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 164 by Realworldjack]

In other words, could all the authors have been lying? Could they have been deceived in some sort of way? Is it possible someone else may have been involved behind the scene, who orchestrated all these facts, and evidence which we have? Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion, and so, on, and so on.

Could all the authors have been lying? Yes. Or at least some of them.
Could they have been deceived in some sort of way? Yes. It happens all the time.
Is it possible someone else may have been involved behind the scene, who orchestrated all these facts, and evidence which we have? Of course.
Could Jesus have survived the crucifixion? Yes.
Could people have been mistaken?
Could people have been deluded?
Could people have deliberately set about starting a new sect?
Could the notion have been borrowed from older precedents?
And so on.
YES to all of the above.

There are countless mundane reasons for the origin of the story. There are undoubtedly more reasons to believe that the resurrection never happened than that it did. The account of a resurrected god is not unique to Christianity. People apparently have the capacity to invent incredible events and manage to convince others of their truth and garner followers. We know so little about the people involved or their motives. We know that there has been a lot of deliberate interpolation and faking of documents and relics over the centuries in order to prop up the new religion. People are gullible and superstitious and once a meme takes hold it can be difficult to eradicate.

In the absence of credible empirical evidence for the event itself and with only a handful of spurious stories and unsupported claims, it makes no sense to accept the resurrection as fact. The only acceptable reason for believing that it occurred is that it is foundational to a deep-seated religious belief that was inculcated rather than established through informed reason.

There are countless mundane reasons for the origin of the story.

Well then great! Then you should be able to share one of these reasons with us, along with being able to explain how this scenario would not be extraordinary itself?

There are undoubtedly more reasons to believe that the resurrection never happened than that it did.

Oh really? Well let's examine them?

The account of a resurrected god is not unique to Christianity.

I certainly hope this is not one of them? Because you see, this would have nothing, and I mean nothing, whatsoever to do with the claim of the resurrection of Jesus. In other words, even if we were to be able to demonstrate that all these other claims of a resurrected god would be false, it would have nothing, whatsoever to do with whether the claim of the resurrection of Jesus would be false.

Next, why don't you share with us, those other claims of resurrected gods, and let us take a look at the actual historical evidence, to support those claims, as compared to the claim of the resurrection of Jesus?

People apparently have the capacity to invent incredible events and manage to convince others of their truth and garner followers.

Again, this would have nothing whatsoever, to do with the claims of the resurrection of Jesus. All you are doing is to compare one claim to another claim, without even demonstrating that either claim would be false, and then assuming the resurrection of Jesus, must be false as well, even though you have not even demonstrated the first claim to be false.

But again, the fact of the matter would be, even if you were to demonstrate the one claim to be false, does not demonstrate in any way that a similar claim must, and has to be false as well.

In other words, you are not dealing with the facts we have, simply by comparing one claim you assume to be false, to another claim you assume to be false.

We know so little about the people involved or their motives.

Oh really? Well, what about this,

Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So it seems to me, this author clearly explains his motives. So, can you give me any reason I should doubt what he tells his audience here?

Moreover, as we continue to read what this author has to say, when we arrive to his second letter to this same individual, he begins to use the words, "we", and "us" concerning the travels of Paul, as it he is there, to actually witness what he is recording, which would clearly demonstrate this author would have had to have been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making, which would demonstrate that he very well would have been able to "carefully investigate everything form the beginning".

So then, with this being the case, what evidence do we have which may suggest the information this author gives his audience would be false? Seriously? I have the claim, I have the reason for the claim, I have been told that he investigated everything, and I have been able to determine that he would have had the ability to do just that. So what evidence do we have which may suggest that the information this author is giving to this other individual, would be false?

We know that there has been a lot of deliberate interpolation and faking of documents and relics over the centuries in order to prop up the new religion.

Okay? Even if this were true, and we could demonstrate that there were those who did this sort of thing, how would this have a thing to do with, whether this author was reporting the truth, to this other individual, some 2000 years ago? Really? How does that make sense in your mind?

People are gullible and superstitious and once a meme takes hold it can be difficult to eradicate.

And again, and again, and again, how would this have a thing to do with whether this author was reporting the truth? I am really attempting to see the point, but there is no point to be made?

In the absence of credible empirical evidence for the event itself and with only a handful of spurious stories and unsupported claims, it makes no sense to accept the resurrection as fact.

And the thing is, I have not, up to this point, insisted that the resurrection would be a fact, or that you, or anyone else should "accept the resurrection as a fact". However, there are many facts, which support the claims, and I have supplied just a few of them thus far. The point is, I am not arguing at this point that, the resurrection would be a fact, but rather, it would be a fact, that there are facts, and evidence to support the claim, which would mean there would be very good reasons to believe the claims very well may be true, which is a far cry from saying, "the resurrection would be a fact", or that "anyone should accept it as a fact".

Definition of empirical
1: originating in or based on observation or experience
empirical data
2: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
an empirical basis for the theory
3: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
empirical laws

Well, it would seem, according to this definition, the fact that we have the letters claiming there was a resurrection, can be, verified, disproved, observed, read, studied, analyzed, experienced, etc., in order to determine, if there may be any reason to believe the claim.

The only acceptable reason for believing that it occurred is that it is foundational to a deep-seated religious belief that was inculcated rather than established through informed reason.

This is simply an opinion, that would be completely false, which is more than likely based on the fact that many Christians do not use their minds, and simply continue to accept what they have been taught all their life, which is demonstrated by the fact that we have so many members here on this site, who were once Christians, who admit to not using their minds to become a Christian, and now want to tell us that, all of a sudden they begin to use the mind, and it was at that point, they somehow became convinced, Christianity must be false.

However, simply because there may be many Christians who do not use the mind, would not in any way demonstrate that one cannot use the mind, using the facts, and evidence we have, to become convinced that Christianity is indeed true.

You see, anyone can make these sort of statements, it is quite another to actually be able demonstrate what you say to be a fact. Because you see, there would be any number of folks who were not only unbelievers at one time, but some would have been extremely opposed to, and abhorred Christianity, and claim to have come to be believers, based upon the facts, and evidence.

One such example would be Rosaria Butterfield, who was not only an unbeliever, but absolutely abhorred Christianity, and Christian ideas. Missed Butterfield was lesbian, in a lesbian relationship, who was a tenured professor at Syracuse University, who was in the process of writing a book, against Christianity, and it was during this process that she became convinced of the truth of Christianity, and she credits her education, for coming to the conclusion.

I will also point out the fact that Butterfeild was the head of the LGBT at the university, and this conclusion was not easy on her, because it was an major life shift, which cost her, her job, along with many friends.

Butterfield, would simply be one example, which demonstrates that your opinion, simply does not line up with the reality.

[Danmark]

This is simply an opinion, that would be completely false, which is more than likely based on the fact that many Christians do not use their minds, and simply continue to accept what they have been taught all their life, which is demonstrated by the fact that we have so many members here on this site, who were once Christians, who admit to not using their minds to become a Christian, and now want to tell us that, all of a sudden they begin to use the mind, and it was at that point, they somehow became convinced, Christianity must be false.

[emphasis applied]
Could you, please, cite the 'Christians who admit not using their minds and therefore became convinced, Christianity must be false?'

In fact, how would one 'not use his or her mind in order to change belief systems?

Perhaps you meant that many former Christians who no longer believe changed their position because they increased their education. If you look on this forum you will find many former Christians who give exactly that explanation.
Many former Christians are examples of people who very intently 'used their minds' to question the prejudices, beliefs, and biases they were raised in. They set about to learn more about the Bible and church history and that academic exploration resulted in a different point of view. It is not easy to throw off the shackles of any belief system or ideology one was born into. But in any case, "not using their minds" appears to be the exact opposite of the process they took.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 169 by bluegreenearth]

I'll attempt to summarize your method for justifying belief, and you can respond to indicate where my understanding may be in error:

An extraordinary claim exists which has no implicit empirical basis. There are a potentially infinite number of unknown reasons why this claim exists and a collection of proposed reasons, but you can at least consider the proposed reasons. One of the proposed reasons this claim exists asserts the event actually took place as described despite it having no implicit empirical basis. The other proposed reasons describe a variety of natural explanations which are grounded in an implicit empirical basis suggesting how the claim could be false. However, it is unknown if the facts and evidence the natural explanations indicate are needed to falsify the claim are discoverable. Your research into the proposed natural explanations for the existence of the claim failed to locate the necessary facts and evidence that would have provided you with a convincing reason to reject the extraordinary claim. While acknowledging this doesn't objectively validate the claim because the disconfirming facts and evidence could still potentially exist or have existed at one time, you suggest the inability to falsify it at this time is a justification for establishing belief in the extraordinary claim as the default position.

