Great question P-Marlowe. It seems kosta is very picky about evidence. It seems he dismisses any that does not measure up to his highly abstract criteria. I get the general impression that kosta wants to live in a highly abstract world; i.e., a world that exists only within his mind (like one of Heraclitus' "dreamers," the "private men"). And so I just mention this, because the type of evidence that you pointed to in your absolutely outstanding essay/post is just the type kosta rejects: for it is empirical, experientially-based.
Thank you so very much for your magnificent essay/post!
Indeed, take this from http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2461074/posts?page=1143#1143
Yes. Why not convince them and preach the Gospel to them too if he expects you to do so?
So the demand is that the risen Christ should have shown Himself to all Israel - That resurrection proof would satisfy him. Jesus choses to reveal Himself to a limited group - well that is dismissed a priori.
Kosta thinks he is being an objective analyst but in reality his method of examining the evidence is entirely subjective. He seems to have made up his own rules for examining the evidence. He refuses to look at anything other than natural empirical evidence in order to believe in the supernatural and then when confronted with the evidence, i.e., the eyewitness testimony of people who literally gave their lives in defense of their testimony, he shrugs it off as being "biased".
So in reality it appears to me that kosta is not really looking for reasons to believe, but looking only for excuses NOT to believe.
Calling the eyewitness testimony biased is not a reason, it is an excuse.
IMHO kosta is not being sincere when he claims he is looking for truth or looking for God. IMHO he is just looking for an excuse to confirm his own agnosticism.