No Proof = No Knowledge

[Sword of Christ]

The correct question is "why should I suppose it is?"

What makes that the correct question when you could equally well ask "why shouldn't I suppose it is?"? It's not your own opinion again is it? What is your opinion you have to start with and refer everything to based on? Is it what you feel deep inside of yourself? You can see how this line of atheistic objection has been well nullified.

The same event happening to everyone on this planet, including me. That should do it.... independent verification.

Perhaps it does happen to you to some extent but you come up with some other explanation based on your own opinion to explain it all away.

[Mudhammam]

The correct question is "why should I suppose it is?"

What makes that the correct question when you could equally well ask "why shouldn't I suppose it is?"? It's not your own opinion again is it? What is your opinion you have to start with and refer everything to based on? Is it what you feel deep inside of yourself? You can see how this line of atheistic objection has been well nullified.

The same event happening to everyone on this planet, including me. That should do it.... independent verification.

Perhaps it does happen to you to some extent but you come up with some other explanation based on your own opinion to explain it all away.

Do you have even one reason for believing in Paul's testimony, besides the fact that you read it in a book and decided it felt true to you? Why didn't you say so earlier!?

[pocaracas]

The correct question is "why should I suppose it is?"

What makes that the correct question when you could equally well ask "why shouldn't I suppose it is?"? It's not your own opinion again is it? What is your opinion you have to start with and refer everything to based on? Is it what you feel deep inside of yourself? You can see how this line of atheistic objection has been well nullified.

Oh... so... evolution from australopithecus with no concept whatsoever of any divinity... at some point, the concept appears...
So, from the origins... from the stand point of no one even considering the existence of any god, "why should I suppose it is?"

The same event happening to everyone on this planet, including me. That should do it.... independent verification.

Perhaps it does happen to you to some extent but you come up with some other explanation based on your own opinion to explain it all away.

I have first hand evidence that it doesn't... I do have a pretty good notion of what my mind does and no such experience has ever manifested.

Plus, if it happened to everyone, we'd hear about on the news, twitter, facebook.... everywhere at the same time!

[Bad Writer]

If you don't have certain proof you won't have certain knowledge. Though I haven't seen any certain proof that atheism/materialism is true so this would be a belief (not a faith fair enough) in the absence of certain knowledge. There is a difference between what you believe to be true and what you know to be true. You can believe in God and a particular revelation from God without having certain knowledge of it's truth, you take it with a degree of trust that the people who delivered this revelation experienced what they experienced and this is a faith based position.

What the fuck is the theists' fetish for equating atheism with materialism (and even naturalism, for that matter)? Why do I feel you are parroting what your pastor claims about atheists without ever thinking for yourself or doing your own research?

[Sword of Christ]

Do you have even one reason for believing in Paul's testimony, besides the fact that you read it in a book and decided it felt true to you? Why didn't you say so earlier!?

If God exists, and you can deduce this for various good rational reasons (there is nothing wrong with the concept that I'm aware of) and this God can reveal himself to us (and there is no reason why he wouldn't) then why can't this event be a genuine revelation from the real God in question? Certainly there's a precedent for the mystical state and altered states of consciousness which is universal throughout the world and encompasses all of human history and pre-history. So if you have an objection to this what exactly is it? You can't just say it can't be a genuine revelation from God because your own opinion says it isn't, why do have the opinion you have? You're meant to be presenting some kind of rational case against the existence of God and his revelation to man here though I haven't seen anything yet beyond the suggestion that St Paul had an epileptic fit. It's possible he did but that doesn't negate a genuine mystical experience.

Oh... so... evolution from australopithecus with no concept whatsoever of any divinity... at some point, the concept appears...

The concept appeared due to our heightened intellect and awareness, the rational mind, the knowledge of the world beyond the limits of the physical senses and the ultimate source behind all things. You begin with some kind primitive animism or shamanism but that's the root of all religion.

So, from the origins... from the stand point of no one even considering the existence of any god, "why should I suppose it is?"

Because you represent a fully self aware advanced and rational mind, capable of your own freedom of will, the knowledge of good and evil, fully constant of you're existence within the context of the universe and the greater eternal reality of which you are a part? Is that a good enough reason to suppose it is?

I have first hand evidence that it doesn't... I do have a pretty good notion of what my mind does and no such experience has ever manifested.

Perhaps you need to be spiritually awakened to the truth of the reality of God then. Most people do get this experience even Richard Dawkins gets this though he will explain it away as misfiring neurons rather than the God, he thinks he's some kind machine.

Plus, if it happened to everyone, we'd hear about on the news, twitter, facebook.... everywhere at the same time!

We can say it happens to the vast majority of billions, what do you think religion and spirituality is?

What the fuck is the theists' fetish for equating atheism with materialism (and even naturalism, for that matter)? Why do I feel you are parroting what your pastor claims about atheists without ever thinking for yourself or doing your own research?

If you don't believe in God, a higher power, the supernatural/transcendent reality or whatever else you want to call it just the physical universe as it is that we can see and nothing else then what the fuck else are you meant to be than a materialist? You would be the definition of materialism if you reject or don't accept the existence of anything that is beyond the material and the natural world. As a belief it's possible but if it's actually true that's as big a deal as the alternative/s.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Seems to me you're including all CFC's, you are leaving out information so why should people trust what you are saying. Some CFC's break down before they enter the ozone layer and those CFC's are the ones blamed for the damage of the ozone layer, and those responsible for the banning of those CFC's knew they were wrong about that, now it cost you a great deal more to heat and cool your home be cause of their ... what ever it was.

