God has no been proven by any objective standard so the idea is unproven. You believe in one of many possible but unverified and unfalsifiable ideas. Which is exactly what I said.
Either God exists, or he doesn't exist, and I've already stated that I believe the arguments that are used for God's existence makes his existence more plausible/probable than not...that is my OPINION..and again, if you can refute any of those arguments, I'd love to see you try.
One does not prove a negative.
This is a common quip by unbelievers.."you can't prove a negative", as if God doesn't exist until one can prove that he does...which is illogical...a guy in China may not be able to prove that I exist right now, so I guess my existence is a negative until he can prove it???
Illogical. There may not be one single shred of evidence for the existence of God, but that STILL doesn't mean that such a being doesn't exist.
You presented claims, as others do and are required to prove these claims. Since the later claims are based on an unproven claim itself secondary claims tied to this first unproven idea can be dismissed. I only need to point out the first claim is unsound in order to show later claims are unsound as well.
We are talking about Christian claims of miracles, and in order to prove that miracles don't occur, you have to prove that God doesn't exist. If you have an argument against theism, then I'd love to hear it. Just sitting back folding your arms and shaking your head "no" won't do it.
Again, the claim is that God raised Jesus from the dead, and that by the power of God, Jesus was able to perform miracles. We believe this by first establishing the existence of God first, and this can be done by presenting various arguments for such a beings existence. Once that is established (and it is), then you can focus specifically on the historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus, and once that is established (and it is), then a positive case is made.
The arguments are out there....and I'd love to see your refutation of ANY argument regarding Christian theology.
You are just repeating the fallacy. You do not find it possible does not mean something is impossible. You secondary arguments have already been shown to be flawed.
Again, I said that since there is no scientific evidence supporting it, then I have no reason to believe it, that, followed by the fact that I do think it is impossible, also the other fact that I have counter-arguments against it, makes me not a believer in abiogenesis.
So I have three reasons why I don't believe in abiogenesis...
1. There is no scientific evidence supporting it
2. I think the concept is absurd
3. I actually have arguments against it
Splitting the Red Sea violates physics. Turn water into wine violates physics. IF God is beyond physics he violates physics just by being...
This is a clear cut case of begging the question in favor of naturalism. And its funny you speak of violating physics, when naturalism violates logic.
Origin of consciousness is found in evolution and brain development.
Like I told others..since the brain is made up of matter, if you were to shape and mold a brain, where would you get the consciousness from? You have the brain, so where would the consciousness from?
Experiments with Apes shows these animals are capable of rational thought, recalling memory and the communication of basic ideas.
And?
There are a number of theoretical ideas for cosmology. None are prove no more than God. You are free to pick one if you wish but this does not mean it is fact. Nor do current theories need to be accept to question the God hypothesis. The God hypothesis must stand on it's own merit not that other ideas nor their failures.
What??
Biggest religion implying size of it's membership. This is an ad populum fallacy as membership does not imply one has influence. History is full of negative results due to his influence which are not countered by believers,
Reading comprehension.
He was an absent GM. His followers did all the work.
He was present for 3 years, and after he left, the disciples carried it on from there...and now Christianity is the worlds largest religion, so apparently, they did something right.
Still a fallacy as you are using belief in numbers to justify a position. Your reply was addressing evidence.
I am using numbers to justify the fact that what Saint claimed wasn't enough, or what Saint claimed "should have been" doesn't matter, because Christianity is the largest religion despite all that...which is completely different than saying "Christianity is true, because it has x amount of followers".
No I am basing this on the writing style of Mark, the earliest Gospel. A writting system of a poety not that of a tax-man. No honest scholarship believes Mark was written by the apostle.
Matthew was the tax collector, not Mark.
For this verse sure but for other passage and letter authorship is required to be established. This is honest scholarship not a religious ideology.
I repeat, 1Corin is all I need.
