Is eye witness testimony enough?

[Justin108]

The whole Bible basically relies either on claims of divine experience or eye witness claims. But are these enough?

If you willingly accept the claims made by these men, then on what grounds do you reject the claims made by people who believe they were abducted by aliens? On what grounds do you reject the claims of people who hear voices? On what grounds do you reject the claims of Bigfoot sightings?

How do you choose which eye witnesses to believe?

[Justin108]

Lets test fuzzies little fallacy shall we.

A woman comes into a police station covered in bruises. She writes out a statement that he husband just beat her (which is clearly in evidence by the bruises), and she claims that her husband also threatened to kill her by placing a gun to her head.

A neighbor also comes in and details the same beating and death threat. However, there is no gun registered to the owner, a search turns up nothing, and the husband denies both the beating and the threat, despite having a long record of domestic violence.

Would it be logical to assume that the wife and neighbor are telling the truth about the beating, which is evidenced by the bruises and general disarray of the house after the assault, but lying about the death threat because we cannot independently verify the statement with physical evidence?

According to fuzzy, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that the death threat took place.

Indeed the courts, based on such fallacious use of evidence, should deny a restraining order because the threat cannot be individually verified and is thus fallacious.

Is there a way to use eye-witness statement to arrive at conclusions or not?

The aptly named fuzzy test for you.

The difference is that death threats and owning a gun both conform to reality. In this case I would believe the woman's claim. However if she claimed he held a light-saber to her throat then I would not believe her. Now I know you're going to write this off as "absurd" again but then you'd just be dodging the point. The point I am making is that the claims in the bible are no mere claims. The claims in the bible are radical and radical claims (like the light-saber and the earlier mentioned dragon) require radical evidence.

[stubbornone]

Lets test fuzzies little fallacy shall we.

A woman comes into a police station covered in bruises. She writes out a statement that he husband just beat her (which is clearly in evidence by the bruises), and she claims that her husband also threatened to kill her by placing a gun to her head.

A neighbor also comes in and details the same beating and death threat. However, there is no gun registered to the owner, a search turns up nothing, and the husband denies both the beating and the threat, despite having a long record of domestic violence.

Would it be logical to assume that the wife and neighbor are telling the truth about the beating, which is evidenced by the bruises and general disarray of the house after the assault, but lying about the death threat because we cannot independently verify the statement with physical evidence?

According to fuzzy, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that the death threat took place.

Indeed the courts, based on such fallacious use of evidence, should deny a restraining order because the threat cannot be individually verified and is thus fallacious.

Is there a way to use eye-witness statement to arrive at conclusions or not?

The aptly named fuzzy test for you.

The difference is that death threats and owning a gun both conform to reality. In this case I would believe the woman's claim. However if she claimed he held a light-saber to her throat then I would not believe her. Now I know you're going to write this off as "absurd" again but then you'd just be dodging the point. The point I am making is that the claims in the bible are no mere claims. The claims in the bible are radical and radical claims (like the light-saber and the earlier mentioned dragon) require radical evidence.

So does the historical narrative of Jesus. And it relates directly to the question of how to treat the eyewitness statements of human beings .. particularly multiple eye witness accounts.

Either the standard is, if we can verify parts as honest, we can assume that the remainder in most likely true. Or the standard is tat we can only trust eye witness statement in any circumstance unless we have corroborating evidence.

If the subjective opinion, quite possible born of your own bias, is used to reject claims simply because you declare them untenable or unrealistic ... then we have no standards for evaluation at all.

Indeed, as I have proven repeatedly, miracles continue to happen today and are documented, so why is the claim of miracles in the past 'so fantastic as to violate the standards of judgement?'

It is your faith looking for a reason to exclude evidence.

Simply put, we can always rationalize away that which we do not wish to deal with ... The fact remains we have eye witness accounts that detail a series of miracles and they appear to be substantially genuine.

So it comes down to that question: Are honest men lying about these things, or telling the truth?

[Justin108]

Lets test fuzzies little fallacy shall we.

A woman comes into a police station covered in bruises. She writes out a statement that he husband just beat her (which is clearly in evidence by the bruises), and she claims that her husband also threatened to kill her by placing a gun to her head.

A neighbor also comes in and details the same beating and death threat. However, there is no gun registered to the owner, a search turns up nothing, and the husband denies both the beating and the threat, despite having a long record of domestic violence.

Would it be logical to assume that the wife and neighbor are telling the truth about the beating, which is evidenced by the bruises and general disarray of the house after the assault, but lying about the death threat because we cannot independently verify the statement with physical evidence?

