Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1401
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 111 times

Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #1

Post by 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?

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1966
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #51

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 48 by brunumb]

Well you see, I continue to give you facts, and evidence, with no opinions at all, and all you seem to supply is your opinion, with absolutely no facts, and evidence to support your opinion.

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 2138
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 298 times
Been thanked: 154 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #52

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 51 by Realworldjack]
Well you see, I continue to give you facts, and evidence, ....
Actually, you don't. All you do is make claims that there is evidence, and what you claim is evidence is no more than unsupported hearsay.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1401
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 111 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #53

Post by bluegreenearth »

Realworldjack wrote:
Of course, as you say, these other claims, and religions, may well be "incompatible" with Christianity (meaning that they both could not possibly be true) but this would only mean there are good reasons to believe both claims, but it does not mean both MUST be false, but rather that one claim MUST be false, with the possibility of both being false.
This issue is not that the claims are false but that they have not been demonstrated to be true. I disagree there are good reasons to believe both incompatible claims but will grant you that subjective opinion for the sake of this discussion. Having good reasons to believe both incompatible claims without access to the facts and evidence necessary to falsify one or both leaves agnosticism as the only intellectually honest position to hold. Therefore, your decision to accept one claim and reject or ignore the other remains unjustified.
This is nothing new under the sun, because there would be any number of things where there may be good reasons to believe, different competing ideas, in which there would be no way for both to be true.

However, having said this, I do not know of any other religion in the world, (maybe you can help me out here) in which the facts, evidence, and reason, would come close to comparing to the facts, evidence, and reason we have for believing the claims of the resurrection reported in the NT.
Yes, I can help you out. The facts, evidence, and reason supports agnosticism better than they support belief in the resurrection claim.
Therefore, all you are doing here, is to compare a claim which you would have no idea if it would be true or not, to a competing claim, which you would have no idea if it would be true, or not, however, since you realize they cannot both be true, you simply assume they both must be false.
No, I don't assume both are false. I know both have not been demonstrated to be true. As such, it is appropriate to compare the justifications given for believing each claim is true. If the same kind of reasoning is used justify belief in both claims, then logic dictates that both claims should be believed. If you reject or ignore one claim but believe the other despite the fact that belief in both claims are justified by the same kind of reasoning, then you must account for that discrepancy.
This is a very weak argument. Or, should I say, fallacious?
If you think it is fallacious to be intellectually honest, then I understand why you believe the resurrection claim.
This is not, another problem with my reasoning. Rather, it is the same exact argument as above. Again, all you are doing is to simply assume that all of what you mention above must be false, because the claims are extraordinary, and then going on to assume, that since you assume all these other extraordinary claims must be false, then all extraordinary claims must be false, no matter what the facts, and evidence may be to support such claims.
Not false but incapable of being demonstrated as true.
The fact of the matter is, even if you could in fact demonstrate beyond any doubt at all, that all these other claims would indeed be false, this would have absolutely no bearing whatsoever, upon whether all extraordinary claims would be true, or false. It would have nothing to do with it.
If those claims were falsifiable, then I wouldn't have compared them to a resurrection claim that cannot be falsified. The entire point was to demonstrate where your justification for believing the resurrection claim is effectively equivalent to the justifications given for believing those other extraordinary and supernatural claims regardless of whether any of them are ever demonstrated to be true or false.

If your justification for believing the resurrection claim is that it is better supported by facts and evidence than the justifications for believing those other claims, you haven't demonstrated that yet. Even then, a resurrection claim with better support than the other extraordinary or supernatural claims does not justify ignoring or disbelieving those other claims. In all such cases where the available facts and evidence fail to disprove an extraordinary or supernatural claim, your prescribed reasoning obliges you to believe every one of those claims are true until additional facts and evidence are provided to falsify them.
I know you understand this to be the case, so this sort of demonstrates, that you are willing to attempt to make any sort of argument at all, in order to make some sort of point. However, this sort of thing also demonstrates one who is not really all that interested at getting to the truth of the matter.
I haven't declared your belief in the resurrection to be false yet. Therefore, I remain open to being convinced that the claim is true. The problem is that you haven't provided me with any kind of convincing or reliable reason to share your belief.

