The best evidence for Creationism

[Guy1]

You have failed to demonstrate how everything came from nothing

First of all, you assume it "came to be" in the first place. Is an eternal entity really that incomprehensible to you? Second, it's a question with a very simple, elegant answer that was created over the span of decades by the world's top physicists: "Nobody knows."

and created itself with no intelligent cause.

You assume it created itself.

 

[selfinflikted]

You have failed to demonstrate how everything came from nothing and created itself with no intelligent cause.

Who's to say "all this" came from "nothing?"

 

[Davian]

You have failed to demonstrate how everything came from nothing and created itself with no intelligent cause.

I clearly stated that I do not believe that everything came from nothing. Are you telling me what I believe?

 

[SkyWriting]

First of all, you assume it "came to be" in the first place. Is an eternal entity really that incomprehensible to you? Second, it's a question with a very simple, elegant answer that was created over the span of decades by the world's top physicists: "Nobody knows."

They DO know that energy dissipates until there are no useful concentrations left to do work.

ENTROPY, THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THE LAW OF MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRODUCTION

Is there an eternal "entity" that gathers enough energy together to make mass and matter? Most likely.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

 

[Davian]

They DO know that energy dissipates until there are no useful concentrations left to do work.

ENTROPY, THE FIRST AND SECOND LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS AND THE LAW OF MAXIMUM ENTROPY PRODUCTION

Is there an eternal "entity" that gathers enough energy together to make mass and matter? Most likely.
Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Most likely? If you are not sure, say so.

Tell me how this eternal entity of yours is exempts itself from the laws of thermodynamics.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Lawrence Krauss: Life, the Universe and Nothing - YouTube

 

[sandwiches]

Is there an eternal "entity" that gathers enough energy together to make mass and matter?

Nope. It'd be neat, though... but no.

 

[SkyWriting]

Nope. It'd be neat, though... but no.

I don't mind if you come up with other theories than the one I've chosen.
Just make it a good one, that has some benefits.
The stupid ones don't offer anything of value.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't mind if you come up with other theories than the one I've chosen.
Just make it a good one, that has some benefits.
The stupid ones don't offer anything of value.

Except the possibility of being true -- or is having "benefits" more important than truth?

 

[sandwiches]

I don't mind if you come up with other theories than the one I've chosen.
Just make it a good one, that has some benefits.

You asked a question and I replied. Sorry if you didn't like the answer, champ.

The stupid ones don't offer anything of value.

Fully agree with you there, bud!

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Right, but that doesn't mean it's there. What actually happens to us? We 'feel', ineffably, that saving other is somehow the 'right' thing to do. That is an evolved response. We aren't intuitively aware that our actions are the result of millions of years of evolution, we aren't born with the knowledge that this sense of right and wrong is a reflex - so we come up with explanations, the most tenacious of which is "goddidit".

Your proof of this?

Your explanations are the assumptions, you keep with the "cultureexaggereddidit" or "evolutiondidit", show exactly how.

When you add the fact that "macro-evolution" didn't happen, your explanations are null and void. but assuming "macro-evolution" happened, your assumptions are still incoherent.

I have shown to you that Morality isn't about "survival and passing our genes" and that Morality is an ought or ought not Obligated by God. and you come up with excuses such as "culture exaggerated it", where is your proof?

God can explain morals coherently, He has shown us what is right and wrong, we are made in God's image, we have the urge to do right and not wrong. God is Good, and anything against God is evil. it is written in the heart.

Yes. Evolution doesn't need apathy to be strictly intra-species. Altruism can manifest in a number of ways. 'Protect my kin' is one, 'defend against predators' is another. If dolphins evolve altruism via the latter, then their altruism would naturally extend to non-dolphin species - not because they violate some Darwinian law, but because, like all evolved instincts, there are side-effects.

In 'help my kin' altruism, the side-effect is that, in large societies, you end up feeling altruistic towards any human. In 'defend against predators', you end up helping non dolphins. Indeed, there is a benefit in some cases to helping other species - just look at how dogs, cats, sheep, and cattle, have flourished because of inter-species cooperation. How concious it is is an interesting question, but an irrelevant one here.

Ultimately, so long as the root behaviour causes a net benefit to the species, the trait will endure. Which leads nicely to the fundamental fallacy of creation.com's reasoning: "I can't imagine how it could have evolved, therefore, it didn't!" - such arguments from personal incredulity are illogical.

Still doesn't coherently explain altruism. why would anyone want to help their fellow neighbor survive, a gene can't tell anyone to, it is because we have compassion, we know we ought to, it is our duty, which leads back to God's authority. altruism isn't for the benefit of ourselves or genes, is it to show you care, to help another.

"evolution" cannot explain love, altruism, and morality properly.

Also when you take the fact that God exist and "macro-evolution" didn't happen, then all theories for "evolution" go out the window.

Ah, another fundamental fallacy. See, what creation.com is doing, is taking a popular phrase like 'survival of the fittest', assuming it is an accurate and exhaustive summary of the theory, and then using it to debunk evolution. The problem is that this is a strawman: evolution is not synonymous with 'survival of the fittest' (Darwin never even used the term).

"evolution" is about "survival of the fittest", otherwise it wouldn't be constantly mentioned when talking about "evolution"

Why wouldn't God make it OK? If it's wrong because God says so, then if he said it was right, it'd be right. Appealing to God as your source of morality doesn't make it objective.

The thing is, God wouldn't make it ok.

Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and Holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil., - Janine M. Ramsey

rape will never be ok, since God condemns rape and it isn't in His image. God is unchanging, Holy and Righteous, and since we are made in God's image, it will never be ok.

On the contrary, it does do that, even on a minor level, and that's enough for a selection pressure to form. In social species where childrearing is incredibly resource-intensive - such as H. sapiens - committed paternity is a vital assets, and far outstrips promiscuity in terms of reproductive success.

Does rape violate this system of parental bond? Yes. Does preventing rape confer an evolutionary advantage? Yes.

