Speaking in GoDs Language

[screwtape]

But to answer your question. I think a person would just know.

So maybe doubtingthomas just knows it's fake?  What if one person claims to "just know" it's the real deal, while another equally religious, equally convinced person claims it isn't?  How do you break that tie?

That doesn't actually answer the question either.  "I just know" does not demonstrate how someone knows.

That's the problem with things like glossolalia and prophecy.  They are not verifiable.  As such, it is bad policy to give them any credence. 

[ILOVEYOU]

But to answer your question. I think a person would just know.

So maybe doubtingthomas just knows it's fake?  What if one person claims to "just know" it's the real deal, while another equally religious, equally convinced person claims it isn't?  How do you break that tie?

That doesn't actually answer the question either.  "I just know" does not demonstrate how someone knows.

That's the problem with things like glossolalia and prophecy.  They are not verifiable.  As such, it is bad policy to give them any credence.

You can't. Only if it has been given you by GOD. So really, if one really wants to know, the only way to know is of GOD. So if a person does not believe in GOD. Then they could never justifiably observe the situation from all possibilities. Bit of a situation, I know.

[screwtape]

So the simple answer, the probable answer is, it's bullshit.  And the proper reaction to people who make claims that they speak in tongues or make prophecies is to lock them up for our safety. 

That forces the gods to come up with a better way to communicate.

[Omen]

You can't. Only if it has been given you by GOD. So really, if one really wants to know, the only way to know is of GOD. So if a person does not believe in GOD. Then they could never justifiably observe the situation from all possibilities. Bit of a situation, I know.

Its a situation that renders knowledge meaningless, one cannot separate the truth of your claims from its falsehood.  One cannot separate the existence of your god claim from its non-existence, precisely because you argue for it in such a way to render the ability to know anything meaningless.

Why are you not capable of arguing or defending your god claim through any other means?

Could I not argue for anything and everything, using the solipsistic appeals you've created?

[changeling]

With god, why would you have to babble at all?
Couldn't god merely cause them to read each others minds.
I mean he lets the Vulcans do it.

[Morgan]

When the disciples spoke in tongues at Pentecost. The people that were there could hear them speaking in their native language individually.  What happened at Pentecost, happened uncontrollably. Not all though could hear what others heard. One made mention that they were drunk.

Ipse dixit.

Still waiting for proof this actually happened. 

I don't think it is contradictory at all when put in proper context. IMO

Although I would understand the matter is subjective, as not everyone come to the same agreement. I respect your decision to believe whatever you want. If you do not believe, then I'm OK with that. It's your decision.

Context which can be interpreted as one sees fit - the author of your supposed holy book sure took a lot of artistic liberties. One would guess the instructions on how to evade eternal hellfire would be a tad more clear and concise.

I am also comfortable with the answer "I don't know". But I find it very hard to believe anything exists at all w/o an intelligent source.

Why does there have to be something intelligent behind everything? All's fine and dandy if you want to imagine there's a magical sky pixie with a beard hovering above us, but is it not intellectually dishonest to claim it to be true with no proof? Is it not worse to preach this supposed truth?

It doesn't make any sense. What would be the purpose of that. And if everything was creating in a big bang, then where did these gases come from and what was there before that...? what is the source for all of these things...? And what makes them react the way that they do...? And somehow someway we appear. Why...? What happened....

These are question that people can only answer for themselves. Science hasn't nor can it prove theses things.

Why does lightning strike, rain fall and rainbows appear? Gods must be the reason!
Science hasn't figured it out yet, or are you that brilliant of a physicist to know precisely what future discoveries await us? Humans have always had questions about the universe, but science has always worked to provide answers. Well, when said scientists weren't too busy being persecuted by YHWH's fanclub. 

[ILOVEYOU]

You can't. Only if it has been given you by GOD. So really, if one really wants to know, the only way to know is of GOD. So if a person does not believe in GOD. Then they could never justifiably observe the situation from all possibilities. Bit of a situation, I know.

Its a situation that renders knowledge meaningless, one cannot separate the truth of your claims from its falsehood.  One cannot separate the existence of your god claim from its non-existence, precisely because you argue for it in such a way to render the ability to know anything meaningless.

Why are you not capable of arguing or defending your god claim through any other means?

Could I not argue for anything and everything, using the solipsistic appeals you've created?

Don't blame me. I didn't make it up.  It's your decision. Nothing really to argue about over here.

