[BikerNYC]

Matters of faith are matters of taste, that's what makes them matters of faith. It is not a coincidence that children tend to prefer the same kind of food and religion that their parents enjoyed. They both are matters of taste that tend to be drilled into you at an early age.

Moreover, if there were evidence, differential equations, and other mathematical proofs which would establish, for example, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the belief in such would not be a matter of faith.

...the idea that anyone should believe that truth is truth just because they think it's truth is ludicrous.

Is something red because you think it's red or is it red in-itself? If it's red because you think "red," doesn't thinking the thing red make it red? On the other hand, if an object is red in-itself, where in the object is its "redness"? I think we often speak of things being true because we think them to be true.

[outlawcam]

Moreover, if there were evidence, differential equations, and other mathematical proofs which would establish, for example, that Jesus Christ is the son of God, the belief in such would not be a matter of faith.

It depends on whether or not you have faith in mathematical proofs and differential equations. However, the assertion is absurd on the face of it. You are holding Jesus to a higher standard of proof than you likely attribute to any historical figure. It is not that difficult to provide enough evidence of the Godhood of Jesus to demand a verdict. You must, however, have some faith in the historical sources--just like you must of any historical figure. Caesar for example. Or Aristotle.

What standards of proof do you require? How do you determine, historically speaking, if something did or did not happen? If Jesus truly did all it He claimed to do and truly did rise from the dead in the manner described in the Bible, wouldn't you agree that would be pretty compelling evidence?