Nope, rape is wrong not because of "breaking parent bonds", someone can get raped and not have a child, if a rape victim gets pregnant, it is after the rape. a rape victim doesn't need to get pregnant from the rapist for the rape to be wrong. the rape victim will be traumatized either way. either way rape is wrong. so the "breaking parent bonds" still isn't even 1 of the reasons why rape itself has been, is and always will be wrong.

a) You have yet to prove that sex is, in fact, sacred.


b) Privacy and dignity are wholly cultural constructs. Topless women in the 1950s would be seen as vulgar, even a public menace. Yet across the world women go topless as a matter of course. The 'dignity' inherent in covering one's breasts is an entirely cultural matter - why would you think sex is any different?

c) Sex is intimate, and serves to cement bonds between prospective parents. This, too, is one of the reasons we evolved to abhor rape: it turns something intimate and bond-forming into something violent and destructive.

A. If sex wasn't sacred, it would be a jungle, in public, no dignity, no love to it. we keep it private, and it has importance. it is to express love pleasurably to your spouse and to procreate, something in God's image. to give, love, and create, with pleasure. that is why sex is sacred, and sex like anything else can be corrupted and not sacred when not done in God's image.

B.Prove how it came from culture. doesn't explain why it is morally wrong to go naked in the streets.

c)"evolution" doesn't explain why everything fits, why is there only male and female, why not any other "species", why does man need woman and woman need man to procreate? this coincidence stuff doesn't add up. why would sex have to be bond forming, pleasurable, beautiful? this is too intelligent to be coincidence or "evolution", "evolution" cannot explain this intelligent irreducible complexity, only God can.

Simply compare two cultures, and you'll see how morals are different. In the USA, Janet Jackson's nipple caused a national outrage, while things like Darfur are shrugged off. In others countries, this would be reversed; in the UK, for instance, a slip of a nipple would be a mildly humourous, but otherwise unnewsworthy event.

Why? Because a) we've evolved a sense of sexual titilation, b) culture exagerrates or otherwise morphs this evolved sense to focus on different things (in Shakespeare's time, ankles were as erotic as bare breasts are today).

And yet it is still, humorous, why?, why does nudity have such shame? why do we wear clothes to cover our bodies from others?

"evolution" can't explain why public nudity is morally wrong. if "evolution" happened, there would be no such thing as privacy or shame, sex wouldn't be private and there would be no shame in public nudity.

A.Prove how it "evolved".

B.Prove how "culture exaggerates" anything.

Give evidence, I don't take word of mouth from someone who slanders.

Do I think rape could ever be morally justified? In the case of species like ducks, yes: we may not like it, but their species evolved (or, if you prefer, were designed by a loving God) to use rape as an intricate part of the mechanism. The females' vaginas counter-evolves to ward off the males' penis', a strange kind of evolutionary arms race. In humans, rape may be justified if the alternative is something worse (such as multiple rape).

rape of any kind can never be justified and you know it. all rape is wrong.

If we're going down into moral philosophy, you need to define your terms. What, exactly, do you mean by 'moral objectivity'?

I would agree with apologetics.net:

What is objective morality? - We should start with what objective means given the word’s versatility. In philosophy, objective refers to something independent of the human mind. The object of perception does not change with our feelings, interpretations, and prejudices. Objective moral values are therefore discovered, not invented.

There are two things wrong with your analogy. First, you're wrong about your conclusion: you would indeed reach the story if you took an infinity of finite steps, or a finite number of infinite steps. With time, we have that luxury.

Second, your analogy assumes that you can be 'at' infinity - you can't. It's the same fallacy that makes people not understand how 0.999... recurring is numerically equal to 1. They just can't grasp the fact that there's no end to it.

Nope, still won't get to the store if it is, finite steps or not, it is still infinitely away. please count down from infinity to 1, you can't do it. you would never get to 1 if you are infinitely away. same with time, we would never get here if the past was infinite. the past isn't infinite no matter how you put it the universe had a start, it was created and God created it.

I don't doubt, but this is a case where popular TV shows have been rather misleading. Show me the evidence, the actual, hard evidence, that says the universe had a beginning - not a Big Bang, but a beginning.

Infinite regression being impossible. there is a first uncaused cause, and that is God.

also, godandscience.org /apologetics/beginning

I disagree. Simply being uncaused doesn't mean you're eternal, for two reasons:
1) it assumes you're part of some linear timeline, which may well not be the case,
2) there's no reason why this uncaused cause couldn't cease to be after the universe is made. Indeed, who's to say the uncaused cause's cessation is why the universe is here.
3) there's no reason why 'uncaused' means 'has existed for eternity' - after all, isn't that exactly the same proposition you're arguing against earlier?
4) there's no reason why 'uncaused' doesn't mean 'came into existence at a finite time' - an event without a caise.

1. Cause and Effect.

2. Then the uncaused cause isn't uncaused, since the uncaused cause is uncaused the uncaused cause must always exist. you are thinking in terms of something that is caused

3. the universe had a beginning, it is caused, hasn't always existed, so it is not eternal. The first uncaused cause which created the universe is uncaused, so by default the uncaused cause will always exist, nothing can affect the uncaused cause, so the first uncaused cause, God is eternal, has and always will exist.

4. if the first uncaused cause just came into existence, then the uncaused cause wouldn't be, uncaused. being uncaused, God is eternal. nothing before Him.

If he is outside time, then he cannot do anything. If something is outside time, it isn't eternal - it's static.

God created time, He is above it and not bound to it. we will never understand eternity, eternal life until we experience it after physical death.

1) It's incorrect that "the lesser cannot produce the greater". Ever heard of fractals?
2) Even if it's true, that only means the uncaused cause is greater than the universe - it doesn't mean it's the greatest thing possible. Logically, if your argument worked, we'd only know that there was some object that was at least as great as the universe at work.
3) What, exactly, do you mean by 'greater'? More mass? More space? 'Great' also carries connotation of worth and value - surely you're not equivocating here?

1.The lesser will not produce the greater, the first uncaused cause cannot be less than His creation, that is simple logic. the fact that the universe isn't uncaused, makes it less than the first uncaused cause by default. the first uncaused cause, God is which no greater can be conceived, perfect.

2. Yes it does mean that, by default actually is the greatest which no greater can be conceived. also, Intelligent Design proves the first uncaused cause to be intelligent, has a mind. the first uncaused cause is God.

