Woman "lets god take the wheel," runs over motorcyclist and drives off
Failure to do so would render your position irrational, iyo.
Unless knowledge is not limited to rational knowledge
"unless" is the wrong word there. I'm not actually concerned about knowing whether the ideal of rationality is rational
I'm concerned with the implicit assumption involved in the statement that knowledge is only rational and lacking rationality amounts to lacking knowledge
I'm concerned with the implicit assumption involved in the statement that knowledge is only rational and lacking rationality amounts to lacking knowledge
I think it's as simple as examining the world and concluding that the best possible explanation is an intelligent designer, versus concluding that the explanation is best without a designer. WLC does a good job of presenting coherent arguments for God, all which are based in logic. You don't have to agree with him, but I'm not sure you can say it is irrational.
The deist reasons, you just don't agree with his conclusions, so it appears from your perspective that he is irrational, or "jumps" to conclusions.
I think it's as simple as examining the world and concluding that the best possible explanation is an intelligent designer, versus concluding that the explanation is best without a designer. WLC does a good job of presenting coherent arguments for God, all which are based in logic. You don't have to agree with him, but I'm not sure you can say it is irrational.
I think it's as simple as examining the world and concluding that the best possible explanation is an intelligent designer, versus concluding that the explanation is best without a designer. WLC does a good job of presenting coherent arguments for God, all which are based in logic. You don't have to agree with him, but I'm not sure you can say it is irrational.
There seems to be the idea that mutually exclusive views cannot both be rational, which I don't believe is accurate, especially with the gaps that you've alluded to.
Logically, it would seem that the premise you've established is broad enough to prevent the conclusion of almost anything. So either the premise is very strong, so that we really can't know anything at all, or it's very weak, so that whatever you conclude is kind of meaningless.
Second, this doesn't accurately capture the reasoning of most deists. They will tend to believe in God because they think that God is the best explanation for observable phenomena such as the existence and nature of the universe. You might (as I do) think these arguments fail, but nonetheless they (or similar ones) underlie the beliefs of deists. Thus, implying that they accept the existence of God as an act of blind faith is severely misleading.
Finally, I would recommend you read William James' Will to Believe. In that essay James contrasts two goals that any account of rationality must balance: that of believing true things and not believing false things. It is easy enough to avoid believing false things (theoretically anyway)--just don't believe anything (this was in fact the recommendation of the ancient Skeptics). It is also, relatively easy to maximize the true things you believe: just believe everything you can.
An account of rationality about beliefs should provide guidance for how to navigate between these two. Yet, there is obviously room for disagreement here--some people will place greater emphasis on believing true things and others not believing false things. To a certain extent, I think that is what is going on here. Theists and deists usually accept an account of rationality that lets in some kinds of evidence relevant for believing in God, that many naturalistic atheists, who tend to be much more wholly focused on scientific rationality, will disallow.
*Some deists do claim that God exists necessarily, but this is a metaphysical rather than epistemic necessity.
The gaps are irrelevant, we work with the knowledge that we have. Part of the problem we have in deciphering reality is the ex nihilo problem, which is a problem for the theist and atheist. Some conclude that the ex nihilo problem is more adequately answered by an intelligent transcendent cause, than a non-intelligent transcendent cause, so a world without God makes less sense in this view.
There seems to be the idea that mutually exclusive views cannot both be rational, which I don't believe is accurate, especially with the gaps that you've alluded to.
There seems to be the idea that mutually exclusive views cannot both be rational, which I don't believe is accurate, especially with the gaps that you've alluded to.
And yet you believe in a god and not just the general idea of a god, or an 'intelligence', but a very specific version of a god belief. You don't accept gods as simply one of the possible explanations as I do. So how did you get from, 'a universe creating intelligence is one of the potential explanations' to 'there is a god and it's this particular one'? What is your rationale?
As for Christ specifically, there is lots of evidence that points to him being divine. WLC does a good job of outlining some arguments as to why Jesus was God. Kind of lengthy, but thorough.
For me specifically, I'm okay with people claiming my belief is irrational, only because there is spiritual component which I cannot explain. I can only say that for me to ignore this aspect of my life would be disingenuous to myself, and would likewise be irrational from my perspective. I've also explained many times that I am aware that I cannot have certainty, but I live my life the most rational way possible, which for me is to believe in God, because for me to reject God would involve me ignoring and outright lying to myself.
If I didn't have this "spiritual component", I would likely be agnostic, but I can't just ignore this greater than life pull, simply because some believe that anything other than a naturalist perspective is irrational.
