Christian Faith

[DBT]

Keep the issues separate. There are often net equivalences. Either unverifiable testimonial evidence is evidence or it's not--equivalence to value be damned.

Saying "one has evidence but it's not worth a damn" might ring up to equivalent values with "you have no evidence," but in the latter, there is no evidence at all while with the former, there is evidence--just perhaps not considered to be worth a damn since to some it is unverifiable.

The point was, testimony alone is not sufficient to prove a proposition. The person describing something may be mistaken, may be interpreting whatever is being described according to preconceived beliefs (selection bias), etc.

A degree of evidence may be established when multiple unrelated witnesses, with no particular beliefs in common come forward and give similar descriptions.

If, for example, a group of Muslims come forward and claim that someone has blasphemed against Allah, it may or may not be the case, but the truth has to be determined in other way, not just taken as true on the words of claimants giving their testimonies.

 

[fast]

The point was, testimony alone is not sufficient to prove a proposition.

Yes, and that point is well taken, but what's at issue is what does or does not constitute evidence. At this juncture, I'm looking from you mere acknowledgement that testimonial evidence is in fact evidence. Like a grade on a test that can be a good grade (like 97 out of 100) or a bad grade (32 out of a 100), a grade is a grade is a grade (whether good, bad, or in between), yet you appear to hold true to a notion that insufficient evidence does not even count as evidence.

You appear to hold to a notion that evidence is not evidence unless and until it can be empirically demonstrated to support a conclusion infallibly, but unlike you, I hold to a notion that evidence is evidence is evidence regardless of its standing in substantiating beyond question the truthfulness of a conclusion.

It's like you're saying a bad grade is not a grade at all. If something is evidence but not sufficient in that it cannot substantiate a claim, instead of regarding it as evidence, bad as it might or might not be, you discount its standing as even being evidence.

 

[DBT]

The point was, testimony alone is not sufficient to prove a proposition.

Yes, and that point is well taken, but what's at issue is what does or does not constitute evidence. At this juncture, I'm looking from you mere acknowledgement that testimonial evidence is in fact evidence.

Testimony alone is not evidence. It may be just an erroneous description of something as perceived by the person, perhaps under the influence of drugs, delusional, etc.

It is the quality of information (verifiable information, corroboration, etc) as a component or part a testimony that makes it either valuable as evidence or worthless.

You appear to hold to a notion that evidence is not evidence unless and until it can be empirically demonstrated to support a conclusion infallibly, but unlike you, I hold to a notion that evidence is evidence is evidence regardless of its standing in substantiating beyond question the truthfulness of a conclusion.

Not my notions, just what is defined as evidence, including scales of evidence;

In science.

And in Law

''The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.[1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

The quantum of evidence is the amount of evidence needed; the quality of proof is how reliable such evidence should be considered. Important rules that govern admissibility concern hearsay, authentication, relevance, privilege, witnesses, opinions, expert testimony, identification and rules of physical evidence. There are various standards of evidence or standards showing how strong the evidence must be to meet the legal burden of proof in a given situation, ranging from reasonable suspicion to preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, or beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are several types of evidence, depending on the form or source. Evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral or written statements, such as an affidavit), exhibits (e.g., physical objects), documentary material, or demonstrative evidence, which are admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative proceeding (e.g., a court of law).

When a dispute, whether relating to a civil or criminal matter, reaches the court there will always be a number of issues which one party will have to prove in order to persuade the court to find in his or her favour. The law must ensure certain guidelines are set out in order to ensure that evidence presented to the court can be regarded as trustworthy.''

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The point was, testimony alone is not sufficient to prove a proposition.

Yes, and that point is well taken, but what's at issue is what does or does not constitute evidence. At this juncture, I'm looking from you mere acknowledgement that testimonial evidence is in fact evidence.

I am actually six feet tall. But if I tell you that I am seven feet tall is that evidence that I am seven feet tall?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If testimony is evidence then what isn't evidence? For example I could testify that the moon is proof that bigfoot sleeps under my bed. Is this evidence that bigfoot sleeps under my bed?

Likewise fantastic accounts of people flying around in the sky and performing impossible things is supposed to be evidence that there exists these invisible creatures that live in the sky, mate with us and produce demigods, etc. How is that any different than the moon proving that bigfoot sleeps under my bed or the moon proving that I'm seven feet tall?