3. Perfect, nothing greater. greatest intelligence(all knowing), created space, time and matter,(all powerful) eternal. the first uncaused is not a mindless object, the first uncaused cause has a mind, the first uncaused cause is God.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

1) Fine Tuning? You've yet to prove that.

from, Godandscience.org:

Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe
by Rich Deem

Introduction
According to Carl Sagan, the universe (cosmos) "is all that is or ever was or ever will be." However, the idea that the universe is all is not a scientific fact, but an assumption based upon materialistic naturalism. Since Carl Sagan's death in 1996, new discoveries in physics and cosmology bring into questions Sagan's assumption about the universe. Evidence shows that the constants of physics have been finely tuned to a degree not possible through human engineering. Five of the more finely tuned numbers are included in the table below. For comments about what scientists think about these numbers, see the page Quotes from Scientists Regarding Design of the Universe.

Fine Tuning of the Physical Constants of the Universe
Parameter Max. Deviation
Ratio of Electrons: Protons 1:1037
Ratio of Electromagnetic Force:Gravity 1:1040
Expansion Rate of Universe 1:1055
Mass Density of Universe1 1:1059
Cosmological Constant 1:10120
These numbers represent the maximum deviation from the accepted values, that would either prevent the universe from existing now, not having matter, or be unsuitable for any form of life.Degree of fine tuning
Recent Studies have confirmed the fine tuning of the cosmological constant (also known as "dark energy"). This cosmological constant is a force that increases with the increasing size of the universe. First hypothesized by Albert Einstein, the cosmological constant was rejected by him, because of lack of real world data. However, recent supernova 1A data demonstrated the existence of a cosmological constant that probably made up for the lack of light and dark matter in the universe.2 However, the data was tentative, since there was some variability among observations. Recent cosmic microwave background (CMB) measurement not only demonstrate the existence of the cosmological constant, but the value of the constant. It turns out that the value of the cosmological constant exactly makes up for the lack of matter in the universe.3

The degree of fine-tuning is difficult to imagine. Dr. Hugh Ross gives an example of the least fine-tuned of the above four examples in his book, The Creator and the Cosmos, which is reproduced here:

One part in 1037 is such an incredibly sensitive balance that it is hard to visualize. The following analogy might help: Cover the entire North American continent in dimes all the way up to the moon, a height of about 239,000 miles (In comparison, the money to pay for the U.S. federal government debt would cover one square mile less than two feet deep with dimes.). Next, pile dimes from here to the moon on a billion other continents the same size as North America. Paint one dime red and mix it into the billions of piles of dimes. Blindfold a friend and ask him to pick out one dime. The odds that he will pick the red dime are one in 1037. (p. 115)

The ripples in the universe from the original Big Bang event are detectable at one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of gas - no planets, no life. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist only of large black holes. Obviously, no life would be possible in such a universe.

Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees, Just Six Numbers).

Fine Tuning Parameters for the Universe

1 strong nuclear force constant
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry

2 weak nuclear force constant
if larger: too much hydrogen would convert to helium in big bang; hence, stars would convert too much matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible
if smaller: too little helium would be produced from big bang; hence, stars would convert too little matter into heavy elements making life chemistry impossible

3 gravitational force constant
if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn too rapidly and too unevenly for life chemistry
if smaller: stars would be too cool to ignite nuclear fusion; thus, many of the elements needed for life chemistry would never form

4 electromagnetic force constant
if greater: chemical bonding would be disrupted; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if lesser: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry

5 ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
if larger: all stars would be at least 40% more massive than the sun; hence, stellar burning would be too brief and too uneven for life support
if smaller: all stars would be at least 20% less massive than the sun, thus incapable of producing heavy elements

6 ratio of electron to proton mass
if larger: chemical bonding would be insufficient for life chemistry
if smaller: same as above

7 ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
if larger: electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation
if smaller: same as above

8 expansion rate of the universe
if larger: no galaxies would form
if smaller: universe would collapse, even before stars formed

9 entropy level of the universe
if larger: stars would not form within proto-galaxies
if smaller: no proto-galaxies would form

10 mass density of the universe
if larger: overabundance of deuterium from big bang would cause stars to burn rapidly, too rapidly for life to form
if smaller: insufficient helium from big bang would result in a shortage of heavy elements

11 velocity of light
if faster: stars would be too luminous for life support if slower: stars would be insufficiently luminous for life support

12 age of the universe
if older: no solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would exist in the right (for life) part of the galaxy
if younger: solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed


13 initial uniformity of radiation
if more uniform: stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed
if less uniform: universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space

14 average distance between galaxies
if larger: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would be hampered by lack of material
if smaller: gravitational tug-of-wars would destabilize the sun's orbit

15 density of galaxy cluster
if denser: galaxy collisions and mergers would disrupt the sun's orbit
if less dense: star formation late enough in the history of the universe would
be hampered by lack of material

16 average distance between stars
if larger: heavy element density would be too sparse for rocky planets to form
if smaller: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life

17 fine structure constant (describing the fine-structure splitting of spectral lines) if larger: all stars would be at least 30% less massive than the sun
if larger than 0.06: matter would be unstable in large magnetic fields
if smaller: all stars would be at least 80% more massive than the sun

18 decay rate of protons
if greater: life would be exterminated by the release of radiation
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient matter for life

19 12C to 16O nuclear energy level ratio
if larger: universe would contain insufficient oxygen for life
if smaller: universe would contain insufficient carbon for life

20 ground state energy level for 4He
if larger: universe would contain insufficient carbon and oxygen for life
if smaller: same as above

21 decay rate of 8Be
if slower: heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars
if faster: no element heavier than beryllium would form; thus, no life chemistry

22 ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
if higher: neutron decay would yield too few neutrons for the formation of many life-essential elements
if lower: neutron decay would produce so many neutrons as to collapse all

23 stars into neutron stars or black holes
initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons
if greater: radiation would prohibit planet formation
if lesser: matter would be insufficient for galaxy or star formation

24 polarity of the water molecule
if greater: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too high for life
if smaller: heat of fusion and vaporization would be too low for life; liquid
water would not work as a solvent for life chemistry; ice would not float, and a runaway freeze-up would result

