Feed on Posts or Comments 25 July 2014

Christianity Thomas on 09 Nov 2010 12:11 am

Christians try so hard to prove their God did it all…

Kent Hovind asks a question:

Question for Physicist Stephen Hawking

Physicist and author Stephen Hawking says that no God was required to make the universe. Stephen, please give a scientific explanation for how your computer came to be without referring to any outside source of power or design such as “man.”

Your answer must be confined to natural causes within the elements of the machine. You can refer to physical forces like inertia, gravity, centrifugal force, etc., even though it could be argued that even they need a designer! If you choose to involve long time periods for your explanation, then also please factor in the disintegration and natural decomposition of the various materials in the computer as well.

One of the replies is excellent:

Kent, this is so silly I hardly know where to start the analysis.

We know how computers are made; we can see them being built or we can even buy the parts and build them ourselves. To exclude “man” as a possible explanation of computers is akin to excluding gravity from our explanation of the earths revolution around the sun.

On the other hand, we can’t witness Gods creating universes. We don’t see Gods forming planets, or men out of dust. We see natural processes and natural forces directing the universe. To attribute the cause of the universe to natural forces is analogous to attributing computers to man; that is, it’s closer to what we observe than what you’re proposing.

You can argue that Hawking is wrong with his conclusions, and perhaps he is. But to draw these goofy analogies does less to support your claim than if you just asserted it blindly.

156 Responses to “Christians try so hard to prove their God did it all…”

  1. on 11 Nov 2010 at 3:07 pm 1.A Romatic said …

    kent is absolutely correct. Computers are nothing more than natural materials designed, manufactured and programmed for a specific purposes by intelligence.

    To suggest the universe which is much more complex in design came about by “natural processes” is not silly. However it is silly to observe that man used “natural processes” to create a computer and then to claim God did not do the same for a universe is quite silly and the product of fairy tales.

  2. on 11 Nov 2010 at 3:36 pm 2.azriel said …

    drawing this analogy is ridiculous. Theists can put forward much better arguments, this one is hardly worth the time spent reading it, never mind answering it!

    I think educated believers would agree that this damages thier credibility and contributes nothing to the debate

  3. on 11 Nov 2010 at 5:58 pm 3.Thomas said …

    Theist put forth arguments while the atheist put forth “i dunno”. Well, maybe “time and chance” is their argument. Anyhow, regardless all they do is cry God does not exist while offering nothing.

  4. on 12 Nov 2010 at 4:59 am 4.Anonymous said …

    What take more faith. Believing that a Supernatural god/ creator made very thing you see, or believing that everything made it self?

  5. on 12 Nov 2010 at 5:48 am 5.Joe said …

    Well, when you believe that a supernatural entity was involved you assume (at least) one more entity for your explanation than those who do not believe this, namely an entity that is far more complex than everything you would like to explain with it. So for me it is obvious what requires more faith.

    The really big faith thing, however, comes into play when someone believes that this supernatural entity was noone else but the Christian god. This is where the big problem starts.

  6. on 12 Nov 2010 at 2:00 pm 6.Lou said …

    “What take more faith. Believing that a Supernatural god/ creator made very thing you see, or believing that everything made it self?”

    That’s an easy one. God takes less faith. That’s like asking does it take more faith to believe my hamburger cooked itself or did I use fire. One more entity, yes, and completely needed.

    And Joe, atheist have no explanation for creation so obviously you have not even put the puzzle together. Therefore you are clueless to how many pieces it would take.

  7. on 12 Nov 2010 at 6:24 pm 7.Julien said …

    Let’s answer Anon’s question: what takes more faith?

    1) The Universe created itself

    2) The Creator created itself. Then the Creator created everything else, magically.
    (or maybe He comes from SomeWhere, some UberWomb, perchance? But then who created God’s Mom?)

    As I see it, point 1) is a leap of faith. Point 2) is a very silly double leap of faith.

    We don’t know everything. In fact we may know very little, but that’s no excuse for putting forth imaginary magical beings as a “solution”.

  8. on 12 Nov 2010 at 6:39 pm 8.Lou said …

    “The Universe created itself”

    So you don’t buy into the “always existed”
    group of atheist?

    Lets examine this claim. When is the last time we as a race witnessed anything of great complexity “create itself”? Inevitably we come to the answer never.

    No, it is much more sensible to imagine a all powerful creator outside of the material world creating our universe. Make perfect sense which is why the vast majority believe in this theory.

  9. on 12 Nov 2010 at 7:27 pm 9.Julien said …

    Lou, where does this “creator” comes from?
    Has he always existed?

    How is this claim any different from the claim that the universe has always existed ?

    FYI, there is a lot of things of great complexity that “create themselves”. YOU have billions in your body. They are called “cells”. That’s how scars heal, that’s how we reproduce, that’s how we stay alive.

    For other examples, look-up “bootstraping” on google. You’ll discover thousands of self-creating phenomena that do not need any outside -or magical- help.

    ie: “Vast majority” ? Of southern baptists americans, maybe… Anyway, what the majority believes is of no import to any valid argument. The majority once believed that the earth was flat.

  10. on 12 Nov 2010 at 9:04 pm 10.Lou said …

    Julien

    Thanks, but we ALL know cells reproduce. Did you know humans do to? But alas, that first cell,,,,,hmmmmm produced by pure chance, time and luck? I think not

    Yes Julien, how is the universe always existing and God always existing different?

    Well as for my view, God has intelligence, creativity and the ability to design and think. The universe does not.

    Yes, we also know scientist thought the world was flat. Yawn! So old and lame! Scientist have thought many things that are incorrect. This line of reasoning is fallacious since the majority believe many things that are correct.

  11. on 13 Nov 2010 at 12:30 am 11.Hell Yeah said …

    “Well as for my view, God has intelligence, creativity and the ability to design and think. The universe does not.”

    I totally disagree with your view since God would have had to have been created somehow as well. And if you think God came from nothing, then you are just describing the same place the universe came from. Matter and energy could have always existed in some form, even before the big bang. Scientists are currently re-creating a miniature version of the big bang with the particle collider. Who knows, maybe our current universe came from a previous universe’s miniature big bang experiment that went wrong and we are in a universe inside another universe.

    And maybe the intelligence that we think is intelligence is actually because we only think it is intelligence. We may be only percieving that it is. Something to ponder.

    Also, if you believe an intellignet being created the universe, who is to say that this thing when it created the universe as you say didn’t just leave it alone after that? What I am getting at is why do you think this creator of the universe relates to the Christian God? It could be a totally differnt God like I said that just left the universe alone after it created it. How does that translate into an afterlife for us? Who is to say that we don’t all just die and that is it for all of us, even though we were created? All other living things don’t get to your heaven that you believe in. What makes those creations not as special? Just something to think about since your whole entire beleif system relies on an afterlife.

  12. on 13 Nov 2010 at 12:47 am 12.Rostam said …

    “our current universe came from a previous universe’s miniature big bang experiment that went wrong and we are in a universe inside another universe.”

    Ha Ha Ha, and they claim God is ridiculous. Maybe we are riding on a turtles back too?

    Hey how about this one, who knows maybe God created like so many in the world already believe!

  13. on 13 Nov 2010 at 1:32 am 13.Hell Yeah said …

    Rostam,
    I like how you leave out in my quote the part where it starts with “who knows, maybe….”.

    On a side note, I just saw this headline. “Ticket bought at Michigan porn shop worth $129M.”
    Wow, God works in mysterious ways, doesn’t he? LOL

  14. on 13 Nov 2010 at 9:35 am 14.Jacob james said …

    You are all wrong, God is love, God loves all of you, and strives for a realtionship with you, he is very much real, and it saddens me that you all would go so far out of your way to try and prove that he doesnt. In truth i just typed out a 30 paragraph essay explaning to everyone who reads this blog, why I think God is real, and why he loves you, And i accidently clicked something and it was instantly deleted. But thats life we take it one step at a time, I advise you all to actually read the bible, and try and get something out of it, I have been a christian for the 16 years that I have been alive, i have seen many maricles, and experianced Gods love. I contenue to read the bible and strive to understand him better, as well as understand why we are here. I am a Christian, a republican, and an american, I love my country and the God who allowes us to still have it! The time right now is 1:26 Am so im going to bed, I will pray for the people who wrote this website as well as the people who have read it and will read it! God loves you all, you are his creation, as are all the things of this earth, But you are his masterpiece, his grand finale! you are the work of art by the greatest artist in existance! And Jesus Christ Died for you, so that you might one day find the truth and come to him to spend eternity in heaven! Christianity is about faith not science, you cant prove God does exist and you cant prove he doesnt, because it is not a question of facts and science, but one of love and faith, Something everyone finds in their heart and must answer themselves.

  15. on 13 Nov 2010 at 12:11 pm 15.Thomas said …

    :I totally disagree with your view since God would have had to have been created somehow as well.:

    Why u just acknowledged matter may have existed forever in some form??

    The atheist here are so inconsistent with their logic.

  16. on 13 Nov 2010 at 12:45 pm 16.severin said …

    8 Lou
    “So you don’t buy into the “always existed”
    group of atheist?”

    No one ever gave a logical answer to a simple question:
    If god “always existed” together with all his power and intelligence, and was not created, what is wrong with the idea that universe (matter/energy) was not created, but always existed, together with its “built in intelligence” (natural laws)?
    WHY is “always existing” and “not being created” applicable to gods and is not applicable to matter/energy? WHY?
    A “creator” necessarily needs a creator of himself!
    With creation theory, at the very moment you say that “A created B”, a logical question, which MUST be logically answered, appears: who/what created A?
    If you do not answer this question, you break the logical cause-effect chain, stopping it by your will, at a place of your choice, which is logically not right.
    With something spontaneously “always existing”, there is no problem with “creator’s creator (etc)”: it just existed and will exist, behaved, and will behave, according to “built in” natural laws. No need to make up ”creators”!
    What would be the logical difference between always existing god and always existing matter/energy?

    Why is it so uncomfortable to say (if necessary): matter/energy = god?
    Of course, in that case we have problem with all religion ever made up by humans, and that might be very uncomfortable for believers.
    Anyway, not more uncomfortable than all the questions they get all the time, and have no logical answers to them.
    For example, how do we know Christianity is more reliable than “Ra-ism”, Islam, Quetzalcoatl-ism, old Chinese creation legends….?
    How do we know any of those legends are true?
    Which “Christianity” is the right one and why? Catholicism? Orthodoxs Christianity…

    Do Orthodox Christians go to heaven?
    Do Muslims go to heaven?

  17. on 13 Nov 2010 at 1:19 pm 17.severin said …

    8 Lou
    “No, it is much more sensible to imagine a all powerful creator outside of the material world creating our universe. Make perfect sense which is why the vast majority believe in this theory.”

    It is only much more comfortable, because it excludes using of your brain.
    Instead of thinking, you just listen and obey churches. Depending on your geographical position, and/or depending of religion of your parents, you accept techings of one of many Christian religions, or one of many Islam religions (today), orRa-ism, Zeus-ism, Quetzalcoatl-ism (in past)….
    There are no essential differences among all those religions:
    All of them are (were) “only” and “true”.
    All of them, all the time, punished “heresies”, in most cases very brutally and painfully
    All of them imposed their religions to others by brutal force
    All gods were equally selfish, brutal, jealous, all of them (including Jahve) had typical human characteristic (even in case they were presented as animals), except some unnatural characteristics and “powers”, which differed form god to god.
    Etc.

    About majority: shall we go back to majority believing earth was a plate?

    A few billion people was wrong, during millenniums, so what? They corrected their opinion by accepting scientific achievements.
    Slowly, but surely, they will correct their opinion about gods, too.

  18. on 13 Nov 2010 at 1:26 pm 18.dxt said …

    What we know today from what science tells us is “A” is the best explanation. Things are not just popping into existence today under natural law. We are able to conclude then that everything was created. In order for that to be plausible we don’t need to explain the explanation. You can’t explain the supernatural through natural law. Science is not allowed to consider the supernatural, that’s why we have evolutionary theories that have not been proven because they can’t happen. You have to go to the farthest reaches of your imagination to try to explain the unproveable.

