Faith versus Proof?

[TbSE]

Originally Posted by Joshua

The testimony of a witness is generally not 100% reliable. Why? Because the witness could be mistaken about what he saw, or he could simply be lying.

"Lying" assumes intent to falsify, and "mistaken" assumes lack of full knowledge. A first-hand witness could know exactly what he saw, be truthful about it, but still recount what he saw inaccurately. That is why a judge, or lawyers, question the witness: to form a more accurate(or precise) testimony, to ascertain what the witness actually did and did not see.
The problem with second-hand testimony, even resolving the reliability of the one who actually saw, is that we get only what was passed on( not all that was seen), and only in the form the second-hand witness remembers it, and without being able to refine it through questioning.

Originally Posted by Joshua

A very large group of people can not all have the same motive to lie.

Saying "A very large group of people can not all have the same motive to lie" is not the same as saying "A very large group of people can not all lie": a group of people can have varying motives for lying, even for telling the same lie.

Even if so, it is, as I see it, similar to saying:" the numbers 1,2,3,4, and 5 cannot all come out in the same Powerball lottery draw". It sounds plausible and everybody would agree that you'd have to be crazy to bet your 1$ on such an outcome. But that doesn't mean it's true( in fact, it isn't: that combination of numbers has as much a chance of appearing, as any other)
It's the same with what you say about the impossibility of a large group lying: it sounds plausible, and people would agree with it, but can it be proven, or even substantiated ?

Originally Posted by Joshua

In the case of a court of law, as you mentioned, a judge could rightfully question the testimony of an eye witness. And he could certainly question the second hand account. But this same judge is 100% convinced that the US Constitution we have today is the same US Constitution that the founders of this country composed (with ammendments of course, the dates of which are all known). He is also 100% convinced that George Washington was the 1st president and so on. But no one alive today was there when the Constition was written or knew Mr Washington. Why does he accept this second hand information while other second hand information he views with suspicion? Think about it... is it not because of what I have written above?

You( and in the link you bring below, it would seem, R. Chait as well) equate convincing with proof. 'proof' determines the truth of a claim, convincing only affects personal opinion regarding it. The judge's conviction, based on the traditions he received, maybe enough for him, but would it alone( even with the text of the constitution as support) be enough to convince a European history professor reviewing the history of the time ?

Originally Posted by Joshua

For a better explaination of what I've written, see this article by Rabbi Chait:
http://www.mesora.org/god/

I've read through the article, but have some problems with R. Chait's reasoning. Some of them I touched on here. Those I haven't, I decided not to raise here, for the sake of simplicity.
Also, researching a bit, I realize a lot has been written about the "Sinai proof" claim, not all of which I have read, and some of my outstanding problems may have already been resolved.
I'll wait, then, until I have a better grasp of all that has already been said on the matter, before posing more problems.

Tamir.