25 supernovae eruptions
if too close, too frequent, or too late: radiation would exterminate life on the planet
if too distant, too infrequent, or too soon: heavy elements would be too sparse for rocky planets to form

26 white dwarf binaries
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: planetary orbits would be too unstable for life
if formed too soon: insufficient fluorine production
if formed too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

27 ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass
if larger: universe would collapse before solar-type stars could form
if smaller: no galaxies would form

28 number of effective dimensions in the early universe
if larger: quantum mechanics, gravity, and relativity could not coexist; thus, life would be impossible
if smaller: same result

29 number of effective dimensions in the present universe
if smaller: electron, planet, and star orbits would become unstable
if larger: same result

30 mass of the neutrino
if smaller: galaxy clusters, galaxies, and stars would not form
if larger: galaxy clusters and galaxies would be too dense

31 big bang ripples
if smaller: galaxies would not form; universe would expand too rapidly
if larger: galaxies/galaxy clusters would be too dense for life; black holes would dominate; universe would collapse before life-site could form

32 size of the relativistic dilation factor
if smaller: certain life-essential chemical reactions will not function properly
if larger: same result

33 uncertainty magnitude in the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
if smaller: oxygen transport to body cells would be too small and certain life-essential elements would be unstable
if larger: oxygen transport to body cells would be too great and certain life-essential elements would be unstable

34 cosmological constant
if larger: universe would expand too quickly to form solar-type stars

 

[SavedByChrist94]

2) ID? You've yet to prove that.

Yes I have, refer back to my previous posts, stop ignoring it.

in fact, you have yet to prove or show any example that an Intelligent Irreducibly Complex Design doesn't require a an Intelligent Designer.

3) IC? You've yet to prove that.

Again, refer back to my previous posts, used darwinismrefuted.com to show IC.

4) Morality? You've yet to prove that. At best, if your argument worked, your absolute best conclusion could only be, "evolution can't explain it". That is not an argument for God, FYI.

Nope, I have proved that Morals are from God. again, Morals are universal law that overrule everyone, thus it needs authority to do so, an authority above humans, that authority is God. already explained in my previous posts.

5) The Bible? You've yet to prove that.

The prophecies? You've yet to prove that.

Free from Contradiction, Free from Error, Numeric Code. written by approximately 40 different witnesses of God with no contradiction or error, by court of law you don't even need that many witnesses to prove that an event happened. everything in The Bible is fact. add that to the extra Biblical sources of Jesus Christ and Historical accuracy of locations and events that you would be a fool to deny The Accuracy of The Bible.

Things like telling us how the Earth is round and in space during a time when people thought it was flat.

Job 26:7, He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.

Isaiah 40:22, He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Prophecy on The Messiah, Jesus Christ.

from matthewmcgee.org :

Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks

While the prophet Daniel was captive in Babylon in about 538 BC, God revealed the prophecy of Israel's 70 weeks to him in Daniel 9:24-26. "Seventy weeks (Hebrew word: "shabuwa") are determined upon thy people (Israel) and upon thy holy city (Jerusalem), to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy. Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off (killed), but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city (Jerusalem) and the sanctuary (the temple) ...." In this prophecy, the following sequence of events are revealed.

A. There would one day be a commandment to rebuild the city of Jerusalem, which the Babylonians had destroyed years earlier. This was fulfilled in 445 BC by Artaxerxes, king of the Medo-Persian Empire (465-424 BC), nearly a century after the prophecy of Daniel 9 was given. See Nehemiah 2:1-8 for the account of how Nehemiah asked Artaxerxes for the permission and the means to rebuild the ruins of the city of Jerusalem. In Nehemiah 2:1, we see that this took place "... in the month Nisan (the first month of the Hebrew calendar which occurs in early spring), in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes the king (445 BC) ...."

B. From the giving of this commandment to the Messiah would be 69 (seven plus threescore and two) weeks (shabuwa) after which the Messiah would be cut off (killed). This was fulfilled when Jesus Christ was crucified on the 14th day of Nisan (the passover) of 32 AD, right on schedule.

In order to calculate the lengths of time mentioned in this prophecy, we first need to understand what a "shabuwa" is (translated into English in Daniel 9 as "weeks" or "week"). The Hebrew word shabuwa means a "period of seven". It could be seven days or seven years. In scripture, it is used both ways, and we have to tell by the context which one it is. Often, shabuwa is used in scripture to describe the length of a feast or some other event that obviously is only a matter of days in length. But sometimes a shabuwa clearly means seven years, such as in Genesis 29:27-28. After Jacob was given Leah, in place of Rachel, for a wife after serving Laban for seven years, Laban told him. "27 Fulfil her week (shabuwa), and we will give thee this also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years. 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week (shabuwa): and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife also." Like in Genesis 29, shabuwa is used in Daniel 9 to refer to periods of seven years (not days). Some Bible teachers refer to these as "weeks of years".

When calculating the 69 seven year periods, a shabuwa is a period of seven years, and seven times 69 is 483 years. But we know from the detail of the seventieth week provided in the book of Revelation, that these years are 360 days rather than the years on our present calendar which, figuring in leap years, are approximately 365.25 days. Revelation 12:14 describes the second half of the tribulation as "a time, times, and half a time" (1 + 2 + 1/2 = 3 1/2 years). Revelation 12:6 says this is "a thousand two hundred and threescore (1260) days", and Revelation 13:5 says it is "forty and two months". Since 1260 / 42 = 30 and 1260 / 3.5 = 360, we know that in this prophecy, God is counting months as 30 days each and years as 360 days each. Since the tribulation is a part of the 70 weeks of Daniel's prophecy, we know that the 360-day years must be used. So to see how many of our years this is, we calculate 483 * (360 / 365.25) = 476 years, 0 months, and a few days. Moving forward from the 445 BC date, this brings us to the early spring of 32 AD (476 - 445 + 1 = 32), when Jesus Christ was crucified. The one must be added to account for the fact that there is no "year 0". The year after 1 BC was 1 AD. The calculation here is somewhat simplified and shows that at a minimum, the prophecy was accurate to within a very few days. Some scholars have used additional evidence for the difficult task of calculating this prophecy to the exact day. To do this, they have to know the day of the month that the commandment of Artaxerxes was given plus the astrological history of moon phases as viewed from Jerusalem, since the months of the Hebrew calendar are based upon observance of the moon phases. As for me, I am more than satisfied to know that the prophecy in Daniel 9, given several hundred years in advance, was accurate to the very month, but readers who are inclined to pursue the more detailed calculation to the exact day are welcome to do so.

