If there's no God, what's wrong with avoiding questions? What moral obligation do I have to answer anybody's questions or be rational if there is no God? How does epistemic normativity arise out of mere matter in motion?
"You guys did nothing but dance around questions all night."
The above metaphysical and epistemological issues are why we *purposefully* and *strategically* refused to address some of their assertions. Our opponents did exactly what we wanted them to do:
1. They flatly denied that logic was universal, invariant, and absolute.
2. Then, they plainly admitted that they couldn't account for immaterial laws given their materialistic metaphysic.
Thus, unless one can account for the laws of logic by which to disagree with my worldview, they have no right to demand that *I* provide answers to their alleged Bible contradictions when their own worldview can't provide the philosophical cash value needed to account for the very logical laws needed to make their argument in the first place. To say otherwise is mere special pleading.
Also, your assertion that we "danced" around questions "all night" is false. This is why we had an audiovisual recording made for all to see and decide for themselves.
As my post states, most atheists that are formally unschooled in Biblical Studies and/or philosophy try to undermine the Christian faith by making bare-naked assertions and spouting off a list of alleged Bible contradictions. This is unimpressive for the reasons stated here.
We knew this was coming, and (1) because we knew that we would not have the time to do justice to their list of alleged contradictions in the six minute rebuttal period and, (2) because we knew that they wouldn't be able to account for immaterial logical laws given their naturalistic materialism, we took the strategy that we did.
Again, hear me well: we didn't avoid their questions about Bible contradictions because we didn't have the answers; for I had many of them already answered and ready to read in my own study Bible and my prepared notes. As a matter of fact, virtually none of their alleged contradictions needed preparation beforehand since I've heard them so many times that they can be answered off the cuff. We avoided answering them *on purpose* because if they can't account for contradictions in their worldview in the first place, then I'm not obligated to answer their alleged contradictions. The only exception to this was in the Q&A period when I answered one alleged error from Leviticus 11:22-23. The answer I gave resulted in audience cheers.
By appealing to this objection, you have made my point for me; namely, that atheism cannot account for the very things it needs to refute Christian theism but instead has to appeal to some version of the divine in order to attempt any objection against our position. You've just shown us that you had to leave atheism to appeal to "Zues" in order to argue against Jesus.
"I still would like to know how you justify believing in the "Christian God" over Zues, as you have presented nothing that distinguishes the two."
Also, I quoted from Romans 1:18-21 and Colossians chapter 2 in my opening statement. Those passages alone refute the idea of any non-Christian deity since they are inherently defending the Christian God. Romans 1 sufficiently tackles any non-theistic deity (like "Zues"; i.e., polytheism), pantheism (i.e., due to Creator-creation distinction), and leaves the reader to only face the Creator God of Scripture. Colossians 2 and the surrounding context teaches that it is only in Christ (the 2nd person of the Trinity) that the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. If that doesn't exegetically establish that our position is founded on the Christian God, I don't know what does.
But when you do, you just left your atheism to defend your atheism. I can easily answer these, but since you cannot account for logic, I'm not obligated to at this point. You heard the gospel last night. Please repent of your intellectual autonomy and place your faith in Christ. Your only other option is to eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you die.
"All of your arguments are cookie-cutter and generic."This is something you've asserted but have yet to prove. Also, what's wrong with this if you can't account for the need to be logical in the first place?
"I could easily plug in Allah, Zues, FSM, or any other imaginary creature and 'win' in your view."