wow dude.  I give you a good summary link, among others, you throw some wiki links at me and then say burden's on me?  Being a skeptic is one thing, but you're concluding that this person who obviously took some time to do this can be discredited in one post.  Highschool science has not shown me how this person is wrong... in fact quite the opposite.  

How does a galaxy x miles away affect us?  Same way the symmetry of our galaxy affects us, same way our solar system works.  It has been proven that the gravitational waves of one galaxy affect the other and so on, so if there is a chain reaction affect, it makes sense that a galaxy 100 million miles away could affect us... minimially today, but calclulated over millions or even billions of years, the affect is much greater and ultimately could affect the formation of what we know to be our home solar system as we know it that is able to sustain our life.  

I feel this is a bit over your head though if you're stuck on high school science.  

Which historians you ask... 2 that come up of course would be Flavius Josiphus...(I know how they've been discredited).  Also Tacitus.  It is understood that Tacitus would have been just too young at Jesus' death to write of it so his works are known to be second hand.    You can also find writings of Jesus in the Annals of Rome.

Considering the plagues question, read Revelation... it's basically that all who are resurrected into Judgement are going to suffer the plagues, so would include at that time those who changed, took away or added to the books.  This is how I'm understanding it anyway.  It doesn't say anywhere that it would happen immediately or even in their physical lifetime.   The book of Revelation is one of the books that makes that claim and therefore it would make sense that these plagues would be unleashed upon such a person in those end times discussed in Revelation and not necessarily any sooner.  

"I'm not sure how me reading through that link has helped your case any with exception of the possibility that dark matter is not really there and that it is a gravitational phenomenon that ultimately would require us to "modify" the Laws of gravity to explain."

Modifying the equations we've made to describe gravity is a hell of an 'except'. > >
I'm glad you read and understood it.

"If that is true than dark matter is absolutely paramount to the formation of life due to the fact that any variation in size, location, material etc of our planet would deem it uninhabitable. "

IF that is true. IF. In other words the very first point of the probability equation is based on an IF.

" I give you a good summary link, among others, you throw some wiki links at me and then say burden's on me? "

It is. You made the claim that the probability of life forming is ridiculously low and then you backed it up with a horrifyingly flawed equation, as I have shown repeatedly. Whether you like it and acknowledge it or not.

So just how many hoops are you going to jump through before you realise you're trying to defend the indefencible anyway? I don't really want to be insulting but you leave me little choice. A six year old could see through your ridiculous argument. Every single person who reads this will laugh at your demonstration of cognitive dissonence.

Not murdering people would be better. 

So what? That is exactly what a belief in subjective morality would predict. If anything, our moral conflicts validate that belief. 

No, supernatural is not defined as "abnormal". 

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/supernatural

A belief in subjective morality does not suggest any force beyond scientific understanding. 

What difference do human laws make? I thought God's morality is unchanging? Humans have done all sorts of barbaric things in the past that are immoral.

Because his laws are bad laws. 

I'm terribly sorry. I somehow hit edit instead of reply. I'm quite angry with myself for this. I know you had a large post you put a lot of effort into, and this was unacceptable error on my part. I tried to resurrect it as best I could, but I cannot recover it in it's entirety. A text limit and a lack of cacheing previous versions of a page prevent it. The best I can do is take the piece Beyond quoted and the bits I quoted in their entirety, but even that significantly exceeds my text limit. I'm an idiot.

~Vastet

yea, too bad they didn't want to change

so.... you're suggesting that you have a belief in a subjective morality?  I'm saying that your approach is the very same as theirs

it is by the dictionary I used:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural?s=t

it is unchanging.  The Bible states that all sin is deserving of death.  To suggest that some sin does not have a law suggesting death is being quite flexible.  Why the consequence is so severe would get into the spiritual affect of sin and how that damages you.

...and so are all other laws then.. but why?  only becasue you don't like them?

