First off, condescending PMs aren't particularly nice. I'll drag out discussion on a topic as long as I like, because some things need to be discussed. You can't gloss over everything like you seem to want to do. Also, if your "theology" and the theology of half a dozen Christiain thinkers can't convince me, why will some lame music do the trick?

Both statements are true, for if you were still holding the ball, it would not drop. The point of this exercise is to show there is cause and effect in all things in nature as you wanted an example and you can't find anything that is without a cause. This gives glory to God, because if nothing happens all by itself then the ultimate cause must be that which is uncaused who would be God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ. Alas, I am repeating myself which falls on deaf ears.
I'm sorry, this is one IMMENSE non sequitur.

Where did I say Brownian motion is not the cause of diffusion? You asked for an example of something in nature, and I gave you the example of a ball dropping to show something in nature not happening all by itself, and neither you nor I can find a thing in nature that happens all by itself. To think otherwise, speaks poorly of your knowledge of reality and science and need for evidence.
Argument from ignorance, also, this whole cause thing is still rather unproven.

I don't say God of the Bible is better than some god, but it is proven. That is why by comparison it can always be shown. Why misrepresent the Christain position? The Bible does not say it is right because it says it is right. Not at all. It first proves itself, by showing you that nothing in nature happens all by itself; hence, the ultimate cause is the uncaused who is God of the Bible since none can compare to Christ.
Your god has to be better than others else you wouldn't believe in it. You say that by virtue of your position. The Bible's proof a priori assumes the existence of god etc, as does your "perfect" proof(which does so by virtue of its acceptance of sin. You can't have sin without a god(and the Christain one loves it. Also, verses plzkthxbai.

Altogether we have 45 early contemporary sources, 17 of which are non-Christian.
Links or you lose credibility.

When you place this next to the documentation of the emperor of Rome who died the same time Jesus died, you find that Jesus is documented four times more within say the first 150 years of their deaths.
I've looked and there is no such documentation.

Nobody in antiquity is more well documented than Jesus and with papyrus still preserved so close to the events that took place.
The Roman Emperors beg to disagree. And the Japanese Emperors. The Egyptians did a pretty good job too.

The Iliad's, for example, earliest preserved document that still exists is over a thousand years after their alleged events. Our earliest known papyrus from Scripture is from 95 to 105 AD[sic] (see Case for Faith and Case for Christ by Lee Strobel).
Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word contemporary. In this instance it means "existing, occurring, or living at the same time; belonging to the same time." According to your only source that you've cited so far Jesus died around 33 CE. That is most certainly NOT contemporary.

Why would Tacitus, Roman historian, and other Roman historians write about Jesus?
The passage by Tacitus was arguably written in to the Annals by Christain scribes as neither Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius, nor Augustine of Hippo mention the passage. Luke didn't mention the persecution of Christians in Rome in Acts. There probably weren't very many at ALL in Rome, certainly not the number alluded to in the passage (enough to be at fault for the fire). Also, the passage was, if genuine, written circa 119 CE, also NOT contemporary, and makes merely passing reference to a "Christus," who was mistreated by the "procurator"[sic] of Judaea which spawned a religion. Not much of substance there at all.

Why would they be excluded from writing about any subject? Well, for one thing, it was the Romans who put Jesus to death at the request of the Jews so some record is in order. Secondly, since some in Rome considered Jesus a threat like Nero, they would blame Christians though falsely for burning Rome despite no motivation.
I think there was plenty of motive, if Christians were being persecuted as you might have us believe(but that's a topic for another day). At any rate, I doubt people considered Jesus a threat, since he was sort of dead. And while a record was certainly in order, there hasn't been an uncontestably genuine one found.

Infants don't have faith, so the Bible calls this the time before the age of accountability when one becomes responsible for their thoughts and choices. You do have faith; your faith is in your idol or god of atheism which you use to keep you eternally separated from God in which you assume God does not exist though you have no reason for your blind faith.
My faith in the god of no-god-ism? This makes little sense. It's not faith if modern science(not just biology, physics too) supports it. Please, realize that scientists aren't investigating such things to extol the virtues of your god or ANY god, they're doing it to dispel ignorance like the stuff that populates these forums.

I've already given you the scientific finding in which we can cite trillions of things that have a cause in nature,
If by that you mean that you've told me that nothing in nature is without cause(which I suppose is true in a deterministic universe, with the exception of the big bang[when the "normal" laws of physics didn't apply]), then yes.

Radioactive-dating does not deny the account of creation in Bible.
What bible do you read? It blatantly contradicts ANY literal reading of genesis, and if you don't read genesis literally, why read any of the bible literally(like those bits about Jesus, the flood, etc.)?

The problem with evolution is that it is just a limited teaching, for it can't explain what came before the first biological creature. That's why we go to the 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible which is more encompassing.
No, that's why we go to physics.

What I find wanting with evolution is just this: when trying to determine if God exists, evolution is a tool that is lacking, because it does not address what came before the first creature with a helix and bacteria.
Yes, and when trying to determine where the studs in a wall are, a chainsaw does little good. Science is not just evolution, there's a whole lot of physics behind the naturalist view.

