Once again, you are presenting the claims as fact, so you have taken the burden of proof onto your own shoulders.
I have not presented anything as a fact. I only present it as a belief.
Circular reasoning. You can't take "God exists" as a premise when it is also your conclusion.
I have no premises or conclusions because I am not making a logical argument.
Let's be clear about one thing here: The "silly thing" you accuse me of saying is literally the exact same thing you are saying to defend your position.
No, it is not the same. I see we are making no progress.
It is still unrealistic and illogical to expect magical beliefs to be testable and verifiable the same way scientific or religious things are since magic is DIFFERENT from science and religion.
Been there, done that... I see we are making no progress.
Please provide this testable evidence which actually backs up their claims.
Been there, done that... I see we are making no progress.
When you present your belief as the truth about how the universe works, you are making it a claim. Your constant hiding behind the "I wasn't making a claim" defense is tired and fooling no one.
I was not presenting my belief as the truth about how the universe works.
Which actual scientists have rejected. Pasteur was working without the huge amount of medical information we have today. And are you really using a website about homeopathy to back up your claims? What's next? Iridology? Psychic surgery?
I see no point discussing this knowing your bias.
And his messengers experience him directly.
No they do not. They only hear God speak through the Holy Spirit in a way that we cannot understand.
If you are going to say that it's not worth having a discussion with someone who has already made up their mind, why should any of us bother having a discussion with you, when you've made it abundantly clear that you have already made up your mind?
That's a good point. I don't KNOW what any atheists have any discussions with me unless they are interested in my beliefs or in believing in God but it does not seem as if any who post to me are interested in either. Some atheists only post to be for fun, because that think it is fun to make fun of me or they think they are refuting me and that is just ego.
As a believer I am not going to become an atheist because an atheist convinced me I am wrong so I don't know why any atheists would think that.
By the way, I'm perfectly happy to change my mind. I'm just not going to do it based on arguments built of a lack of evidence and logical fallacies. Since that's all you've got, I can understand why you think I've already made up my mind.
You have pointed out no fallacies that I have committed. I am not using circular reasoning to try to prove anything so that's out of the running. What else is there?
As far as evidence goes, you already know what I have and I cannot produce something I don't have so why keep asking for it?
So you would lack a belief in God because you are made at him?
So you would be mad at a being you had no belief in?
What kind of logic is that? It's like me being mad at Grand Moff Tarkin for blowing up Alderaan.
How can any rational person have legitimate anger towards a character they believe is ficticious?
I guess you did not understand what I was saying. I was saying that just because I am mad at God that does not affect my belief in God. I believe God exists for certain but I am mad at God. My husband thinks that my being mad is a reason for me to become an atheist but I told him I cannot do that because I believe God exists.
The point you seem incapable of grasping is that if you can't share it with anyone, then as far as anyone else knows, you don't have any evidence at all, you just SAY you do.
Any idiot can SAY they have evidence for anything they want if they never actually have to show it to anyone else.
I can see why you might think that but all I can do is tell you what evidence convinced me and tell you where you can look at it. I cannot
show you what went on in my mind, I can only try to explain it.
Except that's not what you did.
What you did was more akin to me recognizing that since Star Trek has many accurate claims (Wolf 359 is a real star, the first manned moon landing mission was launched on a Wednesday, Utopia Planetia is a real place on Mars, etc), then it must also be correct about Klingons being real.
No, that is not what I did. I recognized the evidence that shows the Baha'i Faith is true and then became a Baha'i.
No you couldn't. Because I don't decide what counts as evidence or not based on whether it agrees with what I've decided to be true. Nor do I base my position on logical fallacies.
I did not decide what counts as evidence or not based on whether it agreed with what I had decided to be true. Nor did I base my position on logical fallacies.
My thinking is that I will accept whatever is based on testable evidence. If there is no testable evidence for a thing, I see no reason to accept that thing. That does NOT mean I conclude that thing is false, please note.
Fine then, since there is no testable evidence you won't be accepting my beliefs so there is no point discussing it any further. You can just remain in limbo-land and not know if God exists or not.
