>>And no, I'm not referring to the bible. I'm referring to that other "revelation" that you claim to have had.
Look, I cannot explain every personal revelation in my life, a past post tried to list some of the examples, but two that are examinable are the Bible and the nature around us. How do I know this? God revealed it. God revealed that He can be trusted. God revealed this as His work.
>>Why in hell have none of US [Atheists] had this "revelation"?
Oh but you have. You just deny God, His Word, and His revelations. You ignore the signs. No surprise there. Are you seeking God as instructed in His Word. Are you placing Him, in faith, as first in your life as He requires? If not, its no wonder that any personal revelations are squelched. I have hundreds of personal stories that points to God.
But the real kicker to what happened is I saw God for what He is. Love. It moved me more then it moved that lady I believe. I am still in awe as to witness that lady's metamorphose. I still cannot stop thinking of that then cranky woman. I am grateful for that day. I am certain that she will be there to greet me when I pass. How do I know? God is revealing it to me as I am writing this. He is placing unquestionable assurance in my soul and instincts. How is He doing that? I have no clue.
I am sure you have an atheistic naturalistic counter as to what may have happened, but it will be a pointless exercise to convince me otherwise. It would be like trying to convince me that I am a lion trapped in a man's body, or something else just as absurd.
Has anything happened to you that you would be hard pressed to explain it away, even as a mere coincidence?
Nature has revealed to me in a way that I can be pretty sure of that all of that was a load of BS.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Which revelation is correct?
Dan Wrote: Look, I cannot explain every personal revelation in my life, a past post tried to list some of the examples, but two that are examinable are the Bible and the nature around us. How do I know this? God revealed it. God revealed that He can be trusted. God revealed this as His work.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to still be missing the point. How do you know that it was a genuine revelation? How can you trust that it was actually from God?
Dan Wrote: Oh but you have. You just deny God, His Word, and His revelations. You ignore the signs. No surprise there. Are you seeking God as instructed in His Word. Are you placing Him, in faith, as first in your life as He requires? If not, its no wonder that any personal revelations are squelched. I have hundreds of personal stories that points to God.
This is, of course, nonsense. I was once a very committed Christian. I spent months upon months in thought about these issues, reading the bible, reading various books, praying several times a day.
In the end, I couldn't hold unto belief any more.
You have to presuppose that this isn't true (even though it's contradicted by your own bible) - however, as I (and others) have shown, you worldview is flawed.
Dan Wrote: Is it a mere coincidence that an elderly jaded hardened lady had a flat tire at my place to have some semblance of hope in humanity restored?
Not at all - what you did was unusual, hence her unusual response. It was not miraculous.
Dan Wrote: But the real kicker to what happened is I saw God for what He is. Love. It moved me more then it moved that lady I believe. I am still in awe as to witness that lady's metamorphose. I still cannot stop thinking of that then cranky woman. I am grateful for that day. I am certain that she will be there to greet me when I pass. How do I know? God is revealing it to me as I am writing this. He is placing unquestionable assurance in my soul and instincts. How is He doing that? I have no clue.
You are making a ton of assumptions about her experience. Further you witnessed her change, you did not see God. These are your assumptions based on the worldview you were experiencing. What if she was a mormon or a muslim? Would your opinion be different?
Dan Wrote: I am sure you have an atheistic naturalistic counter as to what may have happened, but it will be a pointless exercise to convince me otherwise. It would be like trying to convince me that I am a lion trapped in a man's body, or something else just as absurd.
I wonder if it would be as absurd as trying to believe that you can trust God's revelations while denying that you can autonomously reason?
Dan Wrote: Has anything happened to you that you would be hard pressed to explain it away, even as a mere coincidence?
Strange things have happened to me, things that I could not explain. However that doesn't mean some magical creature or supernatural entity was at fault.
At the bottom of your belief, your inability to explain something is your foundation.
Meatros,
ReplyDelete>>What if she was a mormon or a muslim? Would your opinion be different?
Well played Meatros. I like your game. Its a good question.
Maybe God would not have moved me as much. I could have easily written it off as you just did. No, this incident effected me greatly. I took it as a real communication from God. If this were the ONLY one, you may write it off.
>>what you did was unusual, hence her unusual response.
Again, great point, and that very well may be true. But I cannot bring myself to that same conclusion without lying to my self. How do you explain that? Self delusion in not wanting to be delusional? Possibly. Billions of mass self delusional people? Maybe. Or you have to conclude that maybe, just maybe, the collection of billions of stories, much richer then this one, points to a sovereign God that communicates with His creation. I also understand the fallacious argument of my point here (argumentum ad populum). I am sure Lazarus, being raised from the dead, was written off from the atheists of the day as still being alive and not dead. Jesus too. Talk about mass delusion. *pshaw
Stupid,
ReplyDelete>>Nature has revealed to me in a way that I can be pretty sure of that all of that was a load of BS.
Revelation denotes, and implies, a mind of purpose. If that is the case, maybe you are the reveller and merely believe it was nature. Presuppositions have a way of doing that.
Besides, believing there could not be revelations from God because you don't believe in a Creator is question begging.
I am cracking myself up today.
ReplyDeleteAtheists say "Jesus and Lazarus were not "True Dead™" people.
Much like we argue a person is not a "true Christian™"
"But the real kicker to what happened is I saw God for what He is. Love."
ReplyDeleteDan's personal revelation is he's a advocate of pantheism.
Dan
ReplyDeleteI often find this 'shock' response from the elderly. I recon it's because they spend all day watching the news and listen to radio broadcasts that only have "bad" news as newsworthy. So when they (the elderly) venture into the outside world they expect the worst from people. Jehovah’s Witnesses in my experiences are expressly prone to this pessimism (they all think Armageddon will happen in their lifetime).
When I get to know these people and they discover my atheism. There religious stereotypes of atheists and atheisms are removed and they become more excepting and less likely to be cranky in the first place.
"Billions of mass self delusional people?"
ReplyDeletenotice how Dan claims ALL theists to back up his bare assertion.
Then in a heart beat would back-stab them all when required. (accusations of false religion/gods etc.)
Dan how do you/anyone/everyone verify the source of *every* claimed revelations as the same source as your claimed revelation, ie YHWH?
