But if everyone in this thread were to go to your house and then watch you clap your hands (and check those hands were really your hands i.e not fake hands etc.etc.) then that would count as empirically validated evidence. The thing with God is that God is not demonstrable using the 5 senses on which science is based around. So you clapping your hands is physically demonstrable, but the existence of God is not demonstrable. So... what was your point in the above quote?

How do you know he's infallible? Or do you not care how you acquire knowledge and just accept things on faith and what you've been told? Or do you not think you require for him to be infallible in order to have this knowledge that he is infallible? How do you come to know God??

Did you ever think that the OT is a running commentary from God's mind while He observes people?

And at the same time it is a running commentary of what goes on in people's minds?

Swedenborg was a theologian that Kant was interested in. Swedenborg said the OT is an example of the human mind overcoming fear and possibly other self defeating emotions. IOW the human mind becoming more and more rational.

This is very controversial of Swedenborg if you accept the historicity of biblical events and there is a lot of history backing the bible.

So you think that other people have passive beliefs. How do you know that when you are not them?

It's an inculcated belief. I can never recall a time when I didn't think God was both good and all powerful.

My personal experience is contrary to the atheist tenet that people aren't born believers.

But I'm a born believer. How did I get such a clear cut image of God's nature that is beyond disruption if I wasn't gifted with it? Why do I engage in circular logic as I'm so frequently accused of doing. Well it could be a gift from God. My bias comes from and goes back to God.

Your bias could be built differently to serve a different purpose for God. Maybe you've taken that bias too far.

No. To me it seems more likely that the people who wrote the OT were summarising the beliefs of their culture by writing poems, symbolic fictional stories, or possibly they were, let's say, liberally exploring their imagination. I am talking about only some of the Bible. Some of the non-crazy stuff in the Bible can be verified as being true or false by historians. I accept thatare parts which be verified as probably true and some as probably false. If you really wish me to find example I will do.

You mean of what went on in some peoples' minds? Sure, that agrees with what I said above.

I don't see the relevance of your first sentence here.
The OT is not an example of the human mind overcoming fear.
But there may be examples in the Bible of man overcoming fear (please name some). Also, I can make up stories of man overcoming fear. And there are also thousands of stories of men climbing everest and going to the South Pole without being inspired by the Bible. So what is your point?

Okay, now you've just confused me. So you've introduced this guy called Swedenborg and now you're saying that what he said is controversial. Why should I care, and what does it have to do with my response to your previous post?

If you are saying that God is an elder grandfather sitting on the cloud, then NO! I don't belive in that.
If you are saying that God is personofication of Innerself, Nature, then yes.

Look at all the crazy negativistic interpretations of scripture on here by atheists.

Don't they remind you of 2 year olds with their fingers stuck in their ears trying to tune out what Mommy and Daddy are asking them to do?

They sure do. They look like little immature, rebellious children every time they post one of their hate filled interpretations.

Why do they refuse to grow up? Afraid of responsibility...trying to leave themselves a responsibility escape hatch?

But everybody has to grow up. To not do so is self-defeating.

If this is a serious question then the answer is far from obvious, and to draw an immediate conclusion without further investigation is... jumping to conclusions... which tend to be false.


Great question. I don't know.

Another great question.

Sounds like you're jumping to a conclusion.

Maybe. But that seems ridiculous.

Wow. I'm not really sure what to say tbh.

Then start studying up on "gifts" in the bible.

People are born with gifts and gifts are given.

You know nothing about me so why are you drawing conclusion about my personality?

There is no intended hatred in my recent posts. Only my beliefs, and my interpretations of your beliefs (both relevant to the discussion).

What does growing up and responsibility have to do with a debate on the belief and knowledge of a God?

I'm not sure why you see my posts as negative. I assure you that I am not trying to be negative.

Can you give me an example. "Gifts" like strength or what?

I'm just thinking aloud. The order of your questions led me to assess things that way.

You've been very decent itt. You might not be a hard unbelief case. You could have a reasonable legitimate desire to understand things. But a lot of people posting here don't and they've probably made an impression on me so I made a generalized group statement instead of a personal one. Sorry for that.

When you're posting on here take a look at the passages people post. Most of the atheists are fixated on things that transmit negativity.

But faith is growth toward positive goals. It's inevitable we're going to pass through negative personality traits in seeking spiritual growth.

Well we're aware of gifts today like gifted children. We say he's gifted with musical talent or she's gifted in math, etc.

But one of the earliest sources talking about gifts is the bible. Particularly, the NT. It talks about spiritual gifts.

Even Jesus Christ's birth in the manger is attended by gifts from the Magi.

Growth towards positive goals does not require faith. For the most part it requires desire and commitment. You may think that because Atheists don't believe in God, they cannot achieve goals. Who are they achieving goals for ultimately? If not for God then who? Surely not for themselves, because what is the point of that? I'm not saying that all atheists are nihilists, but certainly the converse is true. And many Nihilists don't just go and commit suicide. They recognise that we are here by luck and they want to make the most of the life they have here whilst they have than chance.

Well it's been a pleasure.

Time to bow out now. I'm working on not being so competitive and would like to post less in the future.

I'll just leave you with one thought. How do atheists achieve spiritual formation?

Morality and spirituality aren't the same thing.

I don't claim to know this in a form that is provable in some scientific sense. I merely posit it as being something that's a reasonable position to hold based on my own experience and the way that philosophers have discussed the nature of belief for a very long time.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

I missed this because I didn't see my name in the quote.

The claim is that I had just clapped my hands, not that I have the capacity to clap my hands. They are very different types of claims.

It simply stands as a true statement about the universe that cannot be empirically verified.

Edi: this is a response to Splendour.

Spirituality interests me because it might have personal value, and there might be some personal truth to it (for me). I never claimed that morality and spirituality are the same thing. I never even mentioned spirituality afai can remember.

Anyway, it was nice having a discussion with you. I hope to have similar discussions in the future with other theists and maybe make more progress and compromise in arguments on knowledge, belief and religion, as I thought this conversation was just getting started and unfortunately cut short.

Anyway, good luck with not being as competitive, and good luck in the future.

So what is your point?

The point I guess I was trying to point out was that God is - under no well-documented, reliable circumstances, detectable through the five senses. Clapping your hands is detectable with reliable certainty in particular circumstances.

Interesting, but that is a lot of stuff to read. I did glance at the difference between acceptance and belief, which is interesting. I guess it is useful to know the technical difference between terms.

The point is tied back to OP's question about what it means to know something. It is not necessary to be able to physically prove something to be justified in believing it.

The clapping of hands is a localized event. Are you claiming that God is a localized event?

Also, I don't believe that the five senses is the only means by which one can come to reasonable beliefs and knowledge. I believe there are infinitely many primes, but this belief is not derived from any of the five senses.

Does 'OP' here mean me or Original Position?

I was referring to this: