INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Thief]

What moved the Spirit?

A spirit in rest will remain in rest.

Think All Things as One. There is no "first" nor "last". All is in constant, infinite, eternal motion. Matter, substance, spirit, all of it. The Alpha and Omega is the Ouroboros. Things in eternal motion never rests.

Spirit ...not having physical form...might not obey physical law.

You actually think God has a form?

 

[cottage]

Science will insist on certain notions.
Nothing moves without something to move it.

Let's begin with that singularity.

What brought it to motion?

So, you’re alluding to the cosmological argument? Here is my take on that:

A first cause argument presumes that all worlds are as ours; so that what is true of our world, for example the phenomenon of cause and effect, is also true of God. So, on this account God is absurdly dependent upon the material world for his existence and is therefore part of it. And thus if the material world need not be, the same can be said of God. Not only does the argument depend utterly upon the world of experience, but it also misuses the principle to infer more in the supposed cause than is apparent in the effect: nothing in the argument establishes the existence of a deity or a personal God, but only supposes a First Cause of all subsequent causes and their effects.

And even that is problematic, as we see in another variation of the cosmological argument: The Argument from Contingency, as postulated by Leibniz. To paraphrase the argument very roughly, every contingent thing is caused, has potential, and as such may exist or not exist – or in other words, the contingent world and mankind are not logically necessary. The argument then is that there is some uncaused cause, a Necessary Being upon which contingent things depend. We can see immediately that there is something wrong here. The argument wants to demonstrate its truth in logic alone, but then exigently calls upon the material world for support! That a necessary being cannot have the potential to not exist must be logically true. And it is also true that the contingent world is not logically necessary; it simply doesn’t have to be. But… if we agree that the material world isn’t logically necessary then where does the legend: ‘Everything must have a cause’ have its logical foundation? It is the case that every effect must logically have a cause only in the sense that the term ‘effect’ implies the term ‘cause’; but there is no logical necessity outside this meaning, just as we might say that mermaids are part fish, part human, but which is not to say that mermaids must exist. David Hume said we observe that B follows A and the mind wants to make a necessary connection between the two and announces boldly that A is the cause of B. But if we can deny any logical necessity in the principle of cause and effect without involving a contradiction, then a supposed First Cause can also be denied.

And what do we mean by things having a beginning? No things in the physical world, automobiles, computers, tables and chairs etc begin to exist as if there was nothing there in the first place; we do not create anything in the physical world, not objects, not thoughts, not even children; we just apply, adapt, or respond to what is already there. This synthesis doesn’t occur with the introduction of something that didn’t previously exist and then began to exist but comprises a change or variation in the form of existent physical matter or our ideas. Even our most fantastic imaginings, for example, are not created from nothing but compounded from general experience. Therefore all change and motion is subject to a causal principle applying to the cause of every effect and its preceding cause, but while all things changing and in motion need to be caused in that respect they are not created.

If the world is all that is the case, which is certainly logically possible given that it actually exists, then on that account the world might be self-existent, that is to say existing of itself with no external creator or sustainer. And if the world contains its own latent sustaining cause, which transcends form and matter then it answers to itself and there is neither a causal regression nor a logical impediment in conceiving a putative necessity. Any forward causal sequence must end with the world, for no contradiction can be implied in saying the material world will end tomorrow, since it might, and yet by the same transcendent cause its renewal is also made possible.


1. The world is all that is the case (everything that can be stated or conceived of, objects and concepts).

2. The material world is contingent and need not exist, and yet the world does exist for to say there is nothing, ie no world, is self-refuting (anti-sceptical), and therefore something about the world must be true.

3. If there is a transcendent sustaining cause for material existence it must belong to the world.

If the conclusion (3) is false then so must be (1), which is contradictory.

 

[Ouroboros]

Spirit ...not having physical form...might not obey physical law.

You actually think God has a form?

I think think Spirit is a word that fits.

Form or no form. Physical or non-physical. It's all a mystery. The answer is not to use a constricted human word that means only a few things and not others. We don't know. To say it's Spirit is akin to say its strawberry shortcake. Release yourself from human definitions and constraints.

 

[Thief]

I think think Spirit is a word that fits.

Form or no form. Physical or non-physical. It's all a mystery. The answer is not to use a constricted human word that means only a few things and not others. We don't know. To say it's Spirit is akin to say its strawberry shortcake. Release yourself from human definitions and constraints.

