WHY Do You REALLY Believe?

[POI]

I've been debating apologists, pastors, ministers, theists, and others, for a few years now. As I had already suspected, and continue to confirm for myself, is that no amount of logical argumentation later sways one's decision to the opponent's "side". This goes for both theists and atheists alike...

I've delved into the 'psychology of believe', in the passed. However, these topics below look to be my biggest 'findings' thus far, as to why so many believe....

- Most are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of (type 1 errors). We all commit them BTW.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the topic of geography.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to early indoctrination. - It later becomes difficult to shake this early indoctrinated core belief, even if the evidence later suggests otherwise to this recipient.
- Many are god believers, and may always be god believers, due to the notion of 'experiencing god speaking to them' at one point or many.
- (Please add your reason(s) here if you feel I've missed some key topics)

I feel it's safe to assume that we will always have more god believers, verses 'atheists'. Apologetics, though fun to debate, hardly ever IS the reason someone becomes a 'god believer'. "It's been said that logic and reason is not what brought someone to 'god'. Hence, why would you suspect logic and reason could sway such away from god?"

One last thing, before I pose the question(s) for examination...

I was in a heated debate, with a church pastor, about all things... slavery. In the middle, he stopped and asked me.... "Have you ever felt the Holy Spirit?" For which I answered in honesty.... "Though I have had experiences in the passed, for which I cannot fully explain, I do not know whether or not it was me speaking to myself, or if there was the presence of something else, for which was not me." He paused, looked at me, as if he felt sorry for me, and stated... "Okay, this conversation is over." I asked why. He stated that God exists, and He attempts to speak to all of us. If you do not hear Him, this is your fault. I then pointed out that many, around the globe, feel they have communicated with god(s), but also differing god(s) than (yours). He was already done, and just continued to no longer engage, as if he just felt pity for me.

Again, seems all roads, with Christians, seemingly often times leads to Romans 1. Anywho, moving along... Question(s) for debate:

1. Would you mind giving us the MAIN reason you believe? Is it one of the topics above, or other? If you need elaboration on any above, please ask...
2. Is your current belief open for actual debate? Meaning, could ANYTHING shake your faith? If not, why not?
3. Why are you here, hanging out in the apologetics forums? Are you here to convert atheists, or other? On a side note, I suspect apologetics is not what brings Christians to Christianity; so why would you expect different for others?

[TRANSPONDER]

When I read through I come out with the same 'Why' as is usual. "Faith". And Faith is because that has been taught. The debates or discussions always seem to be about the evidence and often that's put down to 'Interpretation'.

We know how that works. A lot of Biblical claims with little or no back -up are presented as some sort of cumulative confirmation. The conclusions of science on the other hand get dismissed as (pretty much) scientists getting it wrong.

From what I have seen, it works like this: The Big Lie is propagandized. The Gospels are eyewitness or at least reliable. Maybe backed up by claims that history confirms Jesus. Genesis is true; evolution is false. The arguments are persuasive, or at least ingenious and clever, though often oddly ad hoc, such as looking at points out of context, for instance that Tacitus says that Jesus was crucified. Well, even if he was, that doesn't mean he resurrected. Or various apologetics conflict with others, for example, Evolution didn't happen; all kinds of creatures appeared essentially as they are now, whereas Behe's I/C argument means that evolution DID happen (and therefore it undermines Geneiss) but it needed God to make it work. Not that this seems to have occurred to IC proponents. Let alone its' critics.

Because, what strikes me is how little these refutations or problems with the theist case are known even in atheist circles. One reason that atheism, materialism and science is not a religion or church is that our arguments would be a lot better known if we were.

It's getting better. Kalam is known to fail. The Morality argument has gone. I think the failure of the 2nd census apologetic and the claim of extra -biblical support for Jesus is creeping into atheist (if not public) consciousness. Never mind that the resurrection accounts are not understood to be totally contradictory, or that John has no Transfiguration, it doesn't seem to generally known, even by atheists, that the Cambrian explosion is absolutely not the sudden appearance of 'all the basic kinds of creatures' or that an atheist is somehow not also an agnostic, let alone the simple fact that neither of the Genealogies are that of Mary but both stated to be those of Joseph, or that there is No genetic barrier between DNA that prevents speciation.

Though the idea seems to be seeping through that there was no release Passover custom and Nazareth didn't really exists in the 1st c. Though the idea that Holy week was at the feast of Tabernacles and NOT Passover seems to have been forgotten as totally as the NAMI Ark swindle, or the Talpiot tomb hoot. I swear there's a fortune to be made by the first person to sell that Atheist's Bible refutation handbook.

