I didn't reason anything off god's back.It seems you didn't mind reasoning the the shirt of God's back, stipping Him of His Divine attributes, creating a scenario for yourself where it became impossible to know Him through reason, then claimed to be an agnostic.
I went to what I consider to be the basics that I can know: that I exist. And worked from there. I did not create any scenario... the scenario was already there... I just walked into it.
Scriptures are only deemed such (as in genuine) by people within the circle, which requires a priori assumption of gods existence: "God exists, gave us scripture, which prove god exists" etc. question begging of the highest order.There is an abundance of revelation, in the form of scripture, and in the form of great souls (like Jesus Christ for example). There are instructions on how to develop ourselves to be able to recieve the revelations, for every type of person. There is information about how the material world was created, information that we will never know by our own limited means. What more do you want?
And where is this information about how the material world was formed that we will never know?
Or are you again trying to claim, as you have done in other threads, that ancient man was effectively stupid and incapable of establishing things we now take for granted, such as the earth being spherical, orbiting the sun etc?
Let me clarify: if god exists then he gave me the means to reach the conclusion by which I no longer believe he exists. If god does not exist then i still have those means to reach the conclusion by which I no longer believe god exists.You said: but if God exists it is surely what He gave me to work with., but yet you use you aparatus to reason Him out of existence, or to the sidelines. You have a brain, five senses, and a body to act with. What more do you want?
Therefore having the means to reach that conclusion is no evidence for or against the existence of god.
Just because I used the word "if" does not mean that I should start with the a priori assumption that god does exist. Otherwise I might just as well say "if god exists then god exists. Therefore god exists."
I am bringing to the table my experiences of going through this process, as requested. I am proud of the information I hold, whether you consider it relatively puny, feeble or any other term you care to use. I am proud because it is the sum of my experience. My information, in a way, shows who I am and the journey I have been on. Can we not each be proud of that?If you approach the situation as it really is, ie, you don't know anything, and what you think you know is subject to serious limitation and error, then there is no need to believe without knowledge. The trouble is, you think you have something to bring to the table, IOW, you are proud of the feeble, puny information you hold.
But since you have belittled the information, perhaps you can show something that puts it in its place, other than just a claim that there is such.
And as has been raised by myself previously, and another, it is logically ridiculous to suggest someone can believe in something yet not also believe in their idea of that thing. The two are inseparable and equivalent.As I said, you believe in your idea of God, not God.
No you haven’t. What do you consider the difference to be between “the essential you (the observer)” and “our minds”?Already stated.
Perhaps a couple of questions will explain to you why not: First, can you think of something you can’t think of? Second, does that mean there is not something that exists that you can’t currently think of?Why not? What other kind of evidences do you expect?
I’ve rationalised my way out of belief in God, not because I know better than Him if He exists, but because, if He exists, that is how He made me. I am incapable of choosing to believe in Him. I could provide lip service, perhaps, but not actually believe.In other words you've talked yourself out of belief in God, because you know better than God, and if He exists, it is for Him to come to you personally despite Him giving you every oppotunity in this form of life to come to Him.
If He made me, that is how He made me.
No, as explained before. IF they are not divine then people have merely been tricked, for want of a better word. That does not mean that they did not reach their position in all good faith, so to speak. So they would not be lying. And since I do not think there is evidence either way on the matter of God, I would not consider them delusional: that is your interpreatation of what I say, and it is categorically incorrect to interpret it that way.Meaning God, and scriptures were all made up, and every person who believes in God, and professes to experience God, is lying, or, delusional?
Those that claim that God does not exist… they are no more correct than those who say God does exist.And the minority who explicitly claim that God does not exist, or that there is no physical evidence of God's existence (despite their arguments having nothing to do with the actual definition of the object of theism), is somehow correct?.
Those who say there is no physical evidence of God’s existence – I would say that they are correct, assuming that one works without an a priori assumption of God’s existence, as I do.
Evidence that can be attributed to both God-exists and God-does-not-exist is not evidence that can be rationally attributed to either.
Actuality or not is not a matter of belief but of actuality. Believing does not make something actual. Why do you think it does? I believed in an “actual” God. But my belief is not the truth of the matter… it is my belief of the truth of the matter.You were thoughtful enough to derobe Him of His Divine attributes, and render Him non existent, so something was actual. What was it?
When scriptures differ they become clothing. The one thing they seem to agree on is that God is the original cause, the source of all etc.What intrepretation? You do realise that for someone wanting to learn more about God, and the methods that one can use to develop the right state of mind/consciousness, scripture is the main source. And yet here you are reducing it to ''clothing'' then dismissing it outright. That's like taking the air out of a room and asking the inhabitants to find another way to survive.
I.e. you require revelation to know God.Like all knowledge, it is learned through personal experience. We separate oursleves from God (or we think we do), so if you are told something, then that thing should manifest itself within you (in some way) for you to realise that there is truth in what was told. It is not possible to believe something without some kind of reference, and that reference has to be in the form of experience, because that is the only way to know something. If God is real, then you will experience Him, and you will be able to understand that this is a stage of God realisation either through scripture, or testimony. The scientific method of obtaining knowledge is different because we cannot experience biology, paleontoloy, cosmology, etc....
The mistake you appear to be making, is in thinking that one can know God exists without having to experience Him, meaning, like cosmology, biology, etc, He cannot be experienced.
And as I said, I have not received that. Yet I still believed.
Now I no longer do.
Because I am not them and I do not trust their spin.No. They have realised it. Why do you have to put your spin on it?
No, to both questions, without direct revelation.Do you think it is possible to ''know'' a first cause?
Do you think it even matter whether or not you ''know'' a first cause?
No, I have not deemed His Divine attributes, if he has any, to be mere clothes. The clothing is the claim of Divine attributes that scriptures and religion make of God.Once again you, in your own mind, have reduced God to a first cause, a principle. You have deemed His Divine attributes to be mere clothes, making it so that there is no way you can ever know Him. And now you make statement like ....
Now you’re saying it is possible to drop belief? Previously (and further down) you have said it is not?No. It's possible to drop your belief in God, because we have a free will.
An atheist does not believe God exists, and because of that would not believe IN God.An atheist is a person who does not believe in God, meaning he/she can still believe God exists but choose not to believe in Him.
If you want to continue to press the claim that anyone who claims to no longer believe in God never actually believed in God in the first place, then do so.
But perhaps I will have a clearer picture of your seemingly-muddled arguments if you can explain what seems to be a key aspect: how one can believe in God without believing in merely their concept of God.
Do that, and perhaps we can make progress.