Please validate your belief in your God

[WayneHarropson]

Now, that makes me want to expound on the vision in a way to distinguish it from an idle imagination.
.....
Paul's was a place I would frequent no more than once a week, if that, during that time.  It wasn't unusual for me to be there but it could be said that to frequent it twice in three days was very rare.
.....
That vision was astounding.  I had never had anything happen like that before.  I had had things just as amazing happen but nothing quite like this vision.  I knew it meant something and I wanted to know more or I wouldn't have likely gone back to the restaurant that soon.  So I was,  on Oct. 1, "returning to the scene" out of curiosity and it was providential that the same seat was unoccupied, but I went back with intent to sit in the same spot, because I was still fixated on that vision, hoping to discover more.  Man did I! 

There's two important points I want to make here.

Firstly, you'll recall I spent some time, and several posts, trying to get as many relevant details about the experience as I could.  During that process, you got rather patronising with me for doing so.  But I persevered, and spent the time on it, trying to get all the information that was relevant before I answered.

I'm sorry you take my appreciation for what you are doing as patronising.  I'll try to be sensitive of that.  It's not what I intended and when I said I appreciated the time and effort on your part I mean it sincerely.

Then I answered.....and all of a sudden you start offering more detail and more facts that you hadn't offered while I was asking the questions.  At the very best, that means you've wasted my time, because I wasn't in possession of all the facts.  Do you think in the circumstances I will feel more, or less likely to want to answer the next question you put to me?  And at the worst, one might suspect that you had deliberately withheld certain facts, so that you could spring them out later in an "aha! But this!" manner.

 
I assure you, it was not deliberate.  I need to become a more descriptive writer than I am, I meant to make that clear... like Dickens.

Secondly.....have you seen the element of self-fulfilling prophecy in your answer there, in bold?  You chose to go back when you normally would not have done, to see what would happen.  And I'm betting that - had nothing happened on that first visit back - you'd have made a point of continuing with extra visits until something DID happen.  Which of course makes coincidence far more likely.

I would have remained curious that's for sure had nothing happened, because that was a stunning incident.  I didn't go to Paul's for many years after that, but after May of 2011 when I was guided to take my dayplanners out of the attic, and began discovering things the Lord had me write I did resume frequenting Paul's.  You will notice that in my Cattle on a Thousand Hills story.

If you'd said "after the vision, I tried my hardest NOT to go back there - but on the day, there was a diversion, and a flat tire, and no parking, and this that and the other, and I found myself FORCED back there" - then that might - might - be worthy of interest.  But to say "and I deliberately put myself into the situation more often than I would otherwise do" vastly increases the chance of coincidence coming into play.  As a resident of the area, you're going to experience quakes - so by your own actions your making the coincidence far, far more likely.

I'm glad I clarified that now and I'm sorry having ommitted it did so much to alter your understanding of it.
Your attention to the details inspired me to be more descriptive that is why I clarified.  I need to study all of the stories I've written and fill in those important details, but in a few cases, I try to get the story out in the least number of words to best describe the important points otherwise they end up like that much to long and preachy 1989 story about the Batman Gas leak.  I leave it now like I typed it because the age of it is part of the story.

Sometimes I'm patronising I guess for sarcastic effect, and I can understand you being ready for that.  In your case, in this case my admiration was sincere as was my appreciation.  I wish I didn't have to type out every response and talk instead one on one as you would have gotten a much clearer account, being able to ask questions on the fly.

[nogodsforme]

Actually it's Eshu, who was mistakenly identified as Satan by European Christians who encountered the African beliefs.[1]As we have already established, Wayne has no reason to deny the power of the diety of crossroads.

There is the same evidence for Eshu (and Durga and Thor) as there is for Wayne's false god-- strong feelings, sacred scriptures, natural events interpreted as signs of divine activity, a lack of scientific knowledge and a community of believers to reinforce all this.