But to get to Faith, once it is downloaded in the Believer's mind, then (with some apologetics references where needed|) dismissal of doubt can be left to itself. Undisproven possibilities (as I saw above that the Luke mentioned in Philemon is the largely hypothetical Luke of Biblical tradition) in heaps are supposed to mount up as evidence, while pretty undeniable and even scientific refutations are dismissed as mere opinion and 'science gets things wrong'. Which would never work without Faith -based bias to begin with and Religion having pretty much all the media outlet.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #188]

Assuming the tradition of Paul's death in AD 64 is accurate, yes.

I don't understand the objection here? If Paul would have died before AD 64 the letters the scholars concede would be genuine Pauline letters would have had to have been authored before AD 70. If Paul would have died after AD 70 this would demonstrate one could be alive at the time of the crucifixion, and authored letters after AD 70.

No. Luke is mentioned in one of the undisputed Paulines, Philemon, and only as someone for whom Paul is offering greetings.

I'm thinking you need to go back and read what I said more carefully,

Okay, we have letters in which the author clearly identifies as Paul

This should turn your "no" into a YES. Because you see, in all the letters we are talking about now, the author "clearly identifies as Paul". Whether his authorship of the letters would be disputed would not change this fact.

Colossians is considered by most scholars to be pseudepigraphical

Which in no way causes it to be a fact. In fact, it does not even cause it to be more likely.

In Colossians, "Paul" offers similar greetings on Luke's behalf.

So then, what would be the purpose of this so called pseudepigraphical author to send greetings in the name of Luke? Your answer here could possibly lead us into an interesting conversation.

2 Timothy is the closest that one might come to inferring the status of "travelling companion," but was almost certainly not written by Paul.

I just love the phrase, "almost certainly". So????? What are we to base this "almost certainty" on?

Even there, all "Paul" says is that Luke is "with" him when the letter is written.

Right! So, we should just ignore the fact the author of the second letter to Theophilus just so happens to begin to use the words "we, and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul as if he is actually there to witness the events?

This wording is the source of the whole "travelling companion" tradition in the first place and is the sole source of evidence for it.

I'm not thinking this is the case. We also have to factor in that we do indeed have letters in which the author clearly identifies as Paul, and mentions Luke as being with him. But let us dig a little deeper here. Have you ever thought about the fact the author of the second letter to Theophilus, begins this letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem? However, for some strange reason when the travels of Paul begin, the author's focus is solely upon the actions of Paul, and we hear nothing of what the Apostles in Jerusalem would be up to, until, or unless Paul were to come back in contact with them? Can you imagine why this might be? Well sure you can! Because you see, if the author would have been traveling with Paul, he could not have possibly reported upon what the Apostles in Jerusalem would be doing, and could have only reported upon what Paul was doing. But, if the author was indeed with Paul, and Paul were to come in contact with these Apostles, then the author could begin to report on them again. Well, guess what? That is exactly what we have.

So then, we have the fact we have letters in which the author clearly identifies as Paul, referring to Luke being with him. We have the fact the author of the letter to Theophilus begins to use the words, "we", and "us" as if he is actually there. And we have the fact the author begins to focus solely upon the actions of Paul when Paul's journeys begin. Now, this is certainly evidence the author would have traveled with Paul, and to deny this would be to simply choose to believe what one would rather believe.

The imprisonment in 2 Timothy isn't mentioned in Acts (or if you'd prefer, "2 Theophilus"). Apologists generally refer to the imprisonment in Acts as Paul's first imprisonment in Rome and the one in 2 Timothy as his second.

My friend, either way you go here, this would still be evidence that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and because there are those who understand this to be the case, they have no option but to attempt to cast some sort of doubt, by telling us, Paul was "ALMOST certainly" not the author. I would really like to go through what all would have to be involved in order for Paul not to have been the author of this letter.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #176]

After many exchanges, it appears (the 'facts' and 'evidence' for a man rising from the grave, which gives you a high degree in confidence that Christianity is true) would be the <main reason / primary reason> as to why you are now a Christian. Why is this so hard for you to admit outright?

What I continue to attempt to explain to you is there is not a main reason. Rather, there would be many different reasons, and when you combine all these reasons is where I begin to draw my conclusion. Therefore, there is no main reason. Why do you find this difficult? Could it be the fact that you admit to being a convinced Christian for no reason at all, besides accepting what you were told? Ergo, this gives you the impression we as Christians must, and have to narrow our reason down to some sort of main reason? I really believe the "main reason" you are looking for one to give a "main reason" is in order for you to be able to go on to attack this "main reason" with your falsification argument, which I have demonstrated would have nothing to do with whether there would be fact, evidence, and reasons to believe the claims.

You see, we continue to have the same arguments over, and over, which is why I said there is really no need in answering all these things because it is pointless. The question you need to answer in order to end this part of the conversation once and for all is, "would the fact a claim is unfalsifiable be a reason to doubt the claim?" If it is not, then what is the point?