  19. on 13 Nov 2010 at 1:32 pm 19.severin said …

    10 Lou
    “Yes Julien, how is the universe always existing and God always existing different?”

    It is not!
    But CREATION is excluded! No need to ask your mom who created god!
    No need to ask anyone who created universe, either!

    Therefore you can put universe = god, which EXCLUDES CREATION, but also excludes ALL human made up religions.
    Unless they were all equal and all turned to scinece for better understanding of the universe we live in.

  20. on 13 Nov 2010 at 1:39 pm 20.severin said …

    12 Rostam
    “Maybe we are riding on a turtles back too?”
    Maybe! What is essential difference between god’s “creation” of man from mud, from the Bible, and the “earth standing on turtle’s back” legend?
    Please explain!
    If your god made man from mud, why wouldn’t another god place earth on the turtle?

    Earth on turtle’s back does not fit reality/science?
    Don’t tell me!

  21. on 13 Nov 2010 at 1:55 pm 21.severin said …

    10 Lou
    “This line of reasoning is fallacious since the majority believe many things that are correct.”
    So, you use, to support your ideas, “appeal to majority” arguments only when they fit your opinion!
    In other cases it is “fallacious reasoning”!
    Others are forbidden to use such “arguments”, they are reserved for you!

    We do not use such arguments anyway, you may easyly see it in all posts written by atheist.
    We only turn your attention that such “arguments” are not valid.
    An argument about people believing earth was flat is a good argument: they massively believed something wrong to be true!
    An “argument” that something is true because “many” believe it, is not a valid argument!

    Please!
    Do you really take us as idiots?

  22. on 13 Nov 2010 at 2:42 pm 22.Hell Yeah said …

    #15 I was reffering to it as if you think something couldn’t have come from nothing, then your God couldn’t have come from nothing. But if something has always existed, matter and energy is the only applausable explanation to have always existed. That was the point I was making.

    ———–

    “Science is not allowed to consider the supernatural, that’s why we have evolutionary theories that have not been proven because they can’t happen.”

    That is because the supernatural doesn’t exist. And evolution has been proven through the study of fossils. There was also an island that a certain species was put on in the early 1980′s and in that short time there are signs of evolution in that species. I just came across that not to long ago, but cannot remember the exact details offhand. Where is there any evidence of the supernatural in the past and present? There is no proof of the supernatural. There aren’t even any real signs that point to it. The only things that believe the supernatural are real are all relgions. You believe all other religions are wrong but yours. Conclusion? The supernatural is just a made up story.

    —————

    “we don’t need to explain the explanation.”

    Why not? Because it puts a hole in your theory? And besides, in your case the explanation is similar to what is being explained. For example, humans create things. Humans were created according to your “explanation”. But with the things humans created, isn’t the explanation of those things that humans created them? But then according to your theory, humans shouldn’t need to be explained how they were created then? Do you see now why it is correct to seek out how your God was created?

  23. on 13 Nov 2010 at 2:47 pm 23.Hell Yeah said …

    #14
    “i just typed out a 30 paragraph essay explaning to everyone who reads this blog, why I think God is real, and why he loves you, And i accidently clicked something and it was instantly deleted.”

    Ain’t life a bitch! LOL

    ————–

    “I have been a christian for the 16 years that I have been alive, i have seen many maricles, and experianced Gods love.”

    Um, get a full education first. You are just another example of a brainwashed kid. Watch out for your priest in Sunday school! LOL

  24. on 13 Nov 2010 at 3:01 pm 24.Hell Yeah said …

    Still no one wants to take a stab at this?:

    ….if you believe an intellignet being created the universe, who is to say that this thing when it created the universe as you say didn’t just leave it alone after that? What I am getting at is why do you think this creator of the universe relates to the Christian God? It could be a totally differnt God like I said that just left the universe alone after it created it. How does that translate into an afterlife for us? Who is to say that we don’t all just die and that is it for all of us, even though we were created? All other living things don’t get to your heaven that you believe in. What makes those creations not as special? Just something to think about since your whole entire beleif system relies on an afterlife.

  25. on 13 Nov 2010 at 3:59 pm 25.dxt said …

    Hy,

    Science is not allowed to consider the supernatural because it would not be science then. Why do you think that philosophy and theology were considered “queens of science”? They can only supplement what know because there is no evidence or proof at all for the beginning of all things through natural law other than scientific theories. That’s where all these macro evolutionary theories come in….its natural scientific theories. Science tries to explain it through natural law. What then, is irrational about supernatural events? Supernatural events are above and beyond scientific naturalistic explanation, hence the name SUPERnatural. By saying that the supernatural does not exist, as if you are an all knowing creature, is in fact taking the irrational position considering what we know today. If evolution were true the fossil records should be littered with transitional species considering the course of billions of years of changes. All we keep finding is creatures made after their own kind, sound familiar? So in short, philosophy and theology, the queens of science, can allow us to legitimately explore the SUPERnatural realm of creation. You can believe that through natural law everything comes into existence all you want but hey, I might just sprout wings one day and soar like an eagle then too.

  26. on 13 Nov 2010 at 4:39 pm 26.Observer said …

    #25 dxt- You are sinking lower and lower into the cesspool of your theological belief system.

    It is obvious from your blather you still have no concept of what science is or isn’t. Why don’t you read Karl Popper?

    First, science can consider anything. It is appropriate that you call theology a “queen of science” as that is a proper homoerotic metaphor (are you gay? the Xtian thing must get tiring); Science is the “top” and theology “takes it”. I believe serious philosophy today is almost exclusively concerned with epistemic issues and has little to do with science per se.

    Skipping over some of the dross in your writing, you again apply a total lack of clarity in thinking to your notion of the supernatural. A supernatural event is something that does not make sense in the context of the observable world or natural law. In so doing, you confuse ignorance with supernatural. It was just a blink of the eye historically that lightning was considered a supernatural emanation from the heavens. You might still think that is so, but folk somewhat more familiar with scientific inquiry over the past two and one half centuries know it to be something utterly mundane.

    As the “no proof of macro-evolution” cannard so often thrown around here, why does not one look at the perfectly well documented evolution of the whale? Myself and others have brought that up on the blog before, but you theistic folk do not look at it.

    dxt- Seriously, how old are you? Teen, young adult, middle aged, senior? What is your educational level? HS, assoc. degree, bachelor’s from an accredited school ( so not Liberty, Bob Jones, Wheaton, etc. ), prestigious school (e.g. Assoc. of American Universities), graduate degree, terminal degree? Area of study, physical science, social science, humanities, life science, engineering?

    Me, American, male, middle aged, prestigious school, graduate degree in physical sciences, semi-retired, and very sad that his country is going down the tubes due to poor education and the ascendancy of idiotic filth like the Tea Party, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and various other para-political Christian groups. Considering going ex-pat, but know the results of the American Idiocracy getting their hands on the nuclear arsenal is far scarier than a anything in the Middle East or elsewhere- so staying for now.

  27. on 13 Nov 2010 at 5:04 pm 27.Horatio said …

    From HY:
    “That is because the supernatural doesn’t exist. And evolution has been proven through the study of fossils.”

    Yes? HY Please provide the evidence that PROVES both of these suggestions. I see this claim constantly and proof is never provided by the hard-liners. Please be clear if you are proving macro-evolution. I already accept micro.

    Observer,

    Since you are such a bitter old codger I would seriously consider a cruise in the Persian Gulf. My apologies, I felt certain you are a 22 yr old wanna be hanging out in your mom’s basement. Your posts makes this so likely.

  28. on 13 Nov 2010 at 5:16 pm 28.dxt said …

    Observer,

    Thank you for chiming in once again and sharing your hatred. I actually have never known of an individual who can say a whole lot of nothin’ using so many characters. Your post refutes nothing I have said and only testifies that is only filth that spews from your mouth….did you need a napkin after writing that one? Your whale example, have you looked at the size of your so called “intermediate?” Kind of looks like a sperm whale to me. Much much larger than the other two. Some intermediate, if I’m assuming the same example without following the slobber trail of all your posts. When you have some REAL evidence, let me know untill then….have a crappy day.

  29. on 13 Nov 2010 at 5:21 pm 29.Observer said …

    #28 dxt- So you choose to be one of the either willfully or lazily ignorant? My guess is you are really too young to be painting yourself in a corner. Broaden your mind, you world will broaden too. Good luck.

    Hor- Whatever.

  30. on 13 Nov 2010 at 7:44 pm 30.severin said …

    25 dxt
    “Why do you think that philosophy and theology were considered “queens of science”?”

    When? At times when (almost) nothing else existed but philosophy and theology? At times when barbers played roles of dentists, and people studied poetry, medicine, philosophy and theologu all in one study?Those times passed!
    From Newton on, physics is the queen of sciences, and is more and more today.

  31. on 13 Nov 2010 at 7:50 pm 31.Hayabusa Gurl said …

    Think of how retarded the average person is, and realize halve of them are stupider than that.

    Sent from my Android phone

  32. on 13 Nov 2010 at 8:04 pm 32.Xenon said …

    dxt,

    We pretty much ignore Observer. He has proven to be an elitist hater of many people groups (especially the South). Not worth much of a response.

    I would like to see this fossil record that proves evolution. All I have seen is a fragmented record with huge gaps that proves we have fossils.

  33. on 13 Nov 2010 at 8:38 pm 33.severin said …

    27 Horatio,
    What? Here you are again playing role of a theist?

    By clearly recognizing “natural causes” of events, and clearly distinguishing them from events caused by “god’s will”, you showed us that you, in fact, are a hidden (hypocrite) atheist, that you do not believe in god, but in nature, but you prefer to stay in comfortable position with majority of believers surrounding you.
    It just “happens” that your sincere secret thoughts “float” to surface, unwillingly, but inevitably. It is called “Freud’s error”, and has nothing to do with god, only with nature.
    Shall I track back that fundamental comment of yours, to show it to others?

    YOU can not be a “hidden” (hypocrite) theist, because no theist would ever admit there were any “natural causes” of anything that do not depend on god’s will, as you DID.

    YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.

    If you like to keep some benefits of “being” (pretending) a theist, I do not cpmplain, but please do not debate here!

  34. on 13 Nov 2010 at 9:16 pm 34.severin said …

    32 Xenon
    “All I have seen is a fragmented record with huge gaps that proves we have fossils.”

    No one ever saw anything that proves there was a god.
    So, what you have seen is something.
    What you have to show us is nothing.

    When you show us a fragment of a fossilized god’s bone, maybe we pay some attention to theist’s blah-blah-ing no matter of dimension of “gaps”.

  35. on 13 Nov 2010 at 9:27 pm 35.severin said …

    32 Xenon
    “We pretty much ignore Observer.”

    Who is “we”? Please be specific and say honestly: “we theists”.
    I do not ignore him at all, I learn from him a lot.

    Of course, both ignoring and ignorance are typical for theists: they do not want to hear anything that does not fit their beliefs, and they do not want to learn anything.
    Typical!

  36. on 13 Nov 2010 at 9:32 pm 36.dxt said …

    Severin,

    Do a little homework and you’ll find that philosophy and science go hand in hand. Your posts are starting to make me ill. I’m starving from lack of intellectual debate.

  37. on 13 Nov 2010 at 9:48 pm 37.dxt said …

    Xenon,

    It certainly isn’t difficult to tell he is a hateful individual. I feel sorry for someone who looks at life like that. He can not provide any macro evolutionary proof because there isn’t any except, apparently, his only whale example. Which is non-sense. Billions of years supposedly and this is their best example?

  38. on 14 Nov 2010 at 3:43 am 38.MrQ said …

    From some of the religiously inclined, posting previously on this thread comes:

    He can not provide any macro evolutionary proof because there isn’t any

    Please be clear if you are proving macro-evolution. I already accept micro.

    I would like to see this fossil record that proves evolution. All I have seen is a fragmented record with huge gaps that proves we have fossils.

    Some of these same individuals quoted here use the biologos.org website when suggesting that science supports the bible. So, if biologos can state:

    the term evolution means a change over time. For example, one might say that laptop computers have evolved over the past decade. But when biologists use the term, they refer to the entire history of life on Earth.

