Christianity is the most rationally based faith

"I will refute this guy's claims on youtube and point out his flaws. He starts off saying that it's more likely that a divine experience is based on a brain disorder, where are his sources? He didn't say. He also says that we base our reasoning on Occam's Razor, but fails to point out that science also uses the same principle (1). He also assumes that my experience is based on pure feeling when it's not. God did not make me "feel him", he gave me a revelation of Jesus Christ. Therefore, his argument is dead."What do you mean by "reveal"?You story of him "revealing" himself is not anymore credible than people who claim to have abducted by aliens!It is simply psychological[1]!"This was more of a philosophical argument, but before you bring science into this, i will refute your future attacks ahead of time. Science uses inductive reasoning (you can find more on wikipedia) which is inference without proving it definitely. Now to illustrate why this is it's downfall, i will give a quick example of how Darwin came to a conclusion for evolution:"That's how science works. It doesn't works to prove something,it works to create patterns that can be used to predict things,but by using the scientific method they test repeatedly,and when one idea goes wrong they try to find another answer. And about Darwin,no he didn't,he traveled around the world in the HMS Beagle to analyze the species[2]."The problem? His logic is not absolute. He has not scientifically explored all the animals on earth to see if his claim is true. If we find a species that did not evolve, his argument is gone.No but he explored a lot of them and it is a really strong evidence that his hypothesis was true. And the problem is,there are over 100 years and people still didn't found an species that disproved Darwin's theory."Similarly, you cannot use a scientific experiment to completely disprove a phenomenon."Indeed,because you have the burden of proof. I can only defeat your arguments."Matt. and Luke are not contradictory and Luke 1:37 essentially says the same thing. Nothing with God is impossible, therefore that implies that everything is possible. No contradiction."What i meant is that they contradict with the passage that says that it is impossible for god to lie."The Bible doesn't teach a global flood, but a local one. The earth in Genesis 6 in Hebrew "Eretz" is mostly used for a local area (2). Ancient people also understood the world to be a local geography (3). Finally, Noah's flood is based on a historical event (4)."You didn't say anything about the miracles. And even if there was really a flood we can't know for sure that there was a giant boat with all the animals of that area in it. A really old man and his family would to construct a giant boat what would need a lot of wood and need to gather seven of which animals in the area,the food,fit both in the arch and clean everything."There are false prophets and mockers right now (Richard Dawkins, David Koresh, etc.) to name a few, that proves that it's true."That's what i meant,but that doesn't prove anything,he just predicted that there would be people that wouldn't buy it,people that existed before he made those predictions. And if i say "tomorrow will rain" and it happens to be true would i be able to predict every event in the world?By using the same logic you used with Darwin i could say you would need to examine every prophecy of the bible and all the lost books of it,if one was not true,it would prove the entire bible wrong."Revelation is proven true. Rev. 11 describes the building of the Third Temple which is currently taking place as we speak (5)"It is like me saying "tomorrow a giant rock will fall from that building" and the next day going there and throwing a giant rock from it. They are only building the temple because the Bible predicted."There is so many ways to interpret the Bible because people are ignorant of it's ancient context. The fact that there are denominations is simply for the fact that people base their beliefs on their own biases, not because the Bible cannot be understood. For example, study the history of the UPCI and you'll see that it's teachings are wrong and based on a faulty understanding of how God works, not only that but it's already based on existing doctrines such as the Trinity which were and are biblical."I rarely see Christians that know hermeneutics,and if it is God's word and he wanted people to know it,why would he create a book that is not easily interpreted?He wants his true followers to study hermeneutics?And i think Christianity is not more factual than Sikhism[3],Satanism or other religions. It talks about a being like you God,but they have not a lot of incredible events that hard to prove and he didn't send his son to die for no reason at all,because him being omnipotent and omniscient he would know how to do something else and would be able to do said thing,and Satanism is one of the most accurate religions to this time. It does not contradict with any scientific pattern we have today. And i can also use the same logic you used with Darwin again,saying you would need to explore every religion to see which one is the most factual.[1]http://www.healthguidance.org... [2]http://www.scientificamerican.com... [3]http://www.religiousforums.com...