Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

[bluegreenearth]

For example:

Hebrews 11:3

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at Gods command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

There are numerous verses following the one above that equally proclaim, "By faith," something is understood or known to be true. Therefore, in this context, "faith" is being encouraged for use as an epistemology. How does "faith" function to reliably distinguish true claims from false claims or does it fail in that regard? What would demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Christian community that "faith" is not a reliable tool for discovering what is true or false?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 101 by Zzyzx]

That is a common and necessary tactic for apologist debaters. Their only 'evidence' to support a KEY item in their beliefs, the 'resurrection', consists of unverifiable TALES of an empty tomb and unverified TALES of supposed after-death sightings.

Your "unverifiable tales" argument, is no different than the "unfalsifiable claim" argument, and does not in any way whatsoever demonstrate there would be no good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection. There would be any number of claims which we have no way to test, or verify, but there may be good reasons to believe these claims.

One of these claims we cannot test, nor verify, which I believe you would be under the impression there is very good reasons to believe this claim, would be the claim of, full blown evolution, meaning one of what we have identified as species, evolving into another species.

So then, unless you can correct me, this claim cannot be tested, has never been observed, and there is no way in which to verify this claim, but I'm a thinking.......? you are under the impression there is good reasons for us to believe this unverified claim?

Therefore, fancy footwork is required -- some quite creative -- to avoid admitting that the 'evidence' for the claimed 'resurrection' is nothing more than folklore / unverified tales / wishful thinking.

Here, you are making a statement of fact, that the resurrection would be "folklore / unverified tales / wishful thinking" when you have no way to "verify" this to be the case.

"They said it in two different places" seems to constitute a major apologetic effort.

I really do not understand this comment? What I do understand is the fact that, no one here, has dealt with the fact that we have overwhelming evidence to support the fact that, the author of the two letters to Theophilus, would have traveled along with Paul on his missionary journeys, which means he would have been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making first hand.

With this being the case, this author could not possibly be, reporting some sort of legend, folklore, or wishful thinking. Rather, he could only be reporting the truth, been deceived in some sort of way, or lying.

Moreover, we must consider the fact, this author addressed one individual in both of these letters, and could not possibly have known anyone else would read these letters, and he surely could not have known about any sort of Bible his letters would be contained in, which means he had not way to know, and would have been unconcerned about those of us 2000 years later reading these letters.

So then, we have those here which were involved in what seem to be some sort of victory dance, simply because I had not responded in a day, or two, and yet at this point, some of those same folks still have not responded to some of my posts, and when they have, they seem to ignore the points made above, and rather cherry pick the points they would rather respond to, and I am just wondering if you would consider this to be, "fancy footwork" or would "fancy footwork" only apply to those opposed to you?

I sometimes admire the valiant efforts -- but would not even attempt to defend a position for which there was no verifiable supporting evidence.

The point you are overlooking here is the fact that it can be absolutely "verified" that we do indeed have the reports, and simply claiming the reports cannot be "verified" would have absolutely nothing to do with the reports being true, or false, or if there would be any good reasons to believe the claims.

The fact of the matter is, there is a reason we have these reports, and unless you can demonstrate how, and why these reports would be false, then this would mean, the reports may very well be accurate.

The thing is, I am holding the position, there would be good reasons to believe the claims, and I am not at this point insisting, there would be no reason to doubt the claims. However, those opposed seem to "want their cake, and eat it too". In other words, they want to insist there is reasons to doubt the claim, but also want to insist there would be no reasons to believe the claims, when they have in no way demonstrated such a thing.

To demonstrate such a thing, one would have to give the reason we have these reports, along with the facts, and evidence which would demonstrate how, and why these reports are indeed false, which would eliminate the reasons one may have to believe the reports.

The point is, it is not enough to point out the fact the reports have not been "verified", because this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the truth of the matter. It is also not enough to give us possibilities of what may have happened, without any facts, and evidence in support of these other possibilities, and going on to actually think through all that would have to be involved for these possibilities to even be possibilities.

This brings me back to a point I have been making over, and over on this site which is, 'it is not near as simple as most folks seem to make it out to be". In other words, it is not as simple as many Christians make it out to be, when they say things like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it".

However, it is also not as simple as saying, "the reports cannot be verified, the reports are far to extraordinary, or comparing this claim to other extraordinary claims, etc". None of these things would have a thing in the world to do with the truth of the matter, and they also would have nothing to do with there being good reasons to believe the reports.

The bottom line here is, you either hold the position there would be reasons to believe the reports, along with reasons to doubt, and we can discuss, share, debate, and exchanges ideas. Or, you hold the position that there is either reason to believe, or doubt the claim, and those who are opposed to you have no reason to believe as they do, which causes such a one to own the burden of demonstrating their position, since you are the one doing the insisting.

Again, it is not as simple as you are making it out to be!