[Traveler]

I have never understood the intelligence requires a creator argument. How, then, do we explain where god came from? If complexity requires a creator, wouldn't an infinitely complex being like god require a creator? And on and on and on ...

In other words, it answers absolutely nothing.

[Omen]

Its a situation that renders knowledge meaningless, one cannot separate the truth of your claims from its falsehood.  One cannot separate the existence of your god claim from its non-existence, precisely because you argue for it in such a way to render the ability to know anything meaningless.

Why are you not capable of arguing or defending your god claim through any other means?

Could I not argue for anything and everything, using the solipsistic appeals you've created?

Don't blame me. I didn't make it up.  It's your decision. Nothing really to argue about over here.

So you agree that your presenting no argument capable of discerning knowledge?

[ILOVEYOU]

I have never understood the intelligence requires a creator argument. How, then, do we explain where god came from? If complexity requires a creator, wouldn't an infinitely complex being like god require a creator? And on and on and on ...

In other words, it answers absolutely nothing.

Weird. Probably so because we are mortal and everything we know has a beginning and an ending. Do we even comprehend the true meaning of infinite...? Not sure if we are able to really grasp it other than its intent.

[ILOVEYOU]

Its a situation that renders knowledge meaningless, one cannot separate the truth of your claims from its falsehood.  One cannot separate the existence of your god claim from its non-existence, precisely because you argue for it in such a way to render the ability to know anything meaningless.

Why are you not capable of arguing or defending your god claim through any other means?

Could I not argue for anything and everything, using the solipsistic appeals you've created?

Don't blame me. I didn't make it up.  It's your decision. Nothing really to argue about over here.

So you agree that your presenting no argument capable of discerning knowledge?

Knowledge isn't wisdom.

[The Gawd]

right. But its not wise to make decisions without knowledge. Where does that leave you 'spiritually'?

[Omen]

So you agree that your presenting no argument capable of discerning knowledge?

Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Special pleading;

How do you determine anything if you can't determine what is true in a manner that is inseparable from what is false?

[Poseidon]

ILU. your post, # 28, suggests that you are not fully aware of the current state of scientific achievment. Nor of the fascinating study of chaos theory ( be careful not to choke on the word, theory, until you understand what it actually implies) The word cosmology is not a dirty expression or the invention of some scientist madman. Post 28 is nettlesome. You might profit with some familiarity with particle physics, number theory,(OMG there's that word again)and discover the niceties of the periodic table of elements. There is more, much more to know, before you can question or deny the professional and immense discoveries of the scientific community.

This is not to demean you or question your intelligence but............."You have much to learn Grasshopper".

[Omen]

I don't think it is contradictory at all when put in proper context. IMO

You mean when we engage in intellectual dishonesty and make believe?

Why would we ever do that?

Why would you expect us to take that as a valid intellectual answer?

If you do not believe, then I'm OK with that. It's your decision.

Knowledge isn't a choice, either sufficient evidence and reason exists to accept a proposition as true or it doesn't.  I can no more 'choose' to believe the bible or the christian god then I can walk out my front door and 'choose' to believe my death trap of a sub compact is a magical dragon ready to fly me to work.

That would be delusional, why are you reducing the ability to 'know' to a qualification that openly invites delusion?

What would be the purpose of that

When did you ever establish there was a purpose?

. And if everything was creating in a big bang

False dichotomy, the big bang has nothing to do with atheism.  If I discovered a god to exist tomorrow, it wouldn't invalidate the big bang.  The big bang, like every field of scientific research just invalidates religious mythology making it impossible for the christian god to exist for example.

then where did these gases come from and what was there before that...

The cooling and expansion of the singularity.  Energy is matter and the conservation of energy remains constant, so effectively if the total sum of energy in the universe is 0 then nothing has really changed.  We both come from and go into 'nothing'.  This isn't the philosophical absence of everything, nothing doesn't actually exist.

? what is the source for all of these things...? And what makes them react the way that they do...? And somehow someway we appear. Why...? What happened....

Emergent properties, thermodynamic self organization, evolution.  All of these things easily answer your questions.

These are question that people can only answer for themselves. Science hasn't nor can it prove theses things.

