The atheist delusion.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do. I don't see ANY evidence for a god, let alone the special case of God. There is more evidence for Santa Claus.
Given that your claims assume an authoritative knowledge and ability to discern the gods, and even the special case of God, please be so kind to enlighten us all on how you came to be an authority, and exactly how one goes about falsifying God?

The only thing more incoherent, contradictory, and blatantly useless than a theist claiming evidence for God's existence is an atheist, skeptic, etc. asking to see it. Most will claim that they "lack belief". What they are lacking is a spine. The simple fact is that God can't exist because the origin of existence logically can't exist without creating an infinite regression. Again, pointless.

If we look to the biblical descriptions, we see that the term is defined in such a way as to preclude a referent. We see the term as origin, incomparable, omniscience, omnipotence etc. All of these preclude the possibility of a referent for the term. To ask for evidence of nothing is incoherent and contradictory. It spotlights a profound ignorance of the commonly accepted definitions of words, not to mention reality.
 
Given that your claims assume an authoritative knowledge and ability to discern the gods, and even the special case of God, please be so kind to enlighten us all on how you came to be an authority, and exactly how one goes about falsifying God?

The only thing more incoherent, contradictory, and blatantly useless than a theist claiming evidence for God's existence is an atheist, skeptic, etc. asking to see it. Most will claim that they "lack belief". What they are lacking is a spine. The simple fact is that God can't exist because the origin of existence logically can't exist without creating an infinite regression. Again, pointless.

If we look to the biblical descriptions, we see that the term is defined in such a way as to preclude a referent. We see the term as origin, incomparable, omniscience, omnipotence etc. All of these preclude the possibility of a referent for the term. To ask for evidence of nothing is incoherent and contradictory. It spotlights a profound ignorance of the commonly accepted definitions of words, not to mention reality.
Interesting though this is, it goes way beyond what I said. I simply stated that I see no evidence. I don't claim to have the paradigm for detecting evidence, nor have I sought it. I see no reason to believe in God, and never have done. Nor do I see any reason to search for evidence of something I don't believe in. If evidence there is, it will turn up. I am not bothered that other people believe in God. Nor am I bothered if they think my position is unreasonable. I am not here to argue the case for atheism, except if challenged on myself in particular. I know that some atheists here have reached that position after a particular intellectual journey, starting from a faith position. That doesn't apply to me. I have never had to rationalise my atheism because I have always been one. I am comfortable being one, and to return to where I started, I see no evidence to suggest that I am wrong.
 
Interesting though this is, it goes way beyond what I said.
No. it speaks directly to what you said as well as the fact that one has to have some standard by which to discern the true from the fake. Evidently, you have that standard at hand. There is no other way to claim that there is no evidence unless you know what that evidence is supposed to look like to begin with.
I simply stated that I see no evidence.
Which only spotlights that you don't know what you're talking about to begin with.
I don't claim to have the paradigm for detecting evidence,
Then your claim that you have no evidence is nonsense. No one cares that you don't know what you're talking about.
nor have I sought it.
No one cares that you're lazy either.
I see no reason to believe in God, and never have done.
Again, your statements collapse in on themselves. How can one believe or disbelieve in a word they can't even begin to define in the first place?
Nor do I see any reason to search for evidence of something I don't believe in.
Makes sense if you knew what it was you didn't believe in, but you don't. So who cares? it's incoherent nonsense.
If evidence there is, it will turn up.
There can be no evidence so asking for it is pointless.
I am not bothered that other people believe in God.
Why would anyone be bothered by something they can't begin to understand in the first place?
Nor am I bothered if they think my position is unreasonable.
"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much"
I am not here to argue the case for atheism, except if challenged on myself in particular.
You don't have an argument. This isn't about you.
I have never had to rationalise my atheism because I have always been one.
Been what? A reactionary against a word that you can't begin to comprehend and don't care to understand? Anyone who drops out of grade school can make that claim. Agnosticism isn't much of a safe haven for rational discourse either.
I am comfortable being one, and to return to where I started, I see no evidence to suggest that I am wrong.
You see no evidence to support your definition of the word either. Your position is that you don't know what you're talking about, and therefore there is no evidence of whatever it is that you don't see. Thanks for sharing, but there is no point to your posts. If you'd care to address what I posted, great. If not, then it's just 'much ado about nothing".
 
