From faith to fact.

[bhsmte]

Has anyone else notice how creationism has somehow gone from being a faith to being a fact?
We have threads about how,
Science proves the Bible is true.
DNA proves the Bible is true.
Science and scientists prove fine tuning is true.

I wonder what will be next to go from faith to fact? for 1000 years people have been happy to call their beliefs a faith, not today.
It won't take long for all of these assertions and lies to become the absolute truth for creationists, which will mean the end of faith for a lot of people, while religion was a faith it could say anything was true and no one could say different, the problem with proclaiming beliefs to be a fact is evidence is needed to support those facts, evidence that doesn't exist.

IMO, when you look at people who have faith beliefs, it seems you have a group that will say they believe on faith alone and they understand objective evidence does not exist to support their belief.

Then, you have a group, that will claim their faith belief is true and they have scientific evidence to support their specific belief. To me, this could mean, the folks who need to convince themselves they have scientific evidence, are experiencing cognitive dissonance (from being exposed to evidence that contradicts their belief) and they need to strengthen their defense mechanisms and scramble to protect their belief. Watching them try to present this scientific evidence to support their belief is quite the psychological exercise and to me at least, can be quite entertaining.

 

[ScottA]

I guess there must be a place in the Muslim hell just for you then? or don't you believe in a Muslim hell? have you noticed how insignificant things become if you don't believe them? not bothered by the Muslim hell but scared stiff of the Christian hell, I wonder why that is?

Run Veera, run!

 

[bhsmte]

Run Veera, run!

You don't like reality, do you?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

You don't like reality, do you?

It'd be hard to be a fan when reality keeps dumping facts on you that contradict your deeply held beliefs...

 

[ScottA]

It'd be hard to be a fan when reality keeps dumping facts on you that contradict your deeply held beliefs...

What contradictions?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

What contradictions?

Well, not sure how literally you take the Bible, but I just brought up Ezekiel 26:7-14 in another thread - we can start there?

If you wanted to tell me what you believe and why, i.e. how much of a literalist you are, that would let me know where to start? Or, it might be easier if you tell me how old you think the earth is, and how you believe the diversity of life came about on this planet, that ought be enough to set a bar for me.

 

[ScottA]

Well, not sure how literally you take the Bible, but I just brought up Ezekiel 26:7-14 in another thread - we can start there?

If you wanted to tell me what you believe and why, i.e. how much of a literalist you are, that would let me know where to start? Or, it might be easier if you tell me how old you think the earth is, and how you believe the diversity of life came about on this planet, that ought be enough to set a bar for me.

Perhaps you have set the bar for me and I can jump ahead and make the same offer to you, and address the matter based on your comment:

I perceive that you are coming at the contents of the Bible from a completely worldly and natural position. Which is all well and good, and we can limit our conversation to the natural, or not. However, if we are to look at humanity as being more than natural (according to the witness of millions), then by your comments, regardless of your willingness to do so, you would appear to be unqualified to comment with any authority.

Let's just say, then, that for the sake of argument, you knew all there was to know about the natural world and I knew nothing of it, and I knew all there was to know about the spiritual world and you knew nothing of it. Of course, I do know something of the natural world, but you tell me...Do you know anything of the spiritual world...or is my assumption correct, that you do not?

Anyway, regardless of whether or not either or both of us is oblivious to the other's area of expertise - the lack of expertise of either party, would be of no position to make any claim. And if either of us, out of our lack of knowledge, denies that the other is qualified, that denial is without merit - and the best we can do, therefore, is to hear from each other. Or not.

Those are my terms. What would you like to do from here? I would recommend that we talk about what the Bible really is, as opposed to the book of contradictions that you perceive it to be.

 

[Veera Chase]

Run Veera, run!

You are the one doing the running because you are the one trying to believe the unbelievable, good luck.

 

[Soyeong]

Are you saying that all interpretations are equal? As I noted in our previous discussion on the matter, not all assessments are equally objective. If you assume that they are, then how are we to adjudicate between competing explanatory models?

No, I have never thought that all interpretations are equal. An objective assessment would be one that is impossible to be wrong and that is free from human opinion, so there there are no assessments that we can establish as objective because evidence inherently requires a subjective interpretation that is not free from the possibility error. We can certainly make an effort to be as objective as we can, but at the end of the day, two people trying to be as objective as they can still look at the same evidence and come to different interpretations. If you want to make this about whether someone's reasons adequately justify their belief, then we need some way to determine whether that is the case. Saying that the evidence determines whether it is the case does not help because we have to interpret the evidence to figure out what it determines to be true, which gets back to my question of who gets to be the one who does that?