If the reasoning you've used to believe the resurrection claim is reliable, then by accepting your reasoning, I would be obligated to believe all conclusions produced by that reasoning when it is applied to other extraordinary or supernatural claims. To do otherwise would be special pleading. When I attempt to apply your reasoning accordingly, I wind up with conclusions that compete with and contradict each other. This outcome demonstrates your reasoning to be unreliable to say the least.

At this point, I fail to see how it would be intellectually honest or responsible for me to believe the resurrection claim.
With that being said, if I were interested enough to spend my time on a debate site, day, after day, attempting to refute these claims, I would dive into to the facts, and evidence in support of the claims, in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true.
You are suggesting that I should believe the resurrection claim is true because you think I haven't thoroughly investigated the supporting facts and evidence to determine what would be required for the claim to be false. In other words, you think I should believe the claim is true until facts and evidence are provided to demonstrate otherwise. When I apply this reasoning to the claim about Mohammed flying up to heaven on a winged stallion, it suggests I should believe the claim is true based on the available facts and evidence until such a time that additional facts and evidence are provided to disprove it. Meanwhile, if I am to believe the claim about Mohammed and the claim about Jesus are both true in accordance with your prescribed reasoning, I would find myself harboring conflicting beliefs. However, it is my understanding of your perspective that I could have avoided this problem if I had simply refused to care one way or the other about the Mohammed claim and remained deliberately ignorant of whether it is true or false because it is not relevant to the resurrection claim. That is a dishonest dodge.
In other words, I would have a lot more to offer than my doubt, and I would never, ever, make the argument, "since we know there are extraordinary claims which are false, then we can assume any, and all extraordinary claims are false".
I am not assuming those claims are false; only that they have not been demonstrated to be true. My argument is that the justification you give for belief in the resurrection is the same justification other people have given for belief in competing or contradictory claims. If you believe the resurrection claim but reject all the competing or contradictory claims that share the same or a similar justification, then you must account for this inconsistency in your reasoning process.
What has been demonstrated "thus far" here, is the fact that, you do a lot of assuming, while I stick to the facts, and evidence.
The facts and evidence you are sticking to do not demonstrate it is reasonable to believe the resurrection claim is true without obliging you to believe other claims which you clearly reject or are deliberately ignoring. As such, there is an inconsistency in your reasoning process which must be resolved.
In other words, you seem to assume that all extraordinary claims must be false. You also have demonstrated that you assume that I must think that all extraordinary claims besides the ones I believe must, and have to be false, and there would be no reason to believe these claims, and we have found you are, incorrect.
I have not assumed those claims are false; only that believing them to be true has not yet been sufficiently justified.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1966
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #54

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 53 by bluegreenearth]
This issue is not that the claims are false but that they have not been demonstrated to be true.
The issue in this example does in fact demonstrate that at least one of the claims must, and has to be false. The problem here is the fact that I am not sure what other claim we are talking about other than Christianity?

What I do know is, there are very good legitimate reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection, based on the facts, and evidence we have. I also know that any other explanation to explain the facts, and evidence which support the resurrection, turns out to be just as extraordinary as the resurrection.

I am also unaware of any other miraculous claim, or religion which would be based upon the same kind of historical facts, and evidence we have for the resurrection. The point is, simply because an event has not been demonstrate to be true, does not negate the fact that there may be very good reasons to believe the event actually occurred, and if there are very good reasons to believe such an event, then it is legitimate to believe such an event did indeed occur.

The problem goes back to, how far one is willing to go in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for a claim to be false, as opposed to what all would have to be involved for a claim to be true.

As I have said, there are any number of claims that I simply choose to doubt, because I am not interested enough to do the work necessary to understand the facts, and evidence in support of the claim, or if there would be any facts, and evidence at all the support the claim.

With this being the case, I have no problem with those who are not interested enough to actually investigate the claims of the resurrection, and simply choose to doubt the claims. However, it is irrational, and illogical to come to the conclusion that there are no good reasons to believe the claims of the resurrection.
I disagree there are good reasons to believe both incompatible claims
Since I do not know what other claim we are talking about, I can only deal with the resurrection, and you are claiming "there are no good reasons to believe the resurrection".

As I have just said above, this is an irrational, and illogical position, because we know for a fact that something extraordinary happened 2000 years ago, because the facts, and evidence we have for this is overwhelming. In fact, this event was so extraordinary, it continues to consume your life some 2000 years later, and I would say that is quite extraordinary.

