So you did.
I didn't say that they don't say anything about the truth, it seems more reasonable to assume that since these documents were being passed around, sent to other churches during the life time of those who were eyewitnesses give a great credibility towards the truth of those documents. The number of copies shows that there was great care in keeping accurate copies, if they are all copied carefully and say the same thing we know that care was taken to preserve the message.
So this makes more sense to me. You are saying that it is not the number of manuscripts nor the number of copies that connects to this idea or the gospels being eye witness accounts but rather that they were in circulation during the life time of other possible eye witnesses. Is that right?
There you go with your black and white thinking again.
It all depends. You have to look at what is being determined by doing so.
I think you make a good point the more I think about it. I would say generally the age of an idea has almost no bearing on its likelihood of veracity, however if an idea is necessarily tied to a temporal event it seems reasonable than in at least some cased the closet the idea is to the source of that event the more likely that it is an accurate reflection of the event. Hmmm I will think more about this one...
It all works together.
How I would determine who was more correct is just exactly how I explained to you how I determine it. The Q'uran, the Islamic faith makes it quite clear that the only way they experience Allah is through the reading of the Q'uran, praying and obeying. Allah in accordance with the faith does not interact personally with the follower.
I know Muslims who would disagree but let's say this is the case, there is still a personal relationship in prayer and perhaps they have an experience while they are praying that convinces them that law is the one true God. In your opinion does that experience that they have had justify the 100 confidence they have that Allah is true? Is thier experience as valid as yours even though it leads them to a different God?
That being said, when an experience is experienced by others at the same time but not understood as a God thing by the others it goes a long way towards it being an act that was not imagined as so many like to push off things like this. The confirmation and revelation that I have experience has provided 100% certainty that God exists and is the Christian God.
So I am trying to read between the lines here a d may well get it totally wrong... It seems like you are saying that events that are Co firmed as having happened by both believers and the nonbelievers present make it much more likely that the event occurred. However, I wonder what this has to do with actually knowing the event was caused by God. If all the non believers agree that the event happened but don't see any reason to attribute it to God, how have you determined that they are incorrect? Also the way this was written implies that your experience was of this type where it was witnessed by a mixed group ( believers and non) I don't want to pry since you are reluctant to share details (which is fine
but if that is the case why do you think the others didn't think God had just shown up, why were they not convinced they way you were?
Now I don't expect you to be convinced by my certainty anymore than you are with anyone's experiences. However, you asked and that is how I am so certain. Now if I know that God exists and is the Christian God, I know that eliminates Allah as being the truth because I hold the truth.