The very same argument can be made for absolutely anything that happens. The odds of any exact event happening exactly the way it happens are absolutely astronomical. Consider the odds of me and you talking to each other right now. There are over 600 million websites, over 100 million forums that we could be participating in, yet for whatever reason we both ended up at this particular forum. This requires that we both be born, which in and of itself had huge odds against because at any point in our genetic lines a single person could have done something to not have a child and we would not be us. Consider just the odds of your parents having you. A million things could have happened differently, if your parents didn't meet, if they didn't like each other, if one of them died early etc. And just like that bullshit formula you linked to, we could make up odds of these events happening. In fact, 1 blogger did just that.  

https://blogs.law.harvard.edu/abinazir/2011/06/15/what-are-chances-you-would-be-born/

Odds your parents meeting and having some sort of relationship: 1 in 20,000

Odds of you parents having sex: 1 in 2000

Odds of the particular sperm and egg combination that makes you: 1 in 400 quadrillion

Odds of all your prior ancestors reproducing successfully: 1 in 10 raised to the 45,000th power

Which he comes to the conclusion that the odds of you being you is 1 in 10 raised to the 2,685,000th power.

So you have that and combine that with the odds of me being me and the number becomes absolutely staggering. And that is without factoring in all the decisions we each made in our lives and all the external influences that led each of us to this site and made each of us a person who would be interested in the topic and people who would be willing to continue the conversation as long as we have (you will note that many people have given up on this thread out of the very small population of people who actually post here). The we also have to factor in the odds of Sapient creating this site in the first place, plus the chance that at any given time he might shut it down.

All that is before we factor in the odds of even having computers and internet in the first place. At any point in human history, something could have happened or had to happen for the internet to be invented during our lifetimes. No doubt there is a ridiculously high number of variables I can't even think of and I could sit and probably list several hundred right now all with very slim odds of happening before they happened.

So does this mean that there must be a God responsible for us being us and having this exact same conversation simply because it is extraordinarily unlikely that it would happen? But wait, what about freewill? If god didn't manipulate your parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc. to do very specific things their entire lives, you would not be you. So if extreme odds necessitate a God's interference, then you have to dismiss your entire argument regarding freewill. 

The main flaw in your logic is that you are taking a narrow view. Yes, it is very unlikely that me and you as particular individuals are having this conversation. However, it is not unlikely at all that on the internet, two people are having a religious conversation. Indeed, it would be exceedingly unlikely that there are not two other people somewhere on the net having a very similar conversation. Nor is it a particular surprise that we are having it on Sunday. For whatever reason in our personal lives, we both apparently have time on Sundays and both check out this website on Sundays. If we weren't here, it is safe to assume that we would probably be having a similar type of discussion somewhere else. The odds of a any specific thing happening might be very low, but something is going to happen so it isn't a surprise at all that something happened. There are uncountable possibilities, some slightly more likely than others but all extremely unlikely in particular, but at least one of those things must happen because matter moves and when matter moves something happens.

Like the lottery. It is extremely unlikely you will ever win a $100 million+ jackpot. And when a person wins, it is always extremely unlikely that particular person wins. However, it is certain that someone will win the lottery. It is very unlikely that us two particular individuals are here communicating, but it is certain that two people are communicating somewhere. It is extremely unlikely that life formed here on Earth and became what we know today, but is it so unlikely that with the vastness of the universe that we can't even comprehend and an amount of time that we can't comprehend that life would form somewhere at some time? Not really.

The odds of our particular life forming on Earth is probably astronomical. The odds of some kind of life forming somewhere in some galaxy, in some universe at some time? Probably not so much. It is impossible for us to calculate, because really we have no clue how big the universe really is except that it is really, really big. We have no clue how many possible lifeforms there are. We only know of one type, but for all we know there are thousands of other possible lifeforms that we could have been. To some extent we can try to calculate the odds of our particular planet and our particular life forming, but it is ultimately meaningless because we did form and any other exact occurrence is also extremely unlikely. Anyone who pretends to be able to calculate the odds of life forming anywhere in the universe at any non-specific time is lying. There is no possible way we have nearly enough information about the formation of life and our universe to be able to calculate those odds with any degree of certainty at all.  

