Take Back Our Country

[carpedm9587]

Except God can communicate truths to man.

Ahh.. so you are the beneficiary of absolute truths because your god communicates them to you. So now see if you can provide a mechanism for distinguishing between the following:

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god and absolute truths are "planted" in his mind.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, and a man is convinced that this god does exists and that he hears god in his mind and this god reveals absolute truths.

If you are the man, how do you tell the difference?

Like said, we can only have certainty with God, and your proposition is circular.

What you do not seem to see, Seer, is that all of your propositions are likewise circular. You are, after all, using human language, which is symbolic. So as you tear down all beliefs, you tear down your own as well. Why? Because you cannot distinguish between the two scenarios above.

That is why I said we have a web of interlocking beliefs, and began with why I believe God is a more rational explanation than no god for what we find in the universe, from there we can get to your specifics. You just can't pull specifics out of the worldview and expect them to make sense.

And I note that you still have not answered the question, except to point to some vague "interlocking" beliefs.

So here is my response to your question about why I am atheist: I have a web of interlocking beliefs, and it begins with why I believe no god is a more rational explanation than god for what we find in the universe. From there we can get to your specifics. You just can't pull specifics out of the worldview and expect them to make sense.

[seer]

Ahh.. so you are the beneficiary of absolute truths because your god communicates them to you. So now see if you can provide a mechanism for distinguishing between the following:

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god and absolute truths are "planted" in his mind.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, and a man is convinced that this god does exists and that he hears god in his mind and this god reveals absolute truths.

If you are the man, how do you tell the difference?

Certainly God could implant thoughts or as in the Old Testament He could speak verbally, and confirm those communications through miracles. Or He could incarnate as a man, verbally teach men and confirm His varsity and authority through miracles, not the least of which was coming back from the dead.

What you do not seem to see, Seer, is that all of your propositions are likewise circular. You are, after all, using human language, which is symbolic. So as you tear down all beliefs, you tear down your own as well. Why? Because you cannot distinguish between the two scenarios above.

Nope, if God exists He could and would offer certainty, certainty that is not possible otherwise. This is why I put Scripture at the top of the hierarchy for knowledge.

And I note that you still have not answered the question, except to point to some vague "interlocking" beliefs.

This is exactly why I did not want to play, you can not divorce specifics from the whole. It is a package deal.

So here is my response to your question about why I am atheist: I have a web of interlocking beliefs, and it begins with why I believe no god is a more rational explanation than god for what we find in the universe. From there we can get to your specifics. You just can't pull specifics out of the worldview and expect them to make sense.

Now you are being dishonest again. But atheism says that no god(s) exists - you can not know that on any level. Agnosticism is the rational position.

But why do you think an intelligible universe is better explained by non-rational forces rather than a Rational force.

[carpedm9587]

Certainly God could implant thoughts or as in the Old Testament He could speak verbally, and confirm those communications through miracles. Or He could incarnate as a man, verbally teach men and confirm His varsity and authority through miracles, not the least of which was coming back from the dead.

And you did not answer the question. So again....

How do you distinguish between the following:

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god and absolute truths are "planted" in his mind.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, and a man is convinced that this god does exists and that he hears god in his mind and this god reveals absolute truths.

If you are the man, how do you tell the difference?

Nope, if God exists He could and would offer certainty, certainty that is not possible otherwise. This is why I put Scripture at the top of the hierarchy for knowledge.

And your problem is with the "IF." If god does not exist, all of this is a delusion and you cannot tell the difference.

This is exactly why I did not want to play, you can not divorce specifics from the whole. It is a package deal.

Seer, you don't want to "play" because you have no more unique claim on "the truth" than any other human being. You cannot demonstrate that you are indeed in touch with a supreme being who personally speaks to you, or you are another in a long line of deluded, schizophrenic, humans hearing voices.

Now you are being dishonest again.

You do love to go there when confronted with a situation you cannot respond to, Seer. I wonder if you know that this constant dodge reflects more on you than it does on me?

