What do you believe and why do you believe it?

That is a misunderstanding of Christianity. "Faith" is not the "cure". Jesus Christ is the "cure" by which "faith" (as the mere conduit) takes hold. Sin is not imaginary, but is a very real 'disease' and which word is but simply the term to describe violation of God's laws, whether Physical or Spiritual (iow moral), hence 'murder' being 'sin'.

Even the 'placebo effect' proves 'faith' to be real, although it will not tell you which faith is real or substantial, or even how to test which is the truth. For that, you need something else.

Ask God when you crack your knees and bow before him, I am sure he will explain it far better than I........

Hardly. The God of scripture has been criticized and scrutinized ever since the fall of Lucifer.

Rom_3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

That which is presently and apparently 'immune' is 'evolutionism'; a dogma of the dead in trespasses and sin.

Again, what an 'imbecile', not even understanding 'eyewitness' testimony is most powerful.:

"... Eyewitness testimony is not hearsay. He said/She said testimony usually refers to a situation where the only evidence is the testimony, or statement, of one person. “The Defendant pushed me and hit me in the shoulder.” This is not hearsay evidence and it is admissible. If the State was prosecuting a the Defendant for battery, the prosecutor could call the listed victim who would testify that the Defendant pushed and hit her. If the jury believed that witness beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury could render a verdict of guilty and the Defendant could be convicted based on nothing more than the word of one person. No physical evidence is required. The State doesn’t need a recording, injuries, fingerprints, or any other physical evidence. Of course, physical evidence can make a jury more likely to convict, as opposed to He said, She said testimony.

But, why isn’t this hearsay? The witness in this case, the victim, is not testifying to what someone told her. She is testifying to what she observed with her own eyes. If the witness points to a defendant and says, “That man pushed and hit me,” this is direct testimonial evidence. It would be up to the defense attorney to impeach that witness and convince the jury that the State has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant pushed or hit the victim. ..." - https://www.jacksonvillecriminallawyerblog.com/hearsay-can-prosecute-based-said-said/

God is an eyewitness, and able to testify, even as Jesus so said of Himself.
Angels were eyewitnesses, and able to testify.
Roman Guards were eyewitnesses, and able to testify (and did so, and their words are recorded by the scribes of the Sanhedrin itself, a court of law)
Mary was an eyewitness and her testimony is recorded.
Disciples were eyewitnesses, and their testimony is recorded.
Gospel writers, Matthew and John were direct eyewitnesses, and are recorded.
Mark and Luke were secondary to the primary events, but primary witnesses to the secondary events, and are recorded.

All of these testimonies agree, and are found in harmony. There is no contradictory report that is able to withstand scrutiny. Somebody stole the body, dogs ate the body, Jesus never existed, Jesus never really died, twin theory, hallcinations, etc, etc.

None of it is hearsay. You and 'Thomas' don't understand the word, or purposefully misuse it.

He has no desire for truth and cites a man that went out with two witnesses by his side to attest to his denial of Christ with his dying breath.....

A fool has said in his heart there is no GOD <-----this encapsulates his position just fine.

No, actually me saying blah blah blah is indicative of what is coming out of your mouth.....Kind of like the Teacher in Peanuts......a few words to describe what you are saying....blather, rigmarole, bloviate, etc......

Where you at calvinist?

Flee from your own ignorance, to the Truth before it is too late.

"... "Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.."-*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.

"No one has ever found an organism that Is known not to have parents, or a parent. This Is the strongest evidence on behalf of evolution."- *Tom Bethell, "Agnostic Evolutionists," Harper's, February 1985, p. 61.

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species) instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?-- *Charles Darwin, quoted In H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 139.

"Where are we when presented with the mystery of life? We find ourselves facing a granite wall which we have not even chipped . . We know virtually nothing of growth, nothing of life."-*W. Kaempffert, "The Greatest Mystery of All- the Secret of Life," New York Times.

"I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."-*H. Lippson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.

"I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial.. the success of Darwinism was accomplished by a decline in scientific Integrity."*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to *Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species [Canadian scientist].

" 'The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination."-*Dr. Fleischman. quoted in E Meidau, Why We Believe in Creation, Not Evolution, p. 10 [Erlangen zoologist].

"The hold of the evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists."- *Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 306 [Australian molecular biologist].

"[Darwin could) summon up enough general, vague and conjectural reasons to account for this fact, and if these were not taken seriously, he could come up with a different, but equally general, vague and conjectural set of reasons."- *Gertrude Himmelfarb. Darwin and Darwinian Revolution (1968). p. 319.

"The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."-J. Bonner, "Book Review,"American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.

"It was because Darwinian theory broke man's link with God and set him adrift in a cosmos without purpose or end that its impact was so fundamental. No other intellectual revolution in modern times. . so profoundly affected the way men viewed themselves and their place in the universe." *Michael Denton, Evolution. A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 67 [Australian molecular biologist].

"I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem In pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do . . For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."*Aldous Huxley. "Confessions of a Professed Atheist," Report: Perspective on the News, Vol. 3, June 1966, p. 19 [Grandson of evolutionist Thomas Huxley (Darwin's closest friend and promoter) and brother of evolutionist Julian Huxley. Aldous Huxley was one of the most influential liberal writers of the 20th century] ..." - Link

Do some actual reading - Link or even better, here

An yet that 'randomness' is supposed to bring about order and intelligence? Obviously his own belief, has brought him to non-intelligence, and incoherency of logic, in effect he has become what he believed (faith) himself to be, the opposite of his beloved idolatrous 'spock', which is to say: 'illogical'. Even in Star Trek 5 - Final Frontier, "God" is seen upon a distant world ... hmm, wonder where they got that idea. btw, "ships" in scripture, are likened unto a church (Mat. 13), from which preachment happens.

Why are you spinning?
Christ is not the creator of the universe and He does not know the day and hour of His return...so how could He even predict His 2nd advent?

Matt....24:36 KJV....But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

This is a pure spin to accommodate ......................your slant.....and is not cricket.

If you can't address facts in a debate, I for one, will leave it with your chosen program.

Be blessed.

Pure heresy against John 1

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it.

That is a convenient, self-justifying way to frame the discussion.

The crime is not disbelief, but rejection of God. God offers you His life as a payment for your sin, and asks only your faith in Him in return. So far, you have rejected His offer. Die without accepting His offer, and your rejection remains without end. How is that finite?

it may be implied by facts i presented, but it was never my argument.
that part, you heard inside yourself, and it wasn't my voice.

that's humanism for you. a snake eating its own tail, telling itself how big it will grow from all the nutrients it gains, even while it devours itself.

I believe I did.
You only responded to my second post.
Did you read the first one?
Just in case you missed it, it was post 633.

I am not an evolutionary biologist but I have at least some understanding of evolution and the scientific method. All you have on the subject is willful ignorance.

This is rubbish. Humanism isn't devouring itself at all. In fact some figures would suggest that religion is on the decline and humanism is on the up, particularly in America. This may be because people are beginning to wake up to the fact that religions have empty promises.

Thank you for your gentle words and your advice. Your gamble feels like Pascal's Wager which I have dismissed as a good reason for belief. But if it truly works for you then who am I to discourage you?