    What really is your position, boys? Is Biologos a good christian site? Why are you always referring to it if you don’t subscribe to evolution?

  39. on 14 Nov 2010 at 3:58 am 39.dxt said …

    #38 Mr.Q,

    I believe the first comment is mine. I dont know of a “Biologos” website. When I say “evolution” on here I use the term loosely. I do mean, macr-evolution as I do not know of anyone who does not believe in change within its own species. My position is that I deny macro-evolution as denied by the Scriptures and confirmed by science. It has never been observed because it can’t happen.

  40. on 14 Nov 2010 at 4:05 am 40.MrQ said …

    Well dxt,

    Hor and gas bag often tout biologos.org as a good example of how religion and science co-exist harmoniously. Except, of course, when it’s not convenient to do so ;-) .
    Check it out for yourself.
    Also, check out the views of one Ken Miller, a practicing Catholic. http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
    Dare to be enlightened.

  41. on 14 Nov 2010 at 4:31 am 41.dxt said …

    #40 Mr.Q,

    I mean no disrespect but allow me to be frank. I really could care less about how religion and science co-exist. Christianity does not sit on a religious pedestal. Christianity explains ultimate reality, the way things are as absolute truth and is authoritative on any and every subject matter it deals with. That is also my position.

  42. on 14 Nov 2010 at 4:40 am 42.MrQ said …

    dxt,

    No need to pop a stitch, buddy.

    I was pointing out that some of your fellow xtians are of the mindset that evolution is real, Macro and Micro. These scientists use the same bible, same set of inerrant words and sentences, the same god that you believe in and they still manage to live comfortably with the theory of evolution. No conflict for them, evolution is REAL. Yet, somehow, you fail to see the same “ultimate reality”, the same “absolute truth” that they so clearly see. Hmmm…Why is that?

  43. on 14 Nov 2010 at 4:58 am 43.dxt said …

    Hahaha, no worries I didn’t pop any stitches. Its just so often claimed Christianity is a religion.

    I do not know any Christians stances on here and how they read the Scriptures. If the Genesis account is not taken as literal then the question is, when do you start believing? This only sets the stage for a mystical, spiritual approach from the very onset. How then can you “rightly divide the Word of truth?” Your interpretations are liable to become skewed. The Catholic religion believes the Scriptures are perfectly in line with evolution and do not take Genesis as literal, as in the physical creation of man. So religion has some play here.

  44. on 14 Nov 2010 at 5:07 am 44.MrQ said …

    dxt,

    Well you really should meet Hor (post #27). He has suggested that the planet Earth is billions of years old. And he is a follower of Jesus, but he says that he is not a Christian (probably means he is not a member of any particular denomination). He is trying to use science to prove the bible. But he fails to realize that believing in a god is purely an act of faith – It does not require any proof.

    I take it that by your calculations we (Earth and humans) have only existed for thousands of years? Less than 10,000 years?

  45. on 14 Nov 2010 at 4:30 pm 45.dxt said …

    #44 Q,

    I am not quite sure how to respond to this because I have not gotten to a young earth/old earth study and examined the evidence yet. The Bible doesn’t give a specific date of creation that I am aware of and am more inclined to believe it is a theolological issue. Can one claim the earth is billions of years old and still deny that the macro-evolutionary process took place? I dont see why not. Although it is also my understanding that evolution needs to have a long time frame to support its theories, or else it crumbles and falls.

    I sometimes will withhold the term “Christian” when asked what I believe just because it conjures up all kinds of thoughts just as I read on here. The term “Christian” is used very loosely and in a very broad sense. I sometimes will use “Bible believing Christian” or “A believer in the God of the Bible” to kind of narrow it down for the individual. I myself have no affiliation with any denominations.

    I differ with your opinion in that a belief in God is purely an act of faith. Assuming you mean blind faith, as in no evidential proof of His existence. I see loads of proof of His existence in the Genesis account alone, of which science affirms today. The faith part falls on the individual who thinks science will come up with proof that everything came into being through naturalistic law. This is just one example. There is nothing blind about it if you look at the hard evidence. The atheist will burn up their entire lifespan waiting for proof of His non-existence or, proof of naturalism, in rebellion against God and further proving Scripture with their futile thoughts. I recognize the spiritual magnitude of this age old battle of Truth VS Error and unless you humble yourself and go with where the evidence leads, you wont get any closer to discovering the Truth. It up to everyone to decide, im just on here to defend it.

  46. on 14 Nov 2010 at 5:42 pm 46.severin said …

    41 dxt
    “Christianity explains ultimate reality, the way things are as absolute truth and is authoritative on any and every subject matter it deals with.”

    43 dxt
    “If the Genesis account is not taken as literal then the question is, when do you start believing?”

    Now, finally, you placed yourself somewhere and enabled us (me) to understand your point, at least partially.
    I admit I do not understand whether you do, or don’t believe Genesis?
    Do you take Genesis as one of “absolute truths” Christianity “explains”? Do you take god’s picking mud to make a man as “ultimate reality”?

    Nevertheless, please list for me/us several “absolute truths” Christianity/Bible give/explains as ultimate reality.
    I have no intention to lead you, but: the Bible is the ONLY source of Christianity. I do not know for any other. Do you?
    It must be then, that the Bible is the book positioning “absolute truths” and “ultimate reality” before us?

    So, please, give me/us some examples of what from the Bible we (I) should take as absolute truth and ultimate reality.

    Only a few examples will do, but you are, of course, free to list as many as you wish of them.
    Please DO NOT bother yourself/me (us) with your own explanations and interpretations! Just give me pure examples: WHAT from the Bible ARE the absolute truth and the ultimate reality?

    It must be my bad English which disabled me to quite understand you before. Now I understand, and am only waiting for your examples.
    Enlighten me (us)!

  47. on 14 Nov 2010 at 5:49 pm 47.severin said …

    45 dxt
    “…unless you humble yourself and go with where the evidence leads, you wont get any closer to discovering the Truth.”

    Can you kindly explain why would humbling yourself be a “conditio sine qua non” for understanding anything?

    I was tauhght that for understanding of something 2 conditions are necessary:
    1. Some intelligence
    2. Adequate previous knowledge/education

    No one ever mentioned to me (and to anyone I know) humbling as condition to understand things.

  48. on 14 Nov 2010 at 8:04 pm 48.dxt said …

    Severin,

    If you would have liked to know my position, all you would have to do is ask. I thought I implied my position fair enough. To further clarify for you, I take the Genesis account as a literal 6 normal solar days of creation. I know of no legitimate reason why it should be taken otherwise. It is the plain reading of the text, nothing mystical about it. I take Genesis as the truth of creation, yes. It is not mud that man came from it is dust, to which he will return. “Mud” is more in line with evolution in the “warm little pond” theory.

    You ask me to list several truth statements the Bible makes concerning absolute reality, I say I already have. Read Genesis, there are more than several. I’m keeping it short with you severin because you have proven to me that you are not interested in what the Scriptures say, so I fear for the wasted time and effort. The Scriptures contain everything we need to know pertaining to the Ultimate reality of Gods glory, mans salvation and faith and life.

  49. on 14 Nov 2010 at 8:52 pm 49.dxt said …

    Severin,

    To ask me a question of why we should be humble ourselves as a condition to discovering truth is to tell me that you do not understand the nature of truth. Discovering the truth of ultimate reality does not come free, it has a cost and is not easily carried out. When confronted with absolute truth and you come face to face with it, you very much should have a humble attitude. Sure, you can live your life just fine at the opposite spectrum but like I said, it has a cost and eventually everyone will pay it. So, you can humbly accept it now and pay out the cost in this short life of ours or you can pay dearly for it later throughout eternity after
    its to late. So it is your task to humbly seek it.

  50. on 15 Nov 2010 at 12:25 am 50.Observer said …

    #49- dxt Really, what is your background. You are an intriguing case.

  51. on 15 Nov 2010 at 1:33 am 51.dxt said …

    Observer,

    Why does it matter and why would I enlighten you? For what reason would I give more information for you to throw into your analogies?

  52. on 15 Nov 2010 at 3:17 am 52.Observer said …

    #51 dxt- The reason I am so interested in your background is two-fold: First, you seemed to show some interest in learning when you first got onto this website. That has since abated entirely and that lack of curiosity is hard for me to comprehend in humans who have the time and resources to goof off on a website such as this. Secondly, as you have morphed from the aforementioned “willing to learn” into the antithesis, my question is why? The easiest way to understand how something is where it is is to understand from where it came- hence my question to you. I am flummoxed, and trying to understand my own world, of which you are a part, a bit better.

    Your response to me was very uncharitable. Are those your Christian values? Aren’t you fold supposed to witness?

    Here is something related to your analogy issue.

    http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/this-is-your-brain-on-metaphors/?hp

  53. on 15 Nov 2010 at 4:36 am 53.dxt said …

    Observer,

    I see nothing uncharitable about my last statement to you. In fact, it is quite charitable compared to your posts to me. I happen to stumble across this website some time ago and could not help myself from replying to some ridiculous claims I read on here. I tend to be a little critical and tenacious when defending Scripture but afterall, it claims to be the Word of God. So I dont have a ho-hum approach to it.

    I am always willing to learn observer and if you seem to see otherwise, it is because it is very difficult to share the truth in love when God and His Word are constantly trashed and mocked by individuals who dont have the faintest idea what they are talking about. Now look, you have caused me a run on sentence. I am on here to defend truth and as a fellow brother in arms to this country, I am not afraid to get in the trenches. In fact, I believe it to be a Christian duty, because there is no greater duty than to share the Truth. You see it as goofing off and I see it as an utmost importance to deliver it to a dark and dying world when I see an opputunity. If the truth can change one persons mind, it would be a victory well worth the fight. If not, I also understand why. My time on here is limited due to the hard hearted crowd and lack of fertile soil. You cant come to know Truth observer untill you possess these virtues:

    Mat 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    Mat 5:4 “Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
    Mat 5:5 “Blessed are the gentle, for they shall inherit the earth.
    Mat 5:6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.
    Mat 5:7 “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall receive mercy.
    Mat 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.
    Mat 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
    Mat 5:10 “Blessed are those who have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
    Mat 5:11 “Blessed are you when people insult you and persecute you, and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of Me.

    God is opposed to the proud but gives grace to the humble(James 4:6).

  54. on 15 Nov 2010 at 5:09 am 54.Joe said …

    Regarding the question of macroevolution:

    The idea that there could be an evolution from one species to another was not invented to get rid of God. It just turned out that this is the best expanation for the diversity of biological phenomena we observe in our environment. While there was noone there to take pictures when, say, humans evolved, there are many phenomena that can be explained properly only when assuming that there actually was a macroevolution.

    There are, for example, characteristics of the human DNA that can best be explained when seeing them as the result of a process of macroevolution.

    See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
    for example.

    Another example is the phenomenon of ring species. Very roughly speaking, you can say that a ring species occurs when the original species, the new species that evolved form it, and all intermediary links, live at the same time.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

    Of course, a creationist could always say all these phenomena are just in the way they are because God created them like this. But then the creationist would not only give no explanation for the phenomena we observe (and instead, just refuse to give an explanation), but s/he would also have to answer the question: if a god (or several gods) created this world, why on earth did they create it in a way such that it looks exactly AS IF there had been a macroevolution?

    I think the intellectually more decent and honest position (more decent honest in view of what we actually observe) is to assume that there was a macroevolution indeed. And this is exactly why people came up with the idea of macroevolution in the first instance.

  55. on 15 Nov 2010 at 5:28 am 55.Hell Yeah said …

    Still no one wants to take a stab at this?:

    ….if you believe an intellignet being created the universe, who is to say that this thing when it created the universe as you say didn’t just leave it alone after that? What I am getting at is why do you think this creator of the universe relates to the Christian God? It could be a totally differnt God like I said that just left the universe alone after it created it. How does that translate into an afterlife for us? Who is to say that we don’t all just die and that is it for all of us, even though we were created? All other living things don’t get to your heaven that you believe in. What makes those creations not as special? Just something to think about since your whole entire beleif system relies on an afterlife.