-----------------------------------
Side question; In your mythology (christianity) do athiests go to heaven or hell?
Commuincation between The Force and my Midi-chlorians has revealed to me in a way that I can be certain that Dans story was a fabrication.
ReplyDeleteIt would take intellectual dishoesty to suggest that The Force couldn't reveal things to us that we could be certain.
;7
Atheists say "Jesus and Lazarus were not "True Dead™" people.
ReplyDeleteActually, quite a lot of us say they're characters in made-up stories.
But I'm reasonably familiar with the kind of experience you're talking about, Dan - that moment of clarity when the world just seems to make sense and you feel that you understand your place in it. I'm sure there's some king of electrochemical process in the brain that causes this feeling, prompted by some external stimulus, perhaps. Whatever the reasons, there's an undeniable euphoria to such moments.
One such moment for me was when I first met the man who is now my husband. Somehow I just knew - even despite the fact that he had another woman on his arm at the time - that there was a spark, that he and I had some inscrutable connection. And so it proved.
An even earlier moment was that of my deconversion from Christianity. Yes, I really do remember the very moment, and the fact that it suddenly struck me, almost with the force of a physical blow, that Christianity was mistaken, misguided, perhaps even flat-out wrong, and I could no longer invest belief in it. It was time to give up the struggle. The world has made more sense to me ever since that moment.
Was it divine revelation? Who knows? Until we have something other than a hugely disparate range of such personal moments to go on, we have no reason to ascribe these 'revelations' to anyone beyond our own minds and our own efforts to find a way to understand reality.
How do I know this? God revealed it. God revealed that He can be trusted. God revealed this as His work.
ReplyDeleteThat really isn't a way of knowing anything. That is why I (and I'm sure others have) gave you a challenge to use your alleged revelation ability to reveal something that we know could not come from you alone.
Oh but you have. You just deny God, His Word, and His revelations. You ignore the signs. No surprise there.
You are not omniscient. You cannot claim any of this without simply guessing. It's a very poor, indefensible position you just took here. Care to try a different position?
Are you seeking God as instructed in His Word. Are you placing Him, in faith, as first in your life as He requires? If not, its no wonder that any personal revelations are squelched. I have hundreds of personal stories that points to God.
So your reasoning is thus:
Believe in [my] god without proof. Then [my] god will show himself. Sounds like self-delusion to me.
Is it a mere coincidence that an elderly jaded hardened lady had a flat tire at my place to have some semblance of hope in humanity restored?
Yes. Life is full of improbable events which happen every day. When a person is desperate for vindication of their faith in something, these coincidences will be used to support that faith.
How do I know? God is revealing it to me as I am writing this. He is placing unquestionable assurance in my soul and instincts. How is He doing that? I have no clue.
That is not god. It is your intuition. We all have that. My intuition tells me that no one here can reason you out of your faith because you need it for emotional reasons.
Has anything happened to you that you would be hard pressed to explain it away, even as a mere coincidence?
Yes. I saw ghosts. However I don't trust my mind so much that I would ignore physics for self-indulgence. It's far more likely that my brain had a glitch, than the whole of physics being wrong.
Dan Wrote: Well played Meatros. I like your game. Its a good question.
ReplyDeleteMaybe God would not have moved me as much. I could have easily written it off as you just did. No, this incident effected me greatly. I took it as a real communication from God. If this were the ONLY one, you may write it off.
The effect of the incident has no bearing on it's truth. Look at all the 'alien abduction' stories. Look at what happened to the McMartins (sp?).
Dan Wrote: Again, great point, and that very well may be true. But I cannot bring myself to that same conclusion without lying to my self. How do you explain that?
I don't need to - incredulity is a personal thing. The problem is, the strength of it has no effect on it's actual truth.
I'm sitting here, trying to imagine myself in your shoes. I've just had an experience. It's powerful. How do I know that this experience is from God? I don't know - I don't know how one could be utterly confident that it was.
That's leaving aside the obvious problem with your stance on autonomous reasoning that I've been hammering you about.
Dan Wrote: Self delusion in not wanting to be delusional? Possibly. Billions of mass self delusional people? Maybe.
The 'delusions' are not all the same - hence the multiple religions. Personally the fact that there are other religions that claim these experiences would at least put some doubt in my mind. Why doesn't it in you?
Dan Wrote: Or you have to conclude that maybe, just maybe, the collection of billions of stories, much richer then this one, points to a sovereign God that communicates with His creation. I also understand the fallacious argument of my point here (argumentum ad populum).
No, I hear you here - you aren't trying to convince us, per say, of the authenticity of the story. It is authentic to you - it is a piece of *your* evidence. That's fine, I have no truck with that specifically. I'm just not seeing why you are so confident about it.
Dan Wrote: I am sure Lazarus, being raised from the dead, was written off from the atheists of the day as still being alive and not dead. Jesus too. Talk about mass delusion. *pshaw
No, you really aren't Lazarus in this scenario. At least with Lazarus, he experienced a miracle (of his day) and he had the reason right there.
Dan Wrote: Revelation denotes, and implies, a mind of purpose. If that is the case, maybe you are the reveller and merely believe it was nature. Presuppositions have a way of doing that.
This sword cuts both ways - you are the revealer too, you just misunderstand what you believe is being revealed. Instead of recognizing that it's coming from within, you ascribe it to the external world. You have no way of knowing that this is not the case.
Meatros,
ReplyDelete>>How do I know that this experience is from God? I don't know - I don't know how one could be utterly confident that it was.
This is the hardest question, and at the very same time, easiest question to answer. I know with full certainty that God exists. How do I know? I believe Him. I trust Him. He then revealed Himself to me. One example was that story. Maybe this will help:
I... had an experience... I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever... A vision... of the universe, that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how... rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater then ourselves, that we are *not*, that none of us are alone! I wish... I... could share that... I wish, that everyone, if only for one... moment, could feel... that awe, and humility, and hope. But... That continues to be my wish. (Ellie Arroway)
That is how I know God exists. I can't explain it, but I know.
>>This sword cuts both ways - you are the revealer too, you just misunderstand what you believe is being revealed.
