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 God’s 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?

[Danmark]

Let's get the facts straight here! Paul claims to have encountered the risen Christ. So then, what would be the facts, and evidence which may suggest this would have been false?

We've been over this many times.
If I say I 'encountered the risen Christ' am I any less credible than Paul? And why?

Anyone who claims to have witnessed a supernatural event, an event contrary to what we know from science and personal experience is suspect. Thousands of people have claimed to have encountered Christ or to have actually been his incarnation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... o_be_Jesus

Why should Paul's wild claim have any more merit than another's? It actually should have less credibility since he made his claim after he suffered such a severe event he collapsed, went blind and was without food and water for 3 days. Only then, after this alleged event does he report what happened. Without the weight of tradition from a pre scientific community, we would dismiss Paul's account outright.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why should Paul's wild claim have any more merit than another's?

Paul/Saul's tale is believed because it is the cornerstone of a new religion that he and accomplices developed for gentiles. Joseph Smith did similar more recently.

Many people seem anxious to believe tales, even if untrue, that confirm their own prejudices and wishes -- as we can see in modern US politics

[Danmark]

.

Why should Paul's wild claim have any more merit than another's?

Paul/Saul's tale is believed because it is the cornerstone of a new religion that he and accomplices developed for gentiles. Joseph Smith did similar more recently.

Many people seem anxious to believe tales, even if untrue, that confirm their own prejudices and wishes -- as we can see in modern US politics

You can add Scientology to the list, along with new age belief in crystals, pyramids and tinfoil hats. Paul is just a kook who got a bump on the head. We actually have people today who use him to claim all leaders, from Hitler to Stalin to Trump must be respected because they were appointed by 'God.' Ridiculous! Rather than believing something because Paul wrote it, we should be rejecting everything he stood for because HE wrote it.

[Realworldjack]

Let's get the facts straight here! Paul claims to have encountered the risen Christ. So then, what would be the facts, and evidence which may suggest this would have been false?

We've been over this many times.
If I say I 'encountered the risen Christ' am I any less credible than Paul? And why?

Anyone who claims to have witnessed a supernatural event, an event contrary to what we know from science and personal experience is suspect. Thousands of people have claimed to have encountered Christ or to have actually been his incarnation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... o_be_Jesus

Why should Paul's wild claim have any more merit than another's? It actually should have less credibility since he made his claim after he suffered such a severe event he collapsed, went blind and was without food and water for 3 days. Only then, after this alleged event does he report what happened. Without the weight of tradition from a pre scientific community, we would dismiss Paul's account outright.

We've been over this many times.

Why, yes we have, and it looks like we will have to go through it all again?

If I say I 'encountered the risen Christ' am I any less credible than Paul? And why?

Absolutely not, because it does not have a thing in the world to do with the credibility of Paul, nor your credibility. Rather, it has to do with, the evidence, and facts, which may support the claims. Allow me to share with you an example I have shared before.

I have a cousin, who is an habitual liar. He will tell you a lie about the minutest of things, which really makes no difference whatsoever, and you wonder why he would do such a thing, when it only ruins his credibility? However, he can tell you the wildest of tales, and you will discount these tales, only to find out later, he was actually telling the truth.

This cousin of mine, told me one such tale, about a well respected couple that we both knew. This tale was so far fetched, I really had no reason to believe it. Here are some of the facts involved.

1. My cousin is a known liar.

2. This couple was well respected, and highly regarded, and did a lot for so many people.

3. My cousin, and the husband of this couple had a number of run ins, and neither cared for each other.

4. This information would certainly have negative connotations for this well respected couple, and it was very hard to even imagine this tale could possibly be true.

These are just a few facts of the case, and as you can see, I had every reason to doubt this tale, with no reason to believe it. Now, let us fast forward a number of years.

As I said, it was a good number of years since my cousin told me this tale, which I never repeated to anyone besides my wife. I will never forget the night I was driving down the interstate when I received a call form my sister, who was so upset, she was in tears, and could not stop talking. When I finally settled her down, and began to listen to what she was saying, although she was not reporting the same exact thing my cousin had, I began to come to the realization that, what my cousin had reported to me years ago, as wild as it was, was indeed actually the truth, and I can confirm to you now, without an ounce of doubt, this wild tale that this, "lying cousin" of mine told me that day, was in fact, true.

The whole point here is, the credibility of my cousin, (which was certainly not good) had nothing in the world to do with whether he was telling the truth, or not. Rather, the only thing that mattered was, whether there would be facts, and evidence to back up what he had reported, and I am here to tell you that in the end, there was a pile of facts to back up what he had reported.