I certainly understand what is meant by offering evidence, and how testimony qualifies as evidence. But if the only "evidence" offered for bigfoot's nocturnal habits is personal testimony and there is no corroborating evidence to support that testimony then we will dismiss that testimony, as well we should, even if ten million people claim that bigfoot sleeps under my bed, or that they are all seven feet tall.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If you are a Christian with true faith why must you intellectualize and prove the faith as true?

I would think that with true faith on can simply dwell in the it without having to explain, prove, or justify. Eternal impervious unassailable joy. Which by the way is what I believe the Buddhism goal, without a deity.

It's the other way around. True faith cannot be justified. If it is, it's not faith

 

[Politesse]

If testimony is evidence then what isn't evidence? For example I could testify that the moon is proof that bigfoot sleeps under my bed. Is this evidence that bigfoot sleeps under my bed?

Likewise fantastic accounts of people flying around in the sky and performing impossible things is supposed to be evidence that there exists these invisible creatures that live in the sky, mate with us and produce demigods, etc. How is that any different than the moon proving that bigfoot sleeps under my bed or the moon proving that I'm seven feet tall?

I certainly understand what is meant by offering evidence, and how testimony qualifies as evidence. But if the only "evidence" offered for bigfoot's nocturnal habits is personal testimony and there is no corroborating evidence to support that testimony then we will dismiss that testimony, as well we should, even if ten million people claim that bigfoot sleeps under my bed, or that they are all seven feet tall.

If ten milion people attested to having seen bigfoot under your bed, that would certainly be a phenomenon in need of explanation.

 

[steve_bank]

If testimony is evidence then what isn't evidence? For example I could testify that the moon is proof that bigfoot sleeps under my bed. Is this evidence that bigfoot sleeps under my bed?

Likewise fantastic accounts of people flying around in the sky and performing impossible things is supposed to be evidence that there exists these invisible creatures that live in the sky, mate with us and produce demigods, etc. How is that any different than the moon proving that bigfoot sleeps under my bed or the moon proving that I'm seven feet tall?

I certainly understand what is meant by offering evidence, and how testimony qualifies as evidence. But if the only "evidence" offered for bigfoot's nocturnal habits is personal testimony and there is no corroborating evidence to support that testimony then we will dismiss that testimony, as well we should, even if ten million people claim that bigfoot sleeps under my bed, or that they are all seven feet tall.

If ten milion people attested to having seen bigfoot under your bed, that would certainly be a phenomenon in need of explanation.

I'd think 10,000 people were playing a joke on me or were experiencing mas delusion.

There are no contemporary accounts in Rome of any Jesus character. A letter from one friend to another, hey Tiberius I just saw some guy walking on water. Look on a wall map of the region. The areas where the events allegedly took place is very small.

The word Crist was not a last or surname. Like given by Greek influenced authors.

Bigfoot is a good analogy. It shows how myths get started and perpetuated. Same with Area 61 and alien bodies. The Obama birther believers.

It I not inconceivable that there was a flesh and blood character, it is easy to see how whatever he did would be embellished by the time the gospels were written. Ever do the kids experiment where you line up 20 kids, whisper a story to the first, and have it passed from kid to kid and get distorted in passage?

There is no evidence to support your faith other than subjective interpretation of reality. There were competing stories of the movement, and not all supernatural. What became the NT cannon was decided by committee at Nicaea centuries later. Well past any credible first hand accounts. There is no connection between the NT and any original Jewish movement.

There are no source documents.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If testimony is evidence then what isn't evidence? For example I could testify that the moon is proof that bigfoot sleeps under my bed. Is this evidence that bigfoot sleeps under my bed?

Likewise fantastic accounts of people flying around in the sky and performing impossible things is supposed to be evidence that there exists these invisible creatures that live in the sky, mate with us and produce demigods, etc. How is that any different than the moon proving that bigfoot sleeps under my bed or the moon proving that I'm seven feet tall?

I certainly understand what is meant by offering evidence, and how testimony qualifies as evidence. But if the only "evidence" offered for bigfoot's nocturnal habits is personal testimony and there is no corroborating evidence to support that testimony then we will dismiss that testimony, as well we should, even if ten million people claim that bigfoot sleeps under my bed, or that they are all seven feet tall.

If ten milion people attested to having seen bigfoot under your bed, that would certainly be a phenomenon in need of explanation.

That people are credulous to a fault is the best explanation, owing of course to natural selection.

To be more accurate, I'm not certain it is bigfoot or simply the ghost of bigfoot that sleeps under my bed.

And why would bigfoot reveal itself to me and ten million people in this way?

Too many questions.

