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 Realworldjack]

So if I may translate what you have said:
Uncertainty about Matters of faith, are good reasons to believe in them.

No. I do not think so.

No, you have failed to interpret correctly. Because you see, I have no uncertainty about the things I proclaim to be facts, because I can demonstrate these things to be facts. Ergo, what it is I believe concerning these facts, which can be demonstrate to be facts, would in no way be based upon faith, but would rather be based upon the facts, and evidence we have, which can be demonstrated.

I do not have to exercise faith in order to believe that Jesus was a real historical figure who walked the face of the earth. I do not need faith in order to understand this same Jesus was crucified, dead, buried, and the tomb was later found empty. I do not even need an ounce of faith in order to believe that this same Jesus resurrected from the dead.

You see, I do not exercise faith in order to believe any of the things above, because there are facts, and evidence to support these things, and I can look at, analyze, study, and weigh, these facts, and evidence.

What I would need faith in order to believe is, these events have caused the forgiveness of my sin. Because you see, I cannot see, analyze, study, feel, or weigh forgiveness. Rather, this forgiveness, can only be accepted by faith.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 242 by Danmark]

That is a rather bold statement and inaccurate on it's face.
First, epistemology does not "operate."

You are correct, and believe it or not, I paused when considering exactly what you point out here, and decided to leave it. The reason being is, "BGE" continues to refer to, "my epistemology", and our epistemology does have an affect in how we operate. However, I will concede you are correct, and I should have corrected myself from the beginning.

It is the "study of" the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality of belief. Since epistemology is an ongoing discussion with many divisions and arguments, I find it difficult to believe ANYONE understands it "exactly."

First, what I said was, "I happen to know what epistemology is", which is not the same as saying, "I understand it exactly".

e-pis-te-mol-o-gy
/pistmlj"/
Learn to pronounce
nounPHILOSOPHY
the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope. Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion.

With this being the case, our understanding, or lack thereof, will have an affect upon how we operate.

The very fact you have several times insisted anonymous sources are just as good as known sources tells me you don't understand epistemology at all.

Could you please cite where I have "insisted" anything close to this at all? "BGE" has listed it as a fact that we cannot be certain of who the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have been, and he goes on to insist this would be a reason for doubting the information contained in these letters.

You, and I seem to agree this would not be the case, and it would rather simply be that, "it just means we have less indicia of reliability". Ergo, agreeing that we would have less indication of the reliability, is a far cry from, "insisting anonymous sources are just as good as known sources". The fact of the matter is, we may not be able to know if the information by an unknown source may be reliable, (but we have agreed that it very well could be reliable) while we may have some sort of indication from a known source, if there may be other things we can know about this author.

Also, you appear equate faith and personal subjective 'revelation' or belief as valid or reliable compared to direct empirical observation.

Again, you are going to have to back up what you say here. Because you see, I place no confidence at all in any sort of, "personal subjective 'revelation' or belief". In fact, I have spoken out against such things many, many times elsewhere, and here on this site as well. In other words, I have been an outspoken champion against such ideas.

Next, you, and I apparently have a different idea of what faith would be? My understanding of faith would be, belief that is not based on any sort of facts, and evidence. With this being the case, my belief in the resurrection is not based upon faith, but rather upon the facts, and evidence in support of the claim.

The subject is a complex one.

"Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(1) the philosophical analysis of the nature of knowledge and how it relates to such concepts as truth, belief, and justification,[1][2]
(2) various problems of skepticism,
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification. Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?",[3] "What does it mean to say that we know something?",[4] and fundamentally "How do we know that we know?"[5]"

I believe what I have said above, pretty much demonstrates I have a working knowledge of such things, and have put a lot of time, and effort into thinking on such things.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 237 by Realworldjack]

Please be reminded that the very first sentence of my response indicated it wasn't in capitulation to a burden of proof fallacy. So, the information I provided does not intend to disprove the resurrection claim but to encourage further critical thinking regarding the reliability of the supporting evidence. Secondly, the observation that the resurrection claim is unfalsifiable does not fail in the context I provided. It only fails in terms of your personal opinion and your arbitrary epistemology. Thirdly, my discussion about epistemology was not an argument but an inquiry regarding the criteria you use to qualify a reason as "good" in order that I may attempt to operate within it rather than continuing to talk past you.