No. it speaks directly to what you said as well as the fact that one has to have some standard by which to discern the true from the fake. Evidently, you have that standard at hand. There is no other way to claim that there is no evidence unless you know what that evidence is supposed to look like to begin with.

Which only spotlights that you don't know what you're talking about to begin with.

Then your claim that you have no evidence is nonsense. No one cares that you don't know what you're talking about.

No one cares that you're lazy either.

Again, your statements collapse in on themselves. How can one believe or disbelieve in a word they can't even begin to define in the first place?

Makes sense if you knew what it was you didn't believe in, but you don't. So who cares? it's incoherent nonsense.

There can be no evidence so asking for it is pointless.

Why would anyone be bothered by something they can't begin to understand in the first place?

"Me thinks the lady doth protest too much"

You don't have an argument. This isn't about you.

Been what? A reactionary against a word that you can't begin to comprehend and don't care to understand? Anyone who drops out of grade school can make that claim. Agnosticism isn't much of a safe haven for rational discourse either.

You see no evidence to support your definition of the word either. Your position is that you don't know what you're talking about, and therefore there is no evidence of whatever it is that you don't see. Thanks for sharing, but there is no point to your posts. If you'd care to address what I posted, great. If not, then it's just 'much ado about nothing".
I will reply, but not today, as I have eaten very well. I'll come back to you tomorrow morning.
 
Let me see if I can condense and translate this into a more coherent post:
If one must believe what they see
Actually everyone must have a belief in reality before the truth is known to them.
And atheists don't believe what they don't see.
And atheists don't believe they HAVE to believe before the truth and reality is known to them.
then atheists believe what they don't believe which is a delusion
I agree, "atheists believe what they don't believe which is a delusion", because no-one can know the truth and "believe" and "don't believe" at the same time.
I think this is essentially what you're saying, and on some level it makes sense to a certain degree.

Strawman and projection. Actually essentially atheists' are doing exactly what I am saying they are doing, they just don't know it.
 
Last edited:
Actually everyone must have a belief in reality before the truth is known to them.
No. The truth is self evident. One doesn't need to seek knowledge of the truth when it is immediately apparent to them already. One can only truly believe what they see. When they see the truth, then they believe it. The truth is what is fundamental, not belief or knowledge. One's understanding doesn't stand under the truth or reality.
And atheists don't believe they HAVE to believe before the truth and reality is known to them.
True! Neither do theists. The labels are irrelevant.
because no-one can know the truth and "believe" and "don't believe" at the same time.
Not necessarily. There are two types of belief. There is the type of belief in what one sees, and there is the type of belief in what one is told is the truth and should believe. The former are referred to as "witnesses" because they see the truth, and the latter are referred to as belonging to a denomination which believes certain doctrines which they are taught. The former "confess" what they have seen while the latter "profess" what they've been taught. The former can join the latter for fellowship while retaining their belief is what they see while simultaneously not believing what the latter teaches.
Strawman and projection.
Not sure what you're referring to here.
Actually essentially atheists' are doing exactly what I am saying they are doing, they just don't know it.
Theists do the same thing. The label is irrelevant.
 
No. The truth is self evident. One doesn't need to seek knowledge of the truth when it is immediately apparent to them already. One can only truly believe what they see. When they see the truth, then they believe it. The truth is what is fundamental, not belief or knowledge. One's understanding doesn't stand under the truth or reality.