1.	The African pantheon, unlike Christianity, did not have a negative devil figure. Since Eshu's sacred number is 3 and his sacred colors are red and black, Africans used medieval images of Satan with his trident, red skin and black hair in their worship of Eshu.

[wheels5894]

Whilst not commenting on the question of the existence of any gods, it is a good question, Wayne, that one's experiences are hard to tie down to a particular deity. You are a Christian but your experiences could have been given to you by another deity anxious that you covert from Christianity to another religion. Maybe Allah or Thor is trying to get your attention.

How can you tell the difference?

[WayneHarropson]

You so quickly gravitate to anthing but the Christian God no matter how Christian the context of my story is.  Have you forgotten the Pat Robertson element.

I attribute this manner of focusing on pagan rather than the true God to the aversion atheists have for the true God.  It's like, no no no, any God but the God of the bible!.  I say this because I just can't imagine you having the same conversation in reverse but instead questoning the pagan and asking, "how can you be sure that it isn't Jesus Christ?"  I can't picture you doing that.  Am I wrong?

[screwtape]

Is it possible that non-prophecy elements are included in your retro-prophecies?  That is, perhaps Pat Robertson was just part of a dream that had prophetic elements, but not actually part of the prophecy?

You keep talking about Obama being evil, blah blah blah.  But why have you not considered the idea that your retro-prophecies are trying to tell you your political orientation is wrong?

[jaimehlers]

You need to understand, Wayne, that you're not providing circumstantial evidence^Wiki.  You're providing anecdotal evidence^Wiki.  It is not reliable for convincing people of factual claims, no matter how many anecdotes you provide, because anecdotes are not provable.  That goes doubly so when those anecdotes are being used to support an untestable claim.

Also, the reason the others here keep bringing up other gods as possible causes is not because they seriously believe that another god actually did it.  It's to demonstrate that you can't tell whether it was a god at all, let alone which one it was.  You keep claiming that it was your own god which did these things, but all you've done is pile anecdote upon coincidence upon anecdote.  And, frankly, that utterly fails to convince.

[jynnan tonnix]

You so quickly gravitate to anthing but the Christian God no matter how Christian the context of my story is.  Have you forgotten the Pat Robertson element.

I attribute this manner of focusing on pagan rather than the true God to the aversion atheists have for the true God.  It's like, no no no, any God but the God of the bible!.  I say this because I just can't imagine you having the same conversation in reverse but instead questoning the pagan and asking, "how can you be sure that it isn't Jesus Christ?"  I can't picture you doing that.  Am I wrong?

Again, Wayne...these illustrations are not meant to imply that we believe, or would rather believe, in different deities, but rather to show that mythology of any background tends to share a lot of elements, and if one steps back and looks at them all dispassionately, the playing field becomes level, and it is just as difficult to give credence to Christianity as it is to take the Greek, Hindu, Norse, or Egyptian mythologies seriously. Oh, and Christianity is not unique in having a single god either. The other monotheistic religions escape me at the moment; maybe someone else could step in here.

We are just trying to make you understand this.

I know we are unlikely to make a dent in your beliefs, but to a point I think many would be happy to give you a pass if you so much as showed an understanding that, for all intents and purposes there is no objective way to prove that any religion or mythology in the history of the world can be proven true. And this includes Christianity.

Your stories are compelling to you, but to others, coming from different backgrounds, they signify nothing.

As much as you want others to react to them with awe and amazement, you have to learn to put yourself in the shoes of a skeptic. Didn't you say, back when you joined this thread, that you would attempt to present your arguments with the atheist view in mind? I don't recall how you phrased it, but what you have been doing is the furthest thing from that, and it's very, very frustrating.

[nogodsforme]

Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are monotheistic, or, at least as monotheistic as Christianity is. What with the Trinity, saints, angels, devils, demons and so on, starts to look rather pagan and polytheistic.

