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?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 71 by JehovahsWitness]

The hallmark of modern empirical science has been the recognition that everything that occurs apparently does so for reasons that can potentially be recognized and understood. The root cause for all change is quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is not always (as of yet) accurately predictable. But it is unrelenting.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 67 by JehovahsWitness]

Skepticism should be the default position. Otherwise the default position would be abject gullibility.

[Zzyzx]

.

[Replying to post 67 by JehovahsWitness]
Skepticism should be the default position. Otherwise the default position would be abject gullibility.

But "if you are skeptical you won't go to heaven after you die" (according to some believers).

Evidently many would prefer gullibility (believe what you are told) over skepticism (doubt what you are told unless verified)

Fear is a great motivator.

Successful cons depend upon a gullible audience. "Take my word for it (or his or this book" -- and "No need to verify, just believe and contribute money"

[Tired of the Nonsense]

.

[Replying to post 67 by JehovahsWitness]
Skepticism should be the default position. Otherwise the default position would be abject gullibility.

But "if you are skeptical you won't go to heaven after you die" (according to some believers).

Evidently many would prefer gullibility (believe what you are told) over skepticism (doubt what you are told unless verified)

Fear is a great motivator.

Successful cons depend upon a gullible audience. "Take my word for it (or his or this book" -- and "No need to verify, just believe and contribute money"

Hi Z. I'm now 71 years old, and I have had a stroke. So the end of my life is no longer purely theoretical. I have been confronted by utter nonsense my entire life. Much of it, upon reflection, pretty silly. Childlike in fact. It has been the fate of most people throughout history to live and die in a state of childlike ignorance of the way the universe that they are so much a part of, actually functions. Skepticism has allowed me to attempt to keep things sorted out. I would like to think, before I go, that I had some idea of what was going on while I was still capable of sentient thought. And that I didn't remain an ignorant child my entire life.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Deleted by TotN

[Zzyzx]

.
[Replying to post 75 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Hi ToN, I just turned 80 and for a 'birthday present' the VA paid for a new heart valve (Transcatheter aortic valve replacement) -- no more traumatic for me than getting a tooth filled; which is to say not at all. I was at the fitness center the next day -- literally.

I'm pretty robust and fiercely independent (live alone on rural acreage). The new valve is not guaranteed beyond five years; but may last twenty; not known yet. Thus, my time to be around annoying Theists is unknown.

This does not disturb me in the least. Anything I haven't done by 85 is probably not going to get done. So what? Ceasing to exist isn't worrisome at all, and I have no fears regarding the mythical 'judgment'.

Questioning 'authority' (skepticism) has been my trademark for a lifetime -- and has served me well. I have darn seldom been conned -- financially or otherwise.

I do not have high regard for blissful ignorance or gullibility.

[Goose]

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.

It logically follows. You havent shown otherwise.

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.

You already affirmed the antecedent when you said the historical evidence supports the claim that Paul believed he encountered a resurrected Jesus on his way to Damascus.

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.

What evidence is there this detail regarding the companions was embellished? Who did the embellishing, Paul or the author of Acts? Simply claiming it could have potentially been embellished isnt a counter argument.

Further, if the detail of the companions was embellished then we would expect the embellisher to have had the companions also directly witness the risen Christ.

We have no direct testimonies from anyone who may have been with Paul when he had his Damascus road experience.

We dont need that. We have Pauls testimony recorded in Acts attesting to his companions on the road to Damascus.

Nevertheless, even if we were to grant that Paul's companions experienced something, there is insufficient evidence to determine the cause of their experience.

The cause is irrelevant at this point. All that is relevant is that Pauls companions experienced something.

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.

It doesnt need an implicit empirical basis to qualify as a possible explanation. If you think it does, prove it.

This is not a self-imposed limit to what is possible. The limit is objectively set by what corresponds with the reality we observe.

You are assuming the reality we think we observe is the limit of reality. I dont make that assumption.

An explanation has no practical value if its possibility cannot be demonstrated to exist in our observed reality.

Only if one assumes our observed reality is the limit of reality. Our observed reality is finite and quite limited.

How could we demonstrate that a supernatural resurrection is possible for it to serve as an explanation for Paul's experience?

Ive already demonstrated that, logically.