  56. on 15 Nov 2010 at 5:31 am 56.Hell Yeah said …

    dxt said, “I take the Genesis account as a literal 6 normal solar days of creation. I know of no legitimate reason why it should be taken otherwise. It is the plain reading of the text, nothing mystical about it.”

    Hmmmm…..so please tell me how light was created by God the day before the sun was?

  57. on 15 Nov 2010 at 5:46 am 57.Hell Yeah said …

    Micro-evolution: Change within species.
    Macro-evolution: Change into new species.

    So when changes have been done within a species, and some change in different ways, wouldn’t they be slightly a different species? And then they branch off again changing within their own different species, and so on. So if you believe in micro, how is it difficult to believe in macro?

  58. on 15 Nov 2010 at 8:42 am 58.Joe said …

    Let me say some words about this, Hell Yeah. (I used to think that the Genesis account was historically correct, so I will answer this on the basis of what I learned about creationism back then.)

    What creationists believe is that there can be changes within a species, but that these changes can never add up to the extent that a new species develops. Among creationists, the line between two species is typically drawn at the point where the individuals of two populations cannot inter-breed anymore. (Evolutionary biologists have got a somewhat more complex take on what constitutes a species.)

    Anyway, given this creationist train of thought, the phenomenon of ring species that I referred to above is important because it shows that micro changes between individuals can indeed add up to an extent such that interbreeding is not possible anymore, i.e. micro changes can indeed add up to macro changes.

  59. on 15 Nov 2010 at 11:34 am 59.severin said …

    53 dxt
    “I am on here to defend truth… “

    Can you tell us how do you know it is the truth?

    Believing in something does not make it the truth.
    All you are doing to prove the Bible right, to make the old book “true”, is citing THE SAME BOOK!

    Citing of a book does not make the book the truth.
    I might cite many fairy tales for you to prove them “true”. Would you trust me?
    If I told you I believed in Zeus and cited old Greek legends to prove myself right, what would you say?
    My word against yours! My books against your book!
    Zeus is real, Zeus is creator, Zeus is god, because it is written in books I cite!
    Or, maybe it was Allah, because it is written so in Koran?
    Or, maybe it was Ra, because it is written so in stone ideograms in Egypt?
    Or, the creator might be any god ever worshiped by humans, because it was written so in some books, or told so in some legends, which can be easily “proved” by citing them.
    WHY is the Bible more reliable than any other religious book, stone writing, and legend, ever written?
    Is it because you say so, or because the Bible itself says so?
    How would you defend “the truth” of the Bible without citing the book itself?
    Do YOU have something to say? Do YOU have some opinion of your own?
    Some arguments of your own?

    “Mat 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

    Do you agree to belong to “poor in spirit”?

    In that case I can only be sorry for you. Especially if you are young.

  60. on 15 Nov 2010 at 12:10 pm 60.severin said …

    58 Joe
    “Let me say some words about this, Hell Yeah. “

    Wow!
    Why don’t you tell us something about High’s boson too?
    Or, maybe you could teach us something about theory of reltivity?
    Or, why don’t you tell us some words about aerodynamics of plains?

    Are you a recognized expert for evolution or for genetics?

    Scientists TOLD YOU how to get electricity from atoms, how to use your mobile phone, how to heal tuberculosis, how to make plains…, and YOU took it for granted. YOU use all those things without doubting in their functionality and without asking “how does it work”.
    You TRUST scientists!
    Have you ever doubted something heavier than air can fly, when you entered the plain?
    The idea that such a big machine can fly did never make you nervous?
    You TRUSTED scientist who did all that for you, you never questioned their achievements that made your life more comfortable and more safe.

    When the SAME scientists say something about evolution and genetics, YOU find yourself bigger expert then them.
    YOU know it better!

    Why don’t you deny Newton, Einstein, Bell, Hawking,…
    If you DO, please throw away everything they did for you (and you USE in everyday life) as unreliable and go to live in a jungle.

    How sad!

  61. on 15 Nov 2010 at 12:18 pm 61.Tedder said …

    “So if you believe in micro, how is it difficult to believe in macro?”

    I can swim multiple laps of an Olympic size pool so why don’t you believe I can swim the Atlantic. I will even demonstrate in the pool!

  62. on 15 Nov 2010 at 1:53 pm 62.Joe said …

    @ Severin (#60): You did not really read my comments in #54 and #58, did you? Your response seems to be a bit misplaced.

    (BTW, yes, I could also tell you something about the Higgs boson, the theory of relativity and the aerodynamics of planes. [Please note the spelling of "Higgs", "relativity" and "planes".])

  63. on 15 Nov 2010 at 3:00 pm 63.Observer said …

    #61 Tedder- That is a pretty foolish attempt at analogy. If you were not a land animal, you would be able to swim the Atlantic, or around the world for that matter. A better analogy from micro to macro evolution would be getting from differential calculus to integral calculus.

    #dxt – Your reply was entirely predictable. What do you think? Is 1/2 = to .499999999(infinite number of nines)?

  64. on 15 Nov 2010 at 3:56 pm 64.A Romantic said …

    Actually Tedder the analogy is quite good. The jump from one species to another is quite the chasm.

    We must understand that both creationism and evolutionism are forensic models of history. Creationists and evolutionists both have the same evidences at their disposal; the same fossils, the same rocks, the same trees, and the same strata layers. The question is which model best fits the existing evidence.

    Both sides are usually able to cram whatever forensic evidence that exists into their model. Evolutionist would bemoan the Creationist claiming it is not science therefore it could not possibly be truth (science, whatever) and Creationist would make the same claim around the Bible and the Creation events.

  65. on 15 Nov 2010 at 6:25 pm 65.severin said …

    62 Joe
    Yes, it seems that I overreacted when I saw “splitting” of evolution to “macro” and “micro”, without going to details.
    Such a division is not recognized in regular science, by my knowledge, but “invented” by creationists to “prove” their “theories”.
    I apologize.

    My English is bad, I know it too, but I am a self-taught, and hope to be excused, if you/all understand me more or less well.

  66. on 15 Nov 2010 at 8:30 pm 66.Joe said …

    @ Severin: ok, no problem, this can happen.

    I agree that biologists typically do not use the terms “micro-” and “macro-evolution” (because this distinction gives the misleading impression that a completely different type of evolution would be taking place when new species develop).

    Nevertheless, science is about asking questions and trying to answer them. So if a creationist has questions about what s/he terms “macro-evolution”, then I will try to answer them, and this is what #54 and #58 were aimed at.

    (Of course, there are dozens of more examples that show why biologists consider evolution the concept that explains best the biological phenomena that we can observe on our planet. And someone who still belives in creationism would have to answer the question of why God, if s/he created the world, created it such that it looks exactly as if marco-evolution had actually taken place.)

  67. on 15 Nov 2010 at 9:49 pm 67.severin said …

    49 dxt
    “When confronted with absolute truth …”

    What is the “absolute truth”?
    That 2+2 makes 4?
    That atom contains subatomic particles?

    You might think so, but:
    When you meet numbers like 0.49 (9 repeated to infinity, see #63), or number Pi, or when you know that only 3 subatomic particles were known only some 100 years ago or less, and some 200 is known today, then you might start to doubt to “absolute truth”.

    I learnt truths in school without being humble to anyone; it was not alowed to make noice during classes, but no one ever asked me to be humble.
    Also, no one ever told me he/she is teaching me “absolute truth”. My teachers warned us that they teach according to current state of science, and that we can expect changes of the “truths” they were teaching with progress of science.
    That is why they suggested us never to stop learning.
    My teachers frequently directed our attention to many previous “absolute truths” which turned to be totally false, such as: sun is orbiting earth. That was the “absolute truth” for milleniums!
    My teachers taught me to think, to pose questions, to compare, to DOUBT, to look for more evidences ….and NOT to take for granted anything, including their lessons.

    That was how I learned about “truth”.

    “Absolute truths” lead to freezing of brain. They lead to errors and to delusions.
    “Absolute truths” make confusion when so many of them attack you from all sides: some 20 christianities, some 5-6 islams, + some 2000 other active religions on earth, EACH of them reserving “absolute truth” for itself, EACH of them denying “absolute truths” of other religions, fighting other religions…and making believers robots.

  68. on 15 Nov 2010 at 10:46 pm 68.Tedder said …

    “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble”

    You think with the little rant above that S would see a reason to be humble.

  69. on 16 Nov 2010 at 2:03 am 69.dxt said …

    #55 HY,

    “Still no one wants to take a stab at this?:

    ….if you believe an intellignet being created the universe, who is to say that this thing when it created the universe as you say didn’t just leave it alone after that?”

    If this were true, your question would be irrelevant.

    “What I am getting at is why do you think this creator of the universe relates to the Christian God?”

    If point one were true…..What Christian God?

    “It could be a totally differnt God like I said that just left the universe alone after it created it.”

    Again, your statement would be irrelevant.

    “How does that translate into an afterlife for us?”

    It wouldn’t. Due to irrelevance.

    “Who is to say that we don’t all just die and that is it for all of us, even though we were created?”

    Irrelevant.

    “All other living things don’t get to your heaven that you believe in. What makes those creations not as special?”

    What Heaven?…..irrelevant.

    “Just something to think about since your whole entire beleif system relies on an afterlife.”

    If a god created the universe, and so happen not to inform us, then we wouldn’t know that it was created. Further, we would not know of a god because that god would have abandoned his creation and have chosen not to reveal himself TO his creation. So, not knowing a god would make all your questions irrelevant. What exactly would you want me to think about?

  70. on 16 Nov 2010 at 2:37 am 70.Horatio said …

    Favorite tactic of the atheist – the fallacy of digression. Rather than deal with existence of God, they move on to specific Gods. I take this as admittance that a God is likely and now they wish to move the debate to a specific God.

  71. on 16 Nov 2010 at 2:41 am 71.dxt said …

    #56 HY,

    “Hmmmm…..so please tell me how light was created by God the day before the sun was?”

    Would an answer to your question have any change or impact on an evolutionary atheistic mind? Would an answer make you come to see the LIGHT?

  72. on 16 Nov 2010 at 3:02 am 72.dxt said …

    #70 Horatio,

    I find it difficult to believe that some individuals on here just aren’t intellectually capable to fathom a creator God. If the creator God played into all our humanistic wants and desires, in other words cool dude and limited to our understanding, and reigned as king to our likes….then I believe alot more people would be on board. The God of the Bible is the issue and alot of people just dont like what He has to say to His creation as the all powerful sovereign King over their lives. Its not A god, but THE God that is the issue.

  73. on 16 Nov 2010 at 3:19 am 73.dxt said …

    #57 HY,

    “So when changes have been done within a species, and some change in different ways, wouldn’t they be slightly a different species?”

    If a child is born with 3 fingers on one hand, would the child still be human?

    “And then they branch off again changing within their own different species, and so on. So if you believe in micro, how is it difficult to believe in macro?”

    A million years go by stemming from this childs genes, would the end still be human?

  74. on 16 Nov 2010 at 4:16 am 74.Brian said …

    Ran across this blog and I just need to throw my two cents in on a few issues.

    How can God be eternal and the universe cannot? If you do believe in a creator then he had to exist before the universe. There are four dimensions that we observe in our universe. Length, Height, Width, and Time. These dimensions do not exist outside the boundaries of our universe according the science. Therefore if God created the universe he exists outside of the dimension of time and is not subject to the same cause/effect laws that govern the operation of the universe.

    Macro and Micro Evolution are irrelevant. Charles Darwin said (not a direct quote but a paraphrase) that if it could be shown that it was impossible for something to evolve into its current state through a series of small changes then his theory would fall apart. This is referred to as “irreducible complexity.” There are numerous biological machines within the cell that if one part is removed the machine cannot function. These machines are what carry out the operations in the cell that sustain life. They are made up of many parts and one would be extremely hard pressed to show a way that they could evolve.

    More on evolution. DNA is a digital, error correcting code. It contains all of the information to replicate itself and correct most errors that are introduced. Programmers look at the language and see intelligence in the code. It is light years ahead of modern computer science. How does random chance create a digital error correcting code from random proteins?

