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

Sorry life sometimes happens. I guess I should do best to reply to the last 2 post by Pro. It is clear I am doing more than casting doubt. For example Pro asserted agreements on morality were more than similar conclusions that they were somehow indicative of a god. In contrast I have noted the agreement on morality that if one had the ability to stop a child rapist t would be immoral not to and how the moral law giver Pro asserts and asserts has such power but I note fails to use it. By our moral standards, to which Pro asserts comes from his god, God is immoral "Tyre was rebuilt and he leaves the gps pictures of he city. He proved my point, they are the RUINS OF TYRE, the city is now Sour." Pro, lease read Ezk 26:21 I will bring you to a horrible end and you will be no more. You will be sought, but you will never again be found, declares the Sovereign Lord." About the name Tyre vs. Sour, Pro is trying to make something out of translation issues, it is the same city. [1] "See his persuasive language is just like what Satan (the serpent) used to dissuade Eve from obtaining from the forbidden tree." While I suspect Pro meant this to be an ad hominim, I will take it as an admission that I am being persuasive. "You see in round 1 he did not point out that Jericho had been rebuilt." Nor did I need to. Pro does not care for me not eating of the fruit that he cherry picked. Sure there may well be items in the bible that are historically true but unless we also search for that which untrue. Pro wants us to believe because the examples he picks out fit with some history that it all must. I am not challenging the Jericho claim. I haven't even bother to see if it was true or false, because it does not matter if the idea behind it is falsified. I am challenging the idea behind the claim that bible prophecy proves the existence of the Christian God. If Pro's assertion is true then their must not be any failed prophecies. Ezk. 26 contains predictions that are not true. Logic dictates that we must not use said claim as evidence for God. Furthermore Pro believes God is the author of the bible, given the failed predictions we find in Ezk 26 either God did write the book and is fallible or God did not write the book "I do not condemn him, but rather accuse him of being "blind" to truth" Accusations without evidence. "It clearly states that the first day was like a flashlight or light bulb..." Given that both things were invented recently, relatively speaking I find such assertion needs a source. Could Pro provide evidence that day 1 was actually significantly dimmer than day 4? A source that actually states "light bulb" and/or flashlight would be utterly remarkable. "He states that "laminin does not have to be created by God" -amazing that we have all of the sophisticated technological advances and we can't create test tube life." No, Pro you are incorrect I stated no such thing nor did I imply such. I find it dishonest that you would attribute words I did not write to me. Here is what I did say "Pro has fail to show that the existence of Laminin can only exists because a creator god made it. In other words you have yet to show that Laminin is necessarily indicative of your God. If abiogenesis and evolution are both true then Pro has yet to show why it is not possible for natural processes to allow for the evolution of Laminin. Pro claim about carbon dating, "Well it can only date for 5,730 years." has no source to back up his claim. 5,730 is C14's half-life. Current technology means C14 dating is good out to about 10 half-lives, or nearly 60,000 years [2] We don"t know as of yet why the Big bang started, but we know it did. As for growing like a tree. No. Red shift clearly shows the majority of things moving away in an expansionary manner. The great thing about science is it corrects itself. "Just because our finite mind does not think that 100% of 2 equal parts are impossible, it is so." No, but neither would you be in a position to logically claim it as true. Clear up the math for me. Is it 100% man + 100% God = 100% or (100% man x 50%) + (100% God x 50%) = 100% Only the second one is mathematically valid. "Con presupposes that our knowledge in FULL." Pro please tell us how you know what my thoughts are or are not? Your assertion if true would defeat the problem of solipsism. "Even in the early 1900's civilization thought all things were created and no more "things" were out there to create." Pro in an earlier point noted how people"s beliefs were wrong. Is Pro trying to both have and eat cake at the same time? Jesus was a Jew it is by the Jewish/OT standards that we should consider. Jesus did not fulfill all that he should have. "Con wants to point out that rape is a means that God must intervene into our lives." I know what an Is Ought fallacy is and I dare not commit. It is a simple idea. If a being is in a position to stop child rape and if a being fails to act it follows that said being's action is immoral. Pro is trying to get in some special pleading. "Where does he have the right to call God out?" If I do not have the right to call the inaction of God immoral than logic dictates you do not have the right to call his actions moral. Pro can feign outrage all he wants if he wants to make a case for god being moral then I can make a counter case. Con "blames" God for no intervening against BAD, but as I said how far does God go to stop bad?" Pro there you go again making claims about things that you can"t know. I am an atheist I don"t blame god, but rather under the hypothetical that your claims are true I come to the conclusion that the being you describe is immoral "I have heard of two profound accounts of people dying for an elongated period of time and being revived." I hear that most NDE see nothing and have heard of others that see Mohamed I will address selective points of R4 now in part because I have less than 2000 characters left and in part because I feel Pro has yet failed to prove the existence of the Christian God. There is the bumper sticker that says "COEXIST" and it is made up of various spiritual signs." I rather like this one http://www.obscenitease.com... "How can we prove that ALL MAJOR spiritual systems are wrong OR one is right in a mere 16,000 characters? Let's give it a try and say we did." I think Pro's number is a bit low, there are 33,000 Christian sects alone and add to this that Pro believe there is but one path and we are dealing with a problem. But IF Pro could prove his to actually be true then logically all others would be false. The problem is Pro has yet to prove his god actually exist. To further complicate things logically we must reject the same type of evidence that Pro rejects for contradictory claims. People meeting Jesus in a NDE must be tossed out because other people have claimed seeing other being in NDEs. "... with the ultimate goal of nirvana (heaven you might say)." Um, that is not what nirvana is. [3] In simple terms nirvana is a state of mind that one cannot reach if one is trying to. The major monotheisms are based on a guy named Abraham who has more in common with Jennifer Cisowski's of Palm City, FL than any founder of religions [4] Perhaps Pro could discredit Jainism? [5] "So due to contradiction and how only one way is the right way in much of our life, we can conclude that all must be wrong or one must be right!" please see the video http://www.youtube.com... [1] http://www.memidex.com... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [4]http://articles.sun-sentinel.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...