Now, the reason for pointing out the fact that the author of the two letters is unknown was nothing more than an acknowledgement of where our ability to investigate the credibility of this individual is severely limited because we don't even know his name. If the author happened to mention his name, then we could have researched if he had written other documents for which to compare with these two letters. Knowing who the author was would also have enabled us to investigate what his contemporaries might have said about the quality of his character and his reliability as a messenger.

You asked for "good reasons" to doubt the resurrection. This is just one of many such reasons that appear to qualify as "good" according to your own epistemology as best as I can assess.

Please be reminded that the very first sentence of my response indicated it wasn't in capitulation to a burden of proof fallacy.

You really do not need to keep reminding us of this, because it is understood that as long as you are not insisting the claims must, and have to be either true, or false, then you own no burden of proof.

However, it seems sort of strange that you are not insisting the claims must, and have to be false, because not doing so, would seem to indicate that you would be under the impression that the claims may very well be possible? The question now is, are you really under the impression that the claims may very well be a possibility?

Because you see, this would have to entail that you believe a resurrection to be a possibility. If you do not believe a resurrection is possible, then you are either insisting the claims must, and have to be false, or you are under the impression that the impossible, is actually possible?

So, the information I provided does not intend to disprove the resurrection claim but to encourage further critical thinking regarding the reliability of the supporting evidence.

Well then, we seem to be on the same team then, because I certainly encourage, "critical thinking" of everything. However, I do not simply, "encourage further critical thinking regarding the reliability of the supporting evidence for the resurrection", but also encourage further critical thinking regarding the idea that, simply because a claim is extraordinary, and may go beyond our ability to understand, and or, experience, or we deem the claim to be impossible, would not necessitate the claim must, and has to be false.

The point is, "critical thinking" is something I encourage, and practice concerning everything, and on all sides of the equation. In fact, I encourage "critical thinking" concerning those things one may already be convinced of, which is one of the reasons I spend most of any free time I have, on this site.

Secondly, the observation that the resurrection claim is unfalsifiable does not fail in the context I provided. It only fails in terms of your personal opinion and your arbitrary epistemology.

Here is where, and how this argument of yours fails, no matter my epistemology. This is from the web. After giving the definition of unfalsifiable claims, along with examples, this article has this to say,

Exception: All unfalsifiable claims are not fallacious; they are just unfalsifiable. As long as proper skepticism is retained and proper evidence is given, it could be a legitimate form of reasoning.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... ifiability

Thirdly, my discussion about epistemology was not an argument but an inquiry regarding the criteria you use to qualify a reason as "good" in order that I may attempt to operate within it rather than continuing to talk past you.

It seems to me we both have the same criteria, accept for the fact that I encourage critical thinking on both sides of the equation, even for those things one may be convinced of, while you seem to be under the impression, that critical thinking is only for those who are opposed to the way in which you think, since you only include one side of the equation?

Because you see, it seems to me, I am able to understand those who doubt, and the reasons for their doubt, while you seem to be under the impression that, there are plenty of good and wonderful reasons to doubt the claims, but you cannot possibly think of any good reasons in order for one to believe the claims, and therefore you come to the conclusion that there must, and has to be a problem with the way in which those folks think, who have come to a different conclusion than you have, because you seem to believe that it could not be possible, that it may be you who may not be thinking correctly?

The point is, I understand that it could be me who is the one in error, which is the reason I encourage critical thinking, even after one becomes convinced, while you seem to be under the impression, that once you have become convinced, the case is settled as far as you are concerned, so it must, and has to be a problem with the way in which those opposed to you, come to their conclusions?

This brings me to the question as to whether you were ever a believer yourself, and if so, what in the world was it, that caused your belief at that time? Also, did you have the same mindset then as you have now? In other words, were you under the impression then as well, "there must, and has to be a problem with the way in which those opposed to me, come to their conclusions, because there certainly is no problem with the way I have come to my conclusions", only to bring this same mindset with you now that you have changed positions?

Now, the reason for pointing out the fact that the author of the two letters is unknown was nothing more than an acknowledgement of where our ability to investigate the credibility of this individual is severely limited because we don't even know his name. If the author happened to mention his name, then we could have researched if he had written other documents for which to compare with these two letters. Knowing who the author was would also have enabled us to investigate what his contemporaries might have said about the quality of his character and his reliability as a messenger.

The problem we are having here is the way in which the two of us differ as to the definition of doubt. My understanding of doubt would be, "to consider to be unlikely", while you seem to be saying it is to, "think critically".