That might be the case, if it were true. But its not. God revealed Himself in MANY forms and ways. Its not just a mere personal feeling. Its what was said in His word, its nature, its personal. They ALL cannot be just a mere coincidences. The Bible, in 2 Kings speaks of a town as a historical narrative to what happened then and there. When we go to Iraq we see the town that the Bible spoke of that is 50+ south of Baghdad, called Babylon. The ruins were unearthed and verified as to what transpired and what was described in the Bible, the "story" and the references are spot on as truth. It was not a story, its really there. Then there are hundreds more, literally, that is exactly the same. The Bible spoke of the Corinthians, when it was searched, sure enough, they found the town of Corinth and on and on, time after time. The Bible is verified Biblically and extra-biblically. Its simply irrefutable.
That is also why I love the discussion of presuppositions. No matter what evidence is given, you MUST interpret it in such a way that comports with your worldview. That is the rub here, Van Til rightly explained many things that solidified its truth, in that we ALL argue presuppositionally. All these talks here has definitely verified the truth of presupposition claims. You want proof, look at your own presuppositions that negates, or at least sets aside, critical thinking skills. We cannot critically look at our own point of view with our presupps.
If Atheists started with, "How am I looking at this situation? Is there another way to look at it that I should consider? What exactly am I focused on? And how am I seeing it? Is my view the only reasonable view? What does my point of view ignore? Have you ever considered the way others view this? Which of these possible viewpoints makes the most sense given the situation? Am I having difficulty looking at this situation from a viewpoint with which I disagree? What is the point of view of the author of this story? Do I study viewpoints that challenge my personal beliefs?", their presuppositions might be changed. Its my hope anyway.
The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. It is also the claim of the Christian that God reveals the truth of His Word to us directly such that we can be certain of it (and no, I don't know how He does this)
I presuppose God and see it verified in every breath I take, every smell, every thought, every taste, everything taken in with my senses. What I read in His Word has, and does, come true. God actually does exist and says what He says and means what He means.
This is the hardest question, and at the very same time, easiest question to answer. I know with full certainty that God exists. How do I know? I believe Him. I trust Him. He then revealed Himself to me. One example was that story.
ReplyDeleteSee, the thing is, Dan, you've got this totally arse-backwards. Of course if you've decided you already believe in a particular god, you're going to interpret events as being caused by it.
And it's kind of cheating to say "just believe and you'll see the evidence. It's what we call leaping to a conclusion and then pressing any and all evidence into service as support for the predetermined conclusion. It's like claiming that Thor exists and then pointing to lightning as evidence for Thor's existence. The lightning, by itself, doesn't demonstrate that any god caused it - just as your mysterious or coincidental personal experiences don't demonstrate that your god exists, unless you already assume what you're trying to show.
That is why your "just believe and you'll see" argument really doesn't cut any ice with those who are interested in discovering truths about the world.
I presuppose God and see it verified in every breath I take, every smell, every thought, every taste, everything taken in with my senses. What I read in His Word has, and does, come true. God actually does exist and says what He says and means what He means.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how you go on a long rant about analysing presuppositions and then just assert that yours is valid and any others are not.
What you're doing here, again, is bending the evidence to suit your predetermined conclusions, not following the evidence to other possibilities. You close the case before you even have any facts.
The biggest difference between your worldview and that of many of us here is that ours are open-ended. Give us concrete evidence for a deity - that doesn't have belief as a prerequisite for detection or interpretation - and we'll take it seriously. We probably won't instantly assume it's specifically the Christian deity, but a bit more evidence could conceivably demonstrate that it was so. Open-ended. Willing to consider possibilities for which there is evidence. That is the hallmark of many an atheist's worldview.
The reason we don't invest belief in the Christian god is because the evidence we have tells against its existence as anything other than a concept in the minds of believers. Your "I believe so I can see the evidence" does nothing to undermine this provisional conclusion.
You, on the other hand, will simply dismiss anything that doesn't comport with your closed worldview. Truth matters less to you than worldview maintenance. It's conceivable that physicists will one day demonstrate exactly how the universe could have into existence in its present form, and that biologists will crack the puzzle of how life could have evolved from non-living matter. When presented with such evidence, you will most likely ignore or outright deny it with all your might, because it undermines the foundations of your narrow and oddly specific worldview.
Yup, this is deadly serious when Dan thinks he's losing, and a game when he thinks he has something to actually add to the conversation taking place.
ReplyDeleteI don't even need to post in here, do I? You guys have taken him apart well enough already.
ReplyDeleteStill, did Dan ever answer the question of: Did he ever talk of this "divine-revelation-that-lets-him-know-that-his-reasoning-is-valid" bullshit before he ran into Sye TenB who was spreading that nonsense?
Was it only after seeing Sye use that reasoning did Dan remember that he had recieved this "revelation" or something? ;)
Dan
ReplyDeleteOh but you have.
How do you know? Care to explain just what we missed?
You just deny God, His Word, and His revelations.
Wrong. We test. They failed. Besides, those of other religions can say the same about you and their god and his holy books.
This is why this "divine revelation" bullshit is so useless: it's subjective with no way to describe or test.
You ignore the signs.
Baloney. When it comes to stuff like "messianic prophecy" and "biblical foreknowledge" we showed that it's bunk.
No surprise there. Are you seeking God as instructed in His Word. Are you placing Him, in faith, as first in your life as He requires?
Been there, done that. I was probably a xian for longer than you have been. About 20 years.
If not, its no wonder that any personal revelations are squelched. I have hundreds of personal stories that points to God.
And I've talked with those of other faiths who say the same about their gods.
Reynold:
ReplyDeleteNo, Dan did not use the presuppositional lie before he heard it from Sye. I suppose he used to believe that Jesus was real and that arguing the evidence would eventually show that.
DD,
ReplyDelete>>It's funny how you go on a long rant about analysing presuppositions and then just assert that yours is valid and any others are not.
Do you want to know how I know for certain that you're wrong? Wait for it. Its God Revelation again. That is how I can be so confident of the conclusion. We have an omniscient and omnipotent God that tells us what will happen and what we can be certain about. The real irony here is you know this, yet you claim you cannot know anything.
