I have attempted to. And I am not trying to be evasive. I can provide you a link to some free online references if you would like.
You began this thread ostensibly for the purpose of answering questions posed to you. However, your responses to certain questions have been nothing but vague, and other questions have gone completely unanswered. First, I asked you about the importance of intellectual honesty in the pursuit of truth (
1), and received no answer. Then I asked you whether you were open to be convinced on the question of Jesus' historicity (
2). Again, I received no answer.
Shortly thereafter, you claimed to have examined diverse religious claims with the "desire to be objective, honest, and open" (
3). Curious about this, I inquired whether this meant you were open to questioning the authorship of scripture and the claims contained therein (
4). To my surprise, you reported that you were (
5). Moreover, you acknowledged fallibilism in relation to your religious beliefs (
6,
7), in contrast to what you had earlier claimed (
8).
As I harboured severe doubts about your intellectual honesty in this discourse (
9), I took this as a positive sign that you had reflected on and modified your philosophical praxis. However, the evasiveness of your most recent responses to my question about appeals to personal religious experience, which tend to reflect a disposition you putatively no longer hold (
10), suggests that some kernel of your old habit of thought remains intact. This would imply that, contrary to your earlier claims, you are not open to reconsidering or revising your theological commitments. This in turn raises the same question I posed earlier: in what way is your approach to these matters "objective, honest, and open"? How can one approach such questions honestly if one is not willing to accept the possibility of error or the need for conceptual revision?