But atheism says that no god(s) exists - you can not know that on any level. Agnosticism is the rational position.

Actually, I can and I do. As I said, the preponderance of the evidence. And you appear to be of the opinion that theism, atheism, and agnosticism are corners of some logistic triangle. They are not. Theism means belief in a god. Atheism means "without" believe in a god (or "not" belief in a god). Agnostic literally means "without knowing." Gnosticism was an ancient Christian heresy that suggested that god could be encountered using knowing/reason. It stood in opposition to "sola fidei," by faith alone. So agnosticism actually means that god cannot be arrived at through knowledge alone. The modern definition of "I don't know" is quaint, but not really well founded in the history of the language.

So you are an agnostic theist: you believe there is a god and do not believe this god can be known through reason alone. Indeed, my guess is you are a sola fidei person.
I am an agnostic atheist: I believe there is no god, but I do not believe any person's knowledge can be perfect, or that this belief is strictly a knowledge-based position; it has elements of faith.

But why do you think an intelligible universe is better explained by non-rational forces rather than a Rational force.

Now that is a subject for a marvelous discussion. Unfortunately, how can such a discussion be had when one person thinks the other is chronically dishonest, irrational, a swine, and unable to reason due to sin? This is the arrogance of your position, Seer. You believe you have a unique (well - and the rest of Christians of course) access to "truth" and anyone who does not believe as you do is, to some degree, beneath you. The only way we can not be beneath you is to agree with you...and then we will be on par.

It's a unique, and impenetrable, position.

[Charles]

[...]What men see as evidence, good evidence, how much weight they give, etc...is as personal and subjective as anything else. So when you speak of adequate evidence that claim has no validity. [...]

I cannot help but note that these are the words of a man who is constantly talking againt the idea that moral values should be subjective. Perhaps, seer, you should take into consideration that you are actively destroying the base for anything but subjective ideas based on your relativistic views on theory of knowledge.

And don't give me the usual "answer" by asking whether I can prove that what goes on in my mind corresponds to reality. I was pointing to a weak point in your line of thinking.

[Tassman]

Again, the moral injunctions in Scripture are not hard to understand nor do they need interpretation.

And yet we get so many different interpretations. Wars have been fought over different interpretations. Thousands of Christian denominations have arisen as a consequence of differing interpretations of scripture. So perhaps they are not so easy to understand or interpret as you like to think.

We all understand what stealing is, fraud, murder, lying, adultery, homosexuality, envy, selfishness, etc... We understand the golden rule, what it means to love our fellow man.

Not so easy it seems. I think what you’re saying is that those who understand these things differently to you are wrong.

[seer]

And you did not answer the question. So again....

How do you distinguish between the following:

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god and absolute truths are "planted" in his mind.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, and a man is convinced that this god does exists and that he hears god in his mind and this god reveals absolute truths.

If you are the man, how do you tell the difference?

Not again! You did not even deal with what I said. I said nothing about thoughts being planted, Christ did not "plant" thoughts. He spoke verbally, as God did with the Old Testament Saints. Then He confirmed His authority with signs and wonders.

Seer, you don't want to "play" because you have no more unique claim on "the truth" than any other human being. You cannot demonstrate that you are indeed in touch with a supreme being who personally speaks to you, or you are another in a long line of deluded, schizophrenic, humans hearing voices.

Did I ever said that God personally spoke to me? I certainly believe that the Holy Spirit lead me to faith in Christ, and that knowledge is as certain as any other knowledge in my life. Me being able to demonstrate that to you is meaningless to its reality. And not wanting to play has do to with specifics, I can not divorce specifics from my worldview. There are reason why I believe in God, which lead to why I believe in Christ, and why I take the possibility of miracles and the resurrection seriously. And your ingrained unbelief has no bearing on any of it.

You do love to go there when confronted with a situation you cannot respond to, Seer. I wonder if you know that this constant dodge reflects more on you than it does on me?

