Why be good?

[Simon Moon]

The nature of the claims IS significant.

You may recall that I said we accept what reliable and knowledgeable people have said - in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

How do you determine the reliability of these knowledgeable people?

If a person is otherwise extremely reliable and knowledgeable, but they disagree with your theistic beliefs, and have other theistic beliefs, does that impune  their reliability?

So, you believe some people (those that agree with your theistic beliefs) until evidence is provided to the contrary? I hope you never claimed to be a critical thinker.

Now, many in this forum have suggested that they would not believe their ten best friends or their wives, etc. if they were told about an extraordinary encounter with God. Well, I suppose skeptics do exist. Maybe they are all atheists.

Of course I would not believe them, unless they were able to provide more evidence than just their personal experience. There are way to many ways the human mind can fool someone into believing they experienced something they did not. Or misinterpret an real experience.

And it does not matter at all how reliable and knowledgeable my friends or wife are on any other subjects. 

But I think that there is a greater likelihood that someone could see Jesus than that they could have lunch with a dragon for the simple reason that seeing Jesus or hearing from God is a common claim. Having lunch with a dragon is not.

If the population of Muslims ever increases to outnumber Christians, will that make their claims any more true?

A common claim can still be mistaken...it is not proof of anything. But my own experience and that of people who I know well leads me to believe that "lunch with Jesus" is far more likely than lunch with the Avengers or a dragon.

What if one of the people you know that is now a Christian, converted to Islam (it does happen), do you now believe their new experiences? Why or why not?