    Absolute Truth. It seems the owners of this website are invested in proving the “absolute truth” that they believe. (I’ve read a little of it not the entire site by any stretch so this may be uninformed.) From what I have read from out of context citations and the commentary it seems they believe that if you can find two apparently contradictory statements in the Bible and God doesn’t operate the way you think He should then obviously God does not exist. That seems a bit arrogant to me.

    I don’t have all the answers and I often a lot of questions but I think there are a lot of atheists that are just as dogmatic and closed-minded as they claim Christians are.

  75. on 16 Nov 2010 at 4:42 am 75.dxt said …

    #59 Severin,

    “Can you tell us how do you know it is the truth?

    Because God said it is.

    “Believing in something does not make it the truth.”

    Right.

    “All you are doing to prove the Bible right, to make the old book “true”, is citing THE SAME BOOK!”

    Right.

    “Citing of a book does not make the book the truth.”

    Agree

    “I might cite many fairy tales for you to prove them “true”. Would you trust me?”

    Not sure what you are asking me but no, you just told me they were fairy tales.

    “If I told you I believed in Zeus and cited old Greek legends to prove myself right, what would you say?”

    Zeus is an old greek legend.

    “My word against yours! My books against your book!
    Zeus is real, Zeus is creator, Zeus is god, because it is written in books I cite!”

    Severin, you just said zeus is an old greek legend.

    “Or, maybe it was Allah, because it is written so in Koran?”

    False gods were foretold of in the Scriptures 300 years before allah was born.

    “Or, maybe it was Ra, because it is written so in stone ideograms in Egypt?”

    Sure, but where is the believable evidence?

    “Or, the creator might be any god ever worshiped by humans, because it was written so in some books, or told so in some legends, which can be easily “proved” by citing them.”

    You just said they were legends.

    “WHY is the Bible more reliable than any other religious book, stone writing, and legend, ever written?”

    Because it is historically accurate, has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, 24,000 copies of accurate NT manuscripts transcribed throught centuries which prove reliability, secondary literature quoting or referring to 25 of the 27 NT books including all 4 Gospels as early as 95 AD proving that what we have today was written by eye-witnesses of the sovereign King, mice to men attitude after the resurrection of which there were 500 eye-witnesses of the living Christ and death, as payment, for not renouncing faith in the living sovereign King.

    “Is it because you say so, or because the Bible itself says so?”

    The Bible.

    “How would you defend “the truth” of the Bible without citing the book itself?”

    I dont define truth. The Word became flesh and dwealt among us, the Word is truth therefore, God is truth. He defines it and reveals it.

    “Do YOU have something to say? Do YOU have some opinion of your own?
    Some arguments of your own?”

    What I have to say and what my opinion is, doesn’t matter. Its what God says that matters. No, no arguments of my own.

    “Mat 5:3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”

    “Do you agree to belong to “poor in spirit”?”

    Of course, thats what Truth does to an individual. Im broken in my sinful offense to God and the only means to redemption is to be on your knees at the foot of the cross of Christ.

  76. on 16 Nov 2010 at 4:47 am 76.dxt said …

    #74 Brian,

    Well said.

  77. on 16 Nov 2010 at 5:59 am 77.MrQ said …

    #70 Hor,

    So good of you to come back. Now if you would be so kind to read my post #38. Do you recognize something I quoted as yours? Something about evolution? Would you care to say if you are or are NOT an advocate of the evolutionary theories espoused by fellow Christian Francis Collins and his Biologos website? In the past you’ve seemed so keen on them.

    dxt,

    I have not gotten to a young earth/old earth study and examined the evidence yet.

    So you’re saying you don’t know the age of our planet Earth? You don’t know how long Humans have existed? But you think the Earth and Humans were created in the same week, correct? Be it thousands or billions of years ago.

    am more inclined to believe it is a theolological issue.

    As opposed to a scientific issue? How could it be resolved theologically? There are some who think the Earth is about 6000 years old. Hor and numerous other Christians/bible believers say it’s closer to 4.5 billion years old.

    Can one claim the earth is billions of years old and still deny that the macro-evolutionary process took place? I dont see why not.

    Faith comes in many flavours. Hor however touts the biologos site and the work of Fancis Collins out of one side of his mouth and then says evolution is all BS out of the other side of his mouth. He’s either confused or too lazy to actually seek honest and real information. He is anti-science, in the purest sense. The range of belief is as varied as the people who believe in god(s).

    There is nothing blind about it if you look at the hard evidence.

    If you’re able to convince yourself of the “absolute truth” of the bible without having to suffer from cognitive dissonance, then you’re a far better man than me. I see nothing in our universe, on our planet Earth, or in my driveway (No I don’t have a Mercedes-Benz….yet) that points to a/any god(s). I look at the hard evidence and enjoy learning. (It’s what I always encourage my kids to do, never stop asking questions) Doubt that it will lead me to Allah, Buddah, Jesus, Vishnu, FSM, Ra, etc but you never know. My mind is open to the TRUTH, as long as it’s not absolute. I love the luxury of being able to say ”Hey, the new data suggests I may have been wrong” and not having it ruin my entire life.

    The atheist will burn up their entire lifespan waiting for proof of His non-existence or, proof of naturalism, in rebellion against God and further proving Scripture with their futile thoughts.

    Wow. I am waiting for proof of his non-existence? I am rebelling? I am burning up my life? Or do you mean I’ll be burning in hades for eternity with all the famous and not-so-famous non-bible believers?

  78. on 16 Nov 2010 at 12:15 pm 78.Horatio said …

    “DNA is a digital, error correcting code. It contains all of the information to replicate itself and correct most errors that are introduced.”

    No only that, we would expect to find variations of this code but we do not.

    Hey, but haven’t we proven that DNA was designed and created by time and chance? lol

  79. on 16 Nov 2010 at 1:06 pm 79.dxt said …

    #77 Q,

    Can you please put the post number next to the quote so I dont have to search through all of them to find it.

    Im am posting out of order but your comment to me about a “Theological issue” was specifically in the context of the Scriptures and the young earth creationist view. So why theology you ask, because theology matters…..significantly. Without theology, one can not come to a right understanding of the Biblical God. I have done a little research on the subject since we last spoke and it seems the young earth view is based off the biblical geneaologies back to Adam, which would make my statement incorrect. As I said, I have not studied the time frame of creation as of yet and have not weighed the evidence. I admit, It hasn’t captured my interest due to the long time frame needed for evolution(macro) because evolution can’t happen. So, young earth/old earth, whats the difference, evolutionary speaking? I believe Scripture to be inspired by God and therefore accurate, so I guess, why wouldn’t I belive it when it speaks about geneaologies?

    If you can help me out, as well as others on here, can you provide concrete evidence as to providing proof that the earth is 4.6 billion years old which would contradict what the Biblical geneaologies say? As far as I know, scientists themselves are still batttling this out…and still is a creation vs evolution worldview.

    I will have to get to the rest of your questions later and reply to your comments. Gotta run.

  80. on 16 Nov 2010 at 2:26 pm 80.MrQ said …

    Hor #78,
    Are you saying biologos is wrong?

    dxt #79,
    Are you suggesting that the age of the Earth date debate amongst the REAL scientists is centred on the biblical date (less than 10,000 years) and 4.5 billion years? Do you have a website link to this raging debate? A book with information? Please provide the information.
    Maybe Hor can help me in providing you with the age of the Earth information. Go for it, Hor.

  81. on 16 Nov 2010 at 3:17 pm 81.Observer said …

    #74 Brian- Did you win the regional BS artist competition? You points one by one:

    1. God existing outside the universe? This is idiotic. The Universe is, by definition, all there is. If something exists, it is in the universe. You are using a rhetorical trick that is not even worthy of a middle school student and those susceptible to this diseased thought have less education or intellect than most middle school students.

    2. Micro and macro evolution are irrelevant? Admittedly, they are just words; both depend on natural selection, mutation, migration, and genetic drift. Your “irreducible complexity” point is not an argument and is nonsense. The term “irreducible complexity” is an idiot term coined by the Creationist pseudo-science community. What is more, you do not make a point by saying that if one thing is removed from a cell it will not function. Genes are constantly turning on and off with cells producing different proteins in response to the environment. Hence a persistence environmental change could remove the need for a particular protein, then if what might have been a fatal flaw from a mutation occurred in one environment becomes no problem in the organism’s current environment. If you knew what is meant by evolution, this would have already been clear to you. The obverse is clear- random changes can create advantages, and successful evolution.

    3. DNA is not a “digital error correcting code” (where do you come up with the crap?) The information is discrete, but so are we and all life. We are made of atoms. Programmers look at the code? Programmers program. Information Science types have and do research the data structure to understand the way it works. They also are very knowledgeable about the structure of silicon mono-crystals. If a programmer looks at DNA and sees intelligence, the programmer is not very intelligent. DNA is capable of containing an immense amount of information compactly but that makes it no more intelligent than a DVD ( Please do not prove your stupidity by responding with something asinine like “See! DVDs are created! DNA proves Creation!”)

    As for the “Absolute Truth” point, I cannot speak on behalf of this website’s creators. Atheists are concerned with truth, the “Absolute” part seems superfluous to me. But they are dogmatic about truth to be sure. Since the IQs and education levels of atheists tend to be considerably higher than the rest of the herd, they know that if A is posited as true, then an example where A is not true means that A is not true, then maybe A’ is true,… This is how rational inquiry proceeds. When one reads the nonsense and rubbish in the Bible, it means that it is not true. There night be some useful information in it, but I am hard-pressed to think of a unique utilitarian taboo making it worth the while wasting time studying it.

    Brian- try to educate yourself. Read something that is Nobel grade versus what appears to be your usual Jehovah’s Witness grade idiocy.

    And now I have wasted nearly a half hour.

  82. on 16 Nov 2010 at 6:30 pm 82.Brian said …

    Observer #81,

    Thank you for illustrating the arrogant, dogmatic, closed minded thinking I was referencing.

    I don’t think it’s a stretch to believe that science has not, and cannot, explain our universe completely when scientists operate from observing only 4% of the universe.

    It’s true that scientists have mathematically calculated the mass of the universe. Unfortunately they’re missing 96% of the mass they say is there. They can’t see it, and can’t find it. Is it possible, Observer, that in that 96% reside some things that science can’t explain?

    Maybe you can explain how life began for me. Richard Dawkins resorted to postulating that maybe it was seeded here by aliens when confronted with his inability to explain how life began. (So much more believable than God.) Not evolved! Began! Because without a beginning evolution itself is irrelevant. Is it Goo to Rock to You?

    Denigrating someone who doesn’t agree with you is not a way to win an argument Observer. It really sounds more like. “Yeah well my daddy can beat up your daddy! PPHHHBBTTT!”

    Keep it civil and maybe we can have a discussion. Continue with the insults and you’ll probably be dismissed as someone not worthy of response. Just because you can do this in your underwear doesn’t give you license to be a jerk.

    Now look, you’ve gone and made me waste nearly a half-hour of my time as well.

  83. on 16 Nov 2010 at 7:03 pm 83.Horatio said …

    Brian,

    Observer is also known as Nose Buster. This is what he claimed his friends call him. You can ignore him for the arrogant elitist he fancies himself to be.

    Irreducible complexity is actually a term coined by the biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University. Despite arguments against his theory, they still are logical and practical. I would put up his credentials against Busters any day.

  84. on 16 Nov 2010 at 7:54 pm 84.severin said …

    74 Brian
    “If you do believe in a creator then he had to exist before the universe.”

    What if we don’t believe in creator?

  85. on 16 Nov 2010 at 8:08 pm 85.MrQ said …

    Horatio,

    It’s a simple question. Are you still an advocate of Biologos.org?
    Seems that it has fallen out of favour with you. Just shows that you should have done some very basic research before promoting the site and the teachings of Francis Collins.
    Don’t blame you for the dodge though. You do look a little ridiculous, probably trying to explain to the extended family that biologos is of the devil. You’re such a hillbilly…LOL!!

  86. on 16 Nov 2010 at 8:49 pm 86.severin said …

    75 dxt
    (About reliability of the BibLe):
    “Because it is historically accurate, has hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, 24,000 copies of accurate NT manuscripts transcribed throught centuries which prove reliability, …”

    Let’s agree for a moment9not unconditionally!), not to waste space an time, that the NT is reliable.