There's no pride in this, just a humble explanation which will undoubtably be rejected by most, but the honest truth.
This argument has been specifically aimed at the general belief or disbelief in God, since the original claim was that there is "no rational believer". This absolute claim is a bit too strong, imo.
As for Christ specifically, there is lots of evidence that points to him being divine. WLC does a good job of outlining some arguments as to why Jesus was God. Kind of lengthy, but thorough.
For me specifically, I'm okay with people claiming my belief is irrational, only because there is spiritual component which I cannot explain. I can only say that for me to ignore this aspect of my life would be disingenuous to myself, and would likewise be irrational from my perspective. I've also explained many times that I am aware that I cannot have certainty, but I live my life the most rational way possible, which for me is to believe in God, because for me to reject God would involve me ignoring and outright lying to myself.
If I didn't have this "spiritual component", I would likely be agnostic, but I can't just ignore this greater than life pull, simply because some believe that anything other than a naturalist perspective is irrational.
There's no pride in this, just a humble explanation which will undoubtably be rejected by most, but the honest truth.
As for Christ specifically, there is lots of evidence that points to him being divine. WLC does a good job of outlining some arguments as to why Jesus was God. Kind of lengthy, but thorough.
For me specifically, I'm okay with people claiming my belief is irrational, only because there is spiritual component which I cannot explain. I can only say that for me to ignore this aspect of my life would be disingenuous to myself, and would likewise be irrational from my perspective. I've also explained many times that I am aware that I cannot have certainty, but I live my life the most rational way possible, which for me is to believe in God, because for me to reject God would involve me ignoring and outright lying to myself.
If I didn't have this "spiritual component", I would likely be agnostic, but I can't just ignore this greater than life pull, simply because some believe that anything other than a naturalist perspective is irrational.
There's no pride in this, just a humble explanation which will undoubtably be rejected by most, but the honest truth.
I'm not claiming that any other perspective than naturalistic is irrational, I'm trying to understand how you personally make the move from 'possibly' to 'I've chosen to believe this' and what you then go on to explain, that 'it would be irrational for me not to believe this because it's what I believe' frankly comes across as the type of circular reasoning so often associated with religious beliefs.
It doesn't seem like you actually know why you believe what you believe, you don't seem to have an argument or any reasoning to support it, and isn't that the very definition of irrational? I interpret what you're saying as 'I don't know, I've just decided to believe this particular story' and since that's utterly unconvincing to me, I wonder how it's convincing to you. Also it seems somewhat contradictory to claim to live one's life in "the most rational way possible" and then describe how you have to believe something that you can't rationalise.
I'm still curious about how you believe what you do. Is there more to it?
nazis sure made a quick entrance in this one
I'm not claiming that any other perspective than naturalistic is irrational, I'm trying to understand how you personally make the move from 'possibly' to 'I've chosen to believe this' and what you then go on to explain, that 'it would be irrational for me not to believe this because it's what I believe' frankly comes across as the type of circular reasoning so often associated with religious beliefs.
It doesn't seem like you actually know why you believe what you believe, you don't seem to have an argument or any reasoning to support it, and isn't that the very definition of irrational? I interpret what you're saying as 'I don't know, I've just decided to believe this particular story' and since that's utterly unconvincing to me, I wonder how it's convincing to you. Also it seems somewhat contradictory to claim to live one's life in "the most rational way possible" and then describe how you have to believe something that you can't rationalise.
I'm still curious about how you believe what you do. Is there more to it?
It doesn't seem like you actually know why you believe what you believe, you don't seem to have an argument or any reasoning to support it, and isn't that the very definition of irrational? I interpret what you're saying as 'I don't know, I've just decided to believe this particular story' and since that's utterly unconvincing to me, I wonder how it's convincing to you. Also it seems somewhat contradictory to claim to live one's life in "the most rational way possible" and then describe how you have to believe something that you can't rationalise.
I'm still curious about how you believe what you do. Is there more to it?
I've shared my story before, I believe Christ called me and still communicates with me today. Some people call this a "relationship", a term which I'm hesitant to use here, because again, it strikes me as arrogant, but I'll roll with it here.
I have a relationship with Christ, one which I can't deny, even if I try to rationalize it as being some form of dissonance, Christ is ever present. For me to ignore this takes more effort than for me to accept it, it's as easy as that. It would be completely irrational for me to simply ignore this and live like an atheist, something I can't do.
