Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
"proof for resurrection" seems to be a fairly large assumption to me - is the proof stories and testimony - first hand? second hand?
First hand.

Presupposes or assumes, the existence of the evidence, and the idea that it can "lead"
I don't see this as an assumption, because evidence reveals itself, so it is not assumed. These words evidence towards my existence that are typing them.

why can't there be a basic physical entity that is uncaused?
Because all physical things have a cause.

yet 13.7 billion years is a long time in which probabilities of occurances though small can happen.
The probability is zero because there has not been enough interatomic interactions to make a single celled living organism.

Why can't objective reality exist without God?
Because it would be subjective relative to each person.

To assume or to state that no possible physical explanation can or will exist – I think cannot be properly made without total and absolute knowledge of all physical objects
What you are doing is you have to be God to know if God existence which is arrogant. All the law requires is a preponderance of evidence.

Belief in God comes before the argument, not following from it.
For me, the evidence keeps me secure, since I don't know hot disprove the 4 Step Proof for God and the Minimal Facts Approach, nor do you, so that is a good testimony too.