I have also stated, more than once now, "the question remains, what IS true?"

One thing which would be true is, we have all the facts, and evidence for a reason. If you have come to the conclusion that it is best to doubt these things, then I have no problem with your opinion. But please do not attempt to insist your opinion is the correct opinion and there would be no reason to believe the claims.

What exactly is the objective in a debate?

I would suggest it is to demonstrate a point.

Further, how do I plan on 'winning', when I admit, straight away, that I cannot falsify your belief?

And around, and around we go! Would a claim being unfalsifiable be a cause to doubt the claim? Well no. Therefore, you only point would be that my belief is safe because it is unfalsifiable, which has nothing to do with the facts, and evidence we have, as to whether there would indeed be facts, evidence, and reason to believe the claim. The point is again, you continue to bring things into the conversation which would have nothing to do with it. If you bring this up again, I guess I will have to "rinse repeat".

- Many ancient people were superstitious...

Am I simply to take this to be a fact? Even if it would be a fact, how in the world would this be evidence against the claims? I mean we cannot go through the whole of the NT, but if we take a look at the letters addressed to Theophilus no one would come away with the idea this author was explaining some sort of superstition. Rather, one who takes the natural reading would come away with the idea this author is describing at least what he claims to be, historical events. If this sort of thing causes doubt in your mind, I have no problem with that. But please let us not pretend it is a reason to doubt the claims.

- I no longer believe in the supernatural. Hence, it's more likely a natural explanation is the root cause.

Oh? I see. Your belief causes "a natural explanation to be the root cause". Kinda like when you were a Christian?

- Seems unlikely Jesus was buried in a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers...

OH MY! I did not realize this. If it "seems unlikely" then it certainly must be false.

- Countless of earnest and intelligent people have claimed to witness supernatural type events.

Which would have nothing to do with the claims made in the NT.

- We don't even have 100's/1,000's of documented "eyewitnesses", by definition, to examine (regardless).

You see, this is why I say this is a waste of time. You are simply throwing out these one sentence remarks, when there would be a whole lot to think about. These folks did not have television broadcasts, cell phones, etc., but what they had, they used. The author to Theophilus tells him "many have undertaken to write out an account of the things accomplished among us". Bart Ehrman, who is one of the most outspoken critics, and atheists, agrees the author would more than likely be correct in that many did take up such a task. But the thing is, if we were to simply take the letters addressed to Theophilus, along with the letters your scholars agree would be true Pauline letters, we would have enough evidence to believe a resurrection took place. So, it has nothing to do with numbers.

I mean, what in the world are you imagining happened here? Is it your suggestion, there were a few folks who were somehow mistaken about an event some 2000 years ago, and this mistake goes on to have the most influential impact in all of history? I'm here to tell you that would be an extraordinary tale in itself, and the only thing you are eliminating would be the miraculous. Ergo, you are only exchanging one extraordinary tale, in order to believe another extraordinary tale.

-- How many other verified names of deposed 'eyewitnesses' do we actually have?

If one were a true student of the Bible, they would understand if we were to simply take what the most critical scholars concede, we could trace some of the information we have, to eyewitnesses, all the way back to a very few years of the cross, and maybe even inside a year. Of course, this would be an in depth explanation, which is not good for those who are looking for simple answers.

-- How likely is it that the 4 Gospel writers were direct eyewitnesses, in light of the given life expectancy?

I do not know where you are getting your information for the "life expectancy" back then, but it really does not matter. Allow me to explain why. First, Jesus would have been right in the middle of the range you give, and he seemed to be getting along just fine, so much so he was able to get himself in enough trouble to be crucified. Therefore, I see no reason for us to believe that Jesus would not have lived on for a good number of years later. So, are we to suppose Jesus would have been one of the older folks at the time, and most of the folks who would have been born around the same time as Jesus would no longer be alive? That math don't add. We have pretty good evidence the mother of Jesus was alive at the time. Moreover, we have very good evidence the older brother of Jesus would have been alive years after his crucifixion, and he did not die of natural causes. Next, we can know for certain Paul would have been alive at the time of Jesus, and would have lived decades after, and did not die of natural causes. Moreover, we have very good evidence that the Apostle John lived well into his nineties. I could continue on, but the point is, your objection only works if you accept the dates given by the scholars as to when the gospels were actually authored.

Now, since you seem to have so much confidence in what the scholars have to say, do you have any idea what the "main reason" (since you like main reasons) they give for dating the gospels after the year 70? As far as I can tell, it has to do with the prophecy Jesus made concerning the destruction of Jerusalem. That's right! In other words, they understand the description is so close to what actually happened, they are convinced the event would have already occurred.

I may or may not respond to this, depending one which route you decide to actually go next...? Meaning, sometimes you seem to respond blow for blow, other times, you wish to state you wish to address one point at a time, and other times, you wish to reiterate "the author to Theophilus".