>> When presented with such evidence, you will most likely ignore or outright deny it with all your might, because it undermines the foundations of your narrow and oddly specific worldview.
I await with baited breath for that day to come. Oh BTW, how many centuries do you require to find such information, and at what time will you concede to the truth revealed in the Bible?
Dan, repeating his asserion, again:
ReplyDeleteDo you want to know how I know for certain that you're wrong? Wait for it. Its God Revelation again. That is how I can be so confident of the conclusion. We have an omniscient and omnipotent God that tells us what will happen and what we can be certain about.
Cool. Time to test this. When's the next earthquake going to be? What'll be it's magnitude? How will all the Japanese nuclear reactors fare?
Put up or shut up. Finally. A way to test this so-called "divine revelation" crap.
Whenever Dan is caught in a lie, he just says "revelation." (This was not always the case; but it is anymore.) So, in reality, Dan has conceded that DormantDragon is correct. What I read in the bible (e.g. Jesus returning during the lifetimes of those who saw him originally) does not come to pass. Christians have to reinterpret prophecy and/or help it along. This does not impress me.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes, Reynold. It has already been tested. Dan could not commit to Daniel's "prophecy" about the destruction of San Francisco being wrong. If some god were revealing things to Dan, that one would have been useful.
ReplyDeleteI think people can apply 'revelations' to any belief system.
ReplyDeleteE.g. Murphy's law, Re-incarnation, karma, Jedi (the Force) anything can be proof of everything under Dans worldview framework.
at what time will you concede to the truth revealed in the Bible?
ReplyDeletePerhaps when the word 'truth' comes to mean 'falsehood' or 'made-up story'.
This is the hardest question, and at the very same time, easiest question to answer. I know with full certainty that God exists. How do I know? I believe Him. I trust Him. He then revealed Himself to me. One example was that story. Maybe this will help:
ReplyDeleteYou just offered a tautology. You know god exists because you know god exists.
You see, when you say that you trust him, that implies you already believe in him. So you weren't providing an answer to the questions posed to you. You just asserted your belief blindly.
Do you want to know how I know for certain that you're wrong? Wait for it. Its God Revelation again. That is how I can be so confident of the conclusion. We have an omniscient and omnipotent God that tells us what will happen and what we can be certain about. The real irony here is you know this, yet you claim you cannot know anything.
That does not constitute knowledge. It is just your feeling, your opinion that we are wrong. Unfortunately for you, the universe doesn't operate in a way where opinion is fact.
Dan Wrote: This is the hardest question, and at the very same time, easiest question to answer. I know with full certainty that God exists. How do I know? I believe Him. I trust Him. He then revealed Himself to me. One example was that story. Maybe this will help:
ReplyDeleteYou can't 'know with full certainty' and also 'believe'. If it's 100%, there is no element of doubt at all.
Dan Wrote: I... had an experience... I can't prove it, I can't even explain it, but everything that I know as a human being, everything that I am tells me that it was real! I was given something wonderful, something that changed me forever... A vision... of the universe, that tells us, undeniably, how tiny, and insignificant and how... rare, and precious we all are! A vision that tells us that we belong to something that is greater then ourselves, that we are *not*, that none of us are alone! I wish... I... could share that... I wish, that everyone, if only for one... moment, could feel... that awe, and humility, and hope. But... That continues to be my wish. (Ellie Arroway)
I'm not seeing how this backs up the claim you've made. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that you had a supernatural experience.
It's quite a leap to go from that to the Abrahamic God. You have no reason to trust your experience. You have no reason to trust the revelation.
You don't even have the "18 hours" of video that Ellie had. Yet you are certain.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts. - Bertrand Russell
Dan Wrote: That is how I know God exists. I can't explain it, but I know.
All you said is that you believe it, just like the Hindu. Just like the Muslim. Just like the Scientologist. Your claim on truth is no more forceful then theirs.
Doesn't that bother you?
Dan Wrote: That might be the case, if it were true. But its not.
Here's the thing, you cannot know whether it's true or not.
Dan Wrote: God revealed Himself in MANY forms and ways. Its not just a mere personal feeling. Its what was said in His word, its nature, its personal. They ALL cannot be just a mere coincidences.
Why not?
Further, let's suppose they are not coincidences - how do you know they are from your God?
Dan Wrote: The Bible, in 2 Kings speaks of a town as a historical narrative to what happened then and there. When we go to Iraq we see the town that the Bible spoke of that is 50+ south of Baghdad, called Babylon.
? So what?
Dan Wrote: The ruins were unearthed and verified as to what transpired and what was described in the Bible, the "story" and the references are spot on as truth.
No, this is not true. There might have been ruins, but that doesn't mean that what is recorded in the bible occurred. Look up the ruins of Troy, for instance. We found them, but that doesn't mean Achilles was real (or practically invulnerable).
Dan Wrote: It was not a story, its really there. Then there are hundreds more, literally, that is exactly the same.
Well, there are two problems with this. One I highlighted above.
The second is that you reject the scientific methodology, which was used to determine these things. You cannot have it both ways - either science works, in which case you have to accept it warts and all, or you have to reject this evidence you are putting forth.
Dan Wrote: The Bible spoke of the Corinthians, when it was searched, sure enough, they found the town of Corinth and on and on, time after time.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why I should be impressed by this. The Bible is an old book (according to science, which you reject).
Maine is a real place, does that mean that what Stephen King wrote about really happened?
Dan Wrote: The Bible is verified Biblically and extra-biblically. Its simply irrefutable.
This, of course, is nonsense. For a start, you do refute it by rejecting science. For seconds, going by this logic, there is a demon possessed clown in maine.
Dan Wrote: That is also why I love the discussion of presuppositions.
You don't actually seem to enjoy it - since you don't really respond to the points that are hard for your worldview.
Dan Wrote: No matter what evidence is given, you MUST interpret it in such a way that comports with your worldview.
ReplyDeleteUm, you do realize that you aren't doing this with the evidence you've presented above, don't you?
Dan Wrote: That is the rub here, Van Til rightly explained many things that solidified its truth, in that we ALL argue presuppositionally.
As I've pointed out, his presuppositions are contradictory and lead him to absurdity.
