[betty boop]

I have observed that the presupposition most atheist/agnostic seek to achieve in their arguments is their belief that God is a hypothesis. And from there, they usually admit only whatever evidence is acceptable to a metaphysical naturalist with the ultimate goal being to convince a Christian that God is a delusion.

I have noticed that "modus operandi" too, dearest sister in Christ. Yet I declare that the reality of God is not contingent on His "acceptability" according to metaphysical naturalist categories. God simply can't be "reduced" to such criteria. This is the point that metaphysical naturalists — i.e., those of agnostic/atheist bent — absolutely refuse to grasp.

To me, if there is to be a "proof" of the existence of God, it can only come from the actual experiences of individuals in communion with Him. Thus when you say —

God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.

— I take this testimony and witness as "best evidence."

Thank you so very much for your beautiful essay/post, and your kind words of support!

[Quix]

INDEED.

[Alamo-Girl]

Yet I declare that the reality of God is not contingent on His "acceptability" according to metaphysical naturalist categories. God simply can't be "reduced" to such criteria. This is the point that metaphysical naturalists — i.e., those of agnostic/atheist bent — absolutely refuse to grasp.

To me, if there is to be a "proof" of the existence of God, it can only come from the actual experiences of individuals in communion with Him.

So very true!

Thank you so much for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!