I meant that they were the ones murdering themselves.  They're refusing to stop murdering, raping etc.  

Same way you believe our belief is invalid.  or you seem to believe.  Your issue is the morality of God, if morality is subjective, then no matter what anyone did, it can be justified as moral and thus not bad no matter what you might think.  I don't adhere to this perspective, it doesn't make sense, but you just invalidated your own objection to my God.

As you said it does not apply to abnormality, it doesn't have to apply to every definition does it.  But usually the first definition is the most common understanding of the word.  What's abnormal about your belief is what you believe is also what you're opposing when it comes to Christianity.  You're opposing a morality that you yourself are claiming is subjective, and if it is subjective, then you cannot logically call it wrong or bad because... well, it's subjective.  Your skewed understanding of it allows you to not agree with it... subjectively without an objective ground, so then you can easily conclude that it's not for you... why then take so much time to convince me of your subjective perspective?  

I didn't see that part in scripture, but from what I understand, death isn't a day at the spa.

I can see your subjective morality coming out in that statement.

Arbitrary compared to what?  The laws of the time?  How can you determine that people couldn't possibly know them?  They were written for those who followed God and were told of them by Moses.  If you're referring to those in the flood, then how do you know what they knew?  I'll ask, what did they know?... and don't answer that with what they didn't know.  You know what they say about assuming.  

Cruel in comparison to what?   Why is it cruel to not commit adultery?  not murder?  love your neighbor?  

If you compared these laws to a human government, you would see a kingdom of the era.  You should study up on what kingdoms were like at the time.  I think you'd be surprised at how many people were beheaded for not bowing to a king properly or for not being entertaining enough for the kings liking.  That seems to me a little more "tyrannical" than God's laws.

obviously there's more to it, or we'd have a lot more believers out there wouldn't we?

If you truly believe that your friend Jim controls the tax rates in North America, it would be my job to prove to you the system of government and how it works and how it's pretty much impossible for your friend Jim to control the tax rates as you believe.   With that information, it then would be your job to show me how my information is flawed and that Jim is influencing all of those aspects and truly is behind it all.  If you were able to, I would start to wonder about my own understanding. 

you could have, but the other problem with your comparison is that you are the one claiming that Jim controls the tax rates of this country.  You are one person.  With Jesus there were hundreds of unrelated people who claim the same thing about Him according to scripture.  Now sure it could be people just making it up, but then what caused people to buy into it so abundantly?  There are other religions out there that have much better promises not only for the next life, but for this one too.  If it's about idealism, then why aren't those other religions bigger than Christianity?   

my apologies.  didn't mean to be vague.

I'm claiming that if those who use the Bible as a source truly believe it they wouldn't dare change it in fear of reaping the consequences written within.  Obviously Joseph Smith didn't believe it, which then puts his whole work to shame as a contradiction to the source.  

We have focused on one issue in Scripture, how from that am I supposed to prove scripture?  The discussion comparing Islam to Christianity is a long one.  One statement cannot determine truth between the 2.  

However, to put it in perspective, both claim to follow the same God.   Both claim to be descendants of Abraham, but that's where they split off, one is the descendant race of Jacob, one is the descendant race of Ishmael.  Scripture talks about the descendants of both children and what they will become.  

Beyond scripture, the Qu'ran is written by one source, the Bible many unrelated sources.  The God of the Qu'ran contradicts the God of Abraham in the Bible, though both still claim to be descendants of the same God.   "for whoever sheds man's blood, their blood shall be shed" Gen 9:6, yet the Qu'ran states to eliminate those who get in the way of Islam.  The whole covenant of God was put in place long before Abraham's time and yet they contradict it yet still claim to be the descendants of Abraham.  

