[TrisB]

You have tried to systematically reject everything I have said, without a single convincing argument, relying only on dogma, formulae and rhetoric. Please argue only in a logical manor because it is, I fear, the only conduit of communication we share.

[I am living proof that he interacts in the space/time continuum. I’ve known Jesus Christ personally for nearly a half century]

You are most certainly not living proof of god! If you want to argue this point, you must prove god is needed for life to exist! - which you haven't. By all means hold such an opinion, but it isn't proof. Knowing Jesus for x years doesn't make him exist any more than an imaginary friend.

[Since God is the creator of “all that there is” ...]

Obvious unproved presupposition. "I am right because I am right" is what you are saying. Try again.

[Again, you keep insisting that time is a line and therefore there is an arrow of time]

Read my article again, and you will see I considered time as directionless and thus geometrical in nature. Planar time does nothing to detract from the argument.

[Since God is the creator of “all that there is...therefor therefor therefor therefor therefor] see above

[One can infer from logical speculation that God exists]

Really? Please put forward your argument without circular reasoning. Then answer why this tells us anything about the colour of God's beard.

[You may know nothing about God for sure. But that does not apply to me. Not at all. I’ve known Him personally for nearly a half century.]

What is knowing? If all perception is just electrical sensory information, then we can never know anything beyond all doubt. What is illusionary and what isn't? What matters is the using of our brain to understand probabilities of what might be. I am fully aware of the power of the human mind to distort reality in a manor to protect the ego (and would suggest reading some V S Ramachandran if you're interested). Knowing Christ might mean hearing voices in your head - but can we be so sure, given that perfectly sane people have been recording denying ownership of a paralysed limb on the grounds of protecting the ego. Indeed, I've heard of even worse. It is a probabilistic approach, our perception, and I fear your mechanism for such an approach has been corrupted by higher psychological needs. Religion is a cradle for the ego, pampering to its insecurities and blinding us selectively to the inconsistencies whilst allowing us to join any logical "dots" together to suit our purposes.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

What is knowing? If all perception is just electrical sensory information, then we can never know anything beyond all doubt. What is illusionary and what isn't?

This is at the root of the difference between us and the reason we will never be able to communicate effectively.

To you as an atheist, all knowledge derives from sensory perception.

My epistemology or “how I know what I know and how certain I am that I know it” is completely different as follows:

1. Theological knowledge, direct revelation: I have Spiritual understanding directly from God concerning this issue; e.g., that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — it didn’t come from me.

2. , Theological knowledge, indirect revelation: I believe in a revelation experienced by another; i.e., Scripture is confirmed to me by the indwelling Spirit.

Caveat: Many Christians of good conscience are quite comfortable relying on the doctrines and traditions of faithful spiritual leaders, but I personally eschew the doctrines and traditions of all men (Mark 7:7) which includes all mortal interpretations of Scriptures, whether by the Pope, Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, Joseph Smith, or whomever. The mortal scribes (Paul, John, Peter, Daniel, Moses, Isaiah, David, etc.) do not fall into this category for me since the actual author is the Spirit Himself and He authenticates the Scriptures personally by His indwelling. Thus I make a hard distinction between the Living Word of God and mere musings — such as the geocentricity interpretations of the early church or any of my own similar musings.

3. Logical conclusion: I can prove the Pythagorean theorem is valid and true.

4. Evidence/Historical fact, uninterpreted: I have verifiable evidence Reagan was once President.

5. Sensory perception of something external to me: I see my dog is lying at my feet.

6. Personal memory: I recall I had breakfast this morning.

7. Prediction from scientific theory: I calculate there will be a partial solar eclipse this week.

8. Trust in a Mentor: I trust this particular person to always tell me the truth, therefore I know.…

9. Internal emotional state: I feel I’m happy, or I have empathy, compassion or sympathy for you.

10. Evidence/Historical fact, interpreted: I conclude from the fossil evidence in the geologic record that.…

11. Determined facts: I accept something as fact because of a consensus determination by others, positive (affirmation) or negative (veto); i.e., I trust that these fact finders collectively know what they are talking about.

12. Imaginings: I imagine how things ought to have been in the Schiavo case.

We do not have the same knowledge base much less the same order of value for different types of knowledge.

The first two on my list – the most important, most valued and most certain types of knowledge to me - do not exist for you. They are not transmuted into a knowledge form which is within your sense of “reality”, i.e. sensory perception – nor will they be on anyone's demand.

So you speak words without knowledge as follows:

It is a probabilistic approach, our perception, and I fear your mechanism for such an approach has been corrupted by higher psychological needs. Religion is a cradle for the ego, pampering to its insecurities and blinding us selectively to the inconsistencies whilst allowing us to join any logical "dots" together to suit our purposes.

The result is as if I am speaking in one language, you are listening in another language. For instance,

me: [I am living proof that he (God) interacts in the space/time continuum. I’ve known Jesus Christ personally for nearly a half century]

You: You are most certainly not living proof of god! If you want to argue this point, you must prove god is needed for life to exist! - which you haven't. By all means hold such an opinion, but it isn't proof. Knowing Jesus for x years doesn't make him exist any more than an imaginary friend.

My statement was not that I am living proof of God but rather that I am living proof that He interacts in the space/time continuum. It was in response to your assertion that: ”If he is outside our spacetime continuum then he CANNOT interact with it.”

To the contrary, every thing I have posited in our sidebar discussion as evidence to an intelligent man that God exists is based on the beginning of "all that there is" - i.e. causality. I haven't even begun to mention other evidence known to me.

So you see if we cannot communicate on such simple things, if every statement has to be parsed and clarified - and assertions restated over and again - then there is really no point in continuing.

But it has been fun and interesting. Thank you for the discussion!

[betty boop]

...If all perception is just electrical sensory information

Jeepers, why do you use the word "if," when it seems this is your actual view?

Like Alamo-Girl, I strongly disagree with this presumption on your part. There is a species of "perception" which is "inner" to a man, not something originating from "outside." You only need physical ears for the latter.

I think you and Alamo-Girl are simply "talking past each other." And yet to me, she is speaking so clearly and directly. FWIW.

Good night, TrisB!