The fact of the matter is, we have many facts, and evidence to support the fact that something extraordinary happened, and we also have those who give us the explanation that it was a resurrection, and not only do we have what they had to say, they also left facts, and evidence that they went on to live the rest of their lives, as if this was the case, and the only thing they gained for such things is, persecution, and death, and you have no answers for these things whatsoever, but want us to believe there are no good reasons to believe? GOOD GRIEF!
Having good reasons to believe both incompatible claims without access to the facts and evidence necessary to falsify one or both leaves agnosticism as the only intellectually honest position to hold.
It seems you will not let this go. In other words, I have defeated your "unfalsifiable claim" argument, but you want desperately to attempt to get in in some sort of way. My friend, simply because you cannot, and do not posses the ability to falsify a claim, does not negate the fact that there are very good reasons to believe the claim. If there are very good reasons to believe the claims, and those opposed supply no good reasons to doubt the claim (and simply complaining that you cannot falsify the claim is not a good reason to doubt the claim, but is rather another reason to believe the claim) then it would be intellectually dishonest to come to the conclusion there would be no good reasons to believe the claim. Because you see, the reason you may not have the "access to the facts and evidence necessary to falsify the claim" may be because of the fact that there would be no facts, and evidence available to falsify the claim.

Let's review one more time. An unfalsifiable claim would be one in which there would be no way that facts, and evidence could be used to disprove the claim. It is not, that you do not have access to these facts, and evidence at the time. Facts, and evidence could be used to disprove the resurrection. Simply because you do not have access to these facts, and evidence, does not cause the resurrection to be an event that we all need to remain agnostic about. Moreover, agnosticism simply deals with the existence of God, and has nothing to do with historical events, and whether there would be reasons to believe the events or not.
Therefore, your decision to accept one claim and reject or ignore the other remains unjustified.
This is certainly not a fact, but your opinion, and not a very good one as far as I am concerned. So, we have a pile of evidence to support the resurrection, you have no answers for this evidence, and your only complaint is, "you cannot falsify the resurrection", and my stance is the one which is, "unjustified"? GOOD GRIEF!
Yes, I can help you out. The facts, evidence, and reason supports agnosticism better than they support belief in the resurrection claim.
Nice dodge there! However, the question was, I am unaware of any other extraordinary claim, or any other religion in the world, which has the same sort of historical facts, and evidence in support. Since you clearly dodged the question as to whether you could help me out, I guess I will have to take it that I would be correct, to understand that there would be no other extraordinary claims which would be back by the same sort of historical facts, and evidence.
No, I don't assume both are false. I know both have not been demonstrated to be true. As such, it is appropriate to compare the justifications given for believing each claim is true. If the same kind of reasoning is used justify belief in both claims, then logic dictates that both claims should be believed. If you reject or ignore one claim but believe the other despite the fact that belief in both claims are justified by the same kind of reasoning, then you must account for that discrepancy.
I really do not even know what in the world to say here, because I cannot understand how some people think? First, we are talking about claims which would be incompatible. Next, we are talking about whether there would be reasons to believe certain claims, not whether we "SHOULD" believe them. There is a tremendous difference.

Moreover, we have established that there would be very good reasons to believe the resurrection did indeed occur. What we have not established is that there would be any other extraordinary claims, where there would be good reasons to believe them. What we seem to have established, since you dodged the question is, there is no other extraordinary claim, or religions, with the historical facts, evidence, and reasons in support, which would come close to comparing the the historical facts, evidence, and reasons we have in support of the resurrection.

So then, I am not "unjustified" in my belief in the resurrection, and I am unaware of any other extraordinary, or religious claims which would have facts, and evidence that would compare to the facts, and evidence we have concerning the resurrection. Again, maybe you can help me out, but I highly doubt it, which is more than likely why you dodged the question the first time.
If you think it is fallacious to be intellectually honest, then I understand why you believe the resurrection claim.
It is intellectually dishonest to hold the position that there would be no good reasons to believe the resurrection, when you have failed to give us one answer for all the facts, reasons, and evidence we have in support, but rather only complain that you do not have the ability to falsify the claim.