The also acknowledge Jesus as a great prophet, but according to any information about what Jesus has said, He supported a different understanding than they, e.g. love your neighbor as yourself, not cut down those who oppose you.  

Quran (2:191) "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out.  And Al-Fitnah [disbelief] is worse than killing..."

Bible (Mark 6:11)  "And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, leave that place and shake the dust off your feet as a testimony against them."

And yet it might not. Suggesting it might is pointless unless you have evidence it might. You might as well suggest that if Mt. Everest were in North America instead of the East, that WW2 might never have happened. Sure, it's hypothetically possible, but that doesn't mean it is true. It certainly can't be tested. It therefore serves no purpose to science. And therefore has no business being in an equation which would determine the probability of WW2 happening anymore than the hypothesis that the positioning and densities etc of dark matter and star clusters and galaxies must be in precisely the positions they are for life to form. You and the author are making the assumption that such is the case without any valid reason for such an assumption. Asking me to believe it just so I can find the equation palatable is ridiculous.

... a hypothesis. You've already acknowledged that. The alternatives and their viability are all irrelevant to the question. We may find out something we never expected to find that explains things, or we may find out that a modification of the way we've explained gravity solves the apparent problem (we already know the equation isn't perfect anyway, so there's adequate reason to suspect this could be the case), or we may find out that dark matter is really there. But ALL that matters right now is that we don't know that dark matter exists. Therefore it is fallacious to presume that it not only exists, but further assume it exists in specific quantities and densities in certain locations, and THEN further assume that those quantities and densities and locations must be in exactly the way they are in order for life to form. Your entire argument to defend the use of dark matter in this equation is LITERALLY based on an assumption based on an assumption based on an assumption. That's a LOT of assumptions.

I don't believe your belief is invalid, I believe it is stupid. People can justify any action as moral, they do it all the time, just like you are justifying God's supposed slaughter of 99.9% of humanity as moral. Just because I recognize that morality is subjective does not mean I have to accept your opinion of it, or even tolerate your opinion- anymore than I have to accept some guys opinion that his 300 pound wife is beautiful and his obnoxious kids are great. 

Wrong and bad are also subjective terms. What is bad for one person is often good for another. There is no logical reason why someone can't oppose something simply because it is subjective. You support/oppose things that are subjective all the time. Everyone does, that is why we have politics.

And if you will notice I have done little to try to convince you of my perspective. My perspective is that I really don't care what you think as long as you don't try to pass laws. What I have been trying to do is understand what makes you tick and how you can so readily worship a god that you believe performed actions that you no doubt would call terrible if committed by a human.

The technology at the time and we have substantial evidence that the vast majority of people that far back were illiterate and there was very little travel. That combined with a complete lack of mention of the Abrahamic god in cultures too far away to trade. There is no evidence that they were warned at all and significant evidence that they believed in different Gods. It is highly doubtful that everyone in the Middle East had heard of him, it is virtually impossible that people in the far east, far north and south Africa had any contact or knowledge of Noah. It is certain that people in the America's and the Polynesian tribes that were spread out among the islands did not.

Human decency. It is cruel to stone people. 

I wouldn't be shocked at all, I'm a bit of a student of history. Gods that people create reflect who the people are. It is hardly a surprise that a God that was fabricated by man would support laws that those men supported. It would be a huge surprise if an all knowing, all powerful, benevolent and super intelligent being would support laws similar to those created by barbarians. If there were a God, he could have changed things and brought about the concepts of human rights, freedom and empowerment of the people along with his bible. Instead, we have thousands of years where Kings justified their atrocities in the name of God.

If I was an all powerful being and a tyrannical King claimed he got his crown from me and then used the power to oppress people, I would smite him. Weird how God had no problem drowning a bunch of babies, but didn't feel the need to step in to smite all the Kings murdering in his name. 

