How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

[quatona]

now, now, now, your own confession was that he was interpreting your posts as you presented them

What??? Where? When?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But, the point I was making is that you accept the Quran as the authority on Allah.

No, they accept the Quran as the authority on Allah; as I said above, I take what little I know of how Muslims and Muslim scholars interpret what the Quran says about Allah. It's a fiction and they believe it's real; what matters to me is not what the 'correct' version is, but how people respond to it, the effect it has on their and other's lives.

Yet you have been trying to argue that the Bible is not the authority on God. What I am asking you is why the double standard?

I have no interest in arguing who is or isn't the 'authority' on a work of historical fiction or its hero; I don't care - but I'm interested in how people reconcile the claims, the contradictions, and the relationship of those claims and contradictions to their own beliefs; and I'm concerned with their effects on others in the real world.

 

[razzelflabben]

No, they accept the Quran as the authority on Allah; as I said above, I take what little I know of how Muslims and Muslim scholars interpret what the Quran says about Allah. It's a fiction and they believe it's real; what matters to me is not what the 'correct' version is, but how people respond to it, the effect it has on their and other's lives.

now wait a moment...I talked about people living it out, aka evidencing what the claims that the text makes and you were (if memory serves) one of those that tried to tell me that isn't know it goes...so I still have a problem...

I have no interest in arguing who is or isn't the 'authority' on a work of historical fiction or its hero; I don't care - but I'm interested in how people reconcile the claims, the contradictions, and the relationship of those claims and contradictions to their own beliefs; and I'm concerned with their effects on others in the real world.

okay, see above, but let's try yet another experiment, this time using a fictional character for sure. Let's take Superman....who would know the most about superman? Where would we look for answers about superman?

 

[Ronald]

so, how do you know your ideas are truth about God or delusion based on assumptions you are making?

I am not always correct - people makes mistakes. Sometimes I jump to conclusions, am impatient and think the worst of things. I'm trying to balance myself with that. But the truth of these uncertainties in daily life can't really be known. What can be known is the truth in the Word, the truth about Jesus. We learn about truth and then apply to our lives. We pray and our prayers are answered. This validates the truth about us and others. The Holy Spirit gives us discernment. Gifts of the Spirit reveal truth to us. At the time we may not be sure of it, but then God confirms it soon enough. I can discern evil spirits. We receive warnings from God regularly, He keeps us out of danger. You would be surprised about all the times He guided you away and out of danger. Left to ourselves, we can do nothing.

As I have repeatedly said, the Bible does NOT equate God with morality since morality is a fluid thing based on social constructs. It does however teach justice not only for God, but a call to justice for HIs followers. In fact, before when I brought this up I issued a challenge to find one single mention of morality in scripture than look for Justice. And no, the 10 commandments are the law, not morality. IOW's they needed the law to show them where their morality was failing. In fact, that is the purpose of the law according to scripture. To show where we as a society have it wrong. Morality remember is a social construct.

"On the contrary, God created Adam and Eve in His own image and therefore with both an understanding of what was good and the choice to obey their Creator or to rebel against Him. Humans have not lost that sense of right and wrong, and we usually call that sense a conscience. Romans 2 explains how the moral standards people tend to impose on others proves they have a concept of right and wrong for which they are responsible, and that moral standard comes from the law of God expressed in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and written on every human heart (Romans 2:14–16). But our propensity to ignore our conscience and sin leaves our moral sense—our conscience—marred, sometimes even seared (1 Timothy 4:2). Romans 1:18–28 indicates how the process of sinful rebellion hardens people’s hearts against godly morality.

Our sinful natures and our marred perception of right and wrong make our conscience an imperfect guide to morality. Therefore, we need the Word of God to truly know God’s authoritative standard by which each of our consciences is judged. As our Creator, God alone has that moral authority. " Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell in "Where Did Morality Come From".
She also commented in that article, "Don't ever get your morality from an ape!"

It did not evolve from apes, so if you are and evolutionist and think that civilization created it, you've betrayed the wisdom that God gives us in the Bible.

