"To all those who want proof for the existence of God:
I AM THE PROOF." - ex
Believers all claim that their god answers prayer when from my experience all that's going on is something called selective observation, where a believer counts the hits and discounts the misses. Keep track, list the specific prayers you pray. Keep in mind that you generally will only pray for things which you expect can happen too. You do not pray that a mountain is uprooted and planted in the sea. So already your prayer requests are limited and already you do not pray for the kinds of things jesus told you could happen because you live in a scientific era. Then be brutally honest with the results. No fudging like horoscope readers regularly do.
Was the prayer answered exactly as you prayed it? No punting to what believers around the globe do, either. No saying, well god knows best, or that he didn't give me what I wanted but what I needed. Then see what happens. Then see how many times prayers are answered.
The bottom line is that I cannot believe. But even this should be no trouble for god if he exists. Just like he supposedly showed himself to Moses, Gibeon, and Paul he could do so for me. And if he could do that without abrogating their human freedom then he can do that with me too. Pray that this happens. I'm open to it. God could even snap his fingers and take away what he created me with, a critical mind. Then I wouldn't demand evidence any more and believe. Of course if not, the problem is why he created me this way and then doesn't provide what I need to believe. Crazy isn't it.
And today logical fallacies are:
appeal to emotion
You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more. It's important to note that sometimes a logically coherent argument may inspire emotion or have an emotional aspect, but the problem and fallacy occurs when emotion is used instead of a logical argument, or to obscure the fact that no compelling rational reason exists for one's position. Everyone, bar sociopaths, is affected by emotion, and so appeals to emotion are a very common and effective argument tactic, but they're ultimately flawed, dishonest, and tend to make one's opponents justifiably emotional.
And:
anecdotal
You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.
It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.
Ismael