Actually if "the truth is self evident" and “fundamental” in nature, and the only way and place that the truth can be known and experienced is in and by a believing mind, then the truth's self evidence must imply the existence of a believing mind as well, because if the truth and reality exists, then it too must have a way and place in order to be known to exist. And a believing mind is the only thing that is capable of hosting the truth and reality.
But if you know of something else outside of a believing mind that is capable of this function, then by all means say what that thing or way is.

True! Neither do theists. The labels are irrelevant.

Not true. You are speaking from the unbelievers standpoint only, because from the theist's (a believer) standpoint and on the other side of unbelief; believers of the truth and reality of God see that God used belief as the means by which to reveal His truth and reality to us.

Not necessarily. There are two types of belief. There is the type of belief in what one sees, and there is the type of belief in what one is told is the truth and should believe.

Not true. There is only one kind of belief, because even what we experience with our physical senses comes from what we HAVE to believe about what we are experiencing with our physical senses in order to know what we are experiencing is true to begin with.

The former are referred to as "witnesses" because they see the truth, and the latter are referred to as belonging to a denomination which believes certain doctrines which they are taught.

Irrelevant, because both require belief in order to be known to be true.

The former "confess" what they have seen while the latter "profess" what they've been taught. The former can join the latter for fellowship while retaining their belief is what they see while simultaneously not believing what the latter teaches.

Irrelevant, because both require a belief in order to be known and experienced. So, both are belief based.

Not sure what you're referring to here.

You said "atheists believe what they don't believe which is a delusion". That's not what I said or meant, rather I meant that in reality atheists are disbelieving when they should be believing, that's why they don't know they truth and reality of God.
Theists do the same thing. The label is irrelevant.
Strawman and projection.

Again, not true for believers. You are speaking from the unbelievers standpoint only, because from the theist's (a believer) standpoint and on the other side of unbelief; believers of the truth and reality of God we know that God used belief as the means by which to reveal His truth and reality to us right. Are you a believer?
 
if "the truth is self evident" and “fundamental” in nature, and the only way and place that the truth can be known and experienced is in and by a believing mind,
The truth doesn't need to be known in the first place. Knowledge isn't fundamental. Knowledge is derived from reality, and can never validate the truth. Again, one's understanding of reality cannot stand under reality. The intellect is nothing more than consciousness concealed in ignorance.
truth's self evidence must imply the existence of a believing mind as well,

No. belief can't originate in the mind. It literally originates in one's heart. This is an empirical fact proven with reproducible results. Again, the intellect can only reflect upon what exists, and reflections are not fundamental.
because if the truth and reality exists, then it too must have a way and place in order to be known to exist.
If truth and reality don't exist, then anything that can be articulated is pure incoherent nonsense. Truth and reality does exist, but knowledge is completely unnecessary. The faculty of knowing is the only way anything can be known, but it isn't necessary for one to be consciously or unconsciously aware of the truth. Revelation isn't directed at the intellect to begin with. If that were the case, then it would be intelligible. It clearly isn't, and never can be. So when you hear people say that some day we'll all understand what's really going on, you can bet they're deceived. Again, there can be no mediator other than Christ who is the way, not the intellect which can only reflect upon reality.
And a believing mind is the only thing that is capable of hosting the truth and reality.
False. The truth is immediately evident to conscious awareness, and one's conscious awareness can completely bypass the intellect altogether. The truth can also be evident to the unconscious awareness.
But if you know of something else outside of a believing mind that is capable of this function, then by all means say what that thing or way is.

Awareness. An acute awareness has no need of the faculty of knowledge to begin with. The faculty is a redundant mediator of reality.
You are speaking from the unbelievers standpoint only,

Not really. I'm simply pointing out that there is common ground in both camps.
God used belief as the means by which to reveal His truth and reality to us.

One believes what they see. They don't believe what they don't see. Everyone in the bible sees what they believe, even Thomas. That is why they are referred to as "witnesses". They all believe what they have seen. They are ALL unbelievers until they see the risen Christ with their own eyes. See how that works? None of them believe he is risen until they actually see him. Seeing is believing.
what we experience with our physical senses comes from what we HAVE to believe about what we are experiencing

The kingdom of God does not come through observation.

