Okay, Let's Cut To The Chase!

[POI]

Dear Christians of all flavor(s),

I trust it is no surprise there exists a populous here, which lay claim to 'atheism', 'deism', or maybe other... In a nutshell, for me, this ultimately means I do not believe any such claimed Christian God exists - trying though as I might.... Which-is-to-mean, I was raised in a Christian house hold. However, after much study, I cannot get myself to belief such a claimed agent actually exists. Chalk it up, ultimately, to the topic of 'divine hiddenness' I guess...?

It is also evident there exists devout 'Christians' in this arena, of all flavors, who may feel they are 'fighting the good fight'; by defending their belief(s)/faith/rationale in the assertion of the existence to the "Christian God".

That being said, I am laying down the gauntlet, so-to-speak... Some here, as well as outside of here, are as sure as anything, that not only does God exist, but the Christian God! Well, I politely disagree. Meaning, I don't believe the "Christian based" assertion/claim.

I can't imagine this request will be anything new. Nor, can I imagine that I will encounter any new sort of enlightenment. But, being this is a rather large and important topic; I will continue to search, optimistically, that there exists some sort of 'concrete evidence(s)' to demonstrate that not only a God exists ---> but also the Christian God.

For Debate:

Please demonstrate the mere existence of the Christian God?

[1213]

Atheists and others (a reminder that it isn't only atheists who recognize the many flaws in the Bible, we have a thread around these parts where a Christian theist admits them) have pointed out numerous errors in the Bible. Some of which start out in the very first book of the Bible.

Atheists have shown only bad interpretations and small spelling mistakes in modern Bibles, no real errors in the Bible. And I think it is quite funny how weak atheism must be when it is based on so futile arguments. Would be better, if atheists would just say that they don't want to believe, instead of making silly excuses that ruin their credibility.

[1213]

...
Record scratch... This doesn't mention a single continent and certainly not one that floats on water. You've read that into the text.

These show that there was single area of dry land that was stretched above water.

God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:10
before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
Proverbs 8:26-27
To him that stretched out the earth above the waters:"
Psalms 136:6

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Gen. 1:10 states god will call the dry land 'earth', and the wet area 'sea'. There is nothing profound or prolific in this passage at all. ...

It shows there was one continent, one area of dry land and one area that was called the sea. How do you think humans would have known that before modern "science"?

It is incorrect. Geology indicates that earth was ALL dry land before the seas formed, not the other way around.

...People make stuff up....

I can believe that in the case of atheists.

You believe a lot of incorrect things, ol' son.

...The ancient sea bed was raised up as land masses collided and pushed the old strata up...

The problem with that is, there is no credible natural force to do that. Because of the weight, things tend to settle rather than rise. That is why it is more probable that things just go down and level up, because of the weight.

The problem is that you know nothing about it. If you understood geology you would know that tectonic plate movement causes land masses to collide and push up strata into mountains. We know this because of the old sea beds that now form parts of mountains.

[TRANSPONDER]

... I examined that and showed that it was hardly a circle, but the general middle east. As I recall, you didn't respond. ...

Sorry, I don't think you showed any good reason to think it was just the general Middle East. By what the Bible tells, the dry land was vast continent and Middle East only small part of it.

Archaeology, not to mention geology, disagrees with as does your own Bible and your own argument, as I shall show.

By the time of the Eden scenario, the continents had split up and the various (diversed) animal species were as they are now. Ther Bible places 'Eden' between Tigris and Cush, which is from Mesopotamia to the lower Nile. Which may represent all the world the writers knew, but of course had to be an area within a wider land - mass because Adam and Eve had to go somewhere after they were driven out. The middle east is hardly a 'circle', but let that go,

You appeared to see Pangaea as a super - continent in the wider ocean (you borrowed that much from Prehistoric geology, it seems) with Eden compass - scribed on it, but the mid east is not, as I say, a circle.