 

[razzelflabben]

I am not always correct - people makes mistakes. Sometimes I jump to conclusions, am impatient and think the worst of things. I'm trying to balance myself with that. But the truth of these uncertainties in daily life can't really be known. What can be known is the truth in the Word, the truth about Jesus. We learn about truth and then apply to our lives. We pray and our prayers are answered. This validates the truth about us and others. The Holy Spirit gives us discernment. Gifts of the Spirit reveal truth to us. At the time we may not be sure of it, but then God confirms it soon enough. I can discern evil spirits. We receive warnings from God regularly, He keeps us out of danger. You would be surprised about all the times He guided you away and out of danger. Left to ourselves, we can do nothing.

so, let me get this right, your answer to the OP is that we can know that we believe truth by giving ourselves over to God and letting Him reveal Himself to us.

Reminds me of Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our report and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed.

If I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that we know truth from delusion because God reveals it. Is that right? If so, how could others distinguish the difference in their beliefs?

"On the contrary, God created Adam and Eve in His own image and therefore with both an understanding of what was good and the choice to obey their Creator or to rebel against Him. Humans have not lost that sense of right and wrong, and we usually call that sense a conscience. Romans 2 explains how the moral standards people tend to impose on others proves they have a concept of right and wrong for which they are responsible, and that moral standard comes from the law of God expressed in the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 and written on every human heart (Romans 2:14–16). But our propensity to ignore our conscience and sin leaves our moral sense—our conscience—marred, sometimes even seared (1 Timothy 4:2). Romans 1:18–28 indicates how the process of sinful rebellion hardens people’s hearts against godly morality.

What you are talking about here is not morality but rather righteousness....that is, doing what is right or some call it integrity. These are two different things. You still have not shown morality.

Our sinful natures and our marred perception of right and wrong make our conscience an imperfect guide to morality. Therefore, we need the Word of God to truly know God’s authoritative standard by which each of our consciences is judged. As our Creator, God alone has that moral authority. " Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell in "Where Did Morality Come From".
She also commented in that article, "Don't ever get your morality from an ape!"

so, let's refresh the challenge...present even one scripture that says that God is moral and then show one scripture where scripture says He is just. You see, scripture does not equate God with morality because as I said, morality is subjective and man designed whereas justice is objective and God designed.

It did not evolve from apes, so if you are and evolutionist and think that civilization created it, you've betrayed the wisdom that God gives us in the Bible.

You are confusing morality with righteousness/integrity it is a common misunderstanding but an important distinction when someone is trying to attack your faith in God and your wisdom for believing in that God. In fact, a truly good philosopher could sway you against believing in God by this very issue alone.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

now wait a moment...I talked about people living it out, aka evidencing what the claims that the text makes and you were (if memory serves) one of those that tried to tell me that isn't know it goes...

I don't think so - perhaps you can refer me the post where you think I was doing that, and I'll see if I can explain it.

Let's take Superman....who would know the most about superman? Where would we look for answers about superman?

That depends on which years and version you want to know about. For information about the original character in the 1930's, you'd talk to the writer and the artist (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster respectively). From the late '30's on, it varies - the rights were transferred around (e.g. a syndicated newspaper strip, new publishers, writers, artists). But the basic character attributes and backstory still follow Siegel & Schuster's model. I would suggest one needn't look much further; Superman isn't a god or part of a significant religion, isn't subject to multiple interpretations, and doesn't have a significant influence on many people's beliefs and lives.

What's your point, exactly?

 

[razzelflabben]

I don't think so - perhaps you can refer me the post where you think I was doing that, and I'll see if I can explain it.

not necessary...not as important as the rest of this post.

