Is a theist's testimony obligatory for others?

Are you sure?
So you couldn't be bothered to look it up.

For a courtroom, it sometimes is.
Really?
If all you have is uncorroborated eyewitness testimony then it's one man's word against another's.
In law eyewitness testimony is regarded as the least reliable form of "evidence" and is avoided as much as possible.
 
Is a theist's testimony obligatory for others?

Can a theist unilaterally obligate other people (who are not theists) to belief in God?

Do theists believe that God will punish those who are not convinced by the testimonies of theists?
What on earth makes you think issues of divine punishment and reward are dictated purely by testimony?
 
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.

You're just repeating issues I already admitted were there. Why don't you do the scientific thing and perform the experiment yourself?
 
@MOM --

No, even in a court of law testimony is not accepted on it's own. It can only be used to strengthen other evidence. For example, if you say someone killed a guy with no other evidence, your claim will be dismissed due to lack of evidence. If, however, you say that you saw someone kill a guy and the defendant has the victims blood all over his shirt, your testimony will strengthen the physical evidence.
 
@MOM --

No, even in a court of law testimony is not accepted on it's own. It can only be used to strengthen other evidence. For example, if you say someone killed a guy with no other evidence, your claim will be dismissed due to lack of evidence. If, however, you say that you saw someone kill a guy and the defendant has the victims blood all over his shirt, your testimony will strengthen the physical evidence.

Funny, in Texas you can convict based on the word of one eyewitness alone, no other evidence...that's what the law says!
I was recently in a jury pool for a DWI case, and there was only the arresting officer's word against the defendant's, no other evidence. The defendant refused a breath test...but they didn't get a warrant and do a blood draw.
No video, and only one arresting officer, no other witnesses.
So few of us were willing to convict based on that there were not enough valid jurors in the pool.
I'm a chronic, off and on social-science undergrad...so was sitting there thinking "Loftus! Loftus!"

Not seating a jury ticked the judge off. But apparently I was not alone in thinking the prosecution's case was crappily supported.
:eek:
Anyway...on with the show?
 
Last edited:
Well that is Texas, we can't exactly expect them to be rational. But I can tell you that that is not the way it works in most parts of the country, and is actually in violation of some of our Constitutional rights.
 
Well that is Texas, we can't exactly expect them to be rational.
Yes, instead of fluoride in the drinking water, we should just have a nice low-dose antipsychotic...aaaanyway....:rolleyes:
 
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.
because it is not your testimony.
the more you think about God the easier it is to see him.
when you see him, then this is your testimony,
then all other testimonies that do not line up with your testimony will seem false, this is where the humanity in us makes it about ourselves.(justification)

Belief never equates evidence that the belief is correct.
did you mean incorrect?

That about sums it up, but you forgot the threats of eternal torment if we don't believe that god is/was in the box.
see above about justification, this is our own humanity making it about ourselves..(if everyone else believes as I do, then that justifies what I believe)

evidence is used to support a hypothesis, proof is a mathematical concept.
one must distinguish between the mathematical terms and philosophical terms.

If you think that early church fathers did the same, then the burden is on you to show it.
think about it..how hard would it be for someone to 'make something up' and convince others it is real? much less survive the ages..
lets conduct a test..lets go back in time and convince everyone that God is a Squirrel..do you really think it would last?
------------
QED. A testimony is NOT evidence.
How many ppl would it take to convince others you were an a**hole?
(ok..maybe the wrong person to ask this question .:rolleyes:<couldn't resist>.but ignore any personalizations..)
how many of those testimonies would it take to convince ppl you are an Ahole?
this would be dependent on how many ppl said that you were NOT an Ahole..

It requires corroboration.
um..yes..
that is why you look for many testimonies to form a more clearer picture of what is in the box.
nothing has been discussed as to whether a testimony is a stand alone piece of evidence..other evidence/testimonies are needed to be able to have any reasonable conclusions.
 
@MOM --

No, even in a court of law testimony is not accepted on it's own. It can only be used to strengthen other evidence. For example, if you say someone killed a guy with no other evidence, your claim will be dismissed due to lack of evidence. If, however, you say that you saw someone kill a guy and the defendant has the victims blood all over his shirt, your testimony will strengthen the physical evidence.
so then you have the testimony of the person presenting the evidence too ... I mean generally we can accept that without thinking having a blood splattered shirts isn't merely the consequence of a forensic analysis, yes?
:shrug:
 

I dunno. Depends on the denomination you want to test I guess. Some say Pray and ask God himself, counting on "religious experience" as an answer. Some use the whole "Good tree, good fruit" analogy from the New Testament. Practice a principle and see if good things come of it. Jesus said, "If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself." That seems applicable here.

