Rousseau, one of the most respected minds of the Renaissance ...
Uh, no. Rousseau was born in 1712. He can't possibly have been "one of the most respected minds of the Renaissance" any more than I can be "one of the most respected minds of the Industrial Revolution". Wrong century.
... had this to say: 'Either the Bible was written by men who were inspired by God- or they were gods themselves, for it is too profound to be a mere work of man'.
Where did he say that? Could you give a reference? Only an internet search suggests that no-one has ever said that, least of all Rousseau.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that I have to believe everything he says. Nietzsche was a pretty smart German, but I don't have to become an atheist just 'cos he said so. I'd have to look at his actual arguments, wouldn't I?
As to the origin of that quote, I'll track it down and get back to you.
Well, good luck with that, 'cos I can't find that anyone said exactly that, ever.
If your religion is true, then wouldn't you be able to support its truth by saying true things? Instead, your very first argument, the one that you wanted to put first when you started posting on this thread, was demonstrably false. Doesn't that give you pause for thought?
There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet. First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created. Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point). The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe.
Only that is not what "the theory of evolution" actually means.
"The theory of evolution" is a theory about what happens to life when it exists. By definition, it is not a theory about how life came to exist in the first place.
You seem to me like a nice guy, but a lot of the things that you post here could have used a little more research.
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.
I mean, I believe in evolution as much as anyone, but that doesn't mean I believe that it must create a being (for example) exempt from gravity. On the contrary, I am absolutely certain that evolution will never produce an organism exempt from the laws of physics. The theory of evolution doesn't mean that any darn thing can happen. On the contrary, the theory of evolution, like any other scientific theory, places limits on what can happen. This is one of them. The theory does not imply that some being should evolve that is exempt from physics, instead it implies that this will never happen.
Then inventing death was something of an error of judgement on his part.
But let’s say you later on happen to find out that God created you and gave you life and died to pay for your sins. If you get to know this and you still consciously reject Him, if you consciously reject Him who gave you life, what can you expect?…..to die, maybe?
But obviously Larni has not found this out. S/he has heard it, sure. That's different. You can no more say that Larni has "found out" and "got to know" that these things are true than a Muslim could say that you have "found out" and "got to know" that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet. You have heard it alleged, but you have not found out that it's true. You did not "get to know this", you just got to hear it. Merely hearing it does not produce knowledge or even conviction. Well, the same is true of your religion. And I don't see how one can be morally culpable for not believing things that one does not in fact know.
Yeah, Larni hasn't found out, that's why I said: "let's say you later on happen to find out" and also: "if you consciously reject Him", and I said "consciously" twice, so I don't see how your reply is pertinent here
The pertinence of your hypothetical is also obscure. People who "know" that Christianity is true don't seem to overlap with the group of people who reject it.