Been there.... did that....

But there is some restriction.
Not everyone is allowed into heaven.

Peace first.
Words without restraint?.....or conviction?
What kind of language do you think they use in heaven?

 

[Ouroboros]

Been there.... did that....

But there is some restriction.
Not everyone is allowed into heaven.

Ah. The loving God who punishes his own creation.

Peace first.

Yes. Peace first.

Words without restraint?.....or conviction?

Or lack of comprehension?.... or laziness?

What kind of language do you think they use in heaven?

Ängelska. Gammalt svenskt skämt.

 

[1robin]

What moved the Spirit?

A spirit in rest will remain in rest.

Think All Things as One. There is no "first" nor "last". All is in constant, infinite, eternal motion. Matter, substance, spirit, all of it. The Alpha and Omega is the Ouroboros. Things in eternal motion never rests.

Newton's laws which you parodied apply to mass. How is it your applying them to things without mass? God as a personal but spiritual being can decide to act.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3471.

 

[1robin]

You used to oppose macro evolution, and I can provide some examples of where you did.

I doubt it. I have only said here that macro evolution has huge hurdles left to overcome and does not explain genetic reality on it's own.

You have never agreed that macro evolution occurs. You have said that all of it has problems, and that it has a thousand problems other than naturalism. All that you have done is admit that variations within species occur, and that has never been as issue since virtually all creationists admit that.

Saying a theory has problems is not to say the reality it describes did not occur. It may be partially true, it may be overwhelmingly true, it may be false, it may be perfectly true. At this point no one knows, but serious problems remain. I said changes within kinds is all that has been observed and there seems to be barriers (for example fertility) that distinguish kinds from one another. What we KNOW and what the bible claims are as usual the same. The rest is faith based conjecture at this point and reasons exist to think it always will be.

On the contrary, all that the study of macro evolution requires is following the scientific method. Ken Miller agrees with me, and he is a noted Christian expert. Surely many other Christian experts agree with Miler that “both [religious people, and skeptics] can embrace the systematic study of nature in the project that we call science.”

Scientific methodology requires observation or reproduction. What species has been observed to become another?

Consider the following:



The validity of that significant scientific research does not depend upon whether or not a God exists. What I mean is that if that evidence reasonably proves that all life forms are related, and that species become new species, the probability of the research being true would not depend upon whether or not a God exists. It would only depend upon whether or not the evidence form various fields reasonably prove that macro evolution is true.

This is a good opportunity for me to make something clear one last time. Including a God with evolution solves all it's problems in reality. In a theological debate the theory becomes useless if it includes God. The only case where the theory has application in this debate if it excludes God and thereby re-inherits all of it's problems. Please keep the following in mind.

1. I have no dog in a race about theistic evolution. It is a non-topic.
2. It's only relevance in the debate would be a counterclaim against God. If it is used in this way it has drastic problems that have no current solutions.
3. I also do not care about what is true within the bounds of a theory. I care about the reality it represents. The reality od Godless evolution requires many many astronomical improbabilities to have occurred.

Please make comments bearing these in mind. We are wasting a lot of time contending things that do not matter.

You have created an obvious straw man argument. Macro evolution only studies the "occurrence" of macro evolution. It does not study the "mechanisms" that influence it. By bringing up naturalism, you are questioning the "mechanisms" that influence macro evolution. If scientists made claims about the "mechanisms" that influence macro evolution, you would be right, but they don't.

This is an example of the above. I do not care what is true of a think tanks theory. I care about the feasibility of the reality it claims to represent. Godless evolution depends entirely on many things including abiogenesis in reality. IOW if it was proven that life only comes from life evolution as a stand alone explanation fails miserably.

What we are talking about is physical actions. Macro evolution is physical actions. A chicken crossing a road is a physical action that can be empirically observed, and reasonably proven without needing to know where the chicken came from. Most experts agree with Wikipedia that "the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data" mostly from "paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy."

That is only if the theory and not the reality it portends to describe is the issue. It isn't. If I can show that chickens have no historical evidence of having existed then discussing why one crossed a road is meaningless. Science is constantly ruling out what it once took as truth. It contains far more mistakes than successes. Steady state is just one example. I think the massive problems of stand alone evolution leave open the likely hood of future revision.