And you are a hypocrite.

Actually, I can and I do. As I said, the preponderance of the evidence. And you appear to be of the opinion that theism, atheism, and agnosticism are corners of some logistic triangle. They are not. Theism means belief in a god. Atheism means "without" believe in a god (or "not" belief in a god). Agnostic literally means "without knowing." Gnosticism was an ancient Christian heresy that suggested that god could be encountered using knowing/reason. It stood in opposition to "sola fidei," by faith alone. So agnosticism actually means that god cannot be arrived at through knowledge alone. The modern definition of "I don't know" is quaint, but not really well founded in the history of the language.

So you are an agnostic theist: you believe there is a god and do not believe this god can be known through reason alone. Indeed, my guess is you are a sola fidei person.
I am an agnostic atheist: I believe there is no god, but I do not believe any person's knowledge can be perfect, or that this belief is strictly a knowledge-based position; it has elements of faith.

What are you taking about? I certainly believe that God can, at least initially, be known through His HANDIWORK - Creation. And the fact that you don't just demonstrates that sin has clouded your cognitive abilities. You are once again assuming that you are rational concerning this issue - something you can not demonstrate.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

[carpedm9587]

Not again! You did not even deal with what I said. I said nothing about thoughts being planted, Christ did not "plant" thoughts. He spoke verbally, as God did with the Old Testament Saints. Then He confirmed His authority with signs and wonders.

So let's adjust the question to better suit you:

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god both visibly and verbally.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, but a man is convinced that god exists and that he has both seen and heard god reveal absolute truths to him.

If you are the man, how do you distinguish between the two scenarios?

Did I ever said that God personally spoke to me?

You actually haven't said much, apparently because it made you feel dirty. So I know only a bit about the basis for your beliefs (including the list you posted previously).

I certainly believe that the Holy Spirit lead me to faith in Christ, and that knowledge is as certain as any other knowledge in my life.

This is knowledge based on "feeling" as best I can tell. I had the same knowledge on the same basis at one point in my life. I don't anymore.

Me being able to demonstrate that to you is meaningless to its reality.

There are things we believe we cannot prove to others. I believe my wife loves me, and I cannot prove it to you. However, my wife is a tangible person that anyone who wishes to can see, and her love for me can be interpreted from her actions and words. None of that applies to gods.

And not wanting to play has do to with specifics, I can not divorce specifics from my worldview. There are reason why I believe in God, which lead to why I believe in Christ, and why I take the possibility of miracles and the resurrection seriously. And your ingrained unbelief has no bearing on any of it.

My "ingrained belief" is not actually "ingrained," and wasn't my original belief. It was a fairly long, and pretty hard, road from Christianity to atheism, which transpired over a series of years. It was not actually something I sought out. Indeed, quite the opposite. The start of that road was a desire on my part to be closer to the god I believed I loved. Had someone told me, back then, that the road I set out on would lead me to atheism, I would probably have been amused.

And you are a hypocrite.

Does posting things like that make you feel better?

What are you taking about?

You'll have to be more clear about which part you did not understand.

I certainly believe that God can, at least initially, be known through His HANDIWORK - Creation.

Which is a circular argument. Once you've called it "creation," the implication is "creator" and "handiwork." Unless, of course, there is no god and it's not "creation," it just is.

And the fact that you don't just demonstrates that sin has clouded your cognitive abilities.

So I don't agree with you, which means my reasoning is faulty. You're kind of back to, "anyone who doesn't agree with me is irrational." It's a convenient way to dismiss a worldview, and you are welcome to adopt such a position if you wish. It does make discussion/conversation rather pointless, and you keep returning to this theme.

You are once again assuming that you are rational concerning this issue - something you can not demonstrate.