Please confirm if my summary of your perspective is more or less accurate.

This sort of thing is simply diverting the conversation. I have made it plain as to what my thinking process has been. With this being the case, I will simply copy, and paste one of the points I have made in a previous post, which will be appropriate here as well,

Oh really? Well, what about this,

Quote:
Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.


So it seems to me, this author clearly explains his motives. So, can you give me any reason I should doubt what he tells his audience here?

Moreover, as we continue to read what this author has to say, when we arrive to his second letter to this same individual, he begins to use the words, "we", and "us" concerning the travels of Paul, as if he is there, to actually witness what he is recording, which would clearly demonstrate this author would have had to have been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making, which would demonstrate that he very well would have been able to "carefully investigate everything form the beginning".

So then, with this being the case, what evidence do we have which may suggest the information this author gives his audience would be false? Seriously? I have the claim, I have the reason for the claim, I have been told that he investigated everything, and I have been able to determine that he would have had the ability to do just that. So what evidence do we have which may suggest that the information this author is giving to this other individual, would be false?

So then, as you can clearly see, we do not have to go through all that, to determine my thinking process, because we have all the facts, in front of us. We have the claim, which is evidence. We have the reason given for the claim, which is more evidence. We have this author telling his audience he investigated everything, before writing these letters to him, more evidence. We know this author would have been alive during the time of the alleged events, evidence. We know this author would have known the ones making the claims personally, and known the claims they were making first hand, evidence. We know this author traveled around with Paul, for decades on these painful journeys, that he was not forced to, evidence.

After, all these things, this author sits down to write, not one, but two long, and detailed letters to one individual, and tells this one individual, he is doing so, in order for this one individual to have certainty.

Now, am I suggesting that these things demonstrate, or prove the content of the letters would be true? Well no. However, it is certainly a fact he wrote the letters. It is certainly a fact that he gives the reason for writing the letters. It is certainly a fact that he claims to have "investigated everything carefully before writing the letters". It is certainly a fact that he would have been alive at the time of the events. It is certainly a fact that he would have known the ones making the claims personally. Which means it is certainly a fact that he would have heard the claims they were making, first hand.

So then, with all this being the case, what facts, and evidence do we have, which may even suggest, that what this author reports to this individual, would be false?

Seriously? We have all these facts, and evidence, and we have been at this for weeks, upon weeks, and all I am asking for is, some sort of reason, backed by some sort of facts and evidence, which may suggest this information would be false, besides the fact that the reports would be extraordinary, because I cannot for the life of me think of any sort of scenario which would not be extraordinary, and thus far, after all the weeks, upon weeks, what I have gotten is, nothing? Notta! Zero!

In other words, I have been pleading for a reason to doubt these reports, and all I receive is questions about my thinking process, when all that would be required, is a reason, backed with facts, and evidence, like I have supplied, which may cause me to have any sort of doubt?

Given my understanding of your perspective, the only reason you will depart from your default position (belief that the extraordinary claim is true) is if facts and evidence were presented to falsify the extraordinary claim. Does this accurately represent your position?

No! It does not, "accurately represent my position". My "default position" at this point is not, "the extraordinary claims are true", but rather, there are facts, and evidence in support of the claims, and I have not heard one fact, nor any evidence, to suggest the claims may be false, other than, they are extraordinary, while at the same time, I have not heard any other explanation of the facts we have, which would not be extraordinary, itself.

So then, I do not need facts, and evidence, which would falsify the claims, but some sort of facts, and evidence which may suggest the claims could be false. Thus far, I have received none at all, which leaves me stuck with the facts, and evidence to support the claims, with no facts, and evidence to suggest the claims may be false, which does not demonstrate the claims would be true, but it does however demonstrate there are good reasons to believe, while apparently being no reasons to doubt?

In a situation where the facts and evidence supporting a natural explanation could potentially exist but are not discoverable, would you accept the possibility that the natural explanation could be a justification to doubt the validity of the claim if the proposed reason has an implicit empirical basis?

I think that would be pretty close to what I have just said above? The only difference seems to be, what I am saying is, we have facts that we can know, which support the claims, which would give reasons to believe the claims. Telling me that there may be reasons to falsify the claim, which may not have been discovered at this point, gives me all the more reason to believe the claims, since we have certain evidence to support the claims, with no known evidence, which would suggest the claims would be false.

