Where's God?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

[wannabe]

This is my reply to POI post 365

You assume my advice is the only way to be found by God.
The narrow minded would also assume as much for they don't see the diversity of Gods abilities , however I still hold true to my advice. Sorry it didn't help

Also how did I start on the wrong premise again, because of course your belief in God must exist before God can strengthen one's faith. Saul was found by Jesus (God) in a different way. But ultimately it is always Gods choice in all things.

It's a shame your not very good at hide and seek, especially the seek part. ( are you hiding anything from God ?)

[POI]

You assume my advice is the only way to be found by God.

My point is that if god wants to contact us in a way we can no longer deny his existence, he will. There is nothing we can or cannot do to stop him. Some just aren't important enough for him to do so, even though we are all apparently very important to him?

The narrow minded would also assume as much for they don't see the diversity of Gods abilities , however I still hold true to my advice. Sorry it didn't help

See my response directly above...

Also how did I start on the wrong premise again, because of course your belief in God must exist before God can strengthen one's faith. Saul was found by Jesus (God) in a different way. But ultimately it is always Gods choice in all things.

You stated --> "This is my advice to all who seek God. First seek righteousness, what it is to do right and not wrong. From any source."

Your suggestion is not necessary, as the Bible god contacts us whenever he chooses; not instead because of what we do or don't do.

1) It's a shame your not very good at hide and seek, especially the seek part. 2) ( are you hiding anything from God ?)

1) You missed the sarcasm. The Bible tells us he is capable of contacting all in a way in which no one can deny. No matter how poor my observation skills are, he can still contact me in a way in which I could no longer deny.

2) Further, if such a god exists, then of course there is nothing I could hide from him. He sees that I am/was a seeker and opted to ignore me anyways. Which further reinforces what I stated above in that (the Bible god contacts us whenever he chooses; not instead because of what we do or don't do).

[SiNcE_1985]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

If God is not there (as you conclude), then there is nothing else to talk about.

How many years have you've invested on the subject of a God that you do not believe exists?

[POI]

Does he pop up in my dreams? Is he the one whom produces my goose-bumps? Is He the one giving me my "moral compass"? Is he only experienced during deep meditation? If I have enough faith, will he appear to me? But seriously. Where is he? I was a Christian for decades. I earnestly prayed for him to reach me, to no avail.

For debate: Why have I not felt his presence?

A) I never tried hard enough; lack faith
B) He does not want to reveal Himself to me (yet)
C) Evil is blocking the request(s)
D) I'm too dumb to realize he's reaching me
E) He's not really there at all <- Current conclusion

Do not answer yet. This topic has spawned from another unrelated topic. I decided to devote this large topic to itself. Below are some premises:

P1) does god exist? (dunno)
P2) does god want a relationship with all, especially the ones who seek him (apparently so)
P3) is god capable of communicating (apparently so)
P4) can god communicate his message in a way in which the recipient could no longer deny (apparently so)
P5) have I asked for this communication earnestly and repetitively (YES)
P6) does the Bible state god answers the call to all who seek him (YES)

At best, god has opted not to contact me YET. And this would be after decades of actively seeking him. Without any emotion, I'm logically left with 2 options.

A) God is not really there <- Current conclusion.
B) God is not adhering to his promise (yet).

If God is not there (as you conclude), then there is nothing else to talk about.

How many years have you've invested on the subject of a God that you do not believe exists?

If you had a useful response, you would have issued one. I guess you have no actual counter argument here.

[SiNcE_1985]

If you had a useful response, you would have issued one.

And if you really want to believe in God, you would be a theist now.

From what I gather, you've been spending years on this forum, asking variations of the same questions over and over again....just remixing the question(s) with slight twists.

I guess you have no actual counter argument here.

The Bible (Christian theism) says that man is without excuse for not believing in God (Rom 1:20), as a reasonable man should be able to look at the finite, ordered universe and draw a conclusion beyond the natural world.

Keyword: Reasonable.

And it also says that God will show himself to those who earnestly seek him (Heb 11:6).

Keyword: Earnestly.

So, if you've never felt God's presence, it is because you haven't earnestly sought him.
........

For example, the implications of any First Cause argument is inescapable.

