A really, really, REALLY simple concept

[atheist buddy]

Eyewitness testimony: When a person writes down what he saw/heard/tasted/smelled/touched

Hearsay testimony: When a person writes down what another person told him


Here's an example of eyewitness testimony: "I heard the thunderstorm last night"

Here's an example of hearsay tesitmony: "My wife tells me there was a thunderstorm last night, although I slept through it and didn't hear anything".


Eyewitness testimony: I saw Steve kill Joe

Hearsay: When we talked to Steve, he told us that he killed Joe


Eyewitness: I went to Jesus's tomb and it was empty

Hearsay: Somebody told me that he went to Jesus's tomb and it was empty


Eyewitness: This book is an original document in which I wrote what I saw and heard

Hearsay: This book is a copy of a document in which somebody else wrote what they saw and heard. You cannot see the original, but trust me (even though you don't know who I am), it's pretty much the same as the original.


Question for debate: Is anybody even slightly confused about the fact that we have no eyewitness accounts of ANYTHING relating to Jesus's life?

[atheist buddy]

Question for debate: Is anybody even slightly confused about the fact that we have no eyewitness accounts of ANYTHING relating to Jesus's life?

Not according to your definition, which seems to be 'if I, personally, didn't see it, it's not an eyewitness account."

That is not my definition at all. You have to pay more attention to my words, since you clearly displayed a scrutinous interest in them earlier, when it was to your advantage and allowed you to stonewall a discussion of the actual evidentiary merits of your belief system.

My definition of eyewitness testimony is: When a person writes down what he saw/heard/tasted/smelled/touched

Before we do anything else, you need to explicitly acknowledge that my definition of eyewitness testimony is NOT something that I personally saw. Quite the opposite. If it's something I saw, it's not a testimony, it's a memory. Testimony is when person A tells person B what person A witnessed. Person A telling person A what person A witnessed, is not testimony.

If I saw it and I tell myself, it's not testimony, it's an experience/memory. If I saw it and tell YOU about it, it's eyewitness tesitmony. If you then go on and tell somebody else about what I saw, it's hearsay testimony.

Is this clear now? Is there any chance at all that you might get confused again in the future?

By that token, of course, we don't have any eyewitness accounts of WW1, the Civil War, the Revolutionary War, the invention of the cotton gin, the weaving of the Bayeux Tapestry...or for that matter, of the events it depicts, the building of Rome or the tearing down of Rome, the building of the pyramids or the funeral of Tutankhamen, what happens on the inside of a nuclear explosion from the POV of ground zero, the birth of stars, the lives of Julius Caesar, Charles the 1st, Marie Antoinette....or yes, Jesus.

We definitely have lots of eyewitness testimony for several of these historical events. For others we don't.

Yet we still manage to believe in, and understand the actual existence of, pretty much all of the above.

Of course. Why wouldn't we. I never said that we shouldn't believe a claim, just because it comes from hearsay testimony.

Quite the contrary, we should absolutely believe hearsay testimony, as long as it's not contradicted by more reliable forms of truth-gathering methods, such as eyewitness testimony, empirical evidence, common sense or logic.

My point was that anything you do not personally witness is not eye witness testimony, but is indeed, hearsay.

NO.

That is just factually wrong.

If you saw it yourself, you didn't learn of it through any kind of testimony. You saw it yourself.

If you DIDN'T learn it yourself then you can only learn of it through testimony. If the person that tells you about it saw it himself, then it's eyewitness testimony. If the person who tells you about it heard it from somebody else, then it's hearsay tesitmony.

Please say that you understand.

That is, THEY may have witnessed it, but you have not; how do you know that the witness saw what he or she claimed he saw?

YOU DONT! Eyewitness testimony could be false. Nobody said that eyewitness testimony is automatically always accurate because the person is an alleged eyewitness. Stop debating imaginary opponents, and debate the statements we're actually making! Come on!

It has often been said that 'eyewitness testimony counts the most in a court of law, and should count the least." You can, I think, consider the many reasons why this would be so.

Of course! Becuase second only to hearsay testimony, eyewitness testimony is the most unreliable form of evidence there is!

As well, let us take one of those eye witness testimonies you like. How did YOU come to know about it?

Well, let's look at the example sI cited in my OP. The thunderstorm, YES, I heard it with my own ears.