Do the two letters to Theophilus demonstrate that a resurrection occurred, or do they demonstrate that the author of the letters believed a resurrection occurred?

These letters demonstrate an extraordinary claim was made. The author clearly tells his audience at the time, he had "investigated everything carefully from the beginning". His second letter clearly demonstrates, this author would have been alive at the time of the alleged events, and as we compare what this author had to say, with the letters of Paul, we have even more evidence of this fact.

This fact demonstrates, this author would have known, and spent a lot of time with the apostles, knowing the claims they were making, and would have heard those claims form the lips of those making the claims.

Moreover, we have the fact that after decades of travels along with Paul, and Paul finding himself under arrest, this author is compelled to sit down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to another individual, concerning these events, which certainly seems to be, out of concern for this other individual.

I could continue, but the point is, we have all these facts, and evidence we can know from reading these 2 letters. So then, what facts, and evidence do we have, which may suggest this information in these letters to this individual, may be false?

This is really all I am asking for? I am not asking that the content be demonstrated to be false. Rather, I am simply asking for some sort of facts, and evidence which may suggest this information in these two letters would be false?

You're welcome to operate within whatever arbitrary epistemology you want. However, if a reason for doubting the claim is developed through a different epistemological framework, would you have a way to demonstrate that the proposed reason was inferior to your reason for believing the claim?

What you seem to be failing to realize is the fact that, we have reasons to believe the claims, which have facts, and evidence in support. So then, if one is going to suggest an alternative explanation, then the next question would be, what would be the facts, and evidence which would support this alternative explanation?

If there are no facts, and evidence, to support this alternative explanation, then we really have no reason to believe this alternative explanation, and would then be stuck attempting to determine what all would have to be involved, in order for this alternative explanation to even be a possibility?

However, at this point we have not had any alternative explanations put forth, much less any which would be supported by facts, and evidence, which seems to leave us with, reasons to believe the claims, which are supported by facts, and evidence, with apparently no reason to doubt?

Given my understanding of your perspective, the only reason you will depart from your default position (belief that the information is credible) is if facts and evidence were presented to falsify the extraordinary claim. In a situation where the facts and evidence supporting a competing explanation could potentially exist but are not discoverable, would you accept the possibility that the competing explanation could be a justification to doubt the validity of the claim if the proposed reason has an implicit empirical basis?

I have answered this question above, and pointed out the fact that this would leave us with known facts, and evidence to support the claim, with no known facts, and evidence which may support the fact that the reports would be false.

The question would then becomes, could it be that we have "not discovered this competing explanation", because one does not exist? Should we ignore all the facts, and evidence we can know beyond a reasonable doubt, that would be in support of this claim, and hold out hope, against hope, that this competing alternative will one day turn up? Sounds a lot like "faith" to me?

Does the information support the claim that a resurrection occurred or that the author of the letters believed a resurrection occurred?

Answered above.

According to your described method for justifying a belief, the only reason you will depart from your default position (belief that the majority of NT was written by people who were alive at the time of the alleged claims) would be if disconfirmatory facts and evidence could be provided. In a situation where the facts and evidence supporting a competing explanation could potentially exist but are not discoverable, would you accept the possibility that a competing explanation could serve as a justification for doubting the validity of the claim if the proposed reason has an implicit empirical basis?

What you are suggesting here, is not even a possibility, because it is a demonstrable fact that, the majority of the NT was authored by those who would have been alive at the time. Because you see, when you combine the two letters to Theophilus, with the letters of Paul, you already have over half of the NT, and we can know both of these authors would have been alive at the time. Therefore, this fact is demonstrated right here, and it would not be possible to discover anything different.

However, as we move on to understand that what the author of the two letters to Theophilus has to say, is so closely aligned with what 2 other NT authors have to say, so much so they have many folks convinced, there must, and had to be copying going on, we can then now say, "the overwhelming majority of the NT would have been authored, and, or attested to by, those who would have been alive at the time of the events", and it is useless to hold out hope, that there may be some sort of discovery, which will change this fact. It ain't gonna happen, no matter how much you hope.

I can't wait for whats next here,

Actually, the claim that a single species can gradually evolve into a new species has an implicit empirical basis unlike the resurrection claim which does not.

I have to tell you, it never ceases to amaze me the extent folks will go!

