Stump the Christian?

[Esquilax]

Why am I a liar for accepting evidence that you cannot understand? You have not (apparently) received the grace necessary to see, so nothing I can do can open your eyes. I could speak of:

"If you don't agree with me, there's something wrong with you!"

[*]the fact that Jesus was a real person and not a myth

Not in evidence, once again you're overstressing your case by calling that a "fact."

[*]the historical reliability of the New Testament

During which you'll ignore, yet again, that other historically reliable texts exist which contain supernatural claims that are, as a matter of course in the absence of better evidence, dismissed as the thinking of the time, rather than a strictly true event.

[*]the evidence for the resurrection

Which there isn't, despite how proud you people tend to be of the empty tomb argument ("Look at all this nothing!")

[*]the change in the disciples after the resurrection appearances

As if no other religion can boast personal changes in its adherents.

[*]the change from Sabbath worship to worship on the first day of the week - unthinkable for Jews!

"Something changed, therefore god!"

[*]the change from circumcision to non-circumcision - unthinkable for Jews!

See above.

[*]the rise of the early Church in the face of immense persecution

Much of that persecution was factually incorrect or outright fictional, but you might note that the same argument also applies to the Jews, so I guess Judaism is true too!

[*]the spread of the Christian message throughout the world

Seriously? The argument from popularity?

[*]the unbroken apostolic succession from Peter to Pope Francis over 2,000 years

So what?

[*]the Kalam Cosmological Argument

So you'd argue for something that we've already proved to you is wrong and fallacious earlier? An argument that you literally retracted your claim of being scientifically supported?

[*]the Teleological Argument

So, you're just going to assert design, so there?

[*]or any one of nearly two dozen logical proofs of God which are discussed even today at the highest levels of academia (while being dismissed soooo easily by Internet forum denizens)

Then do so. Don't just beat around the bush and massage your ego by pretending you've got tons of arguments.

I could refer you to dozens (if not hundreds) of Old Testament prophecies that point to Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God.

All of which are little more than retrofits.

I could cite personal testimonies not of cradle Christians but of former atheists - philosophers and scientists - who came to a position of faith in a personal God.

We already know people can be wrong. You're not going to gain much traction here with an argument from authority, either.

And with all of this and more arrayed before you, you would continue to ASSERT that there simply is no evidence.

We've already gone through the fallacies involved in your argumentation in numerous other threads: quit pretending that what's happening here is fiat dismissal.

Proof beyond a shadow of a doubt? No. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Absolutely.

You list a lot of proof, but you don't actually provide any. You'll go on and on about how there's "no question" on the things you assert, but that's as far as you go. Sorry, but "because I said so," is not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, unless you have a profoundly inflated opinion of yourself.

But you can't or won't see it. That's spiritual blindness.

"If you disagree with me, there's something wrong with you!"

(And mark my words, it won't be more than an hour or so before someone in this forum takes it upon himself or herself to go down my lists above and cite the reasons I'm wrong in each and every case.

Have you considered being less wrong?

But the refutation offered won't make a dent in what I've said, because I haven't even scratched the surface of what is available to support faith in a personal creator God. That would take volumes.)

You're basically all empty bluster, aren't you?