Yet people believe thee gods by experience just like you believe in your god by experience. Why are they wrong and you are right?
I don't believe they do, only God gives the peace that passes all understanding, a rest in the spirit. Only God laid down his life for us while we did not merit it.
That is not moving the goalposts. It is an honest position. I have insufficient evidence to believe a god exists and insufficient evidence to believe god does not exist. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods or a belief that god doe snot exist. I lack a belief in gods. Agnosticism is we cannot know if god exists or not. That is not my position. Although people use these definitions loosely so it is a good practice to listen to what they believe and respond to that and not get hung up on labels.
If the definition has changed yes it has moved the goal posts. I can only go by your label. So if you have insufficient evidence either way that is still what I would call agnostic rather than an atheist. An atheist always use to be someone who categorically stated that there was no God at all. But no matter the label, I am not going to know what your specific take is nor will I remember it.
I sought god for many years and was a believer for a long time. Why would god not reveal himself to a sincere believer if he wants all of us to be saved? or are you special in some way?
Since I don't know exactly what you believed or how you came to doubt or fall away I can't answer.
I honestly feel that evolution has caused a lot of people to doubt scripture. If someone believes in God but does not believe in creation this immediately throws up some doubt about Gods word and how trustworthy it is and I have seen it move from doubt in Genesis along to doubt in other miracles, along to doubt in both Jesus and God.
The ICR readily admits on their Core Principles page that they have already decided the Christian god exists and all their "research" is based on that assumption. They are not scientists, they have a conclusion that they are trying to find evidence for.
Well of course they do, they are creationists. Everyone has a bias. Yours is already firmly held to evolution just as evolutionary scientists are. Just like you won't even consider that animals share DNA or look similar because the same creator made them all out of the same materials, I won't consider that they descended over millions of years. You consider what you have to be evidence, I don't. I believe we all have the same evidence of the world around us and its how we choose to look at and interpret the evidence that changes.
Have you looked at what scientists have said to rebut these claims? This essay is a typical essay by anti evolutionists that don't explain how scientists use these methods and why they think they are reliable, then address that. It is basically a straw-man argument.
If you want to believe that the huge scope and intracity of life came about by chance random process you are free to do so. I do not, I believe God created it.
So no I won't waste my time wading through stuff, I have before. Last time I read an entire page to get to anything that really said anything but waffle. As I said before I am not one of these creationists who debate with science. Creation was a miracle anyway, it was outside of science. Evolutionary Science is just mans attempt to explain things and I feel they are greatly deceived but also assume too much. They can't repeat it, they were not there to see life arise or to view things like dinosaurs turn into birds. It's assumption and a belief.
In a lot of ways it does set you free from having to be confronted with uncomfortable ideas and such.
I was a believer for many years and today I want to know if god exists or not. So why won't/didn't god reveal himself to me as he did to you?
I don't know, since I don't know how you searched. I'm just a regular person.
Have you looked at the evidence for evolution? It is a lot more conclusive than your window analogy. Scientists are not just like "yep, looks right so lets go with it".
Just like the ICR you have made up your mind in advance and without seeing the evidence have already concluded that you won't believe it. Is this a good way to determine truth?
I probably won't agree with a young earth but I disagree with them based on logic and evidence. If there is compelling evidence for a young earth then I will believe that. I want to believe what is true do you?
I use to be an agnostic and an evolutionist, so I had enough years on that front. This is probably why I don't believe either stance can be prooved and that each in its own way is a belief. That it is all in how someone interprets the evidence. I have pretty much been on both sides of the fence half and half of my life at this point, so as for making up my mind in advance, it wasn't that fast.
The best that I can do is give links like I gave before, as I am not someone who can debate science off the top of my head. That is why I said there are others on here better equipped to do that.
Exactly what evidence makes you believe evolution?