Of course. I understand that anything that will be presented to you will ever suffice.
This is nothing but another excuse so you don't have to actually provide support these pages and pages of claims you made. Worse, it's a way to shift the blame away from you, for not providing proper support for your claims, to other people, because "nothing that is presented to them will ever suffice". How about, instead of inventing excuses, you actually start supporting what you claim? That would solve the problem; you might not convince us, but we could have a meaningful discussion regardless.
That's how powerful the mind of someone who do not want to know is.
I'd be careful with accusations such as this. They can be made to apply to you quite easily.
These links could support my claims. But because they are not your own words they could also not support my claims.
This is not true. SevenPatch explained why those links did not actually support your claims; the 123helpme.com search simply points to essays based on logical arguments - the same kind of logical arguments you tried at the beginning of this thread before you decided to try a different approach. And yes, I did actually take a look for myself.
- The first essay, René Descartes' Argument on the Existence of God, actually argues about how flawed it is to try use deductive reasoning to reach absolute certainty, and concludes with "Perhaps the existence of God was never meant to be proved through deductive reasoning and logic. There is always something to be said about believing in the existence God with nothing more than pure faith." How does that support your claims with evidence in the real world?
- The second essay, The History of the Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God is nothing more than an attempt to buttress the CAEG with logic - everything has a cause, thus there must be a first cause, etc, etc. Despite what the author claims, it provides no actual support for any of this except for the idea that since we observe causes for everything, there must be a first cause. How does that support your claims with evidence in the real world?
- The third essay, The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God is nothing but an attempt to prove existence through definitions. How does that support your claims with evidence in the real world?
I could go on, but three of those is already too many. Anyway, given that SevenPatch's judgment on the first link was valid, I see no reason to question his judgment on the second one. I don't see how bringing up unanswered questions on a television show, even a documentary, is going to support your claims with evidence in the real world. That means both of the links you gave failed to provide any substantive support of any of the claims SevenPatch brought up.
The fact that it comes from another human being than you means (and you are right by saying so) that they might be wrong.
That's beside the point. Let me tell you a little story once about how I tried to describe a book I had just read about climate change to my roommate. I made a hash of it because I was trying to explain stuff that I didn't fully understand, and it showed. It isn't enough to just point to some book that managed to sway or convince you, and say that other people should read it. You have to understand the subject well enough to be able to summarize it, and make it sound like an interesting book that's worth reading. I had to spend time thinking about it, looking up other related stuff, and otherwise mentally digesting it in order to be able to present the points in the book effectively
So far, you sound like someone who's been swayed by books and the occasional in-person talk, but you haven't mentally digested what you learned well enough to be able to present anything compelling enough to make people believe that it's worthwhile. I also can't help but think that you have very little experience with formal methods of persuasion - that is, you don't really know how to write persuasively, and so when you try, it ends up coming off as a parody.
In that case I will have you to tell me things about the world. And based on what you told me I will then demonstrate the existence of God.
You're still not getting the point. You cannot demonstrate the existence of a god by referring to someone else's words, or something someone else has written. You need physical evidence of it existing in the real world, and not by pointing to things you say are caused by it, when there are various other things which could have done so instead.
Honestly, I don't particularly care if your god exists or not. I have no desire for him to exist, and I also have no desire for him not to exist. It is far more important to me to make sure that a claim someone makes can be validated by evidence in the real world. That's why I've opposed you so strongly on miracles and whatnot, because you still have not shown that your god exists using evidence in the real world. What you're doing is pointing to events in the real world and saying that they're caused by your god, and basing it on your theology.
You've said that your god doesn't heal sinners. So, say you have two people who both recovered at Lourdes. Both had very rapid recoveries, both were permanent recoveries, and all those other criteria you've mentioned; however, one was an unrepentant sinner (and remained one after recovering), and the other was a Catholic (and remained one after recovered). Based on this criteria alone, you would probably say that the former wasn't a miracle, and the latter was. However, you would not have showed this using evidence; both people recovered from their maladies, and there was no functional difference between their recoveries. Therefore, the theological criteria "God does not heal sinners" would not be a valid scientific criteria because there would be no apparent difference in how they recovered based on it.
This is all intended to show you why it's important to support what you claim with more than logic, reasoning, and theology. That includes miracles that you're basing on theological criteria.