You simply refuse to differentiate my evidence which has a solid basis with the kind of faith you usually pillory. You act like I don't have you off guard with the reality of intervention but it shows by you resorting to the feelings thing when you know it doesn't apply.
You've not given any solid evidence to begin with, so there's no reason for me to treat your stories any differently than anyone else who says "trust me" without giving a reason to. You don't have me off-guard because you've failed to provide any evidence of this "reality of intervention", and you've actually stated that your god must be hiding the evidence. And if you aren't going off of feelings rather than knowledge, prove
it. Don't just say, "you know it doesn't apply". Because I'm pretty well convinced by now that your entire belief system is based off of feelings that you're rationalizing as knowledge inside your own mind.
It would be a mistake not to have certitude with the evidence I have. It would be a mistake for you to have certitude that my evidence is true, but not for me. If you were honest with your fellow bloggers here that speak with certitude that god isn't real, or that it is a fairy tale you would correct them.
Even if you had actual evidence rather than episodes you've interpreted to suit your beliefs, taking the position that you're justified in being certain of your beliefs is wrong, Wayne. And you don't have that evidence, otherwise you would have presented it by now.
Certitude that there is no God is a bigger fallacy than ones certitude that there is one, particularly if that person has the evidence I have.
They don't have certitude that gods don't exist. You know what they also don't have? Evidence to show that any gods exist.
So let's hear it, "It is wrong to speak with certitude that Wayne's God is a fantasy". "It is wrong to speak with certitude that confirmation bias controls Wayne's accounts of intervention, thus renders them invalid."
Since you still don't seem to get it, let me point out that they (and I) have reached those conclusions because of the fact that you've refused to give any evidence to support your belief, and clearly demonstrated confirmation bias in favor of your beliefs. No, it doesn't absolutely prove that your god is a fantasy, or that you're suffering from confirmation bias, but based on what you've told us, those are the most reasonable conclusions. You don't have to agree, but you should at least acknowledge that they are reasonable conclusions and that you'll need more than just anecdotal stories to accomplish your goal.
Can you be honest and make those to declarations, or are your peers going to punish you for going off the reservation?
Can you be honest and admit that you can't prove your god exists? I mean that quite literally; leaving aside your own personal certitude, it should be evident by now that you've had no luck whatsoever in convincing anyone here of what you say.
Are you saying I said that?
No, I'm quoting from Star Wars. They were very fond of implying that you could gain knowledge from your feelings, through The Force. It struck me as being appropriate, because whatever you might say, your argument is coming across in a very similar way.
Really. Let me think about that. Let's take a poll and see how many of you here can make that declaration. Having heard that statement I will look at your arguments differently than before because I may have been under a false impression. Maybe you could suggest that it become a Forum Maxim. Would anyone else here like to make that statement?
It may or may not be true for others here (I don't know, I haven't asked), but as for me, I don't particularly care what a person believes. What I care about is what they do with that belief.
Who said it was a substitute for knowledge? Men of faith have helped get us to the moon. Give me an example of how I've substituted faith for knowledge, that you need to save me from.
None of those "men of faith" (as you put it) attempted to substitute prayer, or Christian beliefs, for the science that got us to the Moon. Contrast that with what you've been doing, namely piling up anecdotes that you can't back up and claiming that those anecdotes prove your god exists. Your faith is what leads you to believe those anecdotes have meaning, so in a very real sense all you've been doing here from your very first post is substitute faith for knowledge.
Thee's that belief system thing again. If you put together all the interventions and remove the Christianity, you would still have a bunch of supernatural stuff to rationalise.
Why? I've already shown in at least two or three of your episodes that there are perfectly natural explanations for them (there's no reason to expect that any of the others will be substantively different). If you remove the presumption that they are supernatural to begin with, then there's no reason to look for supernatural causes for them.
You would have to attribute it to something unnatural.
No, because everything in the universe is natural. If gods were somehow shown to exist, they would be natural too.
I know that philosophically belief systems exist for other people, but you must allow for the possibility that there is one overarching truth of which those who are aware of it, and point themselves to it, end up transending the world of "belief systems". Jesus Christ was the truth incarnate, so much so that a whole lot of faulty belief systems make the best use of his name as they can, but apart form the fallacies that men are afflicted with there is a core truth, Christ, and he is that one solid rock. With regard to that truth, belief system seems a little inappropriate... for me anyway.
Sure, I'll allow for that possibility. But I see no reason to assume it has any special relevance or meaning without evidence to show that to be the case. Until then, there's no reason to treat your belief system any differently than the myriad other belief systems that humans have come up with, but not been able to provide evidence for. To put it simply, if there's a possibility that your belief system is right, there's also the possibility that it's wrong. If it's wrong to state that your belief system is certainly incorrect, then it is equally wrong to state that your belief system is certainly correct, as you've been doing
Things could work out bad for me, and it wouldn't change the reality of God. It couldn't change the certitude that is the natural result of all the interventions. It was like with Job. He may not have liked what was happening to him but it didn't cause him to say God didn't exist. I suppose you could even curse God as many have but in cursing him they acknowledge him.