Actually, it can answer many of them, you're just trying to make up questions for the unknown that don't exist.  Also, as I pointed out before, it is a false dichotomy and has nothing to do with atheism.  You've specifically set yourself up to be against intellectualism and attack the foundations of the ability to 'know' anything, because you don't want to be faced with the emotional conflict that your religious myth ( christianity ) is false.  So you try to reduce the ability to know to a point where you can't know anything.  It is intellectually dishonest on your part and morally unconscionable that you would ever project it upon others.

[dloubet]

I think a person would just know.

Have you ever "Just Known" something, only to find out you were wrong?

How did you feel before you knew you were wrong? Did it feel like you were absolutely right? That's what being wrong always feels like.

Assuming you have had this experience, how did you find out you were wrong? Did you perhaps compare what you thought you knew to reality? Why not apply that technique to everything all the time? Doing that will help you be right more often.

Unless, of course, you don't care if you're right or wrong.

[ILOVEYOU]

right. But its not wise to make decisions without knowledge. Where does that leave you 'spiritually'?

Awake. I trust in The Lord.

[ILOVEYOU]

So you agree that your presenting no argument capable of discerning knowledge?

Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Special pleading;

How do you determine anything if you can't determine what is true in a manner that is inseparable from what is false?

Method...? Your method or GODS...?

[ILOVEYOU]

ILU. your post, # 28, suggests that you are not fully aware of the current state of scientific achievment. Nor of the fascinating study of chaos theory ( be careful not to choke on the word, theory, until you understand what it actually implies) The word cosmology is not a dirty expression or the invention of some scientist madman. Post 28 is nettlesome. You might profit with some familiarity with particle physics, number theory,(OMG there's that word again)and discover the niceties of the periodic table of elements. There is more, much more to know, before you can question or deny the professional and immense discoveries of the scientific community.

This is not to demean you or question your intelligence but............."You have much to learn Grasshopper".

 
What's your point...? I'm sure these guys have knowledge to assume such "theories" but these "theories" are proven. They are opinions or better yet, assumptions based upon certain evidence. The theories themselves are not facts.

If any of these theories held weight, then the entire Scientific Community would be in agreement, which they are not. But I guess the Chap who goes against the grain isn't considered a "real" (True Scientist*).

 

[The Gawd]

right. But its not wise to make decisions without knowledge. Where does that leave you 'spiritually'?

Awake. I trust in The Lord.

It leaves you lacking wisdom since what you call "the lord" isnt based on any knowledge. Then to base anything in your life on the opposite of wisdom is...well, I havent even come up with a word that describes it, but it aint good. Your foundation is shakey...at best.

[ILOVEYOU]

I don't think it is contradictory at all when put in proper context. IMO

You mean when we engage in intellectual dishonesty and make believe?

Why would we ever do that?

Why would you expect us to take that as a valid intellectual answer?

If you do not believe, then I'm OK with that. It's your decision.

Knowledge isn't a choice, either sufficient evidence and reason exists to accept a proposition as true or it doesn't.  I can no more 'choose' to believe the bible or the christian god then I can walk out my front door and 'choose' to believe my death trap of a sub compact is a magical dragon ready to fly me to work.

That would be delusional, why are you reducing the ability to 'know' to a qualification that openly invites delusion?

What would be the purpose of that

When did you ever establish there was a purpose?

. And if everything was creating in a big bang

False dichotomy, the big bang has nothing to do with atheism.  If I discovered a god to exist tomorrow, it wouldn't invalidate the big bang.  The big bang, like every field of scientific research just invalidates religious mythology making it impossible for the christian god to exist for example.

then where did these gases come from and what was there before that...

The cooling and expansion of the singularity.  Energy is matter and the conservation of energy remains constant, so effectively if the total sum of energy in the universe is 0 then nothing has really changed.  We both come from and go into 'nothing'.  This isn't the philosophical absence of everything, nothing doesn't actually exist.

? what is the source for all of these things...? And what makes them react the way that they do...? And somehow someway we appear. Why...? What happened....

Emergent properties, thermodynamic self organization, evolution.  All of these things easily answer your questions.

These are question that people can only answer for themselves. Science hasn't nor can it prove theses things.

Actually, it can answer many of them, you're just trying to make up questions for the unknown that don't exist.  Also, as I pointed out before, it is a false dichotomy and has nothing to do with atheism.  You've specifically set yourself up to be against intellectualism and attack the foundations of the ability to 'know' anything, because you don't want to be faced with the emotional conflict that your religious myth ( christianity ) is false.  So you try to reduce the ability to know to a point where you can't know anything.  It is intellectually dishonest on your part and morally unconscionable that you would ever project it upon others.