Each person's belief is justified by what the evidence that led them to that belief and that their confidence level is justified by precisely how strong they think that evidence is, so it is nonsensical to say that someone's reasons do not adequately justify their belief, especially when you refuse to answer how we can determine if that is the case.

Are you asking whether one can completely eliminate the possibility of error in one's thinking? If that is your question, then I don't think one can do that, which is why I acknowledge that I could be mistaken; there might be some flaw in my reasoning that I haven't recognised yet. In discussing this with people who strongly champion faith as a virtue, however, I've often found that they are reluctant to admit that they could be wrong about their theological commitments.

If you agree that we can't eliminate the possibility of error, then I'm not sure why you thought it was important to point out that someone could be mistaken. If someone had a belief formed because of their interpretation of some evidence, then their belief and confidence level are justified by their interpretation, and if they reexamine the evidence and determine that they were mistaken and that it actually indicates that something else is true, then their new belief and confidence level are justified by their reinterpretation.

By way of illustration:

There always exists a chance of being mistaken about something or that we're in a matrix or something, so I think people who say that nothing could convince them otherwise are speaking hyperbolically. For existence, when WLC cites his personal experience for a reason to believe in the existence of God, then counter of that is to provide a better explanation than God for what accounts for his experience. We can have experiences that lead us to become extremely confident that something is true, such as our experience of the reality of gravity, such that we would not seriously consider someone who tried to convince us otherwise, though the possibility does exist that there is a better explanation.

Faith is not generally about believing certain things to be factual, but rather it is specifically about believing that someone or something will be trustworthy in the future. Christians first need to believe that God exists before we can have faith in Him that He will do what He has promised.

If you assume that all assessments have equal merit, then you cannot determine which of them is mistaken. But why would you assume that to begin with?

I made no such assumption.

I was asking specifically about the Bible. On what past performance is that trust based?

Are you talking about trusting the historical accuracy of the Bible or about or about the promises?

 

[Veera Chase]

Do you know anything of the spiritual world...or is my assumption correct, that you do not?

It might help a little if you could explain to the uninitiated just what the 'spiritual world' was or is?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I have never thought that all interpretations are equal. An objective assessment would be one that is impossible to be wrong and that is free from human opinion, so there there are no objective assessments because evidence inherently requires a subjective interpretation that is not free from the possibility error.

Why do you assume that an objective assessment must necessarily "be one that [it] is impossible to be wrong" about? 'Objective' doesn't imply infallible and an objective assessment doesn't guarantee absolutely certain results.

If you want to make this about whether someone's reasons adequately justify their belief, then we need some way to determine whether that is the case.

Which is what I've been saying.

Saying that the evidence determines whether it is the case does not help because we have to interpret the evidence to figure out what it determines to be true, which gets back to my question of who gets to be the one who does that?

But it's not who, but what. You already agreed that not all interpretations are equal in merit and I presume you also agree, by implication, that not all assessments are equally objective. What follows is that some assessments are more objective and closer to the truth than others.

Each person's belief is justified by what the evidence that led them to that belief and that their confidence level is justified by precisely how strong they think that evidence is, so it is nonsensical to say that someone's reasons do not adequately justify their belief, especially when you refuse to answer how we can determine if that is the case.

You are conflating how confident a person feels about their belief with how confident they should feel. Put differently, you are saying that because they feel confident their confidence must necessarily be justified, and moreover, the precise extent of their confidence must also be justified. But this leads to a rather bizarre situation whereby everyone is justified in believing what they do, regardless of how well supported their beliefs really are or how they reasoned to them. Merely having confidence in a claim becomes the justification for accepting that claim. The strength of the belief is confused for the strength of its justification.

There always exists a chance of being mistaken about something or that we're in a matrix or something, so I think people who say that nothing could convince them otherwise are speaking hyperbolically.

What would indicate hyperbole as opposed to sincerity? This forum is replete with comments to that effect, and none of them appear exaggerated to me. Granted, they may be an attempt by the believer to vanquish doubt, but nothing suggests that they are being insincere in asserting that they could not be wrong. Given the opportunity for clarification, they don't say that they are speaking hyperbolically.