The easy question here is, has the claim that a single species, gradually evolving into a new species, been demonstrated to be a fact? Easy answer! No it has not, and it will not, because it is impossible to observe, test, or experience.

The implicit empirical basis has been demonstrated through observations of "micro-evolutionary" changes within species (which is really the same thing as evolutionary changes).

This is SO, SO, FUNNY! Simply because there have been changes in a species, which remain to be, the same exact species, does not in any way demonstrate that such a thing would even be a possibility, much less that it has occurred. GOOD GRIEF!

Given a sufficient amount of time, there is no reason a multitude of successive "micro-evolutionary" changes within a species couldn't gradually alter the physical features of the organism to the point where a subsequent generation would no longer be able to sexually reproduce offspring with its ancient ancestor species if a separate population of that species still existed somewhere.

And it keeps getting better!

How in the world could you possibly know, "there is no REASON a multitude of successive "micro-evolutionary" changes within a species couldn't gradually alter the physical features of the organism to the point where a subsequent generation would no longer be able to sexually reproduce offspring with its ancient ancestor species if a separate population of that species still existed somewhere?"

Remember, there may be a reason, which has not been discover as of yet, but we will never know, since this process is said to take millions of years, which means it will never be observed, tested, or experienced.

Therefore, the best you could possibly say is, "we know of no reason" which is a far cry from, "there is no reason".

We don't need a time machine or an extremely long lifespan to directly observe one species gradually evolve into a new species

I am not saying we, "need a time machine", but I can assure you that, observing small changes in a species, does not demonstrate you are, "observing one species gradually evolving into a new species", and it does not even demonstrate this to be a possibility.

We don't need a time machine or an extremely long lifespan to directly observe one species gradually evolve into a new species for us to reasonably infer this to be the best explanation given the empirical fact that "micro-evolution" occurs.

Exactly my point! You are "inferring" not demonstrating. And how are you "inferring" such a thing? Based on the facts, and evidence you have, which causes you to be under the impression, there are good reasons to believe this to be the case.

In other words, one species evolving into a completely different species, is an extraordinary claim, which cannot be demonstrated to be a fact, and yet you seem to be under the impression, there are good reasons to believe this extraordinary claim, based of the facts, and evidence we have. I wonder????????? Where have I heard this same thing?

There is no such implicit empirical basis on which we could construct a plausible explanation for how a single supernatural resurrection could occur.

My friend, this is not a science project, and science cannot, and will not ever be able to explain to us, everything we need to know, or believe.

Moreover, you yourself, have just demonstrated, you are under the impression there are reasons to believe a certain event has occurred, which science, has not, and cannot ever verify. This is hilarious!

However, it is a moot point because this criterion is apparently not part of the method you use to justify belief in an extraordinary claim.

The "method I am using" is, we have facts, and evidence to support the claim, and thus far it would seem we have no facts, and evidence to suggest the claims would be false. This does not mean that I am insisting the claims must be true, however until someone begins to deal with the facts, then what we are seeing is, we have facts, and evidence to support the claim, with no apparent reason for doubt?

However, for the record, healthy skepticism of the Theory of Evolution is not only internally justified but encouraged by a scientific epistemology. If the Theory of Evolution could be mistaken, a scientific epistemology provides a mechanism for discovering that possibility and self-correcting for it.

However, the problem is, there is no way to demonstrate the claim either way. With this being the case, there may be reasons to believe the claim, along with reasons to doubt the claim, and this is what I have been arguing concerning the claim of the resurrection all along.

In other words, there may be reasons to believe the claim, of one species evolving into a completely different species, and there may be reasons to doubt. The same could be said concerning the resurrection, except for the fact, that I am failing to see anyone, give us any facts, and evidence which would support the idea that the claims of a resurrection would be false, which leaves us with, reasons to believe, and no reason to doubt.

In the mean time, the internal justification for believing the Theory of Evolution is based on the fact that it has an implicit empirical basis, makes future testable predictions which are testable, and its consistent ability to pass every test designed to falsify it.

This is very simple. Has the idea that, one species evolving into another species, been demonstrated to be a fact? Has this idea, ever been observed? Can this event ever be observed? Will this event ever be observed?

The answer to all these question is, NO! Therefore, if you believe that one species, has evolved into a completely different species, then your belief is not based upon the fact that this has been demonstrated to have occurred, but rather your belief would have to be based upon the facts, and evidence, which you happen to believe supports such an idea, because this idea that you believe has occurred, has never been, and will never be, a demonstrated fact.

