[quote][b]Why do you believe that out of all the religions, Christianity is true?[/b][/quote]Christians agree that the world's existence had a cause that brought about it's existence; therefore, [b]since the universe exists, it had a cause.[/b] In the second place, now if we assume that there's no God or deity, we will then presume that our world was developed through some natural processes that are not yet evident. As far as evolution goes, it literally doesn't make any sense because it has lost logic. It isn't that it's not understandable. It's just that there's so much missing that one would have thought that should have been present if it was assumed to be true: There isn't at least one species that possesses even a hundred transitional forms for over an acclaimed amount of time expanding for over four and a half billion years, our universe has an inadequate amount of cosmic dust that accumulates annually, there's no adequate theorized explanation as to the origin of intelligence, complexity, and organic manifestation, cyclical processes are present and evident, the Big Bang is literally inadequate, the repudiation of spontaneous generation proves life manifests from life, inherently bad mutation is inherently "bad," and how can we assume that existence is even possible without an infinite cause? If I assume "God," I wouldn't be wrong since it solves the paradox. One of the most popular tactics for atheists to often tackle would be the question to God's possible existence. To which I would respond simply by saying, "God, by definition, created everything (Jn. 1:1; Gn. 1:3), including the time dimension that we exist in; however, He isn't affected by time (2 Pet. 3:8); therefore, He doesn't exist in time; thus, He doesn't require a cause." Everything in evolution involves finite things that obviously had an origin, but what began our own possibility of existence or consciousness of such existence without an infinite cause? [b]Not all of evolution is false.[/b] Firstly, I posted an OP that explained how variations manifesting from the same species are evidential (https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/118599859/0/0), but only to the extent that those variant forms didn't serve any extra-biological function since the process, no matter how much time it was given, would never be able to develop our modern day biological complexity. Secondly, when I say that not all of evolution is false, I mean to say that not all of evolution is completely absent from scripture. It can obviously be observed in the Bible that humans had a different diet (Gn. 9:3), all land animals, including humans, were herbivores (Gn. 1:29-30; 9:3; Isa. 11:6; 65:25), they also had averagely long lifespans (Gn. 5), the earth operated under an apparently different weather pattern (Gn. 2:5), and creatures of unknown biology actually existed (Job 41); presumably, their descriptions sync with the modern assumptions of dinosaurs. Thirdly, atheists will assume that we as Christians are being bias when we source the Bible as support for these biological evidences when they think we should consider their scientific evidence to be fact and foremost above any acclaimed "holy" text. To a degree, this is true, but only to a certain extent. Evolution basically teaches that somehow something caused everything to come into being from simpler being beginnings to the modern, complicated structures in nature that we see today. What evolution doesn't account for is origins itself. I'm not talking about the origins of "how did it start." I'm talking about the origins of biological or organic life manifesting from non-organic material. Have you ever tried growing algae from a recently extruded lava rock alone? One can easily assume that the task is impossible, and it is, but this is one of the biggest complications that evolutionary scientists find to be a "thorn in their side." Since God is the only documented, evidential, and substantiated being that fits the description of being eternal (Rev. 22:13), He satisfies the requirement for this paradox (Ps. 139:6). Then one may rightly ask, "What justifies this fact?" and I'll respond by saying, "The Bible," and then you would arrogantly respond by saying, "What makes the Bible authentic and not a book just written by man?" to which I would respond, "It's content." to which you would say, "Well that's stupid. You can't source yourself." and then I'll explain by saying the following: "The Bible itself states that it was written by men endowed by the Holy Spirit of God. [b]If anything was written by man and man alone, would there not be a perfidious motive intended to encourage man?[/b] The Bible promotes God and only God, and it states that there is no other God except Him. [b]Not all of acclaimed Christianity are actual Christians.[/b] When relating to other acclaimed pieces of 'holy' text, this is when we are to discern between the theological truth and the hypocritical fallacies. The Book of Moroni teaches polygamy is legal, God was once a man like us, works promote our salvation, and we will eventually be a god of our own planet and have an infinite amount of sex with our loved one(s), like God did when He had Jesus Christ. This is a highly damnable fallacy. The Catholic Church promoted the Apocrypha about 30 years after Martin Luther debunked it with the Ninety-five Thesis explaining their fallacy since the Catholic Church promoted salvation by works, the forgiveness of sins by priests, the celibacy of the Catholic priesthood, the deistic homage toward Mary, the holiness of the Pope, and more. This is a highly damnable fallacy, and how one can determine a faith to be not legit is to find whether it possesses a perfidious motive which would usually be through monetary or physical gain (The Catholic Church) or psychological self-appeasement to one's state in their version of the acclaimed after-life (The Doctrine of Mormonism). "The Bible alone, without all that additive crap, which was added to change the canon, is the [b]only[/b] text in the world that does not call one to a state of self-fulfillment, but to a state of self-denial; and so, it could not have been written by man since it didn't have the intent in the first place to appease men, but instead, it promotes throughout the entire text an infinite individual who adequately solves our predicament, God. If the Bible was written by man alone, it would have at least provided some gain to an individual on Earth (e.g., The Pope or The Catholic Church) or a well-appeasing infinite carnality desire (e.g., spiritual sex or earthly polygamy in Mormonism). If "yes," you'll know that the teaching is hypocritical. [[b]NOTE[/b]: I will explain why I disapprove of polytheism, Judaism, Islam later (Judaism and Islam specifically since they are particularly special), and I will provide sources to my findings later, but I'm posting this now for the sake of appeasing those who have persistence for this question. [b]NOTE[/b]: It's not finished yet. [b]NOTE[/b]: Feel free to state #InB4NoiselessPurse if you feel like it because "no" I have not seen him. [b]NOTE[/b]: Don't ask here. Ask in my AMA (https://www.bungie.net/en/Forum/Post/120518168/0/0).]...