Now one might wonder why God didn't use our 365.25-day years in His prophecy? We cannot be certain, but perhaps He was using the same number of days per year that the earth had when He created it. We know from Genesis 7:11 and 8:3-4 that a calendar with 30 day months was used before the great flood. It may be that in the catastrophe of the flood, the earth's rotational speed was increased slightly. One way this could happen would be if the earth's density were increased due to the tremendous seismic activity and the collapse of the water canopy which God used to trigger the flood. Genesis 7:11-12 says, "... all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights." This increase of density would have increased the earth's rotational speed by reducing its moment of inertia in the same way that spinning ice skaters spin faster when they pull their out-stretched arms in closer to their bodies. If the period of the earth's revolution around the sun did not change, then there would be more days per year after the great flood than there were before the flood. Now let's continue to the next event in the sequence of the Daniel 9 prophecy.

C. The people of the prince which is to come will destroy Jerusalem and the temple. This was fulfilled by Titus and the Roman Empire in 70 AD. In the war with the Jews, the Roman army besieged and destroyed Jerusalem, burned the temple, and killed more than one million Jews.

It is interesting to note that when this destruction was prophesied in 538 BC, Jerusalem and temple had not even been rebuilt yet. The part of this prophecy regarding the "prince which is to come" concerns the AntiChrist who must come from the revived Roman Empire in the future tribulation which will be the seventieth week of the prophecy (Daniel 9:27).

There are several amazing things about this prophecy: It accurately predicted the time of Jesus Christ's crucifixion, more than 500 years before it happened. It sandwiched His death between two future events (A and C) which have both been very well documented in history. Both of the events came true even though they were prophesied hundreds of years in advance. When one considers that this prophecy amazingly predicted events A and C above, then believing that this prophecy was also correct on event B does not exactly require a leap of faith.

For more Prophecies go to reasons.org /articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

6) Jesus' resurrection? You've yet to prove that.

-Predicted in the Old Testament, Documented in The Gospels, has Extra Biblical mentions, and The Early Christians martyrs prove that the Resurrection happened.

-Liar, Lunatic, or The Lord by C.S. Lewis. Great moral teachers are not liars, and are not lunatics, thus Jesus Christ is The Lord.

-The Resurrection is the only explanation for what happened.

-The Shroud of Jesus Christ.

Any objection and I'd like to hear it because I will easily refute it.

7) The First Cause? You've yet to prove that. At best, if your argument worked, you would only have concluded that some object caused the universe to exist. You're yet to equate that to... anything.

Just because you say I didn't prove it, doesn't mean I didn't. please back up your claim.

I proved that there is a first uncaused cause, and added up with the rest of the evidence for God, the first uncaused cause is God.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

Liar.

Atheism is the absence of belief in deities. Since I lack belief in deities, I am an atheist.

Wow, that was simple

If you are going to "lack" belief in God, then you need evidence to do so, otherwise you are delusional.

there is no evidence for "atheism", there is no evidence to "lack" belief. there is substantial evidence for God.

Therefore "atheism" does not exist.

Because I see no evidence for the existence of any deity, hence, I lack belief in them. You may think you have evidence, but I contend that you don't - faulty logic and spotty data do not evidence make.

I have given proven evidence of God's existence.

Also, you may think that you are an "atheist", but you are not.

you claim to "lack" belief in God when there is substantial evidence for God, yet you claim to be an "atheist" when "atheism" has no evidence.

Very contradicting.

you claim to be an "atheist", so you must prove why, provide evidence for "atheism" or evidence to "lack" belief. if you cannot then "atheism" doesn't exist and you are not an "atheist".

There is no evidence to "lack" belief, there is no evidence for "atheism"

"atheism" doesn't exist.

Err, what? You assert that you have substantial evidence, but I disagree that you have any. What then?

Then you have to show evidence for why you disagree, since you cannot back up your disagreement or "lack" of belief, then you cannot disagree or "lack" belief.

You ignoring the evidence by closing your eyes and covering your ears isn't going to change the fact that there is substantial evidence that proves God exist.

You assert that atheism doesn't exist, which is absurd. Suppose someone is raised to adulthood, having never heard your arguments. What then?

They were lost. the way I see it is, people are either lost and don't know about God, or know God exist and reject or accept God.

the "atheist" who doesn't know the evidence for God I feel sorry for, and my heart goes out to them, hopefully someone shows them the truth in God, but the "atheist" who have the evidence and ignore or delusionally deny it, the people who willingly reject God, they have a problem.

that's why "atheism" doesn't exist, it is either you know or don't know about God's existence. you cannot "lack" belief. when you have the evidence and deny it ignorantly then that is delusional. "atheism" doesn't exist because you cannot "lack" belief when there is substantial evidence for God. there is no evidence for "atheism".

since you claim to be an "atheist", you have to back it up with substantial evidence for "atheism", there is no proof for it. not even 1. you are cannot be an "atheist".

you can't "lack" belief, that is proven impossible.

As a Christian, I can back it up with substantial evidence that supports that God exist. the fact that there is evidence for God, for Christianity, makes "atheism" nonexistent by default. add that to the fact that there is 0 evidence for "atheism". "atheism" does not exist.

you say you "lack" belief, you say you're an "atheist", then you have to back it up with proven evidence for it, not excuses.

Since you have no evidence, you aren't an "atheist"

Romans 1:20 is simply incorrect. Like most things in the Bible, taking an overly literal, out-of-context interpretation of translations of translations of translations of lost text is not the best approach.

The Bible is one of the most Historically Accurate documents in ancient history. no true archaeologist can deny the Accuracy of The Bible. add that to the fact that Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection confirm that everything in The Bible is true. if you have an objection to the Resurrection, I will easily refute it.