[benchwarmer]

This is very simple. Has the idea that, one species evolving into another species, been demonstrated to be a fact? Has this idea, ever been observed? Can this event ever be observed? Will this event ever be observed?

The answer to all these question is, NO! Therefore, if you believe that one species, has evolved into a completely different species, then your belief is not based upon the fact that this has been demonstrated to have occurred, but rather your belief would have to be based upon the facts, and evidence, which you happen to believe supports such an idea, because this idea that you believe has occurred, has never been, and will never be, a demonstrated fact.

Just jumping in on this one point since it was just covered in another thread.

The answer is actually YES!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laborator ... speciation

Biologists watch speciation in a laboratory flask
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 152743.htm

I'm hopeful this will not illicit replies about "kinds" or dinosaurs emerging from the flask. Links to scientific peer review that denounce these are welcome.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 170 by Danmark]

I have not demonstrated that Paul only made his statements AFTER he was in 3 days of delirium, without food and water?

The way the event is reported, Paul had the experience, and then went 3 days without food, and water, because of this experience. In other words, it was not the lack of food, and water, which caused him to have the experience on the road.

The point is, you can have your own opinion of what occurred, but we would need some sort of evidence, in support of your idea, and the author actaully tells Theophilus that, Paul had some sort of experience, and it was after this experience that Paul went without food, and water, for 3 days, while traveling to Damascuss.

Now, you can hold the opinion that the lack of food, and water had some sort of affect on what Paul would have to say after these events, but the lack of food, and water, does not explain the event itself.

As for claims you cannot prove, how about your
Quote:
I happen to believe the reason we have the claims, is because the claims would be true, and I have gone through every scenario I can think of, in order for the claims to be false, and everyone of them would end up being just as incredible, as the claims themselves.

My friend, if you will notice I say, "I happen to believe" which is a far cry from saying, "this is the reason for the calims" and therefore, I am not making any sort of claim, other than, what I happen to believe to be the case.

The clumsiness of this sentence robs it of clarity, but I'm guessing what you are trying to say is that you can't think of any error you have made.

Not exactly! Rather, what I am saying is, every other scenario I can think of, turns out to be extraordinary, in and of itself. So then, what I am asking for, is some sort of explanation for the facts, and evidence we have, which support the claims, which would not be extraordinary, itself.

I can, starting with your reliance on anonymous sources and writers like Paul who admits, even brags about, the fact he was delirious and without food and water for 3 days before he reported what he claims he experienced.

First, how in the world would folks writing anonymously give us reason to doubt what is being said? As an example, the author of the two letters to Theophilus begins his first letter by saying,

Luke 1:1-4
Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So it seems to me, this author clearly explains his motives. So, can you give me any reason I should doubt what he tells his audience here?

Moreover, as we continue to read what this author has to say, when we arrive to his second letter to this same individual, he begins to use the words, "we", and "us" concerning the travels of Paul, as if he is there, to actually witness what he is recording, which would clearly demonstrate this author would have had to have been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, would have known the Apostles, along with the claims they were making, which would demonstrate that he very well would have been able to "carefully investigate everything form the beginning".

So then, with this being the case, what evidence do we have which may suggest the information this author gives his audience would be false? Seriously? I have the claim, I have the reason for the claim, I have been told that he investigated everything, and I have been able to determine that he would have had the ability to do just that. So what evidence do we have which may suggest that the information this author is giving to this other individual, would be false?

Next, as far as, "Paul who admits, even brags about, the fact he was delirious and without food and water for 3 days before he reported what he claims he experienced", this is sort of strange, because I do not see where Paul ever mentions such a thing at all?

As far as I can see, Paul really makes no mention of his "Damascus experience" in his letters, and he certainly does not mention going without food, and drink, in his letters which would be tied to this event? Take a look at this link, https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/ ... s-differen

If you will notice, this article begins by saying,

Paul himself makes no mention of a conversion on the road to Damascus, whereas Acts of the Apostles has not one, but three accounts:

So then, the event is recorded, but not by Paul. Then, it is reported that Paul testifies about the event, to others, but this is a report of Paul reporting on the event to others, but Paul was not the one recording this event, and in this report of what Paul had to say about the events, it is never recorded that Paul ever mentioned going without, food, or drink?

