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?

[Goose]

My "speculation" is that epilepsy is a reasonable explanation given Paul's direct testimony in the Epistles.

It's not particularly relevant to the thread but what if I could give you an argument that falsified that explanation? Would you still think that explanation was reasonable?

Arguments don't falsify claims that have an implicit empirical basis; empirical evidence falsifies those claims.

But the epilepsy diagnosis is itself an argument. So how does that work? How does empirical evidence itself falsify a claim with an implicit empirical basis without an argument when the claim Paul had epilepsy is itself based on an argument? Without an argument you just have evidence.

If you can provide empirical evidence to disprove the claim that Paul may have suffered from epilepsy based only on his direct testimony from the Epistles, then I will reconsider the reliability of the epilepsy explanation.

It will be the same kind of evidence you think supports the epilepsy diagnosis. That's fair isn't it? But I promise I won't use Acts.

[bluegreenearth]

My "speculation" is that epilepsy is a reasonable explanation given Paul's direct testimony in the Epistles.

It's not particularly relevant to the thread but what if I could give you an argument that falsified that explanation? Would you still think that explanation was reasonable?

Arguments don't falsify claims that have an implicit empirical basis; empirical evidence falsifies those claims.

How does that work? How does empirical evidence itself falsify a claim with an implicit empirical basis without an argument? Without an argument you just have evidence.

If you can provide empirical evidence to disprove the claim that Paul may have suffered from epilepsy based only on his direct testimony from the Epistles, then I will reconsider the reliability of the epilepsy explanation.

It will be the same kind of evidence you think supports the epilepsy diagnosis. That's fair isn't it? But I promise I won't use Acts.

I presumed it wasn't necessary to explicitly state that empirical evidence which would falsify a claim with an implicit empirical basis is its own argument. A philosophical argument that is not also accompanied by empirical evidence would not be sufficient to falsify a claim with an implicit empirical basis.

If your argument is accompanied by empirical evidence that actually demonstrates Paul could not have been epileptic, then I presume it would be fair to consider. However, I reserve the right to critically examine your argument to determine if it is sufficient or just another apologetic word game.

[Yahwehismywitness]

Dehydration can cause low blood pressure due to a decrease in blood volume. Blood volume is the amount of fluid that's circulating in your blood vessels. ... When you're very dehydrated, your blood volume can decrease, leading to a drop in blood pressure.

The most common cause of temporary vision loss is reduced blood flow to your eye. The loss of vision is usually in just one eye and lasts from seconds to minutes. Episodes of blindness may be very short, from under a minute to 30 minutes. The episodes may happen rarely. If the cause is treated, the temporary vision loss may stop.

Water and food instead he went without food and water Acts 9:9 which in my opinion made it worse

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Most of your response is concerned with establishing historicity from second-hand sources.

Right and you’ve not responded to those historical arguments. The fact is, much of ancient history comes down to us from second hand sources or worse. By comparison Acts represents very good historical evidence to support the claim that Paul’s companions experienced something.

While this may be an accepted practice for a variety of historical claims, every single one of those accepted historical claims has an implicit empirical basis.

Yeah you keep saying that ad nauseam. But you just can’t seem to explain why it is the case that I’m obligated to hold your view.

The problem with the claims made by Paul and the "presumably" second-hand information in Acts is that they refer to supernatural events that have no implicit empirical basis.

We’ve been over this. That may be a problem for you because you limit explanations to those that have an “implicit empirical basis.� But you just can’t seem to explain why it is the case that it ought to be a problem for me as well.

As such, the reliability of everything contained within those texts must be questioned including some of the claims that do have an implicit empirical basis.

This kind of unreasonable hyper-skepticism is, in my experience, championed by those who have read very little of the primary sources from ancient history. As soon as one begins to read these sources it becomes self evident virtually all of them are laced with references to supernatural events and entities. With this kind of unreasonable hyper-scepticism we can’t know anything from history because the reliability of virtually ever ancient source is called into question if we are to be consistent in how we apply this reasoning. Even the mundane events from ancient history you think have an “implicit empirical basis� can’t be said to be historical because the vast majority of ancient sources make reference to supernatural events and entities at some point throughout the work.