The problem is, I believe we should think critically concerning everything, and not simply for certain reasons. So then, I have no problem with, and actually encourage critical thinking on this, and every other matter. Therefore, if all you are saying is, "we should think critically about this matter", then we do not disagree.

With this being the case, can we agree then that, not knowing who the author may have been, is no reason to consider the claims to be unlikely?

However, I would also like to point out the fact that, although the author of the two letters to Theophilus, did not identify himself to Theophilus, we do in fact have very good evidence, as to who this author would have been, by comparing these letters, to the letters of Paul.

Because you see, it would be a fact that this author begins to use the words, "we", and "us" when describing the events of the journeys of Paul, as if he is there to witness the events he records, and he uses these words, all the way, and up until Paul is arrested, and he ends his second letter with Paul being under arrest for some 2 years. This would mean this second letter could not have been sent out to Theophilus, until at least some 2 years, after the arrest of Paul.

Then, when we turn our attention to the second letter that Paul wrote to Timothy, which is clearly written while Paul was under arrest, Paul tells Timothy there, "only Luke is with me". This right here is pretty strong evidence that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have indeed been Luke, since Luke would have been the only one who could have reported these things.

With this being the case, we can know certain things about this author. We can know that this author would have spent years with Paul. This would mean that we can know this author would have been alive during the lifetime of Jesus, would have known the apostles first hand, and would have heard the claims they were making from their own lips, and that he was compelled after all these things, to sit down to write, not one, but two long and detailed letters to Theophilus, out of concern for Theophilus, and assures Theophilus in the first letter that he had, "investigated everything carefully form the beginning", and we have just seen where this would have indeed been possible, since this author would have been alive at the time, would have known the ones making the claims, along with exactly what these claims would be.

You asked for "good reasons" to doubt the resurrection.

Correct! However, according to you, this would only entail, "thinking critically" about the claims being made, and I would agree with this 100%. But for me, it would not be because the author did not identify himself, but rather the fact that I believe we should "think critically" about everything we read, hear, or even believe to be true.

The main question here seems to be, can we agree that the author not identifying himself, would be no reason to consider the reports, "to be unlikely"? If we can agree here, we can eliminate this first fact of yours, since we seem to agree on, "thinking critically"?

This is just one of many such reasons that appear to qualify as "good" according to your own epistemology as best as I can assess.

We will see as we move along? However, let us keep in mind that I have never insisted there would be no reason for doubt, and have actually stated that, "I understand those who doubt, and the reasons for doubt, but this would not negate the fact that there would be reasons to believe as well".

So then, if we can agree here, we can then move on to "think critically" concerning the other reasons you give for the doubt? However, if all you are saying is, "these are reasons to think critically", then I see no reason to move on, seeing as how I would agree that we need to "think critically" about everything?

With this being the case, maybe you should shorten the list to only include those facts which you believe would be reasons, "to consider the claims to be unlikely" since we are always ever going to agree on, "thinking critically"?

[Realworldjack]

However, simply because there may be reasons for doubt, would not negate the fact that there very well could be reasons to believe.

We have been here a few times before. Some folk report an empty tomb and they make conclusions. One can believe they saw an empty tomb but one need not accept their answers, especially if their answers defy sense.

The vehicle for accepting their claims is called faith, much hailed by Jesus himself. If faith means believing on trust what various characters tell us, then faith is not a reliable way of assessing the truth. I cannot see how it is possible to believe in the resurrection by rational means.

We have been here a few times before.

Yes we have. So what is the point?

Some folk report an empty tomb and they make conclusions.

This is not accurate. Some folks make the report of an empty tomb, and go on to report there were those who saw the one who occupied the tomb alive. This is much different than simply coming to a conclusion. However, there are always those who seem to want to slant the evidence some sort of way?

One can believe they saw an empty tomb but one need not accept their answers, especially if their answers defy sense.

I am not insisting anyone accept the claims as being true. However, it would help indeed, for one to actually get the facts correct! Next, continuing to insist on what you claim to make sense, is not helping you out in any way. Anyone can say such things.

The vehicle for accepting their claims is called faith,

Well, that is an opinion, and everyone is entitled I guess, but it is far from being a fact. Because I can assure you that I do not, simply accept what these authors have to say. Rather, what I believe concerning these reports, is based on the facts, and evidence involved, and not upon faith.

