For James R. 'The Honest Theist'.

[wynn]

show me.

Recent posts of Jan Ardena to me, or of Lori to me and many others.

and more precisely show me where theist do it more than atheist..

how many atheist start their posts with 'your wrong'? or thats BS..this is an attempt to take the 'high ground' as you put it, and try's to establish themselves as an authority over the matter (works both ways)

i think its more projection than anything..atheist want so bad to make theist wrong, that they often are guilty of what they accuse the theist of doing.(and theist should consider how much of this we are doing.)

The playing field is not equal.

It is the theists who come forward claiming they have The Solution. As such, they have greater burdens and greater responibilities.

 

[James R]

Signal:

Don't you think that it makes a categorical difference whether a person really stands behind their arguments or not?

No.

I am an academic. As such, I am trained to sit on the fence - to examine all sides of an argument and to sort the bad arguments from the good no matter who is making them. Moreover, I am used to playing Devil's advocate. It is a valuable exercise to try to argue for a position that you personally do not support, to the best of your ability. It forces you to really examine the best arguments that are available. You can't sweep inconvenient truths under the rug.

As I said before, the assumption that all arguments for the existence of God are flawed or poorly thought out or unconsidered or stupid does a disservice to the many very bright theists who have made them over the centuries.

Have you ever read any Thomas Aquinas, for example? He was no fool, I can assure you.

I have no understanding why people are theists either, and it seems many theists have no understanding of why they are theists.

That's true, of course. And the same thing can be said about many atheists, too, I'm sure you'll agree. There are atheists who are atheists not through any process of reasoning but rather because they simply don't like religion, or they feel they are rebelling against society by being atheists, or whatever.

Theists, just like atheists, lie on a continuum. At one end, we have people who just blindly follow whatever position they take with no real thought. At the other end we have people who have looked at both sides of the matter, put long and careful thought into it, and made a considered judgment.

Theists have a long history of producing inactionable arguments for theism.

As do atheists.

 

[lightgigantic]

That is worldly.
One may have a financial, political, marital, health, academic, and many other crises, but none of them is as severe, as all-pervasive as a spiritual crisis.




Of course they do. This is what distinguishes them from worldly professionals.




And yet when we fail, spiritually, those spiritual professionals blame it all on us.




Given that spirituality encompasses and informs all the other aspects of a person's life, and the run-of-the-mill person is considered categorically inept and is expected to consider themselves categorically inept, there is no room for any kind of negotiation.

In fact, attempts at negotiation are viewed as offensive by spiritual professionals.




Clearly not. People who are professionals in the field of spirituality like to find explanations and justifications for any perceived lack of care.
"You're just not advanced enough to see that I, your guru, care about you."
"It's just your jaundice."
"I was teaching you detachment."
"If you love me, I will love you."




And yet when it comes to spirituality, run-of-the-mill people are disqualified from any such grading from the onset and on principle.

Only an uttama can recognize an uttama, goes the maxim.

We get told, "Who are you to judge?!"




Indeed. It's everyone against everyone, right?
Just because it is spirituality, it is no less a struggle for survival, the survival of the fittest. Just like in the material life, spirituality is all the same: one big fight for survival.




I was never suggesting that.

I would just think that those who claim to know what is best for us would actually care a bit, ask some questions, see where the person actually is at. Instead they, like a mechanical oracle, utter advice and one has to follow it, or perish, regardless whether one understands it or not.

Apparently, spirituality is for those who are spiritually advanced, rich and influential.
Everyone else should beware, because they will likely get screwed. In the name of God!




And yet when a run-of-the-mill person does so, then all the self-declared spiritual authorities scoff at them for being materialists, rascals, karmis, worthless and so on.

If what you are saying is true one would expect to see an absence of texts on defining qualities of a spiritual authority and also an absence of dialogue on holding the said spiritual authorities accountable.

 

[wynn]

I am an academic. As such, I am trained to sit on the fence - to examine all sides of an argument and to sort the bad arguments from the good no matter who is making them.

What do good arguments guarantee?

Have you ever read any Thomas Aquinas, for example? He was no fool, I can assure you.

So what?

Theists, just like atheists, lie on a continuum. At one end, we have people who just blindly follow whatever position they take with no real thought. At the other end we have people who have looked at both sides of the matter, put long and careful thought into it, and made a considered judgment.

