What if you seek and don't find?

[Oncedeceived]

Um I am not sure this is true. There are questions surrounding the authorship of Homer and Shakespeare two name two off the top of my head.

True. Yet, most think Homer wrote one when he was young and the other when he was old to account for the style differences. Shakespeare I've not researched at all.

As far as numbers of manuscripts do you think that more copies tells us something about how likely a source is to be true?

It goes to reliability. Almost all if not all of the New Testament could be written by Church documents alone. It tells us that people who lived at the time, knowing the events discussed and many who probably were eyewitnesses to the events would know if the documents were accurate or not and whether or not the authors knew of which they spoke.

On your response about the age of an idea, I agree that we can often determine if an idea predates another idea. Does this necessarily mean that the earlier idea is more likely to be true? How would an early idea like a geocentric universe fit into this model of using age of a belief to determine its veracity?

Are you always so black and white? I'm not painting everything with the same brush.

 

[Athée]

True. Yet, most think Homer wrote one when he was young and the other when he was old to account for the style differences. Shakespeare I've not researched at all.

It goes to reliability. Almost all if not all of the New Testament could be written by Church documents alone. It tells us that people who lived at the time, knowing the events discussed and many who probably were eyewitnesses to the events would know if the documents were accurate or not and whether or not the authors knew of which they spoke.

Are you always so black and white? I'm not painting everything with the same brush.

So regarding reliability are you saying that the more manuscripts there are the more likely it is to be true? Since the printing press there are way more copies of documents around but I do think see how that makes the original more likely to be true.
As far as the age I had a chuckle there since I was specifically trying to undermine the black and white idea that older = more likely true So I agree with you that this is not always a good way of determining truth.
This line of questions began initially with trying to determine how reliable experiences are as indicators that a belief is true. We had your experience that resulted in your confidence level being 100 and we had a hypothetical Muslim the had an experience that resulted in the same 100 mark. How does this (excellent) conversation about validating ancient texts connect to the dilemma we started with of trying to discover together which experience constitutes better support for the 100 percent belief that it caused?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So regarding reliability are you saying that the more manuscripts there are the more likely it is to be true? Since the printing press there are way more copies of documents around but I do think see how that makes the original more likely to be true.

The more documents that there are the more that shows the accuracy of the copies to one another and supports accuracy towards what the original was. If you will remember you claimed that an issue for you was not knowing who the authors were, or whether or not they were actual eyewitnesses. The issue of truth was not in your response. Why do you bring it in here then?

As far as the age I had a chuckle there since I was specifically trying to undermine the black and white idea that older = more likely true So I agree with you that this is not always a good way of determining truth.

It is however a good point towards finding the truth.

This line of questions began initially with trying to determine how reliable experiences are as indicators that a belief is true. We had your experience that resulted in your confidence level being 100 and we had a hypothetical Muslim the had an experience that resulted in the same 100 mark. How does this (excellent) conversation about validating ancient texts connect to the dilemma we started with of trying to discover together which experience constitutes better support for the 100 percent belief that it caused?

Did you forget that you answered a question with you saying you had a problem with not knowing who wrote the NT and whether or not they were really eyewitnesses. Remember?

 

[Athée]

The more documents that there are the more that shows the accuracy of the copies to one another and supports accuracy towards what the original was. If you will remember you claimed that an issue for you was not knowing who the authors were, or whether or not they were actual eyewitnesses. The issue of truth was not in your response. Why do you bring it in here then?
It is however a good point towards finding the truth.


Did you forget that you answered a question with you saying you had a problem with not knowing who wrote the NT and whether or not they were really eyewitnesses. Remember?

I believe I did mention that I am not great at keeping track of too many lines of inquiry at a time fair points though. You pointed out that more documents doesn't say anything about the truth if the original just that we can be more confident that the current text is an accurate copy of the original. I agree. I would likewise wonder how the number of copies bears on the authorship of the originals,what relationship do you see there? And similarly how does the number or accuracy of the copies connect with this idea of eye witnesses.

