Why do Christians trust YHWH?

[fr0d0]

[quote='fr0d0' pid='648136' dateline='1397133241']

If there can't be evidence beyond your own subjective experience, then there's no rational reason for me to believe the thing in question exists at all, barring some experience with it myself.

So everything subjective is necessarily irrational?

The fact that you've reached an opinion/ a conclusion makes that the result of a rational process.

The experience of faith is manifest in motivation. Without this evidence neither you or your fellow believers have proof of your belief.

[Esquilax]

So everything subjective is necessarily irrational?

No, that's why I added everything after the word "barring." It'd be irrational of me to accept the existence of a thing based on somebody else's subjective experience, but if I had one myself then I might be okay. "Subjective" is the same as "first person," after all.

That said, I'm clearly not getting this experience just on my own, so that means either you're seeing something that isn't there, or I'm not seeing something that is. If it's the latter, then there's at least the possibility that I could be prompted into seeing that thing.

[fr0d0]

So everything subjective is necessarily irrational?

No, that's why I added everything after the word "barring." It'd be irrational of me to accept the existence of a thing based on somebody else's subjective experience, but if I had one myself then I might be okay. "Subjective" is the same as "first person," after all.

That said, I'm clearly not getting this experience just on my own, so that means either you're seeing something that isn't there, or I'm not seeing something that is. If it's the latter, then there's at least the possibility that I could be prompted into seeing that thing.

1. Absolutely. That's what subjective means isn't it.

2. I'm clearly not getting my experience on my own either. People can be convinced of what I'm seeing.

[Rampant.A.I.]

The complexity of morality maskes absolutely no difference to the point you have to defend which covers all of them. The question is very simple that you have to answer. Your just being a jerk as usual.

Yeah we're stuck in the real world addressing the two world problem. The one here is: will you ever get a clue. It's nothing to do with God. It's to do with your knowledge of right and wrong. If you aren't all knowing, how are you able to judge anything that you don't have full knowledge of? You can't. So all of your accusations are best guesses.

Then we have a whole ruck of deliberate and blatant misunderstanding, which to my mind is you being deliberately dishonest. I have no doubt of that. For this reason, i'm out of this once again, pointless exchange with you.

You are a fool.

Why can't you ever support these sort of statements with evidence instead of tantrums?

---

[quote='fr0d0' pid='648136' dateline='1397133241']

If there can't be evidence beyond your own subjective experience, then there's no rational reason for me to believe the thing in question exists at all, barring some experience with it myself.

So everything subjective is necessarily irrational?

The fact that you've reached an opinion/ a conclusion makes that the result of a rational process.

The experience of faith is manifest in motivation. Without this evidence neither you or your fellow believers have proof of your belief.

What belief? There you go again, spouting accusations and pointing fingers, without support. The opposite: a burden of proof reversal.

The rejection of a belief in the absence of evidence is not in itself a belief. Derailing the thread to distract from statements about God's morality you can't support.

Lack of a belief =/= irrational belief

Belief with only subjective evidence aren't "rational beliefs" to anyone lacking subjective evidence.

If we don't share your undefined subjective personal experience, you cannot redefine:

<Lack of belief without evidence>

As <An irrational belief>, especially one you cannot present any evidence for.

Equivocation is a helluva drug, but it's not a logical argument. Neither is:

"X is true, if you don't agree, you're stupid."

"Show X is true."

"See? You're stupid. Therefore X is true."

[Esquilax]

2. I'm clearly not getting my experience on my own either. People can be convinced of what I'm seeing.

I'm a person, and I could be convinced, assuming what you're seeing is compelling.

[fr0d0]

2. I'm clearly not getting my experience on my own either. People can be convinced of what I'm seeing.

I'm a person, and I could be convinced, assuming what you're seeing is compelling.

Indeed

---

.

I'm not even reading that intelligible nonsense as you didn't have an answer to my last response.