Did you hear the eyewitness tell you what he or she saw with his or her own eyes?

yes

Or did you get that testimony from a third source, in effect, 'The National Observer reported that Nancy Snooper saw Brad Pitt wearing socks with his sandals.'

That is from a third source. THat's hearsay, I agree.

Is that eyewitness testimony?

No that's hearsay. If you have drinks with Nancy and she tells you that she saw Brad wearing socks with sandals, that's eyewitness.

What part of "if the person telling you saw it with his eyes" do you not understand?

But what if it is the National Geographic reporting that Jane Goodall saw chimpanzees teaching their young to use tools?

That's hearsay, because the person telling you about it is not the one that saw the event being described.

Same 'degree of separation,' of sorts: publisher reports that someone saw something.

Agreed. When it's hearsay, there is at least one degree of separation between the event and the recounting of the event.

The difference is...who one trusts.

The fact that we tend to trust reputable newspapers and media outlets to faithfully convey the eyewitness tesitmony of the journalists they employ does not take away the fact that the nespaper we read which was created by a perosn other than the eyewitness, is hearsay.

The question isn't whether there ie eyewitness testimony.

Actually that is precisely the question. If you have a different question, please don't hesitate to start another thread.

NONE of us have first hand eyewitness testimony to very much at all, but we all trust sources. The question, then, is who we trust.

That is your question. Fel free to start your own thread, please do not derail mine.

So you are begging the question here, atheist buddy.

What are you talking about? Please Dianaiad, you HAVE TO stop debating imaginary opponenets. You just HAVE TO.

I am just making a factual description of the attributes of eyewitness testimony versus hearsay testimony, and commenting on which one of these two types of testimony is present in the Bible.

I am not, I repeat, NOT (reminder: "I'm not" means the opposite of "I am") drawing any conclusion on the resulting credibility of the accounts of Jesus' life. Not yet at least. When I do, you're welcome to respond. When you do on your own thread devoted to that topic, I'll be welcome to respond.

Here I'm just offering clear definitions of eyewitness and hearsay tesitmony and saying that only the latter is available for Jesus's life.

Please say you understand.

[Danmark]

Lol, are you a lawyer or something?

As a matter of fact, I am. And I suggest you quit talking about 'hearsay' until you've read and understand the Rules of Evidence on the subject.

There are two basic forms of evidence: direct and circumstantial. Neither is considered superior to the other. An example of the former is "I woke up in the middle of the night and saw snow coming down."

An example of the latter is "When I went to bed last night there was no snow on the ground. When I woke this morning I saw the ground covered in snow."

Eyewitness testimony is a separate issue. Whether or not her testimony is believed is depends on many factors, such as the credibility of the witness, his reputation for truth, her ability to see and hear the event, his possible biases or reasons to fabricate, and other factors. BTW eyewitness testimony, particularly as to accurate identification of a person is notoriously unreliable, particularly when compared to forensic evidence.

Many people have been convicted of serious crimes due to eye witness testimony who have later been found innocent due to DNA tests (forensic evidence).

However, I agree that the accounts in the New Testament about Jesus would not be admissible. Among other reasons, we really don't know who it is that claims to have witnessed the events.

In particular Paul's testimony about Jesus would be torn to shreds, if he was allowed to testify at all. If he were allowed to testify, here are some questions Paul might be asked under cross examination:

"Do I understand correctly that you never saw Jesus before he was crucified and buried?

Isn't it true that there were other men with you but they did not see what you claimed to see?

Isn't it true that before you reported these events you had been blind, sick, and without food and water for three days?

Paul isn't your real name is it?

It's true that when you called yourself 'Saul' you did not believe Jesus was God and you assisted in the murder of those who claimed he was? That's correct isn't it Paul? Or should I call you 'Saul?'

Saul, or whatever your name is, you agree you have had many disagreements with people like Peter who claim to have actually walked and talked with Jesus during his active ministry, correct?"

And so on. I'm sure others could come up with good questions to ask the witness, if some lawyer were dumb enough to call him to the stand.

[David the apologist]

Eyewitness: This book is an original document in which I wrote what I saw and heard

Hearsay: This book is a copy of a document in which somebody else wrote what they saw and heard. You cannot see the original, but trust me (even though you don't know who I am), it's pretty much the same as the original.