Can you please pick a lane? At this point in the conversation, I'd say the natural progression has now brought us to my follow up questions: Request number 4 and counting:

-- Why accept Paul's/other claim(s) at face value, especially when it's 'supernatural'?
-- Is an 'eyewitness', who is not deposed, automatically deemed credible, simply because they were persecuted and passionate?
-- How many other verified names of deposed 'eyewitnesses' do we actually have?
-- How likely is it that the 4 Gospel writers were direct eyewitnesses, in light of the given life expectancy? -- (If you wish to let the above answer stand here, we can address from there).
-- How likely is it that Jesus was buried in a tomb guarded by Roman soldiers?

Oh, and "I would love, love, love to respond to all of this"... <-- Paraphrased from you But it might be heading backwards at this point... Let's keep this conversation moving forward, so we do not risk a rinse/repeat

GOOD GRIEF! You are correct to say I would like to focus upon one thing at the time, in order not to become bogged down. However, when I make such a suggestion, you make the accusation that I am ignoring points you are making and continue to list these bullet points for the third time as you say. Therefore, even though I would rather not, I go back to the first post where you list these things, in an attempt to answer them, and now you want to complain that I am not holding to one point at a time? So then, which lane are you in?

But let's not argue about that and take one thing at a time. Since I have now answered most of your bullet points having a couple of more to address, please answers these questions for me. Would a claim being unfalsifiable, be a reason to doubt the claim? It is my hope we can agree that Popper was the one who came up with the falsifiable concept. If so, did he intend to mean unfalsifiable claims should be doubted?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to POI in post #187]

At the risk of getting scolded again, I am going to attempt to answer the rest of the bullet points you have been complaining about.

-- Why accept Paul's/other claim(s) at face value, especially when it's 'supernatural'?

What in the world would cause you to be under the impression that I simply take these things a face value? I mean do I sound like one who would say something like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it"? How about one who sits down in order to determine what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be true, as opposed to what all would have to be involved in order for the claims to be false? Of course, this would be a lot of effort and may cause some folks to simply go with what may "seem most likely". So then, what reason would I have to doubt the claims? Are you suggesting the claims should be doubted because it involves the "supernatural"?

What you need to attempt to understand is, I really do not care what you believe, nor how you have come to believe it, as long as you are not insisting, I would have no reason to believe as I do.

-- Is an 'eyewitness', who is not deposed, automatically deemed credible, simply because they were persecuted and passionate?

I never said a thing about being "passionate". You continued to ask about cross-examination. Well, I cannot imagine cross-examination being worse than persecution. Moreover, we do indeed have reports of some of these folks actually being examined in a court of law concerning the claims they were making. And please do not bring up those who are willing to be persecuted and even die for what they believe, because we are talking about those who claim to have been witnesses, and there would be a tremendous difference.

I think this gets me up to speed now. If not let me know. If I have, could you please respond as to whether a claim being unfalsifiable would be a cause for doubt?

[Difflugia]

Assuming the tradition of Paul's death in AD 64 is accurate, yes.

I don't understand the objection here? If Paul would have died before AD 64 the letters the scholars concede would be genuine Pauline letters would have had to have been authored before AD 70.

That's right. It's not an objection as such, it's clarification that your argument is based on a reasonble, but not certain, tradition.

If Paul would have died after AD 70 this would demonstrate one could be alive at the time of the crucifixion, and authored letters after AD 70.

Sure.

No. Luke is mentioned in one of the undisputed Paulines, Philemon, and only as someone for whom Paul is offering greetings.

I'm thinking you need to go back and read what I said more carefully,

Okay, we have letters in which the author clearly identifies as Paul

This should turn your "no" into a YES. Because you see, in all the letters we are talking about now, the author "clearly identifies as Paul". Whether his authorship of the letters would be disputed would not change this fact.

If that distinction is important to your argument, then you're equivocating. You went from "the author clearly identifies as Paul" to "it is clear that Paul was under arrest." It's clear that someone wrote a letter claiming to be both Paul and under arrest, but the rest of your argument requires it to actually have been Paul. If Colossians and 2 Timothy are second century forgeries, then your argument fails.

Colossians is considered by most scholars to be pseudepigraphical

Which in no way causes it to be a fact. In fact, it does not even cause it to be more likely.

As I continually need to remind apologists, "possible" and "probable" are not the same thing. It's possible that the scholars are wrong. The evidence upon which they're basing their assessment, though, means that it's more likely that they're right.

In Colossians, "Paul" offers similar greetings on Luke's behalf.

So then, what would be the purpose of this so called pseudepigraphical author to send greetings in the name of Luke? Your answer here could possibly lead us into an interesting conversation.

To add verisimilitude to the claim that the letter is originating with Paul.

