Peaceful Response to the Question asked Why Won't God Heal Amputees

[Agga]

I was simply explaining what I meant by belief.

So nothing you said is actually a fact, it's just what you personally believe?

Gotcha.

In which case, don't tell us about it as if it is a fact with statements like:

He is there whether you like it or not

Prove it, or do the decent (and honest) thing and retract the positive assertion.

[laxbro]

I was simply explaining what I meant by belief.

So nothing you said is actually a fact, it's just what you personally believe?

Gotcha.

In which case, don't tell us about it as if it is a fact with statements like:

He is there whether you like it or not

Prove it, or do the decent (and honest) thing and retract the positive assertion.

I was responding to what someone said not making an argument stand.

EVERYTHING I SAY IS A BELIEF.

There that should cover every positive assertion I make. Everything you say is a belief. Nothing can be proven 100%.

[laxbro]

And I'm sorry you're a christian and choose now to remain delusional.

Moderator #11 is calling me delusion not breaking the rules?

[Operator_011]

Moderator #11 is calling me delusion not breaking the rules?

I have never called you delusional. Stop lying.

However, that's another rule you've broken:

Flames and abuse directed at staff will not be tolerated. Impersonation of staff will not be tolerated.

Keep going on the path you're on and you'll find yourself banned very quickly.

I hope it doesn't come to that.

[laxbro]

Moderator #11 is calling me delusion not breaking the rules?

I have never called you delusional. Stop lying.

However, that's another rule you've broken:

Flames and abuse directed at staff will not be tolerated. Impersonation of staff will not be tolerated.

Keep going on the path you're on and you'll find yourself banned very quickly.

I hope it doesn't come to that.

I was asking you if you think someone calling me dillusional is breaking the rules. Someone else said it to me. I want you to moderate fairly and not simply pick on the chrisitan.

[Operator_011]

I was asking you if you think someone calling me dillusional is breaking the rules. Someone else said it to me.

Right, I'm with you now. The lack of punctuation threw me.

The answer is, no. Calling someone delusional is not against our rules. If you make claims to belief without providing any evidence to support your belief, the term 'delusional' is a reasonable claim to make in response.

I want you to moderate fairly and not simply pick on the chrisitan.

I do moderate fairly and the member's theological position is irrelevant to me. I'm not here to pick on anyone, including christians.

[laxbro]

I was asking you if you think someone calling me dillusional is breaking the rules. Someone else said it to me.

Right, I'm with you now. The lack of punctuation threw me.

The answer is, no. Calling someone delusional is not against our rules. If you make claims to belief without provding any evidence to support your belief, the term 'delusional' is a reasonable claim to make in response.

I want you to moderate fairly and not simply pick on the chrisitan.

I do moderate fairly and the member's theological position is irrelevant to me. I'm not here to pick on anyone, including christians.

But he said I now remain delusional. Meaning I was delusional before because I am a Christian. It had nothing to do with me supporting myself.

[Operator_011]

But he said I now remain delusional. Meaning I was delusional before because I am a Christian. It had nothing to do with me supporting myself.

After you made a positive claim:

He is there whether you like it or not.

The ball is now in your court. Can you support your claim with evidence?

[laxbro]

But he said I now remain delusional. Meaning I was delusional before because I am a Christian. It had nothing to do with me supporting myself.

After you made a positive claim:

He is there whether you like it or not.

The ball is now in your court. Can you support your claim with evidence?

STAY ON TOPIC. just kidding  that was my bad. I guess just another rule I'm breaking.

I am supporting what I say. If they choose not to listen then it is on them. I am not calling them evil because they don't believe what I believe. I am being very courteous and would appreciate the same back.

[Historicity]

And I'm sorry if you were a Christian and choose now not to believe.

I assume you are speaking from experience.  If so, then for you belief is something you can turn on or off.  You must be gullible.  Can you ever, ever grasp there are people who are not gullible and for whom belief is not an emotion?

I will bring up a simple argument for the existence of God. It is how massive the universe is. When I see how amazing natural life is I cannot help but see a maker behind it all. It all works so well together. The laws of nature are so simple but everything hinges upon them. You may see something else, but I see a design.

Thank you.  After the universe was 10 billion years old the Earth formed.  After another billion years single celled life formed.  After 3 billion years multicellular life formed.  After half a billion more years the multicellular life developed a species which used symbol forming communication which could then be exapted to math and logic and transgenerational build up of knowledge.

