Stump the Christian?

[Esquilax]

I never said I was proposing a scientific theory.

So then besides making cheap rhetorical points, what was the point of all this? It's pretty clear that we hold scientific theories in higher regard than the other kind, it's why we took exception to your lazy creationist talking points to begin with.

You label my evidence as unjustified fiat claims. I did not dream these things up. There is evidence. You might not like the quality of the evidence, but evidence never-the-less.

So, another thing you don't know the meaning of: evidence versus claims. "Jesus existed and did miracles," is not evidence, it is a claim. Evidence is an observation or referent of the real world that supports a claim, and you've provided none.

BTW, I forgot Fine-tuning.

How did you determine that the universe was fine tuned? And by that I mean, how did you determine that this specific universe is any more significant than any other? Because without that, you don't even have a basis for fine tuning at all.

I have heard your arguments over and over again against this list. I don't find them convincing when you consider the whole list at the same time. I am not attempting to prove the existence of God--merely defend the idea that it is reasonable to believe in the God of Christianity.

The whole list together is just one factually incorrect premise, two factually correct premises that don't point to your god, and a series of assertions you make. Would you take that list seriously if I changed the last five premises to be assertions that Brahma was real, and we all knew it? Why not? The content of the list wouldn't have changed, only the nouns used...

Oh, right: this has more to do with maintaining your presuppositions than it does accurately reflecting and arguing for a state of affairs in reality.