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 105 by Realworldjack]

The author of the two letters to Theophilus, tells Theophilus, exactly where he obtained his information, much of which he would have witnessed himself, and also tells him exactly why he is writing this information to him. We can also know this author would have traveled around with Paul on his journeys, which means we can know this author would have been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, would have known the original Apostles first hand, and would also know the claims they were making first hand.

(My bolding). Your post emphasises that we don't know the author and that we are speculating about what he would have knownrather than specifying what he actually did know. No evidence to support those speculations or to establish the identity of the author amd his motives, or even his existence and participation in any of the activities mentioned. Not much of a hook to hang your hat on.

All the things I report as "would have" are things we can know beyond any reasonable doubt. We can know, this author did indeed travel with Paul. Since we can know this, then we can know this author was indeed alive during the lifetime of Jesus. And we can also know this author would have known the Apostles personally, and would have known the claims they were making first hand.

With all this being the case, we can know, this author could not possibly have been reporting, legend, folklore, myth, etc. because we know this author would have actually witnessed much of what he wrote, and we have the facts, and evidence to demonstrate this to be the case.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 112 by Realworldjack]

So, please tell us all about this author and how you know it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 108 by bluegreenearth]

Someone claimed Elvis faked his death. You don't care enough about Elvis to bother trying to figure out if it is true or false

No! Sorry, but I was not that close to Elvis. Now, if it would be one of my loved ones, I am sure I would care a little more.

but the improbability of him faking his death justifies your doubt that it is true.

Nope! Never said anything at all close to that? I never mentioned any sort of "probabilities", and I never said a word about my doubt being "justified". My doubt may not be justified at all, but I will more than likely never know, because I do not care enough to know.

Even though you have a justification for doubting the conspiracy theory

Again, nope! Never said "my doubt was justifiable". Rather, what I said is, I choose to doubt, because I do not care.

you acknowledge that asserting the claim is false would place a burden of proof on you.

I do not see where I acknowledged this in the post you are responding to, but I do understand that when one is asserting, then they own the burden.

Therefore, you stop short of claiming to know Elvis is dead.

No! Not in this case. In this case I stop short, because I don't know, and do not care enough to know. Big difference.

According to your perspective, do the people making the claim about Elvis faking his death have a justified belief?

I would not know, because I do not care enough to know. If I cared enough, I would have to read every account, along with the facts, and evidence involved pro, and con, and then attempt to determine if there would be legitimate reasons to believe the claim.

The difference between us seems to be, you seem to be under the impression that any time you doubt something to be true, that this is some sort of evidence the claim must be false, while I understand that my doubt would have no bearing upon the matter.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 114 by Realworldjack]

If I cared enough, I would have to read every account, along with the facts, and evidence involved pro, and con, and then attempt to determine if there would be legitimate reasons to believe the claim.

What makes you care enough about the claims of the resurrected Jesus?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 112 by Realworldjack]

So, please tell us all about this author and how you know it.

For one to ask such a question, seems to demonstrate one who has no idea about what they are so critical about? All this information is contained right there in the letters themselves.

At this point, I will simply copy, and paste from another post of mine explaining these things, and you can give me your answers as to how we have such overwhelming evidence to support these things I have listed to be things we can know.

So then, as we can clearly see, this author tells his audience, who is someone by the name of Theophilus, where he got his information, and why he is writing this information, and the reason given is, so that "Theophilus can know the certainty of the things he has been taught".

Moreover, this is not the only letter this author writes to Theophilus, and in his second letter he begins to use the words "we" and "us" when describing the events concerning the missionary journeys of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events himself, and he uses these words, all the way, and up until Paul is arrested, and the letter ends with Paul continuing to be under arrest, and the author tells Theophilus, this arrest was at least 2 years long.

Now, as we turn our attention to the letters of Paul, we know that Paul mentions the name of Luke, several times in his letters, and sends greetings in the name of Luke, as if Luke is indeed with him, and then in a letter written to Timothy, which would have clearly been written while Paul was under arrest, we have Paul telling Timothy, "only Luke is with me".

With all this being the case, we have pretty strong evidence that Luke did indeed travel with Paul on his missionary journeys, Luke was with Paul while he was under arrest, and that Luke was indeed the author of the two letters to Theophilus.

What this means is, we can be confident this author traveled around with Paul, which would mean this author would have been alive during the life of Jesus, would have known Paul, along with the other apostles personally, and would have known the claims they were making, first hand.

Another thing we need to keep in mind as we read these two letters to Theophilus is the fact that, the author is addressing Theophilus, and has no concern nor any idea, that the letters he is writing would ever be read by anyone else, besides Theophilus, and this author certainly could not have any idea that the letters he is writing would one day be compiled into a book, we now call the Bible.

What this means is, this author's only concern was Theophilus, and therefore we are reading a letter which was written to Theophilus, and the author may have felt there would have been no need in identifying himself, since he may have known, that Theophilus would have been fully aware of who the information would be coming from.

