and you cannot possibly be applying this ridiculous assertion equally.

Notice none of these steps are considered proof.

It isn't evidence, either, regardless of whether or not you consider it as such.

[SteveII]

Steve is coming dangerously close to "since you can't disprove the miracles of Jesus, that means they must've happened."

Apologist philosophy, ladies and gentlemen.

Hmm. Let's see if that's how my argument went in my recent post:

a. Jesus most certainly was born, baptized, and died in the time period claimed. (other sources)
b. Pete, James and John were known eyewitnesses to both the public and private events of Jesus' three year ministry
c. They presided over the early church
d. This early church instructed Paul
e. As evidenced by Paul's letters, this early church believed the claims later outlined in the gospels (long before they where written)
f. Peter, James and John eventually wrote letters in emphasizing the themes found in the gospels
g. Luke wrote Luke and Acts with the purpose of outlining the events from the birth of Christ through his present day
h. The editors of Matthew, Mark, and John were all alive during the lifetimes of these people above (it is unknown if the actual people with the pen were eyewitnesses)
i. The editors would have been know to the recipients of the gospels. The books were name by which apostle influenced that particular book
j. The early church, who we know believed the claims of Jesus already, accepted the gospels. There is nothing in the early church writings that questioned them.
k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

[KevinM1]

L. Jesus' purported miracles defy all known laws of physics and our understanding of human biology. Despite the possibility of the apostles actually believing these things (instead of, you know, trying to sell a religion), a belief in them occurring does not actually lend any veracity to that belief.

You can't argue a god into being. Belief in something doesn't make that something exist by itself. Even if several billion people believe in it. There needs to be a way to test and verify, and no religion has that.

Ultimately, I wonder who you're trying to convince - us, or yourself?

[Astreja]

Get back to me when you can consistently restore limbs to amputees and life to the dead, Steve.

That last sentence, the reasoning is significanlty flawed. You want me, a person clearly of the natural world to produce a supernatural cause. That isn't even a logical possibility.

So you don't believe John 14:12?  

[Minimalist]

Watch.  I bet you are taking that out of context or something.

[Amarok]

So all the miraculous god powers Christians are suppose to be blessed with are a crock of shit . What a surprise.

---

Watch.  I bet you are taking that out of context or something.

Of course . Unless their doing it then it's fine.

[Crossless2.0]

Watch.  I bet you are taking that out of context or something.

In other words: "I believe it. I just don't believe it. But you should believe it too."

[Mr.wizard]

I'm pointing out that you defined evidence as facts that support a conclusion and you just acknowledged that claims of the testimony may not be fact, therefore by your own standards for evidence that you set up testimony would not count as evidence. Then you said in the OP that testimony will be considered evidence for religions, which i'm pretty sure is special pleading.

Testimony is an assertion of fact. If you believe the person you accept the content of the testimony as fact. If you accept someone's testimony as fact, you have evidence to support a conclusion. Notice none of these steps are considered proof.

I said that last statement because some people here think testimony is not evidence in any situation.

---

Yes it is an assertion of fact, not an actual fact, in order for it to be fact it would need to be verified. So Testimony absent verification cannot be fact, therefore it cannot be evidence, since you defined evidence as "facts that support a conclusion". 

If your just going to let people assert their own "facts" without verification, you put yourself in a position in which you can't determine what is actually true. Your actually a walking example of special pleading because you accept these unverified claims of Christianity as fact, but you don't apply that same standard to the claims of the various religions.

[downbeatplumb]

Steve is coming dangerously close to "since you can't disprove the miracles of Jesus, that means they must've happened."

Apologist philosophy, ladies and gentlemen.

Hmm. Let's see if that's how my argument went in my recent post:


k. The gospels dovetail nicely with Paul's writings based on his training directly from all the eyewitnesses (completing a loop)
THEREFORE it is reasonable to infer that the events of the gospels are at the very least good representations of what really happened.

I'll only address K.
Are you forgetting all the gospels that they threw out because they did not dovetail with pauls writing?

Are you forgetting the ruthless suppression of anything that did not fit with the "truth"tm as prescribed by the church and empire.

The reason for the hiding of the dead sea scrolls.

With the Gospel of Jesus, Judas, Mary and peter, none of which made the final cut because they all told different tales.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm pointing out that you defined evidence as facts that support a conclusion and you just acknowledged that claims of the testimony may not be fact, therefore by your own standards for evidence that you set up testimony would not count as evidence. Then you said in the OP that testimony will be considered evidence for religions, which i'm pretty sure is special pleading.

Testimony is an assertion of fact. If you believe the person you accept the content of the testimony as fact. If you accept someone's testimony as fact, you have evidence to support a conclusion.

lol, what?! What the hell kind of logic is that? You know that isn't remotely true, Steve.  So, if I accept the testimony of the folks who believe the Mandela effect is caused by parallel universes overlapping with ours, then I have evidence that supports that conclusion?  This is low even for you.  Is there a reason you skipped over responding to me, btw?  Just curious.

---

Once again, Steve has done a fine job of arguing himself over to the opposing position, lol.