Ask God for Me

[2PhiloVoid]

This is not what I said at all. I never had God reveal himself to me. If he did I would have no choice but to believe.

So, I guess it's a darn good thing for you that HE hasn't revealed Himself in a Cartesian-esque way, then ... !

Because, if He were to do so, then it may be too late and too bad.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is not what I said at all. I never had God reveal himself to me. If he did I would have no choice but to believe.

I know that is what I am saying. There was a time there when you made a choice, you in doubt didn't chose God. You went the other way.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I know that is what I am saying. There was a time there when you made a choice, you in doubt didn't chose God. You went the other way.

No. I never made a choice to believe or disbelieve. I became convinced by bad evidence and became unconvinced by better epistemology.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. I never made a choice to believe or disbelieve. I became convinced by bad evidence and became unconvinced by better epistemology.

See you continue to claim bad evidence but you don't present that bad evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

See you continue to claim bad evidence but you don't present that bad evidence.

I actually have but I think that was in response to 2PhiloVoid. Some of my reasons for believing included:

Believing there were eyewitness accounts in the bible.
Believing because other people I respected believed.
Dreams I thought were from god.
Apologist arguments were persuasive to me.
Feelings that god existed when praying, singing etc.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I actually have but I think that was in response to 2PhiloVoid. Some of my reasons for believing included:

Believing there were eyewitness accounts in the bible.

What made you think there wasn't?

Believing because other people I respected believed.

You do believe then that they are not people who believe just anything?

Dreams I thought were from god.

What makes you now believe they were not?

Apologist arguments were persuasive to me.

What opposing arguments changed that?

Feelings that god existed when praying, singing etc.

I have to say here from experience, God's peace is the first experience and that can fade if one begins to doubt. It really is true that faith brings us closer to God. As your time and focus centers on God the more He will move towards you and reveal more and more about Himself; however, doubt is a motivating factor of God moving away.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Darn double post again.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What made you think there wasn't?

No where do we have written accounts of the events in the gospel written by an eyewitness.

You do believe then that they are not people who believe just anything?

No, but they are believing with what I consider to be insufficient evidence. Believing something because someone else believes it is a poor way to determine truth and we would never have any advancement in knowledge if we all did this.

What makes you now believe they were not?

What criteria should I use to determine if a dream was from God or not?

What opposing arguments changed that?

Not necessarily opposing arguments but a better epistemology and better skepticism that lead me to see the flaws in the arguments.

I have to say here from experience, God's peace is the first experience and that can fade if one begins to doubt. It really is true that faith brings us closer to God. As your time and focus centers on God the more He will move towards you and reveal more and more about Himself; however, doubt is a motivating factor of God moving away.

I did not just doubt one day and say eh I just don't believe anymore. It was a long and sometimes emotionally painful process and not one I wanted to happen. Like many atheists we started honestly really looking at the bible and our beliefs to strengthen them which lead to the conclusion that it did not warrant belief. So your hypothesis that if we move closer to god he will reveal more of himself is false. Because when I started my journey to know more about god I was a believer and just wanted to know god and the bible better. Why would god not have revealed himself to me during this sincere time knowing that if he did not intervene I would become an unbeliever?

 

[Oncedeceived]

No where do we have written accounts of the events in the gospel written by an eyewitness.

The material was written originally within decades of the events by those who did witness them. The material of the Bible is written closer to the events than any other historical document in existence.

No, but they are believing with what I consider to be insufficient evidence. Believing something because someone else believes it is a poor way to determine truth and we would never have any advancement in knowledge if we all did this.

Now wait a minute here. It is fine if you want to claim you don't have sufficient evidence but you have no idea what others have for evidence and whether or not it is sufficient.

What criteria should I use to determine if a dream was from God or not?

What criteria do you use to determine it wasn't?

Not necessarily opposing arguments but a better epistemology and better skepticism that lead me to see the flaws in the arguments.

