What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

[Wootah]

Acts 9 English Standard Version (ESV)
The Conversion of Saul
9 But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. 4 And falling to the ground, he heard a voice saying to him, Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me? 5 And he said, Who are you, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. 6 But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do. 7 The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. 8 Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. 9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

What happened to Paul on the road to Damascus?

[JehovahsWitness]

We today have every reason to DOUBT, however, that during his incapacitation Paul actually met with and spoke with AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD BEEN DEAD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. Such a claim is NOT historical, since it contradicts all common experience, and common sense.

So if something is not common it is impossible? So the moon landings were fake? There was no terrorist attack in New York 9-11 ? Fortunately you were not around when the first atom was split or when the first life forms appeared on earth to explain that singuar events cannot happen. As for what is "common sense" I suspect you are confusing what you call "common sense" with "a cherished (but unproven) presupposition of the truth of naturalism".

In any case, to assert that because something is not common it cannot have happened is as illogical as claiming only that which can be historically verified can be true. One must be ready to step back from ones cherished worldview on order to see the flaws in logic upon which they may be based.




JW

Should anti-god confirmation bias dictate how one views the bible's autobiographical detail?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 4#p1002844

Are singular events impossible? [this post]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 6#p1002846

What is the difference between myth and miracle?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 22#p886322

Is there empiracle evidence of the gospel miracles?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 65#p974565

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 70#p330870

Personal Blog: Evidence v proof
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... ience.html

[bluegreenearth]

Hold on a minute. If the historical evidence is good enough to support the claim Paul believed he encountered a resurrected Jesus on his way to Damascus then its also strong enough to support the claim Paul had companions with him on his journey to Damascus who also experienced something.

Not necessarily. The detail regarding the companions experience is second-hand and could have potentially been embellished in order to make Paul's account appear more credible. We have no direct testimonies from anyone who may have been with Paul when he had his Damascus road experience. Nevertheless, even if we were to grant that Paul's companions experienced something, there is insufficient evidence to determine the cause of their experience. Furthermore, as previously explained, we cannot even begin to assess the plausibility of a supernatural explanation because it doesn't have an implicit empirical basis to qualify it as a possible candidate.

I dont have a problem with that being the first step. But I see no good reason to make it the only step. I see no good reason to limit the possibilities to only ones with, as you continue to call it, an implicit empirical basis.

This is not a self-imposed limit to what is possible. The limit is objectively set by what corresponds with the reality we observe. An explanation has no practical value if its possibility cannot be demonstrated to exist in our observed reality. How could we demonstrate that a supernatural resurrection is possible for it to serve as an explanation for Paul's experience? Logical possibility alone is insufficient to establish something exists in reality for it to serve as possible explanation. To correct for a mistaken example I gave in another thread, an advanced extra-terrestrial alien is logically possible but is not known to exist in reality to serve as a possible explanation for anything.

But it seems your criteria merely prefers a kind of Empiricsim which is certainly an epistemological world view. As Ive mentioned before, there are different kinds of possibilities such as epistemic, metaphysical, and logical possibilities for example.

I don't subscribe to empiricism. My epistemology is probably best described as falsificationism. Metaphysical possibilities have no practical value because we have no way to falsify and rule-out any metaphysical possibilities in order to arrive at a single conclusion. A Logical possibility, as previously explained, is insufficient to establish something exists in our external realty to serve as a possible explanation for an observation.

But thats only a problem for one who limits the possible to that which is physically possible.

Once again, the limit is not self-imposed but is objectively set by what corresponds to our observed reality.

Firstly, it wouldnt at all be completely useless if were the explanation with the greatest explanatory scope and power. It would be, by definition, the best explanation.

Actually, by definition, the "best" explanation is the one that most closely corresponds with the reality we observe and has the greatest explanatory scope and power. There are an infinite number of imaginary explanations that could have an equal amount of explanatory scope and power, but the best one will have been demonstrated to exist in our observed reality.

One way we can know that a resurrection is even possible is that a resurrection does not violate the laws of logic.

Here again, a logical possibility alone does not demonstrate something actually exists beyond the conceptual to serve as possible explanation for an observation in the external world.

Just having the ability to conceive of something doesn't make it a possibility.

Sure it does. You did that yourself in post 44 of this thread when you conceived of and argued for, advanced extra-terrestrial aliens intervening in the course of human development.

I've already corrected for that mistake. The logical possibility of an extra-terrestrial alien does not establish the existence of an extra-terrestrial alien for it to serve as a possible explanation for anything. I have no problem admitting when I've made an error in my reasoning process.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Epileptic fit fills the bill or other brain dysfunctions.

That or divine revelation. Indeed revelation is more likey as epileptics dont usually report having conversations with unseen entities during their episodes.


JW

Either way, it's just the writer's metaphorical way of saying that Paul changed his mind, and instead of using a light-bulb-inspiration the writer used an imaginary voice in the sky instead, given that light bulbs hadn't been invented then.

Unless you are employing your mind reading capacities I cant see how you can prove that. I understand that is what you believe ( we all have beliefs and I doubt if you are an exception) but are you claiming to know this?



JW

know
/n/
verb
1. be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
2. have developed a relationship with (someone) through meeting and spending time with them; be familiar or friendly with.

Wikipedia
Knowledge
Knowledge is a familiarity, awareness, or understanding of someone or something, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

be-lieve
/bl"v/
verb
1. accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.
2. hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.