I didn't read the bible and go to church, and then believe in Christ as a result, I believed in Christ, and then got into the bible and agreed with what I learned.
I've always concluded this explanation by saying that even if I'm wrong about Christ, I still have to accept the evidence in front of me, and just because it's spiritual in nature, does not mean that it is any less valid.
Defence mechanism? I don't know about that, I only say it cause I'm paranoid about coming off arrogant about knowing God, which is not at all what I'm about.
I've always felt this is a strange conversation, since you don't believe in God to begin with, so anything I say here will amount to me just making stuff up, from your perspective.
I've shared my story before, I believe Christ called me and still communicates with me today. Some people call this a "relationship", a term which I'm hesitant to use here, because again, it strikes me as arrogant, but I'll roll with it here.
I have a relationship with Christ, one which I can't deny, even if I try to rationalize it as being some form of dissonance, Christ is ever present. For me to ignore this takes more effort than for me to accept it, it's as easy as that. It would be completely irrational for me to simply ignore this and live like an atheist, something I can't do.
I didn't read the bible and go to church, and then believe in Christ as a result, I believed in Christ, and then got into the bible and agreed with what I learned.
I've always concluded this explanation by saying that even if I'm wrong about Christ, I still have to accept the evidence in front of me, and just because it's spiritual in nature, does not mean that it is any less valid.
I've always felt this is a strange conversation, since you don't believe in God to begin with, so anything I say here will amount to me just making stuff up, from your perspective.
I've shared my story before, I believe Christ called me and still communicates with me today. Some people call this a "relationship", a term which I'm hesitant to use here, because again, it strikes me as arrogant, but I'll roll with it here.
I have a relationship with Christ, one which I can't deny, even if I try to rationalize it as being some form of dissonance, Christ is ever present. For me to ignore this takes more effort than for me to accept it, it's as easy as that. It would be completely irrational for me to simply ignore this and live like an atheist, something I can't do.
I didn't read the bible and go to church, and then believe in Christ as a result, I believed in Christ, and then got into the bible and agreed with what I learned.
I've always concluded this explanation by saying that even if I'm wrong about Christ, I still have to accept the evidence in front of me, and just because it's spiritual in nature, does not mean that it is any less valid.
Im sure I have asked you this before, and I guess I didnt get an answer that satisfied me, because I feel the need to ask it again. How do you know its christ? Is it a voice that goes "hey, christ here" ? Or is it more a state of mind or feeling that, when you investigated, you found the closest match to be in the bible or described by christians and mystics?
I find it hard to believe that you had never heard of christ or christianity before you had your experience, and then wondered, wow, what was that, better go find out.
Im sure I have asked you this before, and I guess I didnt get an answer that satisfied me, because I feel the need to ask it again. How do you know its christ? Is it a voice that goes "hey, christ here" ? Or is it more a state of mind or feeling that, when you investigated, you found the closest match to be in the bible or described by christians and mystics?
Im sure I have asked you this before, and I guess I didnt get an answer that satisfied me, because I feel the need to ask it again. How do you know its christ? Is it a voice that goes "hey, christ here" ? Or is it more a state of mind or feeling that, when you investigated, you found the closest match to be in the bible or described by christians and mystics?
I'm not going to be able to satisfy your doubts. I do wonder what you believe this "experience" looks like, given that you believe I'm free to decide which God I want to put behind the mask, as it were. If there was any question as to who it was, or if it was just my own inner voice, then I would gladly accept that.
To me it's like explaining how you know to eat when you're hungry. Kind of a stupid analogy, but it's hard to articulate spiritual things. To me it's like you're saying, how do you know you're actually hungry when you get that feeling, maybe you just have a stomach ache, or you convinced yourself that you're hungry. When Christ speaks to you, you understand it is Christ.
Sorry, I can't really prove my case here.
Yeah, I remember this discussion, we had it some time ago.
I'm not going to be able to satisfy your doubts. I do wonder what you believe this "experience" looks like, given that you believe I'm free to decide which God I want to put behind the mask, as it were. If there was any question as to who it was, or if it was just my own inner voice, then I would gladly accept that.
To me it's like explaining how you know to eat when you're hungry. Kind of a stupid analogy, but it's hard to articulate spiritual things. To me it's like you're saying, how do you know you're actually hungry when you get that feeling, maybe you just have a stomach ache, or you convinced yourself that you're hungry. When Christ speaks to you, you understand it is Christ.
Sorry, I can't really prove my case here.