Well, if there is more to it, then what is this more to it? I see "an obviously interpolated verse said this guy's name, and called him the Christ. Another source talks about a Christ and Christians, with the former being crucified, and the latter all persecuted" to "Everything the bible says is true. This man was real, was who he claimed he was, and performed notable miracles that somehow escaped the notice of historians. Furthermore, him being tortured was a necessary pre-requisite for our afterlives to be good instead of dreadful or non-existent". This may sound like it has a mocking tone, but it's hard for me not to given the enormous gap in information that takes you from one conclusion to another. 

No, it wouldn't be your job to prove anything. If I have made this claim with no evidence behind it, it is worthless. Now if I actually believed it, but was also simultaneously mentally incapable of understanding how government and taxes work, then there would be nothing you could possibly do to change my mind. I would stick to the belief that Jim controls the tax rates, because the thought of them simply fluctuating randomly confuses and frightens me. Sound familiar?

According to the biased source (scripture) that claims it as the most important thing in the world. Historical sources say that at best there was a merely noticeable group of people to warrant a couple of lines of text. It was never mentioned as an extraordinary following, or something that the region had never seen. It was just a messianic cult with followers, which does occur in other historical writings. The others were eliminated before they could spread, and Christianity wasn't. 

The Roman empire. Emperor Constantine converted, and Theodosius I made it the official religion of the Roman empire. Even under Constantine, he ordered the destruction of old Temples, etc. It's no coincidence that Christianity and Islam are the two biggest religions on Earth, being backed by the Roman and Ottoman empires respectively. It's no coincidence that Judaism is huge in Israel. It's no coincidence that Hinduism is huge in India, or Mormonism in America. Influence, child-hood indoctrination, and often just a need for socializing (with that social safety net of a nearby church or temple) are why religion still exists. 

Because I don't respond to e-mails from a Nigerian Prince that he will send me 8 million dollars. I have a job instead. I believe that my employer will pay me money. I do not believe that a Nigerian prince will. 

“If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying ‘Let us go after other gods whom you have not known and let us serve them’, you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul… But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death.” [Deut. 13:1‑5]

“When Your people go out to battle against their enemy, by whatever way You shall send them, and they pray to the Lord toward the city which You have chosen and the house which I have built for Your name, then hear in heaven their prayer and their supplication, and maintain their cause.” [1 Kings 8:44-45]

This, vs.

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. [John 14:6]

So was Jesus's sacrifice necessary for salvation? It seems that according to the old testament, sacrifices aren't necessary. This would make Jesus a false prophet (and worse yet, one who encourages you to worship a false god: himself!)

The New Testament directly goes against what is said in the old in this case, no different than what the Qu'ran and Book of Mormon say about the New Testament. Absolutely no different. 

Yes, but careful thorough examination shows nothing but similar mythological elements to both. It's far more likely that they are both untrue, than one being true, and the other not. 

From Matthew 10

32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
    a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36     a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’[c]

37 “Anyone who loves their father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves their son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 Whoever does not take up their cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds their life will lose it, and whoever loses their life for my sake will find it.

This acknowledges Jesus not as a great prophet, but as a totalitarian tyrant who wishes to destroy families, and spread his word by aggression. 

The butterfly effect has been tested and is proven... a.k.a the ripple effect... if you drop a stone in the water... we can say the ripples might get larger and larger until they ultimately blend in with the waves of the water or hit land, but no test has shown that they won't.   Likewise, it can be applied to any action in life.  There is nothing to suggest that one action over X amount of time won't have a larger impact... it likely will... the "maybe" comes in as to whether the impact will have positive, negative, or neutral affects to Y.  

considering all the aspects that had to come together to create life, the probability of the ripple effect not affecting the result of life forming is much less likely than life itself.  There is a greater likelyhood that it could have a positive aspect and help the formation of life, but just as likely to also have a negative affect or even neutral, which when averaged into the  already minimal odds of life cuts that number by a third.  Again, we're talking about statistics here, nothing to get youself hung up on, but the many formulas make it clear that the odds of life were never 100% as you originally claimed.  That is the refuted point so we don't lose focus.

this equation is one of many out there, each having a focus of either life forming here, or just forming in general... if you look deeper into this "messed up equation" you will see that in order to determine the odds of life happening on Earth, you first have to determine the odds of life forming period.  This is more in depth than most get I believe, which is why I linked this one over the possible 100 others.  All are in agreement though that the odds of life weren't good.   