Sure I can. I can reason from premises to conclusions. I can follow a syllogism and differentiate between valid/invalid and sound/unsound arguments (now that I remember which is which ). I can do consistent mathematical calculations. I can (and have) passed psychological evaluations for mental soundness. By pretty much any measurable metric, my sanity and rationality is established. It is simply denied by you because I do not agree with you. That is one of the lynch pins of Christianity: label those who disagree "locked in sin" and "irrational" so you don't have to listen to or consider their observations. By that mantra, Christianity locks in its adherents. As I said before, it is a very hard mindset to escape, especially if you have gone extreme on it.

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Yeah, I've read it before. The founders of Christianity certainly understood human psychology. They combined a psychologically powerful message (forgiveness, love of a creator, redemption, eternal reward) with powerful inducements not to leave and to dismiss those "outside." You are kind of locked into the mindset.

Sorry, Seer, but I'm kind of back to the pointlessness of discussion with you. Your mind is so thoroughly locked closed, and you view anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview as irrational, so there really is nothing to be gained by discussion. Well, that's not 100% true. I could learn what and why you believe if you decide to share it, but I tend to prefer mutual discussions with both sides are answering and both sides are listening. I don't think that is possible with you.

I'm sure I'll get another "hypocrite" from you for that observation.

[seer]

So let's adjust the question to better suit you:

Scenario 1: God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god both visibly and verbally.
Scenario 2: God does not exist, but a man is convinced that god exists and that he has both seen and heard god reveal absolute truths to him.

If you are the man, how do you distinguish between the two scenarios?

God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god both visibly and verbally then parts the Red Sea or comes back from the dead.

This is knowledge based on "feeling" as best I can tell. I had the same knowledge on the same basis at one point in my life. I don't anymore.

Does the fact that your love for your wife is based on feelings make it any less real? Of course God would appeal to our feelings as well as our intellect. That list I gave you appealed to both.

There are things we believe we cannot prove to others. I believe my wife loves me, and I cannot prove it to you. However, my wife is a tangible person that anyone who wishes to can see, and her love for me can be interpreted from her actions and words. None of that applies to gods.

Of course it can, if you lived in Palestine two thousand years you could have met God incarnate. If you walked with Old Testament saints you could have heard His voice and seen His power.

My "ingrained belief" is not actually "ingrained," and wasn't my original belief. It was a fairly long, and pretty hard, road from Christianity to atheism, which transpired over a series of years. It was not actually something I sought out. Indeed, quite the opposite. The start of that road was a desire on my part to be closer to the god I believed I loved. Had someone told me, back then, that the road I set out on would lead me to atheism, I would probably have been amused.

I find it hard to believe that a man who had a real experience of God, who was truly regenerated, would turn his back on his Creator.

Which is a circular argument. Once you've called it "creation," the implication is "creator" and "handiwork." Unless, of course, there is no god and it's not "creation," it just is.

Didn't you just tell me that circular arguments were OK? That we all use them all the time? And I will ask you again: We have two options: this intelligible, precise universe was created either by a rational (thinking, intending) force or non-rational forces - why does the latter make more sense to you?

So I don't agree with you, which means my reasoning is faulty. You're kind of back to, "anyone who doesn't agree with me is irrational." It's a convenient way to dismiss a worldview, and you are welcome to adopt such a position if you wish. It does make discussion/conversation rather pointless, and you keep returning to this theme.

See what you are doing? You are telling me not to believe what I believe. That I must reject my worldview, reject Scripture, and make my case according to your standards.

Sure I can. I can reason from premises to conclusions. I can follow a syllogism and differentiate between valid/invalid and sound/unsound arguments (now that I remember which is which ). I can do consistent mathematical calculations. I can (and have) passed psychological evaluations for mental soundness. By pretty much any measurable metric, my sanity and rationality is established. It is simply denied by you because I do not agree with you. That is one of the lynch pins of Christianity: label those who disagree "locked in sin" and "irrational" so you don't have to listen to or consider their observations. By that mantra, Christianity locks in its adherents. As I said before, it is a very hard mindset to escape, especially if you have gone extreme on it.

