Posted by:
MJ
(
)
Date: November 22, 2014 04:36AM
For objective truths "Direct evidence" is never wrong. It is what it is. People, even scholars, misinterpret the evidence, or do not collect all the evidence for analysis thus misrepresent the evidence. Then people mistake what they hear from scholars...
And thanks for admitting that your "evidence" could have come from someone that lied and you could be repeating the lie, making mistakes when doing so.
JS testifying that he was a prophet is still better evidence than a Mormon saying that he heard JS claim he was a prophet.
And how do you know JS is a liar? Because you have direct evidence that shows that his claims are not true. Then if someone repeats the lies that JS said, they are repeating lies and likely making mistakes in doing so.
The evidence you present still shows that hearsay is not better evidence that direct evidence. In deed your evidence confirms that hearsay and UNSUPPORTED claims (as your original claim was) are not as good as direct evidence.
Ditto the TBMs that CLAIM there church is true, we have direct evidence that proves them wrong.
Regarding objective truths, "Direct evidence" is always better than a personal claim and a personal claim is better evidence than claiming that you heard someone say something.
Yet another JS example: JS testifies he is a prophet, the person repeating what JS mistakenly testifies that he is a profit.
Oh, and here is yet more evidence that Hearsay is never as good as "Direct evidence"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispersTry it. Get 20 people together. Have the first person write a 10 line "story" (the story can be a lie). Then have the first person whisper the story exactly as it was written to the next person. Then, without reading or seeing the written story, each person whispers the story to the next. At the end, what is better evidence of what was originally said, the paper with the story on it, or the 20th person? Does this change if the original story was a lie? NO.
Bottom line, Hearing what JS said directly is better evidence of what JS said than hearing it as hearsay. That is true if JS is telling a lie or the truth. You have the lie as originally told, the hearsay is the lie that likely will have mistakes. Your examples show people that lie and are wrong, but do not actually show how hearing what they said was better than hearing what they said via hearsay.
This is a serious question, do you think about what you say before you say it?
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/22/2014 04:52AM by MJ.