The believer seems to know god better than he knows himself

[Drich]

Because it jives with the instruction/the map

That doesn't answer the question.  

It does answer the question through the frame work of the practical analogy I provided, while protecting the statement from your attempt to identify a circular argument.

Your evidence also jives with natural explanations having nothing to do with God, most of which are considerably more probable than your preferred explanation.

This presupposed that God only works supernaturally. granted I have shared several supernatural encounters when the context of the meetings are considered, but this in no way means God can not work through nature. A smart person would recognise God is the God of the natural universe and would create it in such a way, so nature would compliment His want and will rather than opposing nature having to work through nature supernaturally.

 

 Choosing to believe a less likely explanation over a more likely one is an irrational procedure, and thus doesn't count as a method of verification.

It's like you are talk about some one else's account...

I was judge and sent to Hell not knowing of any of the biblical procedure, what heaven offered what Hell was about. and subsequently over the course of my studies verified my experience. The Hell I experienced was so different from the one I use to think of (the one most of you think of) I almost dismissed the whole experience, the only reason I didn't was because of how real and tactile everything was. That memory plays in my mind like any other event would, not like a dream. If this was a natural dream then how could I possible know of the true biblically described Hell if the only version of Hell I knew was the simpsons adaptation of dante' inferno? How would I know the detail contain in the bible that describes judgement and the word that Christ used to condemn me if I never before then picked up a bible? again the format was natural but the content wasn't. You are so intellectually dishonest you seek to separate content from the vehicle in which it the message was delivered?

Now if the God of the bible never used a dream or vision as a way of God directly communicating nor if the bible did not promise an increase of dreams and visions as the end draws near then your argument would be valid. as such Everything I experienced is or can be directly validated by scripture.. mind you this again was experienced by me years before i ever picked up a bible to study it.

 Regardless, you've resorted to arguing in a circle as I said you would.

 Empty conjecture. If a map brings you to your destination then the map or in this case the bible is vetted. The bible promises salvation and direct contact with the Holy Spirit. I followed the directions and found what I have been promised. Hence the bible is vetted.

I asked you how you know the word of God, you answered the bible.

No i answered I experienced it
being cast into Hell, my judgement by Christ all taught me what atonement is all about. which was nothing like anything I've ever heard from a church I've ever been in.

 

I asked you how you know that what the bible led you to is God, you answer the bible.

This part is true. so how do I vet my experience? How do I know it was Christ who judge me and Hell is where I was sent? because it is exactly like what is described in the bible. which means, the being I am dealing with is the same God who wrote/inspired the bible. God the Spirit.

 Either you're thinking irrationally, or you're reasoning in a circle.  Perhaps I should have been more precise and said, "That leads to either a circular argument, or other equally faulty argument."  Hardly much difference.

at best you are mistaken at worst you are falsifying my efforts in an attempt to draw a circle where one can not exist. unless.. of course you change key elements of my testimony (as you did and I just corrected) intentionally.

[possibletarian]

Sign me up for the proof too.

[Angrboda]

That doesn't answer the question.  

It does answer the question through the frame work of the practical analogy I provided, while protecting the statement from your attempt to identify a circular argument.

Really? So vetting the contents of the bible by appealing to the bible isn't circular? Honestly, I don't know why I even bother talking to you anymore.

Your evidence also jives with natural explanations having nothing to do with God, most of which are considerably more probable than your preferred explanation.

This presupposed that God only works supernaturally. granted I have shared several supernatural encounters when the context of the meetings are considered, but this in no way means God can not work through nature. A smart person would recognise God is the God of the natural universe and would create it in such a way, so nature would compliment His want and will rather than opposing nature having to work through nature supernaturally.

No, it doesn't. That's a straw man. I only claimed that there were natural explanations that were more probable than the explanation that God intervened in the cases cited. If you're not claiming that God intervened in those cases, then citing them does not in any way vet that they are any kind of evidence of what is and is not the word or voice of God. If all you're claiming is that some natural events happened to you, then I don't see how that is relevant. If on the other hand, you're claiming that all natural events are evidence of God's intervention, then I have to ask how you determine that. You seem to be claiming that all events are, essentially, supernaturally caused (God's powers, even if enacted through nature, are ultimately supernatural, as that's how he influences nature). I have to ask how you know this?

 

 Choosing to believe a less likely explanation over a more likely one is an irrational procedure, and thus doesn't count as a method of verification.

It's like you are talk about some one else's account...

I was judge and sent to Hell not knowing of any of the biblical procedure, what heaven offered what Hell was about. and subsequently over the course of my studies verified my experience. The Hell I experienced was so different from the one I use to think of (the one most of you think of) I almost dismissed the whole experience, the only reason I didn't was because of how real and tactile everything was. That memory plays in my mind like any other event would, not like a dream. If this was a natural dream then how could I possible know of the true biblically described Hell if the only version of Hell I knew was the simpsons adaptation of dante' inferno? How would I know the detail contain in the bible that describes judgement and the word that Christ used to condemn me if I never before then picked up a bible? again the format was natural but the content wasn't. You are so intellectually dishonest you seek to separate content from the vehicle in which it the message was delivered?

