or if a person witnesses something that happened and is asked to testify in Court about what that person knows is a true or fact-which is not an opinion, the existence of Jehovah for instance.
- It's well established that eyewitnesses in court rooms are highly unreliable. Without evidence to back up their claims, I would hesitate to just accept the testimony of an eyewitness, especially in a confusing case with high stakes. (There is no verifiable or measurable evidence Jehovah or any other gods exist)
- If multiple independent eyewitnesses can testify and corroborate the same observed facts, I would be more inclined to accept that testimony.
- If multiple witnesses exist, who all contradict each other, I would most likely not accept any of what they say (there are many contradicting testimonies regarding the number, names and natures of gods).
- If multiple witnesses exist, with the same story, but they had motive and opportunity to get their stories to match, I would likely not acrept their testimony if not backed up by evidence (within a single religion or group of religions, people have had centuries to compare notes. There motive is not wanting to be wrong).
Jehovah does not exist. Prove me wrong in a way that the courts would accept.