 

[fast]

The point was, testimony alone is not sufficient to prove a proposition.

Yes, and that point is well taken, but what's at issue is what does or does not constitute evidence. At this juncture, I'm looking from you mere acknowledgement that testimonial evidence is in fact evidence.

I am actually six feet tall. But if I tell you that I am seven feet tall is that evidence that I am seven feet tall?

Yes. The claim is being made for the purpose of supporting a purported fact. That's what makes it evidence. Testimony is notorious for being weak evidence, but evidence it is still. Other countervailing evidence can be brought to light that undermines your testimony, and your testimonial evidence will be discounted and be deemed to hold no supporting value, but equivalencies between evidence of no value and no evidence does not change its actual status.

A glass with no water will quench your thirst no more nor less than no water. Deny that I've given you water, and deny that I've given you a glass of water, but useless as it might be to quinching your thirst, don't deny that I've given you a glass.

Piss poor evidence (exceedingly weak evidence) is not nothing but something.

 

[fast]

If testimony is evidence then what isn't evidence? For example I could testify that the moon is proof that bigfoot sleeps under my bed. Is this evidence that bigfoot sleeps under my bed?

Likewise fantastic accounts of people flying around in the sky and performing impossible things is supposed to be evidence that there exists these invisible creatures that live in the sky, mate with us and produce demigods, etc. How is that any different than the moon proving that bigfoot sleeps under my bed or the moon proving that I'm seven feet tall?

I certainly understand what is meant by offering evidence, and how testimony qualifies as evidence. But if the only "evidence" offered for bigfoot's nocturnal habits is personal testimony and there is no corroborating evidence to support that testimony then we will dismiss that testimony, as well we should, even if ten million people claim that bigfoot sleeps under my bed, or that they are all seven feet tall.

I promised three people I would give them each an apple. I gave Ann a nice fresh apple, and I gave Betty a nice fresh apple, but upon your table, I placed a rotten, delapotated, deteriorating fruit that once was a nice fresh apple. You scream that I have given you a rotten fruit--and you're right, I did. But, you went a step further and denied that I have given you an apple. You could have said that I haven't given you a fresh apple, but that's not the rumor you spread.

So the local farmers came by to inspect this rotting fruit and saw that it's a rotting apple. They say, fast did you promise everyone a fresh apple. I say no sir. They ask, did you promise them an apple. I admit that I did.

You say, see there! This is no apple! They look at each other and laugh. I did give you an apple. You're just upset that the apple is no good.

The evidence that you're seven feet tall (that is, your claim) is no good when pitted up against countervailing evidence. But, bad as it is, it's still evidence--just not worth a damn given the countervailing evidence.

The evidence that there is a God (biblical testimonial claims) may not prove beyond all that might doubt, and some will surely judge the evidence to be weak, but what's at issue (the real issue I'm addressing) isn't the value (or lack thereof) of the presented evidence but whether or not what presented is in fact evidence.

Just as the apple is an apple, evidence is evidence. An orange is not an apple, but a bad apple is.

 

[DBT]

I am actually six feet tall. But if I tell you that I am seven feet tall is that evidence that I am seven feet tall?

Yes. The claim is being made for the purpose of supporting a purported fact. That's what makes it evidence. Testimony is notorious for being weak evidence, but evidence it is still.

A testimony is nothing more than a testimony. Other factors determine whether a testimony can be accepted as evidence. A testimony alone is just someone describing something according to their experience. Or it may be a case of self deception, illusion, poor observational skill, etc, but the value of the testimony needs to be determined by further inquiry.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Just as the apple is an apple, evidence is evidence. An orange is not an apple, but a bad apple is.

But you just argued that if I testify that an orange is an apple that is evidence that an orange is an apple. And now you just said that an orange is not an apple. The problem with your argument is in a post you have not addressed wherein I stated that by your argument everything can be made to be evidence for anything simply by someone's testimony.

Where you are making a mistake is in saying that testimony is evidence for what it claims. Stating that an orange is an apple is probably testimonial evidence or something like that. But it is certainly not evidence that an orange is an apple.

 

[steve_bank]

That is a great illustration. If 10,000 people look at an apple and believe it is an orange does it make the orange an apple?

There was a recent sighting by two commercial jets of a bright object flashing above them at the same time.

FOX news turned into an ET spin. If you watch the sky enough at night with binoculars you will see flashes. Meteors. At night out in central Washington on the highway I saw a bright swath of light flash across the sky out in front and above.