Who knows if "weighing arguments and making considered judgments" makes for a meaningful belief in God.
I don't think it does.

Theists have a long history of producing inactionable arguments for theism.

As do atheists.

Like I noted above: the playing field is not even. Theists have a much greater responsibility, a much greater burden, because they are the ones claiming to have The Solution to mankind's problems.

 

[wynn]

If what you are saying is true one would expect to see an absence of texts on defining qualities of a spiritual authority

Surely, there are such texts. Such texts also disqualify run-of-the-mill people from making any judgements about spiritual authority.

and also an absence of dialogue on holding the said spiritual authorities accountable.

The presence of such dialogue - although it is usually just a monologue from the side of the complaning party - does not guarantee anything. It's just bureocracy, diplomacy. And more of "It's just your jaundice / You're not advanced enough / etc."



EDIT:
If these authorities are so right, if they are so advanced, if what they talk about is so important, if people's choices about it will have eternal ramifications -
then how come these authorities can't or won't make people see it?
Why is the only argument that these spiritual authorities give for their superiority and advancement, our "jaundice", our "lack of advancement"?
Why don't these spiritual authorities do something that would positively inspire us?
Why is spirituality a matter of "grit your teeth and bear it, indefinitely"?
Why is the only way to see these spiritual authorities as advanced, by telling myself "I am too stupid to understand, surely they must be right"?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Recent posts of Jan Ardena to me, or of Lori to me and many others.

i won't argue about Jan (i'm scared of her), she is the exception not the rule..
and lori has already admitted she is just as messed up as the rest of us...

It is the theists who come forward claiming they have The Solution. As such, they have greater burdens and greater responibilities.

you have never been so excited to learn a new truth that you wanted to share it?

the problems come with how we communicate such truths, the bible says live it, be the example, not force everyone to be the example. a proper theist would not make an issue of how much of a sinner you are, and focus more on what God wants for them in their lives.(tangent night i guess..)

anyway the point was specific to sciforums..most new users start posting thing to validate their own opinions, there isn't any difference between theist and atheist in this respect,

and you added

The Solution to mankind's problems

so part of the burden and responsibility is to the listener to be sure he is hearing what he thinks he is hearing,and not dismiss it out of hand.
(see james arguments about being a good debater)

and i do agree with:

and it seems many theists have no understanding of why they are theists.

test all things and hold on to what is good.
---

Surely, there are such texts. Such texts also disqualify run-of-the-mill people from making any judgements about spiritual authority.

why?
prove to me that the texts say that we are not responsible for our own spirituality?
or prove that there has to be an authority (other than jesus.)

where does it say that the only way to know God is through some man (other than jesus.)

my point is you are the authority of your own spirituality. not someone else.

----------

or they feel they are rebelling against society by being atheists,

wouldn't rebelling against society (in your context,and in present day) mean one would join religion?

 

[lightgigantic]

Surely, there are such texts. Such texts also disqualify run-of-the-mill people from making any judgements about spiritual authority.

Actually they exist primarily to enable run-of-the-mill people to make such distinctions

The presence of such dialogue - although it is usually just a monologue from the side of the complaning party - does not guarantee anything. It's just bureocracy, diplomacy. And more of "It's just your jaundice / You're not advanced enough / etc."

If that was true one wouldn't see the social body that is attached to religious institutions bearing any influence on redefining the structure of teh said institution

EDIT:
If these authorities are so right, if they are so advanced, if what they talk about is so important, if people's choices about it will have eternal ramifications -
then how come these authorities can't or won't make people see it?
Why is the only argument that these spiritual authorities give for their superiority and advancement, our "jaundice", our "lack of advancement"?

Actually that is an argument for one's inability to adhere to the regulative principles of freedom from material existence ... something which can strike even advanced personalities (surely you must have heard about jada bharata falling down from the position of bhava)

"You are jaundiced/have material attachments" certainly does not render the speaker spiritually superior.

Why don't these spiritual authorities do something that would positively inspire us?

Spiritual investigation is about finding the association that does, rather than impersonally and unrealistically assigning an impossible category of behavior to the first aspiring spiritualist one meets

Why is spirituality a matter of "grit your teeth and bear it, indefinitely"?

Its always the case that advancement is slow and painstaking and falling down is incredibly easy and quick. Thats why it is often talked about as a razor's edge.

