They say Christians have no fact in evidence, but in actuality, atheists cannot identify a fact and have no use for evidence or facts; wouldn't know what to do with one, let alone know how to confirm one to form a proper belief. How can there be facts to an atheist that believes there is no absolute truth? Absolute rubbish, atheists avoid, ignore and deny the evidence.
So let’s deal with reality for a change and look at the facts instead of trying to please atheists.
Fact: Matter cannot cause itself; matter is finite; you don't recognize your position is an absurdity? Nor can matter produce the immaterial
Fact: Nature did not create itself because it has no consciousness, will or intelligence - all three are needed to "create".
Fact: Genetic Law (Mendelian Genetics) demonstrates that each breathing creature be created according to their own kind, coinciding with the Genesis creation account-- it is observable both in nature and the lab, and is reproducible (Empirical science)!
Fact: neither have you answered how you would get around the Law of Biogenesis to have these wild and crazy beliefs of Naturalism.
With the atheist, I'm uncertain to know which of their errant presuppositions I'm addressing. You ignore empirical science and reinterpret OPINIONS in ways that fit your presuppositions with pseudo-science and unsupported OPINION; a mish-mash of delusions. Let's clear the truth with more verifiable facts:
Fact: The law of biogenesis, attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the conclusion that complex living things come only from other living things. Did you skip that class?
The pseudo-science of evolution and Big Bang ensconced in a medieval soup of Naturalism, would have us believe that either can violate natural laws.
Fact: No valid scientific claim can violate a Natural Law.. the Natural Laws regarding information assert.
1. Information is immaterial.
2. The material cannot produce something immaterial...
So Materialism, Darwinism, Abiogenesis and even the Big Bang violate this Natural Law and so can be dismissed as false.
I don't think most people realize that Watson & Crick disproved evolution 80 years ago along with the discovery of DNA. Darwin himself stated that in order for evolution to be possible or feasible, DNA codes had to be infinite. Watson and Crick disproved evolution when they proved the number of human DNA codes to be finite. Can anyone still say a theory is deemed scientific as long as it has the imprimatur of at least one member of the Darwinian priesthood, when Darwin himself has disproved his own theory?
Of course, you cannot rule out the supernatural unless you can objectively validate Materialism. Observed origin of matter empirically disproves materialism. Evolution is dead in the water in dozens of ways. Genetics and genomics empirically disprove Darwinism.
Crick says the human genome cannot occur randomly. If life cannot occur randomly, evolution in the past is impossible. Proof enough.
ergo, as the only other contender standing for the origin of life and the universe, there must be a Creator. The laws that govern the universe preclude it from not having a beginning, and no matter how how you slice it, you cannot escape an external cause for the Physical Universe. You can call that cause anything you like, but I call it God the Creator until the evidence asserts otherwise. Real empirical evidence in the present trumps unfounded unsupported OPINION every time. In scientific terms, Creationists claim evidence from the Bible with corroboration of the observed origin of matter, and it is consistent with our belief, literally.
Philosophically, logically using proper reasoning skills, Aristotle's discourse on the Prime Mover demonstrates that there can be only one Prime Mover (Creator God) so your likely objection for many creator gods, was answered about 2300 years ago, by a Pagan Greek Philosopher.
Here I have objectively defined what I call God the Creator, in my opinion, with supporting evidence to meet the burden of proof. My understanding and definition of the Creator is based on the evidence. I claim that based on the evidence I have examined I believe God makes more sense than No-god. I also recognize the right of anybody else to come to any other opinion on the matter they like.
Empirical evidence is very simple:
1. Observable in nature OR
2. Experimentally demonstrable AND
3. Reproducible.
Objectifying the inferences being made and validating everything with secondary lines of evidence means the burden has been met.. It's just that simple!
The best evidence for God is in the Creation event and Noah's Flood in Genesis, recorded in real time by real people and handed down to Moses, which can be confirmed, corroborated, and verified by outside evidence to meet the burden. Truth is always dependent on relationships, revealed in the detail of fact in the integrity of the claim. The record of the Flood is preserved in some of the oldest historical documents of several distinct races of men, and is indirectly corroborated by the whole tenor of the early history of most of the civilized races.
Fact: Of the 200 ancient civilizations studied (out of over 500) that recorded the Noachian/Noah's Flood, 90% of them agree the Flood was Global. These are the facts of reality in evidence, not some myth as we are taught by the atheist/humanist school curriculum.
Fact: Records of Cush, grandson of Noah (son of Ham) is listed in the Sumerian King's List from the coveted Tablets found at Elba.
Moses has set in stone the timeline of human history with the Pentateuch.
Millions/billions of years is a farce so atheist/evolutionists can pretend to play science and wander through biology labs as if they belong there.
Evolution is either pseudo-science or just bad science, as you will. Big Bang has been off the rails for 90 years. It's not up to us to disprove a given theory. It's up to the theory to prove itself against the laws of science. In this manner, evolution disproves itself; it is operationally impossible. When you also then consider the laws of information, then it becomes exponentially impossible.
It does not matter how big their alleged mountain of evidence proponents of these notions point to. Because if it violates a Natural Law it is false.. PERIOD.
These are the FACTS of life, of existence, of Creation, according to the empirical evidence that you can verify right now and stop filling little boxes with empty unfounded, unsupported, illogical, irrational fabricated OPINION.
The laws that govern the universe preclude it from not having a beginning, and no matter how how you slice it, you cannot escape an external cause for the Physical Universe, logically, philosophically, or scientifically. This is a known empirical fact. How do atheists get around the facts and still think logically?
We cannot agree that primordial slime can yield intelligent life when time and chance are added. It’s not theism vs. science but rather theism vs. naturalism. What you believe affects how you think. What you think controls what you do. Exclude truth and you will live in error.
Much that passes as "science" is, in reality, a form of mathematical idealism whereby a theory only has to be internally consistent in order to be accepted as fact. Mathematicians have a cavalier disregard for experiment and observation.
The burden of proof is not on me to disprove your claims, it is on you to prove your claims.. You deny God, yet you also deny any burden to disprove God.. How is it that you don't understand that your affirmative claims Darwinism, Big Bang have the same burden?
Would you accept anything less empirical evidence (actual observation) for God? If not then why do you expect me to believe when you cannot provide empirical evidence for your own claims? My email is always open, but silent. Why is the atheist irrelevance not silenced here? Ah, despicable liars have no honor, only a thumbs thingy. Delusional denial of reality in verifiable truth on display. Go back to your "regular programming". When will you figure out you have absolutely nothing, by choice? A future based on dishonesty doesn't seem very hopeful unless you're a lawyer; might want to look into it, play all the pretend games you want.
Otherwise: "It is of great importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it a second and a third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells lies without attending to it, and truths without the world's believing him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in time depraves all its good disposition." —Thomas Jefferson (1785)
A dozen evidences against evolution
https://answersrip.com/question/index?qid=20190601211213AAB9pHn