2 Timothy is the closest that one might come to inferring the status of "travelling companion," but was almost certainly not written by Paul.

I just love the phrase, "almost certainly". So????? What are we to base this "almost certainty" on?

For starters, a comparison of the Pastoral Epistles with the rest of the Pauline corpus:

The conclusion that these three [Pastoral] epistles were not written by Paul is based upon literary, historical, and theological criteria. First and Second Timothy and Titus share a common Greek vocabulary and style that diverges in many ways from the other Pauline epistles. Historically, the Pastoral Epistles appear to presume an institutionalized leadership in local communities with bishops and deacons, and internal dissent over issues of faith and practice, which better fits a period late in the first or early in the second century CE when Paul was no longer alive.

—The New Oxford Annotated Bible, "Introduction to the Pastoral Epistles" (p. 2084 of the Fourth Edition, p. 2123 of the Fifth Edition)

More detailed commentary is available, but that is a succinct overview.

Even there, all "Paul" says is that Luke is "with" him when the letter is written.

Right! So, we should just ignore the fact the author of the second letter to Theophilus just so happens to begin to use the words "we, and "us" when describing the events of the travels of Paul as if he is actually there to witness the events?

First, this is a non sequitur. Your argument was that the Pauline epistles themselves report Luke as a "travelling companion." They don't.

Second, we don't have to ignore the "we" passages of Acts. There are compelling reasons to think that the pattern of first person narration in Acts is a literary device of the time period, ultimately borrowed from Homeric epic.

You can download a PDF of "By Land and By Sea: The We-Passages and Ancient Sea Voyages" by Vernon K. Robbins.

This wording is the source of the whole "travelling companion" tradition in the first place and is the sole source of evidence for it.

I'm not thinking this is the case. We also have to factor in that we do indeed have letters in which the author clearly identifies as Paul, and mentions Luke as being with him.

Not "letters," but "letter" and a pseudepigraphic one, at that. That also presupposes that being "with" Paul means having travelled there together rather than Luke already having been there or travelled there independently. It's not nothing, but it's not much.

But let us dig a little deeper here. Have you ever thought about the fact the author of the second letter to Theophilus, begins this letter describing the actions of the Apostles in Jerusalem?

Yes.

However, for some strange reason when the travels of Paul begin, the author's focus is solely upon the actions of Paul, and we hear nothing of what the Apostles in Jerusalem would be up to, until, or unless Paul were to come back in contact with them? Can you imagine why this might be?

Yes. One of the overarching themes of Acts is the historical unification of the so-called "Petrine" and "Pauline" factions of the early Christian Church. Acts is split almost exactly in half with Peter being the main protagonist and mouthpiece of the Church through chapter 14. Chapter 15 introduces the traditional Peter-Paul disagreement over circumcision and is primarily a speech by Peter that dismisses the controversy in favor of the Paulinist view. Peter completely disappears from the narrative at this point as Paul becomes the new face of the Church. In the first half of the book, Peter is the central character around which the action revolves. In the second half, that role is transferred to the character Paul.

Well sure you can! Because you see, if the author would have been traveling with Paul, he could not have possibly reported upon what the Apostles in Jerusalem would be doing, and could have only reported upon what Paul was doing. But, if the author was indeed with Paul, and Paul were to come in contact with these Apostles, then the author could begin to report on them again. Well, guess what? That is exactly what we have.

That sounds similar to a fiction author following the exploits of a specific character. Indistinguishably similar.

So then, we have the fact we have letters in which the author clearly identifies as Paul, referring to Luke being with him.

Even though at least one of those letters is pseudepigraphical, yes.

We have the fact the author of the letter to Theophilus begins to use the words, "we", and "us" as if he is actually there.

Or as though he or she were writing in a common Homeric idiom.

And we have the fact the author begins to focus solely upon the actions of Paul when Paul's journeys begin.

That's sort of what being the protagonist means.

Now, this is certainly evidence the author would have traveled with Paul, and to deny this would be to simply choose to believe what one would rather believe.

Unless you can show your work better than you have done so far, that is no more than a giant non sequitur.

The imprisonment in 2 Timothy isn't mentioned in Acts (or if you'd prefer, "2 Theophilus"). Apologists generally refer to the imprisonment in Acts as Paul's first imprisonment in Rome and the one in 2 Timothy as his second.

My friend, either way you go here, this would still be evidence that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, and because there are those who understand this to be the case, they have no option but to attempt to cast some sort of doubt, by telling us, Paul was "ALMOST certainly" not the author.

Luke being present with Paul after the events detailed in Acts wouldn't somehow make them retroactive travelling companions even if 2 Timothy were genuine.

I would really like to go through what all would have to be involved in order for Paul not to have been the author of this letter.

The required sequence is something like this:

1. Paul wrote some letters and signed them as himself.
2. Paul died.
3. Somebody else wrote some letters and signed them as Paul.

