In Christianity, blind faith is good faith

[Randy Carson]

Nope. In a court of law, circumstantial evidence is given EQUAL WEIGHT to direct evidence.

Do you appreciate the difference between circumstantial evidence and hearsay? Because what you have is the latter, not the former. The "eyewitnesses" of Jesus are never named, nor are they the ones writing the accounts; what you have are accounts written by anonymous authors, decades after the fact, claiming that there were eyewitnesses, with no contemporary first hand sources to validate this. Circumstantial evidence is evidence that requires an inference to reach a conclusion, but this? This is a claim, by people in no position to know, that such evidence exists, maybe; it's the equivalent of you appearing in court and saying "a friend of a friend of mine told me that he totally saw the evidence!" They aren't remotely the same thing.

Incorrect.

There is every reason to believe that the authors of the gospels really WERE Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Further, two of them were apostles of Jesus while the other two had access to the apostles.

Second, they were not written "decades" after the fact...unless 2-3 "decades" is sufficient to be a problem for you. However, the oral tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 probably dates to within 5-10 years of the resurrection, and Paul got that early creed from the apostles personally as he points out in Galatians.

Now, about the circumstantial evidence. If I look out the window, and see rain falling, that is direct evidence. If, instead, I see people coming into the courtroom closing their wet umbrellas, that is circumstantial evidence that it is raining outside. Matthew and John were eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus; if you want to dismiss Luke and Mark because they are simply recording (accurately) what they were told by other eyewitnesses, fine. But the evidence is stronger than you suggest.

Faith is not based upon emotions or upon a lack of reasoning but a choice to believe something is true because a trustworthy authority has told us it is true. Divine Faith is believing something to be true based upon the fact that God said so.

How did you determine that god was a trustworthy source, outside of his own claims to be trustworthy?

Logic. 

Most of what we know in life is based upon our human faith that someone else who tells us something is a trustworthy authority. For example, we trust our doctors to tell the truth about our health, we trust scientists to tell us about the world around us, and we trust historians to tell us what has happened in the past. In the same way, we exercise divine faith when we trust in something that God has said to be true.

... Except that doctors, scientists, and historians all provide evidence in support of their claims that justifies that trust. I'm so sick of this lazy equivocation from you believers.

Some would say that God has provided evidence of His existence.
 

The Crucial Question
 
How do we really know that God has spoken? Specifically, how do we know that Christianity is true and other religions are false? Aquinas said that Christianity is reasonable to believe for three reasons:
 

1. Some of the beliefs of Christianity can be known by natural reason alone apart from faith: that God exists, that there is only one God and that He is the creator of all things. Demonstrating that these parts of the Christian faith are true lends credibility to the rest of Christian belief.
   

Other aspects of the Christian faith cannot be demonstrated by reason, but it can be shown that they are not in conflict with reason. For example, the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be demonstrated from reason, but the Trinity can be defended by reason which can show that the doctrine of the Trinity is not unreasonable.
• Nothing about christianity can be successfully defended by reason.
  
  
  

• The Christian faith can be shown to have come from a Divine Source due to the miracles and prophecies that accompany it.

[*]

Oh boy! So you're making a claim that miracles and prophecies are real, and then justifying that with a part of the book that makes that claim? I love circular arguments! Whee! So round!

[*]

Not exactly. I'm making the claim that a historically reliable book records the testimony of individuals who saw the miracles.

So, the question will hinge on whether the authors of the NT were telling the truth.