Your point stands true though, the reason why there are many different formulas is because we really can't know the true odds of life.  it's a guessing game, why?  we weren't there... I had said that from the beginning, but because I spit out a speicifc number, in hopes of tripping me up, people had to see a formula, so I provided one, now people are whining about how it's messed up and flawed, but can't refute it to the degree that is necessary to refute such an in depth formula.  

Again, you don't like this formula, find another, there are many out there, none are perfect becasue of the very reasoning you stated above.

The question was never what types were possible, but whether life was possible or not... 2 possibilities.  all or none.

ok, I'll buy that... but as much as we know about the universe, something huge must be missing in order to even bring the odds of life up to the possibility equal to winning the Powerball... while getting bit by a shark while lightning strikes you.

You have to figure out that God exists before you can even approach a question of where He came from.  However, science talks about a boundless universe, endless loop of Big Bangs, or even nothing existing prior to the Big Bang for the duration of history... how much less likely is God than that?   why wouldn't he be a part of the equation?  None of that has been proven, nor is there evidence that any of this happened on its own, so either none of it is possible, or all must be a possibility.  We're teetering on the cusp of the Law of Non-contradiction at this point.  To say that God is not a factor in any of this is a contradiction to considering it is possible for an endless universe, or forever loop of Big Bangs.  or even the parallel universe conspiracy.  

The "more to it" is extensive study into scriptures that takes decades to fully complete and comprehend.  the book of Acts alone is a multi-year study.  We can do studies if you want, but there's a LOT more to it, not just; oh I forgot something.

it does, but I hope you're not suggesting I"m like that.  I have been very open to everything everyone has been telling me.  

So what if there are a billion formulas that are made up? It doesn't change that no human could possibly have enough information to make an educated guess as to what the odds were. Whether one person is putting their ignorance on display or a billion people, it is still ignorance at best and flat out lying at worst. 

Define life. 

We can say with a significant amount of certainty that we are missing a lot of huge things. Just with what we can see from our tiny little dot in the galaxy we know there is a lot out there that we will never reach in our lifetime. For all we know, what we can see is insignificant compared to what exists beyond. We know that there are a lot of things we don't know. 

There is evidence supporting the hypothesis of the big bang. There is no evidence supporting the hypothesis of god. 

You said:
What a moral God. Killing grandchildren and great grandchildren for the actions of the grandparent.

Moral or Judicial ?

Charles Manson was one a child, so was Stalin .

What happened in Egypt was the same as in sodom and Gamorah ; the execution of judgment on the wicked people of a nation .
Does a Judge not create punishment and suffering when executing judgment on the wicked ?

Only a Judge can pronouced Judgment on Stalin and Manson Family. We have no say.

What did the children do that was wicked? I don't know, I was not there.

I do know that being a child is not an excuse . There are horrifying stories of wicked children around the world .

Just a post ago you had no problem judging Stalin and Manson, that is why you brought them up as examples of bad people. Now suddenly you have a problem with judging and it isn't your role? How convenient.  

They were infants. They couldn't walk, talk and certainly incapable of hurting anyone. How could one possibly be "wicked"?

I never asked you to pronounce judiciary judgement on them. I asked you to make a moral judgement on what is good and what is bad. I never assumed that you have/had/should have any kind of judicial power to actually punish them and you know it. 

Infants can't walk and there is substantial archaeological evidence that human babies never came out of the womb walking. Does the bible say that infants could walk at one day old? 