To ne obviously a meteor or other low Erath orbit object enteric g the atmosphere. Happens all the time.

Today there is a an entire mythology on ET. What I wonder is why ET seems obsessed with anal examination on abductees.

If 10,000 people see a bright flash and call it a sign from god that does not make it a sign from god especially when there are common explanations. This extends to basing a religious faith in interpreting common everyday experience as divine retribution or providence.

Earthquakes, storms, droughts, plagues, wars, and famines have been an ongoing part of human history. Yet they are interpreted today as evidence of biblical prophesy..

 

[fast]

I am actually six feet tall. But if I tell you that I am seven feet tall is that evidence that I am seven feet tall?

Yes. The claim is being made for the purpose of supporting a purported fact. That's what makes it evidence. Testimony is notorious for being weak evidence, but evidence it is still.

A testimony is nothing more than a testimony. Other factors determine whether a testimony can be accepted as evidence. A testimony alone is just someone describing something according to their experience. Or it may be a case of self deception, illusion, poor observational skill, etc, but the value of the testimony needs to be determined by further inquiry.

Many years ago, I watched an hilarious scene on America's Dumbest Criminals where a cop entered a small cafe and spotted a wanted suspect. The cop approached and questioned him about his whereabouts, etc. To defend himself, the suspect explained that someone had been spreading his fingerprints all over town. That was some funny stuff!

It's ludicrous, of course, but (But!), that was his explanation. That was his explanation (or reason given) to support the notion that he was innocent of the alleged crimes to which he's been accused. This is where we might want some evidence to support his explanation, but there's more going on here than meets the eye if we go off in pursuit of that evidence. Goalposts have been shifted. I'm going to divert to a simpler example, discuss another matter, and finally revisit this example.

Little Johnny, a middle school student, who sat near the back of class was asked by the teacher Ms. White if he played hooky yesterday. He said, "No Ms. White, I didn't play hooky." Then, the teacher asks him why he didn't come to class yesterday. He explained why (or gave reason for) not showing up to class: "I broke my arm", he says. The teacher upon hearing this explanation became somewhat suspicious because little Johnny had a big grin on his face, so Ms White asked if he could provide any evidence to support his claim. He proudly stood up thereby putting on full display for all the class to see the arm-cast that was recently put on his arm.

Let's start out with what we can call an original claim. That is not evidence. If that claim is brought into contention, I might be pressed to bring in support of that claim. Whatever I bring in, be it physical or verbally explanatory, so long as it's being used to support the original claim, it is evidence, good or bad. Even another claim, so long as it's not a rehash of the original claim, is evidence. Yes, you might want evidence to support even that secondary claim, but that doesn't alter it's status as being evidence for the original.

The statement that he didn't play hooky is an original claim. It had support, but at the time it was uttered, no support had been offered. The statement made later, "I broke my arm", though a claim in its own right, also had support not brought forward at that time, but while the original claim is not evidence, as it wasn't a claim used to support another, the later claim is in fact evidence. Yes, as far as Ms. White was concerned, that claim too warranted further investigation. She wanted evidence further collaborating not just that he didn't play hooky but that he in fact broke his arm. Instead of showing the cast, what if the kid brought his mother and Doctor in to collaborate his story? Maybe even a few fake X-rays to go along with that stolen cast to boot, lol.

The dumb criminal wanted the cop to believe he was innocent of the looming charges, and to support that notion, he explained himself, but because it was used to support (nevermind success or veracity) an original position, it qualifies (lousy as it might be) as evidence.

There are facts (worldly affairs), and there are statements about those facts, but statements too are facts; in fact, pun intended, "facts" is ambiguous and can mean either; thus, we can have facts about facts. A 911 caller said, "I shot my wife." At trial, he denied that he did. The tape was played. His saying it is evidence he did it, even if he didn't, and the 911 tape is evidence he said it, even if someone else did.

People have an intuitive notion that this is supposed to make sense, as if there must be a direct trace between evidence and what it's evidence of, but nope; it's as screwy as it sounds. The best we can do is play ping pong.

 

[DBT]

A testimony is nothing more than a testimony. Other factors determine whether a testimony can be accepted as evidence. A testimony alone is just someone describing something according to their experience. Or it may be a case of self deception, illusion, poor observational skill, etc, but the value of the testimony needs to be determined by further inquiry.

It's ludicrous, of course, but (But!), that was his explanation. That was his explanation (or reason given) to support the notion that he was innocent of the alleged crimes to which he's been accused. This is where we might want some evidence to support his explanation,

That is precisely what I meant, except the principle of ''we might want some evidence to support his explanation'' applies to each and every case where a testimony is being used to establish the truth.