That depends on which years and version you want to know about. For information about the original character in the 1930's, you'd talk to the writer and the artist (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster respectively). From the late '30's on, it varies - the rights were transferred around (e.g. a syndicated newspaper strip, new publishers, writers, artists). But the basic character attributes and backstory still follow Siegel & Schuster's model. I would suggest one needn't look much further; Superman isn't a god or part of a significant religion, isn't subject to multiple interpretations, and doesn't have a significant influence on many people's beliefs and lives.

actually, you are wrong and your comments illustrate my point exactly. Like everything else in this world, Superman is subject to multiple interpretations. I had this conversation once with a gentleman from Canada. WE were talking about how their constitution is always changing because of interpretation issues. To which I pointed out to him and every single thing is open to interpretation from the moment it is written on. After considering what I said, he conceded I was right. Look at a previous post in which I ask if I was using small enough words to be understood. My intent was to make sure that I was communicating effectively, but some interpreted it to be an insult. My personal interpretation of Superman is quite different from yours or say even my son's. Some of the many things that affect that interpretation are my age, my experience with the original, my world view, other sources of information, etc. but as I have been trying to point out to you, the source for accurate information is still the same, the originator of the work.

Now, you can argue that the originator is this or that when it comes to the bible, but, the claim in the bible is that the originator is God Himself. The claim is that the source of information about God is the Bible. If we test, we can see evidence that would suggest this to be true, but I digress. Just because you may not believe the claim or even don't want to believe the claim or maybe you don't know if you should believe the claim or not, does NOT mean that man or you or anyone else is a better source for knowing what is and is not true of God (superman) Interpretations are more times than not flawed in some way, which is why it is necessary to return to the source if we want to know truth from delusion.

So, let's take our analogy a bit further. Personally you couldn't prove the author of Superman to me. I don't know and I don't care and I don't really know if I would believe you or not given how creativity in writing works. But, despite all of that, I do know that something about superman. Now, if I want, I can sit here and argue with you about Superman all day long and we would never find agreement because my basis of understanding is what I have seen others tell me about what I should believe about Superman. But, what if you take me back to the source? Should I still argue because I saw a cartoon once that portrayed Superman to be X when you and the authority on superman say Y? that would be kind of crazy wouldn't you agree? Yet people do it all the time with God. In fact, I have seen people do it with Allah as well. Your interpretation is between you and whomever, but if you are on a quest to know truth, you go back to the closest source you can find. that is just how it works.

Oh, and one quick comment about living it out, cause we need to take one thing at a time I think so that we don't start confusing things (notice I said we) From my original post to this one, I have advocated that by the evidence in peoples lives and the claims made "by God in scripture" must line up and be 100% right 100% of the time or we have falsified the claims. Since it has been talked about so much, finding one single post to refer you to is problematic and we can add it in again as we need to.

What's your point, exactly?

My point is that when we want to know about Superman we don't go to Joe down the road that watched one cartoon when he was five and ask him about superman. Likewise, when we want to know about God we don't go to Joe down the road who may or may not have any real experience of knowledge and say that he is the authority. For authority on the one in question, we always go back to the closest source we can find. In the case of God that source is scripture not man. Even if you want to claim that it was written by man and not God, they are still closer to the source than we are because many of them knew Christ personally. Still makes them the closest thing to authority we can get.

had a format problem

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

not necessary...

OK; I'll take that as a withdrawal of the claim

...not as important as the rest of this post.

None of this stuff is important.

My personal interpretation of Superman is quite different from yours or say even my son's.

Example? I'm wondering whether you're talking about Superman the fictional character himself, or the meaning and symbolism of the Superman stories & mythology.

... as I have been trying to point out to you, the source for accurate information is still the same, the originator of the work.

Right... that's what I told you in my last post (you actually quoted it in your post): "For information about the original character in the 1930's, you'd talk to the writer and the artist (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster respectively)" - they worked together to create Superman.

Now, you can argue that the originator is this or that when it comes to the bible, but, the claim in the bible is that the originator is God Himself. The claim is that the source of information about God is the Bible.

How would it be if the Superman comics claimed that Superman himself was the source of the information? sounds like a tired self-referential literary conceit - but I recognise that the writers of the Bible had a political and religious agenda, unlike Siegel & Schuster.

