But you claimed it was denial (subconsciously) of gods existence, now yuu say its attitude, thats pretty big difference and your response further down continues this line.
The denial arises out of an attitude of indifference or antipathy. The statements are actually consistent, so the answer is a
qualified no to your subsequent question, namely:
So you will retract your previous claim that I do not accept the existence of god because I, subconsciously, do not want to see the evidence and not want to believe?
For the Christian claim (which I happen to accept) is that the human race
writ large has a capacity to know God. That capacity has been compromised by our fallen state, a state characterized by antipathy or indifference toward God. My qualification to my previous statement is that since the claim applies to the human race generally (and probably extends to "cultures" -- however you wish to parse those out), it's possible that there are local exceptions. That is, it's possible that some people's fallen condition is so complete that they no longer even have the capacity to recognize God were he to show up on their doorstep. Nevertheless, my original claim, which is that human beings by nature have the capacity to know God but that capacity has been compromised to varying degrees by our fallen state, stands.
I hope you see that you seem to have changed your stance, first you told me that I denied/would not accept evidence because I subconsciously do not want to accept the existene of this god, but now you said that it is an attitude and your faith, you do realize the difference?
A subconscious desire not to know is (roughly) equivalent to an attitude of defiance, so no, I don't see any substantial difference.
At the same time, see the contrast here, you accept your belief because a book says so and deny facts whiles I accept facts presented based on the evidence provided, any evidence presented for gods and I would accept gods whiles no evidence for such a thing as well as fairies and other magical creatures would be considered invalid and irrelevant as no basis for such beleifs exist.
I accept my belief on the testimony of scripture AND of God. God Himself testifies to the truth of what is written in scripture. Testimony is a valid means of knowing, particularly if the testifier is trustworthy. I take it the Holy Spirit is trustworthy.
If you don't accept anything as "evidence" unless it's forensic, you are subjecting yourself to a cognitively crippling epistemological theory. Take my knowing that my name is David. I knew that long before I saw any documentation (which I only saw firsthand in my early 20s). I knew it because my parents called me by that name all the time. I take it that my parents knew my name and that they weren't lying to me. It's possible I'm wrong. They may have played tricks with me my whole life. But I don't think so. I'd say that I had more than a firm belief what my name was. I knew my name when I was little more than five months old, even before I acquired language. What was my "evidence"? I didn't have any. But it would be absurd to think I didn't know my name. (If you wish to quibble about my age when I knew, let's put it to one year old, still well before the aquisition of language and long before I could have had any "evidence" for the truth that my name was David).