To illustrate this point, consider meeting a random stranger in the park who proceeds to initiate a conversation with you.

Your analogy doesn’t work. We aren’t talking about someone who walks up to me and starts a conversation. We are talking about events that took place thousands of years ago.

But you just can’t seem to explain why it is the case that I’m obligated to hold your view.

Wikipedia,
Argument
In logic and philosophy, an argument is a series of statements (in a natural language), called the premises or premisess (both spellings are acceptable), intended to determine the degree of truth of another statement, the conclusion.

Logic is the study of the forms of reasoning in arguments and the development of standards and criteria to evaluate arguments.[6] Deductive arguments can be valid or sound: in a valid argument, premisses necessitate the conclusion, even if one or more of the premisses is false and the conclusion is false; in a sound argument, true premisses necessitate a true conclusion. Inductive arguments, by contrast, can have different degrees of logical strength: the stronger or more cogent the argument, the greater the probability that the conclusion is true, the weaker the argument, the lesser that probability.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument

Obviously you are free to take whatever position appeals to you. You must recognize however that if you take a position that is contradictory to all common observation, common experience, and therefore all common sense, you will have lost an argument based on logic. Taking a position that is contradictory to all common observation, common experience, and therefore all common sense, is little different than stating "It's true because I say so." Which is not offering an argument at all.

Go on believing whatever appeals to you to believe. But you've lost this argument.

[Goose]

If your argument is accompanied by empirical evidence that actually demonstrates Paul could not have been epileptic, then I presume it would be fair to consider.

It’s the same kind of evidence you think supports the epilepsy argument. Remember you don’t have empirical evidence that Paul was epileptic. You have no medical records, no tests have been performed, no doctor met Paul and made the diagnosis. What you have is circumstantial evidence taken from his letters and used to make the inference that Paul was epileptic. So it’s only fair that I can use that same kind of circumstantial evidence to falsify the inference that Paul was epileptic.

• 1. The symptoms of epilepsy were described in detail in the New Testament (Mark 9:17-29). (premise)
  
  2. These epileptic symptoms were associated with demonic influence and demonic possession (Mark 9:17-29, Matthew 17:14-20, Luke 9:42).(premise)
  
  3. Those who were thought by the church to be under the influence or possessed by a demon would not be accepted as an apostle in the early church (1 Cor 10:20-21; 2 Cor 11:12-15; 1 Tim 4:10). (premise)
  
  4. Paul was a accepted as an apostle by the early church (Romans 1:1, 11:13; 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 2:9) (premise)
  
  5. If Paul did display the symptoms of epilepsy, then Paul would not be accepted as an apostle by the early church. (premise)
  
  6. Paul did not display the symptoms of epilepsy. (from 4&5 via Modus Tollens)
  
  7. If Paul did not display the symptoms of epilepsy, then Paul was not epileptic. (premise).
  
  8. Therefore, Paul was not epileptic. (from 6&7 via Modus Ponens)

[Yahwehismywitness]

Paul was a accepted as an apostle by the early church (Romans 1:1, 11:13; 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 2:9) (premise)

In his words only said he was a Pharisee and Paul says that he is of the tribe of Benjamin and a Hebrew of Hebrews (Phil 3:5). In Romans 16:11 Paul writes: “Greet Herodion, my kinsman.�

He said no man taught him all revelation Galatians 1:12 Jesus was Son of Man flesh and bones (Matthew 8:20, Mark 2:10, Mark 2:28, Luke 19:10 so it was not Jesus his own words prove that

[Danmark]

The article is critical of the epilepsy diagnosis based on details described in the book of Acts.

Right because the argument that Paul had an attack of temporal lobe epilepsy on the road to Damascus is based on the details in Acts. Those same details falsify that argument.

However, the book of Acts has not been demonstrated to be a reliable source.

If that's your counter argument then it follows you can't make any arguments about what happened to Paul on the road to Damascus from Acts since it hasn't been demonstrated to be reliable.