And then,

Actually, now we know there would be Paul, and the author of the two letters to Theophilus, who would have been alive at the same time as Jesus, but this would also tell us that Paul, and this author would have known the other Apostles personally, would have spent a good deal of time with these Apostles, and would have known the claims they were making, first hand.

So then, since we know the information in the two letters to Theophilus, is coming from an individual who would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have known, and spent a lot of time with the Apostles, knowing the claims they were making first hand, and since the first letter to Theophilus contains much of the same information as the other 3 of what has been called Gospels, so much so, that the scholars complain the authors must have copied each other, then we can be confident this information would be coming from one who would have been right there at the time, and, or, very shortly after, so as to be able to investigate claims, as he assures Theophilus he had.

Now let us consider the fact that the two letters to Theophilus, along with the letters of Paul, take up the majority of the NT, which means we can be confident that the majority of the NT was recorded by those who would have been alive at the time, and as we can couple this with the fact that much of the same information which is given to Theophilus, would be pretty close to the information in the other writings which have been called gospels, so much so the scholars complain about copying, then we can be confident the overwhelming majority of the NT was written, and, or was confirmed, by those who would have been alive at the time, and would have known the Apostles, and the claims they were making first hand.

[Danmark]

You got it all wrong my friend. You see, if we had such evidence that the "Elvis sightings" would be something besides the "Elvis sightings" the we could use this evidence to demonstrate that it was not an, "Elvis sighting".

Elvis sightings are a perfect example. We all know Elvis is dead and those who claim to have seen him after death are mistaken. How is this different from the claim of Jesus' supporters, that THEY saw a dead man living?

In both cases we say, no, he's dead. The sightings are bogus. The difference is that the Jesus sighters are anonymous.

We all know Elvis is dead and those who claim to have seen him after death are mistaken.

What we know is, Elvis is reported to have died. We also know there have been folks who have faked their death. We also know there are those who claim to have spotted Elvis after his reported death.
....
even if you were able to demonstrated beyond any doubt at all that every "Elvis sighting" would be false, this would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever upon whether the claim of the resurrection would be true, or false.

well, let's see now
Elvis 'allegedly' died in 1977 at the age of 42. There were unverified 'sightings' of him for a few years after he died; few today, 42 years later. Same happened with Hitler. Elvis would be 84 today. I guess we have to wait until 2050 to be reasonably certain that if he didn't die in 1977, he's certainly dead now.

Jesus allegedly died in about 33 CE, aged 33-36. There were unverified 'sightings' of him for a few years after he died; none today, 2000 years later. I guess we don't have to wait until 2050 to be reasonably certain that if he didn't die in 33, he's certainly dead now.

O! wait. I forgot about factoring in the supernatural magic that makes him still alive and just about to come back any minute now, 2000 years later.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 117 by Danmark]

Again, this is comical, and also expected! You continue to fail to deal with the facts we have, and instead, you are comparing one claim which you have doubts about, to another claim you have doubts about, when the two claims have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

Moreover, even if you were to be able to demonstrate one of these claims to be absolutely false, it would have nothing whatsoever to do with the other claim, and whether it would be true, or false.

So then, I can only imagine one would attempt to make such a comparison, because they understand they are not able to deal with the real facts involved, and this is the only ting they have, because they cannot possibly imagine this type of comparison would be have anything at all to do with the facts, at hand.

Seriously! This comparison you are making, (because it cannot be called an argument) would have nothing whatsoever to do with determining the truth, or falsehood of either claim, and it certainly would not demonstrate there would be no reasons to believe either of the claims.

The point is, I am dealing with the real facts, and evidence we have, and you are simply making comparisons, which have nothing to do with anything at all.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 116 by Realworldjack]

At this point, I will simply copy, and paste from another post of mine explaining these things, and you can give me your answers as to how we have such overwhelming evidence to support these things I have listed to be things we can know.

Once again all you have presented is evidence of claims being made. When you keep referring to the author it is quite clear that you are not certain of the identity of this author and everything else associated with him is purely speculation. What we need is irrefutable first hand evidence of a resurrected Jesus.

Tales of dying and resurrecting gods are not unique to Christianity, and those stories had to have arisen from the imaginations of human beings for reasons we can no longer access. It seems to me that people get indoctrinated into particular religious beliefs and some then rigorously attempt to rationalise those beliefs. I doubt that too many start off as non-believers and then get converted by being presented with flimsy evidence that suggests their deity came back from the dead. Once you rely on faith to shore up any belief you know that there is no rational justification for that belief. Faith props up countless other religions and they all can't represent the truth. They all can, however, be false.

[bluegreenearth]

The difference between us seems to be, you seem to be under the impression that any time you doubt something to be true, that this is some sort of evidence the claim must be false, while I understand that my doubt would have no bearing upon the matter.

This is at least the second or third time you've straw-manned my perspective in this exact way. I'm not going to waste my time repeating myself over and over again just so you can ignore my actual position. Enjoy wallowing in your unconscious confirmation bias and logically fallacious tactics because I'm moving on to other people who care enough to be intellectually honest.