What exactly is *the real world*? First you need to define it and then know that it's indeed *real*. Then you have to make a determination of whether something is indeed part of or not part of the *real world*. On what basis do you do that? What objective criteria do you use? Surely there must be a method to your madness.
How do you propose doing that?
Besides, there is enough material evidence, lots of theological arguments, historical and philosophical arguments, as well as the existence of simile religions to cast doubt in the veracity of that God in my mind.
What material evidence can cast doubt about the veracity of any god?
You know, any god that you create to believe in that is not capable of intruding into its creation and being able to manipulate it is an impotent poser. You can write of miracles and the supernatural all you want, but what you're left with it .... nothing.
Besides, I believe that the Catholic church recognizes the miracles of God, like raising people from the dead, walking on water, yes, even talking donkeys. After all, the Catholic church claims responsibility for the existence of the Bible and calls it *inerrant*.
Why do you disagree with them? What makes you think you're so special that you can sit in judgment on the determinations of the Magisterium and church fathers?
More sophism.
First you need to define it and then know that it's indeed *real*. Then you have to make a determination of whether something is indeed part of or not part of the *real world*.
You don't know what is real? I was afraid we may finally uncover that secret.
What objective criteria do you use? Surely there must be a method to your madness. How do you propose doing that?
I am afraid if I suggest that you try something you may actually do it an hurt yourself, so I think I will pass. Perhaps just holding your breath until the rel world overrules you is a more benign experiment.
After a certain age, as you know, humans do learn to differentiate between the fantasy and reality, at which point they don't try to fly like Peter Pan or Superman by leaping off of high places, they learn not to touch a hot stove top, or to try to walk on water...they also learn (well not all of them) that there are no talking donkeys, talking snakes, voices from the clouds, that dead people don't get up half putrefied and walk away (except in Hollywood movies), and that everything they see in magic shows, no matter how "real" it may appear, is a trick. Thus when David Copperfield makes a tank disappear, it's a trick because things just don't disappear in the real world.
What material evidence can cast doubt about the veracity of any god?
They "behave," "talk," "react," and "think" like humans who made them, except they are "more powerful."
Why do you disagree with them [Cathoic Church]?
Because the world they describe is not real, no one else recorded it, it has no basis in fact; because they cannot prove it. The fact that for the last 2000 years no one has seen a person raised from the dead, and yet billions believe it, is a perfect proof that it is blind belief. All we have are writings of a few individuals without references, evidence or even their own positive identity. A legend.
Now, the only reason I am saying this is because you asked me. I am not here to preach what I think, or to discourage others from their faith, but to ask those who state their faith as fact to show me the facts.
But if you ask me what I think I am not going to censor my thought and make them politically correct just because they may clash with someone's belief.
I am not anti-God by any stretch. I do nto disocunt the possibility that there is a Creator or God, whatever he or it may be. I confess I don't know what God is. I ask those who claim they do, in vain. And for that I am reviled. No one is under any obigation to answer my questions or to read my posts if they find them disagreeable.
Those who are interested in a discussion will engage, and if they do then all bets are off, and all cards are on the table. So, if you can't stand the heat, don't participate. I am interested in beliefs, not the character of the poster, and therefore I am not interested in flaming and personal barbs. So, either we can have an open discussion or not. Your choice.