Jesus was a Hindu Monk and Survived the Cross
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
I LOL-ed.
Maybe Snow White also involved.
the 12 disciples were derived from the 7 dwarves -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
1. Special pleading. You can quote from most christian sources and not be sceptical about your own sources yet when a muslim uses muslim sources, suddenly your scepticism comes up and you need to "evaluate". Why dont you evaluate carefully all your religious sources? And neither did i say that if its a christian source, it must be dismissed. You are really too defensive! I'm saying your sources are OVERWHELMING christian.
It's like a hindu quoting hindu sources and telling you Lord Krishna is God and a muslim quoting muslim sources only telling you Allah is God and that Muhammed is his prophet.
IF you can accept a hindu doing that and a muslim doing that, then I have no qualms about you quoting christian sources only. Fair? Can you accept that? Or you wan special pleading?
2. You showed me 2 pages of 2 websites. You showed me 2 SPECIFIC christian pages because we were discussing - "proving bible with bible" and "circular logic". And when I fault you for quoting only christian sources, you suddenly tell me to navigate the whole website myself? HAHAHA! Talk about sudden change of subject. But well, you dont have a problem with quoting christian sources only, so why do you want so desperately for me to see the nonchrstian sources? I am confused!
3. So firstly you have agreed with me that the bible is not consistent when you said "The lack of consistency by itself is not sufficient to reject the Bible." Yes I agree with you. I do not reject the whole bible. I am just saying it lacks consistency and yes its not a valid reason for me to reject the whole bible.
BUT the wbesite says the bible can prove itself because its consistent. The issue here is not about rejecting the bible. I dont know why you brought it up. The issue here is that we cant use the bible to prove itself since you have also admitted that the bible isnt consistent. Or are you gonna say it is still consistent?
Again, you have also agreed with me again. Yes miracles are opposed of the natural world. THat is why the website is WRONG when it says the bible is consistent with the real world. It should say it is consistent with the "supernatural world" because like you said, miracles are opposed of the real natural world.
4. You didnt read did you? I said to be "as neutral as we can". I didnt say anyone would be free of bias. But seriously, you are not trying to be neutral at all. Lol. You are not even trying, thats the issue.
Tcmc,
1. Why do you ASSUME that I do not evaluate my own sources? No Christian is infallible or inerrant and even Creation.com does not claim to be so. So don't jump to conclusion OK? Yes, I heard your complaint that my sources are predominantly Christian. My response to you is "And so?" Cannot is it? What's your problem really? Deal with the arguments themselves and not prejudge it due to its source, genetic fallacy remember?
2. Tell me, why are you finding fault with my answers being supplied by Christians instead of interacting with those answers? Your complaint reeks of anti-Christian bigotry. You got a problem with Christians or do you have a problem responding to Christian arguments against your objections?
3. You failed to even read properly what I wrote concerning the "consistency" part and the example I gave. In short, you are playing the equivocation game here. If you say the issue is using the Bible to prove the Bible, then I refer you to the two articles earlier. But then you complain it is Christian source.....what do you want really? A Buddhist to come to my defense and rebutt you? Duh!
4. It is absurd to say that miracles are opposed to the real world. This is God's world. God can act in it anyway He wishes. But of course, if you already decided that there is no such thing as God, then you would also rule out the possibility of miracles. It again boils down to your beliefs and presuppositions about the nature of reality.
5. I never claim to be free of bias. I'm not even trying to be neutral. Like I said before, there is no such thing as a neutral person. You should rid yourself of the myth of neutrality. But to be objective is possible, but it takes effort. It means trying to read both sides, even if you are already on one side.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
5. I never claim to be free of bias. I'm not even trying to be neutral. Like I said before, there is no such thing as a neutral person. You should rid yourself of the myth of neutrality. But to be objective is possible, but it takes effort. It means trying to read both sides, even if you are already on one side.
objective as possible lol? anyone but you
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
reasonable.atheist,
1. I was trying to give you a plausible reasoning for why the Gospel accounts differ in their reporting. Weak argument or not, the point is that it is hardly logical to reject the Bible based on such differences that can be easily explained. So long as a logical explanation exists, you have no case. Remember, I only need to demonstrate the reasonableness of belief.
2. Since when did I agree that any part of the Bible was fabricated? I was only saying that there is controversy over whether certain passages were in the original, and EVEN if we should remove them just for the sake of argument that there is no damage done to any core doctrines of the faith. So should those verses be there? It's up to you to judge since we only have recourse to extant manuscripts. One side will say go with the earliest manuscripts, another side will say go with the majority texts.
