The Biblical God Created Earthly Life

Con, I suppose that what were calling each other now...LOL 1. let me first start by saying that somehow I may have been channeling Jeopardy, as I turned the statement 'The Biblical God created earthly life' into the interrogative, "Did the Biblical God create earthly life?" But it is immaterial as the presuppositions remains the same!!!! My apologies, for the confusion!!!! 2.I don't know what makes you think that I am in disagreement with the definitions, I accept them fully because they are the bases for my argument. biblical - of the Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... god - the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...... We both agreed to the definitons...so you cannot be selective in which terms to validate. You must deal with the entire claim and the presupposition inherent within and the expolations on those presupposition for each and every term within that claim: The biblical god created earthly life So Biblical (you defined, i accepted) the Christian scripture. God (you defined, i accepted) creator of the universe Bear in mind that this is the subject of the claim and like any sentence is subject to the the logic of intelligibility (if you begin a claim with the subject "the woodland nymphs" don't be so sure that people will take at gave value, and if they do, anticipate the conditions under which that do accept it...because they are not empirical entities... So, Though we accepted the biblical God's existence, we must acknowledge his non-physical/empirical presence poses a challenge to defining him in a material sense... We do this with many things that are not empirically verifiable E g., emotions... We can't see them or even feel them via our objective sense (tact) but they are very real and result in very real consequences e.g, tears, adrenaline, tremors of the extremities, etc. Most importantly human beings agree that they exist...so shared experiences can validate non-physical phenomena as well. So with this biblical god, we must acknowledge that he is subject to the rational constraints namely, physically creating the earth and life when we have no empirical evidence of even his presence (this would require a leap of faith/delusion) Therefore tje subject of the cladding can only persist via the validation of believers, and the book that they authorize as the one indisputable source on god...which is the bible, his actions cannot rationally extend any further into the rational world, without these two validating sources. So now we move onto the predicate... Created earthy life... And here you forget the subject of the sentence and delve into actual creation but unfortunately, per your definition, the subject (a necessary part of the claim) is bound to an existential conditional...which is that he can exist and do anything as long as the bible and the believers validate it. So in we go to search the 'bibble' and poll a few believers... And of course the logic is complete... You set these terms, i accepted, and they fell where they should (but where you didn't expect). You cannot propose a false claim, then later confess its falsity to suit your argument, you can not present, then damage or undermine a primary source on which your claim relies, it Invalidates the claim and voids the debate... But this sadly is what you have done... By saying that you now believe the Bible to be untrue or a work of fiction So you actually forfeit the intitial claim and argument, in my opinion. It was never left to me to defend a presupposition to which we both agreed at the start of the debate (to make the argument possible lol...because I didn't make the claim...i only had to accept it, under rational terms...and now you're saying its false/fiction???? What ever shall we talk about now??? Lol The framing/wording of your claim is more important than any premise or conclusion... And you should at least try to anticipate where it will go... I really found this quite painful...the redundancy.... Thanks to all who vote and review....