But I dunno, it seems like every denomination has a method. Go ask someone how they did it, try it, and see if you get the same result.
 
@NM --

because it is not your testimony.

Whose testimony it is is irrelevant. I wouldn't care if it was the testimony of every single person on earth, it still doesn't equal evidence. Belief is never evidence.

the more you think about God the easier it is to see him.

This is deep fried tripe on a bike. I was a theist, remember, I know full well how the mindset works. Not once did I actually see or experience god, I just had experiences which I believed were from god. Big difference.

when you see him, then this is your testimony, then all other testimonies that do not line up with your testimony will seem false, this is where the humanity in us makes it about ourselves.

And this is why testimony is not evidence. Why should I take your testimony over, say, a muslim's testimony, or a hindu's? There's no reason to do so unless you provide evidence to corroborate your testimony.

did you mean incorrect?

I meant what I said, hence the example that followed in my next post. You want another example of why testimony isn't evidence? Here's one. During the dark ages, it was common practice to drill holes in the skull to relieve everything from headaches to narcolepsy. This was because the belief, and testimony, was that demons were causing these illnesses by taking up residence in the skull and a hole needed to be drilled to let them out. This was the testimony of virtually every medical "expert" at that time. Did that testimony constitute evidence that demons were actually causing these things? Absolutely not.

one must distinguish between the mathematical terms and philosophical terms

In a technical discussion yes, this would be the case. However this can't even laughably be considered a technical discussion. No, for a thread like this common parlance is typically clear enough and any miscommunications can be quickly remedied with further clarification.

think about it..how hard would it be for someone to 'make something up' and convince others it is real? much less survive the ages..
lets conduct a test..lets go back in time and convince everyone that God is a Squirrel..do you really think it would last?

To the modern ages, or haven't you heard of Shintoism? People believed that the Earth was flat for thousands of years after this was discovered to be false, religion is no different.

@lightgigantic --

I mean generally we can accept that without thinking having a blood splattered shirts isn't merely the consequence of a forensic analysis, yes?

Yes, however there are numerous possible explanations for having a blood splattered shirt. For example the person could be a butcher or work in a slaughter house, perhaps they god injured and bled on their own shirt. However, no matter how you slice it, testimony isn't evidence.
 
Funny, in Texas you can convict based on the word of one eyewitness alone

The same thing is true in California. I believe that it's standard legal practice everywhere in the United States, and probably in all common law countries.

Section 411 of the California Evidence Code states:

"411. Except where additional evidence is required by statute, the direct evidence of one witness who is entitled to full credit is sufficient for proof of any fact."

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=410-413

Of course, many crimes and torts require that multiple elements be proved, so that oftentimes multiple witnesses will be required to testify so as to establish multiple things. And obviously, producing multiple witnesses to a single element makes it much harder for opposing counsel to create doubt in jurors' minds by discrediting a witness.
 
Does any theist have any objections to this -

The way I see it, if God exists, then presumably God is going to do whatever it's going to do. It's like a force of nature, except even more implacable and irresistable.

If there are any expectations, obligations or demands applicable to me personally in that, then they are coming direct from God him/her/itself, not from any 'theists' that I meet.

They and their beliefs about what I should be doing are basically irrelevant to the whole thing.

All that matters to me is what I believe (since that will presumably be what governs my actions), whether there's some supernatural reason why I should be doing something in particular, and how I can possibly know it if there is.


-?
 
What on earth makes you think issues of divine punishment and reward are dictated purely by testimony?

All we run-of-the-mill people know "about God" (whether it really is about God or not, is another matter), we heard from people. Not from God Himself.

Those same people who tell us "about God" are also the ones who claim what God's terms are.

It is this fact that we run-of-the-mill people know "about God" only from people,
that makes people's testimony the highest instance of information and judgment for us,
at least for all practical purposes, if not even in absolute terms (if some particular religions, such as some schools of Christianity where each believer is considered an authoritative representative of God, are true, then the latter is also the case).
 
I'm not sure I understand all of it, but the fact that you word it like a contract makes me think you're trying to make a point. Can you just get to the point and I'll tell you if I agree or not?
 
Back
Top