Plenty of people have no idea what they are experiencing. It happens all the time. Some people believe they are being chased, stalked, etc. Their beliefs are based exclusively in ignorance. Their beliefs are based upon what they can't know to begin with which as you already know is the exact same position as the atheist.
with our physical senses in order to know what we are experiencing is true to begin with.
The problem with you position is that you believe that one must know what you are experiencing is true. This isn't the case at all. One doesn't need to know anything at all for the truth to be the truth, or for it to be self evident. One doesn't have to know the truth for it to be self evident. One doesn't have to believe it either. There are people who don't believe a placebo can heal them, but they are healed anyways. Our physical senses as well as our intellect are inherently fallible, and notoriously untrustworthy. Despite this glaring fact, people are still able to get things done even though they can't depend upon their senses.

When I'm dreaming that I'm driving down the road, I know that I am driving down the road, yet I'm not actually driving down the road at all. I'm in bed dreaming that I'm driving down the road. My intellect is quite effectively deceiving me into believing that I am driving down the road. Is that the truth? Nope. When I wake up, and see that I was dreaming, do I also note that there is no essential difference between my waking and dreaming mind? Yep. Why? Because in both cases, it is all being represented or filtered through my intellect. It's like filming a football game, and then watching it after the fact. What I'm looking at isn't happening at all. It's a cheap imitation. In fact, it's worthless. It can't be believed because it isn't real to begin with. Only reality can be believed. Only the truth can be believed, and the intellect has nothing to do with it, and never can. The intellect can only acknowledge the truth, it can never validate it. You keep wanting to validate the truth with your knowledge, but this is to place one's knowledge on a firmer foundation than the truth itself which is pure nonsense. You're making the same mistake Adam made. He walked with God, but didn't know it. He wanted to know God rather than be the image of God.

Those who claim that they believe in something that is untrue, or a lie are deceived. They are hallucinating, not believing
.

both require belief in order to be known to be true.
Doesn't matter what they know because what they know is a deception. It can't be the truth because it is only what is caught second hand by the intellect. It is a representation, a substitution, a simulation, and therefore cannot be what it represents or is substituted for. By its very nature it can't be real. It can't be the truth.

Furthermore, they don't have to believe what they know, they only have to acKNOWledge it.
both require a belief in order to be known and experienced.
I don't have to know or experience God in order to be taught theology. There are atheists who have gone through seminaries and now pastor Christian churches. What is experienced can then be mediated through the intellect and known. It doesn't have to be believed to be acknowledged. Two people watch three buildings come crashing down. One believes they are watching a controlled demolition. The other believes two planes crashed into them, and caused them to come crashing down due to the heat of the fires. What do they know?
So, both are belief based.
No. those who are taught what to believe don't really believe what they've been taught unless they implement it into their lives. The vast majority of so-called "believers" don't implement even a fraction of what they've been taught to believe. That is not belief, yet that is what they call it. Hence the labels mean nothing.
atheists are disbelieving when they should be believing,

You didn't say anything about what they should be doing before. That's a completely different issue.
that's why they don't know they truth and reality of God.
Again, they can know the unadulterated truth, and it will make no difference whatsoever because what is known is being filtered through the intellect. It is being filtered through that faculty rather than directly through reality itself.

There is nothing more immediate than reality, or the truth of reality. Reality is the medium, not the intellect or the faculty of knowing.
 
The truth doesn't need to be known in the first place. Knowledge isn't fundamental. Knowledge is derived from reality, and can never validate the truth. Again, one's understanding of reality cannot stand under reality. The intellect is nothing more than consciousness concealed in ignorance.


No. belief can't originate in the mind. It literally originates in one's heart. This is an empirical fact proven with reproducible results. Again, the intellect can only reflect upon what exists, and reflections are not fundamental.