Logical possibility alone is insufficient to establish something exists in reality for it to serve as possible explanation.

Its sufficient to establish a baseline of possibility. Thats what you are doing with your implicit empirical basis argument for an explanation to qualify as a 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.

If an explanation must be known to exist in reality to serve as a possible explanation for anything, that rules out numerous explanations such as abiogenesis, the multiverse, etc. Many of these explanations are held by numerous atheist scientists. Not to mention that standard rules out every single historical explanation since, strictly speaking, no historical explanation can be known to exist.

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.

Thats patently false. Metaphysical possibilities can be falsified.

• 1. If I was born on Mars, then Id be a Martian.
  2. Im not a Martian.
  3. Therefore, I was not born on Mars.

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 you said in another thread your epistemology has the starting premise that you have no way to rule-out the possibility that everything else I consciously experience could potentially be part of an elaborate simulation. Given this starting premise (a kind of brain in a vat scenario) you cant even prove to yourself that what you perceive to be your external reality is actually external and real. It might all be taking place in your imagination since you might be a brain in a vat. How would you know you werent? So you cant even establish it is the case that something actually exists in your own external reality. Given this starting premise, however, you said you can at least acquire knowledge of things that empirically exist and distinguish them from things I know only exist as concepts. But that distinction is trivial and arbitrary given the starting assumption that you might be a brain in vat. You have a personal preference for explanations with implicit empirical basis because you have a preference for them. Given the starting premise you might be a brain in a vat there is no meaningful difference between the validity of logical possibility and one you perceive to exist in your external reality with an implicit empirical basis. There are all equal possible explanations since they might all be products of your imagination.

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

Again only a limit for someone who sets the limit of possible explanations at that which they perceive to be physically possible. I dont share your view and you have no way to impose it on me.

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.

Why is that the case when you cant even prove to yourself that the reality you think you observe is real?

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.

No, the best one will outstrip all others in explanatory scope and power. How can we claim to be open minded if we a priori put limits on possible explanations because they dont seem to align with our world view? Further, given the starting premise you might be a brain in a vat, they all just might be imaginary explanations anyway. How can you demonstrate an explanation actually exists in reality if you might be a brain in a vat?

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.

Im not claiming a logical possibility alone demonstrates something is the case. No possibility alone (including your preferred ones with an implicit empirical basis) demonstrates something is the case. Possibilities establish a baseline of what is possible, nothing more.

[Goose]

[Replying to post 53 by Goose]

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.

Acts indicates that Paul was traveling to Damascus with other travelers.

Correct.

But not that these others were Paul's close friends.

And that's relevant because...

Paul's "companions" left Paul the harsh persecutor of Christians, and at a time when he was totally helpless, with a Christian man to be cared for and continued on with their business. Hardly the actions of "close friends."

Left Paul with someone who would care for him. Hardly the actions of complete strangers either.

Did Paul's companions also experience "something" on the road to Damascus?

Yes, that's what the evidence suggests.

Well, according to the author of Acts they did. But the author of Acts, a later follower of Paul's, was not personally present to have witnessed the events himself. The story is based on what Paul, the afflicted man, believed occurred after his recovery.

Right, the account is based on Paul's testimony after he recovered. What's the problem here?

But the "companions" themselves left no such testimony.

Right. And?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Goose]

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.

People typically traveled in groups for mutual aid and protection. That doesn't mean that they were close friends. Close friends who knew Paul, the Christian persecutor, well, would hardly have left Paul him at the mercy of a Christian man in his defenseless condition.

You already affirmed the antecedent when you said the historical evidence supports the claim that Paul believed he encountered a resurrected Jesus on his way to Damascus.

That Paul genuinely believed it is perfectly plausible. Yet Paul's belief/opinion as to what occurred while on his way to Damascus is far from being sufficient in overturning all common experience. Paul's belief that he met with and communed with a dead man contradicts common experience.

What evidence is there this detail regarding the companions was embellished? Who did the embellishing, Paul or the author of Acts? Simply claiming it could have potentially been embellished isnt a counter argument.

What evidence is there that indicates WHAT the companions believed? The companions left NO SUCH INDICATION!

Further, if the detail of the companions was embellished then we would expect the embellisher to have had the companions also directly witness the risen Christ.

