It´s the same standard that you have, just that you make arbitrary exceptions with stuff that contradict your world view.
No it is not the same standard I have, as just explained.
And you just said this to me:
"What I said is that if scholars find multiple independent sources for an event, they would consider it strong evidence for the historicity of this event."
Then you spoke about evidence as though it's just an afterthought.
Nope, using my standards, you won’t find a single confirmed story of an Alien abduction.
The reason why nobody takes abduction stories seriously is because we don’t ever have independent testimonies confirming this event.
We do, actually.
How Betty and Barney Hill's Alien Abduction Story Defined the Genre
Abducted by Aliens: Believers Tell Their Stories
https://www.washingtonpost.com/hist...site-ufo-abduction-it-gets-historical-marker/
If someone claims to have seen a space ship and an alien, he could be laying or hallucinating .. so his testimony would count as “week evidence”
Ahhh, they could have an agenda. Weird how you realize that when talking about claims other than the ones you accept so readily from the Bible. And oddly enough, you cite testimony from the Bible where a guy claimed to have seen Jesus
after he had died, but not for one second do you imagine he could have been hallucinating or lying. Interesting. Do you see the problem here?
But Hypothetically if 3+ independent witnesses report the space ship and the alien and they all agree with all the specific details then it would be very unlikely that they would have invented the exact same lie independently, or have had hallucinated the same thing so in this case a “real abduction” would be a better explanation than “they all invented the exact same lie, and just by chance they happened to agree with all the details)
Thank you for demonstrating your poor standards for accepting claims without any evidence.
You really think it's unlikely that three people could tell the same lie? So unlikely that you have to jump to the conclusion that not only do aliens from outer space exist, but that they are actually abducting human beings from earth? Really? You realize that sometimes people can just be mistaken as well, right?
Yes, a single testimony is unreliable, but multiple independent testimonies arereliable and always considered strong evidence.
I´ts unlikely for 2 or more persons to have had invented the exact same lie with the exact same details
On what planet is it unlikely for 2 or more persons to invent a shared lie?
Sounds like a semantic game to avoid the burden proof
Nah, you're just projecting.
This is just how logic, reasoning and critical thinking work.
Again if 3+ independent witnesses testified the same thing everybody would consider it strong evidence,
Not anyone who values critical thinking.
……. Nobody is saying that the case is closed and that you can´t look for more evidence // this additional evidence could corroborate or refute the claims…………but that doesn’t change the fact that the 3+ witnesses count as strong evidence.
Not
more evidence. Just evidence, period. Three people claiming a thing is a claim, not evidence.
"Bloodsworth, Kirk (convicted 1984, exonerated 1993) — Mr. Bloodsworth was twice sentenced
to death for the rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl in Baltimore County, Maryland. No
physical or circumstantial evidence linked Mr. Bloodsworth to the crime, but
five witnesses
placed him either with the victim or near the crime scene at the time the crime was believed to
have occurred. DNA testing ultimately established Mr. Bloodsworth’s innocence — he was the
first U.S. death row prisoner to be exonerated by DNA — and he received a full pardon from the
governor of Maryland."
"Burrows, Joseph (convicted 1989, exonerated 1994) — Mr. Burrows was sentenced to death for
the murder and robbery of an 88-year-old farmer in Iroquois County, Illinois.
The only evidence
against Mr. Burrows was the testimony of two purported eyewitness-accomplices who testified
against him in exchange for leniency for themselves – sentences requiring each to serve no more
than 15 years in prison while Mr. Burrows was sentenced to death. Both witnesses ultimately
recanted their testimony, acknowledging that Mr. Burrows had nothing to do with the crime. The
exoneration was in substantial part the result of reporting by Peter Rooney, of the Champaign
Urbana News-Gazette."
"Cobb, Perry (convicted 1979, exonerated 1987) — After two trials ended in hung juries, Mr.
Cobb and a co-defendant, Darby Tillis (aka Williams), were convicted and sentenced to death at
their third trial for the slaying of two men in an all-night diner in Chicago.
The principal
evidence against them was the testimony of a woman who portrayed herself as an unwitting
accomplice to the crime. She was not an eyewitness — in fact, she claimed she learned of the
murders later — but
her testimony was corroborated at the third trial by a bartender who worked
across the street from the diner and positively identified the defendants as the killers, although he
had failed to make positive identifications at the first two trials. The Illinois Supreme Court
ordered a new trial because of judicial error at the first trial. A monthly publication, Chicago
Lawyer, published a lengthy article about the case, and a prosecutor in a neighboring county read
it. That prosecutor testified at the defendants’ retrial that the principal witness at the earlier trials
had admitted committing the double murder with her boyfriend. Messrs. Cobb and Tillis were
acquitted and subsequently received full pardons from the governor of Illinois."
Like I said, eyewitness testimony - even if it's more than one person - is notoriously unreliable. Hence the need for
evidence.
You can go ahead and accept whatever you want, based on whatever flimsy claims you think you've got. But I need some actual evidence, and I submit that you should as well.[/QUOTE]