Do you have any evidence that there is not sufficient direct, and implied physical evidence from paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy that macro evolution occurs? Do you know enough about macro evolution to claim that all of it has problems, and that it has a thousand problems other than naturalism?

I do not think I have enough evidence to claim macro-evolution did not occur. I do think I have enough evidence to claim it is not alone an explanation for genetic reality. I know without a doubt it has problems that have no solutions currently available.

I assume that the vast majority of Christian theistic evolutionist experts, or all of them would agree with my arguments, and of course, all of the skeptic experts would agree with my arguments. I doubt that you could find any Christian theistic evolutionist experts who would agree with you, and I assume that even some conservative Christian creationist experts would agree with me that there is not any need to assume whether or not a God exists in order to study the validity of the "occurrence" of macro evolution, and that the existence of God would only be an issue if scientists made claims about the "mechanisms" that influence macro evolution, which of course they don't.

As I explained above theistic evolution would have solutions available for it's problems. It however makes evolution a meaningless topic in a theology debate.

Since I am an agnostic, I am not arguing against the existence of any God, only the Gods of world religions. I will agree for the sake of argument that an unknown God exists. My only reason for defending macro evolution was to try to discredit the literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve as believed by tens of millions of conservative Christians who reject macro evolution. So, for my purposes, it is reasonable for me to appeal to a consensus of experts who support macro evolution.

You do little besides argue against traditional concepts of God. I have no firm position on Genesis and Adam and Eve so your purpose has no role in a debate with me.

Although you now claim that you only object to naturalistic macro evolution, if there were not any atheists or agnostics in the world, and Buddhists had come up with macro evolution, you would still probably object to it since it questions what tens of millions of American conservative Christians believe about the creation of humans.

I admit that in a theological context I assume evolution as a theory is used as a counter argument against God. That is it's only relevance in this context. That does not mean you are not bringing up meaningless discussions. It means I assume you are not. The problems I have with macro-evolution are all resolved by including God. How could they not be. I hope we have this cleared up by now. We are spinning our wheels.

Even if a God exists, life could have been brought to earth by aliens, and an unknown God might have created the aliens. If there were not any atheists or agnostics in the world, and Buddhists had come up with that alien theory, you would still probably object to it since it questions what tens of millions of American conservative Christians believe about the creation of humans.

Incorporating aliens is no less faith based than including God. Actually it is worse because it only kicks the can down the road without any need to. I do not care what tens of millions of Americans believe. Tens of millions of them are atheists as well. I care about what I conclude from the evidence.

There is only one relevant issue here. Is Godless evolution a theory with enough evidence to be used as an argument against God. IMO it is not.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, 3469, and 3471.

 

[1robin]

Your statistics area misleading. The vast majority of people who are the most knowledgeable about biology accept macro evolution, and in predominantly Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist countries, the vast majority of people who are familiar with Christianity rejected it.

I did not claim anything about believers in evolution. This is a complete waste of time. I only care about defending the bible and God. I have no interest in evolution beyond this context. I can't imagine or more useless theory even if true. No surgeon depends on it, no economic problems are resolved, world peace is not ensured by it. I have little interest in it other than an argument used to counter God.

What sufficiency of evidence? If you are partly referring to biblical textual criticism, that is far too vast a field for you to be proficient in. You would not even be able to pass a first year theology exam at an accredited college. Lots of experts on both sides who have forgotten more about the Bible than you and I will ever know have debated for years, and have not gotten anywhere. I am not going to waste my time buying and reading dozens and dozens of books, and end up getting nowhere years later. I have already watched a bunch of people do that over several years at another website. There are ways to sufficiently discredit Christianity without discussing biblical textual criticism, but I am making an exception regarding the Tyre prophecy since it is not difficult to adequately refute.

That is like saying I can't know if my medication works or not because medicine is a broad field. I have no need to spend ten years researching textual criticism. I have aces to hundreds of textual critics and their conclusion's who have done the work for me. I can in five minutes compare the textual tradition of the bible against ancient histories other great works and the disparity is so overwhelming as to be obvious to a child. I have already asked to stop making these personal observations and conclusions that you simply cannot make. You only need to contend with my claims or accept them. There is no role for your estimation of my competence in general, needed.

There is a big difference between appealing to a consensus regarding experts in science, which, for example Judge Jones did at the Dover trial, and appealing to a large number of Christian laymen regarding choosing a world view.

Not when personal experience in the issue. I make three sort of claims.