Wikipedia
Belief
In epistemology, philosophers use the term "belief" to refer to personal attitudes associated with true or false ideas and concepts. However, "belief" does not require active introspection and circumspection. For example, few ponder whether the sun will rise, just assume it will.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

So there is a significant difference between knowing something, and believing something. I don't simply "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow. And not just because it always does. I possess knowledge of where the sun goes when it disappears. As a result, I not only "know" exactly why the sun will rise tomorrow, I know the exact time. (6:10 am PDT). But I also "believe" that the sun will rise, based on all past experience. Just as all past experience indicates that reindeer and reanimated corpses do not, cannot, will not fly. In spite of rumors to the contrary. Such rumors represent "make believe." That is, things which can be imagined. As opposed to those things for which there is overwhelming common experience. Common experience, i.e. knowledge, is a small subset of that which can be imagined. That which can be imagined is, essentially, limitless.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 63 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Thank you but I am fully aware what the word "know" means. If you had a point other than to draw my attention to its defintion perhaps you could clarify what that point is.

Thanking you in advance,

JW

[Tired of the Nonsense]

We today have every reason to DOUBT, however, that during his incapacitation Paul actually met with and spoke with AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD BEEN DEAD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. Such a claim is NOT historical, since it contradicts all common experience, and common sense.

So if something is not common it is impossible? So the moon landings were fake? There was no terrorist attack in New York 9-11 ? Fortunately you were not around when the first atom was split or when the first life forms appeared on earth to explain that singuar events cannot happen. As for what is "common sense" I suspect you are confusing what you call "common sense" with "a cherished (but unproven) presupposition of the truth of naturalism".

In any case, to assert that because something is not common it cannot have happened is as illogical as claiming only that which can be historically verified can be true. One must be ready to step back from ones cherished worldview on order to see the flaws in logic upon which they may be based.




JW

Should anti-god confirmation bias dictate how one views the bible's autobiographical detail?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#1002844

Are singular events impossible? [this post]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 46#1002846

What is the difference between myth and miracle?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 322#886322

"If someting is not common, is it impossible?" -- JW

Not necessarily. But uncommon events necessarily call for careful consideration. The more the details of an uncommon event can be shown to be based on misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or just plain mistake, the more skepticism is warranted.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 54 by Tired of the Nonsense]

What has any of that got to do with what I said? My comment was about the limits of historical proof especially when it comes to individual conversations and personal testimony. I should think that over and above of that, both you and I employ exactly the same mechanism when deciding what we choose to believe.

We both I presume are capable of witholding judgement and putting aside confirmation bias in favor of coming to the most logical conclusion after analysing the available information. If that is not the case for you, and you are incapale of accepting a logical conclussion if it conflicts with your predetermined beliefs, I understand your position but claim no ownership of it.



JW

Name one generally accepted historical "event" that is founded on a supernatural claim.

[JehovahsWitness]

Not necessarily. But uncommon events necessarily call for careful consideration. The more the details of an uncommon event can be shown to be based on misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or just plain mistake, the more skepticism is warranted.

Yes I would agree. I do think that rabid sceptism is as destructive as gullibility if ones goal is to find truth. As I think I said earlier, we both (I presume) employ exactly the same mechanism when analysing information.


JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Name one generally accepted historical "event" that is founded on a supernatural claim.

What do you mean by a "historical event"?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

We today have every reason to DOUBT, however, that during his incapacitation Paul actually met with and spoke with AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAD BEEN DEAD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. Such a claim is NOT historical, since it contradicts all common experience, and common sense.

So if something is not common it is impossible? So the moon landings were fake? There was no terrorist attack in New York 9-11 ? Fortunately you were not around when the first atom was split or when the first life forms appeared on earth to explain that singuar events cannot happen. As for what is "common sense" I suspect you are confusing what you call "common sense" with "a cherished (but unproven) presupposition of the truth of naturalism".

In any case, to assert that because something is not common it cannot have happened is as illogical as claiming only that which can be historically verified can be true. One must be ready to step back from ones cherished worldview on order to see the flaws in logic upon which they may be based.




JW

Should anti-god confirmation bias dictate how one views the bible's autobiographical detail?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 44#1002844

Are singular events impossible? [this post]
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 46#1002846

What is the difference between myth and miracle?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 322#886322

Is there empiracle evidence of the gospel miracles?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 565#974565

Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 870#330870

Personal Blog: Evidence v proof
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blo ... ience.html

As for what is "common sense" I suspect you are confusing what you call "common sense" with "a cherished (but unproven) presupposition of the truth of naturalism".

Admittedly I do have a predisposition for "naturalism." My predisposition is based on the observation that matter is one of the forms that energy takes (E=MC), the observation that energy cannot be created or destroyed and is therefore eternal by definition (law of conservation of energy), and the observation that matter/energy unrelentingly interacts with itself according to the principles of quantum mechanics, which is the root cause of all ongoing change.

When was the last time you observed a reanimated corpse fly off up into the sky?

[JehovahsWitness]

Admittedly I do have a predisposition for "naturalism."

I didnt refer to "a predisposition for "naturalism" whatever that might mean... so I dont see why you are sharing that particular piece of information with me . I refered to "a cherished (but unproven) presupposition of the truth of naturalism" and pointed out that I suspect you may be confusing that with "common sense".