/// Scriptures are jam packed with nonsense & cruelty. IF you think you know of some sensible scriptures which tell how to know god, cite them. Otherwise your claim is meaningless. Unless you state whether you are an Abrahamic theist & why, your 1st line is foolish bullshit. <>
As I said, plenty of prescriptive descriptions, even you want to limit the description to the comfortable playpen of your abrahamic atheist identity politics comfort zone. If, on the off chance, you are not being purposefully daft try googling things like "What does it mean to be a Christian?". Granted, your extensive use of google to locate hackneyed atheist memes may skewer a sizable portion of your hits, but I am relatively confident you could stumble across something substantial ...... assuming that was your goal.
I don't have the need. I assume anyone with at least a vague familiarity with scripture wouldn't have the need either.
If you want to claim there is an absence of prescriptive descriptions in the bible, I just gave you a hint on what you could try to google to suggest otherwise. If you are not interested in explaining why your claims are not obedient to casual observation, that is not my problem.
/// Evidently, you have no problem as long as you are allowed to make claims & refuse to support them & act as tho others should support them. I will not go on&on&on with you again. You can have the last evasive meaningless word. <>
Therefore, if we don't "know" god, we didn't follow the prescription? And your "knowledge" is therefore exclusive and beyond question? Claims of special knowledge still need to be demonstrated.
That's about the size of it. The act of determining knowledge as arising from prescriptive descriptions takes it outside of "my" (or "your") knowledge. Kind of difficult when one demands the regular prescriptions be dismissed even as a subject. Even telescopes tend to come with strong prescriptions about which end to look through
Such as? Please can you give me an idea of what you consider to be such a prescriptive detail of personal qualifications for knowing God? If scriptures are as packed with such as you claim, providing but a single example should not prove too onerous, should it, just so that I can understand what sorts of thing you are referring to? Thanks.
Then you should have no trouble pointing to a couple of them, and explaining how they qualify those expert persons. It would save you a lot of typing irrelevant personal disparagements.
Then what about all those people who have followed the prescriptions and for whom God is not revealed? Cue the No True Scotsman defense. No it doesn't. Accepting a premise solely on the basis of the perceived authority of the author is fallacious. I've never done that, only suggested that they are fiction. Worthy of study as fiction and cultural phenomena, but not as fact.
You are an obfuscation expert James. I see this mash-up of misrepresentation, as a sign of frustration. You need to get closure on the issue of ''there is no God'', but you can't. You try to convince yourself there is no God, by twisting what theists say. I cannot convince you that scriptures are evidence of God, because for you there is no God. The problem is you are an atheist by choice. Of course you're going to claim that you have not stated, there is no God. But you don't have to say it. It is conclusive that for you there is no God. Based on what I said I believed, what would you regard as evidence? Given the subject matter (God) what would you accept as evidence? You can grammar it how you like James. Truth is truth. If I said I was a man, I would be telling the truth. If I said I was the fastest sprinter in the world, I would not be telling the truth. Do you want to know the truth, or aren't you bothered. That is the question. I'm not interested in your long-winded answers. Just a simple yes or no. You mean evidence aside from the ability to perceive something as evidence? That would mean presupposing I am separate to God, and my faculties are independent of God. That is your delusion, not mine. Firstly, I would have to consider what ''willing'' is. Whether or not it was a part of the reality, that it would need to separate itself from in a bid to independently find the reality that is real. The problem is that in doing so, I would lose access to reality, and consider my delusion a reality. In that way, I will have deemed myself, God. Similar to what atheists do. There's no need to hash this out with philosophy. There is a truth. Whatever happened for us to be here today, happened, and here we are. You’re the one who has trouble. You don’t even realise that you’re predisposed toward truth, even in your world where you try to make it possible there could be a God, but there would have to be independent evidence. What do you think God is, why there could be independent evidence? I think I have said all I need to say thus far. I suggest you stop with obfuscating, and simply respond to what I say, so we can progress. You are in your position, and I am in mine. To make things short, but informative, I suggest you bring forth a definition of God that is acceptable for both of us. Then we can move forward. Jan.
Atheists are the ones whi approaches. Theists have no need to. That you think it is possible that God may not exist, lays bare your presupposition. We are simply not relating to the same subject matter. If atheists know anything at all, then they know there is God. Sure they can deny it, and become intellectually fulfilled with just so stories of how we come to know things. But they are simply kidding themselves. There is a reason why some atheist are not partial to truth. This idea of not completely writing off the possibility of there being a God, is bullsh#t. It is using your God-given abilities to decide that you are not satisfied with any account of evidence in a God that is acceptable to you. But you don’t want to discuss the God that theists accept and believe in. Why? Because you know that God Is, meaning you would be very foolish to not accept and believe in God. Jan.
What about gods? Why do you keep forgetting that many people believe in more than one god? Are you so arrogant that you think your view is the only theistic view that's valid? Award for the most circular argument so far!
When in doubt, try asking google. https://www.openbible.info/topics/knowing_god https://topislamic.com/motivational-verses-quran/ https://tricycle.org/magazine/noble-eightfold-path/ www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/chapter-12.html
You're not Google. I'm asking you. At least be polite enough to answer rather than requiring me to ask someone else to answer on your behalf. I'm asking you to explain what you see as such a prescriptive detail of personal qualifications for knowing God. Not for you to simply provide a web link to passages from scriptures that might merely be about knowing God, for example (e.g. how is "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." a prescriptive detail for knowing God?).
