Now, that makes me want to expound on the vision in a way to distinguish it from an idle imagination.
So instead of simply agreeing and recognizing that there isn't enough of a reason to think of your experience as supernatural (which you're basically doing here by admitting to Anfauglir that you're not providing anything convincing to anyone other than yourself), you're going to give us more 'evidence' of the exact same type that you've already given us and that we've already easily rejected? What are you going to give us now? You're favorite color was blue and the chair you were sitting in was blue? PRAAAAAISE JEZUZ!!
Unless you have something that requires a supernatural explanation, then this is a useless process for you. You really might have something supernatural to give, and if you do, I want to hear it, but if you haven't given it yet, then it just seems highly unlikely that you're going to produce it in the future. You would have done it by now. So give us something that can't be explained naturally or GTFO. I've said it before that the only reason you think of these things as special is if you FIRST believe that God exists and that he's giving you, super, special, egotistical Wayne, clues about his existence. People who don't do that will see these coincidences as either evidence for their
god, as just pure coincidence, or as something different altogether. It's the initial belief in God that separates us here, and THAT'S what requires analysis. Until you've proven that God exists, then saying that these coincidences are more than just coincidences is nothing more than the theological standpoint you go through your life with. It's the way you square the supposed existence of an invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable deity with a reality that appears to be totally devoid a god. The most glaring flaw is that you've already admitted that coincidences that are not related to God in any way happen all the time, so therefore, coincidences CAN NOT BE evidence for God as they can also be explained without God actually existing.
The bottom line here is that to you
, they're more than coincidence, but to us, they're not. Both are reasonable stances given our world views. So all that's left is for you to prove that God exists. If you can prove that the God that you believe in exists, then it would get you further along in the discussion, because it would at least seem reasonable to make the claim that God is giving you messages. Obviously, if God isn't real, he's not giving you messages. But if he IS real, you'd still have to prove your experiences were messages from him, because they could still just be coincidences. Remember, God could exist and still not give a shit about you.
Do you agree that if your first premise (God exists) is wrong, then each and every event that you've written about or talked about with relation to God could be explained solely as coincidences and possibly uncommon, yet mundane events? I know that, to you, it seems like with ALL the stories you've written, that at least ONE of them HAS to be more than coincidence, but think on a smaller scale... event by event. Pick any of your events you want and analyze it. Even the earthquake one... Could it have been a coincidence that you were in Paul's restaurant at the time of an earthquake? Could you have coincidentally sat in the same spot in a restaurant you frequented? Could you have had a very strange and astonishing vision like millions of other people around the world have every day? Could you have been talking to someone about Pat Robertson and said a word that doesn't really have anything to do with earthquakes when an earthquake happened? The answer is yes to all of them, Wayne. Yes to all of them.