[jynnan tonnix]

Islam, Judaism and Zoroastrianism are monotheistic, or, at least as monotheistic as Christianity is. What with the Trinity, saints, angels, devils, demons and so on, starts to look rather pagan and polytheistic.

I was staying away from Islam and Judaism as they are basically related. Zoroastrianism is a good example, though, and I'm pretty sure there are others. Mithraism?

And, yes, I had actually started going off on a tangent about all the characters in Christanity as well, but decided to edit. Thanks for bringing it up, though, it's a very valid point. Just because Christanity doesn't confer godhood on these characters doesn't mean they are not as important to the mythology as lots of characters in other pantheistic religions.

[12 Monkeys]

Wayne,as Anfauglir stated,it could be Satan steering you away from God,as Satan rules the earth right now. Why would you dismiss this possible scene?

I'm sure he'd love to do that.  He tried with Job.

Satan accepted a wager FROM God as to whether or not he could crack a religious nut. God pushed the boundaries as to how far to push Job,because he wanted to WIN the wager,not because he was interested in Job,,,,or so the story goes

[Add Homonym]

Because Wayne hasn't divulged any of his Biblical notions, (due to only inhabiting this thread), I took it upon myself to figure out whether he was a creationist, using Google. This proved harder than I thought, because Wayne has spent the last year on Twitter, making 142 twits, exclusively hating Obama. (Still giving me no insight into whether he was a creationist.) Even when he started a blog topic on Bill Nye, it still wasn't obvious, until he made a small ambiguous comment : What makes you think evolutionism isn't a religion? (That will do me.)

Wayne has spent a few posts in this thread, wondering why we bash Christianity, and endorse "pagan" religions. I had wondered, in the past, why God could not make accurate prophecies in Daniel, involving earthquakes, meteorite impacts, volcanoes, etc. Wayne contends that God knows the future, because God talks to him about future events. So, it must have been possible for God to create a convincing almanac of immutable events, in Daniel. Why restrict it to vague political prophecy, and so open ways to accuse the writers of faking chapters onto the end of the book? Then I thought: what if God actually did produce an almanac? The people in possession of the almanac could claim anything they liked about God, and we would be obliged to believe them. The prophecy could also be stolen, and put into another religion.

It could be argued that it would be in God's best interest, to never provide any definite prophetic proof, otherwise God would have to be constantly on the lookout for tyranny, and have to keep correcting people, by appearances. Therefore, better to stay cryptically in the background. Well, unless the omnipotent God could somehow guarantee that the prophecy would stay in the right hands, and be proof that all of the religion was true. Obviously God could not do that, either because he doesn't want us to have proof, or because the Bible is wrong on various issues, and God wants it to look wrong, or doesn't want to endorse it.

However, back to the point. Wayne has been chosen by God, to prove that God exists. If we believe Wayne's Earthquake story (And assorted co-coincidences), do we then have to believe that God created the world, and the sun on day 4? What is Wayne actually asking us to believe? We know that Christians ignore most of what's said by Jesus. Do we have to join up to the cult of Wayne, and hate Obama? If Wayne is the messiah, then do we have to eat what Wayne eats for breakfast, or can we invent up our own version of Christianity?

I need a position statement from Wayne

(1) do we need to believe that the sun was created on day 4?
(2) do we have to hate Obama? (like most Christians don't)
(3) do we have to Skydive, and should it be part of the school curriculum?
(4) do we have to believe that Wayne's God wrote the Bible accurately, even though Wayne's God could just be manipulating us with false prophecy, and revelation?
(5) why was Wayne a better prophet than Daniel?
(6) when is the world going to end?
(7) what type of wheaties does Wayne eat?

[Anfauglir]

You chose to go back when you normally would not have done, to see what would happen.  And I'm betting that - had nothing happened on that first visit back - you'd have made a point of continuing with extra visits until something DID happen.  Which of course makes coincidence far more likely.

I would have remained curious that's for sure had nothing happened, because that was a stunning incident.  I didn't go to Paul's for many years after that.....