Do you really want to talk about "intellectual honesty"? I really do not think so, because I think we are beginning to see more, and more, that you may not be all that "agnostic" about the resurrection after all.

Because you see, if one holds the position that there is no good reason to believe something to be true, then there is no need in remaining agnostic. Complaining that you have no way to falsify the claim does not make the claim unfalsifiable, because the resurrection would not be classified as an unfalsifiable claim, because facts, and evidence could indeed falsify the claim.

So then, your complaining simply reinforces the fact that there are, good reasons to believe the claims, with no apparent reason to doubt the claim, and complaining that you cannot falsify the claim, is not a reason to doubt the claim, but rather more reason to believe the claim may in fact be true.
Not false but incapable of being demonstrated as true.
This is simply a fallacious argument. Simply because you cannot falsify the argument, does not in any way mean, that it is incapable of being demonstrated to be true, or false.

A claim that would be incapable of being demonstrated to be true, or false, is one in which facts, and evidence could not even demonstrate the claim to be true, or false, but facts, and evidence could indeed confirm the resurrection to be true, or false, and simply because you do not posses these facts, and evidence, does not make the claim incapable of "being demonstrated as true".

Incapable means that it is impossible no matter the facts, and evidence. Facts, and evidence matters as far as the resurrection is concerned.
If those claims were falsifiable, then I wouldn't have compared them to a resurrection claim that cannot be falsified.
We are just going around in circles, because of your lack of understanding of what constitutes a claim to be, "falsifiable". Again, and for the last time, a falsifiable claim is one in which facts, and evidence can be used to falsify the claim. The resurrection is a falsifiable claim, because facts, and evidence can be used to confirm, or falsify the claim. Simply because we do not have access to these facts, and evidence does not cause the claim to be, "unfalsifiable". An unfalsifiable claim is one in which evidence, and facts could not, and would not, falsify the claim.
The entire point was to demonstrate where your justification for believing the resurrection claim is effectively equivalent to the justifications given for believing those other extraordinary and supernatural claims regardless of whether any of them are ever demonstrated to be true or false.
"The entire point here is", we have established there is very good reasons to believe the resurrection. We have not established that there would be any good reasons to believe any other extraordinary claim. We have also established that you seem to have dodged the question as to whether there would be any other extraordinary claim, or religion which would be based upon historical facts, and evidence which would compare to Christianity.

So then, the point still stands. There are very good reasons to believe the accounts of the resurrection. I am not aware of any other extraordinary claims in which the historical facts, and evidence in support, would come close to comparing to the facts, and evidence we have to support the resurrection.
If your justification for believing the resurrection claim is that it is better supported by facts and evidence than the justifications for believing those other claims, you haven't demonstrated that yet.
Unless you can answer the question, instead of dodging the question, which again was, what other extraordinary, or religious claims would be based upon historical facts, and evidence which would compare to Christianity? If you cannot answer that question, then it has been demonstrated.

I cannot examine every religious claim, but I can, and have examined the claims of the resurrection, and as far as I know, there is nothing that comes close to comparing. So then, unless you can help us out, by giving us an example of another extraordinary claim which would be incompatible to the resurrection the point stands.
Even then, a resurrection claim with better support than the other extraordinary or supernatural claims does not justify ignoring or disbelieving those other claims.
It does indeed justify it. Again, I do not need to know a thing about any other claim, nor do I need to be interested in any other claim, in order to understand if there would be evidence, facts, and reasons to believe the claim of the resurrection. If there are other extraordinary claims with comparable facts, and evidence with the resurrection, and would be incompatible with the resurrection, I am unaware.
In all such cases where the available facts and evidence fail to disprove an extraordinary or supernatural claim, your prescribed reasoning obliges you to believe every one of those claims are true until additional facts and evidence are provided to falsify them.
Again, if there are other such claims, I am completely unaware of these claims. On the other hand, I can acknowledge the fact that there may be good reasons to believe certain claims, but this does not mean that I must believe them.