Someones account of events or claims can't be just taken at face value, character and probability at the very least - though not being evidence to support the claims - may establish a degree of likelihood, but that's all.

I think the same applies to your other examples.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Right.
And scripture nowhere commissions Christians to have to "prove" God exists according to some arbitrary level of empirical, repeatable evidence as is so frequently demanded by strong atheists.
Plus you have to balance the ideal of "polite" testimony with the need to speak in tongues as it were. Frankly, there's a lot of folks around here who only speak vulgarian. (When in Rome....)

It doesn't have to. Adults have to do it before even opening the Bible. If they don't they don't know if the Bible is relevant. If they want to be seen as mature adults of course. If they're happy believing whatever they want, like a child, they can just use faith.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Right.
And scripture nowhere commissions Christians to have to "prove" God exists according to some arbitrary level of empirical, repeatable evidence as is so frequently demanded by strong atheists.
Plus you have to balance the ideal of "polite" testimony with the need to speak in tongues as it were. Frankly, there's a lot of folks around here who only speak vulgarian. (When in Rome....)

It doesn't have to. Adults have to do it before even opening the Bible. If they don't they don't know if the Bible is relevant. If they want to be seen as mature adults of course. If they're happy believing whatever they want, like a child, they can just use faith.

That is an apt analogy. Religious faith is very much just like believing something as a child. Again, Santa comes to mind, tooth fairies, easter bunnies, etc. Kids don't need proof of Santa, they just believe because that's what they've been told.

 

[fast]

A testimony is nothing more than a testimony. Other factors determine whether a testimony can be accepted as evidence. A testimony alone is just someone describing something according to their experience. Or it may be a case of self deception, illusion, poor observational skill, etc, but the value of the testimony needs to be determined by further inquiry.

It's ludicrous, of course, but (But!), that was his explanation. That was his explanation (or reason given) to support the notion that he was innocent of the alleged crimes to which he's been accused. This is where we might want some evidence to support his explanation,

That is precisely what I meant, except the principle of ''we might want some evidence to support his explanation'' applies to each and every case where a testimony is being used to establish the truth.

Someones account of events or claims can't be just taken at face value, character and probability at the very least - though not being evidence to support the claims - may establish a degree of likelihood, but that's all.

I think the same applies to your other examples.

If you are suspected of shooting Ann and Bob tells the detectives that he saw you shoot Ann, then even if I say you could not have shot Ann because you were with me and neither of us were anywhere near Ann, then while Bob supports the suspicion, both you and I support the denial. The testimony he gives supports one contention while the testimony we give supports the purported fact you did not shoot Ann.

Testimony can be brought into question (regarding strength) just as nontestimonial evidence can too. We can be extremists in skepticism, and I'm not berating that, but a testimony can stand as evidence just as something nontestimonial can. There can be four people testifying you shot someone dead and there be a gun, a gunshot wound, and a dead body. The testimony is as much evidence as is the rest. A testimonial claim is not evidence for itself, but it's evidence in support of something else.

 

[DBT]

That is precisely what I meant, except the principle of ''we might want some evidence to support his explanation'' applies to each and every case where a testimony is being used to establish the truth.

Someones account of events or claims can't be just taken at face value, character and probability at the very least - though not being evidence to support the claims - may establish a degree of likelihood, but that's all.

I think the same applies to your other examples.

If you are suspected of shooting Ann and Bob tells the detectives that he saw you shoot Ann, then even if I say you could not have shot Ann because you were with me and neither of us were anywhere near Ann, then while Bob supports the suspicion, both you and I support the denial. The testimony he gives supports one contention while the testimony we give supports the purported fact you did not shoot Ann.

Testimony can be brought into question (regarding strength) just as nontestimonial evidence can too. We can be extremists in skepticism, and I'm not berating that, but a testimony can stand as evidence just as something nontestimonial can. There can be four people testifying you shot someone dead and there be a gun, a gunshot wound, and a dead body. The testimony is as much evidence as is the rest. A testimonial claim is not evidence for itself, but it's evidence in support of something else.

It's not the testimony of the two parties, per se, that can be taken as evidence, but the support of additional information from other witnesses. Unrelated witnesses, objective observers, etc, building a stronger case for a claim than the word of friends or partners, imparting degrees of probability or possibility but not necessarily proof that what was described actually happened as described.