If truth and reality don't exist, then anything that can be articulated is pure incoherent nonsense. Truth and reality does exist, but knowledge is completely unnecessary. The faculty of knowing is the only way anything can be known, but it isn't necessary for one to be consciously or unconsciously aware of the truth. Revelation isn't directed at the intellect to begin with. If that were the case, then it would be intelligible. It clearly isn't, and never can be. So when you hear people say that some day we'll all understand what's really going on, you can bet they're deceived. Again, there can be no mediator other than Christ who is the way, not the intellect which can only reflect upon reality.

False. The truth is immediately evident to conscious awareness, and one's conscious awareness can completely bypass the intellect altogether. The truth can also be evident to the unconscious awareness.


Awareness. An acute awareness has no need of the faculty of knowledge to begin with. The faculty is a redundant mediator of reality.


Not really. I'm simply pointing out that there is common ground in both camps.


One believes what they see. They don't believe what they don't see. Everyone in the bible sees what they believe, even Thomas. That is why they are referred to as "witnesses". They all believe what they have seen. They are ALL unbelievers until they see the risen Christ with their own eyes. See how that works? None of them believe he is risen until they actually see him. Seeing is believing.


Plenty of people have no idea what they are experiencing. It happens all the time. Some people believe they are being chased, stalked, etc. Their beliefs are based exclusively in ignorance. Their beliefs are based upon what they can't know to begin with which as you already know is the exact same position as the atheist.

The problem with you position is that you believe that one must know what you are experiencing is true. This isn't the case at all. One doesn't need to know anything at all for the truth to be the truth, or for it to be self evident. One doesn't have to know the truth for it to be self evident. One doesn't have to believe it either. There are people who don't believe a placebo can heal them, but they are healed anyways. Our physical senses as well as our intellect are inherently fallible, and notoriously untrustworthy. Despite this glaring fact, people are still able to get things done even though they can't depend upon their senses.

When I'm dreaming that I'm driving down the road, I know that I am driving down the road, yet I'm not actually driving down the road at all. I'm in bed dreaming that I'm driving down the road. My intellect is quite effectively deceiving me into believing that I am driving down the road. Is that the truth? Nope. When I wake up, and see that I was dreaming, do I also note that there is no essential difference between my waking and dreaming mind? Yep. Why? Because in both cases, it is all being represented or filtered through my intellect. It's like filming a football game, and then watching it after the fact. What I'm looking at isn't happening at all. It's a cheap imitation. In fact, it's worthless. It can't be believed because it isn't real to begin with. Only reality can be believed. Only the truth can be believed, and the intellect has nothing to do with it, and never can. The intellect can only acknowledge the truth, it can never validate it. You keep wanting to validate the truth with your knowledge, but this is to place one's knowledge on a firmer foundation than the truth itself which is pure nonsense. You're making the same mistake Adam made. He walked with God, but didn't know it. He wanted to know God rather than be the image of God.

Those who claim that they believe in something that is untrue, or a lie are deceived. They are hallucinating, not believing

Doesn't matter what they know because what they know is a deception. It can't be the truth because it is only what is caught second hand by the intellect. It is a representation, a substitution, a simulation, and therefore cannot be what it represents or is substituted for. By its very nature it can't be real. It can't be the truth.

Furthermore, they don't have to believe what they know, they only have to acKNOWledge it.

I don't have to know or experience God in order to be taught theology. There are atheists who have gone through seminaries and now pastor Christian churches. What is experienced can then be mediated through the intellect and known. It doesn't have to be believed to be acknowledged. Two people watch three buildings come crashing down. One believes they are watching a controlled demolition. The other believes two planes crashed into them, and caused them to come crashing down due to the heat of the fires. What do they know?

No. those who are taught what to believe don't really believe what they've been taught unless they implement it into their lives. The vast majority of so-called "believers" don't implement even a fraction of what they've been taught to believe. That is not belief, yet that is what they call it. Hence the labels mean nothing.