In another 1.5 billion years Earth will become unihabitable.

99.999999999999999% of the universe is vacuum which would kill a human in 15 seconds.  70% of it is water and humans don't have gills.  On the planets with enough gas pressure it is usually too much or the atmosphere is poisonous.  None of the nearby planets are good for colonization.  That 99%+ also refers to temperatures far outside of our range of -75° to 60° celsius.

The diameter of Earth is 0.04 light seconds.  The nearest star is 4.37 light years away.  The nearest big galaxy is 2.5 million light years away.  The visible edge of the universe is ...  well, you get the picture (or not).

The universe does not look like it was made for us.  To us, it looks like the universe was not made at all, that is, not by some Designer.

Can you grasp that?

[Operator_011]

I am supporting what I say.

You are not supporting what you say. You are merely stating your opinion as if it was fact. If you can back up what you've said, please do. Otherwise you are not supporting your own opinion with anything other than your own opinion.

That is not supporting what you say with evidence, it is repeating an opinion as if it was fact.

If you have evidence that god is real, we'd love to see it.

[Positiveaob]

A delusion is a fixed false belief.  I wasn't calling you ugly or stupid.  If you're beliefs aren't false, let's hear why not.  So far all I have heard is a combination of arguments of incredulity and ignorance, appeal to authority, some strawman arguments mixed in, and an overall "cover your eyes and ears because I say so" argument.

My "delusional" comment was in direct response to your "I'm sorry you were a christian and now choose not to believe" comment, which was an incredibly rude and arrogant thing to say.  I "choose" to base my beliefs on reality and what comes through logic, evidence, and common sense.  What's to be sorry for?

My recommendation to you is to stop for a bit, drink some coffee, and take this one thread at a time.  I think you have a lot you can learn from this website.  But first thing you have to do is uncover your eyes and ears for a moment and brace yourself for the possibility that what you were raised to believe about invisible guys in he sky just might be wrong.

[laxbro]

A delusion is a fixed false belief.  I wasn't calling you ugly or stupid.  If you're beliefs aren't false, let's hear why not.  So far all I have heard is a combination of arguments of incredulity and ignorance, appeal to authority, some strawman arguments mixed in, and an overall "cover your eyes and ears because I say so" argument.

My "delusional" comment was in direct response to your "I'm sorry you were a christian and now choose not to believe" comment, which was an incredibly rude and arrogant thing to say.  I "choose" to base my beliefs on reality and what comes through logic, evidence, and common sense.  What's to be sorry for?

My recommendation to you is to stop for a bit, drink some coffee, and take this one thread at a time.  I think you have a lot you can learn from this website.  But first thing you have to do is uncover your eyes and ears for a moment and brace yourself for the possibility that what you were raised to believe about invisible guys in he sky just might be wrong.

I'm sorry. That comment was not meant to be arrogant. I was saying I'm sorry that Christians most likely did not treat you very well if you lost faith in God. Of course, that could not be the case. I was speaking hastily.

What I believe is based upon my own thinking. Using my logic just like you. So calling me delusional seems like an attack to me. Of course everyone gets ideas from other people. Just like everything you believe was not completely original.

[Positiveaob]

My parents and those I was brought up around treated me fine, thank you very much.  I don't base my beliefs on who treats me the nicest. 

And again what logic leads you to your christian beliefs?  Please explain to us, minus the already mentioned logical fallacies, what logical thought process led you to these beliefs.  Because seems to me you base your beliefs on what you were told to believe by the culture around you.  And you accepted I because they treated you so nicely.

[Doctor X]

I did not use a strawman fallacy

You did. 

because the strawman fallacy you alluded to wasn't in my argument

Perhaps you should look at the two lower paragraphs in my original post to actually see what I was talking about.

Been there . . . done that . . . crappy t-shirt.

Your evasion and stonewalling noted.

Talking about proof of God face to face is loads better because

It is easier to stonewall and blather in conversation, yes, I know.  We want evidence.  Provide it or do not waste our time.

And I'm sorry if you were a Christian and choose now not to believe.

I am sorry you will feel Thor's hammer rammed up your [CENSORED--Ed.]

If you read everything I write including my second post, you will see

That you have no actual evidence, you are a fallacy factory, and are still stonewalling.  Yes, I know.