According to fuzzy, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that the death threat took place.

Indeed the courts, based on such fallacious use of evidence, should deny a restraining order because the threat cannot be individually verified and is thus fallacious.

Is there a way to use eye-witness statement to arrive at conclusions or not?

The aptly named fuzzy test for you.

The difference is that death threats and owning a gun both conform to reality. In this case I would believe the woman's claim. However if she claimed he held a light-saber to her throat then I would not believe her. Now I know you're going to write this off as "absurd" again but then you'd just be dodging the point. The point I am making is that the claims in the bible are no mere claims. The claims in the bible are radical and radical claims (like the light-saber and the earlier mentioned dragon) require radical evidence.

So does the historical narrative of Jesus. And it relates directly to the question of how to treat the eyewitness statements of human beings .. particularly multiple eye witness accounts.

Either the standard is, if we can verify parts as honest, we can assume that the remainder in most likely true. Or the standard is tat we can only trust eye witness statement in any circumstance unless we have corroborating evidence.

If the subjective opinion, quite possible born of your own bias, is used to reject claims simply because you declare them untenable or unrealistic ... then we have no standards for evaluation at all.

Indeed, as I have proven repeatedly, miracles continue to happen today and are documented, so why is the claim of miracles in the past 'so fantastic as to violate the standards of judgement?'

It is your faith looking for a reason to exclude evidence.

Simply put, we can always rationalize away that which we do not wish to deal with ... The fact remains we have eye witness accounts that detail a series of miracles and they appear to be substantially genuine.

So it comes down to that question: Are honest men lying about these things, or telling the truth?

1. The standard varies from situation to situation. And I want you to answer this scenario to prove my point. In your scenario of the abused woman, I would believe her statement about the gun. This is because it conforms to reality. But I would not believe her claim that her husband threatened her with a lightsaber. Would you? I need you to answer this. If a woman who was assaulted by her husband claimed he had a lightsaber... would you believe her?


2. I have responded to your "proofs" of miracles and explained why they are wanting. Cancer remissions are not miracles. The odds of a cancer remission is more likely than winning the lottery yet you do not consider winning the lottery to need supernatural explanation.

[Star]

Important distinction that should be made:

There is a difference between 1) stories of eye-witness accounts, and 2) actual eye-witness accounts.

I can write a story about how 500 people witnessed my cat lay an egg. My burden has been met; I have all these eye witnesses, as per my story. Now the burden has been shifted to you. Now, all you lazy nonbelievers, prove my cat didn't lay an egg.

[McCulloch]

Indeed, as I have proven repeatedly, miracles continue to happen today and are documented, so why is the claim of miracles in the past 'so fantastic as to violate the standards of judgement?'

You have not proven, once or repeatedly that miracles continue to happen to day. The documented allegations of miracles happening have never yet been validated or proven to have happened.

Are honest men lying about these things, or telling the truth?

This is a false dichotomy. Honest men could be misled, deceived, mistaken.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

[stubbornone]

Lets test fuzzies little fallacy shall we.

A woman comes into a police station covered in bruises. She writes out a statement that he husband just beat her (which is clearly in evidence by the bruises), and she claims that her husband also threatened to kill her by placing a gun to her head.

A neighbor also comes in and details the same beating and death threat. However, there is no gun registered to the owner, a search turns up nothing, and the husband denies both the beating and the threat, despite having a long record of domestic violence.

Would it be logical to assume that the wife and neighbor are telling the truth about the beating, which is evidenced by the bruises and general disarray of the house after the assault, but lying about the death threat because we cannot independently verify the statement with physical evidence?

According to fuzzy, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that the death threat took place.

Indeed the courts, based on such fallacious use of evidence, should deny a restraining order because the threat cannot be individually verified and is thus fallacious.

Is there a way to use eye-witness statement to arrive at conclusions or not?

The aptly named fuzzy test for you.

The difference is that death threats and owning a gun both conform to reality. In this case I would believe the woman's claim. However if she claimed he held a light-saber to her throat then I would not believe her. Now I know you're going to write this off as "absurd" again but then you'd just be dodging the point. The point I am making is that the claims in the bible are no mere claims. The claims in the bible are radical and radical claims (like the light-saber and the earlier mentioned dragon) require radical evidence.

So does the historical narrative of Jesus. And it relates directly to the question of how to treat the eyewitness statements of human beings .. particularly multiple eye witness accounts.

