I study bacteria, viruses, fungi, plagues, etc. All the nasty stuff in biology. If you ever have a question about bacteria or anything ask me. Anyways, since I look at these things all the time eating sometimes is a little nasty.

Animals were made from dust. If dust means Earth material he made them the same way.

"And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof." Genesis 2:19

Pretty much Earth material.

Animals were made from the water and land, but not formed, the different animals came from "after their kind" aka macro-evolution.

Lol. No water. God clearly formed them. Isn't it ironic that the word formed is actually there in the verse?

I don't think you completely understand the syntax of your bible.

Your position is that they are inherently living organisms? That is my view on the position as well. I personally deem them as living, but apparently it doesn't fit the universal definition.

The animals were created "after their kind" man was not. Animals evolved, man did not. I believe this because of both biblical and scientific reasons.

Animals were created in the same manner as Adam and Eve. Plants grew without rain (illogical). In fact you cannot be correct. Animals came after Adam. They spawned. That is incredibly illogical.

If anybody knows anything about Bacteria, Viruses, Fungi, Plagues, etc, I would be more than happy to debate with them. I will debate about other things as well if someone is up for it.

You know. I just thought of this. Was if Christianity was true, but we left earth already? What would Jesus so then? Wait?

Not everyday. Maybe like two. When you study what I study food starts to seem disgusting.

The bible is never specific as to what it implies. However the connotatuon given is not evolution, but divine spawning of inhabitant creatures.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" Genesis 2:7

By analyzing the syntax we can assume that God made Adam from dust, and not by evolutionary circumstances. God made Adam dead. He was just a cadaver. God "breathed" life into him and he was created. I would imagine God doing the same for all animals. Actually I am positive he performed the same act of the divine uprising of life. They were created from dust. Earth material. Also if you are a Evolutionist Christian you are denying the fact that death comes as a result of sin. If evolution is true then death already existed.

Cool. Either way science will trump religion. Scientists will go for space exploration regardlessly.

In his profile picture he looks like a man. Beard and all. Face structure says males.

If the trinity holds true. Jesus was a separate manifestation of God. God the Father (creator of all), God the Son (Jesus Christ, the physical manifestation), and God the Holy Spirit (The spiritual manifestation of God). Also an Atheist rejects the existence of any deities. If God is a god he can't be an Atheist if he knows he is a god. Jesus cannot be an Atheist since he is the physical manifestation and prayed to God the Father. Saying he is an Atheist is illogical. God has not rejected the belief of himself or the two other manifestations. He cannot logically ne an Atheist.

Sex appeal in Final Fantasy isn't really bad. The women in the game are portraited as "epic" or "amazing". Final Fantasy characters don't care really. Sure, Tifa may have had slightly large boobs but who cares? Nobody.

Why can't I play a girl character in COD?

Take that up with the creators of Call of Duty like Activision or SludgeHammer or Treyarch.

Why are all main characters in the COD franchise regardless of side male?

I don't know. Sells better?

Jesus prayed to God. Jesus was God. That is the Holy Trinity at work. Jesus was the physical manifestation of God. He is not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit.

It depends on the video game being played. Some video games just make a typical female. For example Sims, by what I have seen in there games, never gives the females rediculous bodies. Final Fantasy, usually, doesn't give their females too much of a sex appeal. I wonder what would happen if Call of Duty let you use a female character model.

Eve was made from Adam's rib. Please, show me a human that can rip out a rib and make a woman. Other wise desperat men would have women. Go ahead. Explain. Evolution is not supported by the bible. I think I understand more about evolution that you do. I study bacteria, viruses, plagues, fungi, etc. I have to study their origin as well and they do source back to a logical origin of their birth. Eve was made from a rib. Enough said.

I don't think so. You see an Atheist, typically, would have no problem being a theist if the deity the would worship could meet their requirements. For example if God said he was not omnibenevolent and makes mistakes like we do we could relate with him more. If he didnt know everything we could relate with him more and be like "take it easy on God, he didn't know Lucifer would rebel. He didn't know Adam and Eve would sin." Now a stance on evolution is different. Saying God did it is a possibility, but hard evidence and data trumps "possibility".