If a method like age (which idea came first) sometimes works to determine if an idea is true and sometimes does not can we really say that it is a reliable method? When you say sometimes it works I think what you are saying (and correct me of I am getting you wrong) is that sometimes an older idea can be more correct than a newer idea but the age of an idea doesn't determine if it is true or not, instead age can be used to differentiate similar ideas, but the veracity of those ideas is determined in other ways. Am I close?

Finally let's try to keep that other thread of thought going as well How would you determine who was more correct?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I believe I did mention that I am not great at keeping track of too many lines of inquiry at a time fair points though.

So you did.

You pointed out that more documents doesn't say anything about the truth if the original just that we can be more confident that the current text is an accurate copy of the original. I agree. I would likewise wonder how the number of copies bears on the authorship of the originals,what relationship do you see there? And similarly how does the number or accuracy of the copies connect with this idea of eye witnesses.

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.

If a method like age (which idea came first) sometimes works to determine if an idea is true and sometimes does not can we really say that it is a reliable method?

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.

When you say sometimes it works I think what you are saying (and correct me of I am getting you wrong) is that sometimes an older idea can be more correct than a newer idea but the age of an idea doesn't determine if it is true or not, instead age can be used to differentiate sitar ideas but the veracity of those ideas is determined in other ways. Am I close?

It all works together.

Finally let's try to keep that other thread of thought going as well How would you determine who was more correct?

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. 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. 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.

 

[Athée]

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.

How would you respond if that Muslim says: I know my experience won't convince you but because I already know that Allah is the one true God it eliminates Yahweh because I hold the truth?


Sorry I messed that post up. I inserted my comments into the body of your text. If you click to expand you will see the rest of my responses embedded between your paragraphs.
Quick question how do you manage to cut my posts into sections and respond to a bit of it at a time within the one post?
(newbie here obviously

 

[Oncedeceived]

How would you respond if that Muslim says: I know my experience won't convince you but because I already know that Allah is the one true God it eliminates Yahweh because I hold the truth?


Sorry I messed that post up. I inserted my comments into the body of your text. If you click to expand you will see the rest of my responses embedded between your paragraphs.
Quick question how do you manage to cut my posts into sections and respond to a bit of it at a time within the one post?
(newbie here obviously

Ok, I've got to leave for a bit. I will have to get to this when I return. I'll explain how I do the quotes...it used to be easy, you could just highlight what you wanted to quote and hit a quote button but we don't have that anymore.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is really interesting. So sticking with the hypothetical....in the absence of those other things how would you describe what the holy spirit is?

The Holy Spirit is God.

The Third Person of the Godhead.

Made up of Unobtainium.

 

[Athée]

The Holy Spirit is God.

The Third Person of the Godhead.

Made up of Unobtainium.

Like the unobtainium bit
So are you saying that in the absence of all those other elements of Christianity, with just the inner work of the holy spirit you would be able to work out that it is one of three persons of a single God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How would you respond if that Muslim says: I know my experience won't convince you but because I already know that Allah is the one true God it eliminates Yahweh because I hold the truth?

I would then go about showing why the God of the Bible is the one true God. Depending on the circumstances of said statement.

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?

What? Not following.

Kvothe:

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...

Good.



It all works together.

Kvothe:

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?

Saying there is "still a personal relationship in prayer" and actually having one is the problem. You are going to the hypothetical which is not in keeping with what Islam teaches.

Kvothe:

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?

Sorry that I was so vague. The reason I know it was God was because I asked Him to do it. They were unaware I had asked.

Sorry I messed that post up. I inserted my comments into the body of your text. If you click to expand you will see the rest of my responses embedded between your paragraphs.
Quick question how do you manage to cut my posts into sections and respond to a bit of it at a time within the one post?
(newbie here obviously

Look at the ones that have quotes around them. They all have a right bracket and the word quote and a left bracket before the post beings and at the end it is the bracket a slash and the word quote and the other bracket. You type the first where you want your quote to start and do the slash one at the end where you want the quote to end. Hope that makes sense.

 

[AV1611VET]

Like the unobtainium bit

Thanks!

Some refer to it as Element 404.

QV please: 4

So are you saying that in the absence of all those other elements of Christianity, with just the inner work of the holy spirit you would be able to work out that it is one of three persons of a single God?