Dan Wrote: All these talks here has definitely verified the truth of presupposition claims. You want proof, look at your own presuppositions that negates, or at least sets aside, critical thinking skills. We cannot critically look at our own point of view with our presupps.
Are you presupposing this? I wonder how you could know this since I haven't actually put forth my worldview.
Interesting - so the presuppositionalist has to presuppose everyone else is wrong. That's a bit dishonest, don't you think?
I've skipped a bit:
Dan Wrote: The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity.
I've pointed out that you cannot know this and you've repeatedly ignored this. Therefore we can conclude that you cannot defend your bible.
Dan Wrote: I presuppose God and see it verified in every breath I take, every smell, every thought, every taste, everything taken in with my senses.
And yet your worldview borrows from mine in presupposing autonomous reason, which your worldview rejects.
In short, your worldview leads into absurdity and cannot be true.
Dan Wrote: Do you want to know how I know for certain that you're wrong? Wait for it. Its God Revelation again.
ReplyDeleteAnd how can you trust what is and is not God's revelation?
Dan Wrote: We have an omniscient and omnipotent God that tells us what will happen and what we can be certain about. The real irony here is you know this, yet you claim you cannot know anything.
The real irony here is that you are ranting on and on about how you have this certainty, when in reality you are stuck right where you claim the non believer is. Actually it's worse then that since you rhetorically cut your own head off by denying that we can reason apart from God.
You, by your own reasoning, cannot know anything.
Yet you feel as though you can sit here and blather on about what you believe as though you had backed it up with reasoned argument?
The emperor is wearing no clothes Dan, we see right through your metaphorical clothes.
Dan Wrote: I await with baited breath for that day to come.
It's already come, repeatedly - it's the bits in our arguments that you consistently ignore.
Face it Dan, you believe because you want to believe - not because it is reasonable or rational to do so. We can know this because at the base of your worldview is a contradiction that you absolutely refuse to deal with out of sheer existential terror.
You cannot appeal to revelation without giving us a means of determining which revelations are genuine and which are not. Even in your own religion, you have false prophets, demons, and the like which can distort revelations.
So outside of baseless belief, do you have anything for us? Any actual reason to suppose your worldview is true?
I didn't think so.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>Dan could not commit to Daniel's "prophecy" about the destruction of San Francisco being wrong.
It was easy with Daniel, if the Bible is followed. Deuteronomy 18:21-22
He realized that and took his blog down. No problem here.
Meatros,
ReplyDelete>>For a start, you do refute it by rejecting science.
I DO NOT reject the scientific methods. I reject secular scientists that push their viewpoints, or worldview, in front of the evidence. Evidence I am not afraid of, because it will indeed point to God.
>>You don't actually seem to enjoy it - since you don't really respond to the points that are hard for your worldview.
No I do enjoy it, after a while though, I need to stop talking and let God do the talking with you. I get in the way sometimes.
>>Interesting - so the presuppositionalist has to presuppose everyone else is wrong. That's a bit dishonest, don't you think?
Correction for clarity, the Christian presupposes every non believer is wrong. We know because of God revelation. You cannot know you are right until its too late.
>>And how can you trust what is and is not God's revelation?'
Again God revealed what is, and what is not, of God and what can be trusted as His. He provide ample evidence for us trusting Him. Incidentally, and its not quite so incidental, denying Him will not make Him go away.
>>I've pointed out that you cannot know this and you've repeatedly ignored this.
Did you use your reasoning to make this determination? I cannot tell you how many times supposed learned people have set to me: “Okay, I can’t know anything, but neither can you.” Problem is, if they can’t know anything, then they cannot know what I can or cannot know, yet the very first thing out of their mouths after denying knowledge, is a knowledge claim.
>>And yet your worldview borrows from mine in presupposing autonomous reason, which your worldview rejects.
Did you use your reasoning to make this determination...
Dan:
ReplyDeleteWhenever you decide go to the "how do you account for this, are you certain of that" routine, do you retype it every time or is it sitting in a word document on your desktop ready to for quick copy-&-paste action?
All jokes aside, tell me what you think about the following statements:
1: An omnimax being can give humans a sense of rock-solid certainty.
2: A malevolent being can lie and deceive.
3: A malevolent, omnimax being can give humans a rock-solid sense of certainty in a deception.
4: A malevolent, omnimax being can inspire humans to create a collection of writings which imply that said being is actually good.
If you agree with all 4, then that leads to the question that I'm sure has been posed by some of your other readers: If a evil or "trickster" God can give you the same feeling of certainty that a good God can, how can you know (with absolute certainty) which one is giving you that feeling?
Dan:
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, at the time, you would make no such commitment. You claim extensive "revelations" about those who openly claim to be non-christian but are remarkably clueless (your words: "no clue") about your purported fellow christians. There is a simple explanation for this. You make up whatever you want about non-christians and call it "revelation." But you don't want to make a commitment about a purported christian because, if you say he is true and he later leaves you are exposed and if you say he is false you alienate a supporter.
I DO NOT reject the scientific methods. I reject secular scientists that push their viewpoints, or worldview, in front of the evidence. Evidence I am not afraid of, because it will indeed point to God.
ReplyDeleteOf course you reject science, Dan - your worldview requires you to do so, in order for you to maintain it. You will ignore things that are right in front of your eyes, ears, nose and skin if they contradict your imaginary deity's imaginary revelation.
Yet you put great store by your 'mysterious' personal revelations. Except there's a little thing called confirmation bias, Dan. Scientists have ways and means of correcting for such things. You don't.
Dan Wrote: I DO NOT reject the scientific methods.
ReplyDeleteYes, you actually do.
Dan Wrote: I reject secular scientists that push their viewpoints, or worldview, in front of the evidence. Evidence I am not afraid of, because it will indeed point to God.
Easy to say when you dismiss the science that doesn't fit your worldview. Again, this is because you reject science.
Dan Wrote: No I do enjoy it, after a while though, I need to stop talking and let God do the talking with you. I get in the way sometimes.
If you say so.
Dan Wrote: Correction for clarity, the Christian presupposes every non believer is wrong. We know because of God revelation. You cannot know you are right until its too late.
At least you admit to presupposing others are wrong - which is opposed to reasoning to the conclusion.