The point is, as far as I can tell, (I could be in error) the author of the two letters to Theophilus is the only one who reports, the going without food, and water, which would be tied to this event. So then, how is it that Paul "brags about, the fact he was delirious and without food and water for 3 days before he reported what he claims he experienced?"

One further observation here. Can you tell us where Paul mentions "being delirious"?

Q: 'You say you had nothing to eat or drink for 3 days and were blind.'

A: No! Actually, what is reported would have been reported by someone else, and the reports says, I was traveling on the road to Damascus, and had an experience, and it was then that I went 3 days without food, or drink, and was blind.

Q: 'And after you came to, you reported seeing Jesus and bright lights and Jesus talked to you?'

A: No! It is never reported, that I lost consciousnesses, so as to have to, "come to" in any sort of way.

Q: 'And none of the people with you saw Jesus when when you did on the road to Damascus?'

A: This is correct, but it is also reported these men were fully aware that something very strange did indeed occur.

Q: 'And at this time, Jesus had already been killed and buried?'

A: Correct! Which is exactly why I was going around in an attempt to put a stop to this nonsense.

Q: 'But you maintain you saw Jesus after he had died, tho' your friends did not see him?'

A: This is not exactly accurate. Those with me at the time, were reported to have seen the same bright light that I saw, but they "saw no man". However, there are many others that I have reported on myself, who claim to have encountered this same Jesus, after his death.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 170 by Danmark]

I have not demonstrated that Paul only made his statements AFTER he was in 3 days of delirium, without food and water?

The way the event is reported, Paul had the experience, and then went 3 days without food, and water, because of this experience. In other words, it was not the lack of food, and water, which caused him to have the experience on the road.

For reasons I do not understand, many Christians do not seem to grasp this point.
My source is the Book of Acts, 9:1-9*
There is no record of Paul reporting any of this (the others with him "saw nothing") until AFTER his 3 days without food and water. That he did not report this until AFTER he once again ate and drank is the most logical explanation because he was apparently in such a dire condition he could not eat or drink for those 3 days. Why else would he go without out food and drink? Yes, I suppose he could have been a regular 'Chatty Kathy' during those 3 days, going on and on reporting what he saw, tho' not drinking a drop of water, or a particle of food, but this seems unlikely. The more logical approach is that he was out of it, delirious and either unconscious or semi conscious, thus unable to eat or drink. When he came to he started to eat, drink, and talk.
Do you have some source that suggests he reported or even talked at all while he neither ate nor drank those three days?

Re: your other speculative points, it should be conceded by even the staunchest of apologists that the account in Acts is written from the point of view of the apologist/Christian, not the skeptic. That the report did not specifically use the word 'delirium' is hardly telling. It is sufficient that no one else saw what Saul saw and that Saul went blind and was without food and water for 3 days.
________________________________________
*"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.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 174 by Realworldjack]

Read the letter Paul wrote to Philemon, and tell me how many things would be claims? What I am saying is, not everything written in the Bible would be a claim. The letter written to Philemon would be a good example, since most of the letter would be a plea to Philemon.

Exactly what in that letter directly testifies to the resurrection?

Your question here is completely irrelevant to the point being made. To the objection that, "all we have are claims", I made this point,

Next, we have far more than "claims by these authors" because the overwhelming majority of what is contained in the NT, would not be claims at all, and as we read these things, we can ascertain a number of things about some of the authors themselves.

Okay, so the point is, there are things contained in the NT, which would not be claims at all, and we can learn, and know a lot by reading these other things contained in the NT, that would not be claims. The response I received back was,

Now you've lost me. How is someone writing something down NOT a claim about what is written down.

This seems to indicate this person does not understand that something can be written down, which would not be a claim. Ergo, to demonstrate the fact, I directed them to read Philemon, in order for them to verify that not all that is contained in the NT would be a claim, but there a certain things we can ascertain by reading these things.

As an example, we can know that this letter written to Philemon would have been written while Paul would have been under arrest, which goes right along with other letters of Paul, as well as what the author of the two letters to Theohilus would have to say.

This letter also verifies even more what we already know, in that Paul would have traveled around planting Churches, and bringing many folks to Christ, and it clearly seems as if Philemon would have been one of them.

Another very important thing we can verify as well is the fact that he mentions Luke again as well in this letter, as if Luke were there with him, which again goes right along with what Luke records in his second letter to Philemon.