Why is the only way to see these spiritual authorities as advanced, by telling myself "I am too stupid to understand, surely they must be right"?

If that is the only thing you are calling upon to determine who is a spiritual authority I think you have to go back to the drawing board with your definitions

 

[James R]

What do good arguments guarantee?

They go a long way to making informed judgments and important decisions in a rational way.

So what?

So, phlogistician's point in this thread is that "All theists are dishonest". My point is that they are not. Nor are they stupid.

Who knows if "weighing arguments and making considered judgments" makes for a meaningful belief in God.
I don't think it does.

Are you religious?

Like I noted above: the playing field is not even. Theists have a much greater responsibility, a much greater burden, because they are the ones claiming to have The Solution to mankind's problems.

Really? What's the solution?

 

[wynn]

Actually they exist primarily to enable run-of-the-mill people to make such distinctions

Then why do they disqualify them in the same breath?

If that was true one wouldn't see the social body that is attached to religious institutions bearing any influence on redefining the structure of teh said institution

Yes, and officially, this is called "the degradation of religious society".

"You are jaundiced/have material attachments" certainly does not render the speaker spiritually superior.

The same person who tells us they know what is best for us also tells us that the reason we don't see them as superior is because we have jaundice.

All we know about spirituality, we know from the same people who tell us that the reason we don't see them as superior is because we have jaundice.

We don't know anything else, we don't have any other source. It's either this, or nothing.

Spiritual investigation is about finding the association that does, rather than impersonally and unrealistically assigning an impossible category of behavior to the first aspiring spiritualist one meets

Reality is not like that.

In reality, there is a number of people, spiritual/religious organizations who claim to be spiritually advanced, who claim to know what is best for us, and who in their public addresses criticize the run-of-the-mill people as rascals.

One is supposed to join a religious or spiritual organization without any prior investigation.
We are supposed to come there, and commit fully the first time. If we don't, we're rascals.
If we're not inspired by them, we're rascals.

Spiritual/religious organizations make no allowance for a search.

And it is either these spiritual/religious organizations, or nothing.


EDIT: Given that we are supposed to choose among several religions / spiritual paths/ organizations (they certainly all want us to choose), how are we supposed to choose, when they all appear so similar? The names may be different, but the teeth-gritting and the insanities are the same in them.

Why is spirituality a matter of "grit your teeth and bear it, indefinitely"?

Its always the case that advancement is slow and painstaking and falling down is incredibly easy and quick. Thats why it is often talked about as a razor's edge.

Why do they keep saying that "chanting the holy names is sweet" and things like that - when so many have just the opposite experiences, for long periods of time?

Years of practice, and not a single positive experience. But people should just continue anyway, banging their head up against a wall?

Why is the only way to see these spiritual authorities as advanced, by telling myself "I am too stupid to understand, surely they must be right"?

If that is the only thing you are calling upon to determine who is a spiritual authority I think you have to go back to the drawing board with your definitions

Like any of those spiritual authorities would forgive me for doing so.
Moreover, I would be reading about those definitions from them. And then to use those same definitions against them?? What kind of logic is that?

 

[wynn]

They go a long way to making informed judgments and important decisions in a rational way.

Meaning, the whole point of making good arguments is to make oneself feel good about one's choices -?

Are you religious?

No.

Really? What's the solution?

Jesus, or Allah, or whichever.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

What is wrong with being a rascal. Try being a Micky shit house mouse for a while. Little Rascal's becomes a picnic . I don't listen to super preachers to much . They do have a tendency to be full of it . Jole Osteen . Him I kind of like . He is pretty up beat for a preacher . Not that I can listen to him that long either . I like it when he starts talking about the garden and the House and the good things that are coming . Me being a GreatHouse you can use your imagination what the garden is . Ah yeah Me likes Gardening. Plowing the garden is fun

 

[lightgigantic]

Then why do they disqualify them in the same breath?

disqualify them from what?
Reading?

Yes, and officially, this is called "the degradation of religious society".

regardless of what you imagine it is officially called, if it was true, you wouldn't see it happen
:shrug:

The same person who tells us they know what is best for us also tells us that the reason we don't see them as superior is because we have jaundice.

sounds like a good time to do some reading on the qualities of a spiritually advanced person (don't seem to recall anything about a need for them to personally establish themselves as superior)

All we know about spirituality, we know from the same people who tell us that the reason we don't see them as superior is because we have jaundice.

ditto above

We don't know anything else, we don't have any other source. It's either this, or nothing.