If we test, we can see evidence that would suggest this to be true...

Not we, you. I see confirmation bias and expectation bias.

Interpretations are more times than not flawed in some way, which is why it is necessary to return to the source if we want to know truth from delusion.

If you want to know the truth about what the source says about it. In the case of Superman, what the source says about Superman is true because Superman is a fiction created by the source. If Seigel and Shuster said Superman is real, and had told them what to write, you'd give them short shrift, or take it as a self-referential literary conceit. By that analogy, in the case of the Bible, what it says about God can be taken as true if God is a fiction created by the authors; if the claim is that God is real, then we can't have the same assurance, because what the source says must be hearsay, and the claim that it's God's word is just another claim by the same authors - "It's true because it says it's true" isn't a strong argument, even indirecting via God, "It says it's the word of God, so it must be true when it says it's God's word..."

...From my original post to this one, I have advocated that by the evidence in peoples lives and the claims made "by God in scripture" must line up and be 100% right 100% of the time or we have falsified the claims.

Given that there are as many interpretations of the claims made "by God in scripture" as there are people interpreting them, and that the evidence in people's lives is also open to interpretation, not least by the people themselves, I would not be surprised to find a range of opinion about how they 'line up' ranging from 0% to 100%, with 100% being a small minority. This would suggest that the claims would be falsified for all but a minority of opinion. YMMV

...For authority on the one in question, we always go back to the closest source we can find. In the case of God that source is scripture not man. Even if you want to claim that it was written by man and not God...

Frankly, I don't think God faked the scriptures to make it look like they were written by men. I think they were written by men who claimed to be inspired by God.

Still makes them the closest thing to authority we can get.

They're certainly the authorities on the stories they wrote, but I see no more reason to accept their word that it is 'the word of God' than I do the writers of the Quran (which is claimed to be literally the words of God passed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel) or of any other scriptures claiming to be the words of some god or other.

Just sayin'

 

[Job8]

How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

A belief is solidly grounded in spiritual or physical reality. A delusion is simply that -- it has no basis of any kind, just someone's vain imagination.

 

[razzelflabben]

OK; I'll take that as a withdrawal of the claim
None of this stuff is important.

then you take it wrong since it has been addressed to such a degree that returning to it would be an exercise in insanity.

Example? I'm wondering whether you're talking about Superman the fictional character himself, or the meaning and symbolism of the Superman stories & mythology.

how would that change the authority?

Right... that's what I told you in my last post (you actually quoted it in your post): "For information about the original character in the 1930's, you'd talk to the writer and the artist (Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster respectively)" - they worked together to create Superman.

exactly...just like the scribes of the Bible...see, your making my point for me and you don't even see what you are doing.

How would it be if the Superman comics claimed that Superman himself was the source of the information? sounds like a tired self-referential literary conceit - but I recognise that the writers of the Bible had a political and religious agenda, unlike Siegel & Schuster.

doesn't really matter what the claim, now does it? See, as I said already, the scribes of the bible are still the closest we can come to God, thus, it doesn't matter the claim, it is still the greatest authority we have. What is really troubling me is why you seem from your posts so opposed to seeing what the bible actually says about God?

Not we, you. I see confirmation bias and expectation bias.

hum, so your double standard is now somehow my confirmation and expectation bias, how so? How is it confirmation and expectation bias to suggest as you do in your post about superman, that we get as close to the source as we can get in order to know what the intent is? Do you really think you know the authors intent better than the author? Or the scribe for that matter, you know, the ghost writer? this is what you are trying to argue. You, by arguing against what I am saying are trying to argue that the best source of intent in a literary work is some random guy on the street who may or may not have read the work rather than the author or the ghost writer who was working with the "author". I call foul on that claim of yours. I have never met a single person in all my life that would make such a claim and even you are contradicting yourself to try to make that claim here.

So again, I ask why you are so opposed to seeing what the Bible says when it comes to knowledge of God?