The argument is common sense, and any reasonable person should accept it.

However, they don't accept it...precisely because it takes them down a path they don't want to go.

So, they don't accept common sense logical conclusions which points to the direction of God, while at the same time claiming that they don't feel God's presence.

The irony.

Meanwhile, those who accepts those logical conclusions; we DO feel God's presence.

See how that works?

God has done his part. He created a world that was made for YOU to inhabit it. Then he created you, to inhabit it.

Now, he is waiting for you to earnestly seek him.

Again, keyword; EARNESTLY.

Now, do your part.

[POI]

And if you really want to believe in God, you would be a theist now.

Belief is not a choice. Otherwise, I could try hard enough to manifest the Easter Bunny. Hence, you are wrong again.

From what I gather, you've been spending years on this forum, asking variations of the same questions over and over again....just remixing the question(s) with slight twists.

There are only so many broadbrush topics one can present for debate. And it's not my fault theists cannot defend against any of them, which leads me to create new threads which may slightly overlap to an existing broadbrush topic, in which theists do not like debating.

The Bible (Christian theism) says that man is without excuse for not believing in God (Rom 1:20), as a reasonable man should be able to look at the finite, ordered universe and draw a conclusion beyond the natural world.

Well, the Bible is gaslighting the reader here and is also wrong. When we study the ''design' of humans alone, we see many things which, if 'designed' by an actual designer, would present as very clumsy or inept. And I doubt you view your designer as clumsy and inept. I could get into it, but you will likely not respond anyways, so what is the point?

Keyword: Reasonable.

And it also says that God will show himself to those who earnestly seek him (Heb 11:6).

Keyword: Earnestly.

So, if you've never felt God's presence, it is because you haven't earnestly sought him.

The same types of arguments are issued in the book of Mormon. Maybe you are not reading the book of Mormon hard enough, and are missing true revelation? (i.e.):

Moroni 10:3–5 (The Promise to Know Truth): This passage advises readers to read the record, ponder it, and ask God with a "sincere heart" and "real intent," promising that God will manifest the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Ether 3:6–20 (The Brother of Jared): The Brother of Jared shows great faith, leading to a direct manifestation of God. This story is often cited as a model for how intense spiritual focus and faith can lead to seeing God.

For example, the implications of any First Cause argument is inescapable.

Since (something/matter/other) has likely always existed, (in one form or another), the 'first cause' argument would be like arguing "what is north of the North pole?' or asking 'what is colder that absolute zero?'. Meaning, they are nonsensical questions to ask or examine, once you understand the reality of events.

However, they don't accept it...precisely because it takes them down a path they don't want to go.

Not only have I addressed that path, but it proves not to address anything useable.

So, they don't accept common sense logical conclusions which points to the direction of God, while at the same time claiming that they don't feel God's presence.

The irony.

The only irony presented here, is that you continue to impose fallacious reasoning, as demonstrated both above and below.

Meanwhile, those who accepts those logical conclusions; we DO feel God's presence.

Hmm, so basically, what you are demonstrating, is that to feel god's presence, you must first issue fallacious reasoning, and then, when you feel warm and tingly in meditation, that is actually god's presence. Got it.

See how that works?

Yup.

God has done his part.

No, he hasn't. If he wants you to know him, he can and will. "Saul of Tarsus" continues to be a shining example, where none of this mumbo jumbo you continue to go on about above is even relevant. Apparently, the Bible god picks and chooses, even though he states he loves us all?

He created a world that was made for YOU to inhabit it. Then he created you, to inhabit it.

LOL! 98% of all water on earth is poisonous to humans and only about 15% of the globe is also inhabitable to humans. But yea, we humans are special. You've read the story of the puddle, right? If you haven't, here you go:

The "story of the puddle" generally refers to a popular philosophical analogy created by Douglas Adams (author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) to illustrate the folly of the anthropic principle—the idea that the universe is fine-tuned specifically for human existence.

Here is the meaning behind the story and its key components: The Analogy Summary

Adams asks us to imagine a sentient puddle waking up and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?".As the sun shines and the puddle grows, it decides the world was created to have it, the puddle, in it. By the time it dries up, it believes the world was meant for it until the very end.

Now, he is waiting for you to earnestly seek him.

