Which is precisely the point of logical discourse. The claimant with the initial positive assertion is under the burden or proof. Proof must consist of independently verifiable evidence. Thank you again for making my point.
Wrong understanding of the analogy. I'm not talking about the person in the court taking on a persona of another person. I'm talking about them testifying as to whether an even occurred or a person exists.
Read what I said once again. As an example, try to testify in a court of law as to the character of Frodo Baggins. I did not say to take on a different persona, I stated that you should attempt to testify as to the character OF Frodo Baggins. Since you can offer no corroborative evidence as to the existance of Frodo Baggins, even if you lined up ten thousand witnesses, the testimony would be inadmissable.
Take the questions of the JFK assassination. Many people claim to have seen someone on the grassy knoll. There is a running debate as to whether or not there was or was not someone -- a second assassin -- there. We haven't yet verified whether such a person exists, but we are willing to consider evidence, based on eyewitness accounts.
Please point to the court docket number for this case you apparently are citing.
Take the person whose judgement, besides your own, you trust the most. Imagine that person tells you some day, "You're not going to believe this, but God revealed Himself to me. I'm a changed person. I've seen God; I've spoken directly with Him; I know He exists." Would you believe them?
No.
I'm sure we can come up with a thousand different explanations, but would you at least consider the possibility?
Without corroborative evidence, no.
Or would you reject the person, whose judgement you trust most, without further consideration, because it doesn't fit in with what you presently believe.
I've had many people whom I know and trust tell me the same. I tell them, "present some independently verifiable evidence to support this assertion you are making and I'll believe you." The point is, I do not believe. Until I see some independently verifiable evidence, I cannot believe. I am incapable of believing in that for which there is no proof (one definition of faith).
What you are expecting believers is exactly that: To reject the evidence of belief in their relationships. In some cases, you expect them to reject the evidence of their senses. Yes, for you, based on your relationships and experience, it is most likely the rational thing to not believe God exists. I accept that. But accept that other people with different sets of relationships and experiences, find it most rational to believe in God and/or Jesus and/or even "The Great Sky Fairy."
I can accept that, all I expect in return is they reciprocate.
You are expecting people to abandon their judgement in favor of yours -- and yes, there are people in this debate, who are requesting the same of you, in the other direction.
This is an absolute falsehood. I expect nothing from those who believe except that when they make claims to me, they back them up with independently verifiable evidence or accept that I will never believe what they are pushing.
But in demanding they accept your judgement over others' you ask them to accept what is, far less verifiable evidence to them, than what they have now.
I'm not the one trying to convince anybody of anything. If you want to believe in Yahweh, Krsna, Yeshua, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, or The Great Sky Fairy makes no difference to me. All I have been laying out is what I require to believe. I have made no positive assertions, ergo, I am under no burden of proof in this logical discourse. All I have done here, time and again, is lay out precisely what it will take to convince me and how the original analogy presented in this thread is false because of that. There is no banquet unless it is independently verifiable to those who do not believe wihtout proof (again, definition of faith).
The entire point of my entering into this discourse was to demonstrate that it is faith that is required. I have no faith, ergo, I have demonstrated the falsehood of the original analogy. I can even support myself through the Bible these people would have me believe. Doesn't that book state that faith is required?
The only way to convince those without faith is to present your independently verifiable evidence. We both know that is impossible. You cannot count the faithless as anybody who received an invitation to the banquet.
Actually, multiple witnesses testifying to having witnessed a person or event does constitute admissible testimony, independent of other evidence. Indeed, multiple witnesses tend to corroborate each other. Heck, eyewitness testimony is often entered as evidence; without physical corroboration it's not as strong, but it is admissible.