I'm sorry but LOL....

You appear to be a smart fellow. Quit lying to yourself will ya.

I mean really, I'm not against scientific theory. But I don't swallow everything they're feeding me. Kinda like you guys attacking my faith.
Didn't the Hadron Collider just discover 2 new particles that blows the past 60+ years of Molecular Science out of the water.

Time to update the books.

[ILOVEYOU]

I think a person would just know.

Have you ever "Just Known" something, only to find out you were wrong?

How did you feel before you knew you were wrong? Did it feel like you were absolutely right? That's what being wrong always feels like.

Assuming you have had this experience, how did you find out you were wrong? Did you perhaps compare what you thought you knew to reality? Why not apply that technique to everything all the time? Doing that will help you be right more often.

Unless, of course, you don't care if you're right or wrong.

Absolutely. Tough lesson sometimes. First off, I never claimed anything other than I believe and "just know" is my opinion with this matter. We are not talking about a general thing here but a supernatural gift.

[ILOVEYOU]

right. But its not wise to make decisions without knowledge. Where does that leave you 'spiritually'?

Awake. I trust in The Lord.

It leaves you lacking wisdom since what you call "the lord" isnt based on any knowledge. Then to base anything in your life on the opposite of wisdom is...well, I havent even come up with a word that describes it, but it aint good. Your foundation is shakey...at best.

Really...? Again, I suppose what matters is how one determines what knowledge is. How one does this is subjective. And being that I believe in GOD, I choose to trust in Him over what I see in the world. It's OK to disagree w/ me. Again. I do not disagree with the scientific method, I just hold it to an Higher Authority.

[Azdgari]

... We are not talking about a general thing here but a supernatural gift.

You just know that it's a supernatural gift, right?

By the way, you mangled the quotes on post #49, it's totally unclear where your own text is in that post (if there even is any of you own text in that post).

[ILOVEYOU]

... We are not talking about a general thing here but a supernatural gift.

You just know that it's a supernatural gift, right?

By the way, you mangled the quotes on post #49, it's totally unclear where your own text is in that post (if there even is any of you own text in that post).

I believe there is such a thing, yes. I do feel however that that isn't the only way of communication. Prayer works...!!!!

I don't worry over it.

By the way, thanks for the heads up on post #49. Fixed...

[The Gawd]

Really...? Again, I suppose what matters is how one determines what knowledge is. How one does this is subjective. And being that I believe in GOD, I choose to trust in Him over what I see in the world. It's OK to disagree w/ me. Again. I do not disagree with the scientific method, I just hold it to an Higher Authority.

Redefining the word knowledge doesnt do anything. We can use any combination of letters that you want to use to represent what we understand knowledge to be. A rose by any other name. Youre still basing this god on something outside of knowledge, which isnt wise.

I know(ledge) that when I press the red button on my TZV remote that my TV will come on. Thats based on previous observations. Its not subjective at all. I have knowledge of oxygen through observance of lungs, and medical/scientific studies. Again observable. Not a belief.

Your belief in god is based on.........................belief. Thats not knowledge, therefore not wise.

[ILOVEYOU]

Really...? Again, I suppose what matters is how one determines what knowledge is. How one does this is subjective. And being that I believe in GOD, I choose to trust in Him over what I see in the world. It's OK to disagree w/ me. Again. I do not disagree with the scientific method, I just hold it to an Higher Authority.

Redefining the word knowledge doesnt do anything. We can use any combination of letters that you want to use to represent what we understand knowledge to be. A rose by any other name. Youre still basing this god on something outside of knowledge, which isnt wise.

I know(ledge) that when I press the red button on my TZV remote that my TV will come on. Thats based on previous observations. Its not subjective at all. I have knowledge of oxygen through observance of lungs, and medical/scientific studies. Again observable. Not a belief.

Your belief in god is based on.........................belief. Thats not knowledge, therefore not wise.

So, I'm getting the hint that you reject all things Spiritual.... amIright...?

[ParkingPlaces]

So, I'm getting the hint that you reject all things Spiritual.... amIright...?

LOL! Where do you think you're at Love, Disneyland?

[The Gawd]

So, I'm getting the hint that you reject all things Spiritual.... amIright...?

What is spiritual?
Do I reject all things supernatural? yes. until someone can give me a reason to believe such things. But when they give me a valid reason, its no longer belief because its based on something tangible.