Again, keyword; EARNESTLY.

Now, do your part.

I continue to find these types of responses amusing. Of course, I'm not earnest. Gaslight much?.?.?.? Weee!

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #376]

Belief is not a choice. Otherwise, I could try hard enough to manifest the Easter Bunny. Hence, you are wrong again.

If the evidence is strong enough for the Easter Bunny, then we'd simply have to go where the evidence takes us.

But the problem is, it isn't.

There are only so many broadbrush topics one can present for debate. And it's not my fault theists cannot defend against any of them, which leads me to create new threads which may slightly overlap to an existing broadbrush topic, in which theists do not like debating.

Why continually create any new threads though?

We get it; God doesn't exist. Nothing else to talk about.

Let us continue to believe, and you continue to disbelieve.

And we can all go home. Deal?

Well, the Bible is gaslighting the reader here and is also wrong. When we study the ''design' of humans alone, we see many things which, if 'designed' by an actual designer, would present as very clumsy or inept.

Um, no.

The design is what the designer intended.

No one is asking you (nor cares) how you would have designed humans, if you were the designer.

So your opinion about how the design could/could not have been better, is irrelevant.

And I doubt you view your designer as clumsy and inept. I could get into it, but you will likely not respond anyways, so what is the point?

I can't remember, but haven't you already been owned on this issue?

The same types of arguments are issued in the book of Mormon. Maybe you are not reading the book of Mormon hard enough, and are missing true revelation? (i.e.):

Moroni 10:3–5 (The Promise to Know Truth): This passage advises readers to read the record, ponder it, and ask God with a "sincere heart" and "real intent," promising that God will manifest the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Ether 3:6–20 (The Brother of Jared): The Brother of Jared shows great faith, leading to a direct manifestation of God. This story is often cited as a model for how intense spiritual focus and faith can lead to seeing God.

Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity, so we should expect some overlapping beliefs with Orthodoxy.

Since (something/matter/other) has likely always existed, (in one form or another), the 'first cause' argument would be like arguing "what is north of the North pole?' or asking 'what is colder that absolute zero?'. Meaning, they are nonsensical questions to ask or examine, once you understand the reality of events.

Sure, something did always exist in some form or another.

And once you examine the First Cause Argument, you'll discover that it could not have been matter.

This implication is an atheists/materialists nightmare.

Sucks to be y'all.

Not only have I addressed that path, but it proves not to address anything useable.

I guess we have different definitions of "addressed".

The only irony presented here, is that you continue to impose fallacious reasoning, as demonstrated both above and below.

Fallacious reasoning, such as?

Hmm, so basically, what you are demonstrating, is that to feel god's presence, you must first issue fallacious reasoning, and then, when you feel warm and tingly in meditation, that is actually god's presence. Got it.

What fallacy did I commit?

No, he hasn't. If he wants you to know him, he can and will. "Saul of Tarsus" continues to be a shining example, where none of this mumbo jumbo you continue to go on about above is even relevant. Apparently, the Bible god picks and chooses, even though he states he loves us all?

Well..

1. You are comparing a special case anomaly, to the norm. Paul's conversion to Christianity was a special case, and if it was the norm, it wouldn't be as special and appreciated.

2. Paul was a believer in Yahweh before his conversion..which is a far cry from you and your position.

3. Jesus said that those who have not experienced miraculous things such as Paul, are more blessed than those who did. (John 20:27-29).

In other words, if your heart moves you to follow Christ before you even see anything, then you are more blessed than those who saw, and walked with Christ.

What I'm trying to say is; your objection doesn't work.

LOL! 98% of all water on earth is poisonous to humans and only about 15% of the globe is also inhabitable to humans. But yea, we humans are special.

Wowww. Shout-out to the 2%, eh?

You've read the story of the puddle, right? If you haven't, here you go:

The "story of the puddle" generally refers to a popular philosophical analogy created by Douglas Adams (author of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) to illustrate the folly of the anthropic principle—the idea that the universe is fine-tuned specifically for human existence.

Here is the meaning behind the story and its key components: The Analogy Summary

Adams asks us to imagine a sentient puddle waking up and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in—an interesting hole I find myself in—fits me rather neatly, doesn't it?".As the sun shines and the puddle grows, it decides the world was created to have it, the puddle, in it. By the time it dries up, it believes the world was meant for it until the very end.