Did I miss a step?

[POI]

Would a claim being unfalsifiable, be a reason to doubt the claim?

No.

However, again, I've explained why I mentioned it's unfalsifiability. To avoid the accusations of 'rinse/repeat", I will not go into it again. I ask that you forge through previous posts to find what I actually said about this topic. Hint hint (paraphrased):

- I wish I could either verify or falsify your confidence conclusion, but I, of course, cannot; because it's unfalsifiable.
- A deemed confident conclusion, which is unfalsifiable, means one can confidently retain this conclusion, without fear of true falsification.
- A skeptic to an unfalsifiable claim can merely only raise points, observations, arguments, or other, as to why skepticism should remain, verses to instead believe the unfalsifiable claim.

It is my hope we can agree that Popper was the one who came up with the falsifiable concept. If so, did he intend to mean unfalsifiable claims should be doubted?

Okay, going in circles again... I hope you will now more clearly see why I raise this topic of falsification.

Many posts back, you stated something to the effect of... (paraphrased from memory) - "your friends accuse you of being critical, almost to a fault, in regards to claims." Which now seems to ultimately lead us to the follow up questions I will now address in the next post.

[POI]

Moving forward, please keep in mind what you stated long ago in this exchange.... "That you are hyper-critical to presented claims...." Please do not punish me if I misquoted you. I do not have the time or energy to rummage through pages and pages of responses. I trust though, that you get the gist; and that I'm not trying to present a strawman argument

What in the world would cause you to be under the impression that I simply take these things a face value? I mean do I sound like one who would say something like, "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it"?

No. Not at all. The question raises a mere starting point for discussion. By "face value", I mean you ultimately believe the claim to be 'true', verses ultimately remaining skeptical/doubtful/other. That's all....

(i.e.) "Hey, I saw a ghost in that haunted house 5 years ago." At first, you were likely hyper-skeptical to my claim. But now, you do accept my claim, at 'face value', because you now ultimately discern/apprehend/infer/conclude the claim to be 'true'; by way of the presented 'evidence and facts'.

The format got jacked somehow.... Please follow below: (YOU) : (ME)


(YOU) Are you suggesting the claims should be doubted because it involves the "supernatural"?

(ME) At the risk of raising a trigger term, I feel this term fits the topic. At present, I would equate possibly any 'supernatural' claim with being an 'extraordinary' claim.

To answer your question, I hearken back to where you stated, (again completely paraphrased) -- "Your friends deem you hyper-critical to claims, almost to a fault." I'm willing to bet that when you were first presented with the claim that "a man rose from His grave to save humanity", you did not merely accept the claim right there and then. You had questions, concerns. doubts, skepticism, other; due the the fact that such a claim is 'extraordinary.'


(YOU) What you need to attempt to understand is, I really do not care what you believe, nor how you have come to believe it, as long as you are not insisting, I would have no reason to believe as I do.

(ME) I never insisted you have no reason to believe. I'm instead investigating the reason(s) you believe "a man rose from His grave to save humanity". Is it merely based upon the left behind 'facts and evidence' to the claim? Or, is it more?

Thus, I ask anew....

Why accept Paul's claim as being "true", that he truly experienced what he believes to have experienced?

(YOU) I never said a thing about being "passionate".

(ME) I did not claim that you did. This is my over-simplification, to place your argument into categories. Thus far, seems as though you believe Paul really experienced what He believes to have experienced because of two presented categories:

1. Passion
2. Punishment

If you feel I've left out a third, or even a forth category, please do add accordingly.

(YOU) Moreover, we do indeed have reports of some of these folks actually being examined in a court of law concerning the claims they were making.

(ME) Great, what exactly do these court transcripts say?

Thus far, seems as though being passionate and being punished for a belief, does not render a claim 'true or false'. What else do you got?

Because please remember what we are to believe here... Paul was walking, from point A to point B, where he experienced a 'vision of light' (or what-have-you). How are we to rule our credulity, mental illness, dehydration/hyponatremia, sleep deprivation, other other other other....? Was all alternative categories effectively ruled out, beyond a reasonable doubt? Were they even addressed? If not, why assume what he experienced indeed happened? "Faith"?

Paul could have been the most trustworthy and passionate man running around at that time. Does this mean he really experiences what he stated to have experienced? Do we have sufficient means to investigate such a claim? Aside from Paul, who we both agree wrote many memoirs himself, who else is there to even question? Well, since the authorship to the rest of the NT is in <question>, we really cannot even ask the above...

Thus, including Paul himself, seems as though we have a sum total of zero deponents to investigate. Chalk this up to the pitfalls of early antiquity I guess.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #195]

Let us take just a few things at a time here to keep this from becoming bogged down,

If that distinction is important to your argument, then you're equivocating.

equivocation
[iˌkwivəˈkāSH(ə)n]
NOUN
the use of ambiguous language to conceal the truth or to avoid committing oneself; prevarication.

