C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

@dj2becker said
If you believe that the account belongs to me personally and has been used by me illegally by all means report it to the administrators.

Why did you post a reply to me on this thread using an account called mariekeXIV?

@dj2becker said
If you believe that the account belongs to me personally and has been used by me illegally by all means report it to the administrators.

What "legal" use of the mariekeXIV ~ an account used to make just 2 chess moves a decade ago - were you making when you used it to post a message replying to me on page 7?

@fmf said
What "legal" use of the mariekeXIV ~ an account used to make just 2 chess moves a decade ago - were you making when you used it to post a message replying to me on page 7?

It’s really fascinating that you continue to pursue this with your history as a multiple account holder.

@dj2becker said
It’s really fascinating that you continue to pursue this with your history as a multiple account holder.

But I explained my use of John W. Booth ten or eleven years ago when that occurred and even apologized publically and also to Russ, the website owner at the time. So what's your explanation for using mariekeXIV to reply to me on this thread?

@dj2becker said
It’s really fascinating that you continue to pursue this with your history as a multiple account holder.

How do you explain your history as a multiple account holder?

@kellyjay said
“If there was a controlling power outside the universe, it could not show itself to us as one of the facts inside the universe -no more than the architect of a house could actually be a wall or staircase or fireplace in that house. The only way in which we could expect it to show itself would be inside us as an influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way. And that's just what we do find inside us.”

― C.S. Lewis, The Case for Christianity

"And that's just what we do find inside us.”

Unbeknownst to the unbeliever.

But the universe(creation) is evidence for a creator. "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" Romans 1:19,20

Unbelievers are in denial of the reality of the existence of God, to the extent, and as a result of their own willful denial of the obvious, "because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God"(Romans 1:21), that "God gave them over to a reprobate mind"(Romans 1:28).

Nothing more can be expected out of the unbeliever.

@secondson said
Unbelievers are in denial of the reality of the existence of God, to the extent, and as a result of their own willful denial of the obvious, "because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God"(Romans 1:21), that "God gave them over to a reprobate mind"(Romans 1:28).

If the existence of the particular God figure that you depict and worship were, as you claim, "obvious", then I would believe in it too.

@secondson said
But the universe(creation) is evidence for a creator.

Yes, this may be so. But it doesn't necessarily follow that this creator being has revealed himself to humanity in the ways Jews and Christians and Muslims [and adherents to other religions] claim.

@secondson said
"And that's just what we do find inside us.”Unbeknownst to the unbeliever.

The use of the word "unbeknownst" is just wordplay and typical C.S.Lewis prattle.

Unbelievers simply don't believe it. The "influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way", as you well know ~ or perhaps it is unbeknownst to you despite there having been umpteen discussions about it ~ does not have to have a supernatural explanation. There are competing beliefs.

The word "know" in conjunction with subjective assertions based on beliefs regarding supernatural things is the stuff of singing to the choir, pure and simple.

@fmf said
If the existence of the particular God figure that you depict and worship were, as you claim, "obvious", then I would believe in it too.

Obviously that's not true.

What is true is that you choose not to believe in the face of the obvious.

All that exists is irrefutable evidence that there is a creator.

Your "particular God figure" depiction is irrelevant to that point.

@fmf said
Yes, this may be so. But it doesn't necessarily follow that this creator being has revealed himself to humanity in the ways Jews and Christians and Muslims [and adherents to other religions] claim.

What may or may not "follow" as a result of the acknowledgment of there being a creator as evidenced in and by creation is beyond the point of my post above, and therefore irrelevant.

@fmf said
The use of the word "unbeknownst" is just wordplay and typical C.S.Lewis prattle.

Unbelievers simply don't believe it. The "influence or a command trying to get us to behave in a certain way", as you well know ~ or perhaps it is unbeknownst to you despite there having been umpteen discussions about it ~ does not have to have a supernatural explanation. There are competing bel ...[text shortened]... ased on beliefs regarding supernatural things is the stuff of singing to the choir, pure and simple.

The fact that you need to take three posts to answer one is a demonstration of an impudent and shrill personality. Especially since you feel the need to introduce irrelevancies that obviously reveal your disdain for what others hold sacred.

"Particular God figure" is FMF prattle.

@secondson said
Obviously that's not true.

What is true is that you choose not to believe in the face of the obvious.

All that exists is irrefutable evidence that there is a creator.

Your "particular God figure" depiction is irrelevant to that point.

Once again, if it were obvious, then I would see it and believe it too.