Now if the God of the bible never used a dream or vision as a way of God directly communicating nor if the bible did not promise an increase of dreams and visions as the end draws near then your argument would be valid. as such Everything I experienced is or can be directly validated by scripture.. mind you this again was experienced by me years before i ever picked up a bible to study it.

Are you trying to suggest your dream was prophetic? If so, I have to again ask how you know that what you foresaw is factually true. Your answer here appears to be that it is vetted by the biblical accounts of hell. However, since the question on the table is how do you vet the bible, vetting the bible with recourse to the bible is indeed circular. Or are you saying that you have evidence independent of the bible that shows what hell is like? If so, you've yet to present it.

 Regardless, you've resorted to arguing in a circle as I said you would.

 Empty conjecture. If a map brings you to your destination then the map or in this case the bible is vetted. The bible promises salvation and direct contact with the Holy Spirit. I followed the directions and found what I have been promised. Hence the bible is vetted.

Oh bollocks, Drich. You believe that you have found God, but the only evidence you've appealed to in order to justify your conclusion is the very text whose validity is in doubt. It's as if you have a map giving instructions for getting to Kansas City. Upon arriving where the map directed you to go, you declare that you've found Kansas City. A skeptical observer, noting that you're actually in Michigan asks how you know this is Kansas City, and your answer is that the map says it is. That's as circular as the day is long. You're using the map to justify your belief that the map is correct. That's circular, and logically vacuous.

I asked you how you know the word of God, you answered the bible.

No i answered I experienced it
being cast into Hell, my judgement by Christ all taught me what atonement is all about. which was nothing like anything I've ever heard from a church I've ever been in.

No, your entire response to my question was, "Because it jives with the instruction/the map." Your dream is not in any sense a set of instructions, so either you borked your own analogy and misled me or you flat out lied about the contents of your response.

First, I don't believe you for two reasons. First, annhilationism is a popular doctrine in many modern churches, so your claiming that you weren't exposed to the doctrine because you didn't read about it is pretty hollow. Second, there is evidence for both the annhilationist's perspective and the fire and brimstone view in the bible. That, having been primed by your dream you choose to focus on one set of evidence rather than the other is not evidence of anything out of the ordinary. I don't need God to explain why, after having such a dream, you've chosen to select one set of evidence rather than the other. If you had instead had a Dante'esque dream of fire and brimstone, you'd have also found confirmation for your dream. You would have found confirmation either way, so the bible confirming your dream is an unremarkable fact as there is no way that you could have gone wrong. In addition, I have to ask how this addresses the larger question of how to tell what is and isn't from God. Are we dependent on the prophet Drich having a dream every time we need an answer from God, or are we instead being asked to depend on the bible, and the dream is being used as evidence for the bible?

The more relevant question however, like my previous question, is how do you know that your dream was an accurate depiction of hell? Again, you're trying to vet the bible by citing your dream, so you can't appeal to the bible to vet your dream, as that would be circular. What evidence do you have that you indeed dreamed of hell?
 

I asked you how you know that what the bible led you to is God, you answer the bible.

This part is true. so how do I vet my experience? How do I know it was Christ who judge me and Hell is where I was sent? because it is exactly like what is described in the bible. which means, the being I am dealing with is the same God who wrote/inspired the bible. God the Spirit.

So, despite your claiming just a second ago that you didn't try to vet the bible with the bible, now you're saying that you did in fact try to vet the bible with the bible? How is that anything but an obvious and transparent lie, one or the other.
Regardless, you're again trying to vet something with recourse to the bible, so you have indeed come full circle, despite having made a U-turn to avoid the fatal conclusion. The entire argument here was how do you know what is and isn't truly God, and we keep coming back to the bible through various routes. If you had a way to vet the bible itself independent of the bible, that would be fine, but you don't, and every appeal you make seems to lead back to the bible which is the very evidence whose validity is in question, so you can't appeal to it to answer that question. Do you have, a) independent confirmation of the bible, or, b) independent confirmation of God's words not dependent on the bible?

 Either you're thinking irrationally, or you're reasoning in a circle.  Perhaps I should have been more precise and said, "That leads to either a circular argument, or other equally faulty argument."  Hardly much difference.

at best you are mistaken at worst you are falsifying my efforts in an attempt to draw a circle where one can not exist. unless.. of course you change key elements of my testimony (as you did and I just corrected) intentionally.

No, I did not. You shifted the discussion from the "map" to the question of your dream. I'm not responsible for you changing the subject after I have answered your post. You claimed a bunch of stuff, and then you focused on your map-destination argument. If you had wanted to vet the bible with your dream instead, then what was this run around about the map? Regardless, since both the map argument and the dream argument ultimately seem to derive their justification from the bible -- which is where we began -- you have in both cases argued in a circle with no help from yours truly.

[Angrboda]

In the post above, I used the word annihilationist to mean the doctrine that hell simply consists in separation from God. That was the wrong word, and I meant the latter rather than the former.