3. You commit the fallacy of appeal to majority. So what if few now believe in Biblical inerrancy? Truth is NEVER determined by numbers. I am sure you are reasonable to see that. The Bible predicts that in the last days the love of many will grow cold and there will be a great apostasy. What then? A prediction of Bible prophecy or simply because few belief means it is false?
4. If you prefer theft theory to resurrection theory despite the weakness and flaws in your theft theory, then you are simply being ARBITRARY. I have no quarrel with that. It's your choice. But still it will only be because you hold to naturalism. Why would you assume that because I believe in the resurrection of Jesus it would mean that any missing body necessitates a resurrection? That's a distortion of my beliefs again. You clearly ignores the fact that there are many good reasons to believe that Jesus resurrected. All your naturalistic theories to do away with the resurrection have been tried and found wanting.
5. I also know I am going into re-runs and not gonna convince you. Like I said before, I see people coming here clearly with the intention to engage in Bible-bashing and I am trying to give a reason for the hope that is in me. I try to give a REASONABLE defense. It may not please everyone but that's besides the point. Even apostle Paul when he preached to the Greeks in Athens did not have everyone coming for altar call. SOME believed, MANY scoffed, and SOME asked that he speak to them again.
"Rejecting" is such a strong word, isn't it? For me, sure, the biblical account of the resurrection could be true, but it is rather unlikely. Instead, it is substantially more likely that the naturalistic explanation of the missing tomb holds. This is what it comes down to:
-----------
Which of these is more plausible?(a) Despite differences in the gospel narratives about tomb visitors, earthquakes, and angels, the biblical accounts of the resurrection in the gospels are all consistent with each other and all accurate. The authors just decided to focus on different details.
OR(b) The fact that important details in the different gospels differ show that, at best, the resurrection account has to be taken with caution. At worst, entities like talking angels -- present in only two of the four gospels -- are fanciful recreations by certain gospel authors.
-----------
Which of these is more plausible?
(a) The fact that the Gospel of Mark had a new ending added by an unknown author several years after the original authorship does not meaningfully diminish the reliability of the bible as the inerrant word of God. The bible's account of events, including the resurrection, should be taken as fact.
OR(b) The fact that the Gospel of Mark had a new ending added by an unknown author several years after the original authorship suggests again that the bible is the work of man. At best, the resurrection account has to be taken with caution. At worst, some of the more fanciful narratives have to be taken as fiction.
-----------
Which of these is more plausible?
(a) Jesus rising from the dead is the most plausible explanation of the missing body, given the presence of Roman guards, the large covering rock, the account of eyewitnesses who saw Jesus back among the living, and so on.OR
(b) A miracle is, by definition, the rarest of events -- if in fact it ever occurs. It should only be considered therefore when all plausible naturalistic explanations have been exhausted. In this case, the missing tomb can be plausibly explained by a theft, whether by guards or disciples. Jesus' supposed re-appearances (missing in the original ending of Mark) can also be adequately explained by mass hysteria (e.g. see Monkey-Man reports in Delhi in 2001).-----------
In each of these cases, I think (b) is the more plausible answer. Are the (a) answers possible? Yes, but for me, they are far less likely given the evidence.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
"Rejecting" is such a strong word, isn't it? For me, sure, the biblical account of the resurrection could be true, but it is rather unlikely. Instead, it is substantially more likely that the naturalistic explanation of the missing tomb holds. This is what it comes down to:
-----------
Which of these is more plausible?(a) Despite differences in the gospel narratives about tomb visitors, earthquakes, and angels, the biblical accounts of the resurrection in the gospels are all consistent with each other and all accurate. The authors just decided to focus on different details.
OR(b) The fact that important details in the different gospels differ show that, at best, the resurrection account has to be taken with caution. At worst, entities like talking angels -- present in only two of the four gospels -- are fanciful recreations by certain gospel authors.
-----------
Which of these is more plausible?
(a) The fact that the Gospel of Mark had a new ending added by an unknown author several years after the original authorship does not meaningfully diminish the reliability of the bible as the inerrant word of God. The bible's account of events, including the resurrection, should be taken as fact.
OR(b) The fact that the Gospel of Mark had a new ending added by an unknown author several years after the original authorship suggests again that the bible is the work of man. At best, the resurrection account has to be taken with caution. At worst, some of the more fanciful narratives have to be taken as fiction.
-----------
Which of these is more plausible?
(a) Jesus rising from the dead is the most plausible explanation of the missing body, given the presence of Roman guards, the large covering rock, the account of eyewitnesses who saw Jesus back among the living, and so on.OR
(b) A miracle is, by definition, the rarest of events -- if in fact it ever occurs. It should only be considered therefore when all plausible naturalistic explanations have been exhausted. In this case, the missing tomb can be plausibly explained by a theft, whether by guards or disciples. Jesus' supposed re-appearances (missing in the original ending of Mark) can also be adequately explained by mass hysteria (e.g. see Monkey-Man reports in Delhi in 2001).-----------
In each of these cases, I think (b) is the more plausible answer. Are the (a) answers possible? Yes, but for me, they are far less likely given the evidence.
Then the issue really boils down to worldview. For you, naturalism prevails. You will ALWAYS prefer a naturalistic explanation anytime, regardless. It's the usual Richard Lewontin quote which by now I think you can even quote from memory! Thus we need to settle the issue on a worldview level. It is pointless to argue about the Bible when at the level of worldviews there is no common view. Do you have any idea on how to assess worldviews?
-
That's a common charge that evangelical Christians pin on atheists, and it always bemuses me. It's like a trick question, except the payload never comes. I imagine two Christians nodding to each other knowingly when an atheist admits that he prefers a naturalistic explanation, but they never let on why that is so bad.
The reality is that a scientific/naturalism worldview (as opposed to a religious one) is the only one that has proven to be worth a damn at explaining the world around us. And by that, I mean a repeatable method of understanding the processes that underpin our universe, as well as a method with which we can make predictions about the world.
Historically, people have turned to a supernatural being for explanations of all kinds of phenomenon, whether it was thunder, drought or pestilence, and each time science and naturalism has provided the far better answer.
Christianity has simply become a God of the Gaps worldview, where anything that is mysterious and unknown -- whether in cosmology or medicine -- can only be explained by God.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
That's a common charge that evangelical Christians pin on atheists, and it always bemuses me. It's like a trick question, except the payload never comes. I imagine two Christians nodding to each other knowingly when an atheist admits that he prefers a naturalistic explanation, but they never let on why that is so bad.
The reality is that a scientific/naturalism worldview (as opposed to a religious one) is the only one that has proven to be worth a damn at explaining the world around us. And by that, I mean a repeatable method of understanding the processes that underpin our universe, as well as a method with which we can make predictions about the world.
Historically, people have turned to a supernatural being for explanations of all kinds of phenomenon, whether it was thunder, drought or pestilence, and each time science and naturalism has provided the far better answer.
Christianity has simply become a God of the Gaps worldview, where anything that is mysterious and unknown -- whether in cosmology or medicine -- can only be explained by God.
reasonable atheist,
For everything that they think it's too complicated, they fill up the gap with "God"
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
reasonable atheist,
For everything that they think it's too complicated, they fill up the gap with "God"
Yeah, and as that gap gets smaller and smaller, more of God's perceived role gets passed to the laws of nature.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
That's a common charge that evangelical Christians pin on atheists, and it always bemuses me. It's like a trick question, except the payload never comes. I imagine two Christians nodding to each other knowingly when an atheist admits that he prefers a naturalistic explanation, but they never let on why that is so bad.
The reality is that a scientific/naturalism worldview (as opposed to a religious one) is the only one that has proven to be worth a damn at explaining the world around us. And by that, I mean a repeatable method of understanding the processes that underpin our universe, as well as a method with which we can make predictions about the world.
Historically, people have turned to a supernatural being for explanations of all kinds of phenomenon, whether it was thunder, drought or pestilence, and each time science and naturalism has provided the far better answer.
Christianity has simply become a God of the Gaps worldview, where anything that is mysterious and unknown -- whether in cosmology or medicine -- can only be explained by God.
reasonable.atheist,
The issue is, is naturalism true? Does it explain the ultimate questions of life? Does naturalism explain why the universe exists? Why the laws of logic exists? Why life exists? etc etc?
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Yeah, and as that gap gets smaller and smaller, more of God's perceived role gets passed to the laws of nature.
Atheists like to say that Christians are guilty of the God-of-the-gaps argument. But think about it. Does the more we know about something means that the existence of God is negated? You talk about the laws of nature. Yes, lightning takes place not because God or Zeus is hurling thunderbolts at poor human beings. No Christian believe that either. But yet all these phenomena that happens follow the laws of nature. Now tell me, where do the laws of nature come from? Laws require a Law-Maker. Why is there uniformity in the laws of nature? Note that this issue of uniformity in the laws of nature is not to be confused with uniformitarianism.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Atheists like to say that Christians are guilty of the God-of-the-gaps argument. But think about it. Does the more we know about something means that the existence of God is negated? You talk about the laws of nature. Yes, lightning takes place not because God or Zeus is hurling thunderbolts at poor human beings. No Christian believe that either. But yet all these phenomena that happens follow the laws of nature. Now tell me, where do the laws of nature come from? Laws require a Law-Maker. Why is there uniformity in the laws of nature? Note that this issue of uniformity in the laws of nature is not to be confused with uniformitarianism.
BIC
Actually there's nothing wrong to say that God did it. But take note, you are saying it by faith and not by empirical evidence.
SO that means, anyone WHO has faith can attribute the formation of the universe to their Gods.
Because it's by faith.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Actually there's nothing wrong to say that God did it. But take note, you are saying it by faith and not by empirical evidence.
SO that means, anyone WHO has faith can attribute the formation of the universe to their Gods.
Because it's by faith.
If you have a worldview at all, and you surely have, then it is being held by faith. Science cannot prove your worldview because it is with your worldview that you try to interpret and understand science. Like it or not, admit it or not, when it comes to the bottom of it all, it's faith at work. If you have not come to realise it, that's because you have never read enough on the subject of worldviews and epistemology.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
If you have a worldview at all, and you surely have, then it is being held by faith. Science cannot prove your worldview because it is with your worldview that you try to interpret and understand science. Like it or not, admit it or not, when it comes to the bottom of it all, it's faith at work. If you have not come to realise it, that's because you have never read enough on the subject of worldviews and epistemology.
Thanks for agreeing with me that anyone who has faith can attribute the formation of the universe to their respective Gods.
Thanks also for agreeing that faith is essentially void of evidence.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Thanks for agreeing with me that anyone who has faith can attribute the formation of the universe to their respective Gods.
Thanks also for agreeing that faith is essentially void of evidence.
No thanks for putting words in my mouth!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
No thanks for putting words in my mouth!
Oh sorry I misread your statements.
My worldview is held by faith? No it's not. :) I dont believe in things that lack evidence. THat is I dont believe in ghosts, spirits, angels, elves, fairies etc etc.
Can you explain to me how I use "faith"?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Oh sorry I misread your statements.
My worldview is held by faith? No it's not. :) I dont believe in things that lack evidence. THat is I dont believe in ghosts, spirits, angels, elves, fairies etc etc.
Can you explain to me how I use "faith"?
Tcmc, Try something different can? Instead if telling us what you don't believe, why don't you share with us what you beliwve about the world we live in and the nature of reality? I'm sure you don't define your belief system purely by what you are against, ya? That would be a parasitic way of forming a worldview. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
reasonable.atheist,
The issue is, is naturalism true? Does it explain the ultimate questions of life? Does naturalism explain why the universe exists? Why the laws of logic exists? Why life exists? etc etc?
In all honest, BIC, I have limited interest in debating you. We've tried that before, and we didn't get anywhere. If you can insist on a 6,000-year-old earth despite all the scientific evidence, and despite the fallibility of the biblical text, nothing I say will change your mind. I don't even want to ask your justification for the slaughter of the Amalekites including children and animals, or your position on slavery and homosexuality.
My interest here is to engage other Christians and atheists, but if no other Christian feels up to my challenges, I'll be happy to take a back seat.
I will just say this and let you have the last word.
I do not have answers for why the universe exists, or why we have the beauty of mathematics. Or why the natural laws exist.
It is of course easy to posit "God" as the explanation for any unanswered questions, as the ancients did. However, this is a cop-out.
1. The answers to some of these questions may come tens or hundreds or thousands of years after we die. After all, primitive man thought that rain was God's blessing, and it took hundreds of years before we understood the water cycle. But we eventually did, and the record suggests that we too will find naturalistic explanations for knotty questions in cosmology, abiogenesis and medicine.
2. Some of these answers are naturalistic, but may be beyond what human beings can understand. Even today, quantum mechanics is so counter-intuitive, so difficult that very few scientists truly understand it. Perhaps, we are nearing the frontier of what our puny human brains can comprehend.
3. Some of these questions may never actually have answers. What is the meaning of life? Well, perhaps our lives have no greater meanings than the ones we assign to them.
In each of these of these scenarios, we don't have the answers today, but it doesn't automatically mean we should turn to God. Again, it is of course possible that a deity is running the show behind the scenes, but the naturalistic and scientific worldview has explained almost everything around us so far. I'm in effect betting my life eternal that it will explain plenty more of these unanswered questions yet.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
... 6,000-year-old earth despite all the scientific evidence, and despite the fallibility of the biblical text, nothing I say will change your mind. I don't even want to ask your justification for the slaughter of the Amalekites including children and animals...
You shouldn't fault me for being stedfast in my beliefs if you are just as insistent on yours. Will you be convinced by me to change your mind? The answer is obvious. Again the batlle is to be fought at the level of worldviews. Throwing evidence at you will just be an exercise in futility if you are not interpreting the evidence through the right worldview. -
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You shouldn't fault me for being stedfast in my beliefs if you are just as insistent on yours. Will you be convinced by me to change your mind? The answer is obvious. Again the batlle is to be fought at the level of worldviews. Throwing evidence at you will just be an exercise in futility if you are not interpreting the evidence through the right worldview.Funny how you talk about the futility of throwing evidence at me, and yet provide not a single shred beyond the mysterious and the unknown. If that is not the definition of a God of the Gaps argument, I don't know what is.
And of course my mind can be changed. My position was shifted towards deeper atheism in recent years by Richard Dawkins, and it can be yet moved in either direction given the evidence.So far, though, you have simply done a poor job at doing so.
And I do seek out knowledge from either side. I listen, for example, to the excellent Unbelieveable? podcast, which airs on Christian radio, is hosted by a Christian, and recently organized William Lane Craig's tour in the UK. Which atheist programs do YOU follow?
P.S. Is it me, or is the forum acting up today? I'm only seeing excerpts of some posts.
-
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
Funny how you talk about the futility of throwing evidence at me, and yet provide not a single shred beyond the mysterious and the unknown. If that is not the definition of a God of the Gaps argument, I don't know what is.
And of course my mind can be changed. My position was shifted towards deeper atheism in recent years by Richard Dawkins, and it can be yet moved in either direction given the evidence.So far, though, you have simply done a poor job at doing so.
And I do seek out knowledge from either side. I listen, for example, to the excellent Unbelieveable? podcast, which airs on Christian radio, is hosted by a Christian, and recently organized William Lane Craig's tour in the UK. Which atheist programs do YOU follow?
P.S. Is it me, or is the forum acting up today? I'm only seeing excerpts of some posts.
reasonable.atheist, If you refuse to see that our worldviews determines how we approach the evidence then I submit to you that any further exchange will be moot. You claim to have been much influenced by Dawkins. I'm sure many have been as well. But have you read Jonathan Sarfati's book that refutes Dawkin's Greatest Show on Earth? If not then I don't think you have done justice to hearing from the other side. I don't follow atheist radio or internet programs. But I do read books written by atheists so please do not think that you are the only one doing some catching up with tbe views of the opposition. -
Originally posted by Tcmc:
BIC
Actually there's nothing wrong to say that God did it. But take note, you are saying it by faith and not by empirical evidence.
SO that means, anyone WHO has faith can attribute the formation of the universe to their Gods.
Because it's by faith.
Tcmc, Similarly it is faith that you believe the universe made itself. So it is special pleading for you to find fault with my faith but not yours. -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
In all honest, BIC, I have limited interest in debating you. We've tried that before, and we didn't get anywhere. If you can insist on a 6,000-year-old earth despite all the scientific evidence, and despite the fallibility of the biblical text, nothing I say will change your mind. I don't even want to ask your justification for the slaughter of the Amalekites including children and animals, or your position on slavery and homosexuality.
My interest here is to engage other Christians and atheists, but if no other Christian feels up to my challenges, I'll be happy to take a back seat.
I will just say this and let you have the last word.
I do not have answers for why the universe exists, or why we have the beauty of mathematics. Or why the natural laws exist.
It is of course easy to posit "God" as the explanation for any unanswered questions, as the ancients did. However, this is a cop-out.
1. The answers to some of these questions may come tens or hundreds or thousands of years after we die. After all, primitive man thought that rain was God's blessing, and it took hundreds of years before we understood the water cycle. But we eventually did, and the record suggests that we too will find naturalistic explanations for knotty questions in cosmology, abiogenesis and medicine.
2. Some of these answers are naturalistic, but may be beyond what human beings can understand. Even today, quantum mechanics is so counter-intuitive, so difficult that very few scientists truly understand it. Perhaps, we are nearing the frontier of what our puny human brains can comprehend.
