Testimony, oral or written, is not evidence.

[Twilight Hue]

We're all aware of human nature for which sometimes people make things up and testify that something is true when it is in fact not true.

Another kind is a person may have actually witnessed something and testifies that it's true, but cannot prove it. Since it cannot be proven to others, it is not evidence until said evidence is discovered and confirmed.

This goes well with mass testimony as such as what we find with community-based religion where people testify in masse, but cannot prove it outside of the testimonials themselves.

Upon hearing, one cannot determine whether a testimonial is true or not, whether it comes from an individual or a group, until actual evidence surfaces to collaborate and confirm that testimony.

It's a reason why theists have such a difficult time because of the fact that they cannot prove something outside their own testimonials.

It will only become evidence if the evidence itself surfaces for all to see.

Until then, it is not evidence.

Some theologists understand that while others do not.

So are you one who thinks testimony is evidence, or are you one who thinks it is not evidence until the subject of the testimony presents itself in an objective manner?

 

[Quintessence]

Refusing to acknowledge testimonials as a form of evidence is, simply put, ridiculous. You don't have to willfully ignore types of evidence to assess forms of evidence and give them proper weight. Do better. Practice discernment, don't just ignore evidence.

 

[Rival]

I guess all the rape victims need to go home.

 

[Secret Chief]

We're all aware of human nature for which sometimes people make things up and testify that something is true when it is in fact not true.

Another kind is a person may have actually witnessed something and testifies that it's true, but cannot prove it. Since it cannot be proven to others, it is not evidence until said evidence is discovered and confirmed.

This goes well with mass testimony as such as what we find with community-based religion where people testify in masse, but cannot prove it outside of the testimonials themselves.

Upon hearing, one cannot determine whether a testimonial is true or not, whether it comes from an individual or a group, until actual evidence surfaces to collaborate and confirm that testimony.

It's a reason why theists have such a difficult time because of the fact that they cannot prove something outside their own testimonials.

It will only become evidence if the evidence itself surfaces for all to see.

Until then, it is not evidence.

Some theologists understand that while others do not.

So are you one who thinks testimony is evidence, or are you one who thinks it is not evidence until the subject of the testimony presents itself in an objective manner?

"Evidence" means various things, not just one. For instance in a court trial, testimony is legally accepted as evidence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

"In the law, testimony is a form of evidence..."

Testimony - Wikipedia.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think we just have to look around and see how many liars there are (and in public office) to recognise there will have been such in the past, and human nature has hardly changed so as to indicate otherwise. I think it is delusional to expect more truth from the past than we have now - and that is quite difficult to achieve even with all our modern technology and communications.

 

[metis]

"Hearsay evidence" is still evidence but is considered less reliable that some other forms of evidence-- at least most of the time.

My approach to scripture is to treat it entirely as allegory, thus being far less concerned about "Did this really happen?", focusing instead on "What is this trying to teach me that I could possibly use today?".

 

[sayak83]

"Evidence" means various things, not just one. For instance in a court trial, testimony is legally accepted as evidence.

Testimony that survives critical cross examination is acceptable as provisional evidence.

 

[George-ananda]

We're all aware of human nature for which sometimes people make things up and testify that something is true when it is in fact not true.

Another kind is a person may have actually witnessed something and testifies that it's true, but cannot prove it. Since it cannot be proven to others, it is not evidence until said evidence is discovered and confirmed.

This goes well with mass testimony as such as what we find with community-based religion where people testify in masse, but cannot prove it outside of the testimonials themselves.

Upon hearing, one cannot determine whether a testimonial is true or not, whether it comes from an individual or a group, until actual evidence surfaces to collaborate and confirm that testimony.

It's a reason why theists have such a difficult time because of the fact that they cannot prove something outside their own testimonials.

It will only become evidence if the evidence itself surfaces for all to see.

Until then, it is not evidence.

Some theologists understand that while others do not.

So are you one who thinks testimony is evidence, or are you one who thinks it is not evidence until the subject of the testimony presents itself in an objective manner?

You are confusing the words 'evidence' and 'proof'.

Eyewitness Evidence is Evidence that is considered important in court and in real life. It is not proof as it can be intentionally or unintentionally faulty.

A quantity, quality and consistency of such evidence can have me believing something beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[SalixIncendium]

*patiently awaits for our friendly neighborhood attorney to weigh in on the topic*

@Vouthon

 

[Rival]

*patiently awaits for our friendly neighborhood attorney to weigh in on the topic*

@Vouthon

He's not bothered because this thread is written testimony and thus doesn't count as evidence this thread or its author even exists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

He's not bothered because this thread is written testimony and thus doesn't count as evidence this thread or its author even exists.

Smart fella! That makes this thread a success! ;0)

 

[Rival]

Smart fella! That makes this thread a success! ;0)

I can't tell if this is a joke or if you missed my point entirely.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I can't tell if this is a joke or if you missed my point entirely.

No you're exactly on spot.

There really is no bother in regards to this thread because I have nothing else to produce but the thread itself with nothing more to show for it other than my own view.

 

[Rival]

No you're exactly on spot.

There really is no bother in regards to this thread because I have nothing else to produce but the thread itself with nothing more to show for it other than my own view.

In case you missed it though:

This thread is absolutely evidence you exist.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In case you missed it though:

This thread is absolutely evidence you exist.

Maybe I'm a bot. And a well-designed one too. You will never know without evidence.

 

[Rival]

Maybe I'm a bot. And a well-designed one too. You will never know without evidence.

Then it's evidence that someone made and programmed at bot. Either way it's evidence of human interference.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Proof (Hinduism): Pramana - Wikipedia

So are you one who thinks testimony is evidence, or are you one who thinks it is not evidence until the subject of the testimony presents itself in an objective manner?

This could have been a poll. Testimony is no evidence. It is a farce, a big farce, the biggest in the world. 'Opiate of the masses', as Karl rightly said.

Practice discernment, don't just ignore evidence.

Why are you supposing that ALL PEOPLE reject things without discernment?

 

[SalixIncendium]

This could have been a poll. Testimony is no evidence. It is a farce.

Is this your written testimony?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I guess all the rape victims need to go home.

If there's no evidence there will be no way of knowing if they are telling the truth or not. I think we all know how those evidence-less cases go.