I will address only those questions formed with reasonableness. A person that would ask for an example of contradictory theories does not seem reasonable to me and will never convince me of anything in this matter. My thread about questioning the origin of life and evolution demonstrates there are such theories. And again, I gave an example of a prohesy that is being fulfilled and this is totally dismissed.
Are you referring to:
"And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come." (Mathew 24:14)
Because that really isn't a prophesy being fulfilled. That's more like a plan being executed to success.
Let's say that the Chinese government made the following declaration:
"In 20 years China will be the dominate economic power in the world."
And, lo in behold, in 20 years, we find that China is indisputably the dominate economic power of the world. Would you say that a prophesy was fulfilled, or that China's push to be that economic power was successful?
What I'm really getting at, though, is that it is rather difficult to say for certain that a prophesy was fulfilled. You haven't ruled out other explanations aside from 'divine revelation'. Christianity has been, and is, an evangelical religion, which is to say that one of the tenants of the belief structure is to spread the word. Is it really all that surprising that it was successful?
A more poignant prophesy would have been on the order of "In 2000 years the world shall be engrossed in the Bible, replicated at fantastic speeds onto parchment accessible by any and all persons upon this and far away lands." That's a bit more specific and substantially less ambiguous prophesy.
Well, it *isn't* really up to the individual to decide objective truth. How about this: the one that describes objective reality most accurately,
I am in agreement. To me the universe shows intelligent design. Others disagree. An athiest says a christian has no evidence of a god and concludes there is no god. However they too have no evidence that god does not exist, so I conclude there is but not simply because of this however. To me the Bible is more evidence. It comes down to what one chooses to believe. To me it seems they, or at least some, say, "Science and the universe exists therefore God does not." I conclude the opposite based on the same evidence. Somewhere there has to be a first uncaused cause for the existance of the universe if there was in fact a beginning. Athiests offer no answer. The Bible does.
First. They also have no evidence that Fxlax the Intangible Conqueror doesn't exist, but that doesn't lend *any* credence that Fxlax *does* exist. But I can say with a straight face that I do not believe that Fxlax exists. Same can apply to god. I could have exactly 0 pieces of evidence that god does not exist. But in the face of no evidence that god does exist, when asked the question "Do you believe that god exists?" I have to say 'no' - which makes me an atheist. No evidence for the non-existence of god required, because I have no existence *for* the existence of god. "Burden of proof" and "positive assertion" are two key phrases you may wish to familiarize yourself with.
Second. It doesn't come down to what one chooses to believe. The existence or non-existence of god is a question that has an answer irrespective of what any sentient creature believes.
Third. Not sure who says "Science and the universe exists therefore God does not", but I'd believe that those people are out there. The conclusion does not logically follow from the premises and therefore the statement is logically incorrect. The correctness of the conclusion is another matter.
Fourth. On 'uncaused cause' and existence. Atheists offer no answer - well, I don't think that's true, but I'll just go ahead and accept that premise for this conversation. So, atheists offer no answer and the bible does offer an answer. Are you just looking for an answer or a *correct* answer? Here, let me go ahead and give you another answer then:
The universe exists and has a beginning. Something established that beginning. That beginning is a cosmic, uncaused, non-sentient, blue pogostick.
Now you have 2 answers. Is one right and the other wrong? Are they both right? Or are they both wrong? How can you tell?
But that's kind of the issue - you should base your beliefs not on the whims of a person but on the preponderance of evidence.
I do so to the best of my ability. I do however base my work to some extent on the work of others as do scientits, but I do test if their ideas are correct the best I am able. I have no desire to reinvent the wheel in other words. Seeing the fulfillment of prophesy I mentioned above is more evidence.
I understand deferring to authority figures. I don't really have access to time on the Hubble or have a particle accelerator at my disposal, so sometimes I'm kind of stuck referring to authority. However, if, in principle, authority is the ONLY evidence I can muster, well, that should be cause for alarm.
So, to the best of your ability, are you actually convinced of the fulfillment of prophesy? Have you critically analyzed these prophesies? I would say that, with respect to the above prophesy you talked about above (assuming I was right in which one you were referring to), you haven't. Because on the face of it, it's an incredibly vague prophesy at best and frankly just looks like a Vision statement of a company trying to fulfill it's goals and actually succeeding.