If you want to know the truth about what the source says about it. In the case of Superman, what the source says about Superman is true because Superman is a fiction created by the source. If Seigel and Shuster said Superman is real, and had told them what to write, you'd give them short shrift, or take it as a self-referential literary conceit.

If I was interested at all, I would take the claims and test them so that I knew for sure. But that is really your problem isn't it? You are so convinced that there is no God that you can't allow yourself to test to see if there is any evidence of that God? Notice the question mark is there to ask you if I got it right, don't play games and pretend I am saying something else.

By that analogy, in the case of the Bible, what it says about God can be taken as true if God is a fiction created by the authors;

what I am saying is that the bible and the claims thereof should be treated as any other work and claims made therein.

Look at it this way, we are in this thread talking about truth vs. delusion, right? How do you know that Superman isn't real? What process did you use to come to the conclusion that He isn't real? What about people who are real, Hitler for example, or someone even further back, what about Gilgamesh, or Caesar, how do you know if they were real or not? What process did you use to make that belief that you have about it? What I am suggesting is that we use the same process to determine whether or not God is real and all you can argue is "I use process X for everyone but God, for God I just dismiss it out of hand and claim truth not delusion." If you really want to know truth, then you must apply the same process to all claims of what is real, including but not limited to God.

if the claim is that God is real, then we can't have the same assurance, because what the source says must be hearsay, and the claim that it's God's word is just another claim by the same authors

your still trying to argue that we can't use the same process because it is God not superman...I call foul on the double standard.

"It's true because it says it's true" isn't a strong argument, even indirecting via God, "It says it's the word of God, so it must be true when it says it's God's word..."

since I didn't make that argument we are back to the same bullying tactics as earlier in this thread and I don't play that game. In fact, every single thing I said about the claim included the idea that we should be skeptical of the claim, which makes your arguments seem very strange and....dishonest....not saying you are being dishonest, rather saying that to pretend I said the opposite of what I really did say as you do here makes your posts dishonest and I object to your trying to convince yourself and others that I am not saying what I said and believe.

Given that there are as many interpretations of the claims made "by God in scripture" as there are people interpreting them, and that the evidence in people's lives is also open to interpretation, not least by the people themselves, I would not be surprised to find a range of opinion about how they 'line up' ranging from 0% to 100%, with 100% being a small minority.

which is exactly why I said that we need to get as close to the source of authority as we can....geesh this isn't hard.

This would suggest that the claims would be falsified for all but a minority of opinion. YMMV

to know that, we would need to test the claims, not pretend that we already know truth because we are far superior in thought and mind than anyone else. You see, even to make the assumption that we are superior in thought and mind to everyone else in the world is in and of itself delusion and sets us up for even more delusion. That is why I suggested from the get go that we test the claims....why aren't your responses reflecting any of that? YOu know, responding to my posts like you are supposedly doing?

Frankly, I don't think God faked the scriptures to make it look like they were written by men. I think they were written by men who claimed to be inspired by God.

which is your opinion, but as per the discussion at hand, I would ask you to explain what process you went through to come to this belief and how you know that your belief on this matter is truth and not delusion? See, that is the question on the table. I told you that my beliefs are based on testing and rigorous testing and skeptical observations, but all you tell us is that you don't believe it.

I just listened to a very good speech by Trey Gowdy and in that speech, one of the things he said, don't just know what you believe, know why you believe it. What this thread is in essence asking and what I have repeatedly asked you is NOT what do you believe, that is pretty clear, but WHY DO YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO? That is something you have not yet answered.

They're certainly the authorities on the stories they wrote, but I see no more reason to accept their word that it is 'the word of God' than I do the writers of the Quran (which is claimed to be literally the words of God passed to Muhammad by the angel Gabriel) or of any other scriptures claiming to be the words of some god or other.

no one is asking you to accept it as the word of God...how did you miss that? It was painfully clear that no one is asking you what you believe. What is being asked is why you believe what you do? How do you know that your belief is truth and not delusion? When will you answer that question? It is after all the question we are here to answer.

