Here is a very short video, one of the characters is a lot like you.
Good video, but I was a little disappointed with the ending. At some point, the police need to tell Ken Spam that since nobody was there to witness the accident, nobody knows what happened, any theory of the crime is as valid as any other if nobody witnessed it, we just can't know what happened, and that therefore, nobody can be charged.
The definition of “born again” comes from the Bible, as Jesus defined that. So for you to contradict that definition is fine with me but that’s not being born again according to Jesus and the Bible.
The biblical definition of born again or Christian is irrelevant to me - to my understanding of what born again means or my definition of Christian. The Bible is for you and anybody else that wants to live by it. Sin and demons are for you to believe in. What Jesus said is for you, not non-Christians. Biblical values are for you.
The Big Bang like an explosion wouldn’t be organized.
The Big Bang wasn't organized. The organization we see in nature is the result of the nature of matter - the forces and tendencies such as increasing entropy and heat dissipation. Clusters of galaxies of solar systems are organized by gravity. Stars burn hot and forge elements due to another force, a weak nuclear force. The atomic nuclei are held together by strong binding forces. And molecules do chemistry using electromagnetism, including self-organizing into living matter.
I don’t have contempt for science, I have contempt for some of the explanations and interpretations.
You are indifferent to science except where it contradicts your faith-based belief, where you are dismissive.
who broke God's very good design but Satan and Adam.
That's not a very good design. In fact, unless one's intention is to create a stage for sin to play out, it's a pretty poor design.
Perfectly created with the gift of free-will choices.
That would be an error. Christians praise free will like its a gift. It's the ability to make wrong choices as well as correct ones. A better system would generate good choices only. Pacifists everywhere plead with people to be good and kind. We do everything in our power to get them to conform to standards of kindness and decency. If we could, we'd make them want only the good. But we can't, because that's just not the way humanity is. Humanism deals with this by recognizing that man is a pastiche of newer, older, and ancient inputs from reptilian and lower mammalian brain structures sending man competing desires, some primal fight or flight, some communal, some intellectual. Many spend a lifetime attempting to subdue the urges using higher centers like reason and conscience. This is a necessary shortcoming resulting from unsupervised evolution, but we attempt to rein in these other parts of our free wills. It is not a gift to be of two minds. Better to will only the good.
It's interesting to see believers trying to reconcile that reality of nature with a worldview that includes a tri-omni deity. The first thing is to identify the shortcomings as sin and blame man and demons. Never mind the elephant in the room - that these were created as they were by a deity who allegedly could have done better but didn't. Enter the "gift" of free will and the immediate fall of man. Why is it a gift? Because it's from God.
Satan and Adam were Not created to be un-thinking robots or automatons.
This is part of the attempted reconciliation. God doesn't want unthinking robots, as if this were an adequate explanation for a perfect god creating an imperfect world.
Speaking of which, what will God have in heaven, robots, or souls with free will? If one argues that evil exists because man has free will, then I guess that there's either evil in heaven or "robots" after all. Free will is what led to the story of rebellion in heaven and fallen angels being cast out. It would be a pretty poor choice for God to allow that to happen again if He could prevent it, as any good father would.
This is the problem with vamping on the theology - creating it ad hoc as you go along, with multiple contributors over millennia. You don't avoid these logical inconsistencies. Apologetics is trying to reconcile a universe that appears to have evolved naturalistically and without intelligent guidance with one imagined to have been created by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent deity, and it can't be done. You've seen the result - the problems it creates for the apologist, the lengths he goes to unconvincingly explain them away, and the reaction that earns.
