Robert Byers

Lets see here.
Yes you could be neutral before listening to our witness(bible). Yet then that means you must listen and so an acceptance of the bible witness you are admitting to for otherwise one would instantly dismiss the bible.
This is a point that was made by others. They tried to say the bible could not even make the stand and declare its story until it PROVED it was a legitamate witness.
Yet while you agree the bible must be received as a potential witness you still are saying one must consider and conclude about the evidence before you leave neutrality in listening to the witness. Yet like in real life and on a court stand we do accept any witness as reliable as a first insinct. The witness credibility is being accepted unless there is a reason not too. If thier narraction is unbeliable or fails under questioning then ok no good. Yet we do not respond in neutrality to witnesses. The witnesses credibility is presumed to be good even before we consider thier actual account.
After the resurrection the evidence for it came from witnesses eyewitness and was evidence alot. Not other proving evidences to give them credibility as a reliable person.
A person does not need to prove to a jury they are credible. Only thiier evidence is what is challenged.
I think this is your error in your thinking on this.
Robert byers

Robert Byers

Yes you can cross examine the witness.
Yet you must receive the witness because you must presume the credibility of the witness.
We present the bible as credible and you must show it isn't before you dismiss its account.
Rob byers

Robert Byers

This is beside the point. This is later cross examination of the bible. First you must receive it as a credible witness as it is making a claim.
Rob byers

Robert Byers

I ain't skippin' nuthin'.
Wiynesses being shown reliable or not is just not the way it works in life or court.
If i come to some people and say theres a gunman a floor below they will not first ask for references on my credibility..
Only a basic inquiry as to how I know would be asked before they all react.
You are trying to say a witness credibility is so neutral as to be ignored until its demonstrated to be credible.
Absurd.
The bible is like a gut telling you something. You would only question or consider what he's telling you because one presumes the person has credibility unless you have a reason to not think so.
people in life or on juries do so presume a witness is credible or has integrity and only what is being proclaimed is judged. This judgement may then lead them to dismiss the witness credibility.
A witness on the stand is judge on thier account and not on thier credibility before they give an account.
They are presumed to be reliable or rather not unreliable.
The way to challenge thier reliability is by seeing thier account as false.
The bible is a witness in good standing to take the stand. It doesn't have to prove its reliable before it takes the stand.
Once its on the stand its reliability is presumed to be fine unless it fails. I don't like the word neutral as it misses the point that a neutral witnees is impossible to actually exist. either the jury is accepting the witness or it is not. The jury is not reserving judgement on the reliability of the witness. The jury is already voting as they listen. so they will presume the witness is accurate unless they have a reason not too.
Rob byers

spin

This is painful, Robert Byers. Did you not read anything that has been written to you beside the post you respond to? A witness is someone whose testimony is used for a purpose. Of the many people the police interview only a few of them will be called on to testify. This is because their information has been accredited as having relevance to the issue.

Do you get this process? First one checks any information that may be shown to somehow be connected to the topic and then sifts out that which can be shown to have relevance in order to mount a case.

Yup. And with no argumentation you insisted the contrary.

Correct.

This is simply false.

You continue to fall over the difference between witness accreditation and credibility.

More of the same confusion, not taking notice of the difference between a witness not being able to know and a witness being shown not to know.

A lawyer has the responsibility to present evidence that they think passes the court criteria for validatable testimony. Anything that is not will not be admitted. This has nothing to do with the credibility of the testimony.

The basic philosophical issue is the difference between ontology and epistemology. Epistemology is about how something is known and in our case, how the witness can know what they have to say. Ontology is what is claimed to be known. You need epistemology for ontology otherwise the ontology has no value. What the witness knows (or claims to know) needs a means of being known. That is what your stumbling block is. Unless there is a way of knowing then the testimony (what one knows) doesn't get presented.

You are once again still confused about what is known (or claimed to be known) and how it can be known.

When you cannot see the problem, you have no hope of being able to understand the solution.


spin

spin

Yet again the same confusion. When are you going to stop leaving out relevant information?

