"God spoke to me", I doubt that. What's more likely. Your mind was primed to think that way; or a God spoke to you? This is a really poor reason to start believing in a God. If he had been reading the Koran, would he be a Muslim now? What if he was reading about Zeus and thunder and lightning started all of the sudden and he felt like Zeus was talking to him? People really need to start looking beyond confirmation bias.
I didn't "feel" like God was talking to me, I recognized his authorship of his word, plain as day. Now you may not like that, but it's a *very* good reason to believe him. I've read the Koran, and I've read philosophy, and the Book of Mormon, etc. etc. No other book has the objective marks of God's authorship like this one. Ironically, you've begun by assuming God can't speak to us through his word (or doesn't exist) and therefore must conclude that I've imagined something. That's you flexing your confirmation bias.
@@russellberger36 Ironically? Yes, I assumed something that hasn't been demonstrated to exist, does not exist. That's called being reasonable and rational, what you're describing is confirmation bias. Thinking you recognize a Gods authorship is not a reliable method to determine if it was from a God or not. My point still stands.
Reason is the power to grasp logic @@BlasterMaster80. Logic is an invisible, universal, immaterial law about thinking, a law any worldview that denies God can't account for. The fact that you recognize the laws of logic shows you already know God exists. You just *don't want him to*. Your critique of my experience is also illogical. A person can witness something and be rationally persuaded by it, even if others don't see it. We acknowledge this every time we put an eyewitness on the stand in front of a jury. What you seem to think is that *you* should be persuaded to trust the bible because *I* recognized it as true. No one is arguing that. Go read it for yourself.
"God spoke to me", I doubt that. What's more likely. Your mind was primed to think that way; or a God spoke to you? This is a really poor reason to start believing in a God. If he had been reading the Koran, would he be a Muslim now? What if he was reading about Zeus and thunder and lightning started all of the sudden and he felt like Zeus was talking to him? People really need to start looking beyond confirmation bias.
I didn't "feel" like God was talking to me, I recognized his authorship of his word, plain as day. Now you may not like that, but it's a *very* good reason to believe him. I've read the Koran, and I've read philosophy, and the Book of Mormon, etc. etc. No other book has the objective marks of God's authorship like this one. Ironically, you've begun by assuming God can't speak to us through his word (or doesn't exist) and therefore must conclude that I've imagined something. That's you flexing your confirmation bias.
@@russellberger36 Ironically? Yes, I assumed something that hasn't been demonstrated to exist, does not exist. That's called being reasonable and rational, what you're describing is confirmation bias. Thinking you recognize a Gods authorship is not a reliable method to determine if it was from a God or not. My point still stands.
Reason is the power to grasp logic @@BlasterMaster80. Logic is an invisible, universal, immaterial law about thinking, a law any worldview that denies God can't account for. The fact that you recognize the laws of logic shows you already know God exists. You just *don't want him to*. Your critique of my experience is also illogical. A person can witness something and be rationally persuaded by it, even if others don't see it. We acknowledge this every time we put an eyewitness on the stand in front of a jury. What you seem to think is that *you* should be persuaded to trust the bible because *I* recognized it as true. No one is arguing that. Go read it for yourself.
Merely because you assert that it does, or because you've demonstrated that it does?
@@BlasterMaster80