Dan Wrote: Again God revealed what is, and what is not, of God and what can be trusted as His. He provide ample evidence for us trusting Him. Incidentally, and its not quite so incidental, denying Him will not make Him go away.
*Sigh* I don't know why I'm bothering - when asked, you simply repeat your assertion.
How do you know what is a revelation of God's? How do you make this determination?
Dan Wrote: Did you use your reasoning to make this determination?
Yup.
Dan Wrote: I cannot tell you how many times supposed learned people have set to me: “Okay, I can’t know anything, but neither can you.” Problem is, if they can’t know anything, then they cannot know what I can or cannot know, yet the very first thing out of their mouths after denying knowledge, is a knowledge claim.
this is hypocrisy, since this is what your position boils down to.
Dan Wrote: Did you use your reasoning to make this determination...
Yes, as do you. As I've repeatedly shown. ;-)
Trino Wrote: Dan:
ReplyDeletetell me what you think about the following statements:
1: An omnimax being can give humans a sense of rock-solid certainty.
2: A malevolent being can lie and deceive.
3: A malevolent, omnimax being can give humans a rock-solid sense of certainty in a deception.
4: A malevolent, omnimax being can inspire humans to create a collection of writings which imply that said being is actually good.
If you agree with all 4, then that leads to the question that I'm sure has been posed by some of your other readers: If a evil or "trickster" God can give you the same feeling of certainty that a good God can, how can you know (with absolute certainty) which one is giving you that feeling?
Dan will ignore this and simply repeat that he can know things through divine revelation.
Trino,
ReplyDelete>> do you retype it every time or is it sitting in a word document on your desktop ready to for quick copy-&-paste action?
Both really. Sometimes new Atheists come by and throw up the same tired argument so I just c&p to save time. I am trying to home school my kids after all. But I do flow well with a good conversation or if someone brings their "A" game.
>>If a evil or "trickster" God can give you the same feeling of certainty that a good God can, how can you know (with absolute certainty) which one is giving you that feeling?
If you presuppose God being malevolent that is where the problem is.
An omnimax God cannot be malevolent. Omnipotence, for example, simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God. Same with lying. God is not able to lie, or be malevolent. Keep in mind that evil is the ABSENCE of good. Much like cold or darkness are the absence of heat or light. God cannot be malevolent.
Meatros,
ReplyDelete>>Dan will ignore this and simply repeat that he can know things through divine revelation.
Wow you are wrong about a lot of things. Its understandable. I forgive you.
Dan Wrote: Wow you are wrong about a lot of things. Its understandable. I forgive you.
ReplyDeleteForgive me for what? Being wrong? How is being incorrect something that needs forgiving?
In any event, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong - in this case it appears as though I was, you did attempt to give a response (although it was poor as I will show).
Will you admit you are wrong? You have been shown that your worldview fundamentally contradicts itself repeatedly and instead of addressing this problem you simply restate your beliefs. Will you admit that you are wrong about autonomous reasoning?
I doubt it - even though it's obvious.
Dan Wrote: An omnimax God cannot be malevolent. Omnipotence, for example, simply means ‘all powerful’ and does not include the ability to do the logically impossible, as logic is a reflection of the very absolute character and nature of God.
Omnipotence does not contradict malevolence.
Dan Wrote: Same with lying. God is not able to lie, or be malevolent.
These are assertions - neither of which are logically necessary for omnipotence to obtain.
Dan Wrote: Keep in mind that evil is the ABSENCE of good.
No, it's not, not even according to your religion. Sin isn't the absence of something, it's a condition that humanity is in, isn't it? Doing 'nothing' wasn't responsible for the massive deaths that occurred in the holocaust, it was the actual throwing people in the showers that killed millions.
Dan Wrote: Much like cold or darkness are the absence of heat or light.
Do you get all your theology from email forwards?
In any event, cold and darkness are not the absence of heat or light. This is an equivocation. Cold is related to the motion of molecules, the lower the motion, the 'colder' something is. The more rapid the motion, the hotter. Darkness is related to the quantity of photons an area has. The more photons the more light.
Further, both require sensory organs to make subjective determinations about them.
I'm curious - do you believe that Satan is real? If so, how can this be, since he would presumably be something and not simply the 'absence of good'.
Dan Wrote: God cannot be malevolent.
Why not?
Also, couldn't good simply be the absence of evil?
The incredibly weak sauce is good for the gander, and all that.
Further, with regard to the argument Trino was making, your own theology under cuts it since it posits a metaphysical being who's sole purpose is to detract people from the faith.
So how can you be certain it's not the devil who is revealing things to you?
Are you going to give me another bland assertion that only God can provide true revelations without addressing how we are supposed to know which revelations are true?
Meatros,
ReplyDelete>>At least you admit to presupposing others are wrong - which is opposed to reasoning to the conclusion.
How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
Hint: I don't" is your only consistent opinion.
>>this is hypocrisy, since this is what your position boils down to.
How do you know this if you cannot KNOW things for certain? Wheeeee
>>*Sigh* I don't know why I'm bothering - when asked, you simply repeat your assertion
How so? You ask for evidence of God, I say the Bible, and you barely assert that its not evidence. Wheeeee
>>How do you know what is a revelation of God's? How do you make this determination?
I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Do you? If so you have your answer right there. God has and does reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. The Bible being one example.
Did you use your reasoning to make this determination...
>>Yes, as do you. As I've repeatedly shown. ;-)
Again with the knowledge claims that do not comport with your worldview. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
>>Forgive me for what? Being wrong?
No, for the snarky accusation.
Keep in mind that evil is the ABSENCE of good.
>>No, it's not, not even according to your religion. Sin isn't the absence of something, it's a condition that humanity is in, isn't it?
Yes it is. Sin and Hell is the ABSENCE OF GOD.
>>Do you get all your theology from email forwards?
No actually credit for that one goes to Youtube.
>>In any event, cold and darkness are not the absence of heat or light.
Do you get your science from a cracker jack box? If you took basic refrigeration you would understand that cold is the absence of heat. Look up absolute zero.
>>Further, both require sensory organs to make subjective determinations about them.
Wrong, a measurement device will suffice.