Either the standard is, if we can verify parts as honest, we can assume that the remainder in most likely true. Or the standard is tat we can only trust eye witness statement in any circumstance unless we have corroborating evidence.

If the subjective opinion, quite possible born of your own bias, is used to reject claims simply because you declare them untenable or unrealistic ... then we have no standards for evaluation at all.

Indeed, as I have proven repeatedly, miracles continue to happen today and are documented, so why is the claim of miracles in the past 'so fantastic as to violate the standards of judgement?'

It is your faith looking for a reason to exclude evidence.

Simply put, we can always rationalize away that which we do not wish to deal with ... The fact remains we have eye witness accounts that detail a series of miracles and they appear to be substantially genuine.

So it comes down to that question: Are honest men lying about these things, or telling the truth?

1. The standard varies from situation to situation. And I want you to answer this scenario to prove my point. In your scenario of the abused woman, I would believe her statement about the gun. This is because it conforms to reality. But I would not believe her claim that her husband threatened her with a lightsaber. Would you? I need you to answer this. If a woman who was assaulted by her husband claimed he had a lightsaber... would you believe her?


2. I have responded to your "proofs" of miracles and explained why they are wanting. Cancer remissions are not miracles. The odds of a cancer remission is more likely than winning the lottery yet you do not consider winning the lottery to need supernatural explanation.

Once again, if miracles are happening now:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

And someone claims in a eyewitness statement (several actually) that a miracle occured, we either assume that they are lying or telling the truth.

If the ONLY reason we doubt them is because our preconceptions tell us that there are no miracles, then we will never be convinced will we.

You have basically put your own subjectivity into and objective process. Indeed, people being threatened with a gun, and I say this as a combat veteran, is relatively rare, most people throughout the course of their lives will NEVER be threatened with a gun.

Yet solely because we have subjective familiarity with 'guns' a story naturally become plausible ... the integrity of the claimant isn't even a part of the process?

Now, how do you apply that 2,000 year old documents in an entirely different culture? You don't.

You HAVE to evaluate the character of the claimant. If an eye witness claims Hannibal went right rather than left, we would never allow, "Well, in MY tactical sense going left is fantastic, therefore the statement is clearly false."

Yet we should accept it for Jesus?

[stubbornone]

Indeed, as I have proven repeatedly, miracles continue to happen today and are documented, so why is the claim of miracles in the past 'so fantastic as to violate the standards of judgement?'

You have not proven, once or repeatedly that miracles continue to happen to day. The documented allegations of miracles happening have never yet been validated or proven to have happened.

Are honest men lying about these things, or telling the truth?

This is a false dichotomy. Honest men could be misled, deceived, mistaken.

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

The fact is, I have repeatedly provided evidence, and your failure to acknowledge it is noted ... and irrelevant. Its in the previous post yet again.

Your random excuses to avoid it ... well, that is the logical problem of atheists who claim that there is no evidence, when we see repeatedly that the real problem is that atheists deliberately avoid the evidence provided.

Deliberate avoidance to maintain preconceptions, while failing to prove your point?

The premise is, logically, absurd.

An ardnet Evolution denier will make the same claims you do, that no evidence for evolution has EVER been presented, and just like you, anything you do present will simply be excuses away.

The logic isn't valid in EITHER case.

But heh, its your choice.

[stubbornone]

Important distinction that should be made:

There is a difference between 1) stories of eye-witness accounts, and 2) actual eye-witness accounts.

I can write a story about how 500 people witnessed my cat lay an egg. My burden has been met; I have all these eye witnesses, as per my story. Now the burden has been shifted to you. Now, all you lazy nonbelievers, prove my cat didn't lay an egg.

Once again, this is why atheists have a burden of proof.

The history is well tested, and the best you can claim of the synoptic gospels is that they are eye witness statements whose authorship cannot be fully verified.

If you are looking for an excuse to pull and ostrich - you have one.

If you are looking to figure out whether or not Jesus lived and taught, then you use the sources, in combination with other forms of evidence, critically.

Oh, its been 2,000 years since Jesus, and ... what a miraculous coicidence, its been done and accepted by a peer reviewed Ph.D level process.

But it isn;t good enough for the ostrich's of the atheist world.

And nothing will be. Ever.

Just please not this the next time an atheist claims they are driven by evidence, for based on nothing whatsoever, they know more than period scholars. Their unsupported beliefs trump scholarship.

And that is the reality of highly emotional atheism.

To be clear, this particular poster is claiming she is an agnostic atheist, one who lacks any familiarity with this so called God entirely, and yet, in virtually the next breath, she declares the core of the New Testament a fabrication - a claim that requires period and evidential expertise.

