(June 3, 2015 at 2:14 am)robvalue Wrote: Yes, I admitted I could be wrong about absolutely everything. It doesn't however mean I update my beliefs every time someone tells me to. They have to provide a good reason. Pointing at the same book, or a particular part of that book, which I've been well aware of my whole life does not constitute a good reason. I've given you every opportunity to convince me, giving you every concession I could reasonably make and I'm afraid you have come up short.
I don't have preconceptions, I simply have the same scepticism as I'd apply to any supernatural God account, as would you if it wasn't your own holy book. I have no agenda or vested interest in continuing to believe it's not true, because I don't care if it's true. That lends me quite a lot of objectivity.
I am reasonably sure you realize this already, but your approach on whether to change your beliefs or not is what I had in mind. You should have a good reason to change your mind. Just picking something at random to trust, to change from whatever you believe now, would not be a method likely to get one more accurate beliefs than whatever one already has.
The idea that believing Luke would be a good idea is really funny. You would have to have amazingly crazy beliefs for Luke to be an improvement over whatever you believe right now. The kind of beliefs that, if you went around telling others about them, you would likely end up in a mental institution.
I suppose that there is one great advantage to changing to believing Luke, and that is, you will remove all doubt about the accuracy of your beliefs.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