Well, I have not attempted to conceal the truth, because all we have is those who attempt to cast some sort of doubt upon who the author may have been. The reason I use such language is because I am very familiar with the arguments, and I understand if I were to claim the author would indeed be Paul then there will be those who object that I cannot demonstrate this to be the case. The bottom line here is, we do indeed have letters in which the author certainly identifies as Paul, and mentions Luke as being with him which would indeed be evidence Luke was indeed with Paul on more than one occasion. In fact, we have 3 different letters in which the author clearly identifies as Paul, and mentions the name of Luke to the audience. Moreover, in Philemon which is a letter conceded by the scholars the author refers to Luke as a "fellow worker" which sort of demonstrates the case. Either way, these things are certainly evidence Luke would have been a traveling companion, and in order for me to doubt this to be the case, I am asked to ignore the normal reading of the texts, and simply accept the opinion of the majority of the scholars, because I can assure you there are a number of scholars who would not agree, and numbers do not demonstrate truth, or probabilities. So again, we have a letter which is not disputed, and in this letter, Luke is referred to as "my fellow worker" and I cannot imagine how Luke would have been a fellow worker if he was not traveling with Paul, seeing as how we have other letters as well which mention Luke. However, I am to ignore this evidence, and instead concede to the opinion of the majority of scholars. I have no problem conceding to the scholars on things which they have demonstrated to be true, but I do not believe anyone is under the obligation to simply accept their opinion.

You went from "the author clearly identifies as Paul" to "it is clear that Paul was under arrest."

Which sort of demonstrates my point. In other words, it is difficult at times to keep all this in mind, and I did in fact misspeak there and should have instead said, "it is clear the author of this letter would have been under arrest at the time". But now that I think about it, that would really not work, because it could in fact be the case the author would have been attempting to make it look as though he would have been under arrest. You see, what I have to do is to ignore the natural reading of this letter, and assume this letter was written with the intent to deceive. This same thing would apply to the reading of the second letter to Theophilus. In other words, I am ask to ignore the natural reading of the "we", and "us" passages which would lead one to believe the author would have been there, and rather simply assume he would have been using some sort of literary device.

Here is the thing. I have no problem with the opinion you hold concerning these texts, nor why you hold such an opinion. But please let us not pretend there would be no reason to believe the author would have been a traveling companion of Paul, or that the authors presence with Paul has been eliminated. Let us also not pretend there would be no evidence, or reason to believe Paul would have been the author of the disputed letters, or that it has been demonstrated in any way whatsoever that he would not have been the author.

It's clear that someone wrote a letter claiming to be both Paul and under arrest

Exactly! And I must ignore the natural reading of this letter, in order to accept that someone intended to deceive, and went to the extreme in order to do so.

but the rest of your argument requires it to actually have been Paul.

Yes it does since I did in fact misspeak. Since I have corrected this, the point is we have a letter in which the author clearly identifies as Paul, and this author clearly seems to be under arrest at the time, and in this letter the author refers to Luke as being the only one left with him, which is certainly evidence Luke would have been with Paul at the time, and it will remain to be evidence, until, or unless it is demonstrated Paul would not have been the author.

If Colossians and 2 Timothy are second century forgeries, then your argument fails.

And of course, the most important word of the sentence would be, "IF". It seems we have gone from, "almost certainly" to "if", which is a far better word. But no! When I word my argument correctly my argument does not fail, as seen above.

As I continually need to remind apologists, "possible" and "probable" are not the same thing. It's possible that the scholars are wrong. The evidence upon which they're basing their assessment, though, means that it's more likely that they're right.

Oh really? Well, you do understand there are indeed scholars who disagree with the majority, and refute the evidence they give, while supplying evidence in support of the opinion they hold? So how does this make it more likely the scholars you happen to agree with would more likely be correct?

To add verisimilitude to the claim that the letter is originating with Paul.

Okay? So exactly why did this author write this letter? I mean, what was his aim?

Listen Ya'll! I am going to end it here. I am not attempting to make excuses, but my wife's brother is very near death at this point, and they have called the family in. The only reason I am not there is because I am just now getting over covid. I am waiting on the call and will go to be with her at that time.

Thanks for the understanding!

[We_Are_VENOM]

This is about the third time you have thrown around the term 'reading comprehension.' LOL!

Yeah, 3 times...and that is being modest.

I asked prior, do you agree with these (4) topics because God says so <or> because when you came across these (4) topics, your gut already agreed with these (4) topics?

And now, even in your last response, you still only affirm the former; (i.e.) that 'God says so'. If you have a "gut feeling that God told you so", then it could still be quite possible you did not agree with these (4) topics until 'God told you so.'