I'm not going to be able to satisfy your doubts. I do wonder what you believe this "experience" looks like, given that you believe I'm free to decide which God I want to put behind the mask, as it were. If there was any question as to who it was, or if it was just my own inner voice, then I would gladly accept that.
To me it's like explaining how you know to eat when you're hungry. Kind of a stupid analogy, but it's hard to articulate spiritual things. To me it's like you're saying, how do you know you're actually hungry when you get that feeling, maybe you just have a stomach ache, or you convinced yourself that you're hungry. When Christ speaks to you, you understand it is Christ.
Sorry, I can't really prove my case here.
"you just know" isnt really an answer to anything.
Its hard for me to accept, but if thats all you got, then thats all you got.
I really don't believe I can prove anything here, but going back to my analogy of hunger, I think it's the best metaphor I can use to elaborate what I mean.
Take hunger, or pain, or emotions. Obviously these can all be explained, like when you're depressed, you may produce less dopamine, but the point is that when you are depressed, you simply "feel" depressed. You "feel" hungry, or pain, and you just accept it as an inherent truth, without being able to doubt that you actually are sad, or hungry, or in pain. I'm saying that this relationship with Christ is similar, in that you can't really doubt it, as it's inherent by the very fact that the experience is present. It does beg the question, but no more than having a headache, and simply knowing that your head aches.
I've always felt this is a strange conversation, since you don't believe in God to begin with, so anything I say here will amount to me just making stuff up, from your perspective.
I've shared my story before, I believe Christ called me and still communicates with me today. Some people call this a "relationship", a term which I'm hesitant to use here, because again, it strikes me as arrogant, but I'll roll with it here.
I have a relationship with Christ, one which I can't deny, even if I try to rationalize it as being some form of dissonance, Christ is ever present. For me to ignore this takes more effort than for me to accept it, it's as easy as that. It would be completely irrational for me to simply ignore this and live like an atheist, something I can't do.
I didn't read the bible and go to church, and then believe in Christ as a result, I believed in Christ, and then got into the bible and agreed with what I learned.
I've always concluded this explanation by saying that even if I'm wrong about Christ, I still have to accept the evidence in front of me, and just because it's spiritual in nature, does not mean that it is any less valid.
I've shared my story before, I believe Christ called me and still communicates with me today. Some people call this a "relationship", a term which I'm hesitant to use here, because again, it strikes me as arrogant, but I'll roll with it here.
I have a relationship with Christ, one which I can't deny, even if I try to rationalize it as being some form of dissonance, Christ is ever present. For me to ignore this takes more effort than for me to accept it, it's as easy as that. It would be completely irrational for me to simply ignore this and live like an atheist, something I can't do.
I didn't read the bible and go to church, and then believe in Christ as a result, I believed in Christ, and then got into the bible and agreed with what I learned.
I've always concluded this explanation by saying that even if I'm wrong about Christ, I still have to accept the evidence in front of me, and just because it's spiritual in nature, does not mean that it is any less valid.
This seems to be the crux of what you believe, perhaps you can help me understand how you went from 'possibility' to 'the christian version is the correct one, I'll believe that'. It seems quite irrational based on what you've said so far, not because I don't share your belief, but because the way you arrived at them seems unreasoned and illogical. Your 'I have to believe what I believe because it's what I believe' is circular reasoning and doesn't support your view.
How do you know there was no reason? Just because we dumb humans can't see the big-picture reason doesn't mean there can't be one.
Are you an agnostic then? If you're an atheist then I'd like to know your factual basis.
Are you an agnostic then? If you're an atheist then I'd like to know your factual basis.
When you say that Christ 'called' you, how exactly does that work, what form does the call take?
This seems to be the crux of what you believe, perhaps you can help me understand how you went from 'possibility' to 'the christian version is the correct one, I'll believe that'. It seems quite irrational based on what you've said so far, not because I don't share your belief, but because the way you arrived at them seems unreasoned and illogical. Your 'I have to believe what I believe because it's what I believe' is circular reasoning and doesn't support your view.
This seems to be the crux of what you believe, perhaps you can help me understand how you went from 'possibility' to 'the christian version is the correct one, I'll believe that'. It seems quite irrational based on what you've said so far, not because I don't share your belief, but because the way you arrived at them seems unreasoned and illogical. Your 'I have to believe what I believe because it's what I believe' is circular reasoning and doesn't support your view.