The puddle draws such conclusion based on what it doesn't know.

Meanwhile, we (believers), draw such conclusions based on what we do know.

Thought you had a gotcha moment?

I continue to find these types of responses amusing. Of course, I'm not earnest. Gaslight much?.?.?.? Weee!

Ok, so back to the original stuff above....then God doesn't exist, right?

End of discussion. No more forum, no more threads.

Cool?

[POI]

If the evidence is strong enough for the Easter Bunny, then we'd simply have to go where the evidence takes us.

I'm responding to what you stated here --> (top of post 376) "And if you really want to believe in God, you would be a theist now". It's not about 'wanting' to believe at all, but instead about what evidence convinces us.

Why continually create any new threads though?

I've already explained this to you, over and over and over again. Explaining, yet again, at this point, would still likely result in the same loop, and you eventually asking me yet again.

Um, no. The design is what the designer intended. No one is asking you (nor cares) how you would have designed humans, if you were the designer. So your opinion about how the design could/could not have been better, is irrelevant.

I'm directly responding to what you stated in the same post --> "He created a world that was made for YOU to inhabit it. Then he created you, to inhabit it."

If the focus was to design for US, then why is the vast majority uninhabitable to US?

I can't remember, but haven't you already been owned on this issue?

Then your memory is fuzzy. No, you never 'owned' me. Human "design" alone would be quite clumsy, if actually designed at all. If you care to explore (again), let me know.

Mormonism is an offshoot of Christianity, so we should expect some overlapping beliefs with Orthodoxy.

My point here was missed. In the same post, you stated --> "Keyword: Earnestly. So, if you've never felt God's presence, it is because you haven't earnestly sought him."

If I really felt god's presence, he would reveal himself and truth to me. If you read the Book of Mormon enough, you would be a Mormon now, right? Which would mean Jesus is not what YOU currently believe he is but is instead really Satan's brother and that Jesus is merely a demi-god born on the planet Kolob. Also, that someday, if you are righteous enough, you too can be a god, have many wives, and rule your own planet.

Sure, something did always exist in some form or another.

Yes, ex materia. Hence, to argue for true 'creationism' would be a non-starter and non-sensical.

Fallacious reasoning, such as?

I stated "as demonstrated both above and below." I figured that since you are the self-proclaimed master purveyor of "rubberstamps", in rubberstamping others in their fallacious responses, you could also self-identify them for yourself. If you review your response(s) in post 376, can you identify them? If not, then maybe you are not the self-professed master purveyor you present yourself to be.

What fallacy did I commit?

Already addressed above... But if you still cannot find them, then please at least address what I stated regarding reading the book of Mormon and also the "puddle' story.

1. You are comparing a special case anomaly, to the norm. Paul's conversion to Christianity was a special case, and if it was the norm, it wouldn't be as special and appreciated.

Doesn't god love all humans equally? Meaning, if god knows that some would not believe in him unless he reveals himself, then why not just reveal himself to all those individuals?

2. Paul was a believer in Yahweh before his conversion..which is a far cry from you and your position.

Your argument is a bad one because the wrong god belief sends you to hell regardless. If Paul had not been enlightened about Jesus and the right path, he would apparently go to hell anyways, just like countless others who believe in the wrong god or the wrong concept of Christianity. Hence, your argument would be adjacent to asking why god has not revealed himself equally to all other god believers, who believe in differing god(s)?

3. Jesus said that those who have not experienced miraculous things such as Paul, are more blessed than those who did. (John 20:27-29).

As demonstrated above, Paul never would have been a believer (in the right path for Heaven) had he not of experienced what he experienced. Hence, his fate would have been hell regardless. The same goes for millions, if not billions, who believe in the wrong god concept or no god(s). Unless just believing is ANY god at all is enough for Jesus?.?.?.?.? If so, then Paul would have been saved.

In other words, if your heart moves you to follow Christ before you even see anything, then you are more blessed than those who saw, and walked with Christ. What I'm trying to say is; your objection doesn't work.