By this standard, we don't have any eyewitness testimony of the life of Alexander the Great either. In fact, we don't have ANY eyewitness testimony to ANY historical event prior to the fall or Rome!

Methinks that either a) your definition of eyewitness testimony is too stringent, or b) eyewitness testimony is a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition for historically reliable testimony.

[OnceConvinced]

By this standard, we don't have any eyewitness testimony of the life of Alexander the Great either. In fact, we don't have ANY eyewitness testimony to ANY historical event prior to the fall or Rome!

Methinks that either a) your definition of eyewitness testimony is too stringent, or b) eyewitness testimony is a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition for historically reliable testimony.

If someone told me I needed to worship Alexander the Great and that I should live my life based on his teachings and if I didn't he was going to torture me for all eternity, then I would expect more than just hearsay. I would want some real evidence that he existed and the stories about him and what he taught are true.

But seeing as no one is expecting any of that, I find it hard to care whether he was a real historical character or not. Same pretty much goes for many other historical characters from ancient history. Eyewitness accounts or not, you can not really know for sure whether everything that has been recorded is true or hasn't been altered in some way. But it really doesn't matter.

[Danmark]

Eyewitness: This book is an original document in which I wrote what I saw and heard

Hearsay: This book is a copy of a document in which somebody else wrote what they saw and heard. You cannot see the original, but trust me (even though you don't know who I am), it's pretty much the same as the original.

By this standard, we don't have any eyewitness testimony of the life of Alexander the Great either. In fact, we don't have ANY eyewitness testimony to ANY historical event prior to the fall or Rome!

Methinks that either a) your definition of eyewitness testimony is too stringent, or b) eyewitness testimony is a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition for historically reliable testimony.

True, but as Once Convinced alludes to, we are not asked to believe Alexander was God, or that he walked on water, rose from the dead, ascended into 'heaven' or brought dead men back to life. To the extent any fantastic claims are made about Alexander, we reject them.

[David the apologist]

By this standard, we don't have any eyewitness testimony of the life of Alexander the Great either. In fact, we don't have ANY eyewitness testimony to ANY historical event prior to the fall or Rome!

Methinks that either a) your definition of eyewitness testimony is too stringent, or b) eyewitness testimony is a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition for historically reliable testimony.

If someone told me I needed to worship Alexander the Great and that I should live my life based on his teachings and if I didn't he was going to torture me for all eternity, then I would expect more than just hearsay. I would want some real evidence that he existed and the stories about him and what he taught are true.

The question then becomes what degree of evidence you would be willing to accept. You can choose only to believe the autographs of eyewitness testimony. But in that case, you've effectively cut yourself off from the periods in history when God (if He exists and intervenes in history) would have been most likely to be active - those of greatest antiquity.

But seeing as no one is expecting any of that, I find it hard to care whether he was a real historical character or not. Same pretty much goes for many other historical characters from ancient history. Eyewitness accounts or not, you can not really know for sure whether everything that has been recorded is true or hasn't been altered in some way. But it really doesn't matter.

So when it comes to personally insignificant historical events, you're apathetic, and when it comes to potentially significant historical events, your skepticism dial is set to maximum?

[Zzyzx]

.

You can choose only to believe the autographs of eyewitness testimony. But in that case, you've effectively cut yourself off from the periods in history when God (if He exists and intervenes in history) would have been most likely to be active - those of greatest antiquity.

Why do you claim that God (if he exists) would most likely have been active in antiquity?

Can you substantiate that claim?

Could it be that god STORIES were more abundant or more widely circulated / believed in ancient times -- and that those stories are less accepted in modern times with increased literacy, education, knowledge, etc?

So when it comes to personally insignificant historical events, you're apathetic, and when it comes to potentially significant historical events, your skepticism dial is set to maximum?

That seems like a rational position for one who is interested in truth and accuracy of statements they regard as important. With things that make little or no difference, why bother checking veracity. With things that are important it is wise to be careful to distinguish as well as possible between truth and non-truth, accuracy and inaccuracy, fact and fiction.

There are no bonus points for accepting whatever one is taught or indoctrinated to accept (except in the opinion of some promoters of "go to heaven" beliefs).

