Thankfully someone already commented on those.
If you think you have some, run them by here:
Randi $1,000,000 paranormal challenge - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
If you're right you'll be quite a bit richer. However, there are NO supernaturalist claims that have been proven to be what the supernaturalists claim. Everything that has been tested has been refuted. And groan-inducing brain numbing nonsense will not change that.
You don't know for a fact what is true because you weren't there. Any scientist who claims to know how the universe originated is a liar. There are NO valid laws of physics which would allow for the spontaneous autogeneration of the universe. The question is, do you put your faith in the rocks ot the one who made them? Evolution is a lie. Those who tell lies are liars. See, I can say it too.
First off: We don't know how the universe started so we aren't saying it started this way or that. Your accusation here is what we call bearing false witness - breaking the ninth commandment. Also, it's a straw man argument. Second: You also claim evolution is a lie, yet it is extremely well supported. And it is used quite actively in a plethora of industries and scientific fields. None of that would be possible if the theory was "a lie". And you know what? I will believe what I can test -and in some cases have tested (and found consistent) in my lab over the word of some guy who can't even keep the ninth commandment of his supposed god.
The question is not whether I put my faith in the rocks or their maker. But, if I were a believer, whether I would believe YOU or God's creation itself as well as the majority of theologians throughout the ages. Or, as I am not a believer, whether I believe that repeated independent and very heavily tested research consistently lies, i.e. that there is a global scientific conspiracy - which is basically a requirement for your claims - or whether I am sane.
I'm quite sane, thanks.
If you ever discover God, you'll know that He isn't a liar.
So why does your belief insist he is, one way or another? Some people have spoken on length on this. If you are right in your characterization of christianity then the faith is a lie. It's that simple. That's what the data shows. Your faith is falsified. Question is if you're man enough to realize you've read the bible wrong or even reject god altogether. But your belief, given that it rests on the existence of a global scientific conspiracy which I would be a part of, is false.
So states a person whose entire belief structure is based on a lie.
That is your attempt at a riposte? Again, why does your belief require the universe itself to be untrue? You are, as others have pointed out, blaspheming. Unlike you, who deny empirical evidence as it suits you to do so, I actually accept what the data suggests. And for that you claim my belief structure is based on a lie? Which lie would that be? Can you show me perhaps? If you were right on evolution and cosmology you should be able to show this and win yourself a swath of nobel prizes. Have a go, why don't you?
Since the origination of the universe is scientifically impossible, either you believe in the impossible; which makes you foolish; or you accept that there could be some creative force outside of the universe.
You know, I thought Christians were supposed to be decent, honest, truth seeking and good. Yet here you break the ninth commandment again. You cast judgement while you have obviously no idea what you're talking about.
Your statement is false. Had you experience the Holy Spirit you could not say that it isn't true without admitting that you were incredible foolish to not believe in something AFTER he sees it. No offense, but that's probably the dumbest thing I've ever read. You experienced the Holy Spirit and it MIGHT BE REAL?
Oh sure. I've fallen over. Spoken in toungues, prophesied, the whole sehebang.
The same exact results can be provoked with chemistry, hypnosis and a strong mind bent on achieving it. Nothing special about it. Feels good, but that does not prove anything. The same behavior can be seen in amazonian tribes. In voodoo practitioners, in a plethora of religious groups around the world. The mechanism is likely the same.
Why I would say it "might be real" and not "is real" is in part what I just said, that the same happens without any spiritual component. And of course in addition people like you. Who boldly make unsubstantiated claims on issues like science. Many of which are dead wrong.
You are telling us that your faith is nonsense. How? By insisting that things you don't even know what are or entail are lies. That is not only stupid, it is criminally dishonest.
And when you so easily spread lies about this, why should I believe you on other areas, especially when it appears what you attribute to the holy spirit may very well be pure psychology? You've already shot your credibility to heck, so why should people believe you on this when it seems you might be wrong there too?
You make statements which are known to be untrue and you place these as the cornerstones of the christian faith, mocking those who disagree. Even though
all the evidence contradicts your view on cosmology and evolution.
How about the vast number of encounters by non-believers and atheists? Are they all liars?
Vast numbers? *chuckle* Some, you mean. Inflated by supernaturalists who want it to be true. No, they are not liars. Nor are you when you speak of what you've experienced. You're just unlikely to be connecting it to the right cause. People used to attribute comets to god or gods, laughing at or possibly killing I would guess people who disagreed with the conclusion. That someone says "god did this!" does not mean it is correct. Consider yourself, you call things you have no idea what is a "lie".
How could you, if it didn't exist and didn't happen? Were you taking mushrooms at the time? You aren't making sense. How does one deny that which he's experinced?
I have never taken any illegal substance. I like my brain and other organs in working order. If I do not make any sense, let me rephrase. I have been present at exorcisms. Something happened, sure. A man with psychological issues was calmed down and got through a serious episode. This was attributed to a demon, and his betterment attributed to it being driven out. When it came back the process was repeated. He SHOULD have been sent to a mental hospital.
Demon possession is characterized by three things:
Knowledge the person could not possess
Strength beyond thei physical size
A complete physical revulsion to anything Holy.
In most cases, a person is not recognized as being possessed unless they can speak in a foreign tongue they have never learned. Otherwise it's considered just mental illness. There IS a difference. Demonis possession is rare. Demonic INFLUENCE is much more common.
I am aware. I witnessed the "exorcism", and points 2 and 3 did appear to manifest. Sorry, but this could easily be characterized by psychological illness.