The problem is that Geology and archaeology disagrees because human were all over a map pretty much as is it today long before any supposed Adam, Eve and Eden scenario, however you put a date on it.

Upshot is that you have to do science denial (as you do about mountains) and so the evidence is against you. You already appear to be borrowing science in talking about a globe because a flat earth will make you look absurd. You seem to be willing to borrow ancient geology on Pangaea because you can wangle it into your Bible - narrative. This will come back to bite you

The Bite.

Atheists and others (a reminder that it isn't only atheists who recognize the many flaws in the Bible, we have a thread around these parts where a Christian theist admits them) have pointed out numerous errors in the Bible. Some of which start out in the very first book of the Bible.

Atheists have shown only bad interpretations and small spelling mistakes in modern Bibles, no real errors in the Bible. And I think it is quite funny how weak atheism must be when it is based on so futile arguments. Would be better, if atheists would just say that they don't want to believe, instead of making silly excuses that ruin their credibility.

And this is where you get bit. Bible apologists have to 'interpret' the Bible to make it say what they want it to say and the Bible - critics are more honest in taking it as it is, and never mind nit picks about spellings. You have already Interpreted the 'circle of the earth' (and you are the only one I have ever heard talk of a circle drawn on a globe - most say it IS the globe, and you just made something up to keep the circle AND the globe) to mean Eden/the middle east -Tigris to Cush (Gen.2 10-14) which hardly makes for a circle. You are Interpreting the Bible and cherry - picking and fiddling the evidence like nobody's business in order to keep your argument afloat.

It is then quote funny to see you laughing at the "weakness of the atheist case and our 'futile arguments' when it is yours that are weak, denialist and apparently ad hoc (1) and do not fit the Bible. It is rather the Bible apologist who should admit that they do not understand the relevant science, often do not seem to know their own Bible, and the faithbased denial that you speak of is on their side. It is rather the Bible apologist (and particularly the Genesis -literalist) who makes the silly excuses that ruin their credibility. We haven't even started yet but already it is you, sunshine, who is looking a bit fragile with the long - debunked 'sea shells on mountains' apologetic. I fully expect to see the 'vertical whale' crop up...and yep...(2)

(1) by which I mean (whatever Websdters' says) made up on the hoof in response to some 'Atheist argument' in order to keep the argument from sinking.

(2) I'm going to ask you, 1234, as I have yet to receive an answer. And you at least seem to have made up the 'circle of Eden' on the spot ...where do you get your apologetics from? I know the sea shells on mountains apologetic is an old one, and comes from a creationist book...McDowell or Brown or Woodmorappe. Do you just remember these or do you delve into the Creationist books for your material? I'm just curious about how You people operate. This isn't abuse (so don't take it that way, Otseng) but in debating the Hyksos, Otseng referenced a Hyksos cylinder - seal decoration Interpreted as the tribes of Israel. This was NOT his idea, but some online website has a Hebrew -apologist making that whole identical argument. That's ok to do that, but I'm curious, do you have the book handy, do it from memory (where you don't make it up on the spot) or do you go online looking for apologertics? I'm just curious.

[brunumb]

...
Gen. 1:10 states god will call the dry land 'earth', and the wet area 'sea'. There is nothing profound or prolific in this passage at all. ...

It shows there was one continent, one area of dry land and one area that was called the sea. How do you think humans would have known that before modern "science"?

There is no reason to conclude that there was only one area for each. The label earth could refer to any areas of dry land and the label sea to any areas of water.

[brunumb]

...The ancient sea bed was raised up as land masses collided and pushed the old strata up...

The problem with that is, there is no credible natural force to do that. Because of the weight, things tend to settle rather than rise. That is why it is more probable that things just go down and level up, because of the weight.

There most certainly is a credible natural force to do that. Convection currents in the magma are what drag the thin layers of solid crust and push them against each other. When two continents push against each other with such tremendous force the only natural response is for the edges to buckle upwards. By the way, how do you suppose all that heavy molten rock we call lava manages to rise up out of holes in the crust we call volcanoes?