There is a clear integrity issue with these competing claims ... claims that in both cases are magically devoid of support.

[Justin108]

Lets test fuzzies little fallacy shall we.

A woman comes into a police station covered in bruises. She writes out a statement that he husband just beat her (which is clearly in evidence by the bruises), and she claims that her husband also threatened to kill her by placing a gun to her head.

A neighbor also comes in and details the same beating and death threat. However, there is no gun registered to the owner, a search turns up nothing, and the husband denies both the beating and the threat, despite having a long record of domestic violence.

Would it be logical to assume that the wife and neighbor are telling the truth about the beating, which is evidenced by the bruises and general disarray of the house after the assault, but lying about the death threat because we cannot independently verify the statement with physical evidence?

According to fuzzy, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that the death threat took place.

Indeed the courts, based on such fallacious use of evidence, should deny a restraining order because the threat cannot be individually verified and is thus fallacious.

Is there a way to use eye-witness statement to arrive at conclusions or not?

The aptly named fuzzy test for you.

The difference is that death threats and owning a gun both conform to reality. In this case I would believe the woman's claim. However if she claimed he held a light-saber to her throat then I would not believe her. Now I know you're going to write this off as "absurd" again but then you'd just be dodging the point. The point I am making is that the claims in the bible are no mere claims. The claims in the bible are radical and radical claims (like the light-saber and the earlier mentioned dragon) require radical evidence.

So does the historical narrative of Jesus. And it relates directly to the question of how to treat the eyewitness statements of human beings .. particularly multiple eye witness accounts.

Either the standard is, if we can verify parts as honest, we can assume that the remainder in most likely true. Or the standard is tat we can only trust eye witness statement in any circumstance unless we have corroborating evidence.

If the subjective opinion, quite possible born of your own bias, is used to reject claims simply because you declare them untenable or unrealistic ... then we have no standards for evaluation at all.

Indeed, as I have proven repeatedly, miracles continue to happen today and are documented, so why is the claim of miracles in the past 'so fantastic as to violate the standards of judgement?'

It is your faith looking for a reason to exclude evidence.

Simply put, we can always rationalize away that which we do not wish to deal with ... The fact remains we have eye witness accounts that detail a series of miracles and they appear to be substantially genuine.

So it comes down to that question: Are honest men lying about these things, or telling the truth?

1. The standard varies from situation to situation. And I want you to answer this scenario to prove my point. In your scenario of the abused woman, I would believe her statement about the gun. This is because it conforms to reality. But I would not believe her claim that her husband threatened her with a lightsaber. Would you? I need you to answer this. If a woman who was assaulted by her husband claimed he had a lightsaber... would you believe her?


2. I have responded to your "proofs" of miracles and explained why they are wanting. Cancer remissions are not miracles. The odds of a cancer remission is more likely than winning the lottery yet you do not consider winning the lottery to need supernatural explanation.

Once again, if miracles are happening now:

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009 ... acles.html

And someone claims in a eyewitness statement (several actually) that a miracle occured, we either assume that they are lying or telling the truth.

If the ONLY reason we doubt them is because our preconceptions tell us that there are no miracles, then we will never be convinced will we.

You have basically put your own subjectivity into and objective process. Indeed, people being threatened with a gun, and I say this as a combat veteran, is relatively rare, most people throughout the course of their lives will NEVER be threatened with a gun.

Yet solely because we have subjective familiarity with 'guns' a story naturally become plausible ... the integrity of the claimant isn't even a part of the process?

Now, how do you apply that 2,000 year old documents in an entirely different culture? You don't.

You HAVE to evaluate the character of the claimant. If an eye witness claims Hannibal went right rather than left, we would never allow, "Well, in MY tactical sense going left is fantastic, therefore the statement is clearly false."

Yet we should accept it for Jesus?

All of these "miracles" need no divine explanation. They are merely very rare occurrences. None of these occurrences are medically impossible. They are merely medically improbable - which is why I asked you, and I will ask you again, do you attribute winning the lottery to divine intervention?

If you can show me something that happened that is IMPOSSIBLE (such as water becoming wine) instead of improbable then I might consider it more.

The other question which you left unanswered is: Would you believe the woman's claim if she claimed to have been threatened with a light-saber?

[Bust Nak]

There is a known, defined, and sourced definition of an argument from absurdity, which has been repeatedly provided.

Care to provide it again? I don't know what an argument form absurdity is. Are you using that term as synonymous with appeal to ridicule?