Such as? What exactly do you feel the most compelling argument for Christianity was flawed?

I did not just doubt one day and say eh I just don't believe anymore. It was a long and sometimes emotionally painful process and not one I wanted to happen. Like many atheists we started honestly really looking at the bible and our beliefs to strengthen them which lead to the conclusion that it did not warrant belief.

Interesting. I know it was a process but what exactly did you find that didn't warrant belief?

So your hypothesis that if we move closer to god he will reveal more of himself is false.

False...no. I was speaking by experience.

Because when I started my journey to know more about god I was a believer and just wanted to know god and the bible better. Why would god not have revealed himself to me during this sincere time knowing that if he did not intervene I would become an unbeliever?

Because you didn't have faith in Him. 19When anyone hears the message of the kingdom but does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The seed sown on rocky ground is the one who hears the word and promptly receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he remains for only a season. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.…

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The material was written originally within decades of the events by those who did witness them. The material of the Bible is written closer to the events than any other historical document in existence.

We do not have the originals, hence, we do not have any written accounts by eyewitnesses.

Now wait a minute here. It is fine if you want to claim you don't have sufficient evidence but you have no idea what others have for evidence and whether or not it is sufficient.

I do when I ask them why they believe. I asked many people I respected as to why they believed when I was questioning my belief. None had sufficient reasons in my opinion.

What criteria do you use to determine it wasn't?

Now this is where we talk about good epistemology. When someone makes a claim is the default position belief? It should be unbelief until sufficient evidence is provided to convince you. So when a claim is made it is not the burden of the person hearing the claim to provide evidence it is false, it is the burden of the claimer that must provide the evidence that it is true.

Such as? What exactly do you feel the most compelling argument for Christianity was flawed?

Two arguments that helped me believe was were the cosmological and teleological arguments. But why I believed was what I thought were supernatural personal experiences and that others believed.

Interesting. I know it was a process but what exactly did you find that didn't warrant belief?

Name anything supernatural.

Because you didn't have faith in Him. 19When anyone hears the message of the kingdom but does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in his heart. This is the seed sown along the path. 20The seed sown on rocky ground is the one who hears the word and promptly receives it with joy. 21But since he has no root, he remains for only a season. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, he quickly falls away.…

Oh yes another logical fallacy so you can dismiss my and other atheists experiences. Just say I was never a christian and all my objections just go away. Pretty easy huh?

 

[BigV]

Why don't you ask Him to make Himself real to you?

• If He answers, you will be more prepared to hear Him.
  
• If no One is there, you won't have lost anything.

Why? Because this is the song that never ends.

You asked wrong. Don't expect an answer tomorrow, keep seeking, etc... and then, the "answer" could be as simple as your long lost childhood friend calling you out of the blue because they just thought of you for some reason.

 

[Olmhinlu]

We do not have the originals, hence, we do not have any written accounts by eyewitnesses.

In your estimation, what do we have?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

In your estimation, what do we have?

We have copies of copies with additions and changes written by people we don't know.

 

[SPF]

We have copies of copies with additions and changes written by people we don't know.

There are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30., then that means the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years.

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org

 

[Oncedeceived]

We do not have the originals, hence, we do not have any written accounts by eyewitnesses.

We have copies of the originals that are considered within a very short time of the events. The documents that we have and the other source church documents confirm they believed the authors were known to have been present at the time of the events.

I do when I ask them why they believe. I asked many people I respected as to why they believed when I was questioning my belief. None had sufficient reasons in my opinion.

Ok.

Now this is where we talk about good epistemology. When someone makes a claim is the default position belief? It should be unbelief until sufficient evidence is provided to convince you. So when a claim is made it is not the burden of the person hearing the claim to provide evidence it is false, it is the burden of the claimer that must provide the evidence that it is true.

You are making a claim.

Two arguments that helped me believe was were the cosmological and teleological arguments. But why I believed was what I thought were supernatural personal experiences and that others believed.