Just sayin'

You really haven't been hearing what I am saying have you? I have openly, freely, and without prompting said that I believe that the Quran was in fact written by Muhammed as given to him by what he thought was the angel Gabriel. That is the claim and I have not found evidence that would suggest that is not true. You know, as per the OP question that you keep ignoring....how do you know that your belief is truth and not delusion. Because I test that belief against the evidence available. Now, if we want to go further in my belief for example, was what Muhammed thought to be the angel Gabriel, then that is another matter altogether.

See, unlike many atheists even many on these boards, I have no fear in confessing what I do not know or how I came to believe what I do and why. I refuse to just close my eyes and pick a belief and then try to argue with everyone that doesn't agree with me that I know more than they do, which just for the record has been happening on this thread on both sides. Rather, I, like Trey Gowdy suggested, believe with everything in me that real truth is worth risking any bias to find, which is why I test my thoughts and opinions and ideas against any evidence I can find.

Now, since you pretended I didn't address the consistency argument, which is an out and out lie, how about you try to answer the question asked of you. Why do you believe that what you believe is truth and not delusion? What process did you use to come to the conclusion that what you believe is truth and everyone else is believing a delusion?

 

[razzelflabben]

A belief is solidly grounded in spiritual or physical reality. A delusion is simply that -- it has no basis of any kind, just someone's vain imagination.

Thus, the argument that to know the difference we need to test, or as Trey Gowdy said, know what you believe and WHY you believe it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... how would that change the authority?

Not the authority, the interpretation.

...See, as I said already, the scribes of the bible are still the closest we can come to God, thus, it doesn't matter the claim, it is still the greatest authority we have.

I explained why that doesn't help.

What is really troubling me is why you seem from your posts so opposed to seeing what the bible actually says about God?

I don't particularly care what it says about God, I care about how people's interpretations affect their and other people's lives.

How is it confirmation and expectation bias to suggest as you do in your post about superman, that we get as close to the source as we can get in order to know what the intent is?

Ah, I was referring to the 'tests' you claimed to have done.

Do you really think you know the authors intent better than the author? Or the scribe for that matter, you know, the ghost writer? this is what you are trying to argue.

Nope, that's a straw man.

You, by arguing against what I am saying are trying to argue that the best source of intent in a literary work is some random guy on the street who may or may not have read the work rather than the author or the ghost writer who was working with the "author".

Nope, that's a straw man.

I ask why you are so opposed to seeing what the Bible says when it comes to knowledge of God?

Again, I don't particularly care what it says about knowledge of God.

You are so convinced that there is no God that you can't allow yourself to test to see if there is any evidence of that God?

I've looked and haven't found any. I have asked what testable criteria there are to identify God, and how the God hypothesis could be falsified and had no response - perhaps you'd like to enlighten me?

...what I am saying is that the bible and the claims thereof should be treated as any other work and claims made therein.

Me too. The bible is stories that claim to be God's word, as are so many other scriptures claiming to be the words of gods. I treat them all the same - as historical fiction.

How do you know that Superman isn't real? What process did you use to come to the conclusion that He isn't real?

Lol, seriously? It's a fictional comic strip.

What about people who are real, Hitler for example, or someone even further back, what about Gilgamesh, or Caesar, how do you know if they were real or not?

You're the one who says they're real - how do you know?

What I am suggesting is that we use the same process to determine whether or not God is real and all you can argue is "I use process X for everyone but God, for God I just dismiss it out of hand and claim truth not delusion."

False quote; straw man. Please don't attribute false quotes to me. If you want to quote me, quote what I said; cut & paste is the easiest way.

your still trying to argue that we can't use the same process because it is God not superman...I call foul on the double standard.

Nope, I haven't argued that. The process is the same, the information is different.

since I didn't make that argument we are back to the same bullying tactics as earlier in this thread and I don't play that game.

Relax, I didn't attribute that argument to you, it was a general observation. On the other hand, how should I view your false attribution of an argument to me (above), complete with a quote that I didn't say? I didn't whine about bullying, I just politely asked you not to do that.