For example:

If you walk on that ice sheet you may fall. Sounds bad right?

Try this one:

If you walk on that sheet of ice you have an 81% chance of falling through. Changes your decision making doesn't it?

This is how Atheists make their decisions. Its not a lack of imagination, but an open mind. Atheists want a legitimate reason, answer, evidence, etc. No evidence has made proven him to exist, but remains a possibility

Right!!! Call of Duty needs a sliding element. It would be beautiful. Vehicles are only cool when it is a rare occurance. They are just for people with no aim.

Well think about it. With a tomahawk to the foot can you at least cripple the person? I mean why should I die from being tomahawked in the foot. Or the elbow? Lol I have been tomahawked from across the map and i have gotten some amazing combat axe kills. A hitmarker would piss people off though. I hate when I get a hit marker with a certain scorestreak/killstreak. For example MW3. How do you get a hit marker with a predator missile? Black Ops 2 how does my hunter killer, lightning strike, and hellstorm missile end in all hitmarkers. Its stupid. STOOOOPID. Lol. Also I agree with the vehicle bit about battlefield. I am more of an actual battleground player myself.

Battlefield typically has more realism. However I hear Ghosts is supposed to be like no other Call of Duty so I am hoping they adapt a more realistic style of play because being tomahawked/combat axed in the foot is stupid.

I defended that? Again, provide me with clear evidence. Quote me. I will wait.

For insulting Cuaroc? Again, do quote what I said. I presented him with an argument saying his statement was false. That is not an insult. That is simply debating.

Quote me. Where did I directly insult him? Please, show me where.

Totally! Glad you are complimenting with wit. Please, continue.

Oh I am a light as a feather, Cuaroc. I am amazed at the level of your intellect. Please, continue to amaze me.

It makes zero sense. Why does a user downvote and ban when in the wrong? It just ruins the point of debating.

Oh here is the wonderful and witty Cuaroc. Please, show me more witty comments.

People don't care unless the downvote was illogical and was unnecessary. You do this quite often. If you downvote me for telling the truth that defines who you are. Not us.

Okay? I already explained why he was wrong. He didn't even respond. I know I am correct. I have studied this.

Oh really? I have already explained it to you. I have learned from past experiences not to keep repeating myself with you. Those laws are the laws of Israel.

STOP DOWNVOTING FOR NO REASON.

Let me address them since you so dearly wish for me to do so.

So bullying someone to the point of suicide is okay?

The Christian faith never advocates this. Unless you can provide evidence that Christian are indoctrinated with this your claim is false. An individual can do this to you. Christianity does not do anything to you.

Lying and calling a fellow Christian a Satanist is okay?

Please, show me where the bible say this is okay. The bible clearly is against "lying" and "name calling".

Constantly using the Bible to make fun of them is okay?

Please, explain how Christianity says this is okay.

If that is Christianity, I quit.

Those are what individuals do. Not the religion itself.

If the Christian is a hypocrite then that is in that individual's nature. You are still blaming Christianity. His claim has no evidence, and is based upon the ignorant view of Christians.

Tell me where the Christian Bible quotes that this is okay. You are blaming the religion. It's the individual within the religion.

1. Free contraception would probably cause fewer births - meaning the number of citizens will eventually fall, meaning that there will be LESS taxpayers. Making the government pay for people's contraception is a very stupid, financially speaking, to do.

This is correct to a degree. If there are less people that means less government spending and therefore less taxation. This also means an expanse in purchasing power due to their being less people. This makes jobs easier to obtain. People will have money and will feel ready to reproduce. Free contraception won't cripple the system.

2. Dana says contraception is a right - It is. Everyone has the right to go and buy a condom. Just like food is a right - everyone has the right to go buy their own food.

I agreed with her. It is a right.