As an example, I could acknowledge that someone has very good reasons to believe as they do, and still hold out doubt, or could in fact completely not believe as they do, based on other reasons. The point is, simply because I do not agree with someone, does not mean I am insisting they have no good reasons to believe as they do.
I haven't declared your belief in the resurrection to be false yet.
Does the word, "yet" mean that it is coming? I would certainly appreciate it if you would, because I will assure you that I would rather not believe as I do.
Therefore, I remain open to being convinced that the claim is true. The problem is that you haven't provided me with any kind of convincing or reliable reason to share your belief.
It is not my goal in the least that you, "share my belief". I assure you this has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Rather, what I am doing is to demonstrate that there are very good facts, evidence, and reasons to believe the accounts of the resurrection, and thus far you have not in any way supplied an explanation for the facts, reasons, and evidence we have, which means you have not given us any reason at all to doubt the claims.
If the reasoning you've used to believe the resurrection claim is reliable, then by accepting your reasoning, I would be obligated to believe all conclusions produced by that reasoning when it is applied to other extraordinary or supernatural claims. To do otherwise would be special pleading. When I attempt to apply your reasoning accordingly, I wind up with conclusions that compete with and contradict each other. This outcome demonstrates your reasoning to be unreliable to say the least.
Your problem here is the fact that you have failed to supply us with any other claims at all that would even come close in comparing.
At this point, I fail to see how it would be intellectually honest or responsible for me to believe the resurrection claim.
I am not asking you to "believe the resurrection claim". However, it is intellectually dishonest to come to the conclusion that there would be no good reasons to believe the claim, in the face of the fact that there are very good reasons.
You are suggesting that I should believe the resurrection claim is true because you think I haven't thoroughly investigated the supporting facts and evidence to determine what would be required for the claim to be false. In other words, you think I should believe the claim is true until facts and evidence are provided to demonstrate otherwise.
No, because again, I am not asking you to believe it. Rather, what I have done is to demonstrate there are very good reasons to believe the accounts, based on the facts, and evidence involved.

So no, I do not, "think you should believe the claim is true until facts and evidence are provided to demonstrate otherwise". I am not even asking you to believe there are very good reasons to believe the claims, because that would simply be a fact, whether you accept it of not.
When I apply this reasoning to the claim about Mohammed flying up to heaven on a winged stallion, it suggests I should believe the claim is true based on the available facts and evidence until such a time that additional facts and evidence are provided to disprove it. Meanwhile, if I am to believe the claim about Mohammed and the claim about Jesus are both true in accordance with your prescribed reasoning, I would find myself harboring conflicting beliefs. However, it is my understanding of your perspective that I could have avoided this problem if I had simply refused to care one way or the other about the Mohammed claim and remained deliberately ignorant of whether it is true or false because it is not relevant to the resurrection claim. That is a dishonest dodge.
Now we are getting somewhere. So tell us exactly what the historical facts, and evidence would be which would support the claim of Mohammed flying up to heaven on a winged stallion? Go ahead, I am ready to compare the facts, and evidence to support the claims of the resurrection, with the facts, and evidence which would support Mohammed flying to heaven on a winged horse. Let's see how this works out for you?
My argument is that the justification you give for belief in the resurrection is the same justification other people have given for belief in competing or contradictory claims.
We will see how true this is when we compare the evidence for the resurrection, against the evidence for the, "night flight". And then we can move on to others if you wish, but I think we will see enough in this comparison.
If you believe the resurrection claim but reject all the competing or contradictory claims that share the same or a similar justification, then you must account for this inconsistency in your reasoning process.
It is your job now to demonstrate just how similar they are. GOOD LUCK!
The facts and evidence you are sticking to do not demonstrate it is reasonable to believe the resurrection claim is true without obliging you to believe other claims which you clearly reject or are deliberately ignoring. As such, there is an inconsistency in your reasoning process which must be resolved.
We are about to see, when you demonstrate how they are similar.
I have not assumed those claims are false; only that believing them to be true has not yet been sufficiently justified.
And this will never happen for those who simply acknowledge there are other extraordinary claims which may be false, and never really go on to examine all the facts, and evidence available. However, I think we are about to do just that as we wait for you to demonstrate just how similar the facts and evidence to support the "night flight" compared to the facts, and evidence we have in support of the resurrection. Again, GOOD LUCK!