1. Personal experience which any layman is qualified to make.
2. Evidence claims concerning experts in evidence.
3. A sufficiency of evidence claim based on the convincing power of a proposition over history.

You getting ones burdens mixed with another and another's conclusions applied to a distinct claim.

South Korea is only about the size of Indiana, so people come into contact with each other quite a lot. It has excellent education, media, and transportation, all of which help to spread information about Christianity. It has the largest single Christian church congregation in the world. About 30% of South Koreans are Christians.

It also has deep traditional roots in non-Christian theological systems. You drastically underestimate the complexities involved in your claims here. If you think textual criticism is a broad field, it can't hold a candle to the complexities concerning the adoption and influence of revealed religion. I can think of little more complex than this issue.

Wikipedia says:



So it is reasonable to say that a large percentage of South Korean skeptics have been sufficiently evangelized, and that many of them would have become Christians under different circumstances, and deserve to have eternal life. I discussed this issue in more detail in my post 3449.

Since I have always allowed for the influence of details on faith I see no problem here even if I grant your claims are perfectly clear and true.

You said:



If you do not care about numbers, why did you mention them? You have made an issue in this thread about the total number of Christians that are in the world. You need to make up your own mind whether or not you care about numbers. In this thread, you said:

"Since millions living where to be Christian risked death and still they believed this is not an excuse and not relevant."

You sure love to use numbers.

As I said:

"There is a big difference between appealing to a consensus regarding experts in science, which, for example Judge Jones did at the Dover trial, and appealing to a large number of Christian laymen regarding choosing a world view."

Since it is widely accepted by both skeptics, and Christians to appeal to a consensus regarding science, I will continue to do so when I want to. If 90% of the people in the world were agnostics, I would not make an issue out of that in debates, but I do make an issue out of a consensus of scientists when I want to.

One study showed that in the U.S., 99.86% of experts accept macro evolution. If that many experts accepted creationism, you would definitely brag about that, and so would most other conservative Christians. The same goes for the issue of homosexuality. All major medical organizations say that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children. If all major medical organizations said that homosexuality is a mental illness, and that homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt children, you would definitely brag about that, and so would most other conservative Christians.

Regarding scientific issues, it is reasonable for laymen to accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts pending further research, especially when the consensus consists of the vast majority of skeptic experts, and the majority of Christian experts.

Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, and 3450.

I have never volunteered any complaints about numbers in a vacuum. I only mentioned any complaint to point out the inconsistency in your accepting or rejecting numbers. I do not even care which. Lets' save some time. Simply answer this question. Are numbers meaningful or not in a debate? Yes or no.

 

[Agnostic75]

You do little besides argue against traditional concepts of God. I have no firm position on Genesis and Adam and Eve so your purpose has no role in a debate with me.

That is fine since all that I was interested in was arguing against a literal interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve as understood by tens of millions of American Christians.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts 3448, 3449, 3450, and 3471. Those posts are my main interests.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: The following is from another thread, with some minor changes regarding my replies.

Why?

An evil God cannot be the God of the Bible, but that is exactly my point, which is that God is not the kind of God that the Bible claims he is.

That would only follow from a convincing argument that contains much evidence that both a God exists and he is evil. When is that necessity going to occur.

Logically, any eternal being who has creative abilities would qualify as a God regardless of his nature.

I am not sure I can agree but I am sure the claim a needless one.

No logic indicates that all possible Gods must be good.

In fact logic is exactly what indicates this. However what you mean by good and what the philosopher means by it are not the same. In divine command theory what God does is good or right because he is also the moral judge. What you think objective good is simply does not matter.

What are great making properties? What can a good God do that an evil God cannot do? If an evil God is omnipotent, he quite naturally would be able to do anything that he wanted to do. For example, he could heal sick people, and predict the future, or do anything else that he wanted to do. He would have a different character than a good God would, but mere humans would not be able to know that.

I do not like the philosophy of great making properties nor divine command theory. I simply had to adopt them as there is no argument against them. If you want an explanation of them Craig or Zacharias would be better than me. I believe I have given you several links to what you requested.

Craig is wrong. Consider the following:

Perfect Being Theology | Reasonable Faith

What part?

Nothing there, or elsewhere in the article, reasonably disproves my arguments. All that is required for my arguments to be true is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and evil. Obviously, an evil God who is omnipotent, and omniscient, would easily be able to pretend to be good, to predict the future, and to do good works.