3. There are homeless people, there are families with starving children, there is a woman with cancer who can't pay her hospital bill. Are you seriously saying we should pay for people's contraception instead of providing REAL NECESSITIES?

Would you like to show me how I said any if this? Or are you just manipulating words into your favor? Here is the fault in that logic.

1) More contraception = Equal less people. Less people equals more money for all and less government spending. If taxation doesn't change we can assist your list of bad things you attempting to manipulatively stick to me in an efficient manner. More jobs would be available meaning less homeless people. Less people in the struggle. Simply listing bad things and trying to stick them to me as if I said them will not help your case.

Let's say contraception IS free. How will the system be? Will everyone get 10 bucks a month to buy condoms, or will they get free condoms?

How would the system work? It would he heavily regulated. It would typically be used for medical purposes. Not for promiscuous purposes. If you need a form of contraception for medical usage then go for it if your insurance can provide it.

If they get free condoms, how many? One pr. day? Or will they just be lying everywhere?

I have stated above that promiscuous purposes should not be covered. Only medical purposes.

This whole thing seems ridiculous to me. I'd rather have the homeless man have a free meal, than having the 16 year old get a free condom.

You are barely touching the entire spectrum of contraception. Let me just use birth control as an example.

"Pill perk #1: Lower cancer risk

Taking oral contraceptives (OCs) can slash your risk for both endometrial and ovarian cancer by more than 70 percent after 12 years; even just one to five years may lower your risk by 40 percent. They work by reducing the number of times you ovulate in your lifetime: Ovulation may trigger cell changes in the ovaries that can lead to cancer. If you're worried about using the Pill for too long, relax. "You can safely take the Pill for 20 years or more," says Stephanie Teal, M.D., director of family planning at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center in Denver. Barring health issues, the only reason to stop is if you want to get pregnant."

"Pill perk #2: Clearer skin

Estrogen - the female hormone found in most OCs - helps clear your skin by decreasing levels of testosterone, a male hormone that stimulates oil production. Although Ortho Tri-Cyclen is often used to treat acne, many pills, such as Yasmin or Desogen, can banish blemishes. You'll likely see results within a couple of months."

"Pill perk #3: Lighter, less painful periods

When you're on the Pill, you don't ovulate, so your uterine lining doesn't build up as much. In fact, you don't have a true "period" during the placebo phase - just withdrawal bleeding, in which your uterine lining breaks down in response to the drop in hormones. So most OC takers bleed less for a shorter time, and have little or no cramping. If you want an even lighter flow, ask your doctor about Seasonique, a new pill that gives you four periods a year and helps reduce period length to three days on average."

"Pill perk #4: PMS relief

Hormonal shifts during the second half of your cycle are the main cause of PMS symptoms. The Pill can provide relief by steadying hormones, but different symptoms require different pills. If breast tenderness is your complaint, an OC that is lower in estrogen (such as Mircette) is your best bet. If you want to beat bloating, try a pill (such as Yasmin or Yaz) with drospirenone, a progestin shown to help prevent fluid retention. "Use the Pill for three to four months to see if it provides the relief you're looking for," says Pelin Batur, M.D., a women's health specialist at the Cleveland Clinic Independence Family Health Center."

"Pill perk #5: Endometriosis relief

Endometriosis, a condition in which uterine-lining tissue grows in other pelvic areas, can lead to scarring, severe pain, and sometimes infertility. The Pill stops the growth of tissue in other areas by reducing the hormones that cause the lining to build up."

"Pill perk #6: Fewer periods

Women on the Pill can reschedule their period so it doesn't come at inconvenient times. To do so, make sure you're on a monophasic formula, which contains pills in only two different colors: one for the active pills and one for the placebos. You simply keep taking active pills (typically up to three months) and switch to placebos when you're ready to menstruate. "I often prescribe an extra pack of pills," says Teal, "so a woman can dip into her spare to postpone a period."