And you miss my point.  Its irrelevant whether you returned to Paul's AFTER your vision was "verified" (although see below).

What is relevant is how many times you WOULD have gone back, UNTIL your vision was verified.  You've admitted your curiosity, so it's a given that - had the earthquake not happened - you would have continued regular and more frequent visits until something DID happen. 

And it IS also relevant in that you didn't go there for "many years" afterwards.....because it means you have no information as to what happened in Paul's on the 22 occasions since then when the restaurant would have experienced similar level shocks.  22 further occasions when (if that had been the first time you had been there since the vision) you would have said "see?  It came true!".  But 22 occasions that would all have ticked ALL the boxes of everything that you "saw" in the vision.  Which boils down to "unrecognisable people shouting and running".

Not to mention, of course, all the occasions when there was an accident outside.  The reaction when the TV in the corner showed the 9/11 footage.  The time when the big dog got in and ran round the restaurant.  The time someone saw a rat in the corner.

At the risk of bludgeoning the point home, you have no information as to how many incidents there were in the restaurant that would have similarly matched your vision....incidents that - had they occurred on the first day you had returned there after the vision - you would now be touting as "proof" that it was engineered by your god.

Can you point to one, single thing in your vision that could ONLY have pointed to an earthquake?  Are you prepared to admit that - if you had returned to Paul's on the 30th September instead, and there had been a car crash outside that made everyone run and shout, that you would instead have written a story about how god brought you there specifically for that purpose?
-------------------
Still several vitally important questions you are yet to answer, BTW.

How do you determine if something is causal or not?
How do you determine whether every experience you have had was not Satan's work, using you as an agent to drive US from belief?
How do you square the circle of the god who will intervene regularly and directly in the minutiae of your life, but sits on his hands for the vast majority of people?

One thing I will agree with you on though -

.....all of what I have told you ... is proof to me of an omniscient God.

I'm sure it is.  But it isn't for us.  That's the problem with a god who picks and chooses his favours and interventions: it's only convincing for the individuals concerned.

[WayneHarropson]

I've been distracted. Please give me time to reply.

[Anfauglir]

I've been distracted. Please give me time to reply.

Time is no problem Wayne.  I would far rather wait a week for a reply that specifically addresses my questions than have a response today that doesn't.

[bertatberts]

I've been distracted. Please give me time to reply.

Time is no problem Wayne.  I would far rather wait a week for a reply that specifically addresses my questions than have a response today that doesn't.

Agreed! However if he actually answered the questions posed in a day, week, month whatever. it would be a first. So you will be waiting a very long time.

[median]

Good critical thinking skills logic, reason, and evidence together may get you to the moon, but without God, none of those things matter.

I'm not diminishing their importance in this world, and I intend to employ them, but God gives me irrefutable evidence of himself and I'm working on my skills here to translate it to you.

None of these things matter to you, but that is because you have ASSUMED your theology (and that the bible is "God's inspired word") from the outset, and you've done so quite uncritically (i.e. - your parents told you, and you just bought it). Again, you are practicing hypocrisy because you DON'T accept other holy books that way. How about being consistent? Again, other religions claim to have experiences JUST LIKE YOURS - and they say those experiences are confirmations of THEIR RELIGIONS. Therefore, having FAITH in this (merely trusting your subjective experiences/internal factors alone) is not reliable. It is not a reliable pathway to separating fact from fiction. Every religion does this. It fails for them and it fails for you.

Secondly, evidence is (by definition) demonstrable to others. Claiming you had some experience (even if you did!) doesn't in any way make it evidence. You can SAY, all day long, that God has given you irrefutable evidence but you are lying to yourself. Evidence is not personal. It is public, viewable, testable, and/or falsifiable by others. What you keep trying to do is blur the lines between what is evidence and what is not (so you can't keep holding on to your assumption) - but that is more dishonesty.