So then, in the same way, the credibility of the reporter has nothing to do with whether the report would be true or false. Rather, it would be what the facts, and evidence would be to back up the report.

Anyone who claims to have witnessed a supernatural event, an event contrary to what we know from science and personal experience is suspect.

If you mean by "suspect" that we should think very critically about what is being reported, and that we should not simply rely upon the report, but rather look into the facts, and evidence which may support the claim, then I agree with you 100%. In fact, I believe we should do this with all claims.

But the thing is, from what we know about Paul, and the way in which we know he went on to live out the rest of his life, what is it about these things that would cause us to be under the impression, that Paul would lack credibility?

Thousands of people have claimed to have encountered Christ or to have actually been his incarnation.

I understand this to be the case, and not one of these other claims, would have a thing in the world to do with whether Paul was reporting truthfully.

Why should Paul's wild claim have any more merit than another's?

The only reason any claim would have "merit" is if there would be facts, and evidence to back the claim. So then, it is not like we simply give Paul a pass, and simply accept his claim. Rather, we go on to analyze the facts, and evidence involved, which would include the way in which Paul went on to live the rest of his life, and we have overwhelming evidence to suggest that Paul did in fact go on to live the rest of his life, as if the report was indeed a fact.

It actually should have less credibility since he made his claim after he suffered such a severe event he collapsed, went blind and was without food and water for 3 days. Only then, after this alleged event does he report what happened. Without the weight of tradition from a pre scientific community, we would dismiss Paul's account outright.

GOOD GRIEF! How in the world could Paul have reported the event, before the event even happened? As it is reported, Paul had this encounter, and came out of it being blind. Whatever the event was, it certainly had to be traumatic for one who has been out doing what he believed God would have him do, even going to the point of agreeing to have folks put to death, only to discover he was dead wrong, and now you are suffering blindness. It is not uncommon at all, for one who has gone through such an event to not be interested in eating, or drinking, and as it is reported, it is the event which caused Paul to go without food, and drink. In other words, it is not reported that he went without out food, and drink, and then had this encounter, as if the lack of food and drink could have been the cause of the encounter, but rather it was the encounter which caused the lack of food, and drink.

So then again, how in the world could Paul have reported on the event, before it actually occurred? One who wants to simply "dismiss Paul's account outright" based upon this basis alone, seems to demonstrate one who, "seems anxious to dismiss the report, even if true, because of their own prejudices and wishes".

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 282 by Realworldjack]

The only reason any claim would have "merit" is if there would be facts, and evidence to back the claim. So then, it is not like we simply give Paul a pass, and simply accept his claim. Rather, we go on to analyze the facts, and evidence involved, which would include the way in which Paul went on to live the rest of his life, and we have overwhelming evidence to suggest that Paul did in fact go on to live the rest of his life, as if the report was indeed a fact.

Cute story in your post, but quite irrelevant. That aside, the way Paul lived his life is NOT evidence that the resurrection story is true.

[Danmark]

Absolutely not, because it does not have a thing in the world to do with the credibility of Paul, nor your credibility. Rather, it has to do with, the evidence, and facts, which may support the claims. Allow me to share with you an example I have shared before.

I have a cousin, who is an habitual liar. He will tell you a lie about the minutest of things, which really makes no difference whatsoever, and you wonder why he would do such a thing, when it only ruins his credibility? However, he can tell you the wildest of tales, and you will discount these tales, only to find out later, he was actually telling the truth.

This cousin of mine, told me one such tale, about a well respected couple that we both knew. This tale was so far fetched, I really had no reason to believe it. Here are some of the facts involved.

1. My cousin is a known liar..

[emphasis applied]
First you say it has nothing to do with credibility, then you give as your first example that it has EVERYTHING to do with credibility. When you assess facts and evidence, credibility is of supreme importance; your own example demonstrates why.

Despite your own example proving the opposite, you continue with

The whole point here is, the credibility of my cousin, (which was certainly not good) had nothing in the world to do with whether he was telling the truth, or not.

Obviously credibility is important. Just as obviously there are additional factors, such as whether what the person reports is fantastic and defies the laws of physics and common sense experience.

Just like your cousin's, Paul's report fails on both counts. His claim is fantastic AND Paul has an axe to grind, the establishment of a new religion with himself as the head of it.

[Realworldjack]

.

Why should Paul's wild claim have any more merit than another's?

Paul/Saul's tale is believed because it is the cornerstone of a new religion that he and accomplices developed for gentiles. Joseph Smith did similar more recently.

