A question for atheists . . .

[37818]

Alternatively, given an infinite past there can be a purple giraffe with carborundum testicles and inbuilt microwave antennae. Why not?

Why would an infinite past be needed for that, if a finite past could allow it?

You haven't provided any real evidence. Just arguments that you don't even accept yourself when used for anything other than "god".

The evidence I am referring to is evidence you yourself can have.

Do you accept the correspondence theory of truth?
Do you agree that what is actually true is true apart from one's belief as to what is true?
Do you accept the concept that truth is absolute?
Do you understand conclutions drawn from inductive reasoning is not always true?
Do you understand how we know a thing is true comes before knowing something is true?

What I am am proposing is you can actually know from God for yourself.

Well what do you want to do?

[37818]

How do you know god?

By believing in Him according to His will, He did the rest.

Does he speak to you?

No.

If so, how do you know its god?

God had never spoken to me by any voice.

[37818]

And children "know" there's a Santa Claus, as every "genuine" child does.

. . . Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. . . . - Jesus of Nazareth

Oh well, if Isaiah says so......

Well, Isaiah is reported to have written what God had spoken to him.

[Roy]

You haven't provided any real evidence. Just arguments that you don't even accept yourself when used for anything other than "god".

The evidence I am referring to is evidence you yourself can have.

Do you accept the correspondence theory of truth?
Do you agree that what is actually true is true apart from one's belief as to what is true?
Do you accept the concept that truth is absolute?
Do you understand conclutions drawn from inductive reasoning is not always true?
Do you understand how we know a thing is true comes before knowing something is true?

What I am am proposing is you can actually know from God for yourself.

Well what do you want to do?

I want to stop wasting time. Yet again you claim to have evidence of 'God', but you still haven't actually produced any.

[shunyadragon]

Why would an infinite past be needed for that, if a finite past could allow it?


The evidence I am referring to is evidence you yourself can have.

Do you accept the correspondence theory of truth?

The claim of correspondence of truth is problematic, because vagueness and circularity is a problem unless you can define the objective corresponding truth to judge its degree of correspondence against. When communicating between different world views which consider truth to correspond to different standards, or accompanying theory of the world. What corresponding standard of truth do you believe in that would not be circular to your belief in truth that would not be circular.

The Naturalist that proposes simply that the correspondence of truth of nature as it is based on the objective evidence and nothing else. Any one else may test this correspondence of truth with the scientific methods of Naturalism.

Do you agree that what is actually true is true apart from one's belief as to what is true?

True, but what standard would you propose correspondence of truth would you use to judge what is true beyond what one believes?

Do you accept the concept that truth is absolute?

Yes, this is no problem. If there is no God(s) the absolute is the absolute nature of our eternal physical existence is the basis of absolute truth. It God(s) exist than, of course, than absolute truth rests with God(s). Either way absolute truth does not reside with fallible human knowledge.

Do you understand conclusions drawn from inductive reasoning is not always true?

Of course, neither is deductive reasoning that is why knowledge and conclusion change and evolve over time.
Do you understand how we know a thing is true comes before knowing something is true?

What I am am proposing is you can actually know from God for yourself.

Well what do you want to do?

Not an adequate proposal based on your argument so far. Your claim of actually knowing God remains anecdotal and not based on a common correspondence of truth that can result in an adequate argument.

[37818]

I want to stop wasting time. Yet again you claim to have evidence of 'God', but you still haven't actually produced any.

What I am claiming, God himself will provide you with personal evidence. But God is not going to force it on you. He knows how you think. I don't.

[JimL]

By believing in Him according to His will, He did the rest.

Well, exactly what did God do to let you know?

No.

So, how did god communicate to you knowledge of his existence?

God had never spoken to me by any voice.

Telling me what god didn't do to make himself known to you doesn't explain how he did make himself known to you. Shall I assume you have no answer to that?

[Tassman]

What I am claiming, God himself will provide you with personal evidence. But God is not going to force it on you. He knows how you think. I don't.

Gods have always done that, regardless of which god...it's part of their job description.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Gods have always done that, regardless of which god...it's part of their job description.

Nah, bro. Odin and Loki are totally cool with people not knowing who they are. Makes it easier to be tricky.

[Doug Shaver]

What I am claiming, God himself will provide you with personal evidence.

Yes, that is your claim. Why should I believe it?

[Tassman]

Nah, bro. Odin and Loki are totally cool with people not knowing who they are. Makes it easier to be tricky.

The Norse gods are a better class of god in every way.

[Roy]

What I am claiming, God himself will provide you with personal evidence. But God is not going to force it on you. He knows how you think. I don't.

