Actually it is more linear than circular, the knowledge of God has a beginning and no end.
That sounds nice, but doesn't really make any sense to me. Could you explain what you mean? I'm assuming that you're saying that God is infinite, so knowledge of him is too, but that doesn't have anything to do with what I said, so I think you mean something else.
I believe God speaks to us all sometimes, but until you are born of the spirit you have no perception of God's voice so you will honestly presume you are talking to yourself. This is the point I was making is that God is real to those who seek and find Him, and the acceptance of God ultimately trumps the ignorance of God since it brings with us the prosperity of knowledge we are naturally born to seek.
Exactly. If you don't already believe in God, then you can't find him. Therefore I cannot find God until I manage to successfully delude myself into believing in him. I don't know about anyone else, but my belief is not a choice. My brain doesn't give me much option in the matter.
But you just accepted before that since the human has been designed there must be a designer, are you repenting from that conclusion?
I didn't accept it, I was continuing with a hypothetical line of argument because Greg did not that there is no evidence that humanity was designed, and I had no intention of debating that again. I don't want to go into detail for fear of the thread being locked for off-topic debate, but if there
is a designer, then all I can conclude is that there is a designer. There is no way of telling who or what that designer is.
So you do know the hurdle you are facing, that you are choosing to keep a closed mind to the reality of God.
I'm as closed minded about God as I am about unicorns. If someone gives me new evidence, I'll re-think my conclusions. I'm not going to try and convince myself into believing something that I don't think is true, because I can't do it. If following the evidence is being closed-minded, so be it, but that's the only way I can do it.
The world (and the Bible) is full of evidence, these are merely available resources. What matters is how we use it, which is why I was questioning your attitude, you seem to be rejecting everyone who wants to help you.
Questioning is not rejecting. Just because someone comes up to me and says "God is real" and I don't say "Oh really? You must be correct! I now believe in God" doesn't mean I'm rejecting everything you say. I'm listening, but I've heard everything people say to me before. No matter how many times the 'evidence' is repeated, it's still the same evidence. For me, the world is full of evidence that either God does not exist or he is largely redundant, so I've seen all the evidence you talk about, yet I've reached a different conclusion.
So in a way it just makes you feel good to argue for the sake of it, does it make you feel good to think you might know something about something?
I enjoy knowing and learning things, if that's what you were asking. That's why I'm learning languages, because I enjoy having the ability to speak a different language.
I just wonder when you're going to accept that whatever vast collection of knowledge a human can discover is but a drop in the ocean of the knowledge that God has.
I agree with the bolded bit. There are huge amounts of things I don't know, and I hope to learn as much as I can. I know I can't know everything, but that doesn't mean I can't learn more.
You appear to be under the impression that I've either ignored evidence or I'm rejecting it. I'm not. I've taken all the evidence I've been given, be it the Bible or the world around me, and I've used it all. I've just reached a different conclusion. I'm always open to new evidence too, I just haven't seen any for a while. The Bible isn't going to change, so I've got all the evidence I can from that, so I just have to wait to see what we discover about the universe, and incorporate that into my views.
Atheism isn't a rejection of theism. It's just a different conclusion.