Logic is one thing, the rest is completely subjective. And a man can be rational in most areas and irrational in a specific area. When it comes to acceptance of God my faith informs me that that is exactly the case.

Sorry, Seer, but I'm kind of back to the pointlessness of discussion with you. Your mind is so thoroughly locked closed, and you view anyone who doesn't agree with your worldview as irrational, so there really is nothing to be gained by discussion. Well, that's not 100% true. I could learn what and why you believe if you decide to share it, but I tend to prefer mutual discussions with both sides are answering and both sides are listening. I don't think that is possible with you.

I'm sure I'll get another "hypocrite" from you for that observation.

You keep telling me this discussion is pointless but you keep responding! Perhaps you are not as sane as you imagine...

[carpedm9587]

God exists, and a man is actually communicated with by this god both visibly and verbally then parts the Red Sea or comes back from the dead.

Does the fact that your love for your wife is based on feelings make it any less real? Of course God would appeal to our feelings as well as our intellect. That list I gave you appealed to both.

Of course it can, if you lived in Palestine two thousand years you could have met God incarnate. If you walked with Old Testament saints you could have heard His voice and seen His power.

I find it hard to believe that a man who had a real experience of God, who was truly regenerated, would turn his back on his Creator.

Didn't you just tell me that circular arguments were OK? That we all use them all the time? And I will ask you again: We have two options: this intelligible, precise universe was created either by a rational (thinking, intending) force or non-rational forces - why does the latter make more sense to you?

See what you are doing? You are telling me not to believe what I believe. That I must reject my worldview, reject Scripture, and make my case according to your standards.

Logic is one thing, the rest is completely subjective. And a man can be rational in most areas and irrational in a specific area. When it comes to acceptance of God my faith informs me that that is exactly the case.

You keep telling me this discussion is pointless but you keep responding! Perhaps you are not as sane as you imagine...

This last sentence is an excellent point. I'm an optimist, so I keep thinking/hoping you're not as dismissive as you claim to be. I think I'm wrong.

BTW - at no point have I said you should not believe what you believe. But your beliefs do not admit of an opportunity for rational discussion because you see anyone who does not think as you do as "irrational," and as soon as something you believe is called into question, you retreat to "sinful nature," "irrational," "hypocrite," and all the rest. I have to admit, Seer, even in my most conservative, fundamental days, I don't think I ever interacted with others as you do. But then again, I was once told by a young man I was talking with that my beliefs were "arrogantly dismissive," so maybe I was...

[seer]

This last sentence is an excellent point. I'm an optimist, so I keep thinking/hoping you're not as dismissive as you claim to be. I think I'm wrong.

BTW - at no point have I said you should not believe what you believe. But your beliefs do not admit of an opportunity for rational discussion because you see anyone who does not think as you do as "irrational," and as soon as something you believe is called into question, you retreat to "sinful nature," "irrational," "hypocrite," and all the rest. I have to admit, Seer, even in my most conservative, fundamental days, I don't think I ever interacted with others as you do. But then again, I was once told by a young man I was talking with that my beliefs were "arrogantly dismissive," so maybe I was...

Well the hypocrite was not about the God thing. And Carp, your personal attacks are a little more subtle, like accusing me of not understaning special relativity, when I did - you like to feel superior. And yes, I do believe we have a sin problem when it comes to accepting the revelation of God, whether in creation or scripture. Like the saying goes, no gods no masters. That right there is your precious autonomy. But on other subjects we can have rational discussions, but I will approach them from a Biblical worldview. And you should not expect otherwise.

[carpedm9587]

Well the hypocrite was not about the God thing. And Carp, your personal attacks are a little more subtle, like accusing me of not understaning special relativity, when I did - you like to feel superior.

Your latter sentence is an attempt to read my motivations, which you cannot know. And I actually don't like to feel superior. I prefer to be talking as peers. (though I suspect you probably won't believe that for a cold minute).