You see, you can continue to say these sort of things, but it does nothing for your argument, because anyone can say these sort of things.

If faith means believing on trust what various characters tell us, then faith is not a reliable way of assessing the truth.

I absolutely agree that, "faith is not a reliable way of assessing the truth", which is why I do not utilize faith in determining whether historical events have occurred, but rather the facts, and evidence involved.

I cannot see how it is possible to believe in the resurrection by rational means.

Well, that certainly settles it then! I mean if you cannot see this, then I would have to agree that it must, and has to be, impossible. I guess we should simply forget the fact that there have been numerous folks who were not only unbelievers, but were actually so opposed to Christianity that they were out to demonstrate how ridiculous the belief would be, but somehow these folks became convinced of the truth of Christianity, based on the facts, and evidence they were examining, in order to demonstrate how ridiculous the belief would be?

[Realworldjack]

and it is not simply that he makes this change, and simply ceases his persecution of this movement, but rather that he actually becomes it's biggest champion, and the reason for the spread of this movement, all over the known world at the time.

Yes, isn't human nature strange. People can be rabid communists and then fight for the other side. Augustine was steeped in sin, and wrote a book against it. Brutus loved Caesar, then killed him.


I suppose there is something dramatic, even romantic, in Paul crossing over to the other side and using his gift for writing on their behalf, especially since it seemed to offer him authority, and present him as God's chosen one. I can see why you would find this attractive, but it has nothing to do with the Resurrection, nor is it the basis for making rational decisions about events 2000 years ago.

Yes, isn't human nature strange. People can be rabid communists and then fight for the other side. Augustine was steeped in sin, and wrote a book against it. Brutus loved Caesar, then killed him.

None of which would have a thing to do with whether any of them would have been correct to do so, and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul did, or had to say. Continuing to make such comparisons, has nothing to do with the truth of what we are discussing, because one would have nothing to do with the other.

I suppose there is something dramatic, even romantic, in Paul crossing over to the other side and using his gift for writing on their behalf, especially since it seemed to offer him authority, and present him as God's chosen one.

And none of this would have a thing to do with determining the truth of the matter! Because you see, there is nothing "romantic" in the conversion of Paul. It is simply a fact that Paul was not only opposed to Christianity, rather, he was out to put a stop to it by any means possible, and he goes from being it's biggest opponent, to it's biggest champion. That is simply a fact! And what did it really get him? Well that would be painful journeys, persecution, and a long jail time. That would actually be the facts!

I can see why you would find this attractive

This is SO, SO, COMICAL! I assure you that you are talking to the wrong person, besides the fact that, Paul's former life, and his conversion are simply facts. It is you who seems to get swept away with the emotion of things.

but it has nothing to do with the Resurrection

Oh but it has everything to do with the resurrection, because this is what Paul was opposed to at the beginning, only to begin to proclaim it. I am not saying this demonstrates the resurrection, but it does have everything to do with it.

nor is it the basis for making rational decisions about events 2000 years ago.

Oh really? However, you can somehow make a "rational decision" concerning these things written some 2000 years ago that, "there certainly was no resurrection"?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 256 by Realworldjack]

Point of Clarification:

My use of the word "doubt" was not intended to mean "considered to be unlikely" but equivalent to the word "skeptical" in that the anonymity of the author is a good reason to require additional evidence before concluding the contents of his letters are sufficiently reliable for use in defending a resurrection claim. An examination of the other identified facts demonstrates where the additional evidence fails to securely demonstrate the reliability of these two letters in that regard. As such, we remain justified in our skepticism of both the reliability of these letters and the resurrection claim.

The continued application of skepticism in this case is not to be mistaken for a presupposition that the letters are unreliable. We simply don't have sufficient evidence yet to responsibly conclude one way or the other on the question of reliability. Before we can responsibly conclude the letters are reliable or unreliable, additional evidence must be provided that eliminates our justification for skepticism.

Now, before you accuse me of having a double standard in applying more skepticism towards these letters than to other anonymous texts like a letter to a friend, you should be reminded that most anonymous letters to friends don't contain extraordinary claims about supernatural events which have no implicit empirical basis. Where such extraordinary claims exist, additional skepticism is warranted whether the texts were written anonymously or not. We don't normally challenge the reliability of anonymous letters when the described content has an implicit empirical basis.