Evasive except that I offered to go through it with you... suggesting a different thread obviously.  

You say: "perhaps pointing to the best starting point linking the historical mentinons to the biblical ones would be something you might do... " like I am currently doing with PJTS on OT stories myth legends or real thread.  If that's what you're looking for, I'll see you on that thread.  it has a very focused progressive intention and so nothing that would distract from the current focus please.

I'm simply asserting that it takes decades... something you can investigate... probably with a few simple google searches and discover yourself... kind of takes the assertion out of it doesn't it?

It's one thing to claim the Bible says X then to claim ti didn't happen, but a whole other ball game to realize that your comprehension of X was a bit flawed and when you better understand X it seems much more plausible. 

People get doctoral degrees in this stuff, are you really going to dispute the idea that it takes years to understand the finer details of scripture?  

I suppose the Bible is true because that's what I understand... no one has given me sound reason to consider otherwise.  presupposed internal contradictions have been presented and debunked... unless i forgot something... you can bring it up again.  I'll look into the contradiction to see.  

You seem to think it's much simpler than it is, so please do explain to me what I'm missing here.  I want to understand.

You know, that makes sense really.   Though it still doesn't explain its continued success and its migration from the north to the south.

You try to demote my defenses, but you've been taking the same approach... typically with less support.  I see what you're saying, yes that has an influence on why these particular religions had gotten big, but the progression of Christiandom cannot be supported with that understanding anymore.  it is diminishing in the north and growing like wildfire in the south.  (I mean hemispheres, not U.S.)

I have considered and accepted your sociological reasonings for growth... that supports the historical progression of the religions very well.. what about today, Is it still supported in the same manner?  if not, why still so strong?  

This is the very understanding that not only led to Jesus' crucifixion, but also what keeps Jews of the time and current Jews from accepting Jesus as the true Messiah.  This could be a discussion in itself, but to get there, we need to accept the possibility of God first and foremost, then the validity of at least OT scripture in history.  

I've attempted to go there, but you're all over the board.  We can discuss those other religions, how the Bible is 1000's of separate unrelated scripts from separate authors and scribes whereas the Quran, book of Mormon, etc are written by one person claiming to have special insight into the texts in question that claim nothing else is to be added or taken away.  How the Muslims accept Jesus as a powerful prophet yet ignore that even secular historians who accept that Jesus was at least a real person claim that He was suggesting to be Gods son and not just another prophet which contradicts their understanding of who He is.  

You need to be focused though... are you really interested in the differences or are you flying all over the place just trying to find holes?  

...and here's the difference between someone who is trying to find problems solely to support their understanding vs. someone who is trying to understand and with that understanding possibly modify their understanding.  You will see what you want to see and that's fine.  Let me know when you want to have a progressive rational conversation

no, you said humans are "good"... yet they do all sorts of terrible things?

He has, but life and choices can modify those definitions within an individuals heart.  You can choose to modify them further yourself at any time

...as far as we know.  I can't answer that.  It sounds to me as if those tools were available.  If the flood story is true, it is likely that a lot of technology had been washed away with the people... maybe buried deeper than we've searched yet... There were discussions on another thread I think about how it has been found that axes existed around 2 million years ago... if that's true, then it's not too far fetched to assume other types of tools may have existed as well that we haven't found.  

It's very clear that I'm trying to avoid the issue.  I can see that, it must be why we're still talking about it right?    

what I'm trying to show you is not avoidance, but assumptions that are just as rational as what you're coming up with.  We have pretty much no information on the culture/people of the time and who they were, how many, how far spread etc and you're coming up with these things that must mean God made a bad immoral decision.  Your passing judgement on a being that not only witnessed the event, but had a direct hand in it.  Ultimately it's like you hearing about something happening 10 years ago from the other side of the globe, then coming to that country ready to testify against the person based on what you know from the news.  I hope if I'm ever in court, you're not in my jury of peers.