[brunumb]

... I examined that and showed that it was hardly a circle, but the general middle east. As I recall, you didn't respond. ...

Sorry, I don't think you showed any good reason to think it was just the general Middle East. By what the Bible tells, the dry land was vast continent and Middle East only small part of it.

The Bible gives no actual indication of what was the dry land. It is more probable that the authors just wrote down what they thought they knew about the earth at the time, and that wasn't very much.

[brunumb]

Atheists and others (a reminder that it isn't only atheists who recognize the many flaws in the Bible, we have a thread around these parts where a Christian theist admits them) have pointed out numerous errors in the Bible. Some of which start out in the very first book of the Bible.

Atheists have shown only bad interpretations and small spelling mistakes in modern Bibles, no real errors in the Bible. And I think it is quite funny how weak atheism must be when it is based on so futile arguments. Would be better, if atheists would just say that they don't want to believe, instead of making silly excuses that ruin their credibility.

One doesn't need to be an atheist to see all the flaws in the Bible. On the other hand one probably needs to be a dyed-in-the-wool Christian to not see them. There is no need for bad interpretation either. There is direct conflict between what we know of the earth's history and what is recorded in the Bible. These have been described countless times, but hardcore believers just sweep them under the rug as if they have never been presented and ask for the evidence all over again, and again, and again. There are none so blind as them that will not see.

[brunumb]

...
Record scratch... This doesn't mention a single continent and certainly not one that floats on water. You've read that into the text.

These show that there was single area of dry land that was stretched above water.

God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters he called Seas. God saw that it was good.
Genesis 1:10
before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep,
Proverbs 8:26-27
To him that stretched out the earth above the waters:"
Psalms 136:6

What exactly does "when he drew a circle on the face of the deep" mean?
How about "stretched out the earth above the waters"?

[TRANSPONDER]

Atheists and others (a reminder that it isn't only atheists who recognize the many flaws in the Bible, we have a thread around these parts where a Christian theist admits them) have pointed out numerous errors in the Bible. Some of which start out in the very first book of the Bible.

Atheists have shown only bad interpretations and small spelling mistakes in modern Bibles, no real errors in the Bible. And I think it is quite funny how weak atheism must be when it is based on so futile arguments. Would be better, if atheists would just say that they don't want to believe, instead of making silly excuses that ruin their credibility.

One doesn't need to be an atheist to see all the flaws in the Bible. On the other hand one probably needs to be a dyed-in-the-wool Christian to not see them. There is no need for bad interpretation either. There is direct conflict between what we know of the earth's history and what is recorded in the Bible. These have been described countless times, but hardcore believers just sweep them under the rug as if they have never been presented and ask for the evidence all over again, and again, and again. There are none so blind as them that will not see.

Yep. We are of course talking Genesis - literalism here, not Bible - reliability so much. Genesis has to be saved or one has already stopped believing 'cover to cover'. Of course some can accept that Genesis is Mythological or at least 'metaphorically true' and keep believing the rest, but Genesis - literalism is a particular shibboleth of the creationist cult. It has to be made to look as though it is literally true.

And this is a problem for the Genesis - apologist as they already have to deny the flat circle and the sun made later than daylight. We have seen some of the excuses, like a circle scribed on a globe and some mysterious light before the sun was made, which denies science (sun was made before the earth), has no evidence (starlight isn't enough) and ignores the Bible (it says day and night - morning and evening' before the sun was made, or the 'cloud -cover excuse). They just make stuff up. We get an order of creation that contradicts the science. So the science has to be denied. But they are trapped into cherry picking science, because to deny the round earth and the sun existing before the earth would make them look absurd. There is only so much science they can try to deny, mainly because they don't understand it so they assume that nobody else does. E.g ignorance of the debunk of the 'seashells on mountains' apologetic. They really ought to understand the atheist case before trying to debunk it.