    Is the O.T. the Bible, too, or not?
    Is Genesis one of “absolute truths”?
    Who witnessed Genesis?
    Who described it?
    Where are historical artefactcs supporting Genesis?
    How do we know that Genesis was historically accurate? How do we know it occurred the way described in the Bible, the book written several thousand years after Genesis occured, and was written by men?

    What makes that part of the Bible reliable?

  87. on 16 Nov 2010 at 9:36 pm 87.Observer said …

    #83 Hor- You cannot be serious- using Behe as a reference? He is a joke in his profession. Respected biologists point to his lack of success in research as the origin of his “irreducible complexity”. Of course there are many people who have gone against the grain in science only to be proven correct in the end, but the difference with these folks and Behe is that they were allied with progress and the expansion of knowledge. NEVER were they backward looking to Bronze Age superstitions.

  88. on 16 Nov 2010 at 9:46 pm 88.Observer said …

    #82 Brian- What is arrogant in what I wrote? What specific dogma do you refer to? What specifically is closed-minded? I am speaking from the tradition of open-mindedness- the one that has repeatedly dispelled “beliefs” with rational conclusions based on natural science.

    Since you failed to defend you earlier first point, and instead invoked the theist’s best friend, ignorance, in this case of the contents of the universe, you posit the possibility of “God” existing in some dark recess of the unobserved universe. But what about the poor Jew who those fun-loving Romans crucified about 2000 years ago?

    How did I denigrate you? Compare you to your fellow Christians?

    Read some Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche’s “Twilight of the Idols”, Kaufman’s “Nietzsche Reader”, etc. Read a lay-cosmology book like “A Brief History of Time”. The Bible is a dead document used by charlatans to separate people from their money.

  89. on 16 Nov 2010 at 11:15 pm 89.Boz said …

    Right! All scientist who believe in ID are frauds (Behe, Collins) right Observer? I mean if they don’t believe like you they MUST be lesser vessels of intellect. What an idiotic argument.

    We all know that science rejects ID because science is biased against anything outside the natural realm. Therefore science is incapable of making a conclusion in such cases. Leave it to those with wisdom.

  90. on 17 Nov 2010 at 12:44 am 90.dxt said …

    #86 Severin,

    “Let’s agree for a moment9not unconditionally!), not to waste space an time, that the NT is reliable.

    “Is the O.T. the Bible, too, or not?”

    Yes. All Scripture is inspired by God(2 Timothy 3:16).

    “Is Genesis one of “absolute truths”?

    Of course.

    “Who witnessed Genesis?”

    No one.

    “Who described it?”

    God.

    “Where are historical artefactcs supporting Genesis?”

    All the other 65 inspired books of the Bible.

    “How do we know that Genesis was historically accurate?”

    Because all creation attests to it(Romans 1:20).

    “How do we know it occurred the way described in the Bible,”

    How else would we know since no one was there.

    “the book written several thousand years after Genesis occured, and was written by men?”

    Inspired by God through the pens of men. If God created it, He would be able to describe it.

    “What makes that part of the Bible reliable?”

    Because of the other 65 inspired books. The only legitimate creation account known to man.

  91. on 17 Nov 2010 at 1:42 am 91.Xenon said …

    If only atheist required the same FACTS for origins as they do for the Bible, they wouldn’t believe the fairy tales like lightning striking soup and life spring forth from said soup.

  92. on 17 Nov 2010 at 3:37 am 92.Brian said …

    I’m impressed Observer (#88). Apparently you are capable of writing a response that doesn’t fall back on name calling. Progress.

    Lets start with how you denigrate people. In nearly all of your posts responding to someone who believes in a creator you question either their intelligence or their education. Why does someone who doesn’t believe what you believe have to be stupid or uneducated? This one also goes to arrogance. You seem to think that you are smarter/superior to anyone who believes differently than you do. (If I’m wrong about this I’m only inferring by what you have written.)

    Let’s pick up a few of the better words you used. “Idiotic,” “diseased thought,”do not prove your stupidity,”try to educate yourself,” your usual Jehovah’s Witness grade idiocy.”

    “den·i·grate
    1. To attack the character or reputation of; speak ill of; defame.
    2. To disparage; belittle:”

    Your dogma. Natural Science can and does explain everything.

    When I reference dark matter I’m not appealing to ignorance as a justification for belief in God. I’m trying to open your mind to the possibility that there are things science either does not or cannot explain. In my opinion the unwillingness to entertain thoughts that do not conform to your worldview is scientific dogma.

    When confronted with scientific theories that do not follow your strict worldview of what is and isn’t science you dismiss them out of hand (#87).

    Now in response to “God existing outside of the universe.” You have attempted to win the point by defining its terms.

    “The Universe is, by definition, all there is. If something exists, it is in the universe.”

    I see my point as a logical construction. If there is a creator he cannot be part of his creation. Therefore if he is not a part of his creation He must exist apart from it. If He exists apart from it then He is not bound by the natural laws that govern it.

    (Here’s the substandard analogy that can be easily mocked if you wish. But when dealing with things for which we really have no frame of reference other than conceptual, substandard analogies are all I have.)

    I live in a house that I built. I am not part of my house. I can live inside of it and I can step outside when I wish to. The house cannot experience anything outside of itself. I, the builder/creator, am separate and distinct from my house/creation.

    If you refuse to entertain a thought that natural science cannot explain then you are trapped in the house.

    You’re right Observer, I am a Christian. But while I’ve been trying to get you focus on the bigger question (Could God exist?) you want to draw me into other Biblical arguments. You can check but I haven’t cited a Biblical passage yet.

    What do you think of theories that the speed of light may not be constant? How would a variable speed of light affect your worldview? What if it was faster in the past?

  93. on 17 Nov 2010 at 8:10 am 93.severin said …

    91 Xenon
    “If only atheist required the same FACTS for origins as they do for the Bible, they wouldn’t believe the fairy tales like lightning striking soup and life spring forth from said soup.”

    It is fascinating that you believe fairy tales told you about vaccines, atom energy, GPS, flying on planes, protons, electrons…
    Aren’t those only fairy tales? Nothing of those was known in biblical times! Nothing was mentioned in the Bible!
    How did all those things come to you? Where from?
    And you DO accept them! You are not afraid to fall down from the sky when you fly a plane! You DO go to see doctor when sick! You DO use vaccines, mobile phone, GPS…
    You DO trust those “fairy tales” makers who told you it was good and safe for you to use and to exploit their achievments!
    Except when they mention creation! Then, YOU became better physicist than Einstein!
    Throw away all modern theories and devices that make your life nice and safe! All that comes from “fairy tales” makers!
    The VERY SAME ONES who are now talking against creation “theory”!

  94. on 17 Nov 2010 at 8:27 am 94.Jacob James said …

    WOW, i guess ill take a “stab it it” firsts lets start off with ive had a fine education, why dont you go get one? All i was doing was speaking my mind trying to be a little insite to the people that read this website! Through studying the world, as i have seen it, i have no doubt that God didnt stop here on earth im pretty sure he had alot of fun designing all of the galaxys and star systems your scientists are just now starting to discover. You could be right, the God that I have so willingly followed and defended might not be the God that i actuallt thought he was. But I truly do, since their are many truths in the bible, as well as proven facts that point directly toward the Christain God, that he does exist.
    sorry to be rude, its just that I dont really like being told to grow up and get an education, by someone who cant get their facts strait!

    Oh and im not brainwashed! thanks for asking!

    http://vodpod.com/watch/621802-louie-giglio-laminin

  95. on 17 Nov 2010 at 8:52 am 95.Jacob James said …

    God loves each and every person on this planet, because he made them all, we can not begin to understand how he works, and what he does. We can never begin to understand why things happen the way they do, why their is so much death in the world. It was because of Adams choice and God giving us a chance at getting back to him. He sent Jesus Christ his son, to die for us on the cross, because we are not good. We are not perfect, were humans we make, so many mistakes, in every hour of every day, we would be damned to die and disapear forever, to never be, because it would be like we were never here. But i believe that because a being so much greater than myself and everything I have known and will ever know loves me. He loves me! not because I loved him but because, he loves me enough to put up with all of the krap i do in my life, he loves me enough to want to have a relationship with me, and everyone else on the planet. Watch the video i posted before this, a Christian speaker who has an amazing message everyone should see. A message explaining exactly why I belive in God and Jesus, exactly why God is real, heres your scientific, proof, heres your evidence! This is just a piece of a truth so great, its very fabrication surounds us, in everyday living! The world is his creation, to know that there is a God all one needs to do is look around them, and inside them. The precision of every leaf, and the wonder of the stars are the proof, that something greater created them.

  96. on 17 Nov 2010 at 10:48 am 96.azriel said …

    I’ve never understood one of the points made here and oft repeated by christians – jesus died for us

    how did this help? I just can’t understand why this should be seen as helping humanity, if he exsisted – wouldn’t it be better if he stayed alive and helped us out?

    why would a god think that having a son and then allowing him to die would in some way be a beneficial thing?

    Sorry if I’m not seeing something obvious here – but it just doesn’t make any sense to me

  97. on 17 Nov 2010 at 12:14 pm 97.severin said …

    Dxt # 75 and #90

    Let’s try to resume what dxt told us in a few last and some recent posts:
    The Bible, as dxt himself admits, was written by men long after the main events from the O.T, such as Genesis, occurred.
    Genesis is the part of the Bible (written by humans!). It does not meet math, chemistry, biology, physics, common sense, logic, did not leave any artifacts or witnesses, and is not much different from many other “genesis” written, or told in many religious legends.
    What would be the essential difference between a god making man from dust and another god making universe from an egg?
    Moreover, the biblical Genesis (as the whole O.T.! is!) is a “compilation” of previous legends of religious human societies. Biblical “Genesis” was STOLEN form more ancient legends.

    Dxt does NOT recognize those other legends, older than biblical genesis!
    ONLY the biblical Genesis is the “absolute truth” for dxt!

    What we have here?
    Old legends, from which Genesis was stolen, are NOT right. They do not represent “absolute truth”!
    ONLY biblical “Genesis” is the absolute truth, for dxt!
    Why?
    Because (dxt’s) god said so.
    Where, the hell, that god came from, and how can we know he was right?
    He told it in Genesis!

    Genesis says that god exists, and god says (in Genesis!) that Genesis is the absolute truth!

    Please!
    If you don’t know better, go back to elementary school!
    Do not try to sell us such a garbage!
    Do not make fool of yourself!
    You are not dealing with idiots!

  98. on 17 Nov 2010 at 12:43 pm 98.dxt said …

    Azriel,

    If you dont know the character and nature of the triune God, you wont understand it. To fully explain this, this would be an extremely long post. To keep it short, God is Holy, Holy, Holy and perfectly Just. If you understand Holiness then you understand sin and the condition of man and His relation to God. In order for God to atone, once and for all, all the sins of all the people who will ever believe, it required a PERFECT sacrifice. This perfect sacrifice would mean to fully fill Gods perfect law. No man has ever fully filled Gods perfect law. The only perfect being is God Himself, so He loved US(His creation) so much, that He took it upon Himself and sent God the Son to the cross and shed His blood for the perfect sacrifice for the perfect atonement….once and for all for all who will believe. “It is finished” were the words of Christ on the cross, He perfectly carried out God the Fathers will. So in order For God the Father to require the blood of God the Son to redeem us once again into a right standing relationship with Him then He must really love us.

    If you are of the believing ones and have saving faith in the living Christ…then your sins have been paid for. If you have not, saving faith in the living Christ, you are still in your sins and will be judged by the perfect law of God.

    Hope this cleared up some things for you.

  99. on 17 Nov 2010 at 12:56 pm 99.azriel said …

    98.dtx

    thanks for your response

    I’m sorry but I’m no clearer though. Why atone for sins? if he is perfect and loves us perfectly, why require a sacrifice? why provide the sacrifice himself? what difference could a sacrifice make to a perfect being? If we needed his forgivness, why couldn’t he just give it? If there was a christ and he could do all the stuff it says in the bible, that would’ve been really usefull, especially in terms of communicating his own exsistence. If he could do it then why didn’t he do it again?

