> Evidence, by its very nature, is, well, evident. What constitutes evidence for you should also constitute evidence for me.
> [snip]
> My main point, again, is that if you're going to make a claim to Truth, you have to have evidence. Even if I choose not to follow the path you lay out as a basis for finding that Truth, you *ought* to at least be able to lay it out for me without appealing to the uknowable or the uncommunicatable. If your *very first step* requires such an appeal, unless you're doing a proof by induction (which you're not, because too many *other* steps require this appeal as well) then what rational being could possibly do anything but reject your argument?

Okay, I meant to return to this thread sooner, but I've been lazy. I agree with Dave: without any evidence recognizable to both parties, all you have is a bald assertion. Not the sort of thing I want to base my life on.

The simplest answer to the question, "why should I believe the Bible?" is: "the events recorded in it actually happened." Unfortunately, attempts to
verify that claim are bound to leave a lot of people unsatisfied. Even though Scriptural records have been shown to be trustworthy as historical documents go, we can't verify *everything* using independent sources -- and even if we could, some of those events are so singular and incredible by nature, contrary to common experience, that even multiple witnesses would fail to convince many skeptics.

There's a whole raft of literature on the historical trustworthiness of the Bible that I'm not prepared to discuss at this time, though it would be worth researching sometime. Instead, I want to raise two other points:

* First, the real question isn't whether we can know facts about the events in the Bible, but whether we can know God. Knowledge of a person doesn't come about in the same way as knowledge of an object of study. Sometimes a person good at research and analysis is poor at friendship; the two require different skills.

To answer a question you raised, I don't hear voices in my head or get some kind of mystical pull or tingle that tells me God is communicating with me. I don't, in fact, experience any signs of God's presence that have analogs in common experience of the material world. The senses I rely on to guide me through the day don't seem to help in perceiving God. That's frustrating, and a source of doubt. But I must remember that Scripture teaches that God is a spiritual being and is *spiritually* perceived. If I'm not experiencing God the way I expect, it may not be because God isn't there. It may be that I haven't developed spiritual perception -- a different skill than I use in my interactions with the material world. Do I understand what "spirit" is and what it means? Not entirely, but if I expect to grow in a relationship with God then I need to try to learn.

* Second, I think that in large measure a person chooses what their experiences are like. A scholarly skeptic of Christianity is likely to hang out with like-minded people in academic circles, and what are the odds that in such an environment he'll just happen to develop the skills needed to experience God? Or even become open to the possibility? Not good. He's likely to continue developing habits that predispose him not merely against the subject matter itself, but against the methods of investigating it properly.

I'm in that boat myself to some degree. It's a rare occasion when I think seriously about, say, the existence and activity of demonic beings. But in my life circumstances, how likely am I to confront a situation that challenges my attitude? Things happen out on the mission field, for example, that I expect would blow my mind if I were on hand to witness them. Are all the people who report such things crazy, or hopelessly uncritical? For me to dismiss them out of hand would be intellectually arrogant and presumptuous. To reiterate, my attitudes are partly a function of my environment and the range of experiences it limits me to.

At any rate, I agree that religious beliefs should be challenged and not allowed to get off the hook with rote excuses. I want to hear a good reason why I should believe in reincarnation, or nirvana, or Joseph Smith's account of divine revelation, and so forth. A person has an obligation to find out and believe the truth -- although he is free to ignore it and believe something else that suits him better, it is wrong to do so.

Iss