Thankyou for your patience and considered reply. I do enjoy lively discussion and debate. I will not leave any part unanswered.

You are allowed to use logical arguments Scripture uses if they hold logically as well as the proof for the resurrection using the Minimal Facts Approach which does not claim inerrancy.
I agree using logical arguments that you find in scriptures is perfectly acceptable. I guess I was not clear what I meant. The point I was trying to convey is this - using statements (statements or declarations alone in contrast to logical arguments) from Scripture as proof/ evidence would not be acceptable in a Proof of God - since without already assuming God scriptures hold no authority. I mention this since often in discussion people have declared that God must exist since the Bible says He does, yet trust in the Bible is based on already assuming God exists - which is clearly circular and illogical.
"proof for resurrection" seems to be a fairly large assumption to me - is the proof stories and testimony - first hand? second hand?

no assumptions whatsoever

I'm not sure this is possible, whenever argument is made there are always assumptions - you and me share many presuppositions or without which we could not communicate, it is simply a part of our language.
for example;
The evidence leads to the conclusion.

Presupposes or assumes, the existence of the evidence, and the idea that it can "lead"
God's existence is not an axiom, but the evidence comes to this conclusion that God exists. This is called evidentialism

The idea that evidence is possible and exists is called evidentialism? I will look into it to get a more general understanding of the debate.
God's existence is not an axiom.....the evidence comes to this conclusion that God exists

This is what we are discussing, no? So it seems the more general foundation of our disagreement is on the philosophy and nature of evidence.
I have stated my conception of what constitutes evidence, under the idea "What is Proof" please elaborate on yours so we may be speaking the same language.
I guess the difference may be is that i do not consider "personal revelation" as a form of evidence. It may be enough to convince one who experiences it - but when communicated to others it is merely personal testimony, hearsay, not logical or rational proof. I have very vivid dreams when i sleep, I could assume that these happened in an actual world with material existence because i have perceived them - yet obviously perception and reality are not perfectly synonymous. I would not be able to convince you except through inducements that my imaginary world is actual.
the proof is substantial.

Again this is the subject of our debate - stating something has an attribute is not an argument, does not make it so.
The greatest strength of Christianity I believe is how deep it reaches into your inner man-it's greatest strength!

I too agree this is Christianity's greatest strength - It's reliance on and emotional pull - who does not wish to live in a world where there is providence,knowledge of origins, removal of death, assurance of paradise and community,and certainty about what to think, how to act and a life's purpose.

Marx did not call religion the opiate of the masses without reason. It removes pain, and makes one happier in general.
our discussion is based on evidence of observing nature
I'm glad we can rule out testimony and revelation in this discussion, as I really don't agree that this is strong evidence.

Don't think revelation and proofs in nature are mutually exclusive. They are both doable. Even if God were to come and announce His retirement, how would you affirm He is God? Is your criteria the basis? Why would your criteria be better than the next person?
Sorry, that was a little humour, but the questions you pose are very valid - how would you answer them.
How could you affirm God based on a physical manifestation? (like a man)
Can there be a standard of judgement a principle for testing revelation? true or false?
If so what are your criteria?

What matters is you can't disprove the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach which is embedded within it showing none can compare to Christ.
Why can't it be disproven?
What to your mind would constitute a disproof?
I will read the minimal facts approach - would finding a flaw in this constitute disproof in your mind - since a proven origin would then not necessitate this origin being Jesus/Biblical God.

Petty self arguments don't count.
Sorry if I was unclear my point was twofold;

1. I consider that if a proof has but one flaw in it's essential parts, though the conclusion may still hold the proof does not - do you agree?

2. Dismissing my entire commentary based on one or a few points, is not justified since it is not a coherent proof ( like above) but a commentary, a laundry list of doubts and flaws.

Really what i was asking here is that you address each point separately rather than dismissing my thoughts out of hand. I ask this again in consideration of my reply.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to the arguments from Ravi - I was mostly trying to summarise what I understood of the video's message for the benefit of anyone else reading, though my commentary questions about it are this;

Assuming "a reason for existence" - why assume a reason for existence, or the requirement of a cause?

why can't there be a basic physical entity that is uncaused?

what proof do you have of the universality causation? an idea which has been scientifically abandoned since the inception of quantum mechanics?

The argument in the proof is a variation on Ravi's argument, The proof which relies on the universe being temporal- In Big Bang Theory Time was created as well as matter, so asking what came before is meaningless in this theory - that is it offers an logical physical alternative to the conclusion in Step 1 whether you accept the theory or not.

and if you assume or can prove there is one - why assume it is supernatural?, or even your God rather than someother person or religious conception of god/s?

Automobiles -They require intelligence. The universe itself is not intelligence.
I agree automobiles are designed and built by humans, and the universe is not synonymous with intelligence my question was this..

why does the most basic form of existence require an origin or an explanation?
(God does not seem to require one so obviously, Christians are open to this idea)

And given that explanation is desired and required, assuming there is not a physical explanation, or foundation is unwarranted as it would require full knowledge all physical objects and relationships, in order to dismiss the possibility. It is not enough to merely state there can be no physical explanation.

admit there is an uncreated Creator
I was not admitting rather summarising Ravi, you were probably thought it was unrelated to the argument above - because it is - that was my point. My contention is that enzymes can and be explained without divine, intervention, obviously the possibility of this happening is not zero, merely small, yet 13.7 billion years is a long time in which probabilities of occurances though small can happen.

Since your universe can't create an automobile without intelligence, your reality is false.
Our universe obviously did create an automobile - humans and their intelligence are not set apart from nature, but rather part of it. Are the enzymes talked about above not an essential component, of what you are? of our shared evolution?

Moral reality can't just exist all by itself. It has a cause. Objective morality can't exist without God.
I really don't know what you refer to with the phrase "moral reality"

Why can't objective reality exist without God?

Well we agree that objective reality exists - I still see no valid reason for it to be necessary for an explanation in terms of a God.