Nope.
Should I have been suspicious of god?
Faith.
- Thread starter Jan Ardena
- Start date
Should I have been suspicious of god?
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Well, you don't even address him as God, so yes. If you don't have faith it can be anyone or anything talking to you, probably the devil if you truly even heard.
Then how do you know it was God who was talking to you?
Huh?
Really? Can you substantiate this?
Tsk indeed:
Pineal said:
It wasn't Batman.
Never cheap.
Liar?
You mean you think it could have been Batman?
He didn't have a cape. :shrug:
Sure, the context is not the same. If you were a new poster, I would not have a context to work with. Here I do.
I am agnostic on that issue.
I don't think you understood me. Understandably it is not a common request. I think your question likely contained a belief you have. I was asking you to state it as a belief and then support it. I assume it would be something about know91 not being able to know.
Last edited:
Of course my intuition may have been incorrect. He may not have enough character to take back his assertion. But...the positive part of that is now we can cite it as evidence that he is a theist on occasion, when it suits him.
And that context would be... my atheism?
I return, again, to the question: do I need to believe in god for him to exist (and talk to me)?
Is his existence dependent upon my belief?
And if not does my non-belief mean he can't talk to me?
Yet I haven't seen you question his claims (my apologies if you have done so and I missed it).
What "belief" would that be?
I made a straight claim: god told me that Knowldege91 is talking bollocks. I will assert this as strongly as possible. I have as much reason to claim that god spoke to me (and made that statement) as K91 does for his claims.
Just about every time I read one K91's posts.
Pfft. You're not quite getting it are you?
In part. Also the way you are using your assertion of having been told something by God in this discussion. Add in that you have avoided answering a direct question about it. Also my sense of you.
And I am correct, even if I cannot demonstrate it to others. I have no need to demonstrate it to you, because you know you do not believe you heard from God.
Certainly not for God to exist. If you were not telling the truth, in the instance in question, and you did not believe you heard God tell you something, you did not hear God tell you something. I suppose it might be possible that God told you at the precise time that you decided to pretend he told you something. Sure, I am open to that possibility. But not to the one where you believe God told you something. And I am correct, you do not believe this, right?
No, see above.
I am not agnostic about your assertion, I am about his. I am absolutely sure you do not think God told you. I am a believer, utterly. I don't challenge everything I am agnostic about, though sometimes I do. Assertions I am sure are not correct I am much more likely to challenge.
The believe would be something about his not being able to know it was God.
How do you know that you have as much reason to claim that God spoke to you as K91 does?
You do make a lot of psychic claims.
Let me put it this way: I am certain that god speaks to me exactly as much as he speaks to K91.
See previous answer.
Do I? Such as?
How can you know this?
That answer was not an explantion or support, it is just another way of wording the assertion.
You claim to know that Knowledge has no more reason to believe he is hearing from God than you do. This means you know his experiences are similar to yours and also that there could be no experience that would be convincing and correct. In a sense on can reword what you said as 'If I experienced what knowledge did, I would not believe it was God.' If you think that is not a fair take, then that means Knowledge may very well have a better reason than you do.
You also claimed to know I wasn't getting it. What, all of my remarks are to be taken at face value?
Thank you, my first couple of posts are retroactively supported.
Last edited:
Not what I said.
Ah, okay. Because K91 has offered not one shred of evidence that his "words from god" are anything but vainglorious crap.
No, I claim to be certain that he has no more reason.
Zero evidence, and a resort to blustering when questioned bolsters this certainty.
Funnily enough K91 hasn't actually offered anything with regard to "experiences". Merely claims and boasts.
The "funny" part is that if you had "got it" you would have been supporting me and questioning K91, rather than the other way round.
I.e. he offers "god told me" as "support" for his claims yet dismisses my similar claim as incontrovertibly false. Surely, if you'd got it, you'd have been agreeing with me.
All I've been doing is showing how utterly specious his claims are...
Nope.
Sure.
I believe I correctly quoted you using the quote function.
You said
I asked how can you know this.
But in case 'know' was the key word...
How can you be certain that God....etc.
So, is it fair to say that if one cannot demonstrate something, it cannot be true? (and please, let's not do the absence of evidence is not......' I know this. I am dealing with your claims and I do not think, if I am correct about them this constitutes proof or even evidence of God)
Let's, for the sake of argument on just this point, both assume the general atheist line is true - there is no God - AND current science offers the best picture of how our minds - read: brains - function. Even within those constraints how could you possibly know he has no more reason to believe than you do? He could have all sorts of rather compelling experiences, that yes, neuroscience would currently be more likely to provide other explanations for - hallucinations, delusions, mininterpretations of visualizations, whatever. Despite what science would say it is far more likely they really are, he would, still, have much more to base his belief on than you do - since you do not have these experiences. So to state here that he has no more reason than you is a kind of psychic claim. As if you know what his experiences are.
Once we allow for the fact that not all phenomena are likely to have been verified by science - unless it is complete - there is even less certainty.
And that affects how I take people too on their claims.
I don't think that is the case, given my temperment, predelictions and use of this forum. So I don't think you are correct about how I would behave if I understood what you were doing, which I still think I did.
Sure, and I have some sympathy for that, but I am not here for the exact same reasons you are. I mean I wish a smart guy like you would show, say, Fraggle, how irrational he is sometimes, while taking the position of being the rational person. I would love that. But I notice that the rationalists tend to focus on the people who they think are not rational, especially in the philosophy subsections, which religion is a part of. But you guys are here for your purposes.I.e. he offers "god told me" as "support" for his claims yet dismisses my similar claim as incontrovertibly false. Surely, if you'd got it, you'd have been agreeing with me.
All I've been doing is showing how utterly specious his claims are...
While I, D, have not confronted K, I have confronted LG, for example, and have supported non-theists in arguments they are having with theists on quite a number of issues.
So if you really want to call me out on consistency, I throw my glove on the ground and expect to see you getting down with the rationalists when they make no sense but are on your team.
Okey, dokey?
Yes, you used the quote function correctly: I did not say I know.
I'm certain he's wrong;
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/certain
Nope. But is it not also fair to state that if one resorts to blustering, insults and evasion when questioned then one is less than likely to be telling the truth?
If one had any evidence whatsoever, or any support, then surely that would be offered rather than K91's typical response...
Which have NOT been forthcoming. He has NEVER provided any support his position other than more unsupported claims.
Nope: I'm working from available evidence. Should anything else arise then I may or may not revise my claim.
Ah, okay.
Okey doke. Although I have, on occasion, pulled up those who claim, for example, that they can prove god doesn't exist &c.