    I’m not trying to be difficult or dense about this, but it seems such a central part of the belief system and I just can’t get my head around it

  100. on 17 Nov 2010 at 1:09 pm 100.dxt said …

    #97 Severin,

    “Let’s try to resume what dxt told us in a few last and some recent posts:
    The Bible, as dxt himself admits, was written by men long after the main events from the O.T, such as Genesis, occurred.
    Genesis is the part of the Bible (written by humans!). It does not meet math, chemistry, biology, physics, common sense, logic, did not leave any artifacts or witnesses,”

    Severin, creation was a supernatural event and of couse does not apply to natural law. why do you think we are here debating, or whatever you want to call this.

    “and is not much different from many other “genesis” written, or told in many religious legends.”

    Show me another religion with credentials equal to Scripture severin…..then we will talk.

    “What would be the essential difference between a god making man from dust and another god making universe from an egg?”

    Credentials

    “Moreover, the biblical Genesis (as the whole O.T.! is!) is a “compilation” of previous legends of religious human societies. Biblical “Genesis” was STOLEN form more ancient legends.”

    Credentials…show me the money!

    “Dxt does NOT recognize those other legends, older than biblical genesis!
    ONLY the biblical Genesis is the “absolute truth” for dxt!”

    Ultimate, absolute truth is not a subjective issue.

    What we have here?
    Old legends, from which Genesis was stolen, are NOT right. They do not represent “absolute truth”!
    ONLY biblical “Genesis” is the absolute truth, for dxt!

    Again, not a subjective issue.

    “Why?
    Because (dxt’s) god said so.”

    No, because the creator God of the Bible says so.

    “Where, the hell, that god came from, and how can we know he was right?
    He told it in Genesis!”

    Credentials

    Genesis says that god exists, and god says (in Genesis!) that Genesis is the absolute truth!

    God IS Truth.

    “Please!
    If you don’t know better, go back to elementary school!
    Do not try to sell us such a garbage!
    Do not make fool of yourself!
    You are not dealing with idiots!”

    The Gospel of God is so simplistic that even a small child can understand it and so rich that you could spend an entire lifetime discovering all its Truths. It is also true severin, THAT MEN HATE THE TRUTH! No man can serve two masters(Matthew 6:24).

  101. on 17 Nov 2010 at 1:11 pm 101.dxt said …

    #99 azriel,

    I will get back to you but gotta run to work right now.

  102. on 17 Nov 2010 at 3:31 pm 102.severin said …

    70 Horatio
    “Favorite tactic of the atheist – the fallacy of digression. Rather than deal with existence of God, they move on to specific Gods.”

    Favorite tactics of theists – the fallacy of idiocy: make up so many gods that no normal human being is able to find sense in it, and claim each one of them is the only and the true one.

    How do you expect us to take you seriously, when YOU (theists) made up so many (“specific”) gods!
    How do you expect us to take you (theists) seriously, if each religion claims only THEIR god is the one, the only and the true one?
    NO religion recognizes gods other then their own!
    ALL religions fight all other religions, claiming their gods are not real.
    ALL religions use all available means (including, even today, killing and torturing) to “persuade” people that only THEIR god is “one, only and true”.

    If there is a “universal” god, as you suggest in your comment, WHY aren’t all religions unified?
    WHY are there so many religions on earth, fighting each other and spitting on other religions?
    Why isn’t here, on earth, only ONE religion, for ONE “unspecific” (“universal”) god?

    When you, theists, make order among your gods, THEN, please, come to try to persuade us that there is only one “unspecific”, “universal” god.

    Until then, we will smile and kindly and patiently expect some explanations for your lunacy.

  103. on 17 Nov 2010 at 4:55 pm 103.Lightning Boy said …

    “I’m sorry but I’m no clearer though. Why atone for sins? if he is perfect and loves us perfectly, why require a sacrifice?”

    Azriel God cannot do anything contrary to His character. He cannot lie, cheat, steal etc since those would contradict His character.

    Because He is Holy, He cannot be in the presence of sin. The justice of God requires payment for those sins. Just as society requires payment for those who break laws, God requires payment for His laws that are broken. This payment God requires can be done by the individual man or man can accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ as atonement for their sin. It is a great plan that one needs to accept.

  104. on 17 Nov 2010 at 5:07 pm 104.severin said …

    100 dxt
    “Credentials…show me the money!”

    Do some search for yourself!
    The O.T. is a copy of much older Jewish scriptures, nothing more, nothing less.

    Christian “writers” did not bother much to even change old Jewish scriptures much.

    When Jewish “Bible” was written, Christianity did not exist.

  105. on 17 Nov 2010 at 6:12 pm 105.azriel said …

    i still don’t undertand this. Why would he require payment? If he is perfect and loves perfectly this doesn’t seem to make sense. What would be gained by it? why would death be a payment? And why would the death of an individual pay for others sin?

  106. on 17 Nov 2010 at 6:15 pm 106.Brian said …

    Severin #93

    “It is fascinating that you believe fairy tales told you about vaccines, atom energy, GPS, flying on planes, protons, electrons…” etc. etc. etc.

    Great list Severin! One small problem though. You point to many scientific discoveries, inventions, and innovations that are observable and subject to scientific analysis. Christians (generally) don’t have a problem with that.

    But, as has been observed here, “Who witnessed Genesis?” Fair point. Who witnessed the Big Bang?

    Many scientists come to the table with a preconceived bias that supernatural explanations are off the table. They then look at data that is not testable. I mean it happened billions of years ago. And work to fit it into a naturalistic world view.

    Other scientists come to the table with a preconceived bias that doesn’t take supernatural explanations off the table. They look at the data and see evidence of a designer.

    Both views are valid but neither is truly testable. So it is possible to accept true scientific advancements while being skeptical of scientific theories that cannot be proven either way.

    Statistical analysis of the fundamental structure of the universe shows that slight deviations in a number of variables would make the universe as it exists impossible. The odds of each variable just happening to occur by chance are so high that by mathematical definitions it is impossible.

    Either view takes FAITH. My opinion is that mine takes less faith than yours. I fall back on an infallible creator and yours rests on fallible men.

  107. on 17 Nov 2010 at 6:31 pm 107.Joe said …

    Regarding biblical accuracy:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/NonStampCollector#p/u/0/RB3g6mXLEKk

  108. on 17 Nov 2010 at 7:27 pm 108.azriel said …

    brian , by suggesting that small changes to variables would mean that the universe couldn’t exist as it does now, aren’t you confusing cause and effect? Surely the universe is as it is because these variables are as they are. If they were different, the universe would be different

  109. on 17 Nov 2010 at 7:39 pm 109.Jacob James said …

    This is cool that one discussion has sparked such a debate! Azriel you have some awsome questions, that we can only begin to really answer! Because we are all sinners, and because God loved us so much, he demonstrated through Jesus, what true and unconditional love is as well as the importance of sacrifice in relationships. Jesus offers us eternal life in heaven, he holds out his hand for us to take it. hmmm why would God being perfect require payment…. im actually not sure, iwill go and ask my churches preacher because i dont have the answers to all questions posted on this site, i really dont have very many to start with. Only what I have read in the bible as well as witnessed in life. Its not for him, that he required payment, but there would need to be be payment on our part for our sins, because before Jesus, people made animal sacrifices and burnt offerings to condone for their sin, and what they had done. Apparently God got tired of that and decided to try something different, to find a different way to pay for our sins so that we could spend eternity with him in heaven. Jesus, was the final offering, the sacrifice that would allow that…Since we are sinners and God cant be around sin, he found a way to pay for that sin. With the blood of Jesus. Like I said I am not sure, and I will go ask my churches leaders about it….

  110. on 17 Nov 2010 at 8:00 pm 110.dxt said …

    #104 Severin,

    “Do some search for yourself!
    The O.T. is a copy of much older Jewish scriptures, nothing more, nothing less.”

    Now we are getting somewhere!…. Severin, the “old jewish Scriptures” ARE the Old Testament. So yes, the OT is a copy of the old jewish Scriptures. Why, because “salvation is from the jews”(John 4:22). The Messiah came from jewish lineage (Matthew 1:1). The OT, or old jewish Scriptures, are part of the 66 inspired books of the Bible.

    “Christian “writers” did not bother much to even change old Jewish scriptures much.”

    Thank you for noticing!! Finally!! The fact they didn’t change is a testament to their reliability in the copying process. “Christians” did not write the OT, for they were not called “Christians” untill the days of Christ, or, “The word made flesh”(John 1:1-5,14).

    “When Jewish “Bible” was written, Christianity did not exist”

    Exactly, they were not technically called “Christians” but the OT saints were saved by their belief in God(Romans 4:3). Who was the God of the Old Testament Severin?……..Christ….the living Word. John 1:1-5 says this:

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
    He was in the beginning with God.
    All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
    In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men.
    The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.”

    These verses speak of Christ. So, I technically would say that the OT saints were “Christ followers”.

  111. on 17 Nov 2010 at 8:38 pm 111.Brian said …

    Azriel #108

    No I’m not confusing cause and effect. I’m trying to point out, without writing a book, that some people look at the fine tuning of the universe and see design. Naturalists look at it and say well it has to be that way or we wouldn’t be here to observe it.

    Some have even gone so far as to propose a multi-verse theory in which an infinite number of universes exist and we just exist in the one that came out right. (This theory is also a staple of comic books.)

    Those who believe in a creator rely on His design to explain what looks to be design in the universe. Those who do not seem to believe in random chance overcoming all odds to create a finely tuned universe capable of giving rise to life here on earth. I find random chance much harder to believe.

    Now as much as I enjoy these discussions I’m going to try to stop checking in here. It’s costing me too much time on lunch breaks and cutting into my study time at home. I wish you all the best and hope that everyone will keep an open mind and stay civil.

  112. on 17 Nov 2010 at 9:13 pm 112.dxt said …

    #99 Azriel,

    “I’m sorry but I’m no clearer though. Why atone for sins?”

    In order for man to live forever with God, sin must be dealt with. Sin is lack of perfection and righteousness and obedience. God is perfect and can not dwell forever with anything less, that is His nature and that is His very essence. Sin must be dealt with.

    “if he is perfect and loves us perfectly, why require a sacrifice?”

    Sin requires blood for atonement. Blood is the life of the flesh therefore, sin requires death.

    “why provide the sacrifice himself?”

    In order to atone for all sins ever committed by every believer once and for all, a perfect sacrifice must be made. God then, being the only one who fits this profile then had to send God the Son to provide atonement to God for restoration of all who will believe. God, now applies Christ perfect righteousness to the believer and places the believers sins on the cross of Christ. Its called substitutionary atonement. When God looks at the cross He sees you, when He looks at you He sees Christ. The believers sins are now paid in full and is restored back to God.

    “what difference could a sacrifice make to a perfect being?”

    See above explanation.

    “If we needed his forgivness, why couldn’t he just give it?”

    See above expanation.

    “If there was a christ and he could do all the stuff it says in the bible, that would’ve been really usefull, especially in terms of communicating his own exsistence. If he could do it then why didn’t he do it again?”

    No need to do it again. Its been done…finished.
    God has and is communicating His existence.

    “I’m not trying to be difficult or dense about this, but it seems such a central part of the belief system and I just can’t get my head around it”

    The resurrection is the central part. For us, It was an affirmation of Gods satisfaction for the atonement. Scripture says in 1 Corinthians 15:16-19:

    “For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
    and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
    Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
    If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.”

  113. on 18 Nov 2010 at 12:42 am 113.severin said …

    110 dxt
    “Now we are getting somewhere!”
    Where?

    What difference does it make if we know that Christians were lazy to write their own religious books, but only copied books from other religions, and even stole their god?
    EXACTLY the same logic is applicable to Christian, Jewish, or any other gods and books.

    All your claims can be put in one single sentence:
    God is real, because it is written in (Jewish, Christian) Bible, and (Jewish, Christian) Bible is “absolute truth” because (Jewish, Christian) god said so in the same book.