You didn't say anything about what they should be doing before. That's a completely different issue.

Again, they can know the unadulterated truth, and it will make no difference whatsoever because what is known is being filtered through the intellect. It is being filtered through that faculty rather than directly through reality itself.

There is nothing more immediate than reality, or the truth of reality. Reality is the medium, not the intellect or the faculty of knowing.

You sound like a nihilist. And if it is true what you are saying, then your argument is self-refuting, because you and your own position is the first to fall under its own weight.

If God is reality and reality exists in God's mind or the truth and reality is the product of God's believing mind, then God's believing mind must be the medium.
 
If God is reality and reality exists in God's mind or the truth and reality is the product of God's believing mind, then God's believing mind must be the medium.
Which is it, because you've again said three different things. Is reality (i) God, (ii) contained within God's mind; or (iii) a product of God's mind?
 
You sound like a nihilist. And if it is true what you are saying, then your argument is self-refuting, because you and your own position is the first to fall under its own weight.
Prove it. Kindly leave the pointless labels out though as they don't prove much of anything.
If God is reality
God is the origin of reality.
and reality exists
Yep. Pretty sure we don't have to prove that one.
in God's mind
That would be different than reality that isn't in God's mind. Do you have some way of establishing God's mind?
or the truth
The truth is self evident. The truth cannot be validated through knowledge. One's understanding of the truth does not stand under the truth.
and reality is the product of God's believing mind,
No. God is the origin of reality, not the means. Christ is the means 1 Corinthians 8:6
then God's believing mind must be the medium.
No. Christ is the medium. There is only one mediator between God and the objective world, i.e. Christ.
 
If belief or a believing mind is necessary in order to make all truth and reality known to everyone. And it is impossible for atheism being a unbelief to exist in reality, because belief and a believing mind is necessary in order to make reality known. And whereas atheism is just a unbelief and a unbelieving mind and not a belief or believing mind, then thinking as atheists do that they can believe a unbelief like atheism exists in reality is a delusion.
"If..."
If your aunty had testicles she would be your uncle.
 
Nope. But I can watch people like you argue with themselves.
Well there is no point arguing with you - that is for sure.
How many threads and years have you been peddling this "If" crap?
 
Prove it. Kindly leave the pointless labels out though as they don't prove much of anything.

Sure. You're reasoning is flawed and excludes the very means by which the truth and reality of God is known to us.

Again, one's understanding of reality cannot stand under reality. The intellect is nothing more than consciousness concealed in ignorance.

If that's true, then YOUR “intellect is nothing more than consciousness concealed in ignorance” too, so what are you saying here? You to be presenting a self-defeating argument.

“No. belief can't originate in the mind. It literally originates in one's heart. This is an empirical fact proven with reproducible results. Again, the intellect can only reflect upon what exists, and reflections are not fundamental.”

Didn't know a “heart” could believe or know the truth. Just sayin.

“If truth and reality don't exist, then anything that can be articulated is pure incoherent nonsense. Truth and reality does exist, but knowledge is completely unnecessary. The faculty of knowing is the only way anything can be known, but it isn't necessary for one to be consciously or unconsciously aware of the truth.

Nonsense, actually the “truth and reality does exist” and it is belief and a believing mind that is completely necessary to make us aware of it. As the faculty of belief and a believing mind is the only way anything can be known about the truth and reality. So, it must be belief that is necessary to make one to be consciously aware of the truth.

Revelation isn't directed at the intellect to begin with. If that were the case, then it would be intelligible. It clearly isn't, and never can be. So when you hear people say that some day we'll all understand what's really going on, you can bet they're deceived.

Actually revelation like all truth and reality is directed and known only by a believing mind. And it is a believing mind that makes the truth and reality intelligible. So when we read in the Bible “that some day” believers will know “all truth” and the reality of God, you can count on all of that being known in and because of a believing mind.

Again, there can be no mediator other than Christ who is the way, not the intellect which can only reflect upon reality.