For existence, when WLC cites his personal experience for a reason to believe in the existence of God, then counter of that is to provide a better explanation than God for what accounts for his experience. We can have experiences that lead us to become extremely confident that something is true, such as our experience of the reality of gravity, such that we would not seriously consider someone who tried to convince us otherwise, though the possibility does exist that there is a better explanation.

If you read Craig closely, he denies the possibility of there being a better explanation for his personal religious experience. In fact, his personal religious experience is what he would invoke to dismiss any and all alternative explanations that could be given. This is an example of exactly the sort of faith I was talking about earlier.

I made no such assumption.

So you agree that some assessments get closer to the truth than others, in which case a display of mere confidence isn't enough to form a rational justification for belief. Strong belief is not equivalent to strong justification.

Are you talking about trusting the historical accuracy of the Bible or about or about the promises?

I'm talking about trusting in its claims.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Perhaps you have set the bar for me and I can jump ahead and make the same offer to you, and address the matter based on your comment:

I perceive that you are coming at the contents of the Bible from a completely worldly and natural position. Which is all well and good, and we can limit our conversation to the natural, or not. However, if we are to look at humanity as being more than natural (according to the witness of millions), then by your comments, regardless of your willingness to do so, you would appear to be unqualified to comment with any authority.

Let's just say, then, that for the sake of argument, you knew all there was to know about the natural world and I knew nothing of it, and I knew all there was to know about the spiritual world and you knew nothing of it. Of course, I do know something of the natural world, but you tell me...Do you know anything of the spiritual world...or is my assumption correct, that you do not?

Anyway, regardless of whether or not either or both of us is oblivious to the other's area of expertise - the lack of expertise of either party, would be of no position to make any claim. And if either of us, out of our lack of knowledge, denies that the other is qualified, that denial is without merit - and the best we can do, therefore, is to hear from each other. Or not.

Those are my terms. What would you like to do from here? I would recommend that we talk about what the Bible really is, as opposed to the book of contradictions that you perceive it to be.

Well, I'm happy to accept your terms, so let's talk then.

I can't say I'm spiritual in any sense, but this would also be dependent on what you mean by 'spiritual'. In effect, I'm happy to explore it, but as a naturalist and rational thinker, I'm very much founded in the world I see around me. As with most atheists here, I'd be open to evidence otherwise, and understand that your spiritual experiences may be actual and well founded, but they're your experiences. How would you convey the truth of that to me?

I don't have the inkling to unpack it here in a science forum but I guess this is the topic of the post... I understand you believe the spirit world as attested to (witnessed) by millions but according to the witness of millions more, humanity is more in other often diametrically opposed and incompatible ways to how you envision it. Between us and the spiritually aware third who has a completely different understanding of the spiritual world to yours, how do we come to the truth of what I might consider such an intangible awareness? I imagine you don't accept the spiritual world of the Hindus? Do you critique the Bible and it's spiritual claims with the same fervor as you would The Vedas? I think this is called "the outsiders' test of faith".

As an outsider to all faith, I can (and in fact have no choice but to) subject your faith's sacred document to this outsiders' test before I would be prepared to evaluate the spiritual world that it professes. I guess what I don't understand is how an Apologist can on one hand explain away (perceived) inconsistencies in the Bible, but on the other hand be the first to point out inconsistencies in some other Holy Text and dismiss any & all explanations or discussions they would have afforded their Bible. Have you looked extensively at other religious texts?

 

[ScottA]

It might help a little if you could explain to the uninitiated just what the 'spiritual world' was or is?

The spiritual world is the unseen reality (the only reality actually) beyond the created fishbowl-like existence of this world. It's the unseen kitchen and Chef, beyond the cake we call this world.

 

[Veera Chase]

The spiritual world is the unseen reality (the only reality actually) beyond the created fishbowl-like existence of this world. It's the unseen kitchen and Chef, beyond the cake we call this world.

Unseen reality? the only reality? as I'm not qualified to help you I will just leave you to it and wish you good luck.

 

[ScottA]

Well, I'm happy to accept your terms, so let's talk then.

