A logical fallacy called The False Dichotomy -- a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. How about hysteria, hypnotism, allergic reaction, psychologically implanted memories, drug hallucination, or the most obvious . . . a hoax or even a conspiracy to hoax.
You are professing beliefs, not making logical conclusions, that is the whole problem. I have shredded your arguments logically, they are full of fallacies.
The old Argument from Ignorance fallacy, also called the" negative evidence fallacy", says that, because a premise cannot be proven false, the premise must be true; or that, because a premise cannot be proven true, the premise must be false.
Irrelevant conclusion. The fact that you cannot walk on water doesn't mean that the Son of God could either.
False dilemma. That is not the only question.
will –noun
1. the faculty of conscious action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice;
4. wish or desire
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out
You make my point. Matters of will, imagination, choice, faith, and wishes are subjective and a matter of personal belief, not of actual existence.
Nonsense, I have already listed 4 or 5.
Hoaxes happen all the time. I can Google up a Aramaic dictionary online in 20 seconds and be memorizing Aramaic sentences within in hour, Inshallah.
It goes to credibility. If objects actually levitated from time to time for people to observe, then eyewitness testimony holds more credibility. People ruled legally sane have testified that God told them to commit murder. Do you believe this?
Are you kidding? I have systematically applied deductive reasoning to each of your arguments and they do not hold water. It is you that is insisting that everyone must accept your beliefs as truth. How perfectly ridiculous.
I fully accept both as concepts. It is only when you insist that logical deduction proves that supernatural agents of evil MUST exist that I must defend logic, nature, and science.
