Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Esquilax]

That's precisely my point.  So how could God meaningfully reveal himself to a non-believer with everything you just mentioned?  Couldn't whatever you describe just be explained away?

I think the first thing that'd need to happen is that we'd all need to drop this notion that god's revealing himself should happen in a single, never to be repeated event. What we're dealing with here is an unprecedented event, and so if we want to determine the cause then it needs to be, at a minimum, testable, reliable, and available to replicate. There needs to be a longer timeframe than a single meeting; if Floaty Magoo stuck around and I could test the efficacy of his knowledge of me, if I could compare his qualities to those contained in a holy book, test them in some way, even just to see the extent of them, then we'd have something to go on. We might still be wrong in our determinations, but then, the scientific method doesn't demand certainty, just probability, and a willingness to revise come additional information.

[houseofcantor]

Same as it ever was - revelation. I had one. I get to call myself prophet out of the deal. Of course I'm a flaming nutbag; I'm essentially certain it is part and parcel of the of the subscription. 

why do you say "of course im a flaming nutbag" ?  just because other people assume that you are ? its just their opinion

I'd feel bad if I wasn't, considering I collect a government subsidy for being a certified psychopath. The "of course" part is simple rationalization. Sanity cannot survive an encounter with god. It is written, it is expected. 

[jenny1972]

why do you say "of course im a flaming nutbag" ?  just because other people assume that you are ? its just their opinion

I'd feel bad if I wasn't, considering I collect a government subsidy for being a certified psychopath. The "of course" part is simple rationalization. Sanity cannot survive an encounter with god. It is written, it is expected. 

you seem very sane to me

[houseofcantor]

That's precisely my point.  So how could God meaningfully reveal himself to a non-believer with everything you just mentioned?  Couldn't whatever you describe just be explained away?

It's pretty simple really.  God wouldn't just reveal himself to one individual.  He'd do what he allegedly did as Jesus and actually live on Earth.  Not just performing miracles though.  Actually providing information that's far beyond our wildest dreams.  I'd also expect him to disavow the old testament and much of the new because the information in it just doesn't add up.  Nobody would doubt what they really saw, because either everyone saw it, or they're crazy and just think everyone sees it.  Perhaps a world wide instant cure for all major diseases and world hunger with a wave of his hand, and then he explains just how we can travel among the stars, and answer most of the major questions science has.

That wouldn't be god, that'd be uplift. 

I'd feel bad if I wasn't, considering I collect a government subsidy for being a certified psychopath. The "of course" part is simple rationalization. Sanity cannot survive an encounter with god. It is written, it is expected. 

you seem very sane to me

Probably 'cause you're a sweetheart - and have never met me. 

[SteelCurtain]

That's precisely my point.  So how could God meaningfully reveal himself to a non-believer with everything you just mentioned?  Couldn't whatever you describe just be explained away?

I'd tell him to hold his horses while I get out my camera phone.

[Rhondazvous]

But even if you walked in to a room and a being appeared to you claiming to be God and knew things about you only you would know, would you believe in God or chalk it up to a psychotic episode?  I've always been fascinated by the demand of non-believers that God let himself be known.  I seriously think if any non-believer was to have an experience of a being coming to them and knowing all about them and performing a miracle in front of them, they would probably still not believe.  It's what is commonly referred to as a doubting Thomas.  I think the only meaningful way is to reveal himself to all people at once in the sky so people can have corroboration.  But I guess that's whats described in Revelation.  

But Phil, would you go to Bellevue and demand that all the patients who are their because they saw god be released? What about Nat Turner? He heard god tell him to kill all those people. When I was married, my husband claimed that he needed to kill all the demons in order to win favor with god. Does all this sound ridiculous to you? Why then are you fascinated that atheists would not automatically believe in god if they saw or heard a being that claimed to be such?

And that is such a big IF. In the Bible Moses, Aaron and 72 other men saw god. The god they saw was Elohim according to the interlinear Bible. So the god they saw couldn't be the god that Paul tells us no man has seen or the god said no man can see my face and live. Suppose Elohim appeared to me and told me the bible wasn't really talking about him when it says he created the grass and the trees before he created the sun and the moon. Would you advise me to believe him? Or should I wait for one of the gods I read about in the Bible to appear?

[jenny1972]

That's precisely my point.  So how could God meaningfully reveal himself to a non-believer with everything you just mentioned?  Couldn't whatever you describe just be explained away?

I'd tell him to hold his horses while I get out my camera phone.

yes take a picture im sure that will convince people

[RoadRunner79]

I've been through this with anti-Trinitarians before on a Christian forum.  The mistake here, is that you are stripping the description or category from the equation.

So using P for person, you get 1P + 1P + 1P = 3P   Which is what the doctrine of the Trinity states.  It also states that the 3 Persons = 1 God. They are separate and distinct individuals who can interact with each other, which are equally and fully of the same nature and substance of 1 God.

And it is still an incoherent explanation. How does one personality inhabit three bodies -- well, two bodies, and, I don't know, some misty fog or whatever this Holy Spirit thingy is?

Oh, and while we're at it, we'll need to define the differences between "person" and "god".

Argumentum ex culo.

Ohhh... can always rely on bringing out the fallacies checklist.  I was making statements... particularly about math though. 


When speaking of "person" in regards to the trinity, we are speaking of three distinct consciences (self identity).   Think of this as a "who" statement.

When speaking of the essence or nature (being)... think of this a "what" statement.  It is the substance of what makes God... God.

The three persons are all equally, fully, and in unity one God.
And it is not speaking about bodies... God is spirit and omnipresent.

[Foxaèr]

When speaking of "person" in regards to the trinity, we are speaking of three distinct consciences (self identity).   Think of this as a "who" statement.

When speaking of the essence or nature (being)... think of this a "what" statement.  It is the substance of what makes God... God.

The three persons are all equally, fully, and in unity one God.
And it is not speaking about bodies... God is spirit and omnipresent.

Word salad, i.e., hooey.

[RoadRunner79]

---

When speaking of "person" in regards to the trinity, we are speaking of three distinct consciences (self identity).   Think of this as a "who" statement.

When speaking of the essence or nature (being)... think of this a "what" statement.  It is the substance of what makes God... God.

The three persons are all equally, fully, and in unity one God.
And it is not speaking about bodies... God is spirit and omnipresent.

---

Word salad, i.e., hooey.

I'll try to keep things simpler for
you in the future.