God's God

[Neo-Scholastic]

I said if you can make up shit about some non-demonstrable deity (giving whatever secondary characteristics you want) then so can I about whatever I want. That gets us nowhere there smart guy.

I can not find any counter-argument in your response. Probably because there isn't one.

Proving God's existence to me is a requirement for me to take you seriously, and if you're not engaged in this debate with the hopes of my (or other atheists) taking you seriously, what the hell are you doing?

Personally, I do not care if your are persuaded or not. I'm hoping to learn something by being exposed to new ideas and novel ways of approaching age-old problems. Instead, your tired counter-claims to straw men and irrelevant slams have not offered any compelling ideas worthy of taking seriously.

It's not even really a matter of proving that you're right and your God exists, you also have to prove that all those other gods do not. Can you?

Why? Because you say so? As far as I'm concerned Mystic Knight and I have presented a clear and reasonable basis for believing in a Supreme Being, regardless of the name applied to that being. And no serious counter-argument has been made.

there's no reason to assume that cause is supernatural; it could just be a feature of the universe our technology can't detect yet.

That still falls within the definition of supernatural, since it falls outside of what we currently consider natural.

It is your very own personal delusion, seeded with information you have absorbed living in a country which has already exposed you, for years, to the idea of the god you worship.

Since you cannot prove that GodChild's experience is a delusion, then your personal attack is based on a complete lack of evidence. You're all about needing evidence except when it conflicts with your irrational compulsion to ridicule believers.