I understand you took offense at the relativity comments. As I noted, up until you finally said something that suggested you understood the concept, nothing you were posting indicated you understood it at all. I pointed it out. When you finally did post something that indicated you understood, I acknowledged that as well. At no point did I personally attack you. My comments were about your argument, or lack thereof.

Don't get me wrong, Seer. I'm not offended by your personal attacks. This is a forum. Post as you wish to post and it is no skin off my back. Nothing you say can change who I am. As I have noted many times, how people post says more about them than the person they are responding to. If you like being a person who goes on personal attacks, then be that kind of person. You're in good company. It's a pretty common posting style around here.

And yes, I do believe we have a sin problem when it comes to accepting the revelation of God, whether in creation or scripture. Like the saying goes, no gods no masters. That right there is your precious autonomy. But on other subjects we can have rational discussions, but I will approach them from a Biblical worldview. And you should not expect otherwise.

I have never expected otherwise. But your biblical arguments have essentially zero weight with me or anyone like me. They require me (us?) to accept a whole list of pre-suppositions I (we?) do not accept as true. Until someone provides a rational argument otherwise, that probably won't change. I don't accept as true things that do not have a reasonable body of evidence to support their truth.

And I notice you still didn't answer the question...

[seer]

Your latter sentence is an attempt to read my motivations, which you cannot know. And I actually don't like to feel superior. I prefer to be talking as peers. I understand you took offense at the relativity comments. As I noted, up until you finally said something that suggested you understood the concept, nothing you were posting indicated you understood it at all. I pointed it out. When you finally did post something that indicated you understood, I acknowledged that as well. At no point did I personally attack you.

Don't get me wrong, Seer. I'm not offended by your personal attacks. This is a forum. Post as you wish to post and it is no skin off my back. Nothing you say can change who I am. As I have noted many times, how people post says more about them than the person they are responding to. If you like being a person who goes on personal attacks, then be that kind of person.

Of course you like to feel superior, after all you are the open mined one, I'm the closed mined one who locked himself in a two thousand year old "book." When that doesn't even make sense, truth is truth, no matter how old or new.

I have never expected otherwise. But your biblical arguments have essentially zero weight with me or anyone like me. They require me (us?) to accept a whole list of pre-suppositions I (we?) do not accept as true. Until someone provides a rational argument otherwise, that probably won't change. I don't accept as true things that do not have a reasonable body of evidence to support their truth.

And I notice you still didn't answer the question...

See there you go again! You are rational we are not! You offer rational arguments, we don't! Never mind the fact that I did offer a number of very rational reasons for why I believe in God. And remember I asked you twice, and both times you avoided this: We have two options: this intelligible, precise universe was created either by a rational (thinking, intending) force or non-rational forces - why does the latter make more sense to you?

And I think I did answer your question.

[carpedm9587]

Of course you like to feel superior, after all you are the open mined one, I'm the closed mined one who locked himself in a two thousand year old "book." When that doesn't even make sense, truth is truth, no matter how old or new.

Your opinion is duly noted. I didn't expect you to believe me.

And I am, actually, open minded. That doesn't mean I have no beliefs or opinions - it means I am willing to examine them and have them critiqued. And I am open to changing them if they prove to be wrong. Based on what you have said, it appears you are not. If that makes me "superior," so be it. I'll live with the label.

See there you go again! You are rational we are not! You offer rational arguments, we don't!

No - that's not what it says. Read it again.

Never mind the fact that I did offer a number of very rational reasons for why I believe in God. And remember I asked you twice, and both times you avoided this: We have two options: this intelligible, precise universe was created either by a rational (thinking, intending) force or non-rational forces - why does the latter make more sense to you?

A discussion about beliefs is pointless, Seer, as you have demonstrated. It's unidirectional. Mine are open to question and debate - yours are not. You stomp off with "I feel dirty" and "I'm not playing your games" and "your a hypocrite" at most attempts. When the exchange is mutual, I'll be happy to engage.

And I think I did answer your question.

I know you do. You didn't. As the asker, I think I know when what I asked has been answered.