Yup, Christ knows the HS and the Father because he believes what they believe too. So, in order for people to know what Christ knows about the HS and the Father they are to believe as Christ believed in order to experience the truth and reality of God.

False. The truth is immediately evident to conscious awareness, and one's conscious awareness can completely bypass the intellect altogether. The truth can also be evident to the unconscious awareness.

No. The truth is immediately evident in and to believing mind, as it is belief that makes us “conscious” of the truth and reality. So, one's believing mind doesn't bypass the intellect, but our believing mind is enlightens our intellect of the truth and reality. “The truth” might “be evident to the unconscious awareness”, but it is only “unconscious awareness” until it is believed and then it becomes conscious awareness.

God is the origin of reality.

Yes; “God is the origin of reality”. God is also reality, because if the only way and place that the truth and reality can be known to exist is in and by a believing mind, then reality must exist in God's believing mind. Where do you think belief or a believing mind came from, do you think belief and a believing mind originated in and with us?

Yep. Pretty sure we don't have to prove that one. That would be different than reality that isn't in God's mind.

There is no reality outside of God's mind. And if you think there is, then explain how you know that the truth and reality can be known to exist outside or without a believing mind?

Do you have some way of establishing God's mind?

Sure. The truth and reality itself, as both are only knowable and experienceable in and by a believing mind, and we know that the truth and reality didn't originate in and by our believing mind. So, the truth and reality must have originated in and with God's believing mind.

The truth is self evident. The truth cannot be validated through knowledge. One's understanding of the truth does not stand under the truth.

If the truth is only made self evident in and by a believing mind, then it is a believing mind that validates knowledge of the truth. And our understanding of the truth only stands in and upon our believing minds, because outside or without a believing mind the truth is unknowable and isn't self evident to us at all.

No. God is the origin of reality, not the means. Christ is the means 1 Corinthians 8:6

Actually the truth and reality exist in and together as One. And Christ is just doing what he seen his Father do. So, if Christ believes, then God being reality itself must have believed in order for Christ to believe. And that is consistent with 1 Corinthians 8:4-8.

Concerning the eating then of the things sacrificed to idols, we have known that an idol [is] nothing in the world, and that there is no other God except one; for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many -- yet to us [is] one God, the Father, of whom [are] the all things, and we to Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom [are] the all things, and we through Him; but not in all men [is] the knowledge, and certain with conscience of the idol, till now, as a thing sacrificed to an idol do eat [it], and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. (1 Corinthians 8:4-8)

No. Christ is the medium. There is only one mediator between God and the objective world, i.e. Christ.

Actually Christ is the truth, and his believing mind the medium and means, the one mediator between man and the reality of God = His Kingdom.
 
Sure. You're reasoning is flawed
Given that you can't get past the accusation to actually provide any evidence, your posts are pointless.
If that's true, then YOUR “intellect is nothing more than consciousness concealed in ignorance” too,
Very true!
so what are you saying here?
I'm certainly not engaging in any kind of special pleading
You to be presenting a self-defeating argument.
Not at all. I'm simply pointing out that one's awareness is far greater than any epistemology one may come up with. By its very nature, the faculty of knowing is reflective, derivative. It cannot be used to validate anything as this places the faculty in a foundational position that it does not deserve. Adam walks with God, yet he sees something in knowledge that can only offer separation from the direct connection he already has with God.
Didn't know a “heart” could believe or know the truth. Just sayin.
The studies clearly show that the stimulus that precedes an intellectual reaction comes from the heart. Subjects are placed in front of a screen and asked to register favorable or unfavorable reactions to whatever appears on the screen. Sensors hooked to their skull, chest etc. indicate that impulses originate in the chest THEN register in the brain.
Nonsense,
Go with God. Be blessed.
 
How many threads and years have you been peddling this "If" crap?
He's been at it for a good decade here. His arguments have never changed or improved in that time.

They have been consistently refuted by everyone he has engaged - Christians as well as atheists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top