I'm only familiar with rules on witness testimony in English courts but what you say sounds appropriate. But the questions here (are there gods and was Jesus the son of one of them) would not be resolved by expert witness testimony. I don't think there is room here for expertise in the field, as their competence as an expert witness could not be proven (in the absence of a deity presenting themselves in the debate in order to verify the witness). I hold to the belief that a scientist can't believe in gods. However, of course atheists can make mistakes in their judgements - after all, they're not divine.......
The English actually do use expert witnesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert_witness#England_and_Wales Well, anyone can post "here," expert or otherwise. The evidence required to 'win a case' is not necessarily what is required to 'plant a seed' in another's heart/mind. They can, under the proper definitions of what a 'scientist' is. Even 'the divine' can make mistakes in judgments.
%% Thank our Lord God for air conditioner trees, fans; i struggle thru a BBQ+ hickory smoke some /LOL...................................................................................................
Yes, I have been through the English courts several times as a witness, and I understand enough concerning our laws on expert witnesses. But what people are posting here is personal opinion, not expert opinion. Any personal opinion can be expressed and no matter how cogent this is, it does not qualify the witness as an "expert witness". There's nothing to be gained from a debate on what a scientist is (or isn't). I don't comment on that right now. What do you mean by the divine can make mistakes in judgements? The "one true God" cannot make mistakes: if he did, he would not be the one true god. His believers can of course make mistakes, as they are not themselves divine: they just have faith in divinities, they are just human.
My original response was to your seemingly blanket statement that opinions aren't allowed in courts. Again, I don't know whether or not anyone here would, or could, qualify as an expert before a court. I haven't given it any thought--and my thoughts probably still couldn't answer the question. But again to be technical--and not meant to open a debate: Layperson opinions can be allowed in layperson matters--in matters that don't require expert analysis. (At least in the U.S. I haven't checked wrt England yet.) "... Witnesses must answer questions in the form of statements of what they saw, heard, felt, tasted, or smelled. Usually they're not permitted to express their opinions or draw conclusions. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), a court will permit a person who isn't testifying as an expert to testify in the form of an opinion if it's both rationally based on their perception and helps to explain the witness's testimony. This is referred to as the "lay opinion" rule. ..." https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-procedure/the-lay-opinion-rule.html Nor was a debate my intent. My intent was, again, a technical one; in response to your assertion regarding your personal definition a scientist. You stated your opinion regarding your definition; I merely responded with mine; and didn't pass judgment against yours, nor did I say, in effect, you were wrong. Again, I only did as you did, and gave my opinion. If you re-read my prior post, you see that I offered no new topics; my complete post 'was' my opinions, in response to your opinions. So was this one, until now: I find it interesting, that on the internet, people say things, and sometimes consider a response to what they said as 'starting a debate.' It's as almost as they were telling their child, "Stop talking back to me!!" If 'talking back' doesn't translate well to your (or any other reader's) location, this might help with the interpretation: https://www.verywellfamily.com/how-to-handle-a-child-who-is-talking-back-620102
Yeap! Utah is so wonderful with no water! Is this why Ghandi said “I love Jesus, I hate Christians!”? Eastern Oregon and Washington are super Republican along with Idaho but you already know that.
Architects make plans for a building, then others come along to build it. Cooks plan out a menu before beginning to cook. There is even a Biblical principle that God repeatedly also plans things out and then fulfills His plan. Sometimes God has told people His plan before He fulfills it. Jesus said, “I'm telling you this now, before it happens, so that when it does happen, you may believe that I AM.” John 13:19 International Standard Version Criminals often plan out their crimes before committing them. “In Criminal Law, criminal intent, also know as mens rea, is one of two elements that must be proven in order to secure a conviction (the other being the actual act, or actus reus).” https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/intent Since we are in a discussion over the quality of evidence that exists, I’m drawing from the legal system to help make the point that the evidence in the bible is of the same reliability as credible court evidence or witnesses. IF JESUS' DEATH WAS A CRIME COMMITTED AND TRIED IN A COURT THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH EVIDENCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THAT PROSECUTORS COULD MAKE THE CASE THAT THE CRIME WAS PLANNED OUT BEFORE IT WAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED. Jesus willingly was a part of that plan and there was no crime on God's part (there was on people's part though). He wanted to save people from their sins. Intent to commit a crime can be proven using a variety of evidence, both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Depending upon the nature of the case, witness testimony can either be direct or circumstantial, and it can either be eye witness testimony (from someone who witnessed the crime or events leading up to or succeeding the crime), or it can be testimony from someone who was privy to communications or transactions without visually observing them in person. https://federal-lawyer.com/what-typ...eral-government-use-to-prove-criminal-intent/ The evidence within the Bible includes INTENT. There was a PLAN for Jesus to come to die in a substitutionary way. There were witnesses who said God spoke that plan to them and recorded God’s words for us. There were also those who did not hear an audible voice but the Holy Spirit directed them by prophecies or psalms who also testified to this plan. There is a LOT of circumstantial evidence. The animal sacrifices, the Passover Lamb, the Priests cleansing all things with blood from the sacrifices. The repeated linking of sin to the sacrificial system, for cleansing from sin. ...circumstantial evidence is anything that implies involvement in the commission of a crime, or from which the commission of a crime can be inferred. https://federal-lawyer.com/what-typ...eral-government-use-to-prove-criminal-intent/ All of that is strong evidence that shows intent and planning on God’s part to provide a sacrificial means of making reconciliation possible between us and God. IF Jesus was not Who He said He is, then the Old Testament promises are still in effect, and we would expect that another would come who would be Immanuel (God with us) (Isaiah 7:14), do miraculous healings (Isaiah 35: 4-6) and bear our sins in His own body (Isaiah 53). NOTE: all of these verses were written about 700 years before Jesus came: 1. Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Listen carefully, the virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and she will call his name Immanuel (God with us). Isaiah 7:14 Amplified Bible 2. “...He will come to save you.” Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy. Isaiah 35: 4c-6 NIV 3. But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed. We all like sheep have gone astray, each one has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid upon Him the iniquity of us all.He was oppressed and afflicted, yet He did not open His mouth. He was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so He did not open His mouth.… Isaiah 53:5-7 BSB It is credible evidence that several witnesses recorded for us His life, His ministry and His claim to be God, showing the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In addition, they recorded that there were thousands who experienced his miracles. Part of the credibility is based on the number of followers that Jesus had, especially immediately after His resurrection. The Bible says that over 500 people saw Him alive after His resurrection. Many of these gave their lives in the persecutions that followed. Consider the non-biblical evidence of the existence of Christians in Rome who were persecuted by Nero in 64 AD when he burned Rome and blamed it on the Christians. Jesus died in 33 AD. That means that only 31 years after Jesus’ death/resurrection Christianity had spread to Rome to the extent that Nero persecuted them. The point of this is that with over 500 witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection, and thousands that experienced His miracles when He was alive, the way Christianity spread so quickly was through not just the testimonies of a few men who came up with a clever story a hundred or so years after the fact, but was build on the willingness of a multitude of those who had seen Jesus themselves, believed on Him and were willing to go through persecution for His sake. I would think this would qualify as circumstantial evidence...it’s not direct evidence, because we only have the multitude of early Christians mentioned. But it is logical to conclude that the fast spread of Christianity, especially when they were so strongly persecuted for their faith, was a result that so many of the early Christians had seen Jesus for themselves, or knew many people firsthand who testified of the same things that were written down in the gospels. Below is some information on the types of evidence the U.S. Federal Courts allow to prove criminal intent. https://federal-lawyer.com/what-typ...eral-government-use-to-prove-criminal-intent/ Types of Evidence Federal Prosecutors Can Use to Prove Criminal Intent While it may initially seem difficult to prove a person’s subjective state of mind, there are actually many different types of evidence federal prosecutors can use to prove criminal intent. In fact, most types of evidence that can be used to prove the other elements of a federal offense (i.e. the commission of a prohibited act) can be used to prove intent as well. Direct Evidence vs. Circumstantial Evidence Many people have misconceptions about the differences between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. Both types of evidence are admissible in federal cases (subject to the limits on admissibility discussed below), and both types of evidence can be used to help prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. What is Direct Evidence? Direct evidence is anything that directly links a person to the commission of a crime. There is no intermediate inference or logical step. A video recording of a murder or bank heist would be an example of direct evidence. So would an email or text message discussing plans to commit a crime in a conspiracy trial. However, direct evidence does not necessarily have to stand on its own. In fact, it is common for prosecutors to piece together several pieces of direct evidence (along with circumstantial evidence) in order to build a case for a conviction. For example, rather than a single “smoking gun” email, prosecutors may have to present a series of communications and testimony from other co-conspirators in order to sufficiently prove that a defendant participated in a conspiracy to commit a federal crime. What is Circumstantial Evidence? In contrast to direct evidence, circumstantial evidence is anything that implies involvement in the commission of a crime, or from which the commission of a crime can be inferred. As plainly stated by the Legal Information Institute (LII), “There must be a lot of circumstantial evidence accumulated to have real weight.” For example, if there is a video recording of the defendant near the scene of a murder or bank heist around the time it was committed (but not a video recording of the crime itself), then in this case the video recoding circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence. Likewise, if there are emails between the defendant and an alleged co-conspirator discussing something other than the alleged conspiracy, then the emails would be circumstantial evidence to show that the two individuals were acquainted, but not direct evidence that they jointly conspired to commit a crime. A little farther down is this explanation: Witness Testimony Witnesses may be able to testify as to a defendant’s mental state at a particular point in time as well. For example, a witness may recall discussions with the defendant in which he or she seemed to clearly understand that the topic of discussion was criminal in nature. Depending upon the nature of the case, witness testimony can either be direct or circumstantial, and it can either be eye witness testimony (from someone who witnessed the crime or events leading up to or succeeding the crime), or it can be testimony from someone who was privy to communications or transactions without visually observing them in person.
%% Did Ghandi also say i love capital markets , i just hate capitalism?/ Makes as much sense.LOL Thanks TTT, actually i not know about east Oregon., Actually,i don't think Ghandi EVER loved Jesus, or he would have loved the Word[Bible] In all labor there is profit-Proverbs 14/The Bible[Jesus/aka The Word ]...........................................