I have no idea how to debate great making properties. I just know those most trained to do so do not consider evil among them.

Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but if God is evil, he deceived Paul, and no mere human would be able to outwit an omnipotent, omniscient, evil God.

Paul says many things. Including how even though Satan does attempt to copy God he is unable to and how to tell the difference. Paul does not leave us as helpless as the .01% of what he claimed you commented on would alone. Paul would be the first to tell you that God and Satan and not hopelessly indistinguishable. In fact his whole message depends on our being able to.

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?

Before I examine ways how to reject that, on what basis would I think it even remotely true? My awareness or apprehension of God comes from two sources.

1. Theological texts (revealed religion).
2. My conscience which apprehends for example an objective moral realm.

Your are asking me to reject my conclusions from both those methods and adopt the possibility of something with no evidence as a reason to assume my faith based on those two areas is faulty. I think you have all three false tactics rolled up in one claim here.

1. The amplification of any uncertainty to arbitrary levels where it can be dismissed.
2. Doing so on the basis of a counter argument that has no evidence, but is simply possible.
3. Ignoring of the reality a claim is about and concentration upon the theoretical.

 

[Agnostic75]

No logic indicates that all possible Gods must be good.

In fact logic is exactly what indicates this.

Why is that? Why must all possible Gods always tell the truth?

However what you mean by good and what the philosopher means by it are not the same.

For purposes of these discussions, the main issue is whether or not the God of the Bible is who the Bible says he is. You have not provided reasonable evidence that he is not an imposter.

In divine command theory what God does is good or right because he is also the moral judge.

Then what an evil God does is good or right because he is also the moral judge.

What are great making properties? What can a good God do that an evil God cannot do? If an evil God is omnipotent, he quite naturally would be able to do anything that he wanted to do. For example, he could heal sick people, and predict the future, or do anything else that he wanted to do. He would have a different character than a good God would, but mere humans would not be able to know that.

I do not like the philosophy of great making properties nor divine command theory. I simply had to adopt them as there is no argument against them. If you want an explanation of them Craig or Zacharias would be better than me. I believe I have given you several links to what you requested.

At the other forum, you said that evil does not have great making qualities. It is up to you to explain your position, and you did not explain it.

I read Craig's article that I quoted, and nothing in it logically precludes the existence of an evil God.

If an imposter God can do things like heal sick people, predict the future, read people's minds, create planets, and create biological life, and is omnipotent, and omniscient, he would be able to successfully pretend to be the God of the Bible.

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?.

Before I examine ways how to reject that, on what basis would I think it even remotely true? My awareness or apprehension of God comes from two sources.

1. Theological texts (revealed religion).

2. My conscience which apprehends for example an objective moral realm.

Regarding item 1, quite naturally, an evil, omnipotent, omniscient God would easily be able to inspire the Bible.

Regarding item 2, an evil, omnipotent, omniscient God would easily be able to trick anyone who he wanted to.

Your are asking me to reject my conclusions from both those methods and adopt the possibility of something with no evidence as a reason to assume my faith based on those two areas is faulty.

Not at all. If powerful good, and evil supernatural beings exist, and the leader of one of the groups is a God, no logic requires that the leader be the God of the Bible.

1. The amplification of any uncertainty to arbitrary levels where it can be dismissed.

2. Doing so on the basis of a counter argument that has no evidence, but is simply possible.

3. Ignoring of the reality a claim is about and concentration upon the theoretical.

Regarding item 1, Paul established uncertainty when he said that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. You cannot reasonably prove that Paul knew that it was not God who is masquerading as an angel of light.

Regarding item 2, the only evidence that I need is that no logic requires that a God be good.

Regarding item 3, your claim that God is who he says he is is theoretical.

I said:

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?.

Please answer the question.

 

[Agnostic75]

Since I have always allowed for the influence of details on faith I see no problem here even if I grant your claims are perfectly clear and true.

I refer you to my post 3449. In addition, please reply to my posts 3448, and 3450.

 

[Agnostic75]

What sufficiency of evidence? If you are partly referring to biblical textual criticism, that is far too vast a field for you to be proficient in. You would not even be able to pass a first year theology exam at an accredited college. Lots of experts on both sides who have forgotten more about the Bible than you and I will ever know have debated for years, and have not gotten anywhere. I am not going to waste my time buying and reading dozens and dozens of books, and end up getting nowhere years later. I have already watched a bunch of people do that over several years at another website. There are ways to sufficiently discredit Christianity without discussing biblical textual criticism, but I am making an exception regarding the Tyre prophecy since it is not difficult to adequately refute.

