Matthew Le God

1 Peter 3:15 says: "But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

Deeply flawed and packed full of fallacies! It creates a straw man by falsely portraying the origin of life as purely random, ignoring natural selection and chemical laws. It appeals to incredulity, suggesting that because the scenario seems unlikely, it must be false. A false dilemma is implied, presenting only two options—chance or design—while ignoring other natural explanations. It also misuses probability, treating a rare event as impossible without considering vast time and space scales, and it misapplies the anthropic principle by implying that Earth's suitability for life requires intentional fine-tuning, rather than acknowledging we observe it that way simply because we exist here.

A method that can lead to polar opposites being believed not being a reliable path to truth is not merely opinion it is demonstrably logically evident.

Missed it! You even quoted it! How did you miss something in a post you quoted? You then have the cheek to blame me for you not reading something you later quote! Are you not even reading the things you are quoting? I suppose that makes sense given you keep ignoring rebuttals.

Here it is! A clear no and a reason for the no @egg You kept avoiding it!

Bullshit... my post started with a no and explained why. The post reads... "No, because of the reasons I outlined that you ignored! It was not 'all evidence'. There was evidence it would work, so a belief it could work is based on evidence, not faith." But you kept ignoring it!

The individual pieces of evidence before the flight could not be used for claims of both success or failure. They stand on their own demonstrable merits. Same does not apply to faith. Faith allows someone to claim opposing positions on the same topic.

Those are spatial and temporal. Both needed for existence. Christian God is said to be outside space and time. So is not spatial and temporal so doesn't meet existence.

Asking you to read the answer I have to a question that you keep asking... is not me playing a game.

1) As I have not seen sufficient evidence they are wrong. As if no sufficient evidence is provided it is logically impossible for both a and b to be true for a God that wants to be known, knows what it would take but refuses to provide it. 2) Nonsense. If a system can lead to polar oppositepostions... it is not a reliable path to truth.

Read it yourself

It was a yes or no question.

Well if he is making me do something... then I exist. He can't though if he is outside space and time. As existence is spatial and temporal.

I did give a yes or no answer.

My senses corresponding in a reliable, consistent and demonstrable manner to my experiences.

1) Do you agree many Christians think God wants everyone to believe in him? Do you believe many Christians believe God knows what it would take for someone to believe in him? 2) Is something a reliable path to truth if it can be used to justify two opposing and conflicting beliefs?

I think, therefore I am.

1) Does he want me to believe in him? Does the God know what evidence I'd need to believe in him? Both can't be true. 2) It is very relevant. Faith can be used to justify opposing/contradictory beliefs.Thus making it not a reliable methodology to get to a truth as any outcome can be derived at!

Nope, you need to read it for once!

The story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit is the moment sin entered the world. This "Fall" is seen as the reason humans are born sinful and separated from God. Jesus is described as the solution to the Fall. Jesus's death is presented as the atonement for humanity’s original sin. So, without a real "Fall," the need for a savior (Jesus) could be called into question. The Adam and Eve story is incompatible with evolution.

Would you like to face a jury that used faith rather than evidence?

I've address this in the rebuttal you keep avoiding.

I have answered it. You keep avoiding the rebuttal.

My answer to that is in the rebuttal you keep ignoring.

Because we have been discussing the God of the Bible. The Bible overwhelmingly uses male pronouns—He, Him, and His—to refer to God. Additionally, God is often called Father, King, and Lord, all traditionally masculine titles. So we can add pronouns to the list of % and counting.