"Pill perk #7: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) relief

While the Pill doesn't cure PCOS - a hormonal disorder that triggers irregular cycles, excessive hair growth, and acne - it does offer symptom relief to sufferers. Experts recommend women with PCOS take a pill with 30 to 35 mcg of estrogen, since estrogen helps regulate periods, and combats skin problems and unwanted hair growth."

This is just the argument for the benefits of the birth control pill. This comes from: http://www.webmd.com/

Free contraception has long term benefits instead of short term.

Why is free contraception crazy? Would you care to elaborate on that for me?

Actually his claim is false. To me it seems as if he lacks an understand of the "bible" itself. Laws in the Old Testament are either fulfilled were applicable to the nation of Israel when these laws were present. Christian doctrine does not obligate a person to follow those laws, but to heed them to understand the laws of Israel in that era.

Indeed, one can use a bioweapon for many purposes, it does not have to kill humans. A bioweapon has a wide spectrum of uses.

Christians are not perfect, and neither is humanity. No person can follow the bible to it's exact purpose. According to the bible every man shall sin eventually. If this is where people struggle then so be it.

That is false. The Old Testament still offers things for Christians to follow. Certain laws were laws of Israel (as I remember, and thus are not to be follow since Israel laws has been revised. Certain laws were fulfilled. This should be easily recognizable by simply looking at the laws that government Israel and by actually reading the bible. I am not religious, but just saying "Because the OT is Christian when convenient." is not a good answer, and it is not correct.

Indeed. I should have posted with more clarity. If you can barely get out of bed then I can see how some people would be disgusted.

Thank you! I study bacteria, viruses, plagues, etc. They are interesting to me.

Spaces count as characters? That is different. Pardon my language. I will test it out.

Wow. Nevermind. You don't have to be a dick about it. I will figure out on my own.

How did you evade the 50 character limit? Do you need a certain amount of points?

I understand what you are saying. Personally, bigger women are unattractive to me. However, I have friends that love women with more weight. It all depends on personal preference. I don't see it as "disgusting", but as unattractive.

I understand you viewpoint and I thank you for that input. However my point is that if modern day Christians worship a contradicting God I should be able to say the Bible has an error in it. Instead they claim the book is perfect. I can agree with your interpretation of the bible.

Actually we can. If the God has contradictory qualities, like the God in the Holy Bible then we can logical say that specifc God doesn't exist, unless the bible lies.

Essentially, your contention is that one can't 'learn to smoke weed', but I think that is simply not true.

That is not my implication at all. I am trying to display that Marijuana is not regulated.

When we learn how to drive a car we learn to drive in a way that reduces risks, the same can be done with smoking weed. Actually there's a generic term for it within drug cultures and medical circles, it's called Harm Reduction. Marijuana is not a drug that will invariably cause major health issues, it all has to do with how it's used.

If you have studied Marijuana for a year now you would know that major health effects are highly relevant with Marijuana. Learn how to drive is different from smoking. Driving longer decreases your chance of mistake. Smoking Marijuana more often increases your risk of obtaining a health problem.

I do not think you are understanding my argument. You misinterpreted the notion I presented you.

I never implied that at all. You said "few" so I said "many". There are mkre than a "few" risks. Also I haven't watched South Park all that much.

I do not think you covered all the affects. When you swap the word "ban" with "avoid" the basis changes as well. For example driving cars, as I think you may have said, is still dangerous, but we have classes for students to take and tests that must be passed in order to legally drive. Marijuana is not that way. There is no business with Marijuana. Marijuana is a drug that will cause major health issues. There are no classes or tests required to smoke Marijuana (unless it's medical). Marijuana is still a drug and must be treated as so. It is to be avoided unless used for medical purposes.

I tried to find something disgusting. I disgusted myself amd decided to post something simple. A small little bacteria that can make you sick. True, it is not really a plague. However it is one of the most dangerous bacteria out there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/32/EscherichiaColi NIAID.jpg/286px-EscherichiaColiNIAID.jpg

Indeed. The active ingredient THC is the substance that gives off all of these side effects.