I can't say I'm spiritual in any sense, but this would also be dependent on what you mean by 'spiritual'. In effect, I'm happy to explore it, but as a naturalist and rational thinker, I'm very much founded in the world I see around me. As with most atheists here, I'd be open to evidence otherwise, and understand that your spiritual experiences may be actual and well founded, but they're your experiences. How would you convey the truth of that to me?

I don't have the inkling to unpack it here in a science forum but I guess this is the topic of the post... I understand you believe the spirit world as attested to (witnessed) by millions but according to the witness of millions more, humanity is more in other often diametrically opposed and incompatible ways to how you envision it. Between us and the spiritually aware third who has a completely different understanding of the spiritual world to yours, how do we come to the truth of what I might consider such an intangible awareness? I imagine you don't accept the spiritual world of the Hindus? Do you critique the Bible and it's spiritual claims with the same fervor as you would The Vedas? I think this is called "the outsiders' test of faith".

As an outsider to all faith, I can (and in fact have no choice but to) subject your faith's sacred document to this outsiders' test before I would be prepared to evaluate the spiritual world that it professes. I guess what I don't understand is how an Apologist can on one hand explain away (perceived) inconsistencies in the Bible, but on the other hand be the first to point out inconsistencies in some other Holy Text and dismiss any & all explanations or discussions they would have afforded their Bible. Have you looked extensively at other religious texts?

Okay...issue #1: You say you are "open", so I expect you not to retreat to all that you know, and to show respect to me as someone who has been somewhere you have not been and has knowledge you do not have.

#2 "Evidence." Rationalize it in whatever way you are able, but you will need to understand that there is natural evidence and there is spiritual evidence, and just as the spiritual world is not visible to the natural world, neither is the spiritual evidence visible to the natural world. Example: If you had never been to Turkey and I had, and you wanted me to show you evidence of Turkey...nothing from where you live would be evidence of Turkey. In this case, however, nothing visible would be evidence. So, the choices you have, are either to believe that I had been to Turkey, or not to hear of it. We get a lot of that here...but again, those are the terms, and the choice is yours...and it would not, or does not, change the fact that I have been there.

Also, by the very nature of what we are talking about, it should be understood that it is not for lack of evidence that I cannot present it to you, but that you cannot see it. Again, if I have been where you live and I have also been abroad (so to speak), I am not lacking...but it is you who are lacking.

But I will offer this: All the world is a crude manifestation of the spiritual world. It is, however, a mix of good and evil, of darkness and light. Example: In the creation of the world, each 24 hour period shows the dividing of light from darkness, i.e., "and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." Thus, the term "end of days", which refers to the end of the process and purpose for the world.

#3 As for who of the spiritual crowd is actually telling the truth...we all have been given a set of tools for making that evaluation. Unfortunately, some have tools of darkness in their bag, and some have tools of light. All have enough to determine the truth, but all do not have enough to gravitate to the light...which sounds unfair, except it's not: If we are ready to have you hear my explanation of this one point, this world is "created", meaning "made up" (for the purpose of dividing light from darkness) - but, understand what I am saying - it's all MADE UP! It's an enactment, where we as characters in the cast are no more real than the pixilated set and painted on sky. But...ask Mickey if he is real...and, what's he going to tell you - that he's not? Or...perhaps...we could ask the fishbowl-bound fish, if he thinks oceans are real and if fishbowls are not all there is - but, how would he know?

As for the "outsiders test"...that is not how it works. The test can only be validated within, because there is no expertise without. It's like this: If you had never seen a particular city, but had seen light, then a glow on the horizon would be something to seek out. On the other hand, if you had not seen light, or that light that you had seen, was counterfeit, it simply would not fulfill your expectations. In other words, we are drawn to the light that is within us. So, then, if there is no draw, you will not seek it out. But if there is, then you should go. And here you are.

#4 Back to the Bible. There are no inconsistencies...except when seen in the wrong light. The Bible is a masterpiece of testimonies of imperfect people, most of which would have to be considered tourists in the spirit world, having merely tasted it, and yet are not well versed in the greater details. And, yes, tourist chatter, offers very little. Consequently, they have conveyed two different stories in one: One that speaks of their worldly station in life as they can relate to all things (just like you), and one that speaks of their part in something they themselves have only had a glimpse of. What is contrary or inconsistent then, is not their truth in telling it...but that the one version they too know best...is counterfeit. In other words, your "outside test" has simply picked up the fact that something is wrong, and yet knows no better than to side with the counterfeit.