But to your question, although Paul does not bring up the resurrection in this letter, we already know for a fact that Paul proclaimed the resurrection in other letters, and we know this is the reason for his imprisonment. With this being the case, Paul does mention Jesus in this letter, and he does so, as if Jesus was alive, and well.

So then, since we already know that Paul proclaimed the resurrection, and had been doing so for years, on top of the fact that he speaks of Jesus in this letter, as if he were alive, I really do not see a point, especially when I was not referring to this letter as if it said anything about the resurrection.

What we see then is, even though this letter makes very few claims, we can learn, and know a lot by reading what Paul had to say to, Philemon.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 186 by Realworldjack]

But to your question, although Paul does not bring up the resurrection in this letter,...

That's enough to conclude that the letter is not evidence for the resurrection. Thank you.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 182 by Realworldjack]

Your inability to properly understand what constitutes an epistemology or how it operates is demonstrated through the lack of any meaningful progress in our conversation. I'm not sure if this is my failure to adequately articulate these important concepts or a psychological defense mechanism keeping you doxastically closed. So, maybe you'll gain a better understanding of where apologetic arguments fail if is presented to you through another source:

Educate yourself and enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lroKN5g ... B-3MiY17uk

[Realworldjack]

This is simply an opinion, that would be completely false, which is more than likely based on the fact that many Christians do not use their minds, and simply continue to accept what they have been taught all their life, which is demonstrated by the fact that we have so many members here on this site, who were once Christians, who admit to not using their minds to become a Christian, and now want to tell us that, all of a sudden they begin to use the mind, and it was at that point, they somehow became convinced, Christianity must be false.

[emphasis applied]
Could you, please, cite the 'Christians who admit not using their minds and therefore became convinced, Christianity must be false?'


In fact, how would one 'not use his or her mind in order to change belief systems?

Perhaps you meant that many former Christians who no longer believe changed their position because they increased their education. If you look on this forum you will find many former Christians who give exactly that explanation.
Many former Christians are examples of people who very intently 'used their minds' to question the prejudices, beliefs, and biases they were raised in. They set about to learn more about the Bible and church history and that academic exploration resulted in a different point of view. It is not easy to throw off the shackles of any belief system or ideology one was born into. But in any case, "not using their minds" appears to be the exact opposite of the process they took.

I think you really need to read a bit more carefully, which may explain why you seem so confused concerning the conversion of Paul as well? I never said, "Christians who admit not using their minds and therefore became convinced, Christianity must be false?" In fact, it was the exact opposite!

In other words, these folks admit to not using the mind to become a Christian. I take this to mean they were more than likely swept away by some sort of emotion, that had very little to do with the thinking process.

Okay, please read carefully here. It was at a later point, when these folks claim, they began to use the mind, and it was the use of the mind, which caused them to reject Christianity.

So again, to be clear, I never said a word about those who admit to not using the mind to, "became convinced, Christianity must be false". So then, when you say,

But in any case, "not using their minds" appears to be the exact opposite of the process they took.

Which is exactly what I said!

In fact, how would one 'not use his or her mind in order to change belief systems?

How about an, emotional response, where the mind is not all that engaged? However, it may be better to ask those who freely admit to the mind not being engaged, in order to make such a major life decision?

Perhaps you meant that many former Christians who no longer believe changed their position because they increased their education.

No! I said exactly what I meant, but you do not seem to read very carefully, and it does not seem that it is just my writing, because we have seen you also seem to have trouble with the Biblical writings as well!

If you look on this forum you will find many former Christians who give exactly that explanation.

They give the explanation I have given, accept for the fact that one of these members scolded me one time to say, "it was not that I did not use the mind, rather I did not use the mind properly".

So then, I will say again, exactly what you quote me above as saying, and maybe this time you will read this exact same sentence, and be able to interpret it correctly, because you cannot even make it say that, "these folks admit to not using the mind to reject Christianity". Please read it carefully, and explain how you can make it say the exact opposite of what it actually says?

which is demonstrated by the fact that we have so many members here on this site, who were once Christians, who admit to not using their minds to become a Christian, and now want to tell us that, all of a sudden they begin to use the mind, and it was at that point, they somehow became convinced, Christianity must be false.

Can you see it? Did not use the mind to become a Christian. Used the mind to reject Christianity. So, how in the world can one get the idea that this sentence says anything at all about these folks, "admitting to not using the mind, to reject Christianity?"