I never said you said "0%". You said "Very few" so I said there are many risks.

Did I ever say that we should ban it? Not al all. I simply said it should be avoided. You are jumping to conclusions.

Marijuana has many risks and dangers to it. People like to assume it doesn't.

I'm a plague. What did you expect? Something sad or happy? Plagues need deadly music.

My debate description says "unless its used for medical purposes". Aspirin is used for medicinal purposes, but can be overdosed. Marijuana is still a dangerous drug.

I expected a well constructed, and logical, reason to believe in God. Also a theory in science is not the same way a theory is thought of by society.

I would like to have a "destructive" or "omni-malevolent" theme. I see this song as something worthy.

We know more than nothing. That is not a reason to believe in a probable God. Saying "We don't know shit" is false and illogical. That can never be used as a legitimate reason. Is that your only argument?

Marijuana has dangerous effects on the body. It overactivates the cannabanoid receptors. Which is an obvious side effect, but leads to dangerous acts. It increase your heart rate, which also increases your chance of heart palpitations and arrhythmias. This is highly dangerous to older people who may have a heart condition. Young users increase their risk of developing a mental illness. The list goes on further.

Nobody knows anything? That is false. How does this qualify as a reason to believe in God?

He is the creator. I keep in mind that he is all things, the good and the bad, every bit of energy in the universe.

How do you know? Are you saying God is the universe? He created himself?

When I meditate my focus is on god and his loving light(the good). I accept this light and allow it to overcome any darkness(the bad) forming in or that have been clouding my thoughts from things happening in my life. Doing this allows me to clear my mind so i can focus on what I want to accomplish in life and stay happy.

How do you know that this isn't just your brain's way of coping with anxiety?

It's basically the concept i use to keep bad thoughts out of my mind. I realize that the processes going on through deep meditation can be explained with science. But I look to this God as a point of reference and believe and hope that this loving being is real.

You align yourself with a probable deity instead of hard evidence? That is new.

Okay. Well what is that reason? I would like to know what it is.

Not everyone thinks of "God" as the same thing.

Depends. "God" is God's inherent title. Athena is a name. She is a goddess, or a god if we argue definition, but she is called Athena. God, especially when capitalized pushes towards the Christian God.

Because yes I believe in God.

Okay. What are the qualities of your God?

Name another God that is referred in this manner as just "God". The Christian God is mentioned in the bible as "God". When someone says "Do you believe in God?" Are they talking about Horus? Anubis? Osiris? Zeus? Odin? Thor? Venus? Gaia? Shiva? No. They are talking about the god known as "God". The bible mentions him as "God". My wording is correct and properly used. You are just avoiding me now. Even societies take on this is that when someone says "God" Christianity is relevant. Either refute my previous post or do not post at all.

Marijuana appears to have no harmful symptoms to it, but truly it is not like that. It is a dangerous drug, especially for chronic users.

I was wondering why my point total dropped by two points. I didn't know we had the ability to delete debates.

Give me a reason to place belief in the Christian God. I want to see if one can be created.

Thank you for your time. I enjoyed sharing information and swapping ideas.

Please, do elaborate. Tell me, what reasons exist? Do list a few, please.

You choose not to address what I have said? That is fine. My claim still stands.

I said it's irrelevant because there is nothing that can completely absolutely prove that there is no god period.

Yet we can.

You saying that it can disprove some deities is irrelevant to my post and to this topic. some not all

Which is what my point was

You never said "all". Never. Therefore my post is relevant. The God of the bible cannot exist in the way he is presented unless you change his traits. With logic this is possible. This means two things:

1) The Holy Bible is a lie.

2) God (the Christian God) cannot exist.

We logically can prove this. My argument still stands. Are you going to attempt to argue against it or not?

You: If we try to use logic as we comprehend it then there's no way to prove or disprove that there is a god.

Me: With the logic we have now we can certainly disprove some deities

You: Irrelevant.