I doubt it.

God reveals Himself to us in two ways:

1. General Revelation = nature
2. Special Revelation = the Bible

QV Psalm 19, which speaks of both methods.

 

[Athée]

I would then go about showing why the God of the Bible is the one true God. Depending on the circumstances of said statement.

So it seems like you would agree that people of different beliefs can have these experiences but that there needs to be something more than the experience (depending on what it is I guess ) for it to justify a 100 confidence rating in the belief. Yes?

Saying there is "still a personal relationship in prayer" and actually having one is the problem. You are going to the hypothetical which is not in keeping with what Islam teaches

I think we will just have to disagree a out this for now. I will admit that I am not nearly as familiar with other religions and so I will look into this claim a bit more. To help me do that could you describe what elements of a Christian experience specifically could it be experienced by a Muslim, Hindu, Jew(?) etc.

Sorry that I was so vague. The reason I know it was God was because I asked Him to do it. They were unaware I had asked.

That is pretty cool! Was it a "God if you are real... Do this thing." moment? Wow I have so many questions..
Do you think you could do that consistently? How can you be sure that if a spiritual being did do this thing on your behalf that it was the Christian God? How do you explain similar stories from people who believe in other gods?

As for your explanation... I guess we will see as soon as I hit "post reply"

Ta-da! Thanks for the help

 

[Athée]

Thanks!

Some refer to it as Element 404.

QV please: 4I doubt it.

God reveals Himself to us in two ways:

1. General Revelation = nature
2. Special Revelation = the Bible

QV Psalm 19, which speaks of both methods.

I think I see your point. Are you saying that you would beess certain of the specifics (without the Bible) but you won't still keep in just from the spirit that God exists and would know what he wants from you from the law written on your heart and would like own all his attributes as they are clearly seen in creation?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So it seems like you would agree that people of different beliefs can have these experiences but that there needs to be something more than the experience (depending on what it is I guess ) for it to justify a 100 confidence rating in the belief. Yes?

Where did you get that? No. I don't believe that people of different beliefs can have a personal relationship with God other than Jews. (God of the Bible)

I think we will just have to disagree a out this for now. I will admit that I am not nearly as familiar with other religions and so I will look into this claim a bit more. To help me do that could you describe what elements of a Christian experience specifically could it be experienced by a Muslim, Hindu, Jew(?) etc.

The Jew worships the same God as the Christian but their relationship is somewhat different. The Muslim and Hindu are miles apart.

That is pretty cool! Was it a "God if you are real... Do this thing." moment?

No, it was about answering in an affirmative about a prayer.

Wow I have so many questions..

ok.

Do you think you could do that consistently?

Not in the same way no. God is not a trick pony. He is the Almighty Creator of this Universe. I don't DO anything except open myself to Him.

How can you be sure that if a spiritual being did do this thing on your behalf that it was the Christian God? How do you explain similar stories from people who believe in other gods?

God revealed Who He was before this happened. I don't think others have similar stories, the god or gods they pray to have no effect on the natural world.

As for your explanation... I guess we will see as soon as I hit "post reply"

Ta-da! Thanks for the help

Good job! Your welcome.

 

[Athée]

Where did you get that? No. I don't believe that people of different beliefs can have a personal relationship with God other than Jews. (God of the Bible)

Right that makes sense from within your world view. What I was saying is that people of different religions have experiences that they believe demonstrate the realness of their God and that there seems to be no qualitative difference between their experiences and yours. Evidently you believe they are mistaken about their experiences which is of course your prerogative just as it is theirs to believe that you are mistaken about yours.

The Jew worships the same God as the Christian but their relationship is somewhat different. The Muslim and Hindu are miles apart.

as I said I will look into this but it would be helpful to know exactly what you mean in the context of our discussion. We were talking about experiences of the divine so it would help me to know what elements of experience you are saying are entirely unique to Christianity.

No, it was about answering in an affirmative about a prayer.

Also very cool and from what you have said it sounds like it was a pretty immediate answer to prayer which is always pretty cool.

