I'm ready to take my leave. I have tried to spread the gospel, but the 'wise' ones on this site do not want it.
6 Then he told this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it but did not find any. 7 So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, ‘For three years now I’ve been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven’t found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?’
8 “‘Sir,’ the man replied, ‘leave it alone for one more year, and I’ll dig around it and fertilize it. 9 If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.’”(Luke 13:6-9)

"Professing to be wise, they became fools"(Romans 1:22)
I have done my job, but know that it is entirely your free choice in denying Him.
The day of the Lord will come like a thief, no advanced signs. God bless you all.

Oh look, more apologetic bollocks.

Your maniacal(?) laughter will turn to mourning on that Day.

Oh do fuck off. Your empty threats are tedious.

Adam's job was to take care of the garden. Adam was given a simple law to obey. "You can eat of any tree in the garden, but you cannot eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil."

In other words, as I've already stated, according to the farcical assertions of your mythology, the "Adam" character was purportedly "created" WITHOUT ANY CAPACITY FOR ETHICAL THOUGHT, and as a direct corollary, COULD NOT POSSIBLY KNOW IF DOING SO WAS WRONG. This elementary fact arising directly from the assertions of your mythology, DESTROYS the credibility thereof as a purported "moral fable". You do realise that not possessing capacity for ethical thought, absolves those thus afflicted of criminal responsibility in modern jurisdictions? Under which such persons are regarded as requiring MEDICAL, not punitive, responses to any actions they commit? As opposed to the hideous North Korea style collective punishment asserted to have been meted out by your imaginary magic man in your mythology?

This shouldn't have been too hard of a command to keep after all there were many other fruit trees present there.
Question arises, why put the tree right in the middle of the garden and then tell Adam not to eat of its fruit?

Because your magic man was either incompetent, or planned to be a prick from the very beginning?

The answer is fairly straight forward. God created man after his own image. One of the things that this implies is that man is given a free choice to decide whether to obey God or not.

Except that once again, YOUR MYTHOLOGY ASSERTS THAT THE INDIVIDUAL IN QUESTION DID NOT POSSESS THE CAPACITY FOR ETHICAL THOUGHT, AND AS A COROLLARY, COULD NOT KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER A GIVEN CHOICE WAS PURPORTEDLY "WRONG". Are you so fucking stupid, that you don't realise this elementary concept?

If man is to be free to make a choice, then there must be something to choose between.

But why engineer one of those choices in advance to be a choice you DON'T purportedly want this individual to make? And which, in the absence of any actual KNOWLEDGE of the status of those choices, other than blind assertions from on high, becomes a probable outcome the moment it is made available?

You really don't get this, do you? Why should an individual INCAPABLE OF ETHICAL THOUGHT, be punished for making a choice he didn't know was wrong, and was physically incapable of ever knowing was wrong beforehand? This is the fucking chasm of fail running right through the whole fucking fairy tale, and the only reason you're deliberately avoiding addressing this, is because you wilfully refuse to remove your fucking mythology blinkers.

Without the existence of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, then no choice would have existed for Adam.

Oh, so all those other trees you mentioned above don't count as choices? Ah, the smell of apologetic bullshit is in the air again ...

But notice that something else must also exist for Adam to be able to chose [sic] to follow God or to disobey Him.

This is going to be good ...

God had to give him a law. Without a law, no choice can exist.

Poppycock. All that is needed for a choice to exist, is more than one option to pursue

Are you really this fucking stupid?

Right and wrong always exists

An assertion that opens up several cans of philosophical worms, even among theologians, let alone among more rigorous philosophers ...

but unless we are made aware of the choice through a law, we cannot be held responsible for keeping or breaking the law.

Poppycock. A choice exists by fucking definition, whenever there exists more than one option to pursue. The ethical status of any such choices is a completely separate issue.

Once again, are you really this fucking stupid?

Yes, God was aware that if He gave man a choice that man was destined to chose wrongly. That is why He had a rescue plan already in place before He created the world.

Except that the existence of this "rescue plan" is never asserted in the requisite part of your mythology. It was tacked on afterwards by whichever piss-stained goat herder wrote the later chapters.

I see elementary concepts are something you have trouble with.

In the entirety of your post, there isn't a single part where you actually can call Bible verses a contradiction.

