The passage (or indeed the entire bible) places no restrictions on the slave’s will. Leviticus 25 explicitly says a person can own another person as property and pass them to others as inheritance. This is, by definition, chattel slavery. Chattel slavery is never once condemned in the entire bible. Is any of the above incorrect? If so, please provide a passage.

But to answer your questions… • Why anything exists rather than nothing No idea. But to then say “you don’t know therefore I’m right” is textbook appeal to ignorance fallacy. • Why the laws of nature are finely tuned for life Are they? 99.999999999999999999% of nature kills life instantly. Also, by calling it “finely tuned” is begging the question - we don’t know why physical constants are what they are, if they could be different, what the probability of our specific configuration is, or how many configurations allow for life. Again, to say “you don’t know therefore I’m right” is textbook appeal to ignorance fallacy. • Why human minds can discover those laws Humans developed capacity for analytical thinking as it was a survival benefit over pure stimulus-response. We use that analytical thinking ability to analyze what’s around us. • Why we experience moral obligation instead of mere preference Do we experience moral obligation instead of mere preference? Humans may have big feelings or groups may develop general consensus, but these aren’t in any way transcendent obligations beyond preference. • Why the resurrection of Jesus has better historical evidence than most accepted events of antiquity Most historical events are accepted provisionally, and with varying degrees of confidence. Yes, there’s better evidence for Jesus’ resurrection than the very-low-confidence history, but then, the claim that Marie Antoinette said "Let them eat cake" is extremely mundane. If you’re positing that something happened that, categorically, has never otherwise been seen or reliably documented, the bar needs to be higher than “there’s better evidence than other provisionally accepted historical claims.” The resurrection is but one hypothesis to explain the extant evidence; there’s many more hypotheses that also explain the extant evidence, and do so without positing a deity and miracle. If we apply Occam’s razor, the hypotheses that do not multiply entities should be preferred over those that do.

Got the old reply-then-block treatment. I accept your concession.

“you need to account for [evil].” What “evil” do you mean? If you mean disobeying god, then no, I don’t need to account for it since, if there’s no god, then there’s nothing to disobey. If you mean suffering, then no, I don’t need to account for it since suffering would be expected in a universe without a god. If you mean people doing “bad” things, then no, I don’t need to account for it since I also don’t think there’s any inherent “good” or “bad.” Did I miss any? “Why does evil exist?” I don’t think it does. “Why do objective values exist?” I don’t think they do. “Why do humans have real moral obligations and moral knowledge and free will?” Real moral obligations - I don’t think real moral obligations exist. Moral knowledge - this assumes moral obligations, which I reject. But I think this could be salvaged by asking “why do we have a conscience?” I don’t need to account for this beyond “I don’t know”; however this can be accounted for easily in that we are a social species; playing nice with others is beneficial for survival and reproduction. Can you show that evil exists? What sort of “evil” is it?

If I believed in god and had reasons for it, I’d be shouting it from the rooftops, eager to drill down and show everyone I’m right.

Take this as a PSA. Using Romans 1:20 to try to tell atheists that they actually believe in god actually proves the bible to contain errors. I absolutely know the contents of my mind, so if your book contradicts what I know to be true, then that demonstrates that the book contains a falsehood.

No, I’m an owl 🦉

You’ve essentially said that my defining the universe as necessary is baseless and not defensible. And guess what? I think you’re right. Same goes for those who define god as necessary. Make sense?

Specifically, what is the difference between life and non-life? If there is a self-replicating molecule that uses organic molecules around it to create a mirror-image copy of itself (perhaps with occasional minor differences), is that molecule alive? Is there some mechanism that prevents a molecule like that from forming from other molecules that are not self-replicating?

That’s a HUGE if. Even AiG doesn’t think it’s Noah’s ark. Tough to find a more sympathetic organization than that! answersingenesis.org/noahs-a…

Is the Eucharist the flesh of another human being? I don’t believe it is, so I don’t think Catholics are cannibals. However, if it is the flesh of a human as Catholics say it is, then yes, Catholics are cannibals. Right?

Peter didn’t write 2 Peter 🤦‍♂️

Idk. Both premises of the Kalam are undemonstrated. The first relies on intuition and disanalagous behavior of already existing matter/energy within the universe. The second takes the past finitude of our spacetime and treats us as the beginning of everything.