I seem to recall three authorities, not one ...

Reality is not like that.

In reality, there is a number of people, spiritual/religious organizations who claim to be spiritually advanced, who claim to know what is best for us, and who in their public addresses criticize the run-of-the-mill people as rascals.

One is supposed to join a religious or spiritual organization without any prior investigation.
We are supposed to come there, and commit fully the first time. If we don't, we're rascals.
If we're not inspired by them, we're rascals.

Spiritual/religious organizations make no allowance for a search.

And it is either these spiritual/religious organizations, or nothing.

hence the issue of inspiring association

EDIT: Given that we are supposed to choose among several religions / spiritual paths/ organizations (they certainly all want us to choose), how are we supposed to choose, when they all appear so similar? The names may be different, but the teeth-gritting and the insanities are the same in them.

enter the analogy about choosing a medical procedure ....

Why do they keep saying that "chanting the holy names is sweet" and things like that - when so many have just the opposite experiences, for long periods of time?

so if you have a nice experience about anything, you only talk about it when others also have an identical experience?

Years of practice, and not a single positive experience. But people should just continue anyway, banging their head up against a wall?

a person cannot do anything for years without a single positive experience, no matter how it is dressed up

Like any of those spiritual authorities would forgive me for doing so.
Moreover, I would be reading about those definitions from them. And then to use those same definitions against them?? What kind of logic is that?

You have the authors of SB and the gita calling you a rascal?

 

[wynn]

disqualify them from what?
Reading?

From making assessments on who to associate with and how.

sounds like a good time to do some reading on the qualities of a spiritually advanced person (don't seem to recall anything about a need for them to personally establish themselves as superior)

They have a number of followers who do that for them. And nobody gets to the guru except through his followers. Who are ever so ready to make it infinitely difficult for anyone else to come near.

We don't know anything else, we don't have any other source. It's either this, or nothing.

I seem to recall three authorities, not one ...

There is still one source that tells us about guru-sadhu-sastra.

(Apart from those three, there is a fourth one - self-satisfaction. But I am not sure when one is allowed to count on that one.)

Reality is not like that.

In reality, there is a number of people, spiritual/religious organizations who claim to be spiritually advanced, who claim to know what is best for us, and who in their public addresses criticize the run-of-the-mill people as rascals.

One is supposed to join a religious or spiritual organization without any prior investigation.
We are supposed to come there, and commit fully the first time. If we don't, we're rascals.
If we're not inspired by them, we're rascals.

Spiritual/religious organizations make no allowance for a search.

And it is either these spiritual/religious organizations, or nothing.

hence the issue of inspiring association

It's an issue, allright.

EDIT: Given that we are supposed to choose among several religions / spiritual paths/ organizations (they certainly all want us to choose), how are we supposed to choose, when they all appear so similar? The names may be different, but the teeth-gritting and the insanities are the same in them.

enter the analogy about choosing a medical procedure ....

I've addressed this in the other thread.

Why do they keep saying that "chanting the holy names is sweet" and things like that - when so many have just the opposite experiences, for long periods of time?

so if you have a nice experience about anything, you only talk about it when others also have an identical experience?

How is that related to what I said?

a person cannot do anything for years without a single positive experience, no matter how it is dressed up

Don't underestimate the power of discipline, misery, and pride.

You have the authors of SB and the gita calling you a rascal?

Not by my first name, but to people like me.

 

[phlogistician]

1. God requires faith,
[faith is gained by spiritual apprehension rather than proof]

2. Faith is an admitted suspension of logic,
[as in both faith and logic occupy different incompatible systems]

3. Blatant illogicality is a dishonest act.
[meaning that by using invalid reasoning, one is acting in an untrustworthy way]

Maybe this is phlogistician's point?

Ten points Sir!

 

[phlogistician]

I think phlog has more of a prejudice than a point.

Prejudice,.... oh James, that's a low blow.

I simply do not believe in the deities people attempt to describe to me.

It really is that simple.