The "embellisher," Paul, was sick and delusional. His memory of what occurred is based on the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of what may or may not have occurred during a time when he was physically incapacitated. Close to death, in fact.

The cause is irrelevant at this point. All that is relevant is that Pauls companions experienced something.

Again, we have NO SUCH TESTIMONY from Paul's companions at all. We only have the version of events as provided by Paul, the afflicted man, after his recovery.

It doesnt need an implicit empirical basis to qualify as a possible explanation. If you think it does, prove it.

It is well known, "empirically," that it is not possible to have a face to face discussion with a man who is has been dead for several years. Of course it IS possible to imagine having a face to face discussion with a dead man. But this requires the presumption of the validity of make believe.

You are assuming the reality we think we observe is the limit of reality. I dont make that assumption.

We are assuming the reality that we can observe is the limit of the reality that we can know. Beyond that is the realm of make believe. Where anything becomes possible.

Its sufficient to establish a baseline of possibility. Thats what you are doing with your implicit empirical basis argument for an explanation to qualify as a possible explanation.

The baseline of possibility is anything that can be imagined. As opposed to that which is physically substantiatable.

If an explanation must be known to exist in reality to serve as a possible explanation for anything, that rules out numerous explanations such as abiogenesis, the multiverse, etc. Many of these explanations are held by numerous atheist scientists. Not to mention that standard rules out every single historical explanation since, strictly speaking, no historical explanation can be known to exist.

It doesn't rule these things out. They remain possibilities until such time, if ever, as they can be shown to be physically substantiatable in detail.

"And it is the case that torturing and killing babies for entertainment is immoral." - Goose, Christian

Can the case be made that killing babies is moral if you become convinced (someone says) that God has ordered it?

[Goose]

People typically traveled in groups for mutual aid and protection. That doesn't mean that they were close friends. Close friends who knew Paul, the Christian persecutor, well, would hardly have left Paul him at the mercy of a Christian man in his defenseless condition.

Where are you getting this idea they left Paul at the mercy of a Christian man (Im presuming you mean Ananias)? The text explicitly says Ananias went and entered the house where Paul was (Acts 9:17). Paul is also recorded as saying that Ananias was a devout man according to the law and had a good reputation among the Jews in Damascus (Acts 22:12).

That Paul genuinely believed it is perfectly plausible. Yet Paul's belief/opinion as to what occurred while on his way to Damascus is far from being sufficient in overturning all common experience. Paul's belief that he met with and communed with a dead man contradicts common experience.

Ive not argued Pauls belief alone is sufficient.

What evidence is there that indicates WHAT the companions believed? The companions left NO SUCH INDICATION!

Sure they did. They told Paul. And Paul told the author of Acts.

The "embellisher," Paul, was sick and delusional. His memory of what occurred is based on the accuracy, or inaccuracy, of what may or may not have occurred during a time when he was physically incapacitated. Close to death, in fact.

Prove Paul was sick and delusional and close to death. Physically incapacitated, in the sense he couldnt see, I will grant.

Again, we have NO SUCH TESTIMONY from Paul's companions at all. We only have the version of events as provided by Paul, the afflicted man, after his recovery.

Right and thats a problem because...

It is well known, "empirically," that it is not possible to have a face to face discussion with a man who is has been dead for several years.

Knocking down a strawman here. Paul wasnt having a face to face with a man who was dead.

We are assuming the reality that we can observe is the limit of the reality that we can know.

Oh yeah? Then how do you know 2+2=4? How do you know that there are at least three widgets if there are four? How do you know A and ~A is a contradiction? How do you know you love your mother?

Beyond that is the realm of make believe.

You think numbers, math, and logic are make believe?

Where anything becomes possible.

Not anything.

The baseline of possibility is anything that can be imagined. As opposed to that which is physically substantiatable.

And thats a problem because...

It doesn't rule these things out. [abiogenesis, the multiverse, etc.] remain possibilities until such time, if ever, as they can be shown to be physically substantiatable in detail.

It certainly does if an explanation must be known to exist in reality to serve as a possible explanation for anything. To argue otherwise is Special Pleading.

Can the case be made that killing babies is moral if you become convinced (someone says) that God has ordered it?

Nope.