The actual "arrival" of my belief was nothing I contemplated and weighed versus other beliefs, it simply was a "call". I can't really explain it any other way, it's as difficult as explaining what pain feels like. You can describe it as unpleasant or numbing, but unless you have felt pain, you won't be able to make sense of the description. Maybe guilt is a better metaphor. You can explain what guilt feels like, but you won't actually be able to portray it well, and the voice of God is just as difficult to explain, and impossible to prove.
I'm fine with people doubting that it is actually the voice of God, but what I'd like to emphasize is that to deny it is as difficult as denying that you have a headache. It would be irrational for you to hand-waive a headache as nothing more than an illusion or some sort of dissonance, and I likewise can't just say that Christ is not active in my life. Sure, it could be something other than God, but it's somewhat irrelevant to the implications this has on my life, and how I live.
God's a liar! why didnt he take the wheel if he said he would?
You keep mentioning that you're 'fine' with people considering your beliefs irrational or doubting them. Why do you keep saying that?
I'm never fine with people considering my beliefs or viewpoints irrational and always have a need for understanding. If I hold a belief for which I couldn't provide a sensible explanation, let alone provide a convincing rationale for, it goes into the mental box labelled 'Uncertain - hold for further consideration' and sometimes they simply get jettisoned. 'I simply believe' would never be good enough for me, as poor as my ability to reason is I still hold myself to higher standards than that.
A headache is real and usually has an identifiable cause, and they're a physical sensation, and it's not something I would ever wish for, so I don't really think it's fair of you to say that I wouldn't be able to waive away god anymore than I could waive away an undeniable pain in my head. As much as comparing a belief in god to a headache has it's appeal to me, I don't think you can do it. Perhaps a better comparison would be a 'longing'.
So the call wasn't a voice (even though you call it a voice in the post above) or an incident, it's not even something that you can easily describe? And on top of this lack of a rationale, or ability to communicate how you come to hold this belief so strongly, you happen to have had this feeling about a mainstream religion. Can you describe how Christ is 'active' in your life?
This is all utterly unconvincing to me so far, you haven't provided even one good reason for what you believe, how is it convincing to you? Without begging the question again, can you explain why you should hold on to this belief so strongly and not put it into the 'Uncertain - hold for further consideration' box? I really want to understand this.
I'm never fine with people considering my beliefs or viewpoints irrational and always have a need for understanding. If I hold a belief for which I couldn't provide a sensible explanation, let alone provide a convincing rationale for, it goes into the mental box labelled 'Uncertain - hold for further consideration' and sometimes they simply get jettisoned. 'I simply believe' would never be good enough for me, as poor as my ability to reason is I still hold myself to higher standards than that.
I didn't actually go from the "possibility", because I was never really contemplating anything per se. It wasn't like I was thinking about choosing a religion and then decided on one. For me it started with a gradual "whisper" which culminated in a clear directive of accepting Christ.
The actual "arrival" of my belief was nothing I contemplated and weighed versus other beliefs, it simply was a "call". I can't really explain it any other way, it's as difficult as explaining what pain feels like. You can describe it as unpleasant or numbing, but unless you have felt pain, you won't be able to make sense of the description. Maybe guilt is a better metaphor. You can explain what guilt feels like, but you won't actually be able to portray it well, and the voice of God is just as difficult to explain, and impossible to prove.
I'm fine with people doubting that it is actually the voice of God, but what I'd like to emphasize is that to deny it is as difficult as denying that you have a headache. It would be irrational for you to hand-waive a headache as nothing more than an illusion or some sort of dissonance, and I likewise can't just say that Christ is not active in my life. Sure, it could be something other than God, but it's somewhat irrelevant to the implications this has on my life, and how I live.
The actual "arrival" of my belief was nothing I contemplated and weighed versus other beliefs, it simply was a "call". I can't really explain it any other way, it's as difficult as explaining what pain feels like. You can describe it as unpleasant or numbing, but unless you have felt pain, you won't be able to make sense of the description. Maybe guilt is a better metaphor. You can explain what guilt feels like, but you won't actually be able to portray it well, and the voice of God is just as difficult to explain, and impossible to prove.
I'm fine with people doubting that it is actually the voice of God, but what I'd like to emphasize is that to deny it is as difficult as denying that you have a headache. It would be irrational for you to hand-waive a headache as nothing more than an illusion or some sort of dissonance, and I likewise can't just say that Christ is not active in my life. Sure, it could be something other than God, but it's somewhat irrelevant to the implications this has on my life, and how I live.
