Prove that God exists

[Final-Fan]

padib said:

sapphi_snake said:

padib said:

Points 1-3: The fact that the manuscripts haven't changed much since the 1st century (I corrected here) is that it proves their closeness to the events described and historically known from external sources. The closer the date written, the more reliable the described events. Next, you have the authenticity argument. One could claim they changed over time. However if we have the earliest versions, that claim goes to water. Again, it's only supporting evidence. I know you understand what I mean. For point 2 see my reply to Sapphi. Again, none of these in and of themselves prove anything. They are only substance to a greater claim so as to provide robustness against other counter arguments (I've provided a few examples here and in my post to sapphi).

Point 4: I'm really glad you get this one.

Point 5: I'd rather leave this out of the debate, but if it helps clarify take a look at my post on doubt and the importance given to facts. Sadly alot of it is bound to human bias and there's not that can be done about it. That's why it's important to get external sources alot of the times so as to provide explanations that are clear of doubt. To be frank I'm ready to retract this point if needed. I just wanted to mention that what is an important argument for one person may not have value to another and that's due to many things. For instance, point 4 above you get, but another person might not. The reasonable nature of a person is very subjective sadly. What one person considers reasonable may not be what I consider reasonable. I consider reasonable that you understood point 4 above and are waiting for facts. Another person may not have found that reasonable. What can cause that I don't know denial or bias, but sadly we encounter it. Anyway I feel I'm in shaky water here so I'll drop point 5 for the sake of progression. 

Regarding points 1-3, the earlies surviving copies of the gospels are from the 4th century, so no one really knows how the original gospels looked like, and if they changed over time. So this argument falls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Dating

No, you misread the article sapphi.

"Because the earliest surviving complete copies of the gospels date to the 4th century and because only fragments and quotations exist before that, scholars use higher criticism to propose likely ranges of dates for the original gospel autographs."

Don't just google, personalize! You're like "Google: Gospel dating". You get to the paragraph where they try to establish the date the gospels were written and you use that as the paragraph for the dates of the latest copies. That's kinda funny I expect better.

Anyway, here is a better link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#New_Testament_manuscripts

I believe the earliest one is from 125AD, potentially extending back to before 100AD. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rylands_Library_Papyrus_P52

And even then, wow you threw all three points down the tube only by supposedly discrediting the authenticity argument (point 1). A little in a hurry to disprove, I feel.

Just because one tiny little fragment from c. 100-150 AD (which is the 2nd century BTW) didn't change, doesn't mean that none of it changed.  To make the claim that it's all the same, you have to have a copy of MOST of the book from whatever time period.  That's why he said the 4th century.  70-120 years after the events took place is also plenty of time for distortion of events or for mythology to spring up. 

But those 3 points make more sense if they weren't meant as positive arguments for your position but rather preemptive counterarguments for criticism you felt was incoming.  However that does mean that your only remaining positive argument is point 4. 

4.  I wasn't agreeing with you, just agreeing that it's reasonable for there to be a delay while you check with your source. 

5.  OK, dropped.