God's God

[Ryantology]

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.

You will never see as compelling any idea which challenges your confirmation bias.

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.

Because your own scripture says so. First commandment. You cannot present an argument for something as vague as a featureless "supreme being" because that is not what your religion teaches. Your religion teaches that a very certain and specific Supreme Being exists and the onus is upon you, maker of the positive claim that your god exists, created the universe, and all other claims are false and blasphemous, to prove it.

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.

You cannot prove that adherents of other religions are not having false visions or delusions, even though your dogma insists that this is true. You have to satisfy the same burden of proof I do PLUS the magnificently stupendous burden of proof regarding your own god.

Since there is no other demonstrably true explanation for what Godschild claims to have experienced, and what he claims to know is true, labeling it a delusion is the only intellectually valid thing to do.

Godchild's god is not a delusion, it is an illusion. In that he saw "it" or felt "it" but it is not what he thinks it is.

The experience, itself, is not a delusion. The ironclad beliefs he has invented and/or absorbed to justify his own opinion of what the experience was, is virtually certain to be a delusion if he cannot prove otherwise.