[Danmark]

The question then becomes what degree of evidence you would be willing to accept. You can choose only to believe the autographs of eyewitness testimony. But in that case, you've effectively cut yourself off from the periods in history when God (if He exists and intervenes in history) would have been most likely to be active - those of greatest antiquity.
....
So when it comes to personally insignificant historical events, you're apathetic, and when it comes to potentially significant historical events, your skepticism dial is set to maximum?

Why this arbitrary designation that God has only been active in antiquity? Isn't it more likely that if God exists his presence has been continuous throughout history? Isn't it more likely that during those times of antiquity you refer to, events were recorded and handed down as 3d, 4th, 5th hand and more accounts to a credulous and unsophisticated audience? Why did God only work his miracles in this prescientific age? Why do we have thousands of similar accounts from the mythologies of the world, none of which we take seriously, but we are expected to accept these Jewish myths as real? The answer is tradition. This is the tradition of this Judeo Christian culture. Other cultures have their impossible myths. They should all be given consideration for what they are, but not worshipped as if they represent actual historical events.

[Zzyzx]

.

The question then becomes what degree of evidence you would be willing to accept.

Yes, the level of evidence one requires to accept something as truthful and accurate is a very important consideration.

If a matter is important, a wise position is to investigate the situation and NOT merely accept what one is told without checking corroborating evidence. For instance, only a very naive person would invest large amounts of their savings in an investment plan that they know about only by being told by a seller of the security. Likewise, only the naive would purchase real estate without checking (or having checked) the deed to insure that the seller actually owns the property and that it is clear of encumbrances.

However, when it comes to one's choice of which "god" to worship, possibly with a view toward an "afterlife", many people are content to simply take the word of ancient religion promoters or their modern equivalents. Self-selected "prophets" and "priests" often gain considerable influence and income by claiming to have knowledge of supernatural entities and events. Very few believers / followers apparently bother checking for truth and accuracy before investing their lives, energy, devotion, resources, etc in the belief system.

It seems to me as though choosing the right gods among thousands available and the right religion among tens of thousands would be a matter of critical importance to those who are inclined to worship gods -- far more important than investments or real estate.

[atheist buddy]

Eyewitness: This book is an original document in which I wrote what I saw and heard

Hearsay: This book is a copy of a document in which somebody else wrote what they saw and heard. You cannot see the original, but trust me (even though you don't know who I am), it's pretty much the same as the original.

By this standard, we don't have any eyewitness testimony of the life of Alexander the Great either. In fact, we don't have ANY eyewitness testimony to ANY historical event prior to the fall or Rome!

Methinks that either a) your definition of eyewitness testimony is too stringent, or b) eyewitness testimony is a sufficient condition but not a necessary condition for historically reliable testimony.

b) is correct.

Hearsay testimony is less reliable than eyewitness testimony, which is less reliable than empirical evidence. Nonetheless, you are right that hearsay testimony can at times be sufficiently reliable to base our understanding of history on it - as long as it doesn't directly conflict with more reliable forms of evidence such as eyewitness testimony or empirical evidence.

For example, picture this scenario:

Your friend Steve says "My cousin George told me today, in the year 2014, that his neighbor was told by his cousin that she was told by her college roommate that her friend Jennifer, who is 24 years old now, met John Lennon befor ehe died". That is hearsay testimony.

But it goes directly against empirical evidence, and logic. Namely, John Lennon died in 1980, if she's 24 today, she was born in 1990, therefore it's IMPOSSIBLE that she met John Lennon.

If your friend Steve had said that his friend Jennifer was 50 years old, then the hearsay testimony would not have contradicted with empirical evidence, and would have been admissible as a tool for historic scholarship. But because it conflicts with much more reliable evidence, it's automatically discarded. You understand that, right?


Similarly picture this other scenario:

Some anonymous scribe says "Another anonymous scribe that I never met, writes in his book, that some other anonymous scribe wrote in his book that somebody told him about some guy who knew a girl who's friend saw Jesus turn water into wine". This is hearsay testimony.

But it goes directly against empirical evidence, and logic. Namely, the laws of physics tell us that it's impossible to turn water into wine. Therefore it's impossible that Jesus did it.

If the anonymous scribe had written that Jesus had drunk a bunch of wine, then the hearsay testimony would not have contradicted with empirical evidence, and would have been admissible as a tool for historic scholarship. But because it conflicts with much more reliable evidence, it's automatically discarded. You understand that, right?