That is like saying I can't know if my medication works or not because medicine is a broad field. I have no need to spend ten years researching textual criticism. I have aces to hundreds of textual critics and their conclusion's who have done the work for me. I can in five minutes compare the textual tradition of the Bible against ancient histories other great works and the disparity is so overwhelming as to be obvious to a child. I have already asked to stop making these personal observations and conclusions that you simply cannot make. You only need to contend with my claims or accept them. There is no role for your estimation of my competence in general, needed.

On the contrary, your competence in biblical textual criticism is very important since you would not be able to win any debates against competent skeptic Bible scholars regarding the writings of your experts. Would you like to challenge Dr. Richard Carrier to debate his article on the formation of the New Testament Canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon with you?

I was at another religious discussion website for several years before I came here. There was a forum that was called the Biblical Criticism and History forum. Most of the posters knew a lot more about the Bible than you and I do. Some of the gifted amateurs were fluent in New Testament Greek, and some posters had degrees in theology, and one had a Ph.D. in philosophy. All that most of them ever debated was biblical criticism and history, so unlike you, most of them specialize is biblical textual criticism. After several years, no one had changed their world view. One argument led to another argument, and one book led to another book, and so on with no resolution even years later. That forum has now moved to Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com • View topic - The Skeptical Critical Commentary on "Mark". It is run by the very learned Peter Kirby. You would not be able to keep up with most of the posters at that website. If you read some of those threads, you will see how little you know about biblical textual criticism. It is a very vast field. A person has to become a walking encyclopedia in order to adequately discuss biblical textual criticism, and even thousands of experts on both sides disagree with each other. If you wish, I can give you the names of some of the more knowledgeable skeptics, and Christians at that website. At that forum, or elsewhere, you could spend years debating only New Testament interpolations, and forgeries, and get nowhere.

Anyway, I have some reasonable arguments that do not have anything to do with biblical textual criticism, and it would be ridiculous for me to debate biblical textual criticism when there are many thousands of skeptics in the U.S. who know far more about it than I do, and many of them would be happy to debate you.

There is a big difference between appealing to a consensus regarding experts in science, which, for example Judge Jones did at the Dover trial, and appealing to a large number of Christian laymen regarding choosing a world view.

Not when personal experience in the issue. I make three sort of claims.

1. Personal experience which any layman is qualified to make.
2. Evidence claims concerning experts in evidence.
3. A sufficiency of evidence claim based on the convincing power of a proposition over history.

Regarding item 1, what kinds of personal experiences?

Regarding item 2, what kinds of evidence from experts?

It is interesting that you mentioned experts since all major medical organizations, including the CDC, disagree with your utterly absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence. Few people would claim victory in a debate where all relevant major organizations disagreed with them.

Regarding item 3, what do you mean?

Are numbers meaningful or not in a debate? Yes or no.

Numbers are meaningful regarding a scientific consensus, but not regarding how many people choose a religion.

What fair, worthy, and just goals can God not achieve without injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals in many ways?

 

[Thief]

Ah. The loving God who punishes his own creation.


Yes. Peace first.


Or lack of comprehension?.... or laziness?

Loving God, yes.
Serious judge?...yes again.
I see no comprehension problems on MY side of the discussion.

Care to elaborate?
or are you lazy?


And the language of heaven would be what?

 

[Agnostic75]

You used to oppose macro evolution, and I can provide some examples of where you did.

I doubt it. I have only said here that macro evolution has huge hurdles left to overcome, and does not explain genetic reality on it's own.

What hurdles are you referring to other than naturalism?

Wikipedia says:

Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.

The evolutionary course of Equidae (wide family including all horses and related animals) is often viewed as a typical example of macroevolution. The earliest known genus, Hyracotherium (now reclassified as a palaeothere), was a herbivore animal resembling a dog that lived in the early Cenozoic. As its habitat transformed into an open arid grassland, selective pressure required that the animal become a fast grazer. Thus elongation of legs and head as well as reduction of toes gradually occurred, producing the only extant genus of Equidae, Equus.

Do you consider that evidence to be hurdles that have not been reasonably overcome?