From post nr. 10.
Is a theist's testimony obligatory for others?
- Thread starter wynn
- Start date
From post nr. 10.
Alright, if testimony is evidence, then i have a testimony for all you theists.
I was given a revelation last night. The true creator of the universe, and all of reality, is the Giant Space Duck. The Giant Space Duck created the universe so that He could feed on the electromagnetic fields of planets and we should all pray to Him in the hopes that he will leave our Planet for last. Those who disbelieve invite His presence and we will all be crushed beneath His webbed foot. Fear the web-footed wrath of the Giant Space Duck!
Now, how is that any different from your testimonies?
I was given a revelation last night. The true creator of the universe, and all of reality, is the Giant Space Duck. The Giant Space Duck created the universe so that He could feed on the electromagnetic fields of planets and we should all pray to Him in the hopes that he will leave our Planet for last. Those who disbelieve invite His presence and we will all be crushed beneath His webbed foot. Fear the web-footed wrath of the Giant Space Duck!
Now, how is that any different from your testimonies?
prob is your testimony does not line up with others testimonies.
if only one person who looked into the box said it was a duck, would a duck be in the box?
it means you just moved the goalposts..
I did nothing of the sort. I merely ignored your answer because it wasn't one and then highlighted a flaw in your argument.
I could, given an hour's notice, come up with hundreds of people who're willing to give you the exact same testimony, and that's just the thing. No amount of testimony which runs counter to your beliefs will ever convince you, it wouldn't matter if I could come up with a billion people. This just proves that testimony isn't valid evidence, no matter how much you have. Belief never equates evidence that the belief is correct.
I could, given an hour's notice, come up with hundreds of people who're willing to give you the exact same testimony, and that's just the thing. No amount of testimony which runs counter to your beliefs will ever convince you, it wouldn't matter if I could come up with a billion people. This just proves that testimony isn't valid evidence, no matter how much you have. Belief never equates evidence that the belief is correct.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
I think you misunderstand the difference between evidence and proof. We know it is a flawed argument, that's why it is not proof, but we do take it to be a sign of something, be it a huge duck, a personal god, or what have you. Although independent corroborating testimonies helps understand what this thing might be and you're analogy does lack that. You just willfully made up something knowing it was false. If you think that early church fathers did the same, then the burden is on you to show it.
@Socratic --
I understand the difference fully, evidence is used to support a hypothesis, proof is a mathematical concept. However in common parlance, which is what is typically used in these forums, the two terms are interchangeable.
So you believe this tripe because other people say things which are similar to what you believe? How is this any sort of evidence? It's not, it's a logical fallacy that falls somewhere between wishful thinking and argumentum ad populum. It used to be that everyone, and I do mean every living human, would testify under threat of death that the Earth was flat, did that make it evidence? Of course it fucking didn't.
No I didn't. I heard it from someone else, meaning that my analogy is less lacking than you think. My entire analogy was to set up a reductio ad absurdum, and I did that splendidly.
We know they did it. The various churches always picked and chose their own biblical canon as well as their various dogma. Get that, the picked and chose based on what they wanted. Hell, half the stuff was pulled right out of their ass, like the Nicene Creed. This is all well established history, established by the churches themselves none the less, it's common knowledge.
I understand the difference fully, evidence is used to support a hypothesis, proof is a mathematical concept. However in common parlance, which is what is typically used in these forums, the two terms are interchangeable.
So you believe this tripe because other people say things which are similar to what you believe? How is this any sort of evidence? It's not, it's a logical fallacy that falls somewhere between wishful thinking and argumentum ad populum. It used to be that everyone, and I do mean every living human, would testify under threat of death that the Earth was flat, did that make it evidence? Of course it fucking didn't.
No I didn't. I heard it from someone else, meaning that my analogy is less lacking than you think. My entire analogy was to set up a reductio ad absurdum, and I did that splendidly.
We know they did it. The various churches always picked and chose their own biblical canon as well as their various dogma. Get that, the picked and chose based on what they wanted. Hell, half the stuff was pulled right out of their ass, like the Nicene Creed. This is all well established history, established by the churches themselves none the less, it's common knowledge.
The theist says 'God's in the box'. You ask him if he looked, and he says 'No'. You ask him how he knows god's in the box and he says 'God told me he is'. You look in the box and it's empty. The theist says, 'Well God WAS in the box'. You ask him how he knows and he says 'God told me'.
Repeat ad nauseum.
Repeat ad nauseum.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
If "common parlance" is what's typically used in these forums, then that explains a lot. I disagree that the two terms are interchangeable at all.
I will admit though that the rest of your post makes valid points, except that we don't know that the early church fathers knowingly lied. We don't have any of their manuscripts. All we have is altered manuscripts by those who came after them.
And no, I don't believe this tripe because of what anyone else has to say about it. As I said at first, believing because of what someone else says is a crappy reason to believe. It may support conclusions you come to independently, but it shouldn't lead you to those conclusions.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
Why would he say, No?
QED. A testimony is NOT evidence. It requires corroboration.
Because he has faith. If you have faith, knowing is redundent. In fact, knowing is often antithetical to faith, so he wouldn't want to look.
If he'd looked, he'd know better.
Socratic Spelunker
Registered Senior Member
Ah, I understand then. For the record though, not all theists view faith and knowledge as being opposed to each other. I agree that it is the dominant view, so you're kinda justified in stating it, but I think its a tragic doctrine that came about when the church was trying to suppress free thinking and inquisitiveness. Realistically though, faith can't require the absence of knowledge because god commands theists to acquire as much of both as possible.
But, in summary, I understand and agree with your point. Just don't lump me in the same group as them
, at least not in this regard =P.Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
There's a difference between evidence for court and evidence for science. For science, eye-wittness testimony is unreliable. For a courtroom, it is. Empirical testing and the ability to re-test claims are crucial in science.
May I suggest you actually check the facts?
Eyewitness testimony, even in a court of law, is rarely accepted on its own.
Do some googling on the legal problems that have arisen where eyewitness testimony has been used as the main source of "evidence".
Besides, we aren't discussing testimony with regard to the law in this thread, are we?
Mind Over Matter
Registered Senior Member
Are you sure? For a courtroom, it sometimes is.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
How do we know they actually looked into the box? We didn't see them looking into it..
Let them prove that they actually looked into the box first.