And here's the thing, you still can't give me a description of your god that makes sense, AND you know your target because you do not actually believe yourself, so _should_ be able to come up with something that avoids the regular criticisms, but you hung yourself from the outset.

 

[phlogistician]

it's the same statement you've made regarding a big portion of this site's posters, and it's been much more than a week and you haven't qualified it.

Quote and link. Don't think you can hide behind assertions.

in failing to qualify your statement, you have rightfully earned mine.

Which statement is that?: Quote me or get reported.

if you beleived thiests to be dishonest, you had plenty of time and space to show it. you haven't.

IF? Did I? What did I say?

instead, you kept changing your requirements of your opponents,

All I require is a description that bears scrutiny. That has NOT changed.

sending them to your ignore list, and intentionally or unintentionally misunderstanding their arguments.

Intentionally? Demonstrate with quotes, or be damned, sir.
This thread was for JamesR to make his arguments for God, not for others to divert the conversation.

you feel like reporting, report to your heart content, wanna put me on ignore, go ahead. but 13 pages of explanations turned down by you is nothing less than dishonest, you simply will not accept otherwise.

13 pages of explanations? Hardly. All I've had from James is a couple is sentences that don't hold water. He's been too lazy to even tell me how he arrived at his beliefs. It's like trying to get blood from a stone. Believers should have sound reasoning to explain their beliefs, the fact we have 13 pages is rather proof that they do not.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogistician:

One argument is that God has chosen to create a specific kind of world in which conscious, intelligent, free-willed creatures such as human beings can exist. It may be that the natural laws put in place to govern such a universe necessarily allow natural disasters as well as permitting the existence of God's creatures.

I'm pretty sure that argument, IF you are making it, and not dancing around it, negates omniscience and omnipotence. So what are you saying?

So, if a rock falls on somebody's head and kills him or her, that is not necessarily a malicious direct act of God.

It is if God is omniscient and omnipotent.

"Why did God not create a world in which rocks could not fall?" will be your next question. Such a world would have no gravity. Stars and planets would not form in a universe without gravity.

No it wouldn't, but surely God, being omniscient, could dispense with gravity and hold everything together by sheer force of his will over every single particle he created?

Or maybe God has a greater plan in allowing a rock to strike a particular person at a particular time, even where such a strike results in death.

Pay attention, I already told you the 'God moves in mysterious ways' excuse has no value.

"Why didn't God make everybody immortal?"
I'll wait for you to come up with at least one possible reason for this. After all, I shouldn't have to do all your thinking for you.

I'm not following your diversion. Do I need explain the purpose of this thread yet again? Simply, I ask you to explain your god to me. It's not a debate.

It's simple logic. If the explanation of event E is not X, then it must be something other than X.

How do you prove it's not X?

Not at all. I have now asked you several times to consider why it might be that people are not immortal in a world created by a loving God. You persist in avoiding thinking about the matter.

I ask the questions, you answer. Stop with the diversionary tactics.

Your question, then, is fundamentally about the motives of a being for whom you have no concept. Do you not find it somewhat odd to be asking about the motives of something undefined? Maybe you should just forget the whole "problem of evil" thing, because you're in no position to discuss the matter in the absence of any definition of "God".

Better to go back to square one and start working out what kind of thing a "god" might be. You can't do the advanced class without first studying the basics.

James, YOU are supposed to be giving me YOUR explanations for such here. You are supposed to be giving me YOUR definition, and telling me YOUR reason for belief and the motivations of the thing in which you believe. The above seems little more than an admission of defeat that you cannot explain yourself.

So, do you want to try again?

 

[phlogistician]

Faith means having belief and confidence in something that you can't absolutely prove. It doesn't have to be spiritual.

Weak. You know, as a scientist, the best we can do is statistical correlation. That does not mean everything is based upon Faith, nor that all Faith based propositions are equal.

 

[James R]

phlogisitician:

I simply do not believe in the deities people attempt to describe to me.

Why not?

And here's the thing, you still can't give me a description of your god that makes sense, AND you know your target because you do not actually believe yourself, so _should_ be able to come up with something that avoids the regular criticisms, but you hung yourself from the outset.

Post #26:

"God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent."

What doesn't make sense about that?

And what, exactly, are the "regular criticisms" you refer to?

All I've had from James is a couple is sentences that don't hold water. He's been too lazy to even tell me how he arrived at his beliefs.

