In order to "prove" that God is the cause of anything, you have to first prove God exists.
This was already done in the opening post. Why shut your mind down to it?
All you said was that there's an account in a book and you cannot think of any way that it could be anything other than a perfect eyewitness account.
That's not evidence that it IS a perfect eyewitness account, nor is it evidence that the eyewitness was correct, and not imagining things, or the subject of a ruse or an elaborate hoax.
You swallowed the account hook, line and sinker, and offer absolutely no objective evidence for your god other than to deny all other suggestions.
It's about as compelling as a Spongebob Squarepants episode. But without the humor of Mr. Crabs.
- - - Updated - - -
Yet, all the other problems remain, untouched by your regard.
That would be 'avoiding,' right?
No problems to speak of.
Sure.
Just the lack of actual evidence, the poor understanding of the burden of proof, the complete arrogance of argument by assertion, then claiming later that your assertions were 'proofs.'
Other than that, no problems you want to speak of.
Self-Mutation, is that you?
- - - Updated - - -
Yet, all the other problems remain, untouched by your regard.
That would be 'avoiding,' right?
No problems to speak of.
Sure.
Just the lack of actual evidence, the poor understanding of the burden of proof, the complete arrogance of argument by assertion, then claiming later that your assertions were 'proofs.'
Other than that, no problems you want to speak of.
Self-Mutation, is that you?