I will bring up a simple argument for the existence of God. It is how massive the universe is.

FAIL

Next. . . .

An appeal to your own ignorance and wonder is not evidence, son.

My God is the God of the Bible. "I am" He calls himself to Moses.

So you forsake his superior deity?  The one who gave him Israel when he divided the Earth amongst his sons?

I will pray for you.

--J.D.

[laxbro]

And I'm sorry if you were a Christian and choose now not to believe.

I assume you are speaking from experience.  If so, then for you belief is something you can turn on or off.  You must be gullible.  Can you ever, ever grasp there are people who are not gullible and for whom belief is not an emotion?

I will bring up a simple argument for the existence of God. It is how massive the universe is. When I see how amazing natural life is I cannot help but see a maker behind it all. It all works so well together. The laws of nature are so simple but everything hinges upon them. You may see something else, but I see a design.

Thank you.  After the universe was 10 billion years old the Earth formed.  After another billion years single celled life formed.  After 3 billion years multicellular life formed.  After half a billion more years the multicellular life developed a species which used symbol forming communication which could then be exapted to math and logic and transgenerational build up of knowledge.

In another 1.5 billion years Earth will become unihabitable.

99.999999999999999% of the universe is vacuum which would kill a human in 15 seconds.  70% of it is water and humans don't have gills.  On the planets with enough gas pressure it is usually too much or the atmosphere is poisonous.  None of the nearby planets are good for colonization.  That 99%+ also refers to temperatures far outside of our range of -75° to 60° celsius.

The diameter of Earth is 0.04 light seconds.  The nearest star is 4.37 light years away.  The nearest big galaxy is 2.5 million light years away.  The visible edge of the universe is ...  well, you get the picture (or not).

The universe does not look like it was made for us.  To us, it looks like the universe was not made at all, that is, not by some Designer.

Can you grasp that?

I can grasp that. I get a different conclusion from that evidence.

I believe it it is a "miracle" that we exist. The universe seems to be so bent on us not existing that some scientists believe it is beyond the realm of statistical possibility.

I believe that God created the universe so large to show how small we really are and how great He is.

It seems to me that the only way we could have existed is from a God creating us.

Because people want my proof I will go on to inertial arguments.
The universe is expanding and so we look at the big bang that started everything into motion. But what started the big bang? E=mc^2 so matter comes from energy, but where does energy come from. At some point, something that wasn't had to come into existence. I see that "something" that started everything into motion as God. At some point, you have to believe in something because nothing can be proven without a doubt.

[laxbro]

I promise you that I do not have any new evidence for you. This is why I cannot prove God exists to you. We both look at the same things and get different conclusions from them. You either believe God exists or you do not. Science does not prove anything really. It only explains how things work, not the reasons why things work.

[JeffPT]

I believe it it is a "miracle" that we exist. The universe seems to be so bent on us not existing that some scientists believe it is beyond the realm of statistical possibility.

laxbro, you do this for a very specific reason.  You see, you start with the notion that your God exists and you are cramming everything about reality into that mold.  Everything you see is some sort of reflection of God, not because that's really what's happening, but because your belief literally forces you to do it.  Here is an example...

I believe that God created the universe so large to show how small we really are and how great He is.

And if God created a universe that just contained our solar system, you would say He did it to show his emminent master plan or some shit.  And if God created a universe that consisted of just our planet, you would say He did it all just to keep himself close to us.  And if... and if... and if.  It doesn't stop.  You probably do it with everything.  Most of you do it. 

The reality is, your notion that God created everything just for us is really stupid.  It would make much more logical sense if God created something that would allow us to live and thrive in the vast majority of the universe.  Really, at some point you have to separate out your beliefs and look at reality.  Your notion here just plain doesn't add up.  You would have a much better argument if it really was just our little solar system here.     

It seems to me that the only way we could have existed is from a God creating us.

Again, because you FIRST believe in God, you are forced into that notion.  If you were someone who approached the question from a rational standpoint, you would actually look for other possibilities instead of discounting anything that goes against what you have been brainwashed to believe. You don't do that.  You think you don't have to do it, because you believe you already know the truth.  Well, you don't know the truth.  Sorry.  There are literally billions of ways our universe could have been created without the Christan God's involvement.  The fact that you are too closed minded to see that is not really our problem.  It's yours. It's a little pitiful to be honest.