I believe I have covered most of the above in my last response to you, in that if your definition of doubt, is simply to "think critically" about the issues, then we have no disagreement. However, since when I use the word doubt, I am thinking more along the lines of, "consider to be unlikely", then maybe we should focus on the facts which you seem to believe would be reasons to, "consider the reports unlikely", since we will always ever agree upon "thinking critically"?

[marco]

None of which would have a thing to do with whether any of them would have been correct to do so, and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul did, or had to say. Continuing to make such comparisons, has nothing to do with the truth of what we are discussing, because one would have nothing to do with the other.

You probably misunderstand the point being made in response to what you said about Paul. Because he went from one course to its opposite, this stirred in your head ideas of some, shall we say, supernatural interference. I believe you call this "rational thought." I am pointing out that others have changed their life course, to make completely opposite statements, but we do not suggest the supernatural was involved. Regardless of what you say about ratiocination being involved, it is clear that to believe Paul was addressed by heaven (not that he had some mental aberration) and this requires what is generally called faith. You may protest all you wish that you would like it called something else but over the centuries, acceptance of this divine line has been termed faith. So be it.

It is simply a fact that Paul was not only opposed to Christianity, rather, he was out to put a stop to it by any means possible, and he goes from being it's biggest opponent, to it's biggest champion. That is simply a fact! And what did it really get him? Well that would be painful journeys, persecution, and a long jail time. That would actually be the facts!

The report, be it fact or not, is that Paul suffered some incident on his way to Damascus. The interpretation - yours - is that this indicates some kind of miraculous change. If the man was convinced (wrongly) heaven would punish him, he would do his best to please heaven. Is this remarkable? Your bar for acceptance of miracles seems very low.

This is SO, SO, COMICAL! I assure you that you are talking to the wrong person, besides the fact that, Paul's former life, and his conversion are simply facts. It is you who seems to get swept away with the emotion of things.

I have no idea what you're talking about. You regard Paul's little adventure as a fact, and deduce God. I think you are wrong. There is not enough for anyone to reach that conclusion.

Oh but it has everything to do with the resurrection, because this is what Paul was opposed to at the beginning, only to begin to proclaim it. I am not saying this demonstrates the resurrection, but it does have everything to do with it.

Well certainly all things are linked in this world of ours.

Oh really? However, you can somehow make a "rational decision" concerning these things written some 2000 years ago that, "there certainly was no resurrection"?

Let me explain to you, again. It is entirely "rational" to question Paul's explanation, which is NOT a fact. It is "rational" to put his "conversion" down to fear of what the man thought had happened. It is irrational to chase miracles and walking corpses by linking them to something Paul may have said or thought. That flimsy piece of reasoning is not "rational". However, it is entirely rational to throw out resurrections until we have solid proof. We don't - as yet.

I accept your fervour for a cause, and your faith in what you believe, but let us never pretend that we are dealing with rational conclusions when we listen in awe to the reported words of some guy from a long-gone age of superstitions, and actually accord them the name of "fact". I think Paul perhaps THOUGHT what he heard was Zeus or Yahweh. I do not believe for an instant that God bothered to address the man or pose some silly question. It is the stuff of fiction, and not even the best fiction. Let us accept that and say no more of "facts".

[Avoice]

They believe or one reason:
Because they've been told they'll receive eternal life. That's it . That is it.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 266 by marco]

You probably misunderstand the point being made in response to what you said about Paul.

I don't think so, but let's see?

Because he went from one course to its opposite, this stirred in your head ideas of some, shall we say, supernatural interference.

Well no, because you see, I have never once inferred, or insinuated, in all my years on this site, that there was some sort of, "supernatural interference". Therefore, this must be some kind of, "ideas which must have stirred up in your head?

Allow us to go back through the facts, which can be demonstrated to be facts, and maybe you will begin to see the difference between, "ideas which stir in ones mind", as opposed to facts we can know.

It is a fact that, both Paul, and the author of the two letters to Theophilus, report that Paul was once opposed to Christianity. It is a fact, both of these same authors report that Paul converted to Christianity. It is a fact, both of these authors report that it was an encounter with the risen Christ, which caused his conversion. It is a fact, Paul went on to travel the known world at the time, planting Churches as he went. It is a fact, we have strong evidence to support the fact that the author of the two letters to Theophilius, traveled with Paul on his missionary journeys. It is a fact, this author reports that Paul was arrested, and remained under arrest, for some 2 years. It is a fact, we have letters attributed to Paul, which would have clearly been written, while Paul would have been under arrest.

