Can Prove the Existence of God and the Validity of the Christian Faith over other Religious Systems

I know little to nothing about Laminin. The fact that Pro reads Colossians to be some vague reference to Laminin speaks more about his conformation bias. So let"s see what I can find out about it. Pro has picked Laminin because drawn out in a diagram form it looks like a cross. The fact is there are several other molecules that play just as important a part as Laminin is ignored. Do you know what, I have heard about this before. In this first clip there is Giglio and all..... http://www.youtube.com... "God clearly states that he is the provider of the "glue" to our bodily form." I created the interwebs. I said it so it must be true. Also if that is a "clear" statement by God then I fear what a vague statement by god is. Pro takes "consists" and says it equals "glue" Pro has fail to show that the existence of Laminin can only exists because a creator god made it. It would seem Pro goes on to talk about bloodletting in part. I am unclear what other procedures or prescriptions he may be talking about it would seem as with Laminin that Pro is lacking on explaining this. Oh it is leeches. Too bad for Pro's argument that leeches are used in state of the art hospitals to this very day.[1] As for the bible verse any hunter or farmer of that age would learn quickly that an animal when bled out dies. It is not a divine revelation by any stretch. Pro goes on to make claims about what supernatural things Jesus did. The problem is the lack of corroborating texts. I have no more a reason to think Jesus did what the bible claims as I do to think Mohamed rode a flying horse as the Quran says. As for the leprosy incurably to this day claim by Pro, it is false. There are effective treatments for it. It is found that a multi-drug approach is very effective at curing the infection and if caught soon enough most lasting damage can be avoided. [2] Among some of the more humorous claims Pro makes is this, "Fully God and fully man, 100% of each." AS I read it Pro is saying that Jesus was a mathematical impossibility, like giving 110% or manbearpig (1/2 man, 1/2 bear, and 1/2 pig) All the claims of miracles lack one key part extra-biblical corroborating evidence. Let"s get on to the next paragraph. Pro says "So on the fourth day God made the sun, moon and the stars. This made light that produced photosynthesis." According to the bible the light was made on the first day "So some Christians have taken the fallacy of a "day" in the Bible meaning millions of years." Pro confuses how the Christians he is talking about view genesis. Those that are of the old earth creationism or theistic evolution see genesis as a metaphor and that the actual day order may not be exactly stated in the bible. Pro continues with some rather sexist comments that have no real bearing on this subject. Yet another point pro bring up in this run on paragraph is he has issues with radiometric dating. There are cases where different dating methods will yield inaccurate results. These issues are well known and said methods are avoided because inherent problems. C14 for example is not to be used when dating things that consume carbon found in marine environments, due to what is known as the carbon well effect. Funniest thing about carbon dating, while young earth creationist complain about it being no good, the method had with in its error range returned an age for the dead sea scrolls that creationist agree with when less scientific methods are used. "Muslims say Muhammed had a revelation. Prophecy is much different. It is a clear message to be delivered to people in the here and now, or talking of future predictions. No other faith does that with the exception of Judaism, but they reject the very teachings that their book stated, their Torah is our Old Testament." I suggest the link below of Islamic prophecies. [3] Also the Jewish peoples so not see Jesus as the messiah because of several scriptures they do not feel he fulfilled. [4] "...but take any child 4-6 and ask them the quesiton I asked about killing, lying and stealing and the answer will be the same. It is wrong to do those things." 1 Corinthians 13:11 When I was a child, I used to speak like a child, think like a child, reason like a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. Even the men who wrote the bible were able to realize that what a child thinks has little bearing to what actually matters. If I ask any child 4-6 if Santa will bring them presents most will say yes as well. I don"t fault a child for not understanding that in cases like self-defense killing is acceptable. My guess is that they have not considered this moral dilemma. "1 Sam12 does command the destruction of a nation of people." Quite right, I mixed up the chapters with the books originally I stated "[1Sam. 12, 2Sam. 15]" It should have been "[1Sam 15, 2Sam 12]" "No hope for change." In 1Sam 15:3 the order is to kill man woman child and infant cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. If it was simply because these people were bad then why the animals? Also how bad can an infant be that id deserved to be slaughtered? Pro notes that Exodus 20's prohibition on murder as "it was to not take someone"s life on your own volition or choice" In 2Sam 15:15-18 by Pro's definition god murders. God decided to take the life of David"s son on his own volition. " "7 proofs of Christian God" - No I was using the Bible as proof of a God, these "bits" lead to ones belief in a God." All too often people of Pro's mindset use circular arguments. If we reread Pro's R1 post we see this statement "Understand that the Bible was written by about 40 "penman," they were not the author's of the Book, God was." Essentially what is set up is the bible says that God would never lie and we know this is true because God wrote the bible, and it says god wouldnt lie. when it comes to my question from R1 (On the question of morality proving God I must ask Pro, if I came across a man raping a child is it moral of me to do nothing?(if it matters I am 6'4" 320 lbs and fit enough to fight off hypothetical child rapist)) Pro answered "Rape - we should help" So why doesn't God? See the second video http://www.youtube.com... If I was in a position to stop a child rapist I would. It would seem to me that if we asked adults this question that they would as well. So if God is as described commonly by Christians then why does he not act? Now perhaps Pro would like to claim some sort of free will issue that if god acted he would violate the freewill of the child rapist, but then would not my intervention also violate the freewill of the child rapist and what about locking a child rapist up? Clearly that would violate his freewill also. So as I see it Pro wants to prove the existence of a God that will kill a child for the actions of his father to which the child was no party of while the same god takes no actions to stop a person form sexually violating a child. A god who fed 2 million for 40 years but does not send manna to those children who are starving today. A god who made himself man to save all but ordered the Genocide of those he could not save. This is the god Pro wants us to believe exists. The god that could do anything but stop a child rapist. Pro says " I have not taken on the point of discussion to prove any religion as being fully false or Christianity as being the only right." Has Pro conceded the 2nd half of the proposition? I hope Pro will soon provide evidence for the proposition. [1] http://sciencenetlinks.com... [2] http://www.wikihow.com... [3] http://www.alislam.org... [4] http://www.debunkingskeptics.com...