“I looked on that site about Sid Roth's It's Supernatural and have not seen videos of GOD healing someone in real time where we see the effects of GOD restoring or regenerating someone in the video itself. The people would discuss about how they would be healed and what supposedly the sickness it was they was healed from but not a real time event in the video where said person was restored right there from a sickness that could be shown to be real time restoration.”
Well, the real time event is irrelevant, as it can be presumed that said event was previously verified; in order for you to have a point, you'd need to have some sort of proof that the guest was not credible or discredited; this is again your stubbornly sticking to a lost point; if you can produce evidence that a sizable number of his guess, something even less than around 30%, then you might have a good point. These described events are easily verifiable. And, here, we get this, only after I'd shown that you previously was only half reading my posts, almost as if you proved something by reading the post fully for the first time now. Here, it's based on trying to create the premise that people who are aiming to be credible, truthfully, and trustworthy should be viewed with even more skepticism than people who thrive in dishonesty; this is backward logic; you're basically trying to make a claim from the imaginary context, where there is below zero chance of success in the real context; as I said before, the professional thing to do would be to simply move to another point and see if you have something there or just go with the largest population of people on planet earth and just accept that God is real, away from your little sub-bubble group of people. And, then, you have to go and do an exploration into the scholarly Christian community; this is a repose, yes, but, not a refutation of anything without some actual credible counter information like these guests should somehow be deemed as incredible for reasons that you have yet to lay out; and, this would be taking the total number of guests or a sizable number of the guests.
“Everything else you have stated is personal conjecture again. Why do you keep doing this ?”
Do you even know what you're talking about here? I'm responding your your conjectures and speculations: your making a sweeping generalization that God has never regrown a limb before, that people receiving medical treatments somehow means that all examples of God's miracles have been explained somewhere, and that this somehow leads one to conclude that there is scant evidence of God so much so that He's barely worth ever mentioning; however, you've yet to demonstrate that you've done anything close to the comprehensive and exhaustive research for such a sweeping generalization?