God revealed Who He was before this happened. I don't think others have similar stories, the god or gods they pray to have no effect on the natural world.

Now here we definitely disagree I have had people from other beliefs tell me about incredible things that have happened to them, things they have prayed for and had happen that are truly amazing. People who believe in other gods absolutely do have these experiences as well, so how do you account for this?

 

[Davian]

To be honest, I don't quite understand your question.

Neither do I care to.

Indeed, particularly if you would have to acknowledge that your theology was built on the [demonstrably false] premise that belief is a conscious choice.

I asked someone if he gave up the following benefits:

1. once enlightened
2. tasted of the heavenly gift
3. made a partaker of the Holy Ghost
4. tasted the good word of God
5. tasted the powers of the world to come

... to become an atheist because of science.

It's not a trick question -- and the answer is either YES or NO.

Is that alright with you?

Sure. Load your questions however you like.

 

[Davian]

He was asking me personally.

This is an open forum.

I was just calling out the potential for a false dichotomy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right that makes sense from within your world view. What I was saying is that people of different religions have experiences that they believe demonstrate the realness of their God and that there seems to be no qualitative difference between their experiences and yours. Evidently you believe they are mistaken about their experiences which is of course your prerogative just as it is theirs to believe that you are mistaken about yours.

What you believe is no qualitative difference between our experiences is really not something you could quantify yourself...correct? I don't think that a Muslim would agree with your assumptions. They do believe that Allah is the only god and that they of course are right in their beliefs, but they would correct your assumption that they have personal interaction with Allah. In that alone they do not have the same experiences.

as I said I will look into this but it would be helpful to know exactly what you mean in the context of our discussion. We were talking about experiences of the divine so it would help me to know what elements of experience you are saying are entirely unique to Christianity.

I've explained they do not have a personal interaction with God Himself.

Also very cool and from what you have said it sounds like it was a pretty immediate answer to prayer which is always pretty cool.

What do you mean by "which is always pretty cool"?

Now here we definitely disagree I have had people from other beliefs tell me about incredible things that have happened to them, things they have prayed for and had happen that are truly amazing. People who believe in other gods absolutely do have these experiences as well, so how do you account for this?

It was God's choice. I know that God worked in my life before I knew His identity. The same could happen to others.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is an open forum.

I was just calling out the potential for a false dichotomy.

Ok.

 

[Athée]

I don't think that a Muslim would agree with your assumptions. They do believe that Allah is the only god and that they of course are right in their beliefs, but they would correct your assumption that they have personal interaction with Allah. In that alone they do not have the same experiences.

I understand you here as saying that they are allowed to have their beliefs not that you think they are correct that Allah is the one true God I think maybe where we are missing each other a bit is this idea of personal interaction. I would say that when a Muslim reads the Quran and expenses the presence of Allah who speaks into her life that day that she is having a personal interaction with Allah. If a Muslim about to be in a horrific car accident prays to Allah and feels a peace come over her and walks away from the wreck with only a few bruises, that she has had a personal interaction with Allah. I have met Muslims who have shared these specific stories with me and used them as evidence that they are believe g I the true God. Would you not count these as personal interactions? If not could you help me better understand what you mean by personal interaction... Thanks

What do you mean by "which is always pretty cool"?

Just that it is great when things work out the way we want them to. It wasn't really meant as an insight, more just a response to your experience which I think is really interesting. Maybe cool is too casual a word for describing an experience of asking the creator of the universe for a favour and having it granted in that moment. Didn't mean to be flippant so my apologies if that caused offense.

It was God's choice. I know that God worked in my life before I knew His identity. The same could happen to others.

So I am not sure how this addresses the issue of people who believe in other gods reporting very similar stories to Christians. You were saying that their gods can have no impact on our world because they are false/not real and yet Muslims, Hindu's, Jo's, Mormons etc all report stories where their specific God does something. How do we distinguished your evidence from theirs? How can we know that what your reporting is actual truth, while their stories are not? What mechanism do you use to determine that the JW who's child is cured of cancer when prayed for is just a coincidence but the Christian child who gets healed is an act of the true God?

Yay it's the weekend!