The universe is expanding and so we look at the big bang that started everything into motion. But what started the big bang?

Again, there are literally billions of possibilities.  Without knowing what exists outside, or what existed before our universe, everything is a guess. It could have been 2 universes colliding.  Or maybe giant black holes sucking matter from one universe and pouring it into our universe.  To say the only possibility is God, is really very narrow minded.  Open your eyes. 

You make it seem like because we don't know what caused the big bang, that we are naturally just supposed to believe it was the Christian God by default.  Why do you have a hard time seeing how foolish that is?  Why would anyone in their right mind do that?  Your argument has no greater claim than that of Zeus, Thor, Allah, Buddha, or any other God ever invented by man. 

E=mc^2 so matter comes from energy, but where does energy come from. At some point, something that wasn't had to come into existence. I see that "something" that started everything into motion as God. At some point, you have to believe in something because nothing can be proven without a doubt.

You think like ancient man used to think laxbro.  You do know that this is 2010 right?  If you are confused, think about it this way. When ancient man saw lightning an didn't understand where it came from, they also said, "it must be God."  And when ancient man saw a tornado, they didn't understand where it came from, so they also said "it must be God."  And when laxbro says something had to start everything in motion and doesn't understand how it happened, he says "it must be God".  Dude.  Just stop.  We know how lightning works.  We know how tornados happen.  We may not yet know exactly what started everything in motion, but the idea that there is no other explanation than the Christian God is... well... just plain dumb.  In light of the severe lack of evidence, it should be rejected immediately. 

All we are asking you to do is think like a man laxbro.  Not like a child. 

[Positiveaob]

I believe that God created the universe so large to show how small we really are and how great He is.

Vanity is pretty petty even as far as HUMAN qualities go, let alone that of an all-powerful deity.  Even Zeus wasnt this insecure that he had to show off how awesome is by the size of his, well, "universe". 

[Positiveaob]

I promise you that I do not have any new evidence for you. This is why I cannot prove God exists to you. We both look at the same things and get different conclusions from them. You either believe God exists or you do not. Science does not prove anything really. It only explains how things work, not the reasons why things work.

 I think one of your fundamental problems is you look at this as some sort of situation where the lack of evidence on each side carries equal weight. 

When one is making an outlandish or extraordinary claim, the burden of evidence is on that person, not the one calling bullshit. 

I cant prove that leprechauns dont exist.  I have no evidence that the abominable snowman isnt real.  I cant prove that there's not an alien warship orbiting around the sun in the same orbit as the earth but diametrically opposite, so that at any given moment it is obscured from our view by the sun.  Do you consider that as equal evidence that these things exist?  Because I dont have solid evidence that they dont?  I certainly hope not.

Another example.  Let's say I tell you that I have an extremely rare, extremely valuable coin in my possession.  Try and prove me wrong.  You cant.  You can search my house up and down.  I can always tell you it's someplace youre not looking.  You can dig around my backyard, I can tell you you are not digging deep enough.  Try as you might, you can never prove me wrong. 

On the flip side, however, I can absolutely prove that such a coin DOES exist in my possession, if I were telling the truth.  I can simply show it to you.  Are you starting to understand how, especially when it comes to invisible, undetectable things, the lack of evidence against does not carry the same weight as the lack of evidence for?

Extraordinary claims can be dismissed without extraordinary evidence.  Your christian beliefs are a product of your christian upbringing.  Had you grown up in a different time and place you would have had a different set of beliefs and a different set of gods.  It's all just cultural superstitions.

Think otherwise?  Well let's hear your evidence.  Again, minus the arguments from ingnorance/incredulity, minus the appeals to authority, minus any more logical fallacies.

[laxbro]

I promise you that I do not have any new evidence for you. This is why I cannot prove God exists to you. We both look at the same things and get different conclusions from them. You either believe God exists or you do not. Science does not prove anything really. It only explains how things work, not the reasons why things work.

 I think one of your fundamental problems is you look at this as some sort of situation where the lack of evidence on each side carries equal weight. 

When one is making an outlandish or extraordinary claim, the burden of evidence is on that person, not the one calling bullshit. 

I cant prove that leprechauns dont exist.  I have no evidence that the abominable snowman isnt real.  I cant prove that there's not an alien warship orbiting around the sun in the same orbit as the earth but diametrically opposite, so that at any given moment it is obscured from our view by the sun.  Do you consider that as equal evidence that these things exist?  Because I dont have solid evidence that they dont?  I certainly hope not.

