For skeptics, you sure buy into a lot of dogma.
Pleading dismissal without explanation.
ive me more details on what kind of experiment could reasonably be expected to substantiate the existence of God.
The existence or non-existence of god is not a relevant portion of the argument. If god exists to be observed directly or indirectly than it can exist to be known. The problem is that you claim to know, then beg and plead that other people can know.. while never producing any means of 'knowing' that is inseparable from make believe or that can be determined for truth much less from its falsity.
In fact, I can insist your god doesn't exist, then qualify myself using 'faith' and according to you I am absolutely right. I can presuppose anything I wish, like you, and again according to you.. I am right. This is using 'your' method of 'knowing' that is inseparable from random make believe to such a degree that truth can't be determined in separation from falsehood.
Your response to us pointing that out is incredulous denial and ad hominems. -1 Karma for that btw
I think it's clear to most rational people that the experiments suggested on this site are pathetic science.
I'm incredulous to your incredulity.
misinterpretation of their own desires
You haven't demonstrated that someones own desires is an misinterpretation.
as the inspiration of the Spirit
You haven't demonstrated that 'spirit' means anything to be understood.
real and verifiable experiences
You haven't demonstrated a means of knowing that would allow you to claim an experience is real and verifiable.
with the Holy Spirit.
You haven't demonstrated a means of knowing that a 'holy spirit' exists, much less what it is or why you would claim it.
Remember, when asked to provide an epistemology that can be separated from make believe, you fall back on pleading dismissals, ad hominems, and contradictory assertions. Further rendering it impossible to separate your claims from make believe.
'm not asking you to believe in God because I say He exists
Yes you are, in fact you're doing even worse than that. You have presupposed truth without explanation, then insisted that others can 'know' what is inseparable from random make believe and have claimed a 'method' of knowing that is inseparable from random make believe. Everytime someone points out that every single assertion you make lacks any verifiable confirmation to conclude anything, you offer incredulous denial and dismissals. Your arrogant, condescending, and dishonest.
. I'm inviting you to seek
These are 3 fundamental things you can't answer in a means that allows one to determine the answer.
't think the existence of God is an important thing to investigate, that's OK
. Just keep this advice in mind in case you ever do want to know.
There is nothing your presenting that would allow one to determine a god to exist, even if you were given the benefit of the doubt that a god exists
. Your claims are entirely removed from any systematic ability to know 'anything'. One can take your 'method' and claim ANYTHING to exist, then assert it is true based on nothing.