So, yet again, did your gut already agree with these (4) topics, <or> do you agree because 'God says so'?

I don't recall ever having a sense of morality without the Christian/Biblical frame of reference.

(The format got messed up. I trust you can follow what questions I responded to below?)[/color]

What I stated above is not an opinion. I stated what the definition of credulity is... Did you rule out all alternative explanations for your reached conclusion? (yes or no)? I'd say the answer is a big (no). As I keep reiterating, this topic seems to be quite the BIGGIE. Reaching such a conclusion, in haste, seems a little reckless, wouldn't you agree? If not, jumping to conclusions, without sufficient exploration is the way to go?

Did I rule out all alternative explanations for what? What are you referring to?

There's no shame in your game sir. But my unanswered question remains... If the Bible mentions 'speaking in tongues' as (the) way to communicate with the Holy Spirit, then isn't this topic something for which you would want to investigate? If not, why not?

I think the real question here is; why are unbelievers concerning themselves with Christian concepts/theology?

I keep going back to that sort of question, because I am astonished at how much professed unbelievers just can't seem to help themselves by concerning themselves with Christian related topics.

But to answer your question, no, speaking in tongues is not something I need or even want to investigate.

I never felt obligated to do so in any form or fashion.

1. Is it possible she is feeling very euphoric right now; maybe even feeling a "heat wave sensation" (and/or) experiencing something external taking control over her body?

Is it possible, yes?

2. Assuming she's not faking it, how might one investigate if her feelings really are from the "Holy Spirit'? Does she just assume it is, because the Bible says and/or because the feeling is unique to (very specific actions or topics)?

Again, I don't know how you "investigate" it. Either you believe she is having a true, authentic religious experience, or you don't.

If you don't, then just chalk it up to just another fake religious demonstration to tie in with all of the other fake religious stuff out there, and I have no doubt that you will do that anyway.

3. Is she mistaken, and she's merely talking to herself? Why or why not?

I don't know. You would have to ask her.

[JoeyKnothead]

When I read through I come out with the same 'Why' as is usual. "Faith". And Faith is because that has been taught. The debates or discussions always seem to be about the evidence and often that's put down to 'Interpretation'.

We know how that works. A lot of Biblical claims with little or no back -up are presented as some sort of cumulative confirmation. The conclusions of science on the other hand get dismissed as (pretty much) scientists getting it wrong.

From what I have seen, it works like this: The Big Lie is propagandized. The Gospels are eyewitness or at least reliable. Maybe backed up by claims that history confirms Jesus. Genesis is true; evolution is false. The arguments are persuasive, or at least ingenious and clever, though often oddly ad hoc, such as looking at points out of context, for instance that Tacitus says that Jesus was crucified. Well, even if he was, that doesn't mean he resurrected. Or various apologetics conflict with others, for example, Evolution didn't happen; all kinds of creatures appeared essentially as they are now, whereas Behe's I/C argument means that evolution DID happen (and therefore it undermines Geneiss) but it needed God to make it work. Not that this seems to have occurred to IC proponents. Let alone its' critics.

Because, what strikes me is how little these refutations or problems with the theist case are known even in atheist circles. One reason that atheism, materialism and science is not a religion or church is that our arguments would be a lot better known if we were.

It's getting better. Kalam is known to fail. The Morality argument has gone. I think the failure of the 2nd census apologetic and the claim of extra -biblical support for Jesus is creeping into atheist (if not public) consciousness. Never mind that the resurrection accounts are not understood to be totally contradictory, or that John has no Transfiguration, it doesn't seem to generally known, even by atheists, that the Cambrian explosion is absolutely not the sudden appearance of 'all the basic kinds of creatures' or that an atheist is somehow not also an agnostic, let alone the simple fact that neither of the Genealogies are that of Mary but both stated to be those of Joseph, or that there is No genetic barrier between DNA that prevents speciation.

Though the idea seems to be seeping through that there was no release Passover custom and Nazareth didn't really exists in the 1st c. Though the idea that Holy week was at the feast of Tabernacles and NOT Passover seems to have been forgotten as totally as the NAMI Ark swindle, or the Talpiot tomb hoot. I swear there's a fortune to be made by the first person to sell that Atheist's Bible refutation handbook.

But to get to Faith, once it is downloaded in the Believer's mind, then (with some apologetics references where needed|) dismissal of doubt can be left to itself. Undisproven possibilities (as I saw above that the Luke mentioned in Philemon is the largely hypothetical Luke of Biblical tradition) in heaps are supposed to mount up as evidence, while pretty undeniable and even scientific refutations are dismissed as mere opinion and 'science gets things wrong'. Which would never work without Faith -based bias to begin with and Religion having pretty much all the media outlet.

You really got a brain on you. I bump your post so's it don't get missed.