... makes your arguments seem very strange and....dishonest....not saying you are being dishonest, rather saying that to pretend I said the opposite of what I really did say as you do here makes your posts dishonest and I object to your trying to convince yourself and others that I am not saying what I said and believe.

OK, if you're going to start all that nonsense again, I'll leave you to it.

 

[quatona]

now, now, now, your own confession was that he was interpreting your posts as you presented them

What??? Where? When?

Are you going to support your claim about me, or are you retracting it?

 

[razzelflabben]

Not the authority, the interpretation.

and yet our discussion is about authority, not interpretation, so not sure what your point is unless it is that you can make posts that do not reflect the posts you are claiming to respond to?!

I explained why that doesn't help.

must have missed that explanation, how about you review your answer to me, just summarize so that I can refresh my memory....remember, your explaining how, getting as close to the source is not efficient in learning the intent of a specific piece of literature. All I can recall that you have made in argument is that you don't believe the claims made by the authors of the Bible. But you are supposedly explaining why getting as close to God as possible, that is, those who walked with Christ isn't sufficient to use their writings as the authority on who Christ was/is. So, like I said, I apparently missed your argument if you summarize it for me I am sure I can figure it out.

I don't particularly care what it says about God, I care about how people's interpretations affect their and other people's lives.

I know, you have said that and that is something we agree on, however it is not the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand is what or who we would go to to find the claims made by the deity in question. You see, you have been asked one question, you quote that question as if you are addressing it only to change the topic and then get confused as to why people aren't following your line of argument. The question you keep answering is what authority would we go to to find the claims of a given deity, in this case God as to who He is. You keep answering the question by saying, "I don't particularly care what it says about God, I care about how people's interpretations affect their and other people's lives." which if you are noticing, doesn't answer the question at all. You then insist you answered the question and who am I to challenge that. So, we summarize.

I say that the closest we can come to the source of the claim the better chance we have to truly understanding the claim being made.

Your counter argument is that you don't care about the claim of the deity, only the people who want to assert that they know the deity.

To which I argue, but that is off topic, the topic is NOT what claims others make, but what claims are attributed to the deity.

To which you argue that you somehow magically addressed that and I missed it. So when you present your summary argument as to the best way or source for knowing the claims attributed to the deity, we will either proceed with civil discussion or dismiss your argument as a delusion of answering a question that your posts did not answer. Either way, I look forward to knowing where you stand on the issue of what authority is the best for knowing what claims are attributed to any given deity.

Ah, I was referring to the 'tests' you claimed to have done.
Nope, that's a straw man.
Nope, that's a straw man.
Again, I don't particularly care what it says about knowledge of God.

since the above proves through evidences laid out in your post that you don't even know what the discussion is about or how you are twisting things into non sense so that you have something to say, I will ignore all this flaming and just remind you of the forum rules so that you don't cross a line, unless of course the rules don't apply to you, then, it's a warning that I will NOT participate in such poor behavior.

I've looked and haven't found any. I have asked what testable criteria there are to identify God, and how the God hypothesis could be falsified and had no response - perhaps you'd like to enlighten me?

1. what your test conclude is not the subject of the thread and I don't know how many times or ways I can say it. In fact, defending any given claim is apologetic not philosophy. 2. You have been given testable claims as to what God claims in scripture that is measurable. You have also been told that is as close as we can get to actually testing for God, not sure what more you could be asking for. That pretty much covers anything that is even remotely on topic. 3. actually, you were given examples of how it would be falsified and my criteria for evidence was even harder than yours or anyone elses here on these boards. 4. I don't think that anyone can enlighten someone who is just dismissing what has already been done both repeatedly and in great depth. For that, you would need to review all the answers previously given and take them to heart, not to belief necessarily, but to heart as answers given and given in both patience and detail.

Me too. The bible is stories that claim to be God's word, as are so many other scriptures claiming to be the words of gods. I treat them all the same - as historical fiction.

