Hi Valjean,
Could you explain what claims has been made and debunked?
That would take a small book. You like videos, though, so scroll to 2:40
I have FAITH my God exists. I have my talks with Him, and many experiences that prove to me He exists, that is all I have ever claimed.
I understand that, but faith is, by definition unjustified or poorly evidenced belief. Your personal experiences may be convincing to you, but unless you can recreate them in others they're useless as arguments.
You on the other hand make claims that something expanded into the Universe we now have. You don't know what is was nor do you know where it came from or from what source the energy required to build this universe from came from.
I echo the conclusions of the experts in this field, drawn from the best available empirical evidence, and I acknowledge that very little is yet known about this event.
And they you have an earth you say life began to exist upon without any mechanism to produce that life. But you know it happened just like you were told it did.
Now that I never said.
Yes, life began on Earth. A great deal is known about the mechanisms needed for such an event, but the entire process has not yet been worked out.
I do not claim it happened just as I was told it did. Noöne's told me how it happened. Noöne knows yet all the steps involved. I'd wager, though, that a lot more is known about it than you realize.
Life happened. We have observed and tested much of the chemistry that might account for it.
We have no evidenced or rational alternative mechanisms other than chemistry.
I believe by FAITH but you KNOW you are right. If you are put up your evidence that supports your position.
Belief without evidence has never been very productive.
There are whole libraries of "evidence" for various biological processes. Your question is very broad. What position, specifically, would you like me to address?
You sitting there with that smug growl on your face accusing me of doing what you do in every post.
You know you are right and dare me to prove you wrong.
Apologies for any smug growls. What, exactly, am I doing that I accuse you of doing. I'm honestly at a loss, here.
I know I'm right about what? If we're talking about biology I do understand the basics, and have evidentiary support. If we're talking theology, it's you making the claims, and I have no burden.
I only have FAITH that my God is real and my experiences with Him.
I am not going to try to prove to you that my God exists.
Understood, and I have no problem with that. But when you're posting God-claims in a debate forum we kinda expect you to offer some objective evidence or logical support. If you don't defend your position we have nothing to debate.
You have already decided in your mind that He does not exist and His History Book is just a bunch of myth stories.
I have not decided He does not exist. I'm simply not convinced of this extraordinary claim. I have yet to see any convincing evidence, so I defer belief, pending same.
As for His History Book,
that I have problems with. It's full of demonstrable, factual errors. It's full of contradictions, edits. &c. The morality it seems to advocate is inconsistant and often infare, unjust, monstrous, or barbaric. Many of it's claims are fantastical and hearsay, which that noöne would believe if they read it in today's paper.
The Bible is no better evidenced than many other religion's scriptures, or many books of mythology. Equal evidence, equal confidence level.
But when Jesus returns we will know who is right and who is wrong. Let me rephrase that, if you are right we will know nothing at all.
Enjoy,
Yikes! Doesn't sound very enjoyable at all.
Peace out.