[seer]

And I am, actually, open minded. That doesn't mean I have no beliefs or opinions - it means I am willing to examine them and have them critiqued. And I am open to changing them if they prove to be wrong. Based on what you have said, it appears you are not. If that makes me "superior," so be it. I'll live with the label.

There you go again, assuming that your beliefs came through honest, thoughtful examination but that mine didn't! This is why I say that your personal attacks are much more subtle than mine. And why on earth would any man change His beliefs if he really holds that those beliefs reflect the mind of God? Of course a man could come to the conclusion that God does not exist, like you did, but I am not there, and by God's grace I never will be. So until then I would be foolish not to process through my Biblical worldview.

No - that's not what it says. Read it again.

That is exactly what you said: Until someone provides a rational argument otherwise, that probably won't change.

What exactly is irrational about our arguments?

A discussion about beliefs is pointless, Seer, as you have demonstrated. It's unidirectional. Mine are open to question and debate - yours are not. You stomp off with "I feel dirty" and "I'm not playing your games" and "your a hypocrite" at most attempts. When the exchange is mutual, I'll be happy to engage.

And you avoided the question for the THIRD time!

I know you do. You didn't. As the asker, I think I know when what I asked has been answered.

No, because you presented false premises. From a Biblical stance I corrected you. God and Christ's interactions with men were not just disembodied voices, historically they were verified by the manipulation of nature, i.e. miracles, and tangible events and fulfilled prophesy.

[carpedm9587]

There you go again, assuming that your beliefs came through honest, thoughtful examination but that mine didn't!

That's not what it says. Read it again.

This is why I say that your personal attacks are much more subtle than mine.

And it is why you are reading personal attacks where none are. You add things to what I said that I did not put there.

And why on earth would any man change His beliefs if he really holds that those beliefs reflect the mind of God?

No man should change his beliefs if there is not a credible, rational reason for doing so. Of course, once you've convinced yourself that your beliefs "reflect the mind of god" you make yourself impervious to error. At that point, there is no further point in discussion because anything said will be "against the mind of god," and you are in a close-minded loop. So one can get to beliefs using an open-minded process, and end up in a close-minded set of beliefs. If you are wrong (and of course I believe you are), escaping the error is virtually impossible.

Of course a man could come to the conclusion that God does not exist, like you did, but I am not there, and by God's grace I never will be. So until then I would be foolish not to process through my Biblical worldview.

Then you will always be where you are. That appears to content you, so - go for it. I don't know why you want to engage with those who do not think like you do, however. There is essentially nothing we can say (about theism) that you are even marginally open to. Anything we say, if it questions your existing views, will be dismissed with "sinful" and "under the say of the devil" and so forth. You are impervious to arguments from mere mortals because you have a direct line to god.

Note...that is exactly what happens with the Jihadist, or the Moonie, or anyone else who believes they have "THE truth" from god him/her/itself.

That is exactly what you said: Until someone provides a rational argument otherwise, that probably won't change.

What exactly is irrational about our arguments?

And you (again) add to my meaning and take offense. My statement is about how I approach assessing and revising my beliefs. My statement has nothing to do with you, or your rationality. Changes to my beliefs occur in the face of rational arguments that point to errors in my premises or my logic.

And you avoided the question for the THIRD time!

For the reasons I cited. Two way, Seer, or no way. Sorry if you find that "unfair."

No, because you presented false premises.

I have no idea what premises you are referring to.

From a Biblical stance I corrected you.

Biblical arguments are pointless when speaking to someone who does not accept the bible on the same terms you do.

God and Christ's interactions with men were not just disembodied voices, historically they were verified by the manipulation of nature, i.e. miracles, and tangible events and fulfilled prophesy.

None of which are historically verified. I do not accept the miracle claims of the bible any more than I do the miracle claims of any other holy book, or the vast sea of "miracles workers" claiming to have such powers. I won't until I have a rational basis for accepting those claims. Currently, I do not.