Search for Causes

[Fake Messiah]

The questions I'm asking and the points I'm making are not repetitions of the "same old" things.

That's because you are making old, tired, debunked arguments. Like let's say your argument on miraculous healings - it has been proven rather opposite. But nevertheless let's put that on the side for a moment: how would you prove some healing was by God? There probably isn't a way because God is not defined. Until you know what God is, how he does stuff you can't say he did something. I mean if something is unexplained does it automatically mean that God did it? And usually something is explainable but some people insist it's not because they want it to be from God.
Or maybe God is guiding doctors hands through surgery and massaging their brains when they make diagnosis - who knows? And what God would that be? Jesus who believed demons and evil eye cause sickness?

[Deesse23]

Is he talking to you? What do you mean by "listening" otherwise.

Staying open to his revelation.

So, you are, in fact, not listening. Because noone is actually talking, correct? You are rather "staying open to....."
What do you mean by "his revelation"? We have just ruled out that he is talking to you. How is he then revealing himself to you?

[The Grand Nudger]

Find out if your beliefs can stand up to the test? What test? Didn't you just get through telling us that no natural test can be informative with regards to the supernatural? Are you testing them with magic?

Maybe some examples would help, of beliefs you've decided to omit, and new ones you've decided to include (especially if any of either category are some of that enlightenment, from earlier).

[possibletarian]

 One thing for sure is that my beliefs are not based on whether or not you agree or affirm them.

Neither should they be based on whether we agree or confirm, they should be based on testability and reliability.

Can you show us what tests you carried out to confirm your beliefs ?

[Simon Moon]

Well, I have had "dark nights of the soul" and I have considered atheism.  Honestly, I would have to forcefully cast off what I believe to be true in order to become one.  I also see atheism as too limiting.  I prefer to be open to all possibilities, which has allowed me to experience God more fully.

There is nothing about atheism that precludes in being open to possibilities.

Atheism is just not being convinced that gods exist.

I am completely open to being convinced that a god exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

In all likelihood, much more open than a committed christian. If it turned out ganesh was real, that's unlikely to be any sweat off your back. Lek might find that just a tad bit more difficult to swallow. He has enough trouble just believing in his own god.

[Aegon]

If I had advanced stage cancer and it suddenly disappeared or went into remission, how could it be proven to be from natural, rather than supernatural causes?

If natural science was unable to determine the cause, what method could I use to determine if the origin or cause of these was supernatural? Should I pursue other avenues or rely on science to eventually come up with an answer?

Everything is explainable. Literally, everything. Just because you or I can't immediately explain it doesn't mean it doesn't have one. Why? Because everything ever is explainable. Every. Thing. Ever. As an average human being, it's up to you to humble yourself enough to accept that reality, not make shit up.

This harks back to an older conversation we had about ego. This is another prime example of your egotistical thinking.

[Mister Agenda]

Atheism takes away my ability to recognize God in the universe.

In general or just you in particular? Since atheists sometimes convert to a theistic belief, I think we can rule out 'in general', so why do you in particular think atheism would take away your ability to recognize God in the universe? You make it sound like a faculty you possess that atheists lack which you would lose the instant you stopped believing God is real, in which case atheists can hardly be blamed for not perceiving what you claim to perceive. It sounds very fishy that there would be things you can only perceive if you believe in them a priori, and even fishier that the people who claim to perceive those things disagree on so much.

If there's a God, it's welcome to compel my belief. Why don't I rate a Road to Damascus revelation? Am I not persecuting Christians enough?

[Lek]

Atheism takes away my ability to recognize God in the universe.

In general or just you in particular? Since atheists sometimes convert to a theistic belief, I think we can rule out 'in general', so why do you in particular think atheism would take away your ability to recognize God in the universe? You make it sound like a faculty you possess that atheists lack which you would lose the instant you stopped believing God is real, in which case atheists can hardly be blamed for not perceiving what you claim to perceive. It sounds very fishy that there would be things you can only perceive if you believe in them a priori, and even fishier that the people who claim to perceive those things disagree on so much.

If there's a God, it's welcome to compel my belief. Why don't I rate a Road to Damascus revelation? Am I not persecuting Christians enough?

When atheists look at the world, they look at it as purely one level. How we perceive things is strongly related to our worldview. If God has revealed itself to us we can recognize him in all. This doesn't mean that once we believe then we manufacture his presence. It means that we need to know what we're looking for or we miss it.

As far as the experience you're looking for, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

[Mister Agenda]

If there's no God to reveal itself, you're just fooling yourself. Like many others here, I started as a devout Christian; reading the Bible cover-to-cover (twice) cured me of that. The more you know....