EternallyI

That is something else, coming from one who only posts hypothetical questions.

steamer

I mean your feeling of conviction is an accurate measure of what you think and how well a particular idea fits into the your existing framework, not an accurate measure of truth.

Columbus had a deep conviction that he had found a new route to the Indies. It had nothing to do with the truth.

EternallyI

I am aware that my inner convictions do not neccessarily mean that what I feel is true is true. But I have go with something, and I choose what I myself have become convinced of. And along with Columbus, I'll find out the truth when I get There.

steamer

That is good. Then since you understand that there is no necessary connection between your convictions and the truth that we can ignore your convictions when searching for the truth. Hopefully you can too.

EternallyI

You could could choose to ignore them even if there was a neccessary connection. Which indeed you would.

steamer

I just explained why I would ignore your convictions and we agree there is no necessary connection between those feelings and the truth.

If you could show there was a necessary connection between your convictions and the truth, why would I ignore it?

Your failure to show that your god is something more than a thing you imagine isn't my failure, it is yours. Your convictions add nothing to your argument and as far as I'm concerned your entire supposed relationship between yourself and your god is perfectly explainable as a relationship between yourself and a product of your imaginination.