It is not know if spirit is needed or not.
The concept of spirit is not needed at this time to account for biology, psychology, or anything else.
Genesis 2 is a story focusing on God's creation of humanity in a creation that already existed.
That doesn't rebut the claim that there are two creation stories in Genesis. Nor dies it address their contradictions.
At this point an intelligent designer is need to account for the genetic system.
There are hundreds or thousands of researchers in abiogenesis who disagree, as do the those allocating the millions of dollars to underwrite their research.
We don't know what timelessness is, we have not experienced it.
Nor will you. Experience occurs in time.
Maybe knowing replaces thinking/reasoning.
Not in my epistemology. I don't call anything knowledge that isn't justified empirically, which is the addition of reasoning to evidence.
Do abstract concepts like love, life, spirit, knowing, being etc need space to exist?
I can't imagine them existing outside of space.
It was Christianity which led the way in experimentation and observation of nature, and that seemed to be because of their view of a rational God whom men could understand and understand His works because they are rational and we are rational creatures.
You made the claim already and it was rebutted. Unless you want to try to falsify the rebuttal, which unless it contains an error you can demonstrate is an error has falsified that claim already, the debate is over. Debate is the method critical thinkers use to resolve differences of opinion, and ends amicably when one makes an argument that the other cannot rebut, the other thanking him for the demonstration and the new learning. But when one of them ignores a rebuttal and repeats himself, only the other understands that the issue is resolved, the one just repeating himself with no evidence that he has seen or understood the rebuttal.
You want the rules for the study of science to be applicable for the study of God.
The rules of reason are applicable to all claims of fact. And religious theology (as opposed to the Bible as literature or a cultural factor, or comparative religions, all of which are academic studies grounded in evidence), being faith-based and not grounded in evidence, is just unfalsifiable claims about things indistinguishable from the nonexistent. My rules of reason tell me to disregard such claims (Popper's Unfalsifiablity Razor)
skeptics make a mistake in initially deciding that God is not needed and everything else falls off the cliff after that.
No, empiricists look at the available evidence and generate the simplest narrative that accounts for it. They'll invoke gods if that becomes necessary to account for some new finding. You've seen the cosmologists introducing new ideas like dark matter and dark energy to account for recent discoveries not explicable by the narrative of 20th century cosmology, but not a minute before that, and no more was added that needed. Dark matter was not called anything but an unseen source of gravity, not a god, for example. Maybe it is a god and we will discover that someday, but that day hasn't come, and therefore that hypothesis is unneeded.
"God never wrought miracle, to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it."
Apparently not if there are atheists.
It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.
Also, the more sophisticated one's ability to evaluate nature become, the more likely he is to be atheist. Learning more doesn't return him to theism, but dementia might:
Antony Flew - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre Lee Strobel claims that it was biblical learning that led him from atheism to theism, but he can't make a compelling argument to critical thinkers, so they reject his claim that his new position is based in reason properly applied to evidence.
You loose all credibility about what the Bible supports or not with your reading of the Tyre prophecy.
Not with me. It's the one using motivated reason to justify his position that loses credibility: "Motivated reasoning is a form of reasoning in which people access, construct, and evaluate arguments in a biased fashion to arrive at or endorse a preferred conclusion."
That is describing what should be done if a pregnant woman is accidentally knocked and loses the baby.
You're missing the implication: "When men strive together and hit a pregnant woman, so that her children come out, but there is no harm, the one who hit her shall surely be fined, as the woman’s husband shall impose on him, and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if there is harm, then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."
The fetus doesn't have the same value or worth as the mother. It's a commodity, like cattle, the loss of which is remediable with a cash payment.
