I’m not sure I think it was similar to when Abraham brought Isaac up to sacrifice him, he brought some wood,(cross), and knife,(sword) to give up his only son to God. Similar how God gave His only begotten son… Genesis 22:6.

_"I often challenge atheists to make a positive, scientific, evidence based case FOR their own naturalistic faith position."_ ...because you're not interested in an honest conversation where you first inquire as to your interlocutors position and how they arrived at it. You're more interested in plowing forward with your presup script wherein you try to force your interlocutor to defend a position they don't necessarily hold to in a manner that isn't necessarily consistent with their worldview. _"They can't do it. "_ Not at all surprising they can't meet your arbitrary challenge. _"When it comes to what they believe-they cannot meet their own standard."_ That's not their standard, it's one you invented, in order to win arguments on the internet. But likewise when I actually _ask_ Christians what their position is, and how they arrived at it, and to offer a rational defense of it, they never can seem to meet their own, self professed standards. I'd ask you, but we both know good and well that you'll never ever submit your worldview to an internal critique because you know it won't hold up under the slightest bit of scrutiny. And any feigned willingness you might put forth is just a subterfuge so you can try and run your script again and just interrogate the other party without ever defending your own worldview.

@@ajhieb I'm not interested? How do you know that? Why do you think I stated that I lead in with... a question? Yeah, you have no evidence whatsoever to support anything you just said. Give me a break. If you can't handle the non-arbitrary challenge that's been presented, just say so. Don't lie and claim it is arbitrary. Since when it is "arbitrary" to make the case for the position that anyone holds about anything at all? And why are you claiming that invented the standard that virtually ALL atheists arbitrarily assume-that being "evidence"? Dude, what is wrong with you? Are you really this desperate to escape the challenge? Are you admitting that you don't have good reasons, nor do you have any empirical scientific evidence to support whatever your position is? Hey, how about this: What exactly is your position and why do you hold it? How does your worldview answer the most fundamental question of existence we humans tend to ask, such as: origins, meaning, morality, and ultimate destiny? As for the false claim you make to end your diatribe, well, I'd be more than happy to oblige... after you. (Since I challenged you first.) What do you say? Are you up to the challenge-even the challenge of defending any of the claims you made above? You bluff; I call!

@@jessebryant9233 _"I'm not interested?"_ Correct. _"How do you know that?"_ Your response just demonstrated it. _"Why do you think I stated that I lead in with... a question?"_ You didn't start... _"I often challenge atheists to make a positive, scientific, evidence based case FOR their own naturalistic faith position."_ ...with a question, did you? _"Yeah, you have no evidence whatsoever to support anything you just said."_ Sure I do. You're a presupper. That's what presuppers do. So that's what you're doing. Basic deductive inference. (That, and it's just painfully obvious) _"Don't lie and claim it is arbitrary."_ Don't lie and claim it's not. Demanding that someone defend something that isn't entailed in their worldview is arbitrary. Demanding they do it via a methodology that isn't required in their worldview is arbitrary. _"And why are you claiming that invented the standard that virtually ALL atheists arbitrarily assume-that being "evidence"? "_ English. Do you speak it? Or have I chosen to interact with the world's worst presup AI? Empirical evidence is the standard by which most people judge empirical claims. Most people's worldviews aren't making empirical claims, so evidence is irrelevant. So would you care to prove me wrong and allow an internal critique of your worldview, or are you going to continue to prove me right by desperately trying to get back on to your presupper script so you can stay on offense and never bother defending your own worldview?

@@ajhieb So you're not gonna meet the challenge... or is it just that you can't?

@@jessebryant9233 I challenged you Chief, and it's clear you don't have the stones to accept. Not only did I challenge you, I predicted the outcome and your obvious attempt to get back to your silly little presupper script. So far you haven't disappointed. Next you can try and make more excuses for why I should address your challenge first, along with a totally insincere promise to put your worldview up for scrutiny after you're done with mine. Sorry, bub. I've dealt with too many presuppers before you to fall for that obvious lie. But if you wanna have an interesting discussion without having a worldview pissing contest (which is clearly what you're here for) we can talk about all the failings of Bahnsen, Frame, Van Til et al, and how the presup apologetic is nothing but a meaningless tautology that says nothing useful about the truth of Christianity, nor the falsity of any other worldview. But my guess is you'll run from that too.

Hand me one. While you are at it hand me math that's subjective. "It can be w/e an individual brain believes it to be" - If a human brain isn't functioning properly (Lets say dementia etc) does that mean the laws of logic or the uniformity of nature no longer apply to that person? If a damaged brain stands in front of an oncoming train and believes the train is actually moving away from him - is that true? What if ALL brains are broken, how would you know? If a society of broken brains tried to build an airplane using subjective math - would you fly on it?

​@dannychapman456 nonsensical babble

So you are telling people what they should think? Obviously you don't believe Rabbi Schochet, you CAN'T. He said Jesus can't be the Messiah and you say he is. Same with the trinity.

I somewhat understand, but telling people they are rotten from birth and most are going to hell, that's the "good news" you want to hear? Jews have the seven laws of Noah that are set out for non-Jews. Jews lived peacefully with other faiths. They believed they were to set an example, not convert everyone. I think they were waiting for the Messiah and then people would unite under God's Kingdom. But Jews didn't prevent people from following God.

@@joecheffo5942it’s up to people to choose if they are righteous or unrighteous, God teaches the sinner in the way, he came for the sinner, I admitted it. David admitted he shaken in iniquity, and in sin his mother conceived him, two people walk into a synagogue, one thanks God of how righteous they are, and the other bows his head and says to God to have mercy on a sinner like him. Isiaah when taken into heaven admitted that he was unclean, God had to purify him. So on and so on, the continual biblical pattern goes into the New Testament

Lol you piqued my curiosity. How so?

@@jtbtdlkt2012 Once a person has been religiously duped, it’s difficult to get them back into reality.

@@chuckiepeoples interesting. Reality as you define it or in what sense?

@@jtbtdlkt2012 The same reality in which we all find ourselves, collectively, not individually.