Do you not think there are people in this world who practice self-deception (i.e. - delusion)?? What kinds of traits, mannerisms, or characteristics do those people exhibit Wayne? If you do a little research you will find that (generally) what those people display is indistinguishable (i.e. - identical) from what you are doing.

Self Deception:

An individual:
•holds two contradictory beliefs
•holds them simultaneously
•is unaware of holding one of the beliefs
•is motivated to remain unaware of that belief.

Examples:

•Self-serving bias - Attributing successes to internal factors, and failures to external factors
•Confirmation bias - Tendency to interpret events (our own actions) in ways that confirm our beliefs
•Defensiveness associated with challenged beliefs

Lastly, what makes you think your experiences are "irrefutable"?? People who say things like that are generally people who DO NOT CARE whether their beliefs are actually true. In a round about way, what you've just admitted is that (no matter what) you are unwilling to change your mind. Do you know what that's called Wayne? CLOSED-MINDEDNESS! And practicing being closed minded (i.e. - dogmatic/fixated) is NOT a pathway to truth. It is a classic characteristic of someone who practices self-deception or delusion. It means you don't really care if your beliefs are true.



Please respond to my post here: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,23483.msg544082.html#msg544082





http://courses.washington.edu/evpsych/self-deception%20as%20self-signaling.pptx

[WayneHarropson]

median, you surprise me. That was the best post I have seen you author, at least I can parse through it better than in the past.
Please be patient and I'll do with it the best I can when I've completed the tasks at hand.
It may take a while, just know that I'm not dismissing you.
Thanks.

[bertatberts]

  just know that I'm not dismissing you.
Thanks.

Liar! You never answered anybody's question, you've just dodged. So it is more likely you will just let it go right over your head again and carry on regardless. This thread is for validating your beliefs, which you have yet to do.

[screwtape]

Liar!

Bertatberts,

Let's please not have that.  Thank you.

[bertatberts]

Liar!

Bertatberts,

Let's please not have that.  Thank you.

I will take heed of what you said because of your status.
However is it wrong now to state the truth.
Wayne has had it far to easy. The green text should be for him.

[jaimehlers]

With all due respect, bertaberts, calling Wayne a liar - even if he were one - doesn't help.  All it does is ramp up the tension of this thread and makes it easier for him to ignore future statements from you, and possibly even from others.  It won't change his mind about things - he'll still be convinced that he is validating his belief in his god, and so he'll continue to act the same way in the future as well.  All it serves as is a way to shut down what little communication and discussion is actually happening here.

[bertatberts]

With all due respect, bertaberts, calling Wayne a liar - even if he were one - doesn't help.

Then what do we call such a person (An equivocator, prevaricator, falsifier, fibber, perjurer, what). Pussy footing around him isn't making any difference. All it is doing is allowing him to continue to do what he has been doing. Sometimes people need to be told.

All it does is ramp up the tension of this thread and makes it easier for him to ignore future statements from you, and possibly even from others.

Its been 24 pages and it hasn't done any good thus far, making him angry might actually get him to actually respond to the questions he has avoided. 

It won't change his mind about things

Why do we need to change his mind, it isn't working as he is still carrying on with the same BS. If he doesn't care why should we.

he'll still be convinced that he is validating his belief in his god, and so he'll continue to act the same way in the future as well.  All it serves as is a way to shut down what little communication and discussion is actually happening here.

Well he's doing that already, so what is the difference. And he has been from the very beginning.
You know as well as I the only person who can change someones mind, is the person themselves.
People seem to willing to make concessions for this man, would you do the same if he believed in fairies. Or lizard-men?

And to Wayne would your arguments work if you substituted lizard-men or fairies for god?

[jaimehlers]

You shouldn't make accusations about him that you can't prove, simply put.  If you can prove that he's knowingly lying to us - that is to say, that he's telling us things that he knows isn't true, not just things that you think aren't true - then it's another story.  That's why screwtape requested that you not do it, I think.

