Present some and you will find out, each time you have done this do far, you have dishonestly run away from the response, or lied and resorted to attacking the person responding.
It’s hard to imagine a more obvious lie, and this thread is testament to this. You know atheists don’t find your unevidenced anecdotal rhetoric very compelling, from personal experience as you have just said, so you’re attempting a poisoning of the well fallacy, and it is pretty hard now not to see your relentless dishonesty as an attempt at revenge by trolling.
How do you know, you don’t believe in every single deity that I disbelieve exists, except one. If your ego is so immense you think you alone among all the posters here are able to recognise evidence for a deity then share that acumen with us, but I suspect this is complete nonsense of course, and is just a petulant reaction we often see from people with a very closed mind who have such a large emotional investment in a single belief they are incapable of examining it critically themselves.
So your empty rhetoric and pseudo intellectual posturing, and all your demonstrably irrational arguments that string known logical fallacies together intandem, has failed to convinced any atheists you’ve met? Can’t say I’m surprised as if there was a scale of apologetics I’ve encountered, then yours would certainly be near the bottom.
I guess we will never know, since you have fallen right out of the gate, but again I suspect this has more to do with your hurt ego and your inability to understand what a strong rational argument is, and the fact your posts suggest you don’t know what objective evidence even is.
As I said initially having had your irrational arguments thoroughly exposed, you don’t have the intellectual honesty to accept those criticisms as you are quite obviously very closed minded. Even more ironically and by way of evidence for this, your OP in this thread is the clearest use of a poisoning of the well fallacy I have seen.
“Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a type of informal fallacy where adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing something that the target person is about to say.”
[LINK](Poisoning the well - Wikipedia
I think one more word it would be useful to define for our self styled genius of analytical reasoning, and that is exits.
- have verb
3rd person present: exists
have objective reality or being.
If a deity exists then demonstrate it has objective reality.
Meanwhile just to show I do support claim with evidence, here an example of the kind of unevidenced rhetoric you reel off as if it represents compelling evidence.
That is the very definition of a purely subjective anecdotal claim, you might as well be telling your favourite colour and insisting we all agree it is the best.