The 10 commandments are a JOKE!

I don't worship a God of the gaps. Nothing I have said indicates that and you have no reason to accuse me of appealing to God because I lack an explanation of something. I believe in God because he has spoken, because he did come down here. Why don't you stop substituting ridicule for argument and address the things I've written? You are not particularly good at ridicule, anyway. You say that the Ten Commandments were supposed to be civil law, but I've already addressed that. In Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 (the two passages in which the Ten Commandments are given) no civil penalties are listed. Now, in the Mosaic law, you will find penalties attached to things like murder and theft, but you won't find penalties for coveting. This is because the Ten Commandments were ethical obligations given as a part of God's covenant with Israel. While most of these obligations are also expressed in the civil law and given penalties, not all of them are. This is because it is a different category of law. To help you understand the distinction between what is legal and what is moral, consider lying. If I were to lie to you in this debate, it would be immoral but not illegal. As to the deaths that God has caused, it is a matter of sovereignty. God, as the creator, has the authority to take anyone's life he pleases. We, as the creatures, are not authorized to end anyone's life for just any reason. So, when you try to say that Christians are hypocritical for opposing abortion, you fail to make your case. We are maintaining that humans cannot destroy other humans for just any reason. You say a true God wouldn't care about someone taking his name in vain. I would like to see you try to argue this. If I were to lie or slander a good man, people would likely be upset with me - and they would be in the right. I don't think it is so hard to see how using the name of the source of everything good as a derogatory term or expletive is bad. When you argue that some of the commands "violates the freedom of choice" that we have, you are confusing legal and moral categories again (I hope). Actions, words, and thoughts have moral value. You may be free to do something under the current laws of the U.S. that is immoral. That doesn't have any bearing on whether it is moral to do that thing or not. Nor should every immoral thing be criminalized under civil law. You may be free from civil penalty to take God's name in vain, but that doesn't contradict the notion that it is unethical to take his name in vain. //You live in a world that when you do not have answers so you say “therefore god”// This is patently false. Nowhere have I done this. This is cheap speculation on your part. It also contradicts your idea that I am brainwashed. Do I look around and lack answers and use the idea of God to fill in the holes, or was this belief taught to me and crammed down my throat until I believed it unquestioningly? You can't really have it both ways. //Your god has no morals and is completely bankrupt and corrupt.// Prove it. Christianity says that not only is God ethically good, he is the very basis of ethics. //You do not have the ability to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, use logic because you, your god, your religion, your bible does not require a single green pepper steak of it.// I have demonstrated the ability to think, reason, rationalize, use common sense, and logic. The Bible does require those things. The Pauline Epistles, for example, have sequences of thought that logically build on one another. Paul makes arguments and anticipates objections. You have the ability to think, reason, and rationalize; but it seem to me that you are more interested in making loud, colorful assertions than providing thoughtful, well-considered arguments and responses. //If you could prove that your god exists you would be the only quadrillionaire on the planet and your god would be the only religion.// No, that isn't the case. You are equating proof and persuasion. People have biases in their thought and motives in their intellectual endeavors. You have accused me of being brainwashed and unable to reason because I follow the Bible. Does this mean that you haven't proved atheism to be the case? After all, I can turn your idea on it's head: If you could prove that no god exists you would be the only quadrillionaire on the planet and there would be no religion. I do know what facts are. You say that the only facts that there are are mathematical equations. But, what I was talking about are ontological facts - I could use the word "particulars" instead, if that helps with your confusion. When you say that Stephen Hawking has come up with an equation that proves something comes from nothing, you have to understand that "nothing" is a bit loaded in this context. It is actually describing quantum potential. In physics, when you are talking about a vacuum, you are talking about something that contains quantum fluctuations and is governed by physical laws. It isn't what is meant when a philosopher asks why there is something, rather than nothing. But, more importantly than that, I didn't argue that God has to exist because there is something, rather than nothing. While I think there is merit to the idea, that has nothing to do with what I am arguing. Also, since I agree that the world came into existence, I have no problem with someone describing that with math, if they can. If you want to make your understanding of that math into something that discredits Christianity, you have to go further with it. I didn't mention a creationist in Round 2. The only person I mentioned was Alvin Plantinga, who I believe adheres to theistic evolution. So, unless you aren't using the common meaning of "creationist," then you're simply wrong. And, the thing that is debated in the courts has to do with the demarcation of science for the purposes of public school curriculum, not the truth value of whether or not God exists or created the world. God has spoken to people and he did leave a text. And when you say that the Bible is "copies upon copies and translations upon translations" you betray that you don't know anything about textual criticism or how we actually got the Bible. Saying that God would not want his words written down is quite a claim. Why not? If text is the worst form of communication, why are you using it to debate? Why are you using YouTube or some other medium instead? You drone on and on, repeating ad nauseum that there is no proof for God and yet you admitted that you basically skipped over the arguments I gave. You haven't interacted with them. Did I go completely astray? No. I argued that if Christian theism is true, then the Ten Commandments are moral and just and should be observed. I then argued that Christian theism is true. Calling it "utter trash" is lazy excuse to dismiss what I have said rather than critically interact with it. Please don't substitute arguments with things like "no exceptions," "none," and "period" in the fourth round.