My objective wouldn't have worked for Paul either, nor the countless others, unless Jesus himself initiates to those countless others. This is my point.

Wowww. Shout-out to the 2%, eh?

A world created, for US to inhabit, would not yield a vital source, (where only 2% of it is consumable and the other 98% is poison).

The puddle draws such conclusion based on what it doesn't know.

You are missing the over-all message. What exactly do you think that the puddle does not know? (See below for what I mean here).

Thought you had a gotcha moment?

In the broader context, it is a 'gotcha moment'. You just haven't quite realized it yet. In the story, the puddle thinks the (hole) was meant for them, just like you believe the (world) was meant for you. To tie it all together, the two words in (brackets) are interchangeable.

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm responding to what you stated here --> (top of post 376) "And if you really want to believe in God, you would be a theist now". It's not about 'wanting' to believe at all, but instead about what evidence convinces us.

It is a matter of wanting to believe.

It's like a loving mother who refuses to accept the evidence of her son being a criminal, despite the overwhelming evidence pointing that direction.

That's what we have here with you, in my opinion.

I've already explained this to you, over and over and over again. Explaining, yet again, at this point, would still likely result in the same loop, and you eventually asking me yet again.

You sure did.

You said something about living in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion and effects society (I'm paraphrasing).

I prompted you to tell which country you are referring to, and you refused to answer the question.

Either way, that still doesn't explain why you've engulfed your entire life for a religion that you don't (and refuse to) believe in.

I just don't see a correlation there, but hey, do you.

I'm directly responding to what you stated in the same post --> "He created a world that was made for YOU to inhabit it. Then he created you, to inhabit it."

If the focus was to design for US, then why is the vast majority uninhabitable to US?

I don't know, but I'll pose the same question to you, on the flipside...

If the focus was to design for US, then why wouldn't the part designed for us, be inhabitable?

See what I did there?

Then your memory is fuzzy. No, you never 'owned' me. Human "design" alone would be quite clumsy, if actually designed at all. If you care to explore (again), let me know.

I'm letting you know.

My point here was missed. In the same post, you stated --> "Keyword: Earnestly. So, if you've never felt God's presence, it is because you haven't earnestly sought him."

If I really felt god's presence, he would reveal himself and truth to me. If you read the Book of Mormon enough, you would be a Mormon now, right? Which would mean Jesus is not what YOU currently believe he is but is instead really Satan's brother and that Jesus is merely a demi-god born on the planet Kolob. Also, that someday, if you are righteous enough, you too can be a god, have many wives, and rule your own planet.

Sounds like fun, actually.

Just too bad it ain't true.

Yes, ex materia. Hence, to argue for true 'creationism' would be a non-starter and non-sensical.

We both know that you have no answer for any First Cause Argument.

So, let's not take it there because you already know how I gets busy.

I stated "as demonstrated both above and below." I figured that since you are the self-proclaimed master purveyor of "rubberstamps", in rubberstamping others in their fallacious responses, you could also self-identify them for yourself. If you review your response(s) in post 376, can you identify them? If not, then maybe you are not the self-professed master purveyor you present yourself to be.

This is like asking someone to identify an invisible man.

Already addressed above... But if you still cannot find them, then please at least address what I stated regarding reading the book of Mormon.

(Here's my prior comment again) -- So basically, what you are demonstrating, is that to feel god's presence, you must first issue fallacious reasoning, and then, when you feel warm and tingly in meditation/prayer/other, that is actually god's presence. Got it.

Book of Mormon: Written a couple thousand years after Jesus.

The Bible: Written within the lifetime of the actual apostles and also with 25-30 years after Jesus' crucifixion.

The closer in time you are to the events in question, more truth is obtained.

The further in time you are to the events in question, less truth is obtained.

25-30 years after >>>>>> 2,000 years after.

So yeah, that's my answer.

Doesn't god love all humans equally? Meaning, if god knows that some would not believe in him unless he reveals himself, then why not just reveal himself to all those individuals?

The scriptures say if you earnestly seek him, he will reveal himself.

So the question is perhaps, why haven't you earnestly sought him?

Paul was a special occasion and I am delighted to be able to say "Christ, I loved and believed in you without having such a Paul-like experience".

