Bush bunny, I note you quote a lot of speculative opinion of history about Jesus in your posts. I am not a six day creationist; however I presume you can explain where the first DNA appeared and how new DNA was added to produce new and more advanced species. All living creatures are designed with systems to fight death and return to basic earth chemistry; and in their lifetime reproduce after their species. There is life after the death of the parents species. The evidence is there is a degeneration of DNA but no evidence of new DNA to already advanced species. The ancient text Genesis 1 says God created all the chemistry on the periodic table [heaven and earth], in the beginning including the electrochemical activity giving light. He directly intervened in giving life to sea creatures and finally the intelligence to man, on other occasions he empowered water air and land to produce species.

Not_Now.Soon,

I understood what you meant by God being stronger than your doubts, and I still stand by my responding question.

<<Some requests were answered, which could be counted as coincidence.>>

That’s a good start.

<<Others were answered and felt which could be though of as mind games and the brain playing tricks.>>

Or you could be remembering them differently to how they actually happened. Our memories are notoriously poor like that. Our brains don’t record events like a cameras capture them on tape. Every time we remember something, our brains re-assemble that memory. Over time, our brains start re-assemble our memories differently, causing us to remember many things very differently to how they actually happened.

<<One was an odd abnormally of a rainbow (that so far I don't know any counter rebuttal for) …>>

I’ve provided you with a rebuttal. You even noted one yourself in the sentence immediately preceding this one: that you brain was playing tricks on you. It happens to everyone.

<<… another was asking to be awake while driving and a dramatic change in wakefulness ...>>

We’ve been through this one. I provided plenty of rational explanations.

As for the rest of your allegedly answered prayers, you would need to go into more detail before I could comment.

<<The diversity in the kinds responses to the kinds of prayers resolved any doubt to me …>>

How is diversity evidence of anything beyond your ability to apply confirmation bias to co-incidence in multiple scenarios? What evidential value does the diversity of prayers answered add?

Now that you mention it, if it was just one prayer that was consistently being answered every time you prayed it, then I would find that far more compelling. That would be something worth investigating.

<<This same diversity of responses is also a testament against coincidence …>>

How? You don’t explain this.

<<I've heard the criticisms towards Christianity much of my life.>>

I don’t think you’ve heard many, to be honest. Most of mine seem to catch you off guard and I’m still hearing new criticisms all the time.

Continued…

…Continued

<<I've considered them each one, and questioned both criticisms about Christianity as well as criticisms within Christianity.>>

It’s quite evident that you are willing to consider all criticisms of Christianity presented to you. It’s the honesty and objectivity of your approach to them that concerns me.

<<Some doubts are without merit because they are based on a stance to test a Christian that isn't living up to their calling as a Christian, and therefore test what it means to be faithful by those who struggle to produce that kind of faith.>>

I’m not sure what you mean here, but I am fascinated as to how the Bible counters doubts in any objective and reliable way.

<<Other doubts were a mis wording and mis understanding of scripture that once corrected hold no merit either.>>

How about doubting that the Bible is something to be taken seriously in the first place? Did that ever come into it? I presume you dealt with this one before getting to this point.

<<Of the kinds of criticisms that I currently don't have an answer for …>>

The question isn’t whether you have an answer for a given criticism. I could come up with all sorts of answers, but most of them would be nonsense. The question is whether those answers rule out any rational explanation for your experiences. So far, none of them have.

<<… I can still stand by the knowledge of God acting in my life in the manner that He has.>>

You are confusing belief and knowledge again.

<<Most of those doubts are philosophical arguments that try to prove that God isn't real.>>

No, they simple raise questions with the regards to the existence of God. The burden of proof remains with those making the claim.

<<Unfortunately, that's also where most of your arguments stem from AJ. Mostly philosophical arguments.>>

How is that a problem? Philosophy is, after all, the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. You can’t just dismiss it as some sort of irrelevant rabbit hole.

Interesting comment to Bush bunny, Josephus.

You start by saying that you’re not a young-Earth creationist, and then go on to display precisely the same ignorant arguments that young-Earth creationists do.

<<… I presume you can explain where the first DNA appeared and how new DNA was added to produce new and more advanced species.>>

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

You don’t have any evidence that DNA is the work of a god, yet you still believe it is. But if you really want to know how DNA originally formed, then this video provides the best hypothesis to date:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8nYTJf62sE

<<The evidence is there is a degeneration of DNA but no evidence of new DNA to already advanced species.>>

Straight out of the creationist’s handbook:

http://creation.com/mutations-new-information

Of course, this argument is total crap:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

<<The ancient text Genesis 1 says God created all the chemistry on the periodic table [heaven and earth], in the beginning including the electrochemical activity giving light.>>

Making it sound more sciency doesn’t make it more credible. There is still no reason to believe that there is any truth to Genesis 1.

<<… on other occasions he empowered water air and land to produce species.>>

I don’t remember that verse. Either way, it doesn’t matter. You still need to demonstrate that there is any reason to believe the Genesis account of creation. So far, there is precisely squat.

AJ, it merely supports the theory God created the complex matter that forms life. Science needs to create their own matter if they wish to debunk a creator who deliberately set in motion conditions of a periodic Table for complex life to develop. Geneses 1: 11 says, "Let the Earth produce vegetation reproducing itself". The emphasis of this ancient text states the created nature present in the Earth produced the vegetation. The fact is you wish to debunk an intelligent creator with purpose, when you use developed intelligence to deduce there is no intelligence behind the input into reality.

What does, Josephus?

<<… it merely supports the theory God created the complex matter that forms life.>>

The book of Genesis? It does nothing of the sort. The book of Genesis merely asserts that God created life. By itself, it is evidence of nothing.

<<Science needs to create their own matter if they wish to debunk a creator who deliberately set in motion conditions of a periodic Table for complex life to develop.>>

This is an argument from ignorance.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

Even if scientists did create matter, however, how would this debunk the existence of a god? I suspect you theists would then simply argue that it just goes to show that the creation of matter requires intelligence.

<<The emphasis of this ancient text states the created nature present in the Earth produced the vegetation.>>

Well, yeah, that’s what the author would have wanted, I presume. So what?

<<The fact is you wish to debunk an intelligent creator with purpose …>>

No, but I do enjoy debunking creationist nonsense and lies.

<<… when you use developed intelligence to deduce there is no intelligence behind the input into reality.>>

I have deduced nothing of the sort. The burden is still on you theists to provide evidence for your gods, and, so far, you guys have been doing a terrible job of it. The most I have done is explain why there is no good reason to jump to the conclusions that you are all jumping to.