So the call wasn't a voice (even though you call it a voice in the post above) or an incident, it's not even something that you can easily describe? And on top of this lack of a rationale, or ability to communicate how you come to hold this belief so strongly, you happen to have had this feeling about a mainstream religion. Can you describe how Christ is 'active' in your life?
This is all utterly unconvincing to me so far, you haven't provided even one good reason for what you believe, how is it convincing to you? Without begging the question again, can you explain why you should hold on to this belief so strongly and not put it into the 'Uncertain - hold for further consideration' box? I really want to understand this.
You keep mentioning that you're 'fine' with people considering your beliefs irrational or doubting them. Why do you keep saying that?
I'm never fine with people considering my beliefs or viewpoints irrational and always have a need for understanding. If I hold a belief for which I couldn't provide a sensible explanation, let alone provide a convincing rationale for, it goes into the mental box labelled 'Uncertain - hold for further consideration' and sometimes they simply get jettisoned. 'I simply believe' would never be good enough for me, as poor as my ability to reason is I still hold myself to higher standards than that.
I'm never fine with people considering my beliefs or viewpoints irrational and always have a need for understanding. If I hold a belief for which I couldn't provide a sensible explanation, let alone provide a convincing rationale for, it goes into the mental box labelled 'Uncertain - hold for further consideration' and sometimes they simply get jettisoned. 'I simply believe' would never be good enough for me, as poor as my ability to reason is I still hold myself to higher standards than that.
A headache is real and usually has an identifiable cause, and they're a physical sensation, and it's not something I would ever wish for, so I don't really think it's fair of you to say that I wouldn't be able to waive away god anymore than I could waive away an undeniable pain in my head. As much as comparing a belief in god to a headache has it's appeal to me, I don't think you can do it. Perhaps a better comparison would be a 'longing'.
So the call wasn't a voice (even though you call it a voice in the post above) or an incident, it's not even something that you can easily describe? And on top of this lack of a rationale, or ability to communicate how you come to hold this belief so strongly, you happen to have had this feeling about a mainstream religion. Can you describe how Christ is 'active' in your life?
This is all utterly unconvincing to me so far, you haven't provided even one good reason for what you believe, how is it convincing to you? Without begging the question again, can you explain why you should hold on to this belief so strongly and not put it into the 'Uncertain - hold for further consideration' box? I really want to understand this.
This is all utterly unconvincing to me so far, you haven't provided even one good reason for what you believe, how is it convincing to you? Without begging the question again, can you explain why you should hold on to this belief so strongly and not put it into the 'Uncertain - hold for further consideration' box? I really want to understand this.
"... And on top of this lack of rationale, or ability to communicate how you come to hold this pain so strongly, you happen to have had this pain about something specific. Can you describe this pain? This is all utterly unconvincing to me so far, you haven't provided even one good reason for this pain, how is it convincing to you?"
I'm not trying to make light of your question, I'm just trying to shed some light on what exactly it is you are asking me. If you have a pain in your foot, short of you showing me an x-ray, which really doesn't prove that you have pain, all you can say is that your foot hurts. The pain itself is what is convincing to you, it is inherent.
If you foot hurts, I can't convince you that your foot doesn't hurt, I can't give you evidence to why your foot shouldn't hurt, I can't even say that it's all in your mind, because by the very nature of you thinking that you are in pain, then you are in pain. And so it is with Christ. I can't prove to you that he speaks, I can't give you a good reason or proof, it just is, and it is as unconvincing as pain to an outside observer.
N_R, your analogy only goes so far. If I say to you "I am in pain" then you at least have some idea of what I am communicating. When you say "god speaks to me" I have no idea what you are communicating. You still wont specify whether its a voice in your head, a voice outside of your head, a mental state, a feeling, or what. So I really have no idea what you are talking about.
N_R, your analogy only goes so far. If I say to you "I am in pain" then you at least have some idea of what I am communicating. When you say "god speaks to me" I have no idea what you are communicating. You still wont specify whether its a voice in your head, a voice outside of your head, a mental state, a feeling, or what. So I really have no idea what you are talking about.
I can only speak for me, not sure about other Christians. When I first became a Christian, I can only explain it as an understanding that I had been wrong about life until then, that Christ was real and active and that he loved me.
Once or twice it has been a literal voice in my head, but that's not the norm. Usually it's a strong impression, or a sudden knowledge about something. I guess it depends what the context is. The best way I can describe it is that it is a combination of knowledge, emotion, often with peace and joy. Not sure that helps, but it's the best I can do.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE