It's testimony. To invalidate it you must have opposing testimony or evidence to the contrary.
Or you can call into question the character of the witness and expose any biases they may have. For example, if OJ Simpson were to testify for a friend of his that is accused of murdering his wife, the jury are going to have a hard time taking him seriously.
The Reapers have an agenda, and their agenda is mass genocide. I have a very hard time accepting Sovereign's account as being impartial considering that fact.
I'm sorry I see no other choice given the evidence to take him at his word.
Given the evidence, I see absolutely no reason to take him at his word and I fail to understand why any person would.
I don't know what you're talking about, honestly.
I don't know why, I always make perfect sense. Just look at my sig.
As an objective observer I have no choice.
Okay, I'm about to Godwin the thread, but here goes:
If an alien arrived on Earth in 1944, with almost no understanding of human societies, and found themselves in a Nazi concentration camp where they were told that they had to be killed for the purity of the German race, should that alien accept the testimony of the Nazis as being the objective truth?
You should
never take information from a single source as being objective truth, especially when that information comes from the villain in a piece of fiction.
Because that's what all the evidence and mathematical models derived from peer review suggest at present. The models could be faulty and we are almost certainly lacking important evidence that will alter the theory over time, but it would take major new evidence to disprove some sort of big bang event as being the origin of the universe's current form.
How do you know that their form hasn't evolved or that they they've changed themselves to enter our universe? They maybe Avatars.
They certainly could be, but I don't remember any suggestion or evidence in ME1 that pointed to an extra-dimensional origin for the Reapers. And if they do come from outside our universe, what use would our technology be to them?
I understand but this just took the form of a belief and how am I supposed to compare a belief to testimony of Sovereign as anything more than an opposing opinion?
No, belief is when you trust a person or an idea with no evidence backing it up. Not trusting someone because they don't have any supporting evidence is not belief.
That's just as much a confidence statement as his proclamation.
Not exactly because I said I'm
almost certain, I always leave open some room for doubt. However, given the lack of evidence to support his proclamation, I feel relatively safe in disregarding his claim, and I feel the same way about the Reapers.
Without the contradiction by Shepard it's an acquiescence to the facts they've given. He may not think it's worth contradicting but there is no basis now to say the council's objections are false.
Certainly, the Council's claims could be true, and they could have reached their judgement that Sovereign was a Geth ship based on the evidence available to them. But given the incompetence of the Council as displayed in the first game, and their willingness to disregard Shepard's claims even though he kept being proven correct, I believe there is precedent for my point of view.
You see you're looking at a New Yorker Suit jacket that's full of lose threads and saying" That looks good." when I rather see shoddy workmanship and bad tailoring. This isn't air tight.
And you remind me of
that priest in Father Ted that kept on breaking things to "prove" the shoddy workmanship.
"
They're cowboys, Ted!"
If they formed naturally over the billions of years that followed... well, so did we, just by a different method. They could be eternal if they originate from outside our universe, but there's no evidence to suggest that.