Also, I showed how you purposefully slandered God and The Bible, how you purposefully took The Bible out of context evident by when you mentioned Deuteronomy 22:23-24, took it completely out of context and then left out Deuteronomy 22:25-26 where rape is condemned.

I have proven that God doesn't condone rape, and added to that I proven that God actually condemns rape.

what you did was pure slander.

Some do, some don't, some don't care. But what we want is irrelevant - only the truth matters, whatever that may be.

And that Truth is the Word of God.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

So, the non-demonstrable, non-testable and non-falsifiable evidence.

That kind of evidence proves you wrong.

Your proof?,

The Scientific, Logical, and Historical evidence I provided proves that God exist. want to object, then object with evidence, not your unreliable say so.

is not evidence.

Unsubstantiated.

Yes it is, to deny it would be ignorance, most archaeologist, most historians agree it is historically accurate. add that to the fact that Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection happened, confirming everything in The Bible as fact, and confirming that God exist.

if you have an objection then I'd like to hear it, I'd easily refute it, because Guaranteed you cannot come with a valid objection to The Resurrection of Jesus Christ or The Bible's Historical validity.

Creationism dressed up as science.

Long since shown to be reducible.

Your proof? You have to back yourself up with evidence.

Do you know why it is called the 'weak' anthropic principle?

If your going to object to Fine Tuning, please object, and I'll easily refute you.

Presupposition.

Says?

Unsubstantiated.

Your proof?

I showed that morals are obligated and are objective, and that only God can explain Morality.

Special pleading. You cannot show that the instantiation of the cosmos required a cause, and that the cause necessarily would have to be a deity - or that deities are even possible.

Yes I have. look at all my previous posts.

You are incorrect. None is needed.

Therefore "atheism" doesn't exist. since you can't back up your "disbelief" or "lack" of belief with evidence, "atheism" doesn't exist.

But you have provided nothing that does not support far more parsimonious explanations.

I have provided substantial Scientific, Logical, and Historical evidence to show that God exist.

*I* do not have to provide evidence, as I am not making the positive claim. You are.

Yes you do have to provide evidence, otherwise your "lack" of belief is unjustified and ignorant. there is no evidence for your "lack" of belief, thus you cannot "lack" belief. thus "atheism"/"lack" of belief doesn't exist. you "atheist" ask for evidence, and my fellow Christians and I provide it, yet when we ask for evidence for "atheism", you can't provide it.

You have failed to provide this "substantial evidence" that you keep referring to.

I have been providing the substantial evidence throughout this thread, you are being ignorant.

I do not believe that. Or are you now telling me what I believe?

Then what do you believe? please explain and provide evidence.

Are you calling me a clown?

So are insults and apologetics are all you have? As I undertand it, both are in violation of the rules for this forum.

And you still have not addressed my point: You have failed to demonstrate that gods are even possible.

1, I'm not calling anyone a clown, "atheist" are deceived, are ignorant, or don't know that God exist. what I am calling a clown is "atheism".

And it is funny how you would bring up forum rules as if I broke any rule or have insulted anyone when I haven't. if anything, the "atheist" on this site are the ones who should be banned for constantly being disrespectful and constantly slandering The Lord.

2, I provided substantial evidence that God exist, and the evidence I have provided has yet to be countered, all I get in return is illogical assumptions and insults. that is because the I have provided evidence cannot be objected. the evidence that God exist, is fact.

now answer this question, do you agree that God is possible? answer with a simple Yes or No.

 

[SavedByChrist94]

All in all I have provided substantial evidence for Creationism, for God. that has yet to be coherently refuted, because it cannot.

All I am getting from these "atheist" or "non"-believers in return is assumptions, slander, lies, and insults towards God, which doesn't refute anything. all they have is illogical assumptions, insults, lies, slander but no evidence. it is just proving my point, God exist.

If these "atheist" claim they "lack" belief, they have to back that up with evidence. you want to be an "atheist" then provide evidence for "atheism", "atheist" like to ramble on and on about evidence, and when they get provided the evidence for God, that proves that God exist. they ignore it.

yet when you ask them for evidence to support their "lack" of belief or "atheism", they have 0 evidence. as ShockAweNow says, "atheism" is a clown and it did not know it.

W_Child, or any "atheist" for that matter, I invite you to go to shockawenow.net, and debate Rich, the owner of ShockAweNow.net. you will not win.

You wanted evidence for Creationism, and I have provided.

God Bless.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Your proof of this?

Your explanations are the assumptions, you keep with the "cultureexaggereddidit" or "evolutiondidit", show exactly how.

When you add the fact that "macro-evolution" didn't happen, your explanations are null and void. but assuming "macro-evolution" happened, your assumptions are still incoherent.

I have shown to you that Morality isn't about "survival and passing our genes" and that Morality is an ought or ought not Obligated by God. and you come up with excuses such as "culture exaggerated it", where is your proof?

God can explain morals coherently, He has shown us what is right and wrong, we are made in God's image, we have the urge to do right and not wrong. God is Good, and anything against God is evil. it is written in the heart.

Allegedly. You haven't shown that. You haven't shown that my explanations are, as you say, incoherent. Get to work.

Still doesn't coherently explain altruism. why would anyone want to help their fellow neighbor survive, a gene can't tell anyone to,

Yes, it can. Genes dictate how our bodies develop, which includes our neurology. We are born with instincts and reflexes, including behavioural ones. No one has to teach a baby to recognise a face, our brains have evolved to do that automatically (that's why we see them in clouds and other natural objects). We don't need to be consciously aware of what our genes are doing, for them to do their work.

"evolution" is about "survival of the fittest", otherwise it wouldn't be constantly mentioned when talking about "evolution"

Sure it would - people are idiots, and just because something is repeated often, doesn't mean it's true. People think that, before Columbus, everyone thought the world was flat. Not true. Just because it's a common misconception, doesn't make it true. Likewise, "survival of the fittest" is a gross oversimplification of the actual theory.

The thing is, God wouldn't make it ok.

Evil and good do objectively exist because they emanate from the fact that there is an unchanging, omniscient (all-knowing), and Holy God. These are not subjective opinions invented and written down by man. Rather, ‘good’ expresses the innate characteristics of God Himself that He has built into every human being, and every human being is responsible to live up to those standards. And the absence of good defines evil., - Janine M. Ramsey

rape will never be ok, since God condemns rape and it isn't in His image. God is unchanging, Holy and Righteous, and since we are made in God's image, it will never be ok.