There are a number of people here who are still discussing this with him.  Anfauglir, for one.  They're quite capable of calling him on those things without making charged accusations like calling him a liar.  If you don't feel comfortable doing so, then nobody's going to make you.  But you shouldn't make things difficult for the others who are trying it that way.

[WayneHarropson]

I need a position statement from Wayne

(1) do we need to believe that the sun was created on day 4? NO
(2) do we have to hate Obama? (like most Christians don't) NO, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE SMART.
(3) do we have to Skydive, and should it be part of the school curriculum? I'll HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT.
(4) do we have to believe that Wayne's God wrote the Bible accurately, NO... even though Wayne's God could just be manipulating us with false prophecy, and revelation? LOADED QUESTION OUTSIDE MY PERVUE. (REMEMBER THE TOOTH?)
(5) why was Wayne a better prophet than Daniel? HINDSIGHT ACCURACY HAS IT'S ADVANTAGES DON'T IT?.
(6) when is the world going to end? BEFORE YOU CAN READ THE REST OF THIS .........POOF..
(7) what type of Wheaties does Wayne eat? THERE'S MORE THAN ONE KIND?

Thanks, you make me feel like the answer man.  Let me answer in ALL CAPS within your questons.
Sounds like you made it to my one month anniversary celebration.  Lucky you.

[WayneHarropson]

Can you point to one, single thing in your vision that could ONLY have pointed to an earthquake?  Are you prepared to admit that - if you had returned to Paul's on the 30th September instead, and there had been a car crash outside that made everyone run and shout, that you would instead have written a story about how god brought you there specifically for that purpose?

  Sure. But come on now, an earthquake is so much better.
-------------------

Still several vitally important questions you are yet to answer, BTW.

How do you determine if something is causal or not?
How do you determine whether every experience you have had was not Satan's work, using you as an agent to drive US from belief?

How would anything I've told you drive you from belief?  The repettitive nature of my episodes points to the cause being God.

How do you square the circle of the god who will intervene regularly and directly in the minutiae of your life, but sits on his hands for the vast majority of people?

  Devout people have encounters, maybe fewer, but they do.  Non believers and non devout much less if any.  I mentioned that I read a lot of supernatural accounts in God's Mysterious Ways books along the way, and belived them all, and would have continued to believe even if none happened to me.

I'm sure it is.  But it isn't for us.  That's the problem with a god who picks and chooses his favours and interventions: it's only convincing for the individuals concerned.

He wants you to believe like a litte child, because to him you are. If I had anything to do with it, I'd have to say that that is it.

[WayneHarropson]

None of these things matter to you, but that is because you have ASSUMED your theology (and that the bible is "God's inspired word") from the outset, and you've done so quite uncritically (i.e. - your parents told you, and you just bought it).

Well, then I guess I just got lucky that they were right.  What I don't think you understand is that God is a spirit, and those that worship Him worship in spirit and in truth. Not everything taught me had to be perfect, because men and their understanding is imperfect, but where men's wisdom and understanding may have fallen short, the Spirit of God takes over and supplements the understanding of the devout.  There is a lot of bad information to sift through, but the loving God can guide, and He is willing if you are.  My  parent's weren't perfect but there love for God and me is a source of my good result.

Again, you are practicing hypocrisy because you DON'T accept other holy books that way. How about being consistent? Again, other religions claim to have experiences JUST LIKE YOURS - and they say those experiences are confirmations of THEIR RELIGIONS. Therefore, having FAITH in this (merely trusting your subjective experiences/internal factors alone) is not reliable. It is not a reliable pathway to separating fact from fiction. Every religion does this. It fails for them and it fails for you.

Some things are subjective, but my spiritual faith in God has been a good result.

Secondly, evidence is (by definition) demonstrable to others. Claiming you had some experience (even if you did!) doesn't in any way make it evidence. You can SAY, all day long, that God has given you irrefutable evidence but you are lying to yourself. Evidence is not personal. It is public, viewable, testable, and/or falsifiable by others. What you keep trying to do is blur the lines between what is evidence and what is not (so you can't keep holding on to your assumption) - but that is more dishonesty.