No matter how things work out for you, no matter how many 'interventions' you have, it won't prove your god exists. No amount of certitude on your part, especially when you can only support it with anecdotes, will make a difference in whether your god actually exists.
It's funny to hear you say that. You should feel funny saying it.
Why? It isn't as if there haven't been plenty of people who have been absolutely convinced they knew The Truth about something, yet been unable to provide verifiable evidence to support their convictions. It isn't as if they haven't had what they called 'evidence' to support their convictions, which nonetheless failed to convince people who didn't already agree with those convictions.
I like that. Where did you get that building on sand thing anyway?
I read it somewhere. I forget where offhand.
I may be the biggest fool in the world in how I have conducted my life, and for being that way it would be true that I've built my life on a foundation of sand, and earthly failure may be my just dessert, but none of that has any relevance to the fact of God. I am a man, I am imperfect, but none of my folly changes the truth of God. Your sand argument is good for me, but irrelevant to the reality of God.
Nothing you (or I) do makes a difference in whether your god exists or not. Thus the problem with your claim that your god is withholding the evidence. If your god exists, there must be evidence that would satisfy skeptics such as the people here. Vice versa, if your god does not exist, there will be no such evidence. So, your claim that your god is withholding the evidence is indistinguishable from your god not existing in the first place. Without evidence to support it, there's no point in concluding that there's such a god to begin with.
Again, don't make the mistake of equating my certainty of God with a certainty of my understanding of God. My faulty understanding of him and his machinations doesn't make him not exist. The interventions prove Him, my understanding of it all is subject to scrutiny, even my own.
You being certain proves nothing except that you are certain. That's why it's a trap.
What if I didn't want to believe and all this stuff happened to me? Would you not be hounding me for not allowing for the possibility that he exists? What you are exposing here is your flaw not mine.
This does not make sense to me. Are you suggesting that I would hound you about your lack of belief?
I just can't wait to here one of "you say, well, now, I guess God could be real if what Wayne is saying is true'. But I'm not sure if any of you are honest enough about it to concede that point. You have this certitude hang up. I'm waiting.
Are you honest enough to concede that you could be completely wrong, and your certainty could be nothing more than an illusion? This "certitude hang up", as you call it, is because you've been utterly unwilling to even admit that it might be a possibility.
I don't know how my conceding that earquakes happen all the time has any relevance to my having been specifically placed, and directed, and given visions. Of course they happen just as often as they happen, that has nothing to do with diminishing the impact of my experience with them. You have a useless argument to even point out frequencies. A lightning strikes happen all the time as well, so what?
Very simply, there's no reason that the earthquakes that you think were specifically placed and directed had to have been specifically placed and directed. Your certainty only proves that you're certain.
You wanna know something? I don't have a particularly high regard for my ability to argue, I just have true incidents to report, and against the background of that reality all I need to do is navigate to the best of my ability around all the unnecessary scepticism. Now, OJs defense team, they have the argument down to a science, and they better, because they are perpetrating a lie.
Just because you believe the incidents are manifestations of your god's power doesn't make that true. That's where the evidence that we keep asking for comes in.
It's funny to hear you say it is a pattern in my mind, when, truth be told, some of this is as bizarre as a mind can conceive. Now if Idi Amin that I had only a passing knowledge of was driving a big black Crown Vic ascending a hill with US Government Plates and a big Obama Grin in nineteen ninety and he was conceived from a pattern that I picked up in my sunday school class when I was eight years old... that is some pattern.
Idi Amin doesn't look a thing like Obama except that they are both black men. They don't even smile the same way. And Idi Amin never came to the United States, to the best of my knowledge. He fled first to Libya and then to Saudi Arabia.
I will remind you that I was awakened, lead to the scriptures, and was made to read one passage specifically that said that the Holy Ghost would teach me all things and then bring those things back to my memory. John 14:26
This is just you trying to attribute something that you did to your god. Frankly, your 'rock' story is more impressive than this, and that's not saying much.
He instructed me with the obscure dream of Idi Amin, and then lead me to find it 20 years later when I had forgotten completely about it to remind me so I could write about it. Hardly the stuff of patterns in the mind. Re Read the account here and then use your critical analytical skills to determine how that could be a pattern in my mind. http://tinyurl.com/ObamaAmin
In the interests of getting to sleep sometime within the next hour, I'll keep it simple and say, "not believable". This is no different than what you've been saying here about how you're completely certain and that somehow proves that it's true. Reminds me of the song, Henry VIII. You know the refrain? "Second verse, same as the first".
Here's some trivia. Why would we need 2700 of these puppies? http://tinyurl.com/2700mrap
Better question. Why should we take this seriously when his sources are a blog and an op-ed? This isn't the first time I've seen someone make claims that were based on someone else's claims that were based on someone else's claims, etc. Find the actual evidence, not just someone's opinion, and then show it to us.