I could continue on, with fact, after fact, after fact. The fact of the matter is, all these are facts we can know, and they demonstrate that Paul continued well into his old age, continuing to live as if, and proclaim, that he had encountered the risen Christ, not to even mention the fact, there are others who report, that there were others as well who had encountered this same thing.

The whole point here is, these are not things which simply "stirred in my mind". Rather, they are all facts, we can know, and demonstrate. So then, it certainly seems as if, we have just demonstrated the fact that, you are the one who simply has, "ideas which stir in your mind", since all these things are facts, which can be demonstrated, while I have never once, in all my time on this site, ever came close to inferring any sort of, "supernatural interference". So who is it really, who has these "ideas stirring in their mind"? It ain't me, my friend. It ain't me!

I believe you call this "rational thought."

I think, I have just demonstrated what, "rational thought" would be, and that is to deal with the facts, and evidence you have, and leave the "ideas stirring in your head" right where they are.

I am pointing out that others have changed their life course, to make completely opposite statements, but we do not suggest the supernatural was involved.

And, I have never, "suggested the supernatural was involved". Again the facts are, we have two different authors who report that Paul, was opposed to Christianity, converted to Christianity, and they both report it was an encounter with the risen Christ as the cause of this conversion.

Regardless of what you say about ratiocination being involved, it is clear that to believe Paul was addressed by heaven (not that he had some mental aberration) and this requires what is generally called faith.

Well no! Because you see, we have facts, and evidence which would support this to be the case, which means there is no faith required. Of course, this would not demonstrate this to be the case, but it does demonstrate that there is no faith required, since there are facts, and evidence. What would require faith, is to believe that which does not have facts, and evidence in support. So then, what facts, and evidence do we have, which would support the "idea", these reports would be false?

You may protest all you wish that you would like it called something else but over the centuries, acceptance of this divine line has been termed faith. So be it.

Again, I have not "accepted a divine line". Rather, I accept the facts, as they are. Faith, is to accept something to be true, which there would be no facts, and evidence in support. So then, who is it really, who is operating by, "faith"? "You may protest all you wish that you would like it called something else", but the fact of the matter is, I am dealing with facts, and it is you, who has the "faith" in things, we have no facts, and evidence to support. "So be it".

The report, be it fact or not, is that Paul suffered some incident on his way to Damascus.

Here is your problem it seems. The report, is a fact! It is whether the report would be true, or false, is what is up for question?

The interpretation - yours - is that this indicates some kind of miraculous change.

Well, no again, because I have never suggested in all my years on this site, that there was any "kind of miraculous change"? This has to be some sort of "ideas which have stirred up in your head", because again, I have never once suggested such a thing! So where do you get such an idea?

If the man was convinced (wrongly) heaven would punish him, he would do his best to please heaven.

What kind of argument would this be? It is not any sort of rational argument at all, because I could simply say, "if he was convinced (correctly) he would have done well". GOOD GRIEF!

However, I would never make such an argument, because I would understand that it would not be based upon the facts we have. You would do yourself a service, to simply stick with the facts we can know, and can demonstrate.

Is this remarkable?

No, it is not remarkable. What is "remarkable" is the fact that there are those who will accept something, with no facts, and evidence in support. That is what you call, "faith".

Your bar for acceptance of miracles seems very low.

Again, this has to be some sort of fantasy in your mind, because I have never accepted there was any sort of, "miracle"? You are surely confused!

I have no idea what you're talking about. You regard Paul's little adventure as a fact, and deduce God.

And again, you demonstrate you are in some sort of fantasy, because I have never suggested that "Paul's little adventure was a fact"? Rather, what I have insisted, because it can be demonstrated to be a fact is, it is reported by both Paul, and the author of the two letters to Theophilus, that Paul was opposed to Christianity to begin with, so much so he was out to put a stop to it, by any means possible, only to convert, to become it's biggest champion, and they both report that, it was an encounter with the risen Christ, that was the cause of Paul's conversion.

Next, and again, and again, and again, I have never once "deduced God" in all of this. Seriously! I have been on this site for years, and have a good number of post, and I have never done such a thing. So then, what fantasy are you living?

I think you are wrong.

The difference is, I know you are wrong, because I have never "deduced God".