I treat them all the same, something more to test to know if there is truth of not. Therein lies one of our fundamental differences, I look at everything and ask is there any truth and if so, what is the truth. You according to this sentence look at everything and say, I will believe what I feel like no matter the evidence. Personally, I find that disturbing, but it is not my call what you believe and why. That being said, if your beliefs are all just based on your whim as you indicate here, there isn't really anything more for us to talk about because there is nothing you are offering that addresses the OP question.

Lol, seriously? It's a fictional comic strip.
You're the one who says they're real - how do you know?

huh? I said nothing about who I believe is real and who I believe is not real, I instead asked you what process you use to determine what is real from what is delusion. So far all we have as an answer is 1. your whim and 2. mocking the question. Neither of which is very satisfying.

False quote; straw man. Please don't attribute false quotes to me. If you want to quote me, quote what I said; cut & paste is the easiest way.

ignoring as I said I would do if the pattern of behavior continues in your posts.

Nope, I haven't argued that. The process is the same, the information is different.

so, what process are you using for knowing if Superman is real or delusion and how is that process being used for God? You have been avoiding the question in your posts.

Relax, I didn't attribute that argument to you, it was a general observation. On the other hand, how should I view your false attribution of an argument to me (above), complete with a quote that I didn't say? I didn't whine about bullying, I just politely asked you not to do that.

ignoring as I said I would....your false accusations are getting old and boring. You have been asked a very simple question and I have to weed through all the junk in your posts to make an assumption of what you want to answer because the answer isn't found in your posts and for that, you make false accusations of my character, which is btw flaming according to the rules.

OK, if you're going to start all that nonsense again, I'll leave you to it.

so, you are officially refusing to answer the simple OP question when you are asked directly? Is that what you are saying here?

 

[Dan Bert]

In this post you understood from me, did I teach anything contrary to Scrptures? Though I do not ask you to believe me in posts that you do not fully comprehend...do not assume that I am teaching things contrary to Scriptures.

dan

yep to this part, the first part seems a bit off topic at least as I am reading and understanding your post.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... you make false accusations of my character, which is btw flaming according to the rules.

If you think I'm flaming you by making false accusations of your character, or breaking the rules in any other way, I urge you to do the right thing by the rules and report the relevant post(s).

so, you are officially refusing to answer the simple OP question when you are asked directly? Is that what you are saying here?

No, that is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that judging by your posts, what you think I have posted and what I think I have posted are two different things. This means there is no useful communication between us on the topic. Therefore I see no point us continuing this.

I haven't encountered this problem to this extent before, but not to worry, there are plenty of other people online we can discuss with.

 

[razzelflabben]

In this post you understood from me, did I teach anything contrary to Scrptures? Though I do not ask you to believe me in posts that you do not fully comprehend...do not assume that I am teaching things contrary to Scriptures.

dan

hum? Why would you ask this? The comment you are referring to talked about your comments being off topic, I said nothing at all about whether or not it is scriptural.

 

[razzelflabben]

If you think I'm flaming you by making false accusations of your character, or breaking the rules in any other way, I urge you to do the right thing by the rules and report the relevant post(s).
No, that is not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that judging by your posts, what you think I have posted and what I think I have posted are two different things. This means there is no useful communication between us on the topic. Therefore I see no point us continuing this.

I haven't encountered this problem to this extent before, but not to worry, there are plenty of other people online we can discuss with.

Exactly what I expected you to do. I showed you that you were not following the discussion, that your posts are off topic and that you have been asked questions that you refuse to answer all the while making false accusations against my character and instead of addressing the issues, you "leave" the discussion. I find that sad when you still haven't answered the OP question, but it is what it is. Have a great day.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... your posts are off topic and that you have been asked questions that you refuse to answer all the while making false accusations against my character...

I strongly urge you to report any posts in which I've made false accusations against your character .

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Let's take Superman....who would know the most about superman? Where would we look for answers about superman?

You don't get answers about fictitious characters.