User avatar
bluegreenearth
Guru
Posts: 1401
Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:06 pm
Location: New Orleans, Louisiana
Has thanked: 178 times
Been thanked: 111 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #55

Post by bluegreenearth »

[Replying to post 54 by Realworldjack]

You keep misinterpreting my point. I can't really blame you for that, though, because it is my responsibility to describe my perspective in way that is understandable. Your responses are an obvious indication of my failure in that regard. I'll try to simplify the issue as best as I can in order to avoid confusion where possible. Forget everything you think you know about my position from our previous correspondences and start over from scratch.

We have an ancient extraordinary claim about a alleged supernatural resurrection that occurred more than 2,000 years ago. The facts and evidence which would be required to falsify the claim have not yet been discovered, are beyond our technological ability to acquire, or do not exist. The remaining facts and evidence do not absolutely demonstrate the resurrection claim is true either. Nevertheless, you suggest the quantity and quality of supporting data which is available to us is sufficient to justify belief in the resurrection claim.

Do you agree with my summary of the situation thus far?

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 2138
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 298 times
Been thanked: 154 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #56

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 54 by Realworldjack]
As I have just said above, this is an irrational, and illogical position, because we know for a fact that something extraordinary happened 2000 years ago, because the facts, and evidence we have for this is overwhelming. In fact, this event was so extraordinary, it continues to consume your life some 2000 years later, and I would say that is quite extraordinary.
No. The truth is that we don't have any such facts or evidence. If you dispute that, clear the matter up by simply listing in point form what it is that you consider compelling facts and evidence to support your position.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1966
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #57

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 55 by bluegreenearth]
You keep misinterpreting my point. I can't really blame you for that, though, because it is my responsibility to describe my perspective in way that is understandable. Your responses are an obvious indication of my failure in that regard. I'll try to simplify the issue as best as I can in order to avoid confusion where possible. Forget everything you think you know about my position from our previous correspondences and start over from scratch.
I think you are doing a fine job articulating your position, and I think I understand your position just fine, but let's take a look and consider what you have to say here.
We have an ancient extraordinary claim about a alleged supernatural resurrection that occurred more than 2,000 years ago.
Correct, and I notice that you use the words, "extraordinary", and "supernatural" to describe the events, and it is my guess, that if the events described were ordinary events, then you would have no problem believing the reports yourself, because the evidence would be overwhelming.

In other words, you more than likely would have no problem believing based on the evidence we have that, Jesus did indeed walk the face of the earth, that he had a great following, got himself in trouble with the authorities, was crucified, buried, died, and his followers went on to carry on what Jesus sat out to do, Paul was very much opposed to his followers, and what they were doing, only to change his mind, to go on to be the biggest champion, of what they were doing, going around all the known world at the time, getting himself arrested, and that the author of the two letters to Theophilus would have traveled around with Paul, for a good number of years.

It is my guess, you would not have a bit of problem believing these things, based on the overwhelming evidence we have for these events. Your problem only comes in because there are extraordinary events contained.

Well, I happened to agree with you. In other words, when we see these extraordinary events, it surely should cause us to pause, and truly consider what all would have to be involved in order for these reports to be false.

With that being said, I am not under the impression that we should simply dismiss the reports because of the extraordinary events. Rather, as I have said, we should pause for a moment, in order to consider a few things.

One of the things I believe we really need to consider is how, and why in the world have millions, upon millions, maybe even in the billions by now, come to believe these reports? Are we to simply assume there is no reasons at all to believe these things, and all these millions, upon millions, are simply gullible folk, and we are way more intelligent than they are? Or, should we look at the fact that there are indeed very good reasons to believe these reports, which would be the reason for the millions, upon millions, who have believed the reports?

Next, I think we also need to consider, how in the world could a man who left us nothing in writing at all himself, who was crucified, dead, and buried, and then somehow becomes the most significant figure in the history of the world, and has had the most impact on the world in all of it's history, going on 2000 years now, to the point he continues to consume the life of millions of folks today, including those who do not believe the reports, who spend much of their time, day, after day, on a web site, desperately attempting to shed the world of this impact he has had for all these 2000 years?

I am telling you, what I have just describe above, is indeed extraordinary! So then, how in the world could all of this have happened? Do we simply assume these ordinary followers of Jesus somehow pulled all this off? Because I am here to tell you that, these men all lying does not add up, along with the idea that they were all somehow deceived. So, how did we get where we are today?

