On other threads we were talking past one another.
No, you were purposefully ignoring responses and expecting people to instead gives you scripted answers for which you can use to follow into your next claim. However, many responses contradicted not even the questions you asked by the premises you have to hold in order to ask those ridiculous questions. This isn't 'talking past one another', this is instead you dishonestly refusing to engage in open discussions/debate.
Several posters thought
Strawman, no one thought you were here to do anything. Nothing about what other posters think has anything to do with what you are here to do. Nothing about what they thought has anything to do with how your conducting yourself now or your claims thus far.
Here let me help you out on the strawman fallacy:
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
"If God is real and has the capacity to show himself, why hasn't he done so?"
Nothing int he following text answers the question.
This is an important question. Remember that I said relativistic mechanics had to satisfy two requirements. The first was that the speed of light be constant in all frames as observed by Michelson and Morley. The second was that it give the same results as Newtonian mechanics in those situations where Newtonian mechanics is well-tested. We cannot accept a theory that predicts something we have observed to be untrue.
This has nothing to do with the question.
For example, if my sources of spiritual
This is meaningless special pleading, that only begs the question:
What is 'spiritual' truth and how is it determined?
You seem to be unaware of what formal fallacies are so here let me help you out:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation where a position in a dispute introduces favorable details or excludes unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proven is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise.
If you don't answer this criticism and elaborate upon this fallacy; then you are not conveying anything in an informative context to be understood. If you repeat your claim, you repeat your fallacy, without explanation. Your entire paragraph stems from this pleaded qualification, offered with no explanation and no information to accompany anything about it. Your entire paragraph can be dismissed as incoherent.
I think it is inescapable that God wishes not to be seen.
This is a blank unsupported assertion, something just made up at random without reference to how you know this or why you would believe it. Trying to reference the bible tells us nothing, doesn't convey anything more then just the blank assertion made above, and like the statement above pleading 'spiritual truth'.. you're entire paragraph can be dismissed out of hand. What this amounts to is a giant non-sequitur, a type of platitude of babbling non-informative superstitious claims.
Here let me help you with non-sequitur:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29
Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. All formal fallacies are special cases of non sequitur. The term has special applicability in law, having a formal legal definition. Many types of known non sequitur argument forms have been classified into many different types of logical fallacies.
Its also a type of fallacy called an argument from authority, in this case you're blank assertion is being deferred to the authority of the bible, let help you out with what an argument from authority is:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a special type of inductive argument which often takes the form of a statistical syllogism. Although it is possible for the argument from authority to constitute a strong inductive argument, arguments from authority are commonly used in a fallacious manner.
In this case, you are trying to establish the bible as authoritative on what you can make up on a whim. None of the logic follows, the authority is baseless, and no explanation is ever given. Now, when I point this out, this is a direct criticism of a type of argument you are making. For some bizarre reason, you think this is an answer and it is not. When I elaborate on fallacies, I'm telling you what exactly is wrong with the answer. It is now your job to correct or account for those fallacies in a logical argument.
That seems very silly circular logic if you think the only reason for faith
Blank assertions, dismissing the rest as unsupported nonsense. See above.