I did not call you names. If your only reality is in your mind, that is a form of insanity. If I understand correctly, when you can't distinguish between reality and what's in your mind, that's the definition of insanity, but I'm not a psychologist so I won't stand on that.
Since you probably won't be back today, let me clarify some things.
Even if your reasoning ability were perfect (you never have to admit you are wrong, which I doubt) you would still have a limited amount of information on which to base your reasoning. Life is incredibly complex. Perfect reasoning on any subject requires perfect knowledge which is absolutely beyond you or me.
Also, if your mind has bugs, it is likely that the first bug is the inability to know it has bugs. That's why people can't declare themselves sane. Your mind can't know whether it is functioning properly since it has to be functioning properly to know. You must rely on external information sources to know whether what you are seeing is true or not.
Another point, you have rejected the eyewitness testimony of Matthew, Mark, and John, and the carefully researched testimony of Luke. Your statement on this thread was that you reject them out-of-hand by saying, "anyone can write anything in a book." Objective reasoning weighs eyewitness testimony heavily unless the witness can be discredited with specific evidence. Do you reject these witnesses for objective or subjective reasons?
I know what it is like to be in a discussion that does not die. Even if you don't respond to these points, please ponder them.
Shalom b'Shem.
Just how did you expect to clarify something to someone who was not going to be there (here)? (Maybe you thought I would study your response over the holiday, eh?)
Look, you wrote two paragraphs explaining the inefficacy of the mind to understand the truth from evidence. Then you spend the next paragraph explaining how your reasoning from the evidence proves you are right. Now, if your mind cannot be trusted to discover the truth for certain from the evidence, why should I, or anyone, then take your word for it you have done just that.
I submit that the results of your so-called "Objective reasoning" that "weighs eyewitness testimony" is actually a result of one of those bugs in your mind you were talking about.
Hank