Debate: Christians should stop campaigning against abortion.
Side: Should STFU

I don't think you understand what arbitrary means. I can see from the composition of my sentence where you'd get this idea, but I'm well aware of what arbitrary means, what I meant is that you label them thus because you need some sort of proof for what is a basic logical premise.You entire response is full of your opinions and feelings, not one of which is supported by any other material.Religious scripture is open to anyone's interpretation hence the massive amount of schisms. It is anyone's take on an ancient book and I provide mine, also I'm not the only person that thinks these things.My evidence is the inerrant word of God For you to even have a standing in this argument you must provide some kind of support for your opinion. I am sure there are secular Bible scholars that must share your ideas.You can't label God's word inerrant, God is unproven, so the so called word of God can't be taken as infallible in a logical debate. God's word is as I've already stated is up to the individual to interpret, and secular biblical scholars, really.If you refer to Biblical accounts as dogma, then you never understood the word or believed in it as truth. Therefore it is arguable that you never really believed in the first place.This makes no sense, do you know what dogma is, the point that you are disputing means that I let go of the rules to which I was bound. It is within your comments that I can see your inability to accept that a true Christian would abandon their beliefs.So many fallacies in that short sentence there. You speak of finite existence, yet naturalism can't and will never explain origins.Origins of life? Origins of the Universe? which are you referring to, to boldly state that something will never happen is in itself folly. There is so much known, but so much more to be known, to squeeze God into every gap impedes progress. If you truly believe the universe is dying (heat death which is observable) then you should know that matter can't come into existence on its own.Matter does come into existence, it is observable by the effect it has on atoms, called virtual particles they are provable and have been proved without a doubt, meriting the Nobel prize in physics to Willis lamb in the 50s. Steven Hawking has shown that particle and anti-particles are created out of energy and the energy that creates matter is positive which is counter affected by gravitational forces that lead positive particles to be attracted to each other, two particles that are closer have less energy than two that are further apart as they have to use energy to repel each other in the presence of gravity leading to a universal energy of 0 thus matter does come into existence all the time, but anti matter also does and they cancel each other out.As far as animals go, we can argue about quadrupedal apes if you want. But it is much easier to ask "where is your transitions?" If you want to argue about fossils then we can, but be warned I get much enjoyment out of disproving evolutionists.What would you accept as a transitional fossil, there are many, Goggle Australopithecus or anything in the Homo lineage. What you are looking for can't exist there is never going to be a fossil that doesn't create two more gaps in the eyes of evolutionary deniers. To understand evolution is to know that there has to be countless gradations from one form to another, there are plenty of Fossils that prove evolution such as tiltaalik, archeopteryx or the aforementioned fossils of homo habilis and their like, or even living beings such as platypus, or the fact that a whale has hind limbs etc. You only need to look at the effects man has had in a very short space of time on animals and plants used in agriculture, cattle, sheep, dogs (which would not exist at all) corn, bananas etc. All of these things, evolved into different forms by the hand of man due to selective breeding.Blind faith is origins through naturalism. Biblical faith has reasoning and logic, plus multitudes of witnesses of the accounts. Naturalism has no witnesses and it doesn't follow scientific law.Biblical witnesses are not evidence of anything, most accounts of Jesus were written by men that did not even live at the same time as Jesus. The old testament goes completely against scientific knowledge, and the "morals" of the Bible are dubious at best, permitting Genocide, rape and fillicide. Also Naturalism in the methodological sense is scientific law, it is in essence the scientific method. A method that sees natural phenomena explained through experiment, the bible is one book, it can't and does not accurately describe the origins of anything. The Adam and Eve story is laughable, and the view of the earth as an entity less than ten thousand years old is completely disproved. Also the genetic diversity of man can not be explained by the combination of genes of two or so people.Your point was to say God is evil due to His omniscience that a creation containing evil meant He is the originator of evil. Yet you fail to realize that evil is defined by defying God's law. Therefore He wouldn't create evil as it would be a contradiction upon Himself.Evil is defined by man, god's laws are a creation of man, a primitive method to police the ignorant, yet again there is no evidence of God's existence, none. By the way it is a contradiction, one of many.God can't contradict Himself, therefore the punishment for sin is just as it is the violation of God's law.I think you'll find that God presents many contradictions, I've already provided you with an explanation as to why, but you argue that there is no grounding in my statements, there doesn't need to be, as I infer that God is fictitious then your evidence of the Bible is in valid, as the unprovable words of men.