I have answered the three specific questions you have asked so far in the course of the past 300 posts.

I also responded explicitly to your question about how I arrived at my beliefs. Try to keep up.

One argument is that God has chosen to create a specific kind of world in which conscious, intelligent, free-willed creatures such as human beings can exist. It may be that the natural laws put in place to govern such a universe necessarily allow natural disasters as well as permitting the existence of God's creatures.

I'm pretty sure that argument, IF you are making it, and not dancing around it, negates omniscience and omnipotence. So what are you saying?

Nothing I said there negates omniscience or omnipotence.

So, if a rock falls on somebody's head and kills him or her, that is not necessarily a malicious direct act of God.

It is if God is omniscient and omnipotent.

Empty claims with no justification are useless.

Why did God not create a world in which rocks could not fall?" will be your next question. Such a world would have no gravity. Stars and planets would not form in a universe without gravity.

No it wouldn't, but surely God, being omniscient, could dispense with gravity and hold everything together by sheer force of his will over every single particle he created?

My point was that to all appearances we live in a world of consistent physical laws. Clearly, God chose to create such a world. Why, then, would he violate his own creation by suspending or altering those laws at a whim? Did he not think in advance about what he was doing? Surely, any God worth his salt would be more organised than that. See the point now?

Or maybe God has a greater plan in allowing a rock to strike a particular person at a particular time, even where such a strike results in death.

Pay attention, I already told you the 'God moves in mysterious ways' excuse has no value.

No you didn't. Besides, empty claims without justification are useless.

Why didn't God make everybody immortal? I'll wait for you to come up with at least one possible reason for this. After all, I shouldn't have to do all your thinking for you.

I'm not following your diversion.

It's ok. I'll wait. Not that I expect you to demonstrate any evidence that you can think through this problem. It must be gnawing at you by now.

Do I need explain the purpose of this thread yet again? Simply, I ask you to explain your god to me. It's not a debate.

So, got any questions?

It's simple logic. If the explanation of event E is not X, then it must be something other than X.

How do you prove it's not X?

Are you unfamiliar with methods of gathering evidence to prove or disprove a point?

Your question, then, is fundamentally about the motives of a being for whom you have no concept. Do you not find it somewhat odd to be asking about the motives of something undefined? Maybe you should just forget the whole "problem of evil" thing, because you're in no position to discuss the matter in the absence of any definition of "God".

Better to go back to square one and start working out what kind of thing a "god" might be. You can't do the advanced class without first studying the basics.

James, YOU are supposed to be giving me YOUR explanations for such here. You are supposed to be giving me YOUR definition, and telling me YOUR reason for belief and the motivations of the thing in which you believe. The above seems little more than an admission of defeat that you cannot explain yourself.

I don't claim to know all the motivations of God. He is an omniscient, omnipotent being. I am not.

It still puzzles me in how you can be so interested in the motivations of something you cannot even define, though.

Faith means having belief and confidence in something that you can't absolutely prove. It doesn't have to be spiritual.

Weak. You know, as a scientist, the best we can do is statistical correlation. That does not mean everything is based upon Faith, nor that all Faith based propositions are equal.

How do you define "faith", if you think my definition is "weak"?

Oh, and we can do a lot better than statistical correlation in science.

 

[phlogistician]

phlogisitician:

Why not?

Just look at this thread! I asked for a description of your God. You claimed to have drawn upon many sources to arrive at your conclusions, yet when pushed for your most recent definition, I get two sentences WITHOUT supporting reasoning. That's it? Two sentences?

Post #26:

"God is an all-powerful supernatural being who created the universe we live in. He is omniscient and omnipotent."

'Supernatural',... well, you know that excludes proof, and that it's just a faith based proposition, yet you utterly fail to admit reasonable doubt.

Omniscience and omnipotence. The 'all powerful' part of your first sentence is a tautology considering you say 'omnipotent' later. I guess you have so little you feel the need to pad out the description!

So, 15 pages in, and the BEST you have so far come up with, is two sentences, and it's padded at that. I've had ego and attitude in spades, but very little content. But thankyou for that, because your attitude has proven to be you cannot support your claims honestly.

But anyway, just for laughs, let's hear you justify the few claims you have made, wrt omniscience, and omnipotence, given you have said God is supernatural and therefore you cannot have evidence for such.