Of course, I am not saying that this should cause anyone to believe the reports, but I do believe it is enough to say that we may better hold off on the idea that the extraordinary events somehow disqualify the reports, because either way we go, we are dealing with the, extraordinary.
The facts and evidence which would be required to falsify the claim have not yet been discovered, are beyond our technological ability to acquire, or do not exist.
Which leaves us with, very good reasons to believe the reports, with the only reason to doubt the reports being, they are extraordinary, which is the only reason I have heard thus far.

My friend, when there are very good reasons to believe the reports, and you tell me I should doubt the reports, but go on to tell me you have no avenue in which to cause this doubt, in the face of all the reasons to support the claims, this gives me all the more reasons to understand there good reasons to believe the reports, and no good reasons to doubt. These are the facts, I have to go on.
The remaining facts and evidence do not absolutely demonstrate the resurrection claim is true either. Nevertheless, you suggest the quantity and quality of supporting data which is available to us is sufficient to justify belief in the resurrection claim.
I think you understand that nothing will be demonstrated absolutely. This is why in a court of law we are instructed the case be demonstrated "beyond a reasonable doubt". So then, let us look at what we have thus far.

We have very good facts, reasons, and evidence to support the case of the resurrection. One of your objections is, you do not posses the ability to falsify the claim. I would think that objection would be over ruled in any court of law. In fact, I highly doubt you would attempt to make such an objection.

The only other cause for doubt that I see would be the claims are extraordinary. However, as we have seen, no matter how you slice it, you come up with something extraordinary, which leaves this as an unreasonable doubt.

So then, what I am left with is, every reason to believe the claims, and no reasonable doubt.

Now, I would like to bring up something you seem to be avoiding. I have made the point that, "I am unaware of any other religion, or extraordinary claim, that would have historical facts, and evidence to support it, which would come close to comparing to the historical facts, reasons, and evidence we have in support of the resurrection"?

You certainly dodged this question the first time I posed it. However, in another post you set up the claim of the resurrection against any other religious claim, but it is difficult for me to do a comparison when I do not know exactly what I am dealing with. You do then go on in an attempt to compare the resurrection with the "night flight" of Mohammed.

Notice here, I am not the one who brought up this comparison, rather that would be you. This seems to indicate to me that you know the details, of both claims, and you seem to be under the impression they are comparable, and so I gave the challenge to you to demonstrate how these two claims would compare?

Because you see, I do not know all that much about Islam, but I do indeed know a pretty good amount about Christianity to know the historical facts, and evidence the resurrection rests upon.

Therefore, since you seem to know so much about both claims in order to know there would be a comparison, I would dearly love to make this comparison, because I am sure it would help us determine whether you would be justified in making such a comparison, or whether there really is no comparison at all, which would give us all the more reasons to understand that there is indeed solid facts, and evidence to support the resurrection, with all the more reason to believe it.

My guess? The only comparison will be, they are both extraordinary, which seems to be only one, of the two reasons for your doubt, the other being that, you do not have the ability to falsify the claim.

Realworldjack
Guru
Posts: 1966
Joined: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: real world
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #58

Post by Realworldjack »

[Replying to post 56 by brunumb]

Why don't we start out easy here? It is a fact, we have the reports of a resurrection, from numerous disconnected sources. So then, what is your explanation to explain this fact?

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 2138
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 298 times
Been thanked: 154 times

Re: Is faith a reliable method for determining truth?

Post #59

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 58 by Realworldjack]
Why don't we start out easy here? It is a fact, we have the reports of a resurrection, from numerous disconnected sources. So then, what is your explanation to explain this fact?
We have reports of people from numerous disconnected sources seeing Elvis Presley alive and well weeks after his reported death. Hardly a hook to hang your hat on. You refer to reports as if that gives the unverified stories some credibility. It doesn't.
You keep repeating that we have a wealth of facts and evidence supporting the case for the resurrection. Why don't you just list the compelling facts and evidence for consideration?
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 8754
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: The formerly Great US of A
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 22 times

Post #60

Post by Willum »

Ever taken a multiple choice test using faith?

I didn't think so!
This is a test: Had this been an actual revolution, the virus would have been much stronger.

To continue to argue for the Hebrew invention of God is actually an insult to the very concept of a God. - Divine Insight

Who would be proud these tactics?

Post Reply