My testimony is proof to me, and an offer to you, that you might also believe, without having to 'see' proof.

Secondly, evidence Do you not think there are people in this world who practice self-deception (i.e. - delusion)?? What kinds of traits, mannerisms, or characteristics do those people exhibit Wayne? If you do a little research you will find that (generally) what those people display is indistinguishable (i.e. - identical) from what you are doing.

  The only thing that keeps me from self deception is my reliance that the Holy Spirit would answer my prayer and intervene in those cases.  I certainly, on my own and fully capable of being self deceived.  I can only pray not to be.

Self Deception:

An individual:
•holds two contradictory beliefs
•holds them simultaneously
•is unaware of holding one of the beliefs
•is motivated to remain unaware of that belief.

Examples:

•Self-serving bias - Attributing successes to internal factors, and failures to external factors
confirmation bias - Tendency to interpret events (our own actions) in ways that confirm our beliefs
defensiveness associated with challenged beliefs 

That's a pretty good list. We all need to do reality checks don't we?

Lastly, what makes you think your experiences are "irrefutable"??

I'm not sure God is going to allow me to make that claim.  I have said many times that I have absolute confidence and certainty about the power, omniscience and omnipresence of God, and very little confidence in my ability to interpret it all.  My confidence is in Him, not in me.  I think He agrees with me on that assessment.

 

People who say things like that are generally people who DO NOT CARE whether their beliefs are actually true. In a round about way, what you've just admitted is that (no matter what) you are unwilling to change your mind. Do you know what that's called Wayne? CLOSED-MINDEDNESS! And practicing being closed minded (i.e. - dogmatic/fixated) is NOT a pathway to truth. It is a classic characteristic of someone who practices self-deception or delusion. It means you don't really care if your beliefs are true. 

I like to think that I am open minded to God's leading and sceptical of following men.  I care that my beliefs are true, but my confidence is in not in my beliefs, but in my maker.  If I find out that the fourth day of creation lasted a millennium, I won't be broken hearted because I'm never afraid of the truth, (or don't want to be.) 

[WayneHarropson]

I've been working on a comprehensive round up in the test area, and rather than post it here, right now, I may, when I'm most satisfied with it, post it first for the moderators to give me advice on, and possibly start a new thread with it.  One thing for sure, I'm starting to figure out some of the code thanks to screwtape..  The most important thing to me is that it be easy to read and understand, and hopefully entertaining too.

[Anfauglir]

Sorry Wayne, but none of that was worth the wait.

Can you point to one, single thing in your vision that could ONLY have pointed to an earthquake?  Are you prepared to admit that - if you had returned to Paul's on the 30th September instead, and there had been a car crash outside that made everyone run and shout, that you would instead have written a story about how god brought you there specifically for that purpose?

  Sure. But come on now, an earthquake is so much better.

I don't blame you for giving a shortanswer to this question - because that's what it all hinges on: the fact that you had a vague daydream, which could have applied to anything, and you chose to belive that it was a portent of the next event that happened to you. 

-------------------

How do you determine if something is causal or not?

Missed this questions Wayne - and I've asked it half a dozen times now.  I will therefore assume that you HAVE no way of determining whether something is causal or not: that your automatic and constant assumption is that "god did that".  It means that NONE of your anecdotes here are worth our consideration or discussion.

How do you determine whether every experience you have had was not Satan's work, using you as an agent to drive US from belief?

How would anything I've told you drive you from belief?  The repettitive nature of my episodes points to the cause being God.

That's just it - they do for you, because you just ascribe everything to god's actions.  We do not, and so they do not point that way for us.  As for driving us from belief.....I've covered that before, but I'll explain it further below.

How do you square the circle of the god who will intervene regularly and directly in the minutiae of your life, but sits on his hands for the vast majority of people?