As I demonstrated earlier, the Bible is replete with examples of God ordering rape. Your only retort was, "They're out of context". You refused to show how, which is more telling of your position than mine.

A. If sex wasn't sacred, it would be a jungle, in public, no dignity, no love to it. we keep it private, and it has importance. it is to express love pleasurably to your spouse and to procreate, something in God's image. to give, love, and create, with pleasure. that is why sex is sacred, and sex like anything else can be corrupted and not sacred when not done in God's image.

That doesn't prove sex is sacred, it proves that we Westerners are squeamish about sex. It's cultural.

B.Prove how it came from culture. doesn't explain why it is morally wrong to go naked in the streets.

Err, it's not - it is, once again, cultural. Go to Africa and witness all the tribesmen and women going naked in the streets - according to you, this is morally wrong. According to them, it's how they've always done it.

c)"evolution" doesn't explain why everything fits, why is there only male and female, why not any other "species", why does man need woman and woman need man to procreate? this coincidence stuff doesn't add up. why would sex have to be bond forming, pleasurable, beautiful? this is too intelligent to be coincidence or "evolution", "evolution" cannot explain this intelligent irreducible complexity, only God can.

*sigh* The answers are there, but you skip right over them. Why do we have sex to reproduce? Because it vastly increases genetic variation in the offspring (compared to, say, parthenogenesis or asexual budding). This helps the offspring survive in changing environments.

Why does sex involve intimacy and pair-bonding? Because humans have a long gestational period, as well as a long child-rearing period. This makes having children resource-intensive - unlike some species, we can't mate, give birth, and leave them to it. We need to care for our young for a long time in order to properly procreate - and this requires the formation of bonds between the parents (as both have a genetic stake in the child), etc.

And yet it is still, humorous, why?, why does nudity have such shame? why do we wear clothes to cover our bodies from others?

"evolution" can't explain why public nudity is morally wrong. if "evolution" happened, there would be no such thing as privacy or shame, sex wouldn't be private and there would be no shame in public nudity.

A.Prove how it "evolved".

B.Prove how "culture exaggerates" anything.

Give evidence, I don't take word of mouth from someone who slanders.

I already have - the fact that one culture (the US) abhors a nipple while another finds it funny (the UK) while another sees nothing odd about it (tribesmen in Africa), proves that the differences are culture. It's as obvious that it's cultural as language is.

rape of any kind can never be justified and you know it. all rape is wrong.

*sigh* You don't even both to read, do you?

Nope, still won't get to the store if it is, finite steps or not, it is still infinitely away. please count down from infinity to 1, you can't do it. you would never get to 1 if you are infinitely away. same with time, we would never get here if the past was infinite.

1) Humans count using a finite number of finite steps. That, you're right, won't get to to infinity.
2) Time, by contrast, doesn't need to use a finite number of finite steps. It could very well use an infinity of finite steps, or a finite number of infinite steps - both of those will get you to infinity.
3) You're still working under faulty mathematics, as evidenced by your phrase, "Count down from infinity..." - that makes no sense, as infinity is not something you start at. If I started at infinity, what, pray, would be the first number?

Infinite regression being impossible. there is a first uncaused cause, and that is God.

also, godandscience.org /apologetics/beginning

I repeat, show me the evidence.

1. Cause and Effect.

Err, even if causality did what you think it did (it doesn't), it doesn't prove or disprove the linearity of time.

2. Then the uncaused cause isn't uncaused, since the uncaused cause is uncaused the uncaused cause must always exist. you are thinking in terms of something that is caused

'Uncaused' only means there wasn't some other event that caused it to be. That's it. That doesn't mean it couldn't cease to exist.

3. the universe had a beginning, it is caused, hasn't always existed, so it is not eternal. The first uncaused cause which created the universe is uncaused, so by default the uncaused cause will always exist, nothing can affect the uncaused cause, so the first uncaused cause, God is eternal, has and always will exist.

4. if the first uncaused cause just came into existence, then the uncaused cause wouldn't be, uncaused. being uncaused, God is eternal. nothing before Him.

Then prove it's God, and not some inanimate phenomenon.

1.The lesser will not produce the greater, the first uncaused cause cannot be less than His creation, that is simple logic.

Then present your logical syllogism.

2. Yes it does mean that, by default actually is the greatest which no greater can be conceived.

Prove it.

3. Perfect, nothing greater. greatest intelligence(all knowing), created space, time and matter,(all powerful) eternal. the first uncaused is not a mindless object, the first uncaused cause has a mind, the first uncaused cause is God.

So I ask when you exactly mean by 'nothing greater' - and your answer is 'nothing greater'. What a fantastically enlightening response

 

[Wiccan_Child]

from, Godandscience.org:

SBC, I've already said I'm not debating someone else. Use your own words. If I had the time or the inclination to rebut this wall of text, I'd do it over at Godandscience.org.

Yes I have, refer back to my previous posts, stop ignoring it.

No, actually, you haven't. You only ever asserted that it exists, and I preemptively explained how the common examples (the eye, etc) don't do what you think they did. You never actually gave any examples yourself. If you disagree, then cite the post number, and I'll go over them.

Again, refer back to my previous posts, used darwinismrefuted.com to show IC.

As I said, I'm on CF, not darwinismrefuted.com. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go about debunking another website - I'm here to engage in a dialogue with you.

Nope, I have proved that Morals are from God.

Err, no, you haven't. You're argument thus far consists only of, "I don't like moral subjectivity, therefore, I'll go with moral objectivity!".

Numeric Code

I want to focus on this. Do explain what this 'numeric code' is that proves the Bible. In your own words.

Things like telling us how the Earth is round and in space during a time when people thought it was flat.

Job 26:7, He stretches out the north over the void and hangs the earth on nothing.

Isaiah 40:22, He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Prophecy on The Messiah, Jesus Christ.

from matthewmcgee.org :

Daniel's prophecy of the 70 weeks

For more Prophecies go to reasons.org /articles/articles/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-for-the-reliability-of-the-bible

*sigh* Once again, I'm not debating someone else's work.

