REMIX: Who Can Be Saved?

That does not change the fact that witness evidence is still about the weakest possible evidence subject to the greatest amount of error.But a bigger issue is included in your assertion itself when you say "Witness evidence is the only possible evidence for this sort of phenomena ...". Why is witness evidence the only possible evidence and if true, why does that not set off alarm bells and warnings that say "Wait, discount this evidence"?In looking at everything else in reality it is possible to find evidence other than witness evidence so what makes you think that something that can only be detected by witness evidence actually exists?

How are you going to have any other kind of evidence for spiritual or supernatural phenomena than witness evidence?

I don't know of anyway including witness testimony that there could be evidence for spiritual or supernatural phenomena. You are the one claiming witness testimony is evidence.And as I have said witness testimony is the least reliable most error prone possible evidence. If you wish to use such pitiful evidence then you must show how it can be of value or relevance. For example how can evidence supporting some Christian God be any more relevant or valuable than the evidence for the Hindu or animist or Greek or Norse Gods? How is anything you post better evidence than "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is His Prophet"?

A large amount of bad data doesn't add up to good evidence.

At best we can be eternally skeptical of any and all witness evidence.What makes us think that all of it is invalid, however? I am myself a witness to unknown phenomena. Granted I labeled it as supernatural due in part to confirmation bias, but there is no reason for me to become an activist at debunking all witness testimony.

Me too. You contradict yourself. If you're labelling it a supernatural, you're not labelling it as unknown. You're trying to reassure yourself that you do know. Isn't the pursuit of truth reason enough?

Critics would argue that more truth is found through witness testimony than in spite of it.There is no enough evidence to support whether Jesus existed or not...nor whether God is real or not. There are many witnesses that affirm these things, and a small percentage of them are credible and reasonable to believe.On the contrary, those few who write of evidence against these stories usually have an ax to grind...they seem nearly obsessed with laying this stuff to rest. I don't trust them.

Idiots might argue that. What credible critics do you have in mind? There are many witnesses of flying saucers and alien close encounters and probings and Loch Ness monsters and bigfeet and ghosts and conspiracies and... and... and... and.... Are they all credible? Nonsense. Searching for the truth is not an axe. You should trust the evidence - and you shouldn't trust stories that are not based on evidence.

You can't lump The Resurrection in with Loch Ness Monsters and Bigfoot. And as I mentioned before, most witness testimonies are questionable. It's the ones that are not that we focus on.
One standard answer that appears logical was given here: Of course you will argue, among other things, that there is no witness from any "Holy Spirit" as believers often behave as bad or worse than unbelievers. You find it odd that we believers never seem to want to follow what you see as the basic message. Its almost as if you once stomped off from the church declaring that religion was full of it yet that you would accept only the duty of the message and needed no one to tell you what to do! That's a bit of an ax, one would think. This whole pursuit of truth fallacy won't ever be conclusive!Believers may never prove a case for Christ, but unbelievers will never have enough evidence against such a possibility either. The stories stand as they are, and the debate focuses on the authors and the motives of such authors.Also look at known respected Bible Teachers such as Henrietta Mears. She surely read the book many times from cover to cover and had valid conclusions on the authorship of the book. No ax there. Critics who attempt to trash her conclusions, in contrast, are hardly pristine seekers of truth...they spread discord and controversy among truth seekers.

Yes I can. In fact, there is better evidence for the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot than for the resurrection. Then there's no basis for faith in Jesus. We have no witnesses at all for the resurrection, neither questionable nor otherwise. It's an axe that you've made up in your head. Truth may not be conclusive but false is. We don't need evidence against. What matters is whether the stories are true. If not, it doesn't really matter why the authors made them up. As Linus Van pelt once said, "Maybe they needed the money." Are you suggesting that she read the book with no pre-conceived notions on whether it was "true" or "false"? I don't believe that. Now you're just lashing out. You have no justification for attacking the motives of skeptics.

I certainly question why they are skeptical and also why they are usually so adamantly against Christians in general. If I am lashing out at all, I am doing so in part out of ongoing curiosity. It is why I go round and round with you. If I found out later in life that you started a homeless shelter in Saskatchewan called SpareChange.Org, I would be humbled and impressed in that you actually were a Christian who merely refused to claim the title. If, on the other hand, I only came to saw you as a contrarian obstructionist who likes clever arguments, I would feel that my lashing out was necessary to defend belief in general as being rational. Of course one could challenge me to start my own soup kitchen...I have a friend who is starting one for the homeless which he named "The Sloppy Agape"... Not in terms of the impact that each event has and had on people. Henrietta Mears may well have had pre-conceived notions...not may people can claim to have original notions with no influence whatsoever...but she impacted a lot of people for the better. Had she believed in BigFoot instead of Jesus, she would never have been heard of.

Sure there is. You embraced His message...even if you don't believe He existed in any way different from Elmer Gantry. You certainly have shown no evidence of arguing as persuasively for or against Big Foot or even Long John Silver. Oh wait...Long John Silver was a character made up from an author. You may have a point that Believers, in general, make up the Jesus that they want. This says nothing about who the author was, who the authors were, or again as I insist...the motives of these many authors. Why can't you and I become authors and add to the storyline? What would your Jesus be doing today in the age of trump, War in Yemen, and EvC Forums?

Because skepticism is the correct approach to any question. If it was some other religion throwing nonsense at us, then it would be met with the same skepticism. But belief isn't rational. Impact is irrelevant. The Kardashians have hade a lot of impact; it doesn't mean they have any value. The important thing is to throw out your pre-conceived notions when they're proven false, not prop them up with spit and spider webs. You don't know that. (By the way, I had never heard of her.)

I embraced THE message. YOU have shown no evidence of arguing for Jesus persuasively. A better question would be: What would YOU be doing if Jesus was here? Would you be refusing to His face to do what He said? Would you say He was poisoned by left-wing propaganda (far, far left)?

Perhaps I should elaborate. The Resurrection obviously had impact and value. People won't even remember the Kardashians except as tabloid trivia...unless one of them does something meaningful for society. Jesus Death, Burial, and Resurrection were meaningful for society-at-large. One could argue that only the message had value. That it was told at all and preserved through antiquity confirms the value of the impact.
Does that make any sense?My point is that impact with a purpose has value.