You have conveniently shifted from the court of law out to the police. You have abandoned the analogy that should elucidate what is necessary in making a case.

The police gather information and sift through it, providing the prosecution with what they consider accredited evidence. You are back with the material that the police sift through, when we are dealing with what happens in the court.

Simply rubbish. You have missed the point and tried to make some other case without actually stating it and whose applicability (if understood) seems lacking.

Oh, please. You are now trivializing any pretentions you still had to rationality when you bring your gut to the forefront. You don't base reasoned arguments on dyspepsia.

Keep pressing the information gathering stage and forget about making an evidence based case.

When not instructed by the judge to ignore the witness's statements. The judge makes rulings as to the validity of any testimony, using rules that the lawyers are well aware of, so they present evidence based on those rules.

You haven't got to the point of presenting your witness in court.

Same problem. People don't come off the street and get presented in court. Their potential testimony has to be validated.

Continuing the same problem.

You've conflated two issues, when in reality there are two separate aspects, accreditation and credibility. You ignore accreditation completely.

You have this gut feeling.

It doesn't often get put on the stand because the police can't find out how the book knows what it claims to know.

The reason why you don't like the word "neutral" is because of your bias. A court must be as unbiased as possible and here you are assuming what you need to demonstrate.

You haven't got your potential witness in court yet.

The jury isn't listening. You haven't accredited the witness, so the witness doesn't get an opportunity. That is simply how the law does it. This is an attempt not to bias the case, to be neutral with regard to evidence. If you can show how the witness knows relevant information, then the witness is heard. You cannot stop it. If you cannot show how, then the witness doesn't get heard. Simple.

It's obvious that you have no way to show how the information could be known. You are without witnesses, so you don't want to play the game. Instead you vocally show that you don't understand the issues.


spin

-Jay-

Robert, you really have no freaking idea how this works in the real world, do you? You can't just plonk any random clown off the street into the witness stand and declare him credible until proven otherwise. There's a process to establish the credibility of the witness up front - before they take the stand. That's why witness lists get submitted ahead of a trial, and new witnesses brought in at the last minute really piss off judges. You're attempting to skip this step completely with regards to the Bible's credibility, and simply assert that the Bible has standing. You can't do that.

If you're going to claim the Bible is a valid historical treatise, you've first got to establish that it could be - was it written at a time, in a place, and by a person who could be reasonably expected to get it right. Neither you nor anyone else can do that.

If you're going to claim the Bible is a valid scientific treatise, you've likewise got to first establish that it could be. Neither you nor anyone else can do that.

This isn't that difficult a concept.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

No, Robert, it is absolutely not beside the point. In fact, it is the point.

The overwhelming, unequivocal consilience of external evidence demolishes any claim that the Bible is a reliable historical record (witness, in your parlance). You're claiming, on the strength of nothing, that we should disregard all of that other information in favor of the writings of some ancient pastoralists trying to understand and rationalize their place in the world.

If you want to claim reliability for the Bible, you've got to first establish that you've got warrant to do so. You've failed miserably at that so far.

regards,

NinJay

Sheshonq

Yes, I'm afraid it is *exactly* how it works in life, or in court.

No, that is routine. Nobody gets credit off the bat; they have to earn it.

No, it isn't.

Wrong. As I told you before, there is a lengthy pre-trial interview and investigation to make sure that the witness is (a) reliable, (b) has actual knowledge of the events in question and (c) does not have alterior motives or bias that would flavor their testimony.

Sadly wrong.

Hex

Nope, it isn't beside the point, it is the point ...

BTW, from Merriam Webster Online:

(Note: Bold mine. Also note that for the definition of witness, it has already been referenced in this post earlier in the thread.)

Please, Robert, offer me the reasonable grounds for believing the Bible is a credible witness?

You have to offer the reasonable ground before I have to accept it as worthy of believing you see ... And I look forward to your attempt. :wave:

- Hex