>>I'm curious - do you believe that Satan is real?
Yes
>>If so, how can this be, since he would presumably be something and not simply the 'absence of good'.
Satan is evil, yes, but he is not Evil itself. Although he is a fantastic poster child of what evil is. He was an Angel of God's. He was the first to do objectionable behavior towards God, Eve was the second. I hope I am making sense.
>>Also, couldn't good simply be the absence of evil?
You mean like heat being the absence of cold? Nope, never. I did notice you wishing to reject science though. How ironic.
>>Are you going to give me another bland assertion that only God can provide true revelations without addressing how we are supposed to know which revelations are true?
Only if you do not understand the term REVELATION. :7)
I'm not arguing or presupposing that a malevolent God actually exists. And I wasn't even going to go into the logically impossible. (square circles, unmovable boulders, etc.)
ReplyDeleteYou believe that God, by his very nature, is the source of all that is good, which is fine. What you're also saying, however, is that it's impossible for God to have a nature different from what you believe, which doesn't really make sense. As Meatros pointed out, the bible itself points to there being another powerful, supernatural being existing. Assuming for the moment that they both exist, how would you or anyone else be able to figure out which was really in control? As a human all you have to go on are your senses, your feelings, and the bible; all three of which can be manipulated by an omnimax being to suit its purposes whether they be good or evil. Of course, this doesn't prove that the God described in the bible doesn't exist or isn't in charge. It simply pokes a hole in your theory of absolute certainty minus omniscience.
Dan Wrote: How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?
ReplyDeleteSame way you do - I presuppose that I can autonomously reason. The only difference is that you deny it, leading your worldview into absurdity.
Dan Wrote: Hint: I don't" is your only consistent opinion.
Consistent only because you presuppose it.
Dan Wrote: How do you know this if you cannot KNOW things for certain? Wheeeee
?
This is another presupposition of yours. I don't hold to it, ergo, the criticism doesn't hold for me.
Still, this does nothing to resolve the internal contradiction I've pointed out in your worldview. It could be that both our worldviews are wrong.
Didn't consider that, did you?
Dan Wrote: How so? You ask for evidence of God, I say the Bible, and you barely assert that its not evidence. Wheeeee
Are you coming unhinged?
In any event, I pointed out that you cannot rely on the bible without presupposing autonomous reason - you ignore this.
Pointing out that you are in a contradiction is not a simple assertion.
Dan Wrote: I am sure you would concede that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. Do you?
Yes, if we can trust our autonomous reasoning. If we can't, then no, I do not concede that since it leads to a direct contradiction.
You've said in the past that God can do anything logically possible. What you are saying here is not logically possible.
Dan Wrote: If so you have your answer right there.
Unfortunately a little more thought will reveal why this isn't an answer. While such an entity could reveal something to me, if I can't trust my autonomous reasoning, then I cannot trust any revelations from anything. How could I?
You simply assert I could - I'm asking to see your hand here, give me reasons why, not simple assertions.
Dan Wrote: God has and does reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. The Bible being one example.
Another baseless assertion - you need to give a reason why this is possible.
Dan Wrote: Again with the knowledge claims that do not comport with your worldview. I would ask you to try to be more consistent with your professed worldview, but rather I urge you to repent of it.
I am being consistent - you are the one that has been led into absurdity - please keep up.
Dan Wrote: No, for the snarky accusation.
At this point it's not a snarky accusation - it was well evidenced. It was wrong, in this specific case, but not unwarranted.
Dan Wrote: Yes it is. Sin and Hell is the ABSENCE OF GOD.
Another contradiction - is Hell a place? If so, it's more then an 'absence'. Is sin a condition? If so, well, you get the point.
Dan Wrote: No actually credit for that one goes to Youtube
Okay, poor theology is poor theology regardless of the source.
Dan Wrote: Do you get your science from a cracker jack box? If you took basic refrigeration you would understand that cold is the absence of heat. Look up absolute zero.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm the one who accepts modern science, remember? You are not.
What is 'basic refrigeration'? Is that a course you took in college?
As to absolute zero - it is not the absence of heat, it is the state of 'no motion' of molecules. Further, physicists do not think that such a state is actually possible.
Dan Wrote: Wrong, a measurement device will suffice.
And how do you read a measurement device? How do you make sense of it?
I love how you ignored my explanation for what heat and light were (in terms of molecules and photons). That's dishonest, Dan.
Dan Wrote: Yes
You contradict your position again, then.
Dan Wrote: Satan is evil, yes, but he is not Evil itself. Although he is a fantastic poster child of what evil is. He was an Angel of God's. He was the first to do objectionable behavior towards God, Eve was the second. I hope I am making sense.
So objectionable behavior towards God is 'evil'?
If so, that's not simply the absence of good...
Dan Wrote: You mean like heat being the absence of cold?
No, since that's not what heat is.
Dan Wrote: Nope, never. I did notice you wishing to reject science though. How ironic.
?
How so? I was simply pointing out how your argument could be turned against you. Your bland assertion that it could not be the case is unconvincing.
Dan Wrote: Only if you do not understand the term REVELATION. :7)
I think you are the one who doesn't understand... ;-)
Here's the portion Dan conveniently (dishonestly?) ignores, where I explain to him what heat and light actually are:
ReplyDeleteIn any event, cold and darkness are not the absence of heat or light. This is an equivocation. Cold is related to the motion of molecules, the lower the motion, the 'colder' something is. The more rapid the motion, the hotter. Darkness is related to the quantity of photons an area has. The more photons the more light.
It's kind of telling that in his response he doesn't choose to deal with this, isn't it?
Because it's better to have people think your a liar or an idiot, than to respond and remove all doubt.
ReplyDeleteMeatros,
ReplyDelete>>In any event, cold and darkness are not the absence of heat or light. This is an equivocation. Cold is related to the motion of molecules, the lower the motion, the 'colder' something is. The more rapid the motion, the hotter. Darkness is related to the quantity of photons an area has. The more photons the more light.
>>It's kind of telling that in his response he doesn't choose to deal with this, isn't it?
No, it was shocking that you called what I said a equivocation and then say that "Darkness is related to the quantity of photons an area has. The more photons the more light." is not the same as darkness is the ABSENCE of light.