What? That is completely relevant. You said we cannot and I said we can. I gave the positive to your claim. My statement is relevant.

That is what I rebutted and vanquished. Do not even waste my time further. Just do not respond.

You get word tricks and rambling in circles with him and you never get anywhere in any direction. He has no clue what logic is nor how evidence is employed in a situation.

This is true. I cannot see how he argues with such deceptive manipulation and word play.

You do realize that saying that God is a possibility but not real is a logical absurdity, correct?

Quote me. Where did I say "God is not real?".

No, your argument was a red herring.

Red Herring: Red herring is an English-language idiom that refers to a logical fallacy that misleads or detracts from the actual issue.

No logical fallacy was presented. I quelled your argument with simple logic, but you are too headstrong to realize that.

It doesn't matter if there is a naturalistic explanation for how the universe came to be, since the argument that I referring to is about that which is abstract, not natural.

Your argument was theoretical. It also was illogical. I showed you how illogical it was. You don't even understand your own argument. You took so much time in strengthening your rhetoric, but your diction dropped. Poor word choice allowed me to invade and destroy your argument. My argument is no red herring. No logical fallacy was presented. In fact you don't even understand what I even wanted to get at do you?

logic is not bound in the natural

Logic is confined to knowledge. Knowledge is always going to be inherent to the origin of its whereabouts.

Start using logic, please; stop using red herrings; stop being illogical and pay attention to the argument at hand.

Start using.....more logic? Was the logic given, that defeated your argument, not enough?

Stop using....red herrings? Sure. Seems like you are down to your last resort.

Stop being illogical? Never was.

I payed your arguments enough attention. You apparently cannot argue at the level I can.

You have in no way rebutted the argument. If you do not understand it, then fine, we can move to another one, which I shall do in the next comment, since you apparently do not understand the argument...

I will just stop debating with you. You cannot give me any well grounded logic. I rebutted. I conquered. I vanquished. You cannot even understand your own argument. I am done. There is no need to respond to this.

We had an entire discussion about the universe and the logic of it and you failed to produce any well thought out ideas. You wasted my time.

Logic as we understand it can not prove how the big bang started.

How is that? Logic surfaces within the bounds of knowledge. If we gain more knowledge of the origin of a big bang we can logically explain how it started.

It always contradicts itself when we try.. So it's safe to assume that we were created within a different realm of logic.

It is safe to say that it is a possibility. It is not safe to say that it is an absolute.

If we try to use logic as we comprehend it then there's no way to prove or disprove that there is a god.

With the logic we have now we can certainly disprove some deities.

This is what I am arguing with the user named Lolzors93. He said that it is possible that God created the universe. I said I agree, but that is only a possibility and possibility doesn't trump hard logic. Then he rambles on without logic. This user must not know everything he claims to know.

It seems that we have a similar notion. A woman has the right to contraceptives, but a woman does not have the right to force an insurance company to pay for her conception unless there was a voluntary contract signed before hand that clearly states that the insurance company will pay.

That argument was pointless. Sure there could be a better explanation for how the universe came to be; however, that does not deny that logic, which is not bound by the universe, and God could exist.

So you tell me my argument was "pointless", but you accept the fact that God remains a possibility and hard evidence trumps probability. Seems as if my argument had a point. It struck it's target in the center.

You are not understanding the argument, which leads away from your false dichotomy to a third point: (3) I am smarter than you and you don't realize it.

Now we wish to play childish games of who has a higher intellect? How despicable. I have already trumped your "logic" of the universe with my logic. I have set the premise that God is a possibility, but hard evidence makes this much more unlikely. I have set my argument upon a land that you cannot conquer.If you wish to restore your intellect by showing me a much more "well thought out" argument then do so.

If I only sell tires and a woman asks me to provide contraception am I violating her rights? No. I choose not to provide it. If an insurance companie doesn't have contraception covered are they violating a woman's rights? No. They choose not to cover it. It is their right not to cover it.

I am no longer arguing with you. You cannot understand what I am trying to tell you. I am beating a dead horse. I am finished.

