Conflicting statements in the bible

[The Reality Salesman01]

That’s not true at all, often large groups of people all experience the same supernatural event.

And if I were to go back to 400 b.c. and set off a bunch of fireworks...That would be percieved as supernatural, and since large groups of people thought that it was...it must be?

So if I accept the validity of the sources giving account of God’s interaction with His creation I am justified in believing in God?

Justified how? Because I accept that the beans I just purchased are magic beans, i'm justified in believing they are in fact magic beans because the guy that sold him to me seemed to be on the up-and-up, nevermind not having any reason to believe that such beans existed anywhere...ever?

How does God’s existence conflict with what we know to be true about the Universe?

Well..That all depends on what attributes you claim your has. Please list any possible attributes that such a being would require, and i'd be happy to explain why it's not consistant with what we know about the universe. (example: Creation Ex Niliho, Omniscient, Omnipotent...)

That seems to be quite the category error.

Indeed, step on up to the plate and lets discuss the errors with God(s) with respect to scientific knowledge.

You can't just go visit God and watch him make things.

So?

He he he...a little closer...

How do you critically analyze the assertion, “An assertion which cannot be critically analyzed is worthless.”?

Worthless is an opinion, but in a minute you can decide...

An assertion which is specifically designed to be immune to critical analysis is certain to be a lie.

So the assertion, “I can trust my ability to critically analyze” is a lie?

Lie isn't quite the right word. Unfalsifiable, yes. We'll address the worth of those types of claims shortly...

Then what valid and sound argument can someone make to prove their car was created?

1)All Toyota Cars are created at various Toyota assembley plants around the world. Toyotas can be identified by several numbers in various places within the assembley of the car.(evidence supports this claim, as every Toyota has identification numbers that can be traced back to any one of the several plants around the world, the results are consistant and there has never been a Toyota that could not be linked to a assembley plant using the numbers.)

2)My Car is a Toyota (verified by the serialized indentification numbers on the various components (which are, for the sake of this syllogism) all that are required to qualify as a Toyota. (Obviously others could be used)

3) My car was created at a Toyota assembley plant (logically follows)

Both of the first two premises are true and backed by verifiable evidence with confirmed qualifying criteria, and the conclusion logically follows.

Give me an example (it’s not my logic by the way, I was actually borrowing your logic, so if you think it is stupid that’s not my problem).

There is no "your logic". There is only logical and illogical. If you refuse to abide by the rules of logic when weighing claims, the conclusions you derrive are illogical. If the conclusions happen to be correct you should hardly be proud of the means of such a conclusion as it was luck at best.

Let me get this straight, you’re saying that we cannot make simple design inferences based on specified complexity unless it’s possible to visit the source of such objects firsthand?

Nope! But, if you wish to make an inductive inference based on rational intuition, the inference made cannot be irrational or unfounded. Looking at a car and inferring it was made, comes from knowledge of experience. There is no experienced knowledge of a God anywhere, and so there is no reason to simply plug it in because you want it to be true.

So we cannot infer that the pyramids were built by Egyptians because we cannot go back in time and experience ancient Egyptians building pyramids firsthand?

Again...If I found some old artifacts in the ground during an excavation, say they were eating utensils (my first valid inductive inference) carved (second valid inductive inference) from wood. If I was going to begin to explain where they could have possibly came from, I would not need evidence to assert as a starting point that they were at the very least made by probably man. This would be a valid inductive inference, and an excellent starting point to my hypothesis of EXACTLY where they came from because of my knowledge of what sorts of things are common to creations of man. But all of this is only valid because of knowledge.

If this is applied to the universe, and God is the inference that is made as an explanation, it has no valid starting point. The universe we have without a God is precisely the universe we could expect to not have a God. There is no evidence of such things, and any attempt to logically assert such a capable being, cannot be validated inductively or deductively. There is absolutely no reason to assume it to be plausible because plausibility can NEVER BE ASSUMED.
A hypothesis must be falsifiable to identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested or rationally accepted.

You’ve also trapped yourself here because you believe that life can come from non-life, and yet we have never experienced anything remotely close to this occurring naturally firsthand.

an interesting qualifier open to interpretation.

I do not need to support claims that countless numbers of people have already proven for me, life is too short for that.

Please show this proof you speak of...
The beleif that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light is an assumption that drives our sciences. But this assumption is not blind. It stands very firmly on years of sophisticated testing and consistant unrelenting results. It continues to be challenged, and the more it is challenged, the more it is confirmed. If you are attempting to assert God as a hypothesis for how the universe came into existance, you do this by a series of connecting inferences to an unvalidated entity and the first rule of supporting the God hypothesis is-NEVER CHALLENGE IT. The second rule of the God hypothesis is-IF CHALLENGED, CONFORM IT TO FIT. There is no reason to attribute anything to a God because there is no evidence that God even exists!