Just wow.
Just WOW,
ReplyDeleteDan+++ just removed all doubt.
I guess like Charlie Sheen,Dan+++ still claims he's
"WINNING"
YES Dan! YES!
ReplyDeleteGod did something so dramatic on the inside of me, that people who knew me, could see it- even before I said a word.
Everything "I" wanted to be, and do, and get out of life- He changed.
Every person that I HATED, He gave me a love and compassion for them... and a mercy towards their humanity that I still cannot explain.
And I saw Him do it to other people to. They changed, from the inside out! No 'medication' could do that, no self-help book, no therapy, no relationship, no mind over matter junk, no positive confessions---- just Jesus.
Yes brother Dan. I have.
Dan Wrote: No, it was shocking that you called what I said a equivocation and then say that "Darkness is related to the quantity of photons an area has. The more photons the more light." is not the same as darkness is the ABSENCE of light.
ReplyDeleteRight and you were the one complaining to me about learning science from a cracker jack box?
So are there particles of 'good', this is your stance?
Every person that I HATED, He gave me a love and compassion for them... and a mercy towards their humanity that I still cannot explain.
ReplyDeleteRhomphaia, I think you might be mistaking Dan's god for some other imaginary deity. If you've read his most recent post and comments, he's been spewing hatred and intolerance and misunderstanding towards anyone who doesn't conform to the dictates of his version of god. I don't think Dan has any understanding of what humanity means.
>>I don't think Dan has any understanding of what humanity means.
ReplyDeleteEvidently DD thinks love is coddling and enabling bad behaviors.
DD do you bring alcoholics to bars too?
Before God I loved sin, after I cannot sit idly by and not say something about it, and rebuke it.
God showed me what true humanity is, and that is not to merely accept sin. If that is wrong, then let let me be wrong.
Hey Dan-
ReplyDeleteWait'll He meets the Lord-whew!
You'll seem like a teddy bear then!
Keep slicing!
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Before God I loved sin, after I cannot sit idly by and not say something about it, and rebuke it.
ReplyDeleteExcept that your definition of 'sin' has nothing to do with what is best for people's welfare, and everything to do with what you personally find offensive - you just project your personal prejudices onto a fictional character so you don't have to own them yourself.
God showed me what true humanity is, and that is not to merely accept sin. If that is wrong, then let let me be wrong.
See, I think you just like being a bigot, Dan. You call it looking out for people and not accepting 'sin', but to everyone else (except perhaps Rhomphaia) it just looks like a redneck having a big old rant. You also fail to draw any distinction between behaviours that are intrinsically harmful to a person - like alcoholism - and behaviours that are just stuff you happen to dislike, like gay sex. I know you think they're all the same in that they offend your god, but you've yet to establish that a god exists to be offended.
BIBLE REVELATIONS
ReplyDeleteGenesis 2And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
wait a minute god rested?
an omnipotent being wouldn't need to rest.
what about where the bible say god did something and then saw that it was good AFTER, based on observed affects, not prior omniscient knowledge on what he was doing.
The character god in the non-realistic fiction novel, ‘the holy bible’ is not being portrayed as omnipotent and omniscient.
Ant,
ReplyDelete>>wait a minute god rested?
Not in the sense that you think. Using a proper exegesis method we see that God rested as in completed his work. It is completed. The word is שָׁבַת(shabath) Strong's H7673 which means cease or desist (from labor).
Its the same as Jesus is NOW our Sabbath rest. In other words His work is complete; His work is done. He is now our 4th Commandment. We are to "Remember the Sabbath (Christ), to keep it [Him] holy."
I hope this helps...ready to repent now?
Thanks DAN,
ReplyDeleteIf you support using a proper exegesis method, please explain why you relate the whole 'bad fruit= bad tree' passage to anything and everything and not only to related to fruit trees specifically
Personal revelation is what it is: personal. The experience you had may fit nicely into your personal world view that includes God. The same experience may lead an atheistic humanist to feel that he has done something good for this person.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, your experience may prove something to you, but it does not independently prove anything to somebody else.
Personal revelation is what it is: personal. I am glad it strengthened your beliefs, but it did not convince me.
Andal,
ReplyDelete>>Therefore, your experience may prove something to you, but it does not independently prove anything to somebody else.
You're completely right! You MUST reinterpret the evidence to fit your worldview. You cannot accept the revelation that God exists because, according to you, God doesn't exist.
I just hope you understand that assuming my experience is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
Ultimately though, my argument is not intended to be convincing, I am merely commanded to speak the truth, 'convincing' is out of my hands.
The real rub here is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God. I am sure you will deny this, but I am hopeful that you do not.
Ant,
ReplyDelete>>If you support using a proper exegesis method, please explain why you relate the whole 'bad fruit= bad tree' passage to anything and everything and not only to related to fruit trees specifically
I am not sure what you are getting at, but God used the analogy of the fruit tree in relationship to false prophets [false claims]. (Matthew 7:15-20)
To test to see if someone is from God we look at their fruit. What is the fruit? Children are a certain fruit from someone. The Spirit has fruit too. For your convenience its spelled out for you in Galatians 5:16-26. False converts and evil cannot fake it.
The real rub here is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
ReplyDeleteBut how does rationality even exist in a universe governed by an omnipotent entity, Dan? If anything is possible, then nothing logically follows from anything else - there is no premise that could not have an infinity of equally possible conclusions.
D.A.N. said... (to Andal)
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is.
Your position is untenable. You can't even demonstrate that He's revealed Himself to you let alone everyone else. The usual lolgic from D.A.N.
Dan
ReplyDeleteTo test to see if someone is from God we look at their fruit. What is the fruit? Children are a certain fruit from someone. The Spirit has fruit too. For your convenience its spelled out for you in Galatians 5:16-26. False converts and evil cannot fake it.
Doesn't that chapter have some other tests that believers are able to pass?
False converts and evil can't fake those either.
Matthew 21:21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Matthew 17:20 repeats the same promise, after the disciples fail an excorcism.
Then there's Mark:
Mark 16:17-18 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.
Note that many xians will say that the "speaking in tongues" thing happens, so what about the poisons?