Another example.  Let's say I tell you that I have an extremely rare, extremely valuable coin in my possession.  Try and prove me wrong.  You cant.  You can search my house up and down.  I can always tell you it's someplace youre not looking.  You can dig around my backyard, I can tell you you are not digging deep enough.  Try as you might, you can never prove me wrong. 

On the flip side, however, I can absolutely prove that such a coin DOES exist in my possession, if I were telling the truth.  I can simply show it to you.  Are you starting to understand how, especially when it comes to invisible, undetectable things, the lack of evidence against does not carry the same weight as the lack of evidence for?

Extraordinary claims can be dismissed without extraordinary evidence.  Your christian beliefs are a product of your christian upbringing.  Had you grown up in a different time and place you would have had a different set of beliefs and a different set of gods.  It's all just cultural superstitions.

Think otherwise?  Well let's hear your evidence.  Again, minus the arguments from ingnorance/incredulity, minus the appeals to authority, minus any more logical fallacies.

But if you show me the coin I can say you are using light tricks like a magician might so it is not really there. Or you are using a really good hologram of a coin.

You learn from experience then correct? You believe something when you can touch it and experience it in many different ways. So I cannot prove something with words on a forum which is what I have been trying to say from the very beginning. I think you can experience the love of God through talking and being in fellowship with Christians who truly love God. Until you experience that, then I cannot possibly prove to you He exists.

You believe in unbelief I presume. So your base point is that there is no God, so i need to prove to you there is a God to change your belief. I come from a base point that there is a God, so you would need to prove to me that there is a good reason not to believe in him. But you will not be able to prove that to me.

Proof would be in this case having no reasonable doubt. But there is always doubt possible, so when is it not reasonable to doubt anymore? It's subjective. It's decided by the person. So your doubt may be reasonable to you, but someone else's doubt may not be reasonable to them.

If God slapped you in the face would you believe in him? Is that prove him beyond a reasonable doubt? Because anyone could explain it away still.

[Positiveaob]

But if you show me the coin I can say you are using light tricks like a magician might so it is not really there. Or you are using a really good hologram of a coin.

That's where reasonable doubt comes in.  Saying I am producing a "hologram of a coin" is not a reasonable doubt.  Saying there's no invisible guy in the sky watching me and having a "plan" for me despite my having free will (which makes NO sense) is a reasonable doubt.  in the same sense that not believing in a guy in a fiery chariot riding across the sky every day.  Understand?

You learn from experience then correct? You believe something when you can touch it and experience it in many different ways. So I cannot prove something with words on a forum which is what I have been trying to say from the very beginning. I think you can experience the love of God through talking and being in fellowship with Christians who truly love God. Until you experience that, then I cannot possibly prove to you He exists.

These wonderful feelings you get are from convincing yourselves of the existence of something you really really want to exist.  Kind of like the wonderful feelings I would get if convinced myself I was gonna win the lottery tomorrow.  The only difference is, tomorrow comes and I havent won the lottery and reality hits me in the face.  For you, you have to wait until you die, which means no one is ever able to tell you differentally so the delusion perists.

You believe in unbelief I presume.

what the hell is that supposed to mean?  I believe in all kinds of things.  I believe that Stevie Ray Vaughan was the greatest guitarist ever.  I believe that nothing in the world is better than enjoying a game at Fenway Park with my nephew on a sunny summer day when the Sox are playing the Yankees.  I believe in all kinds of things.  Just nothing involving invisible deities

So your base point is that there is no God, so i need to prove to you there is a God to change your belief. I come from a base point that there is a God, so you would need to prove to me that there is a good reason not to believe in him. But you will not be able to prove that to me.

See my previous post on the need for evidence for proving existence vs non-existence.  If you still havent gotten, someone else will need to explain it to you.

Proof would be in this case having no reasonable doubt. But there is always doubt possible, so when is it not reasonable to doubt anymore? It's subjective. It's decided by the person. So your doubt may be reasonable to you, but someone else's doubt may not be reasonable to them.

See above.  Rejecting invisible guys in the sky based on cultural superstitions is very much reasonable doubt.

If God slapped you in the face would you believe in him? Is that prove him beyond a reasonable doubt? Because anyone could explain it away still.