So, then, (as it has been explained in the Bible), all things come in parables. That being said, when you read the Bible, it is a riddle. But when we read the Bible, it is a written riddle with a spiritual answer key...which removes all inconsistencies.

As for other religious texts, when the answers are answered in-full, there is no room left for anything more, and they become null and void.

 

[ScottA]

Unseen reality? the only reality? as I'm not qualified to help you I will just leave you to it and wish you good luck.

The spirit world is like a path leading through the woods: You know where you have been, but you do not know where the path ahead is leading. But if you decide to stay and live in the woods, such is life. And yet, in the place where you live, that signpost that says "Christian Forum", is a sign along the path leading out of the woods...and whether you follow it, or burn it for firewood, the path remains.

So, then, if you are completely happy and satisfied with life right where you are, you have no need to hope for anything that may be down the path, around the bend, or over the horizon. Still...the stories continue to be told around the campfire.

Fair the well.

 

[ScottA]

You are the one doing the running because you are the one trying to believe the unbelievable, good luck.

Sorry...I missed this one.

Anyway, No, I do not believe. There are many who do, but I am not one of them. I am rather, one of the few who asked the same questions we all ask...and got an answer. So, No, I do not believe, but know of what I speak.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Okay...issue #1: You say you are "open", so I expect you not to retreat to all that you know, and to show respect to me as someone who has been somewhere you have not been and has knowledge you do not have.

#2 "Evidence." Rationalize it in whatever way you are able, but you will need to understand that there is natural evidence and there is spiritual evidence, and just as the spiritual world is not visible to the natural world, neither is the spiritual evidence visible to the natural world. Example: If you had never been to Turkey and I had, and you wanted me to show you evidence of Turkey...nothing from where you live would be evidence of Turkey. In this case, however, nothing visible would be evidence. So, the choices you have, are either to believe that I had been to Turkey, or not to hear of it. We get a lot of that here...but again, those are the terms, and the choice is yours...and it would not, or does not, change the fact that I have been there.

Also, by the very nature of what we are talking about, it should be understood that it is not for lack of evidence that I cannot present it to you, but that you cannot see it. Again, if I have been where you live and I have also been abroad (so to speak), I am not lacking...but it is you who are lacking.

But I will offer this: All the world is a crude manifestation of the spiritual world. It is, however, a mix of good and evil, of darkness and light. Example: In the creation of the world, each 24 hour period shows the dividing of light from darkness, i.e., "and God divided the light from the darkness. God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day." Thus, the term "end of days", which refers to the end of the process and purpose for the world.

#3 As for who of the spiritual crowd is actually telling the truth...we all have been given a set of tools for making that evaluation. Unfortunately, some have tools of darkness in their bag, and some have tools of light. All have enough to determine the truth, but all do not have enough to gravitate to the light...which sounds unfair, except it's not: If we are ready to have you hear my explanation of this one point, this world is "created", meaning "made up" (for the purpose of dividing light from darkness) - but, understand what I am saying - it's all MADE UP! It's an enactment, where we as characters in the cast are no more real than the pixilated set and painted on sky. But...ask Mickey if he is real...and, what's he going to tell you - that he's not? Or...perhaps...we could ask the fishbowl-bound fish, if he thinks oceans are real and if fishbowls are not all there is - but, how would he know?

As for the "outsiders test"...that is not how it works. The test can only be validated within, because there is no expertise without. It's like this: If you had never seen a particular city, but had seen light, then a glow on the horizon would be something to seek out. On the other hand, if you had not seen light, or that light that you had seen, was counterfeit, it simply would not fulfill your expectations. In other words, we are drawn to the light that is within us. So, then, if there is no draw, you will not seek it out. But if there is, then you should go. And here you are.

#4 Back to the Bible. There are no inconsistencies...except when seen in the wrong light. The Bible is a masterpiece of testimonies of imperfect people, most of which would have to be considered tourists in the spirit world, having merely tasted it, and yet are not well versed in the greater details. And, yes, tourist chatter, offers very little. Consequently, they have conveyed two different stories in one: One that speaks of their worldly station in life as they can relate to all things (just like you), and one that speaks of their part in something they themselves have only had a glimpse of. What is contrary or inconsistent then, is not their truth in telling it...but that the one version they too know best...is counterfeit. In other words, your "outside test" has simply picked up the fact that something is wrong, and yet knows no better than to side with the counterfeit.

