Know as in absolute? I wouldn’t claim that. I’m entitled to follow what I believe to be true though aren’t I?
I did, in fact, fail to respond in that thread. However, we’ll recall that at that time many similar threads were running (all, incidentally, started by Valteron) and my debate with various people on Aquinas’ proofs and various other topics was pursued at great length in many threads simultaneously.
Now that’s interesting. Let’s see what happens next.
A dinner is verifiably real. The “voice of God” is not; not to you or me.
The simplest explanation is that there isn’t any God and you are imagining things. You throw Occam’s Razor out when you assume it’s God.
How do you know ? Maybe Satan is the good guy. Neither the Bible, God’s followers or the state of the world make the idea of a good God very plausible.
Common sense is that you need medical care if you are hearing voices.
If he can talk in your head he can probably hack the board. 
He is verifiably real to me. It does not matter to me whether He’s verifiably real to you or not.
When you account for the fact that my experiences are corroborated by the common experiences of billions of other people across the world throughout history, “imagining things” is complex; impossibly complex, in fact. Also, you somehow have to account for why an incredibly intelligent person such as myself would be unable to distinguish between imagination and reality, and why I suddenly started hallucinating at age 23 when I had no prior history of doing so. None of those things are simple. God, on the other hand, is quite simple.
Because I know what the difference between good and evil is.
This is logically correct but irrelevant, since I do not hear voices.
Again this is logically true but irrelevant, since he can’t talk in my head.
I retract and apologize for that particular clause in my last post. I do believe that a certain level of maturity is sometimes necessary to receive God’s word, and I would know since I was once an angry teenage atheist. Ample threads on this board from years past would testify to that. So when remarking on the immaturity of atheists I was really making fun of myself.
Thanks, but I’ll rely on experts when my personal knowledge is not as robust as theirs.
Ahhhh. Two whole years. Wow. Then certainly your interpretation of Buddha’s words will be superior to people who have been devotees for their adult lives or who are scholars in the field as the critics of the Amazon books are.
See, this is why I’m bowing out of the discussion with you - I say X and you go off debating P.
And you pull stunts like that. Yes, I know what it means and you’re a bit off, but that’s ok.
Has anybody? Ever?
As you wish. You don’t discuss points alone; you prefer to lace your ‘debate’ with snark and insult. Not impressive and not impressed. Not playing that game.
Well, now i’m afraid it’s my turn to ask you for a cite; could you turn up your posts debating Aquinas’ proofs? In my (albeit brief) search for the thread I remembered, I couldn’t find any posts in which you addressed them other than to mention them (as you did in the post I cited).
I did a little searching myself, to check if I was wrong. Alas, it appears not - I found posts in which you mention Aquinas, but it appears to be only in passing.
However, I did find something ***very ** * interesting. As you’ll note, the thread I cited earlier was started on the 4th of Febuary '07 (assuming this board uses American-style date notation). Here’s a lovely thread from the 12th December, '06. Once again, the subject of Aquinas is brought up by you, and you challenge others as to their knowledge of him. Once again, a post is made refuting those proofs. And once again, you do not post to the thread after this refuting post is made.
A well-known quotation from Lady Bracknell comes to mind.
It is interesting to note that most human societies began with polytheism, the belief in many Gods. We then tended to convert to monotheism. Even Hindus seem to be saying that their apparently many Gods are actually manifestations of one.
Are we ready for the final stage?
There are already countries like Sweden and the Czech Republic where significant monorities or majorities (depends on defeinition, really) are already atheists.
Are we ready to send Yaweh to the same dustbin as Zeus, Thor, Venus, etc. ?
It just gets more interesting as we go. 
Know at all.
Yaweh? Noway!
Really? I think this depends on how strictly you define a god.
In answer to this, I will turn the microphone over to G. K. Chesterton.
Here’s some food for thought for you. Christianity is rapidly growing among young people in the Netherlands. And I’ve heard that the same is happening in France and Germany. Meanwhile, according to this book, the younger generation of Americans attends church in larger numbers than their parents. It may well be atheism that will be seeing the end of the line in the generations ahead.
That would be for me to determine wouldn’t it?
Would any answer I offered mean anything to you?
No one’s doubting what you experience. What we’re doubting is whether your experience is actually of a god, or of your own imagination.
It is a amusing evidence of the way religious people become oblivious to the absurdity of their own beliefs that they seriously suggest that the voice in their head is more simply explained by proposing a omniscient omnipresent omnipotent supreme being than by their own imagination.
Might I remind you that Occam’s Razor in pure form says that one should not multiply entities beyond necessity. Yet you are proposing a whole new uber entity to explain the voice in your head, while atheists propose no new entity at all but merely suggest that the voice in your head is imagination: imagination being a phenomena or entity that we already agree exists, quite apart from this debate.
Circularity. How do you know what’s good? I thought your god told you what was good. But if you need to know what is good in the first place in order to tell whether it is your good god or your bad god talking to you, you’re rather stuck, aren’t you?
Yours or mine?
You’re just ducking the question again. Asking me a question is not answering the question. Yes, it would be for you to determine. How did you determine it?
I’m not ducking anything. I’m trying to determine if you’re asking a serious question or not. I’ll assume you are.
For me the voice of god was a strong positive unexpected presence. An insight or personal revelation much stronger than simple reflection or an AHA moment. A moment of clarity so strong that it presented itself as a distinct internal voice.
I know quite well what you’re doubting. What I’m pointing out is that your doubt is based on the assumption that you know what I experience better than I myself know. Like most people, I’m well capable of distinguishing between dreams, hallucinations, and reality. Therefore it’s absurd for internet strangers to make the assumption that you’re making.
My computer screen is more simply explained as a computer screen than as a figment of my imagination which happens to look like a computer screen. My cat is more simply explained as a cat than as a figment of my imagination that happens to look, sounds, smell, and feel like a cat. God is more simply explained as God than as a figment of my imagination that happens to take the form of God.
But these figments of imagination that form the basis of your explanation must have some distinct, self-contained existence separating them from standard products of the imagination, if they can actually do the amazing things you credit them with doing. Billions of unexplained, autonomous figments of the imaginations of billions of people constitute billions of entities. God constitutes only one entity. One is fewer than billions, or at least that’s what we Christians believe. Perhaps atheists calculate differently.
He does. But I already knew good from evil, at least in broad outline, before I received the Word of God.
Mine and that of many other people.
While this was a popular concept in the early 20th century, (repeated often in several varieties of fiction throughout that century), it does not actually appear to be the case. The most “primitive” (pre-literate) peoples very frequently are monotheistic. Polytheism appears to require the capacity to continually add to a pantheon, with heroes, household gods, and various sprites frequently elevated to the divine while the gods of neighboring nations are often borrowed and added, as well.
Monotheism in developed cultures appears to show up in revolutionary events, not as the result of the atrophy of older pantheons.
It is far easier to add a new god to an existing pantheon than it is to wipe out a pantheon, replacing it by a single god and such events appear to occur in times of cultural upheaval, not during the reflective periods of philosopgical contemplation. This, of course, does nothing to establish the reality of the divine–as one or as many–but there is no actual historical evidence for monotheism “developing” from polytheism (not even through henotheism).
Wow. I called it in post #66, apparently.