The Big Bang agrees with the Bible for Gen. 1.1 does not say how long God took to create.
See my point on literal reading of the bible etc.

Gen. 2.7 says our bodies were formed from dust,
Which is patently false, and Islam's view of biological creation adheres more closely to fact than Christianity.

create man in God's image 6000 years ago. However, one things you can say of the length of time is the wondrous patience God has.
Why are there indications of humans(tools, footprints, etc.) from as early as 130000 years ago?

It is not the time of a person's existence for their cause of their truthfulness or untruthfulness. What a silly idea to bear false witness.
From: http://biblocality.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2108
First off you should not believe in the god of Islam because he lies to you. He comes 600+ years later and says Jesus didn't die on the cross when all the documentation we have He did die on the cross. Nobody in the first century thought otherwise. Can you find anyone who thought otherwise? What about the second century?


Mohammed contrived his religion, and this is proven by the fact that over 600 years later he said Jesus never died.
That bit was from this topic.:wubyou: The next paragraph.:laugh:

Since all the documentation we have points to Jesus dying on the cross
The bible?

and nobody in the first century saying otherwise
That's about as irrelevant as potatoes.

then Mohammed does not have a leg to stand on. We must conclude then that his contrived religion was devised in hostility to God of the Bible, and he is going to hell.
Not really. I mean, the going to hell bit is probably right, but that's just because he's not Christian. I don't get where the hostility to Christianity bit came from; he was preaching the same things with the exception of the whole jesus died for your sins bit(which does seem just a bit silly upon reflection).

Buddhism and hinduism are false because you are not going to come back as a chicken or a dog if you sin and receive endless chances to be a human being again, back and forth like a yoyo without real consequences.
You've offered no proof other than your opinion. Also, there are consequences in both, people just have more chances. Seems a lot more positive than Christianity.

You get this one life to come to the cross and to believe in God. Even some person on some remote island who never read the Bible (the 66 books) or heard of it could still be saved if he looked up at the mountains and stars and believed in the Creator. Surely, if presented the Word of God, he would accept Christ as his Lord and Savior.
Your first sentence only works with an a priori acceptance of your god, and also, there are plenty of "[people] on some remote island[s]" who rejected your god. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Buddhism also makes no commentary on an uncreated creator, thus shutting the person's mind down to the uncreated creator for selfish idol worship of gods that the flesh indulges itself and which remain a point of separation from God.
This sentence needs more grammar. Elaboration would be nice.

Yes, the Bible provides the proof which is when you look at all creatures you would be hard pressed to shut your mind down to the fact that humans are quite unique for what we can do compared to all the creatures of the earth is vast.
Yes, I will be the first to admit that humans are unique among animals, but remember that we are just animals, and shared an ancestor with an ape which practically bases its social hierarchy on masturbation. Fun science fact!

Similarly, you can say, because we have a spirit of God-consciousness (mankind throughout all ages continues to worship) and other creatures do not, this too points to mankind as uniquely made in God's image. So, you are without excuse. Consider these points corroborating evidence.
We have a propensity to worship because way back when, tribes with a god to die for and a paradise awaiting them had a better motivation to fight. Eventually, genes were selected that increased one's propensity for spirituality, and there you go.

Entering the point of calvinism as false is not a random comment but most applicable, because calvinism teaches a similar idea to the one you presented that you have to be saved first to be able to believe and believe in the proof of God in the 4 Step Proof.
You still ignored my statement that a proof is useless if it can't convince people(and there are some glaring fallacies in that "proof," though I sha'n't discuss them as you already shouted down and banned a person who did).

I think you contradict yourself when you said, "I don't agree with the theology, but it makes sense". Why do you disagree with things that you think make sense?
Because I find it repulsive, like the other denominations of your religion.

However, it does not make sense for the very reason that God does not predetermine robots, but predestinates by foreknowing our free-choice: a conditional election, unlimited atonement, resistible grace, for preservation of the saints. When someone chooses not to be saved, they are going to hell, but don't think God premade them this way, for they are sovereign beings, with their own volition. Don't blame God for your choice to go to hell. In fact, nobody needed to go to hell after Adam, because everyone could have been saved if everyone like Abel gave a right freewill offering instead of an offering of their flesh like Cain.
If a being knows what another being is going to do, it's predestination. Don't try to dance around words like that--Isn't honesty a virtue?

This is not so complicated, but realize your flesh will spin its wheels come hell or highwater. That is the nature of the flesh to go on a rampage in mental gymnastics to maintain hostility and separation from God. Your flesh is the sin of your body and self of your soul. Who is the one whom you are following? Satan is working behind the scenes and totally owns you. Without an appreciation for this fact, you will remain lost in the matrix of the world under the god of this world who is Satan.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...

At any rate, I have a feeling that none of this will change your mind, but let me speak mine.

You, Troy, seem to be an insufferable little zealot who sees a god where one is not, and refuses to let anyone even try to shatter your tiny little view of the world. I've seen how many people have had their accounts deleted. You're the sort who just shouts down anything another person is saying, and if they bring up points you can't refute, you ban them or repeat yourself "like a clanging bell" as you put it in a private message to me. You are one of the saddest things on the planet, and you insult others of your faith.