There is not enough for anyone to reach that conclusion.

Oh? Okay, so I guess we will ignore all of those who were not only unbelievers, but were so opposed to Christianity they were out to demonstrate how ridiculous the belief was, and somehow became convinced Christianity was true, based upon the facts, and evidence they were examining, in order to demonstrate how ridiculous the belief would be? GOOD GRIEF!

"It is only me, and those who may agree with me, who have enough to reach the conclusions we have. All those who disagree, do not have enough to reach their conclusions"? Seriously?

Well certainly all things are linked in this world of ours.

Oh really? Well, what ever happened to, "but it has nothing to do with the Resurrection"?

Let me explain to you, again.

Okay? Let's hear it?

It is entirely "rational" to question Paul's explanation, which is NOT a fact.

Absolutely! Not only is this "rational", I would encourage everyone to question his explanation, and think critically about it.

It is "rational" to put his "conversion" down to fear of what the man thought had happened.

Well no! It may be rational to consider this as a possibility. But, "to put it down", as a matter of fact, with no facts, and evidence in support, would indeed be, irrational, especially when there would be no facts, and evidence in support of such a thing. Moreover, one would have, "to put it down" in the face of facts, and evidence, against such an idea.

It is irrational to chase miracles and walking corpses by linking them to something Paul may have said or thought.

What is "irrational" is to continue to say these sort of things, to one who has not done any such thing. The fact of the matter is, I continue to deal with the facts, and evidence we have, which cannot be denied, while you continue to have, "ideas stir in your mind".

That flimsy piece of reasoning is not "rational".

My friend, it is "irrational" to continue to ignore the facts, and evidence we have, and come to definite conclusions, which would have no facts, and evidence in support.

However, it is entirely rational to throw out resurrections until we have solid proof. We don't - as yet.

My friend, no matter how you examine the evidence, you have something extraordinary. All you are doing is to exchange one extraordinary event, for another.

I accept your fervour for a cause, and your faith in what you believe

And again, what I believe does not require faith, since as we can see, I am dealing with the facts. What requires faith, is to believe something, while ignoring the facts, and evidence, and we have clearly demonstrated that you seem to be operating upon some "ideas which have stirred in your head", which we have demonstrated would not be facts. However, I do as well, admire your enthusiasm, but enthusiasm pales in comparison to facts, and evidence.

but let us never pretend that we are dealing with rational conclusions

I can absolutely assure you, that I certainly do not pretend, "we" are dealing with rational conclusions, since there seems to be only one of us who is willing to actually deal with the facts we have.

when we listen in awe to the reported words of some guy from a long-gone age of superstitions

And here is a very good example of what I have described above. In other words, it is far from a fact, that I listen in "awe". But that is the "idea that has stirred in your head", and so it must be a fact to you. Next, even if it would have been an "age of superstition", this would not in any way demonstrate the reports we are discussing would have anything to do with superstition, especially when we have one NT author who acknowledges this very thing, and goes on to ensure his audience, that what he and others report, would not be based upon such things, but would be rather based upon, "eyewitness" testimony.

Again, you continue to throw out these "ideas which stir in your head", while ignoring the actual facts, and evidence to the contrary.

and actually accord them the name of "fact"

Actually, there is not a thing which I have claimed to be a fact, which cannot be demonstrated to be a fact, while we have demonstrated another here, has, and will state an opinion, as if it were indeed a fact.

I think Paul perhaps THOUGHT what he heard was Zeus or Yahweh.

I am certainly happy for you.

I do not believe for an instant that God bothered to address the man or pose some silly question.

And no one is insisting you believe anything at all. However, if you are going to discuss these sort of things on a debate site, it would be best if you would deal with the actual facts, which can be demonstrated to be facts, and allow those "ideas which are stirring in your head" to continue to stir, and save them for some sort of, opinion site.

It is the stuff of fiction, and not even the best fiction.

Here is a good example!

Let us accept that and say no more of "facts".

Again, there is nothing that I have said to be a fact, which cannot be demonstrated to be a fact.

[Clownboat]

They believe or one reason:
Because they've been told they'll receive eternal life. That's it . That is it.

This is true (at least in some).
Impossible creation theories, impossible global floods, talking animals, gods speaking from the heavens, a man living in a fish and corpses reanimating are all justified if the person believes the eternal life claim.

I was once such a person myself...