Yes, I absolutely would believe in him then.  Let's see him try.  Waiting...and still waiting...(looking at watch)...and waiting...

[laxbro]

You seem to not understand me concerning the existence vs. non existence. I cannot prove existence because there is always doubt. The person weighing the evidence decides what is reasonable doubt or not. You obviously still have what you perceive as reasonable doubts. I do not. You cannot say "your doubts are unreasonable to you" because they are my own doubts and you cannot tell whether they are reasonable or not to me.

God is not invisible. He is perceived in different ways. He is plain as day to me. Your not going to like this cliche analogy but I will use it anyway. You cannot see the wind but you know it's there because of its effects and you experience wind. I believe you cannot see God but you can know He is there by the effects He has on people and your experiences. I have experiences of God all the time. Have you experienced fellowship with loving Godly Christians? if not then how can you say what the experience is like. It is nothing like the feeling of false hope (such as your lottery example).

[GamerGirl]

hey laxbro! Relax, bro.  God still loves you, right? 

[Doctor X]

I promise you that I do not have any new evidence for you.

You have no evidence nor can you address the negative evidence apparently.

This is why I cannot prove God exists to you.

Because you have no evidence.

We both look at the same things and get different conclusions from them.

No, you simply refuse to look at reality objectively.  Reality is not a matter of opinion, no matter how much you wish to make it so.

Science does not prove anything really.

Of course it does.  Do not extend your ignorance of it to others.

It only explains how things work, not the reasons why things work.

Argumentum ad veritatem obfuscandam: do not assume a "why."

--J.D.

[Ambassador Pony]

If I cannot say media and you understand that I mean mostly news on TV than you should probably not read anything I say because you won't be happy with anything I say (you won't be happy with anything I say regardless).

You're right. There is no telling what other words you use without knowing what they mean.

Why is your incorrect diction the reader's fault, anyway? Why the ad hominem? Because it is easier than apologizing, and admitting your error?

 

[Hatter23]

I promise you that I do not have any new evidence for you. This is why I cannot prove God exists to you. We both look at the same things and get different conclusions from them. You either believe God exists or you do not. Science does not prove anything really. It only explains how things work, not the reasons why things work.

So, your position is the evidence suggests that there is a god if the universe is large and we can only survive in a small portion of it. Many theists position is that the world seems perfectly suited to us, and this suggests a divine creator.

So if A, then god; or if Not A, then god.

All I see here is people looking for thing to support their foregone conclusion. And none of it would suggest anything other than a deist god.

[monkeymind]

I promise you that I do not have any new evidence for you. This is why I cannot prove God exists to you. We both look at the same things and get different conclusions from them. You either believe God exists or you do not. Science does not prove anything really. It only explains how things work, not the reasons why things work.

All I am interested in is evidence, your evidence, not CS Lewis'. Don't be so lax bro! Therefor I smite thee.

AND Doctor X:
I love when you use words like "pluperfect subjunctive." I went to bed last night saying it over and over and over.... Therefor I applaud thee.-plus one

[velkyn]

You seem to not understand me concerning the existence vs. non existence. I cannot prove existence because there is always doubt. The person weighing the evidence decides what is reasonable doubt or not. You obviously still have what you perceive as reasonable doubts. I do not. You cannot say "your doubts are unreasonable to you" because they are my own doubts and you cannot tell whether they are reasonable or not to me.

wow, it didnt' take this one long to retreat to solipcistic claims.  And no, reasonable doubt isn't an opinion.  It's based on reason and therefore evidence.

God is not invisible. He is perceived in different ways. He is plain as day to me. Your not going to like this cliche analogy but I will use it anyway. You cannot see the wind but you know it's there because of its effects and you experience wind. I believe you cannot see God but you can know He is there by the effects He has on people and your experiences. I have experiences of God all the time. Have you experienced fellowship with loving Godly Christians? if not then how can you say what the experience is like. It is nothing like the feeling of false hope (such as your lottery example).

  and other gods are just as "plain as day" to those who belief in them. So, does that mean all gods are as real as yours?  And I have objective evidence of the wind. Nothing the same for your god.  All theists claim the same thigns for their respective gods and none of them have any evidence for such things or how to tell which god is doing it.  and I've had a lot of experience with "Godly Christians".  All of them call themselves "godly", just like you.  And all of them are sure that those Christians who disagree with them aren't RealTrueChristians^tm at all.