Bullshit. Once again, what part of "ONE CANNOT MAKE AN ETHICAL DECISION, WITHOUT THE CAPACITY FOR ETHICAL THOUGHT" do you not fucking understand?

Once again, are you really this fucking stupid?

Moving on ...

Atheists want objective evidence, for a supernatural being thus committing a category mistake.

Bollocks. The assertion that there even exists a "category" to make a mistake with, is one of the assertions requiring support, with something other than made up shit.

Once again, are you really this fucking stupid?

His invisible attributes have been visible everywhere on earth.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

It seems you REALLY ARE this fucking stupid.

How can "invisible attributes" be visible? What sort of dickhead even types this with a straight face?

There are various systems in the ecosystem which require the harmonious working of multiple systems to exist. For example, clotting of blood. If one chemical process goes wrong, one would bleed to death. How do you think such systems could even gradually evolve?

Oh no, not the "irreducible complexity" bullshit again. Yawn, yawn, fucking yawn.

You do realise that Behe, when he was cornered on this in the Dover Trial, was presented with fifty eight peer reviewed scientific papers and nine university textbooks covering the evolution of the blood clotting cascade? Behe had his arse cheeks fucking napalmed on this one. Indeed, I cover in minute detail, the extent to which Behe had his "irreducible complexity" canards utterly annihilated in this extensive post devoted to Behe's humiliation during the Dover Trial, along with the fact that biologists have known his canards to BE canards since before Behe was born, courtesy of a scientific paper from 1918 I quoted in that post.

Oh, and even worse still for your regurgitation of this canard, Judge Jones, a conservative Lutheran, not only dismissed the IDist waffle as creationism wearing a stolen lab coat, but effectively accused the IDists at the trial of perjury. You might want to factor that into your deliberations. I quote extensively from the trial transcripts in that post I've linked to above, and give precise page and line numbers where the quotes can be found, so that others can verify independently that I have reported the findings as the authors thereof intended them to be reported. I particularly savour the delicious irony of seeing creationist bullshit such as "no transitional fossils" being dismantled by a "transitional fossil" they themselves left in their writings, in the form of "cdesign proponentsists" ...

You are stupid to think that only objective evidence counts as proof.

No, YOU are fucking stupid, if you think made up shit counts as evidence, which is all you have here.

I live by faith but not blind faith.

Poppycock. Faith is nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. It's lame and retarded.

There are people being healed, deliverance, prophecies etc

Wank. Excuse me, if any of the so-called "miracle healing" assertions were something other than the product of the rectal passages of mythology fanboys like you, the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet would be documenting these voluminously. They aren't.

As for your assertion about "weak arguments", the only one here presenting these is you.

I'm ready to take my leave.

Don't slam the door on the way out. Though I suspect this flounce will be short lived, if precedents set here and elsewhere are reliable indicators ...

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I regard presuppositionalists and inerrantists with scorn and derision. Because they're manifestly full of shit. Part of that shit being the conflation, accidental or otherwise, of unrelated concepts, in part due to failure of rigour, and in part due to discoursive mendacity. Those of us who spent time in software development have been aware of the concept of "separation of concerns" for some time (it's the motivation behind the model-view-controller design pattern, for one), namely, keep unrelated entities separated from each other, and only forge connections that are required for the proper working of the resultant edifice, in accordance with properly constructed, reliable constraints and methodologies.

Indeed, separation of concerns is applicable not only in software development, but in discourse generally, and the astute will note my homing in on a particularly fatuous violation of separation of concerns above. Far from being unique to this particular specimen, violation of this principle is pretty much endemic to the entire field of supernaturalist apologetics, and when one examines the data available, one finds a particularly disturbing correlation. Namely, the more fundamentalist and insular the apologetics, the more egregious the violation of this and other proper discoursive principles. In short, the more divorced from reality the doctrine, the more adherents thereto have to lie to uphold it.

And now, bed beckons.

May I chime in? AtheistErr? Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus? Does he stroke your hair at night and sing you lullabies?

AtheistsErr won’t answer. God doesn’t love him enough to actually make contact with him.

That, or God doesn’t exist.

That, or God doesn’t exist - but he talks to AtheistsErr - which therefore makes him insane and without credit.