Your argument is a bad one because the wrong god belief sends you to hell regardless. If Paul had not been enlightened about Jesus and the right path, he would apparently go to hell anyways, just like countless others who believe in the wrong god or the wrong concept of Christianity. Hence, your argument would be adjacent to asking why god has not revealed himself equally to all other god believers, who believe in differing god(s)?

My point is; Judaism is closer to Christianity than atheism is.

As demonstrated above, Paul never would have been a believer (in the right path for Heaven) had he not of experienced what he experienced. Hence, his fate would have been hell regardless. The same goes for millions, if not billions, who believe in the wrong god concept or no god(s). Unless just believing is ANY god at all is enough for Jesus?.?.?.?.? If so, then Paul would have been saved.

Ok, and Jesus understands this and pretty much stated "Not everyone will have the luxury of seeing, so blessed are those who WILL NOT SEE AND STILL BELIEVE".

So, you have an opportunity right now to be among those blessed, but you simply refused to do so.

My objective wouldn't have worked for Paul either, nor the countless others, unless Jesus himself initiates to those countless others. This is my point.

Then remain unblessed and unsaved.

A world created, for US to inhabit, would not yield a vital source, (where only 2% of it is consumable and the other 98% is poison).

?

You are missing the over-all message. What exactly do you think that the puddle does not know?

The puddle thinks the hole in the ground was made for it, when it wasn't.

We know the universe was made for us, because it was.

Unless you can explain fine-tuning, on atheism, which you can't.

In the broader context, it is a 'gotcha moment'. You just haven't quite realized it yet. In the story, the puddle thinks the (hole) was meant for them, just like you believe the (world) was meant for you. To tie it all together, the two words in (brackets) are interchangeable.

Without fine-tuning, neither the puddle nor I would exist.

So, fine-tuning is not negated and still needs to be explained.

[POI]

It is a matter of wanting to believe.

Being convinced by evidenced is not a matter of "want". I'll explain below.

It's like a loving mother who refuses to accept the evidence of her son being a criminal, despite the overwhelming evidence pointing that direction. That's what we have here with you, in my opinion.

The evidence either genuinely convinces her, or it doesn't. But sure, she could tell you she is not convinced, when internally, she really is in reality. At which point, she is only being intellectually dishonest. This is exactly why I mentioned the Bible before, in (Romans 1:20), where the author tells the reader that all know that god exists. The ones who say they don't are just not being earnest. But this is clearly gaslighting some readers, (me included), as I see the exact opposite when I look around. You would have to accuse me of the same, which would be you accusing me of lying.

You sure did. You said something about living in a country where Christianity is the dominant religion and effects society (I'm paraphrasing). I prompted you to tell which country you are referring to, and you refused to answer the question. Either way, that still doesn't explain why you've engulfed your entire life for a religion that you don't (and refuse to) believe in. I just don't see a correlation there, but hey, do you.

Not only was geographics one very small piece, but it also was way more elaborate. And further, where I live has absolutely no relevance to my reason here, as I already explained. I also gave you many other reasons, for which you must have forgotten. Hence, there is no point in bringing them up, yet again, since the very little part you do remember, you blundered anyways.

I don't know

Unless you give an answer here, I'm going to instead conclude that you concede that it is a legitimate question to ask; and directly opposes your assertion that this environment was created for us, when the vast majority is instead not suitable for us.

If the focus was to design for US, then why wouldn't the part designed for us, be inhabitable?

Because this environment was not "designed" for us. If it was "designed" at all, it wasn't for us. But it likely was not intelligently' designed at all regardless.

I'm letting you know.

- Did the man's urethra run directly through man's prostate before or after "the fall"?
- Did the epiglottis serve as its current function before or after "the fall"?
- Did the existence of an appendices exist before or after "the fall"?
- Did the woman's sex/birth pathway share the same area as her sterol pathway before or after "the fall"?
- Did the nerve connecting the brain to the larynx, (or voice box), takes a wildly inefficient detour -- where it loops all the way down into the chest and around the aorta before traveling back up to the throat, happen before or after "the fall"?
- Did the gene mutate (that prevents us from synthesizing our own Vitamin C) happen before or after "the fall"?
- Did the female birth canal become narrower before or after the "the fall'?

