Libertarius wrote:

REPOST OF EARLIER COMMENTS

Libertarius wrote:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

Krueger. It's

being hosted at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB).

See here:

http://iidebate5.jcsm.org

Enjoy and God bless,
Jason Gastrich

===>As I can tell, your argument fails the very first test:
it does not define the subject.
WHAT IS "GOD"?

After that major failure, you go on to claim that your can prove
"God", whatever it happens to mean, by
"five main parts. These include:

1. The Inerrant Bible
2. My Long-term Relationship with God
3. Miracles and the Effects of Prayer
4. Fulfilled Biblical Prophecies
5. Intelligent Design

===>1. You back up your claim of "inerrant" with that abused cliche
from 1 Timothy that, literally, all writings are breathed by

"theos".

The problem with that is threefold:
(A) the word "theos" is undefined,
(B) the word "writings" is undefined, and
(C) the identity of the writer is uncertain, but most likely FAKE.

Aside from those clear and immediately obvious FACTS, there
is the basic fact that in no stretch of the imagination could the
author of that statement have referred to the BIBLE, since there

was

as yet no such thing, and furthermore there is the general

character

of the works compiled in the Bible by Church leaders hundreds of

years

later, i.e. that each piece is the personal, private, usally

independent*

ideas, opinions, speculations and fantasies of the author of that
"book".
(*disregarding obvious quotes, references and copying of portions
of a book by another writer).

Therefore, in no way can 1 Timothy 3:16-17 be used in support
of anything.

As for further illustrations of "errancy", let me just remind you

of a few

items:

(1) In the very appearence of the god YHWH, Genesis and Exodus
contradict one another, the former repeatedly referring to YHWH
and having YHWH introduce himself by that name, while the latter
book has YHWH declare to "Moses" that until that moment no one
knew him by that name.

(2) In the first Gospel, you have a collection of errors:
- non-existing "virgin birth prophecy" attributed to Isaiah
- non-existing "star" standing still over a house
- never-recorded infanticide by King Herod, connected with
an unrelated passage from Jeremiah
- escape to Egypt by Joseph & family, contradicted by LUKE,
connected with an unrelated verse from Hosea
- Jesus sitting on two asses, based on a misreading of Zeachariah
- references to non-existent "prophecies"

THUS, your main argument FAILS!
NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

As for the others,
(2) reminds me of Harvey the Rabbit from the move by that title
about Elwood P. Dowd "a friendly, likeable drunk who has a
best friend named Harvey, a six foot three and a half inch

invisible

white rabbit." You have no more evidence of your "Long-term

Relationship"

than Elwood has of his.
(SEE: http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/harvey/)

NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

3. "Miracles" and "effects of prayer" are well contradicted
by a LACK of any "miracles" when one would be really
needed (e.g. TSUNAMI), and the LACK of effects of prayer
whenever a prayer remains "unanswered".

NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

4. There is not a simgle "prophecy" that you can prove to
have been "fulfilled".
And your picking out Isaiah 53, which, as you claim,
"gives specific details about the crucifixion of Christ"
is the best proof of the bankruptcy of your argument
There is NOTHING in Isaiah 53, a lament about events that
had happened to a "servant" some hundreds of years before Jesus,
that has ANYTHING to do with Jesus,

As for your reference to "DANIEL", aside from the FACT that
it is well known to be just a restrospective work of an author
who wrote about some historical events AFTER THE FACT,
presenting them AS IF they had been foretold by the mythincal
"Daniel", you even MISQUOTE IT, when you claim that
"he predicted the exact day that Jesus Christ would ride into

Jerusalem

on a donkey and let people worship Him as Messiah the Prince (or

King)".

There's no such "prediction", not even such a suggestion anywhere

in

"DANIEL".

NO PROOF OF ANYTHING.

And, finally, your #5, "Intelligent Design", which is
a self-contradictory argument of creationists trying to
destroy science and scientific inquiry by postulating a
non-designed, always-existing extra-cosmic super-natural
"intelligence" to explain everything that naturally exists.

You falsely claim the existence of "peer-reviewed" science
to prove the reality of the ancient creation fable of Genesis!
You refer to "Answers in Genesis", which is presented as
"a Christian apologetics ministry that equips the church to
uphold the authority of the Bible from the very first verse."

Thus, you promote the American Taliban conspiracy aimed at
destroying scientific knowledge and replacing it with ancient
Hebrew fables.
("We affirm that Genesis 1-11 is factual, as is the rest of the

book.")

The Christian-creationist argument goes like this:
"[since] the court indicated that only and any-theories on origins
based on established facts could be made mandatory, or

supplementary,

in the teaching curriculum" [therefore] The emphasis on established

facts

for origins teaching gives Christians an unprecedented opportunity

to teach

publicly information leading to the conclusion that there must be a

Creator

and that the Creator must be the God of the Bible."

What a phony, twisted, dishonest jump, to conclude that some

claimed,

yet non-existent "established facts for origins" actually
"gives Christians an unprecedented opportunity
to teach publicly information leading to the conclusion that
there must be a Creator and that the Creator must be the God of the

Bible."

Most believing Christians will honestly admit, as the Bible itself

states,

that their beliefs are based on "FAITH", not on any "established

facts".

"The conclusion that there must be a Creator" is not based on ANY
"established fact"! And to boot, even if some extraterrestrial

intelligence

is invoked to explain life on Earth and terrestrial evolution, in

what way

would that justify the assertion that
"the Creator must be the God of the Bible"???
(Ref.: Supreme Court Rules on Teaching Creationism
by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. ) -- L.

It's very interesting that jason has chosen to ignore
this and yet is happy to natter an whine to others in
this thread. Di you see the responses to Mr Neil's
short response to Gastrich's opening post in the
thread?

Mr Neil wrote:

Get out the wienies. As Doug would say, it's
time for a roast!

Shortly afterwards Jason replied Mr Neil's post
as well as Ian Braidwood. The conversation went
as follows:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

I think the wienies are already out and about.

Mr Neil wrote:

Riiiiight... If this ends up being anything like
your other two debates with Krueger, I think
you're going to end up being the weinie.

Jason Gastrich wrote:

Am I obligated to respond to your ad hominems?
It's funny how you can't deal with my arguments,
so you just go after me. Very mature.

Ian Braidwood replied:

No, you choose to, but I suppose it's easier than
responding to many of the cogent replies made by
atheists in this thread.

To which Jason replied:

I haven't read anything cogent. Perhaps people
under my killfile have finally decided to post
something cogent.

I suppose it is possible that both yourself and David
Vestal are in Jason's kill file but I doubt it. Jason is
just ignoring the substance and lashing out at the
chaff. He hopes the substance will go away.

As usual it is very interesting to note which posts Jason
actually responds to. His choice reveals his complete
lack of honesty and suggests he has no ability to argue
his case. Given his very selective patterns of response
in usenet it makes it even more remarkable that he
chooses to challenge and debate people that regularly
'clean his clock' and reveal him as to be a complete
fool. Each to his own, I suppose.

David D.

I've started my debate with atheist professor and author Doug

It's being hosted at the Internet Infidels Discussion Board (IIDB).
See here: http://iidebate5.jcsm.org