You asshat, that's just a sentence example, but nice red herring.

lol...Asshat. That's fitting. No pun intended.

[pocaracas]

I haven't seen anything yet beyond the suggestion that St Paul had an epileptic fit. It's possible he did but that doesn't negate a genuine mystical experience.

No, but opens the door to the possibilities of what we actually observe, today.
How many people around the world suffer from epileptic seizures?
How many have revelations?

Oh... so... evolution from australopithecus with no concept whatsoever of any divinity... at some point, the concept appears...

The concept appeared due to our heightened intellect and awareness, the rational mind, the knowledge of the world beyond the limits of the physical senses and the ultimate source behind all things. You begin with some kind primitive animism or shamanism but that's the root of all religion.

If that's the case, it sure looks like god is trying to stay away from us.
I suggest we return the gesture.

So, from the origins... from the stand point of no one even considering the existence of any god, "why should I suppose it is?"

Because you represent a fully self aware advanced and rational mind, capable of your own freedom of will, the knowledge of good and evil, fully constant of you're existence within the context of the universe and the greater eternal reality of which you are a part? Is that a good enough reason to suppose it is?

To suppose that mystical experiences and NDEs are evidence of the divine?
Sorry to disappoint, but no.
Good and evil are social constructs.
Freedom of will is, as it seems, an illusion.
NDEs are not DEs. They're the product of a brain still working, but not fully.

I have first hand evidence that it doesn't... I do have a pretty good notion of what my mind does and no such experience has ever manifested.

Perhaps you need to be spiritually awakened to the truth of the reality of God then. Most people do get this experience even Richard Dawkins gets this though he will explain it away as misfiring neurons rather than the God, he thinks he's some kind machine.

Spiritually awakened to the truth?
Oh, man... -.-'
I'm fully aware that all spirituality is in the mind, and the mind alone. I'm aware that this mind is way too easy to trick, so I do my best to identify all trickery and prevent it from taking any foothold. Thus far, it has worked flawlessly.
I am, as far as I'm aware, impossible to convince that a god exists by means of another human being's conversation.
I require god itself to show up... but you said up above that man arrived at the concept through some rationalization... perhaps some self-inflicted delusion. And the concept stuck. It's easy to understand why it stuck, but not so easy to see how it would stick to me.

Plus, if it happened to everyone, we'd hear about on the news, twitter, facebook.... everywhere at the same time!

We can say it happens to the vast majority of billions, what do you think religion and spirituality is?

About 99% of it is indoctrination.
Remove that and you're left with a very tiny minority of people who would rationalize themselves into it... the freaks.

What the fuck is the theists' fetish for equating atheism with materialism (and even naturalism, for that matter)? Why do I feel you are parroting what your pastor claims about atheists without ever thinking for yourself or doing your own research?

If you don't believe in God, a higher power, the supernatural/transcendent reality or whatever else you want to call it just the physical universe as it is that we can see and nothing else then what the fuck else are you meant to be than a materialist? You would be the definition of materialism if you reject or don't accept the existence of anything that is beyond the material and the natural world. As a belief it's possible but if it's actually true that's as big a deal as the alternative/s.

[Esquilax]

What makes that the correct question when you could equally well ask "why shouldn't I suppose it is?"? It's not your own opinion again is it? What is your opinion you have to start with and refer everything to based on? Is it what you feel deep inside of yourself? You can see how this line of atheistic objection has been well nullified.

Because if you're going to be consistent, then you'd have to ask "why shouldn't I suppose it is?" across every religion, cult, whacko and fictional story every devised by man, and therefore you'd be accepting thousands upon thousands of mutually contradictory claims to be true, until you found evidence to disprove them. Disproofs, by the way, are very hard to find for many historical claims, so for many of them, you'd be stuck. You ask "why should I suppose it is?" and not the reverse, because to do otherwise mires you in believing a bunch of bullshit simply because you can't prove it didn't happen.

And if you're not going to apply it consistently, if you're only going to accept "I haven't disproven it," for this single religious claim you already believe, then you're guilty of special pleading, and your position is fallacious and irrational from the outset, and truly derived only from your opinion.

Bam.

[Polaris]

a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern
b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of

I have had a direct experience with the Holy Spirit. How can you say that I actually have not had contact with Elohim?

a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>

I am certain Jesus Christ exists. Do you doubt the claim I have made on my own personal beliefs and understanding? Do you claim to know me better than I know myself?

[Ryantology]

I have had a direct experience with the Holy Spirit. How can you say that I actually have not had contact with Elohim?

There is literally no reason to believe you did. Every other ostensibly possible explanation is likelier.

I am certain Jesus Christ exists. Do you doubt the claim I have made on my own personal beliefs and understanding? Do you claim to know me better than I know myself?

I doubt it. You did not have any way to plausibly confirm the nature of whatever experience you claim to have and the veracity of your claim rests entirely upon your assumption that you have the ability to flawlessly interpret the signals produced by your own brain, assuming that your belief is honestly held and not something you doubt, as you appear not to. You have a confidence in that ability you do not deserve to possess and you are a fool for jumping to the absolute wildest of conclusions over what was virtually certain to be a mere hallucination or some other cognitive glitch that pretty much all people are prone to having.