So let's take one of these, the Laws of Logic. How do you explain the Laws of Logic in a purely materialistic view?

Name anything supernatural.

What is supernatural? There are many things labeled as such but what really defines it?

Oh yes another logical fallacy so you can dismiss my and other atheists experiences. Just say I was never a christian and all my objections just go away. Pretty easy huh?

Is that your take on that? I'm just telling you that God says it happens and you are typically a representative of that example.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There are thousands more New Testament Greek manuscripts than any other ancient writing. The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure. That is an amazing accuracy. In addition, there are over 19,000 copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Almost all biblical scholars agree that the New Testament documents were all written before the close of the First Century. If Jesus was crucified in A.D. 30., then that means the entire New Testament was completed within 70 years.

Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability | CARM.org

And where are these original documents?

Also, writing about something you experienced and witnessed 30-60 years later has been shown to be unreliable.

What do you mean by internally consistent? The Harry Potter series is internally consistent.

 

[SPF]

And where are these original documents?

I don’t recall commenting on original documents.

Also, writing about something you experienced and witnessed 30-60 years later has been shown to be unreliable.

You also have to take into account the oral nature of the culture at the time. You can’t imagine that it was like 2020 America.

Many Jews had memorized the entirety of the OT. That’s virtually unheard of today.

And when the epistles were written, they weren’t written about things they experienced years later. Your critique (weak as it is) applies at best to only the first 4 books of the NT.

What do you mean by internally consistent?

It means that when you compare manuscripts against themselves.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

We have copies of the originals that are considered within a very short time of the events. The documents that we have and the other source church documents confirm they believed the authors were known to have been present at the time of the events.

The earliest gospel fragment we have is around 125-150, the first complete copy of a NT book is around 180-200 and the first complete NT is around 400.

You are making a claim.

Yes, and I supported my claim.

So let's take one of these, the Laws of Logic. How do you explain the Laws of Logic in a purely materialistic view?

I don't. I presuppose that they exist. I can demonstrate that the laws of logic are the best tool to find truth. Why they exist I don't know. Probably a emergent property of the universe that exists.

What is supernatural? There are many things labeled as such but what really defines it?

I am talking about the miracles claimed in the bible.

Is that your take on that? I'm just telling you that God says it happens and you are typically a representative of that example.

Saying to someone "you were never a real christian" in response to a question is a logical fallacy.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I don’t recall commenting on original documents.

Ok, but without the original documents we cannot know what they said.

You also have to take into account the oral nature of the culture at the time. You can’t imagine that it was like 2020 America.

Many Jews had memorized the entirety of the OT. That’s virtually unheard of today.

It does not follow that since they memorized the OT that they could remember accurately what happened 30-60 years ago.

And when the epistles were written, they weren’t written about things they experienced years later. Your critique (weak as it is) applies at best to only the first 4 books of the NT.

The most important 4 books.

It means that when you compare manuscripts against themselves.

How is this good evidence for their accuracy? Like I said the Harry Potter series in internally consistent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The earliest gospel fragment we have is around 125-150, the first complete copy of a NT book is around 180-200 and the first complete NT is around 400.

Very true. Do you equally doubt the copies of Pliny the Elder?

Yes, and I supported my claim.

Your claim is that due to not having the original writings of the authors of the New Testament it disqualifies them as witnesses. Yet it is agreed by Historians that the authors wrote within their lifetimes giving valid reasons to claim this. What evidence do you have that would support your claim?

I don't. I presuppose that they exist. I can demonstrate that the laws of logic are the best tool to find truth. Why they exist I don't know. Probably a emergent property of the universe that exists.

So you believe that the universe is intelligent?

I am talking about the miracles claimed in the bible.

Should Jesus be who He claims to be, would it be supernatural for those miracles to occur?

Saying to someone "you were never a real christian" in response to a question is a logical fallacy.

That is not being said, it says that you were a Christian and fell away from being a Christian. Very logical.