I am an atheist.

[MyUserName]

It's normally special communion wine AFAIK, which is awful.

Bloody awful, I would imagine

[d000hg]

How can you be sure that this experience was with the the God of the religion you follow?

How can you be sure you're not psychotic and your wife/family aren't all in your head. That's not as glib as it might sound... to some people their delusions are as tangible and real as The Matrix. You can only live based on your experiential evidence... even reading a science textbook is experiential because you might have imagined it!

You can't ever be sure it's true, only that it meets your own standards of 'real'.

[Mich the Tester]

It's normally special communion wine AFAIK, which is awful.

You mean someone makes special range of awful wines for communion? That's a plan B.

[Project Monkey]

It is conclusive evidence which is plain to see, I am sorry that you are so closed minded.
Deep deep down you probably believe in the Unicorn and just hate her. I hope that you can get over these issues before you eventually die (assuming the Unicorn thing has an afterlife, I am not sure).

That's my point. One should not be required (by athiests or anyone else) to prove or provide evidence of their beliefs.

[Project Monkey]

Transubstantiation is a waste of a glass of wine.

There's never any waste, the priest allways downs the lot at the end.

[d000hg]

You mean someone makes special range of awful wines for communion? That's a plan B.

Absolutely. Depending on your creed though, it might have to be specially blessed though.

Intro Page - North East Church Supplies

[MyUserName]

"Gödel consistency mathematics". It's something to do with that if you could prove that arithmetic was consistent, it would lead to an inconsistency. Same as the halting problem in computer science. It's a long time since I did my degree, so I'm very hazy on the details.

Ah, an interesting case. It just goes to show that we should be agnostic about our number systems too. We never know anything for sure. However, the laws of maths have stood up to some pretty tough tests over the centuries so I think we are okay so far!

How can I not? Being certain about something comes from evidence and personal experience. I've not found any contradictions so far, but there certainly are things I don't understand. In any case, we all to an extent construct our own religion - however I accept and believe the main tenets of orthodox Christianity. Hence I describe myself as a Christian.

So this experience could just have easily been with a completely unrelated supernatural creature, a different god altogether or, depending on the nature of it, you own mind?

[Project Monkey]

Well, they don't. If you want to know the proof that consistency cannot be proved, which is a diagonalisation proof, if my memory serves, google "Gödel consistency mathematics". It's something to do with that if you could prove that arithmetic was consistent, it would lead to an inconsistency. Same as the halting problem in computer science. It's a long time since I did my degree, so I'm very hazy on the details.

There are supposed meta-mathematical proofs of the consistency of arithmetic, but the systems they are composed of suffer from the same flaw - they cannot be proved consistent either.

In any sufficiently complex logical systems, there exist theorems that are neither provable nor disprovable. Gödel showed that in such systems, consistency cannot be proved.

How can I not? Being certain about something comes from evidence and personal experience. I've not found any contradictions so far, but there certainly are things I don't understand. In any case, we all to an extent construct our own religion - however I accept and believe the main tenets of orthodox Christianity. Hence I describe myself as a Christian.

Perfect

[MyUserName]

How can you be sure you're not psychotic and your wife/family aren't all in your head. That's not as glib as it might sound... to some people their delusions are as tangible and real as The Matrix. You can only live based on your experiential evidence... even reading a science textbook is experiential because you might have imagined it!

You can't ever be sure it's true, only that it meets your own standards of 'real'.

True. You have to work out your base assumptions and work up from there. My initial assumption is that the world is pretty much as I experience it. I work up from there by using experience and knowledge. It might not be a valid system but it has seemed to work for a few decades.

Thus far I have had my wife's existence proved to my satisfaction, I have never had a super natural, all powerful creature proved to my satisfaction since I was a child.

[MyUserName]

That's my point. One should not be required (by athiests or anyone else) to prove or provide evidence of their beliefs.

No one is required to provide anything but if you want me to believe something that you claim then you are required to provide good reasoning and evidence. If I can simulate your reasoning and evidence by talking about something which we both know(!) is not real then you probably do not have good reasoning and evidence on your side.

Please be aware the arguments I gave for the Unicorn are ones which I have had used on me for real by various Christians.