3. Some of these questions may never actually have answers. What is the meaning of life? Well, perhaps our lives have no greater meanings than the ones we assign to them.
In each of these of these scenarios, we don't have the answers today, but it doesn't automatically mean we should turn to God. Again, it is of course possible that a deity is running the show behind the scenes, but the naturalistic and scientific worldview has explained almost everything around us so far. I'm in effect betting my life eternal that it will explain plenty more of these unanswered questions yet.
reasonable.atheist, If you do not know the answer to the ultimate questions of life and your worldview is unable to supply those answers, why do you want to throw rocks at my house when you do not have a roof over your own head? Not only that you repeatedly caricature the Christian answer as God of the gaps yet fail to see that yours is a naturalism of the gaps argument. In any case Christians are not saying God did it because we don't know the answer, but it is because we KNOW that chance random natural processes are UNABLE to aacount for the things in question and we KNOW that intelligent design is the best explanation. It does not violate logic or reason, the only thing it contradicts is your belief in naturalism, a worldview you hold and cling to by faith. -
Originally posted by reasonable.atheist:
In all honest, BIC, I have limited interest in debating you.
dun bother, cos this chap replies and answers will leave you dumbfounded to the point, you are not in awe of his ability to think and argue, but warped rationale that is really unbelievable. you really have to hand it to him for this kind of incoherence and illogic.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Thanks for agreeing with me that anyone who has faith can attribute the formation of the universe to their respective Gods.
Thanks also for agreeing that faith is essentially void of evidence.
their evidence is the bible. they believed in this dope with no doubt. so in essence god only exists in bible, the way superman exists in DC comics and movies
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
reasonable.atheist, If you do not know the answer to the ultimate questions of life and your worldview is unable to supply those answers, why do you want to throw rocks at my house when you do not have a roof over your own head? Not only that you repeatedly caricature the Christian answer as God of the gaps yet fail to see that yours is a naturalism of the gaps argument. In any case Christians are not saying God did it because we don't know the answer, but it is because we KNOW that chance random natural processes are UNABLE to aacount for the things in question and we KNOW that intelligent design is the best explanation. It does not violate logic or reason, the only thing it contradicts is your belief in naturalism, a worldview you hold and cling to by faith.What is the Sun?
Religion: The sun is a God. Either that, or it's a gift from God.
Science: A sun is a massive lump of plasma held together by gravity.What are the stars?
Religion: The stars are gifts from Gods.
Science: The stars are distant suns, with their lights reaching us from hundreds of years in the past.
What is rain?
Religion: Rain is a gift from God.
Science: Rain is part of a water cycle, where water moves from various states in our environment before coming down as rain.
How did Man come about?
Religion: God made Man out of thin air, and Woman using a part of Man.
Science: Human beings are evolved from millions of years of evolution, which explains our similarities with the great apes, among other things.Why is this couple unable to have children?
Religion: Infertility is a punishment from God. Pray for redemption.
Science: Infertility is a medical condition. It may be treatable.
Why is this dude writhing on the ground?
Religion: He has been possessed by a demon. He needs an exorcism.
Science: He has epilepsy. He needs treatment.
What was the first origin of the universe?
Religion: The universe was made by God.
Science: We are not sure if there is such a thing as a first origin of the universe. We have theories like the M-theory, but these require much more investigation.
How was the first self-replicable cell reated?
Religion: It was made by God.
Science: We don't know for sure. There are theories using RNA, but these require further investigation. The element of chance could have played a part as well.--------------------
All but the last two questions have been satisfatorily answered by science (your denial of evolution notwithstanding). Furthermore, as I suggested above, the scientific method not only provides answers, it provides ways to run tests and predictions, such that we now have real ways of inducing rain (instead of praying), predicting the motion of distant "heavenly" bodies, and treating both physical and mental illnesses.
For most of these questions, the religious answers have been all but debunked. And yet modern-day Christian evangelists take refuge in the yet-unanswered questions, proffering the same God explanation that served ancients thousands of years ago.
You accuse me of "clinging" to naturalism by faith. If you look at the respective track records of science versus religion, you'll find that science has utterly trounced religion in its ability to explain the world around us. If I had to bet on the next few unanswered questions, I would say that science will most likely provide the better answer -- once again.
And then I predict that the Christian apologists will shift to the next unanswered questions, and claim to see God's active hand in them. Classic God-of-the-Gaps. If there's a caricature, I'm afraid you've drawn it yourself.