-Predicted in the Old Testament, Documented in The Gospels,

So the Bible's later chapters have reference to the Bible's earlier chapters. You know what other books do that? The Harry Potter series.

has Extra Biblical mentions, and The Early Christians martyrs prove that the Resurrection happened.

No, it proves that they believed it. There are also Buddhist martyrs, Muslim martyrs, etc - do they prove their religions? No, of course not: martyrdom just proves how much you believe something, not whether it's actually true.

-Liar, Lunatic, or The Lord by C.S. Lewis. Great moral teachers are not liars, and are not lunatics, thus Jesus Christ is The Lord.

Lewis' dichotomy is a famous example of faulty logic: by arbitrarily restricting the options, he forces a conclusion. In reality, there are other options (for instance, Jesus was right about some things and wrong about others).

-The Resurrection is the only explanation for what happened.

I have another: "It didn't happen". There were allegedly hundreds of eye-witness accounts, yet none of them thought to write anything down. There were contemporary historians and archivists of religious and political movements at exactly the right time who, surprisingly, never mention any of these miraculous (or even mundane) events.

-The Shroud of Jesus Christ.

You mean the Shroud of Turin? The one that was proven years ago to be a Medaeival fake?

 

[RickG]

When you add the fact that "macro-evolution" didn't happen, your explanations are null and void. but assuming "macro-evolution" happened, your assumptions are still incoherent.

I think you are overlooking one particular fact concerning evolution. Most arguments against evolution generally focus on the so called "transitional fossil". Of course, within that problem is the question of what a transitional fossil is. First, there is the trained professional's view that deals with the specifics of taxonomy and various other related fields of science, and Second, there is the layman's view which is expressed almost entirely from views of other laypeople. Of course there are a hand full of people with scientific backgrounds from the opposing opinion, but none seem to have any professional training if any of the fields in which they criticize. In other words, professional expertise compared to biased opinion.

Nevertheless, that is not the main point I wish to make, although it is quite relevant and significant.

For the moment, let's forget about transitional fossils and connecting the dots. I want you to think about the geologic column. Therefore, layers of strata of many different types layered from oldest on bottom to youngest on top. With the exception different types of non-conformaties where strata folded or contains various types of faults, the geologic column of strata is not compromised.

Now look at those layers of strata and notice that the oldest and simplest fossils are in the bottom layers of strata. As one moves up through the geologic column, one begins to see more and more diverse and complex fossils. How do you explain that with out some sort of evolution occurring? If those life forms had not evolved, where did all the new life come from? Why don't we find all of the life form throughout the geologic column? If life had not evolved, would we not expect to find rabbit fossils in Cambrian strata or human fossils along side dinosaur fossils.

How can you explain the geologic column without evolution? And please understand that I have asked you a scientific question from a scientific perspective, not a biblical one. Thank you.

 

[Davian]

Yes it is, to deny it would be ignorance, most archaeologist, most historians agree it is historically accurate. add that to the fact that Jesus Christ Death and Resurrection happened, confirming everything in The Bible as fact, and confirming that God exist.

But these are not scientific facts, or you would not be here.

if you have an objection then I'd like to hear it, I'd easily refute it, because Guaranteed you cannot come with a valid objection to The Resurrection of Jesus Christ or The Bible's Historical validity.

You are making the claim, you provide the scientific evidence to support it, not opinions of historians.

Your proof? You have to back yourself up with evidence.

ID was tossed out of court back at Dover.

If your going to object to Fine Tuning, please object, and I'll easily refute you.

Do you know why it is called the 'weak' anthropic principle?

Says?

Me.

Your proof?

You showed no such thing.

I showed that morals are obligated and are objective, and that only God can explain Morality.

Even if there were objective morals, it does not prove that any deities are still required.

Yes I have. look at all my previous posts.

Show me specifically where you demonstrated that the 1) the universe had a beginning 2) it required a cause 3) that cause was by necessity a deity of some sort 4) it was your deity.

Therefore "atheism" doesn't exist. since you can't back up your "disbelief" or "lack" of belief with evidence, "atheism" doesn't exist.

You do not get to dictate the definitions of words, so your argument is dismissed.

I have provided substantial Scientific, Logical, and Historical evidence to show that God exist.

As you are just repeating yourself here, so will I: But you have provided nothing that does not support far more parsimonious explanations.

Yes you do have to provide evidence, otherwise your "lack" of belief is unjustified and ignorant.

You are incorrect. Lack of belief does not require justification.

there is no evidence for your "lack" of belief, thus you cannot "lack" belief. thus "atheism"/"lack" of belief doesn't exist.

This is nonsensical. No matter how you try, attempting to reword the definition of "atheism" will not poof your deity into existence.

you "atheist" ask for evidence, and my fellow Christians and I provide it, yet when we ask for evidence for "atheism", you can't provide it.

As the request is nonsensical.

I have been providing the substantial evidence throughout this thread, you are being ignorant.

No, I am being skeptical.

Then what do you believe? please explain and provide evidence.

That would be off-topic to the thread. Search my posts if you want.

1, I'm not calling anyone a clown, "atheist" are deceived, are ignorant, or don't know that God exist. what I am calling a clown is "atheism".

I take offense at your insult, even with your attempt to reword it. If you do it again, it will be reported.

And it is funny how you would bring up forum rules as if I broke any rule or have insulted anyone when I haven't.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the rules.

if anything, the "atheist" on this site are the ones who should be banned for constantly being disrespectful and constantly slandering The Lord.

I have done no such thing. My comments are directed at your arguments.

2, I provided substantial evidence that God exist, and the evidence I have provided has yet to be countered, all I get in return is illogical assumptions and insults. that is because the I have provided evidence cannot be objected. the evidence that God exist, is fact.

No, all you have done is shown that you presuppose the existence of your deity, prior to examining your 'evidence'.

now answer this question, do you agree that God is possible? answer with a simple Yes or No.

Who are you to dicate yes or no answers from me, when you refuse to acknowledge a basic premise such as "atheism" does not make a positive claim, therefore requires no evidence to support it?

Provide a robust, scientifically testable definition for this "God"; we test it, then I will provide an answer.