Rational Faith
- Thread starter Motar
- Start date
It's good evidence if it is independently verified and tested. Anyone can provide testimony on anything. That doesn't make it good evidence. Same for signs or indications. The fallible element is humanity. People lie, make mistakes, invent, inject personal prejudices, etc.
Well I'm not so sure that evidence isn't also valuable in nature outside the human experience. I assume bees use evidence of nectar to good advantage. Of course we wouldn't be having this available evidence because of our absence but it would still be valid evidence. Evidence always has a point whether or not it's observed.
I've provided you with evidence via personal testimony but you don't accept it. Why should anybody accept your evidence?
The biblical standard for legitimate testimony evidence mandates two or three witnesses, LG:
"On the testimony of two or three witnesses a person is to be put to death, but no one is to be put to death on the testimony of only one witness." (Deuteronomy 17:6 NIV)
"One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (Deuteronomy 19:15 NIV)
"But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (Matthew 18:16 NIV)
"In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true." (John 8:17 NIV)
"This will be my third visit to you. “Every matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses." (2 Corinthians 13:1 NIV)
"Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses." (Hebrews 10:28 NIV)
Presuming that such witnesses have one or more of the five senses, would their testimony qualify as evidence in your estimation?
Well, as we are humans, we can assume just about anything outside of our existences. Doesn't make it true. I am pretty sure bees don't speakee Ingishee anyways so the word probably isn't in their diction.
Last edited:
Sorry, Cliffy. According to LG, your testimony must be independently verified and tested : )
Yeah, one person might lie. Maybe even two. But certainly not three. I am sure lots of cops fell for that idea when trying to arrest a member of the mafia or someone. "You bet I have an alibi officer; Guido, Freddy, and Sam here can swear I was at a party with them" Millions of people could have swore the sun revolved around Earth for a while, too. It was like, what you might say, obvious. The church even verified it. Ah, but then someone had to go and test it. So much for that idea, huh.
Definitely maybe.
I don't expect evidence supporting the production of honey to be coded in english, especially if the bee's were in France or Germany. I expect it would BnB.
Cliffy, please give us the elements of your personal testimony.
I think there is reasonable evidence for creation, biblical history based on archeology/witnesses to Jesus/christian figures throughout history etc. Is this not enough for rational faith?
What type of evidence do parole board members utilize in considering the potential recidivism and release of convicted felons? Is this good evidence? Why or why not?
Heckifino. Never had anything to do with parole boards.
My guess is they go by a lot of factors like how the perp behaved in prison, length of rapsheet, etc.
Why? What's with this line of questioning? You really don't know what evidence is?
No, because in fact there is not such reasonable evidence. Creationism or intelligent design or whatever you want to call it is errant nonsense that's completely unnecessary and adds nothing to any explanation of the universe, it's just the God of the Gaps fallacy that avoids an explanation. The archeological record in the main does not sustain biblical history, Israeli archeologists seeking what David Ben-Gurion referred to as the title deeds for Jewish claims in Palestine have come up empty: no enslavement in Egypt, no exodus, no empire of David and Solomon... We have no eyewitness accounts of Jesus at all, and no the synoptic gospels are not eyewiness accounts. The earliest one, Mark, dates from around 70 A.D. And outside the Bible Jesus is unknown to history, there are no corroborating accounts, all we have are a few rather testy references to some of his fractious early followers.
I have told you that I followed the prescription in the bible: seek and ye shall find, ask a ye shall be answered. I have told you that spirit lead me to a different place than you. If I am in the wrong place, who's fault is it or is the bible lying?
Here is the evidence that there is no evidence to support your faith:
Caesars Messiah - The roman Conspiracy to invent Jesus - YouTube
And why should we accept that just because the Bible says so? Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.