You actually claimed "I have evidence for God. And it is evidence available to anyone." But that's not true. You don't have evidence that is available to anyone, you (supposedly) have evidence that is only available to you. You are assuming that others can obtain equivalent evidence, but you won't say what that evidence is, or how to obtain it.

You have nothing but empty claims, empty assertions, and empty arguments that you yourself reject:

Shub-Niggurath himself will provide you with personal evidence. But Shub-Niggurath is not going to force it on you.

Is that sufficient for you to accept that Shub-Niggurath exists? If it isn't, why should anyone take any notice of your claim about God?

[37818]

You know that we don't believe that claim, right? Before we'll be convinced that you actually know God, you'll have to convince us that God exists.

You really do not get it? The only reason I am not an atheist is that I know God. And I cannot honestly say that I do not. And the cause of me knowing God is the gospel of the wholly unmerited salvation in trusting in God's Christ.

The proving God exists as such is a lie. Existence, uncaused existence needs no proof, needs no God! Unless uncaused existence is the very identity of God, there is none.

Well, no. The Tetragrammaton doesn't have a clear meaning. While it is quite likely derived from a Hebrew verb meaning "to be," it's a bit of a stretch to translate it as "existent," and it is completely beyond the linguistic evidence to translate it as "self existent."

My very first Bible concordence gives God's name to mean "the eternal one." My second Bible concordence has a Hebrew Greek dictionary with the Hebrew look up number 3068 giving the meaning, "self Existent."

Now I will ask you, how was the gospel of grace falsified for you? You can PM if you like.

Again the subject of this OP is as an atheist, does one believe intelligence came from non-intelligence. What I am really interested to know would be how?

[Boxing Pythagoras]

You really do not get it? The only reason I am not an atheist is that I know God. And I cannot honestly say that I do not. And the cause of me knowing God is the gospel of the wholly unmerited salvation in trusting in God's Christ.

That's lovely. It's also irrelevant. We still don't believe your claim, sincere though it may be.

The proving God exists as such is a lie. Existence, uncaused existence needs no proof, needs no God! Unless uncaused existence is the very identity of God, there is none.

We can agree that there is something which exists uncaused. We do not agree on the properties of this uncaused existence. If you want us to believe that this uncaused existence has the properties which you ascribe to God, you will need to give a better argument than that there is some uncaused existence, and that you hold a sincere belief that this is God.

My very first Bible concordence gives God's name to mean "the eternal one." My second Bible concordence has a Hebrew Greek dictionary with the Hebrew look up number 3068 giving the meaning, "self Existent."

Again, it is completely beyond the linguistic evidence to translate the Tetragrammaton as "self-existent." I suspect that your concordances are offering translations which take theological argument into account.

Now I will ask you, how was the gospel of grace falsified for you? You can PM if you like.

The short, short version is that I came to understand that I held some theological views which I could not reasonably support. I decided to go back to First Principles in order to see if I could convince myself of the truth of Christianity. Much to my surprise, I found that I could not even levy a truly convincing argument for God's existence. As I could no longer bring myself to believe that deity exists, and as this is the prime foundation of all of Christianity, it therefore followed that I could no longer bring myself to have faith in Christianity.

Again the subject of this OP is as an atheist, does one believe intelligence came from non-intelligence. What I am really interested to know would be how?

As I see no reason to believe in Mind-Body Dualism, it seems clear that intelligence is a product of chemistry and physics in the brain. Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other chemical elements are not intelligent. Electricity and other aspects of physics are not intelligent. And yet, intelligence comes from them. I see no reason to think that some external intelligence is necessary to the advent of natural intelligence.

[JimL]

You really do not get it? The only reason I am not an atheist is that I know God. And I cannot honestly say that I do not. And the cause of me knowing God is the gospel of the wholly unmerited salvation in trusting in God's Christ.

The proving God exists as such is a lie. Existence, uncaused existence needs no proof, needs no God! Unless uncaused existence is the very identity of God, there is none.

Knowing the gospel, which anyone who has read it can claim to know, is not the same thing as knowing that the god it proclaims exists. The question is how do you know god, not how do you know biblical claims of god.

My very first Bible concordence gives God's name to mean "the eternal one." My second Bible concordence has a Hebrew Greek dictionary with the Hebrew look up number 3068 giving the meaning, "self Existent."

So what?

Now I will ask you, how was the gospel of grace falsified for you? You can PM if you like.

Not being falsified is not the question. How do you know is the question.

Again the subject of this OP is as an atheist, does one believe intelligence came from non-intelligence. What I am really interested to know would be how?

Intelligence is not an existing thing in itself, its an aquired ability. So the answer is that intelligence is an aquired ability of organized matter resulting from its interaction with its environment. How does a flower know to lean in the direction of the sun? You're right, it doesn't, it hasn't formed a more complex nervous system, but it is the beginning of knowing.