  Devout people have encounters, maybe fewer, but they do.  Non believers and non devout much less if any. 

I'm sure it is.  But it isn't for us.  That's the problem with a god who picks and chooses his favours and interventions: it's only convincing for the individuals concerned.

He wants you to believe like a litte child, because to him you are. If I had anything to do with it, I'd have to say that that is it.

How are you driving us from belief?  I will explain why, Wayne.  You aren't going to like it, because it is going to sound extremely insulting.  It's for two reasons.

Why would we not want to be like you?   Because you have no critical thinking skills that you have demonstrated here.  You refuse to chang your position even when massive evidence is provided for you (remember those crime graphs?).  You alternate between being patronising, and smug.  You are happy - or at best, indifferent - to the fact that you worship a god who doesparlour tricks for you, and ignores the plight of others in far more need.  For the most part, you refuse to answer questions, and those you do answer are normally rewarded with either a non sequiteur, or a smug little "bless you, you don't understand".

In short, you are a poor advert for any religion - if being a follower of your god would turn me into someone like you, then I want no part of it.  That is how your actions, and presentation, are driving me away from your god - I see the multiple negative effects that your belief apparently has on you.

Why would we not want to worship your god?  Because he will reward the believer with numerous little parlour tricks.  Spending vast amounts of time setting up little tales for you to tell about how super-powered he is, while ignoring the very real plights of millions of people in desperate need around the world.  A god who is willing and able to pop down to the world and steer things so that one special little flower will get an amusing anecdote, while women are raped and toddlers battered and children abused by his priests and....well, I needn't go on.  I look at the god you are portraying to me, and it sickens me.  You portray your god as a selfish manipulator, one who (by your own admission) will help find the keys of people who bow down before him and kiss his feet, but who will shrug and sneer at anyone who doesn't and happily watch them suffer.  It sickens me.  The god you tell us of is not a fount of love and kindness, but an inadequate with a colossal need for love himself.   

This is the god you present to us Wayne - be very clear about that.  It MAY bear no relation at all to any god that really exists.  But it is the god that we construct from everything you say here.  You are the one putting this god forward Wayne - THAT is how you are driving us towards Satan. 

To be entirely fair, I can't recall you ever once mentioning your god being loving, or nice - just powerful.  Perhaps that is enough for you.  It is not for me.

I don't think I can be any clearer that that.  It gives me no joy to have to be so blunt and to be so insulting, but I've touched on these issues before and you don't seem to have grasped my point.

To be honest, I have no expectation that you will be able to change, or even that you will try to understand what I am saying above.  I HOPE that you will be able to engage with the issues I've raised, treat them seriously, and give a considered and relevant response that answers rather than avoids.  My expectation, based on your previous performance, is that your response will avoid what I've said entirely.  If this latter is the case, then I will quit wasting my time and this will be the last communication you will have from me that is not as a mod. 

[Philosopher_at_large]

So far as we know, Anything that is capeable of being otherwise than it is at present is also capeable of 'not' existing. Such things are "Radically contingient".

The cosmos as a whole, as we now understnad it, is even more radically contingient than Aquinas could ever have dreamed in his century, or that we could have even half a century ago. Even if we assume that the Cosmos has always existed, and did not come into being (which I do), Because the cosmos is radically contingient, I conclude that it nevertheless requires (like all radically contingient things) a cause of its continuing to exist. A force to preserve it in being. since this cause can not be (or at least, has not been shown to be) contained within, or in and of the cosmos its self, I conclude that a non material (IE, non cosmological) exnhilator is necessary to explain the continued existance of the cosmos.

It's worth noting that I may be wrong about this, as all immaterialists may be. It may be that the cosmos 'does' contain, as yet undiscovered, a means of preserving its self in being dispite its being radically contingient. You did not ask me to justify my belief in God absolutely and to the exclusion of any other possibility, you asked me to justify it, merely as reasonable even if incorrect, which I believe I have.