AB,
What I am saying is that my faith experience allows me to see a much bigger picture of the reality behind our existence.
You can say it if you like, but as it’s just another faith claim there’s no reason for anyone to think you’re right about that.
When I try to explain this in words, I admit that my somewhat inadequate attempts to convey the truth as I see it seems to be misunderstood by many on this forum.
No, it’s not that they’re “misunderstood”. Actually they’re
better understood than you understand them. The problem though is that that better understanding tells some of where and why you make mistakes in reasoning when you try to argue for your “God”.
As I have explained previously, I fully understand all the counter arguments and rejections of my ideas and thoughts…
That’s not true. Take for example your recent attempt at the fine tuning argument. You attempted it as an argument for “God” and I explained that it was a false argument because it’s circular. Rather than address the circularity problem though you just told me I was wrong and carried on telling us how unlikely it is that “you” exist by happenstance – utterly missing the point of the logic that undoes you. This tells me that you didn’t understand the counter-argument at all. If you did you’d either try to rebut it or you'd amend or abandon your argument. What you actually do though is just to repeat the wrong arguments as if they hadn’t been falsified at all.
…but none can possibly convince me that the God I have come to know and love does not exist.
Again you’re misunderstanding. No-one is trying to convince you that the God you have “come to know and love does not exist”. What’s actually happening is that, when you try to make arguments to demonstrate that you’re correct in that belief, they’re always wrong arguments. That’s not to say that there couldn’t be an argument for “God” that you haven’t thought of and that is robust, but it is to say that you’ve never managed to provide one.
Which is why all you have left is assertions of personal faith.
Which is why you have nothing of epistemic value to say.
And your continuing attempts to compare belief in leprechauns to Christian faith does not make your arguments any more convincing.
And again you miss the point. Sometimes (quite often in fact) the arguments you attempt for your god “work” just as well for my leprechauns, for the Amazonian tribesman’s tree god, for the etc etc. That’s the point – it has nothing to do with the
content of the claim (“God”, leprechauns, whatever) and everything to do with the arguments attempted to validate it. That’s why your claim “God” and my claim “leprechauns” are epistemically identical – they rest on the same bad arguments and on the same assertions of personal faith.
QED