Do you remember me referrencing that?

"You are not giving a reason as to why I should follow a God that only has a probability of existing and creating the universe over hard evidence.

I have already adressed this notion which means that you did not read my argument thuroughly.

1) I have quelled your argument and are only choosing to not respond because you have no response.

2) You must not be an expert on your studies if this slightly complex logic is confusing to you.

To choose contraception? A woman can choose contraception. A business can choose if it wants to even provide that or not.

It is not a violation. A business chooses not to do something out of there own liberty. An insurance company is the same. They are allowed, by the logical notions within liberty, to choose what they shall provide.

This is the assumption I was saying you had. You are assuming that the only living things are natural.

If you assumed my words then you can defeat them. However you cannot even do that. I never said living things were natural, but the are inherent to a universe if life is able to exist. Before the earth existed the universe existed which means that knowledge did not exist since it is inherent to humans and beings cabable of holding it. Your statement has been disproven. It is illogical.

Yes, I have.

I am sorry, but you haven't.

If the universe were to disappear, logic would still be intact, since they are simple ideas, such as A cannot equal not A. And if logic were no longer to exist, then anything that is would not be and be at the same time, since there would be nothing to retain the formula of A cannot not A.

Highly illogical and incorrect. If the universe does not exist logic cannot exist for there is no conparative knowledge present. If logic does not exist a mind of an inherent tendency to hold logic doesn't exist. The universe will still exist. If knowledge doesn't exists then an organism capable of holding it doesn't exist. The universe still exists. If the universe does not exist knowledge cannot exist. What knowledge can you obtain for nothing? Nothing. You cannot even understand the concept of nothing since nothing exists. If one says "Nothing is here" their knowledge will compare it to something of existence. This is why your argument is illogical and incorrect.

Therefore, since logic is transcendent of nature, the universe and humans, then it follows that a transcendent mind that is absolute and eternal must have authored it.

You have not proven that logic is transendent.

Fighting my question with a question? Very well. A woman has the right to choose what she wants. A business has the right to choose what it shall provide to the public.

Liberty is the ability to do as one pleases. A business is allowed to choose it's services. Are you saying a business cannot choose?

Are you saying that a business does not have liberty? Is that your claim?

You missed the notion of my example. The point you must grasp is that a business can deny service. That is a right of business. Humans have the right to choose. Humans do not have the right to recieve all that they want. You cannot favor liberty for women and not favor liberty for business. My notion still stands. I never claimed or stated that contraception was murder or was the equivalent of murder.

Remember, if logic is based in the universe, then if the universe were no longer real, then so too would logic.

Yes. Our logic is based upon this universe and any knowledge we obtain about our universe will help support our logic.

The universe is not the basis for logic, since logic is the process of the mind: it is abstract, not natural

It is inherent to a being with a complex mind and can perform simple cognitive thought processes such as 2 + 2. That is simple logic and it is inherent for human's to have this. You are not giving a reason as to why I should follow a God that only has a probability of existing and creating the universe over hard evidence.

If logic were no longer real, with the universe being not real, then it follows that the universe would be real and not real at the same time.

That is illogical. If logic is not real then the universe is intact and shall continue. If humans never existed, which means logic must disappear, then the universe shall always exist. If something is deemed as non existing it can only be referred to as that because it was compared to something within existence. Four sided triangles do not exist. How do I know? I know what does exist, a triangle, and a square or rectangle. This means that if you are to say logic doesn't exist what comparative shall you use to grant it's non-existence?

Contraception should be required because it is a women's right to choose? If a murderer wishes to purchase a weapon to use for mass slaughter will you favor his decision as well since he has the right to choose what he wants? No. The company has the right to deny service to him and thus can do the same with contraception. You cannot favor the liberty of women without favoring the liberty of a business.

It is not right for a person to coerce an insurance company into providing coverage over contraception. That is implementing the use of force. If you value liberty then you value a businesses right to choose what services it wishes to provide.