The Acts of the Apostles is a book written in support of Paul's Christianity. It is hardly a neutral account, and therefore unreliable. However Christian apologists use it to make their claims. The 'counter' simply, for the sake of argument, takes those details and holds the apologist to account for them. So both arguments hold. It is an unreliable source, but even if we assume reliability, 'those facts' claimed lead to a conclusion that contradicts the theme Acts pushes, that Paul had a miraculous encounter with Jesus.

[Danmark]

It wasn’t two full days. And you’ve already conceded Paul and his companions would have had water with them.

So, you're dismissing Acts 9:9 And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank?

No, not dismissing it all. See this post for the argument.

Thank you for reminding me of this argument:

Firstly, the book of Acts records the chronology in such a way that Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus where he lost his sight occurs first (Acts 9:1-8). Then Paul was led by the hand to Damascus (Acts 9:8). So he wasn’t at all sick or delusional at this point Then Paul is said to have gone without food and water for three days (Acts 9:9). So even if he were severely dehydrated this would have occurred three days after his encounter with Jesus. That point alone is enough to sink your theory.

Two problems with this argument. The minor first, you simply ASSUME Paul was not delusional when he first lost his sight. It makes more sense that he was either delusional or non communicative from the moment of the initial event and that was so traumatic he could neither eat nor drink for the reported three days.

THEN, after all of that, he wakes and recounts his dreams/delusions/hallucinations which are taken by some as evidence of a 'divine revelation.' In other words, the entire Pauline story is based on the initial ravings of someone reporting only after he'd passed out, lost his sight, and could neither eat nor drink for 3 days.

[Danmark]

If your argument is accompanied by empirical evidence that actually demonstrates Paul could not have been epileptic, then I presume it would be fair to consider.

It’s the same kind of evidence you think supports the epilepsy argument. Remember you don’t have empirical evidence that Paul was epileptic. You have no medical records, no tests have been performed, no doctor met Paul and made the diagnosis. What you have is circumstantial evidence taken from his letters and used to make the inference that Paul was epileptic. So it’s only fair that I can use that same kind of circumstantial evidence to falsify the inference that Paul was epileptic.

• 1. The symptoms of epilepsy were described in detail in the New Testament (Mark 9:17-29). (premise)
  
  2. These epileptic symptoms were associated with demonic influence and demonic possession (Mark 9:17-29, Matthew 17:14-20, Luke 9:42).(premise)
  
  3. Those who were thought by the church to be under the influence or possessed by a demon would not be accepted as an apostle in the early church (1 Cor 10:20-21; 2 Cor 11:12-15; 1 Tim 4:10). (premise)
  
  4. Paul was a accepted as an apostle by the early church (Romans 1:1, 11:13; 1 Cor 15:9; Gal 2:9) (premise)
  
  5. If Paul did display the symptoms of epilepsy, then Paul would not be accepted as an apostle by the early church. (premise)
  
  6. Paul did not display the symptoms of epilepsy. (from 4&5 via Modus Tollens)
  
  7. If Paul did not display the symptoms of epilepsy, then Paul was not epileptic. (premise).
  
  8. Therefore, Paul was not epileptic. (from 6&7 via Modus Ponens)

You are greatly over simplifying the symptoms of epilepsy. Epilepsy isn't one disease or condition. There are many kinds of epilepsy with different symptoms and patterns. Your own source refers to the the fact an individual "MAY" suffer from the list of symptoms.

Regardless, the symptoms may frequently be in the eye and ear of the beholder.

Identical seizure conduct may be interpreted by one as 'demonic possession' and by another as religious ecstasy or delusion.
https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pr ... sm/5956982

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 154 by Goose]

Premise 2 implies epileptic symptoms would always be associated with demonic possession. This has not been historically demonstrated. If Paul's epileptic symptoms manifested in such a way that they were conducive to and consistent with the theology of early Christianity, then the church would not necessarily have presumed he was possessed by a demon. So, your argument does not conclusively falsify the epilepsy hypothesis.