Many people seem anxious to believe tales, even if untrue, that confirm their own prejudices and wishes -- as we can see in modern US politics

Paul/Saul's tale is believed because it is the cornerstone of a new religion that he and accomplices developed for gentiles.

You may be correct that there may be some who believe the report of Paul because of these things. However, this does not mean that all believe his report for this reason, because there are those of us who understand there are facts, and evidence in support of what Paul has to claim.

Joseph Smith did similar more recently.

The fact of the matter is, even if we could absolutely demonstrate that what Smith reported would be completely false, it would not have a thing in the world to do with the report of Paul.

However, if you would like to compare the two, then from what I understand, Smith attempted to add witnesses to the so called, "golden tablets", and then one, by one, some of these witnesses began to recant, with some even leaving the Church.

Now, as we compare this to Paul, we do not hear a peep at all of Paul recanting what he claimed to have witnessed, nor does the author of the two letters to Theophilus. Rather, we have overwhelming evidence that the both of them, continued to proclaim these same things, well into their old age, even when, and while Paul would have been arrested, spending years in jail, exactly for what he was proclaiming.

Many people seem anxious to believe tales, even if untrue, that confirm their own prejudices and wishes

Again, you may be correct here, and more than likely are. However, there also seem to be many, who are anxious to dismiss certain claims, even if true, which may confirm their own prejudices and wishes.

It continues to amaze me to see folks who seem to be under the impression, that it must, and has to be those who are opposed to them, who must, and have to be guilty of such things, who also seem to be under the impression that this sort of thing would be impossible in their own case, or for those who may agree with them?

[Realworldjack]

.

Why should Paul's wild claim have any more merit than another's?

Paul/Saul's tale is believed because it is the cornerstone of a new religion that he and accomplices developed for gentiles. Joseph Smith did similar more recently.

Many people seem anxious to believe tales, even if untrue, that confirm their own prejudices and wishes -- as we can see in modern US politics

You can add Scientology to the list, along with new age belief in crystals, pyramids and tinfoil hats. Paul is just a kook who got a bump on the head. We actually have people today who use him to claim all leaders, from Hitler to Stalin to Trump must be respected because they were appointed by 'God.' Ridiculous! Rather than believing something because Paul wrote it, we should be rejecting everything he stood for because HE wrote it.

You can add Scientology to the list, along with new age belief in crystals, pyramids and tinfoil hats.

You can add whatever you wish to the list. However, even if you were to demonstrate everything on your list to be false, this would not have a thing in the world to do with the claims of Paul.

All you really seem to be doing here is to compare what you assume are similar claims, which you assume to be false, with another claim, you assume would be similar, and then go on to assume this claim must be false, based on the assumption you have of the other claims you assume are false.

Paul is just a kook who got a bump on the head.

This would be an opinion, with no facts, and evidence in support.

We actually have people today who use him to claim all leaders, from Hitler to Stalin to Trump must be respected because they were appointed by 'God.' Ridiculous!

Which again, would have nothing whatsoever to do with what Paul claims being fact, or fiction.

Rather than believing something because Paul wrote it, we should be rejecting everything he stood for because HE wrote it.

This is certainly an opinion you are entitled to, and you are more welcomed to reject everything Paul would have to say.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 282 by Realworldjack]

The only reason any claim would have "merit" is if there would be facts, and evidence to back the claim. So then, it is not like we simply give Paul a pass, and simply accept his claim. Rather, we go on to analyze the facts, and evidence involved, which would include the way in which Paul went on to live the rest of his life, and we have overwhelming evidence to suggest that Paul did in fact go on to live the rest of his life, as if the report was indeed a fact.

Cute story in your post, but quite irrelevant. That aside, the way Paul lived his life is NOT evidence that the resurrection story is true.

Cute story in your post, but quite irrelevant.

It is completely relevant to the fact that, one's credibility would have noting whatsoever to do with what they report being true, or false.

That aside, the way Paul lived his life is NOT evidence that the resurrection story is true.

I am not saying it would be evidence of the resurrection. However, let us think about this for a moment?

If we had certain evidence which would suggest that Paul recanted much of his story, or that Paul may have went on living his life just as he did before he had this so called "conversion", would you think this would be considered evidence against the resurrection claim?

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 285 by Realworldjack]

However, if you would like to compare the two, then from what I understand, Smith attempted to add witnesses to the so called, "golden tablets", and then one, by one, some of these witnesses began to recant, with some even leaving the Church.

At least Joseph Smith could present actual signatures of bona-fide witnesses. You have nothing but unsupported claims.