One question for Christians

[Bad Writer]

You sure enjoy moving those goalposts around don’t you? You asserted that the flood account in scripture was impossible, I refuted that claim.

I think I remember putting forth that it didn't happen the way described in the Bible. Proving that it's plausible doesn't prove me wrong on what I said. It's too bad you don't see it this way. You did a little goal post shifting yourself though. Not directly, but you tried to show me that since basically every ancient culture has a flood story, then it MUST have happened. By that line of reasoning, every culture also has a creation and god story, so does this mean that there MUST be a god?

They haven’t demonstrated it’s possible, every one of those theories you proposed possesses a fatal flaw, that’s why there are so many of them. Everyone can poke holes in every one else’s theory. Why are they unable to synthesize life in the laboratory even under the most controlled conditions?

Part of science is poking holes in the theories of one another sure. But you're basing your claim on the idea that there's only one way to skin a rabbit. Basically, there are multiple lines of reasoning on Abiogenesis. It goes without saying that if there's life elsewhere, it's entirely feasible that it did not spring up the same way it did on earth. We're still not certain that it was Abiogenesis that caused the first single-celled organisms, but we can't say that it's a baseless theory no matter how much you want it to be.

The notion of evidence proves God exists.

So, if I follow you correctly, you're saying that the fact that there's evidence at all for anything means that there must be a god? This makes a person wonder who's really skipping steps here.

I find that sort of language juvenile.

Are you sure it's your not your own immaturity that's keeping you from being a bit more colorful with your words?

...please explain how you can observe what exists in someone else’s mind. This ought to be good.

Straw man. No thanks.

How do you know that you are indeed observing the natural world?

How do we know a sphere is actually round? It's because it can be observed and demonstrated to be so. Thinking that we are observing a false reality when we are awake is unnecessary since no other reality than this one can be proven to exist. I accept that this reality is actual, and that's really all there is to it.

I am sure glad you bear the burden of proof on this one and not me.

Not a problem. Now that I've shown you that accepting this reality as fact is more or less the default position since nothing outside it can be proven, how about you go about proving that your god exists.

Why would we have to disprove a book that Christians themselves admit is taken 'on faith'?

It’s not taken on faith in the sense you’re using that word.

Faith is not a sure knowledge, if that's what you're getting at. Glad I could nip that in the butt.