Sounds like fun, actually.

I bet. Why do you think these young men go door-to-door for two years? But I digress...

Just too bad it ain't true.

My point here is that I can just as easily accuse you of what you are accusing me. You simply have not read it, in earnest, enough. If you did, you would have true revelation and know how god's ways really work.

We both know that you have no answer for any First Cause Argument.

Your response here is as nonsensible as you stating that 'we both know what is north of the North Pole (and/or) asking what is colder than absolute zero'? Once you know, then some questions then become nonsensible. Since ex materia can neither be created nor destroyed, your question is irrelevant.

This is like asking someone to identify an invisible man.

I already gave you a couple of hints. I guess you are not really the master "rubber stamper" you claim to be.

Book of Mormon: Written a couple thousand years after Jesus.

Point missed (again) entirely. Since you have trouble tracking, I'll throw you a bone here. Here is a repeat of what I stated in post 376:

The same types of arguments are issued in the book of Mormon. Maybe you are not reading the book of Mormon hard enough, and are missing true revelation? (i.e.):

Moroni 10:3–5 (The Promise to Know Truth): This passage advises readers to read the record, ponder it, and ask God with a "sincere heart" and "real intent," promising that God will manifest the truth of it by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Ether 3:6–20 (The Brother of Jared): The Brother of Jared shows great faith, leading to a direct manifestation of God. This story is often cited as a model for how intense spiritual focus and faith can lead to seeing God.

The Bible: Written within the lifetime of the actual apostles and also with 25-30 years after Jesus' crucifixion. The closer in time you are to the events in question, more truth is obtained. The further in time you are to the events in question, less truth is obtained. 25-30 years after >>>>>> 2,000 years after. So yeah, that's my answer.

Joseph wrote about the claimed events in question while he was still alive, which is even closer to the said events than what you can say for the claims of a Jesus. Further, Joseph claims to have found golden plates, which revealed all truth about the faith. Heck, there is even several bonafide witnesses to corroborate these events. So if your argument here is about being contemporary to the claimed events, then Mormonism, and it's claims, are much more contemporary.

The scriptures say if you earnestly seek him, he will reveal himself.

And according to Paul, if you do not earnestly seek him, he still reveals himself. If true/direct revelation was required for Paul to follow Jesus, and millions/billions more would need the same action(s), why is Paul so special, being that all are loved equally by god?

So the question is perhaps, why haven't you earnestly sought him?

I have, but according to Paul, it doesn't matter. God can and will contact anyone anyways, according to both the old and NT.

Paul was a special occasion and I am delighted to be able to say "Christ, I loved and believed in you without having such a Paul-like experience".

This is a <nothing burger> statement.

My point is; Judaism is closer to Christianity than atheism is.

Yes, and my point is Orthodox Jews aren't asking for Jesus. Anyone who does not possess the right faith, or no faith, go to the same hell. A matter of fact, many of them think Jesus is rotting in hell. And yet, Jesus apparently contacted one of them.

Ok, and Jesus understands this and pretty much stated "Not everyone will have the luxury of seeing, so blessed are those who WILL NOT SEE AND STILL BELIEVE".

This is false, as belief itself is a requirement; and many will not believe without direct proof, ala "Saul of Tarsus." So why is he avoiding these folks if he loves all humans?

So, you have an opportunity right now to be among those blessed, but you simply refused to do so.

Again, believing is not a choice. I'm not convinced unless I receive a "Damascus road experience", like Saul.

?

If the environment was created with us humans in mind, then god would not have created a vital source, (in H2O), where 98% presents as poison.

The puddle thinks the hole in the ground was made for it, when it wasn't.

Bingo! Now just replace the word (hole) with (world) and you will get my point.

We know the universe was made for us, because it was. Unless you can explain fine-tuning, on atheism, which you can't.

I don't even need to go there. You still have your work cut out for you with the "puddle" analogy alone, along with the identified flawed human "designs", as well as the abundance of poisonous water.

Without fine-tuning, neither the puddle nor I would exist. So, fine-tuning is not negated and still needs to be explained.

You are hung up upon bad apologetic buzz terms. Until you can refute my responses above, throwing out teleological arguments are not going to save you.