So, then, (as it has been explained in the Bible), all things come in parables. That being said, when you read the Bible, it is a riddle. But when we read the Bible, it is a written riddle with a spiritual answer key...which removes all inconsistencies.

As for other religious texts, when the answers are answered in-full, there is no room left for anything more, and they become null and void.

Right. So, am I good to go pickup a copy of the Qur'an and begin my spiritual exploration? I do have a Muslim friend who I'm sure would be happy to walk with me on this (I don't know any Christians, aside a family member living interstate). I ask because he too has (and continues to have) profound revelation in his holy texts. I've already been assured that Islam is a religion of peace, and that a true Muslim would not murder even a single innocent person when they correctly pledge their lives to Allah and his one true prophet, Mohamed. If I do accept Allah and his true prophet Mohamed, will I not have room for the Outsiders Test as you say, because I would be necessarily searching from within?

In short, why would I choose Islam as my first spiritual world experience, How do I know that Islam is the right spiritual direction over all the other religions that are available? I guess I invariably come back to needing some form of initial outsider's test, otherwise I'm faced with not knowing how to ensure I am not following the wrong religion and possibly upsetting the God of the Real Religion I should be following. As much as my friend here has his profound revelations, now I find you are professing similar personal revelations with almost as much conviction as he does.

I will get back to your post and answer them by #number when I have the time to sit down properly, I wanted to hear your opinion on this though, given that at #3 you're sure that an outsider's test isn't warranted. This makes me somewhat suspicious that you expect a special exemption for your Bible when my Muslim friend said Exactly the same thing about the Qur'an and that I should just read it with him and he would help me see the profound "Truth" that it holds for me.

 

[ScottA]

Right. So, am I good to go pickup a copy of the Qur'an and begin my spiritual exploration? I do have a Muslim friend who I'm sure would be happy to walk with me on this (I don't know any Christians, aside a family member living interstate). I ask because he too has (and continues to have) profound revelation in his holy texts. I've already been assured that Islam is a religion of peace, and that a true Muslim would not murder even a single innocent person when they correctly pledge their lives to Allah and his one true prophet, Mohamed. If I do accept Allah and his true prophet Mohamed, will I not have room for the Outsiders Test as you say, because I would be necessarily searching from within?

In short, why would I choose Islam as my first spiritual world experience, How do I know that Islam is the right spiritual direction over all the other religions that are available? I guess I invariably come back to needing some form of initial outsider's test, otherwise I'm faced with not knowing how to ensure I am not following the wrong religion and possibly upsetting the God of the Real Religion I should be following. As much as my friend here has his profound revelations, now I find you are professing similar personal revelations with almost as much conviction as he does.

I will get back to your post and answer them by #number when I have the time to sit down properly, I wanted to hear your opinion on this though, given that at #3 you're sure that an outsider's test isn't warranted. This makes me somewhat suspicious that you expect a special exemption for your Bible when my Muslim friend said Exactly the same thing about the Qur'an and that I should just read it with him and he would help me see the profound "Truth" that it holds for me.

Your friend is wooing you with what can be read. I make no such claim - on the contrary, just the opposite. Your only test is to seek only that which you are attracted to: it is the light in you that will seek its own.

Meanwhile, pray to the one true God, and ask for guidance and that you be not tempted down the wrong path. He will not steer you wrong. So, allow me to disqualify myself on the level of competing with your friend. First you must connect with God, and then with people - and then I am happy to help. But that does not mean we cannot speak further, even now, only that I would not want to appear to have something to sell you or any desire to convert you to "my" beliefs. I have no way of my own, but am born (again) of the spirit of God and come in His name.

 

[bhsmte]

Your friend is wooing you with what can be read. I make no such claim - on the contrary, just the opposite. Your only test is to seek only that which you are attracted to: it is the light in you that will seek its own.

Meanwhile, pray to the one true God, and ask for guidance and that you be not tempted down the wrong path. He will not steer you wrong. So, allow me to disqualify myself on the level of competing with your friend. First you must connect with God, and then with people - and then I am happy to help. But that does not mean we cannot speak further, even now, only that I would not want to appear to have something to sell you or any desire to convert you to "my" beliefs. I have no way, but am born (again) of the spirit of God and come in His name.

What one true God?

You have presented nothing to show this God exists, except you're opinion.