    This sentence is called circular reasoning, and is not logically valid.
    Read more about it.
    Try it with children, and I guess that children older than 10 will tell you what you deserve by trying to “sell” them such a “logic”.

    If you offered some new arguments in favor of Jewish Bible (stolen by Christians), some witnesses of genesis, some artifacts, some chemical analysis, some fossils, some math, or, at least some logic acceptable to common sense, I would be ready for further debate.
    However, it was you who said that only god witnessed Genesis, which he told us in the Bible, which is the “absolute truth” because god said so. Logical rubbish!

    Historical context of the Bible has nothing to do with its reliability.
    Many books with WRONG statements were written during history of human race.
    Such books exist, yes, but have no other value but to tell us what and how people used to think about things before we explained them the better way.
    Newton’s “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” is a perfect example.
    No doubt the book was written by Newton, no doubt Newton existed, no doubt the book exists, even no doubt it was new and ingenious approach to physics for that time.
    However, modern physics disvalued the “truths” that the book stated.
    That physics is NOT valid any more.
    So isn’t the Bible.

  114. on 18 Nov 2010 at 12:55 am 114.severin said …

    dxt
    BTW, why did christians take Jewish Bible?
    Were they lazy to write their own books?

    Do Christians and Jews share the same god?

    If so, why then have we two different religions and not only one?
    Why Christians dislike Jews and v.v., if they have the same god?

    More in my comment #102.

  115. on 18 Nov 2010 at 2:16 am 115.dxt said …

    #113 Severin,

    ““Now we are getting somewhere!”
    Where?”

    You recognizing that the OT is “Old jewish Scriptures”

    “What difference does it make if we know that Christians were lazy to write their own religious books, but only copied books from other religions, and even stole their god?”

    Again, the God of the OT is Christ!…Christ is the God of the OT…Christ=OT God. OT God=Christ. Can you see the relation?

    Hebrews 1:1-2 says:

    ” God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways,
    in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world.”

    Christ says in John 5:39-40:

    “”You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;
    and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.”

    Christ says in Luke 24:44:

    “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”

    “EXACTLY the same logic is applicable to Christian, Jewish, or any other gods and books.”

    Dont think so. Its all about the credentials.

    “All your claims can be put in one single sentence:
    God is real, because it is written in (Jewish, Christian) Bible, and (Jewish, Christian) Bible is “absolute truth” because (Jewish, Christian) god said so in the same book.”

    For the sake of this comment, Right. The difference in the disagreement between Jews and Christians is understood by studying the Scriptures and would take a theological explanation. Not willing to go there with you yet.

    “This sentence is called circular reasoning, and is not logically valid.”

    No severin, this sentence is called the Bible and it explains ultimate reality. Nothing circular about it.

    “Read more about it.
    Try it with children, and I guess that children older than 10 will tell you what you deserve by trying to “sell” them such a “logic”.”

    Scripture is taught to individuals every day, of all ages. What exactly would an 11 year old tell me I deserve severin?

    “If you offered some new arguments in favor of Jewish Bible(stolen by Christians)”

    It wasn’t stolen severin. I have been arguing with you about the Scriptures all along.

    , “some witnesses of genesis,some artifacts”

    Are you serious???

    , “some chemical analysis”

    Look at all the living organisms.
    ,
    “some fossils”

    Look at the fossil record.

    “some math,”

    ???????

    “or, at least some logic acceptable to common sense, I would be ready for further debate.
    However, it was you who said that only god witnessed Genesis, which he told us in the Bible, which is the “absolute truth” because god said so. Logical rubbish!”

    Re-read that one severin. Who else would be there to witness creation?

    “Historical context of the Bible has nothing to do with its reliability.”

    I said credentials and yes it does.

    “Many books with WRONG statements were written during history of human race.”

    Agree.

    “Such books exist, yes, but have no other value but to tell us what and how people used to think about things before we explained them the better way.”

    Agree.

    “Newton’s “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” is a perfect example.
    No doubt the book was written by Newton, no doubt Newton existed, no doubt the book exists, even no doubt it was new and ingenious approach to physics for that time.
    However, modern physics disvalued the “truths” that the book stated.”

    OK.

    “That physics is NOT valid any more.
    So isn’t the Bible.”

    Ok, so when has evolution come up with concrete proof of how life, or anything for that matter, arises from nothing to “disvalue” the creation account of Genesis?

  116. on 18 Nov 2010 at 2:22 am 116.dxt said …

    #114 Severin,

    “BTW, why did christians take Jewish Bible?
    Were they lazy to write their own books?”

    See post 115

    “Do Christians and Jews share the same god?”

    See post 115

    “If so, why then have we two different religions and not only one?”

    See post 115

    “Why Christians dislike Jews and v.v., if they have the same god?”

    Christians who understand the Scriptures do not hate jews and see post 115.

    More in my comment #102.

  117. on 18 Nov 2010 at 3:10 am 117.Lou said …

    dxt,

    lol you are a patient man or just having fun. Sev is purposely ignorant or just completely clueless I’m not sure which. Regardless, Sev is entertaining although half the time I have no idea what he is talking about.

  118. on 18 Nov 2010 at 3:31 am 118.dxt said …

    Lou,

    Im trying to be patient with Severin but I dont know if I can sustain this much longer. He’s killing me ,with what seems to me, an infinite amount of questions. Most of which are repeated. I thought I would answer his questions one by one to stop the repetition but it doesn’t seem to be working. These posts are starting to get extremely long.

  119. on 18 Nov 2010 at 8:52 am 119.Joe said …

    Let me just note that Newton’s “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” is still valid today in the sense that Newton’s theory gives excellent explanations for many phenomena we observe.
    The only thing that has changed since the days of Newton is that we now know more, due to the theory of relativity. More precisely, we know that for a speed that does not come close to the speed of light, Newton’s theory is an excellent approximation, still used for most applications of mechanics nowadays. Einstein’s theory of relativity is an extension of Newton’s theory and gives a more detailed picture.

    The whole Newton-Einstein thing is a very good example of how science develops further and enlarges our understanding of the world by giving more and more precise explanations.

    In contrast to this, those who just stick to texts that are thousands of years old deprive themselves of many opportunities to learn more.

  120. on 18 Nov 2010 at 9:32 am 120.severin said …

    Dxt
    I am sick and tired of debating with someone who takes me for an idiot. I first understood it was just your not understanding of mechanisms of a normal debate, and your lack of logic, but now I think it is deliberately so: you ARE trying to make a fool of me.

    We are on the beginning again.
    Again you give me as “credentials” cites from the same book you want to prove, and nothing more.
    I know for trinity since I was 5, no need to teach me who JC was: according to Bible, he was as much god as “Father” and “Holy spirit”.
    ACCORDING TO BIBLE, NOT according to any proofs, evidences, arguments.

    You was unable to prove existence of god, and to prove Genesis as “absolute truth”. You only repeated: god exists because it is written in Bible, and Bible is truth because god said so in the Bible.

    Now you are trying to swindle me by saying that J.C. was god, and HE confirmed the O.T., in the N.T.
    HE said he was god and his “father” was god, in the N.T., and his disciples confirmed his words.You call THIS “credentials”?
    Same BS again?

    I can not deny existance of Bible. I will not deny J.C. as historical person, although I might. Let him be real.
    Now, please, tell me WHAT makes J.C. a god?
    Try it without citing the N.T.!
    Odyssey “witnesed” about mermaids (syrens) in a book, but it does not make syrens real.

    All that your “credentials” confirm is: the Bible exists, and J.C. (maybe) existed.
    What “credentials” of yours makes J.C. a god?
    None!

    I finish this gloomy “debate”.

  121. on 18 Nov 2010 at 9:45 am 121.severin said …

    119 Joe
    “Let me just note that Newton’s “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” is still valid today in the sense that Newton’s theory gives excellent explanations for many phenomena we observe.”

    In that sense it is valid, and there is no doubt it was a new and ingenious approach to physics.
    It could be said that modern physics starts with Newton.
    His physics is also still valid within some limits, when we can not measure the differences beween results achieved by Einstein physics and Newton physics.

    No one will use Einstein to calculate the speed of a car! At this range of values, Newton is quite O.K., and is actual today too.

  122. on 18 Nov 2010 at 10:00 am 122.azriel said …

    112 .dxt

    mant thanks for your response. It helps to understand the christian perspective on this

    I still find it illogical and baffling, but at least I have a better understanding of why you think what you do about it.

    Your explaination is founded on your belief structure, rather than any objective argument (I’m not being critical here, it’s just the way it is)So I find it impossible to accept some of the statements, since i can see no justification for them; “Sin requires blood for atonement” why would this be true? it just makes your god seem petulant and vindictive – surley he can decide whether payment is due and in what form. Again, if he loves us all perfectly, how can he demand pain and suffering as a payment?

    If he is a perfect being, surley payment would mean nothing to him unless he chose it (and being perfect, his choice would also be perfect)

    “God has and is communicating His existence” I thought that he had been silent since the time of christ and required faith without evidence

    Again, I’m not trying to be difficult or dense about this, and as you say it is central to your belief. Thanks for your responses so far

  123. on 18 Nov 2010 at 10:01 am 123.severin said …

    116 dxt
    I can not resist laughing!

    “see 115″ or “see the Bible” is all what you have to say?

    Maybe you are just an ignorant, maybe you are not trying to make me a fool.
    But you are making a fool of youself!

    Your posts look very much as communist USSR Constitutin (from a joke), which had only 2 articles:
    &1. Communist party is alway right
    &2. In cases communist party is nor right, see &1.

    That is the way you debate:
    The Bible is always right!
    In cases when statements from Bible are impossible to aprove, see the Bible, or see #115!

  124. on 18 Nov 2010 at 10:07 am 124.azriel said …

    109 jacob james

    thanks for your comments, one thing that also occurs to me about sacrifices, they almost always involve the destruction of something (animal or human ) surley this would be an affront to a creator who made the very thing being sacrificed?

    I don’t know, but it’s hard for me to see the reason behind these things, perhaps I am being a bit dense, but it just doesn’t make sense to me

  125. on 18 Nov 2010 at 12:43 pm 125.Lou said …

    Joe,

    Maybe you can be of assistance. How does “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” somehow disprove God or more correctly for some dismiss “the need for God”. I am very familiar with the work.

    Considering Newton was a very devout Christian who saw God as a masterful creator I find it ironic you would go to his work. Considering Einstein was theist/deist depending on his time, I too find that extremely ironic.

    Thanks for any insight.

    dxt,

    Remember what the Bible states about arguing with a fool. Willful ignorance cannot be debated. Sev only parrots, he never actually attempts to understand. I gave up on him, not sure why he is still here. Anyhow, Joe sees reasonable so I’ll give him a shot at my question.

  126. on 18 Nov 2010 at 12:46 pm 126.dxt said …

    #122 Azriel,

    “mant thanks for your response. It helps to understand the christian perspective on this

    I still find it illogical and baffling, but at least I have a better understanding of why you think what you do about it.”

    Baffling yes, illogical no.

    “Your explaination is founded on your belief structure, rather than any objective argument (I’m not being critical here, it’s just the way it is)”

    Ultimate reality doesn’t draw its authority from an argument, it can only point to it such as all of creation.

    “So I find it impossible to accept some of the statements, since i can see no justification for them; “Sin requires blood for atonement” why would this be true?”

    If you dont accept this, I realize this to be true as well. It is explained in the Scriptures as mans disposition. Man is by nature at odds with God, to put it lightly. 1 Cor. 2:14:

    “But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.”

    “it just makes your god seem petulant and vindictive – surley he can decide whether payment is due and in what form. Again, if he loves us all perfectly, how can he demand pain and suffering as a payment?”

    If Gods nature was vindictive as you describe it here, no one would be saved from the depths of hell. We would all be objects of His wrath. The fact that He loves us is the reason He demanded payment…perfect justice.

    “If he is a perfect being, surley payment would mean nothing to him unless he chose it (and being perfect, his choice would also be perfect)”

    God is perfect…No payment, no justice. His choice was perfectly perfect.

    “God has and is communicating His existence” I thought that he had been silent since the time of christ and required faith without evidence”

    God is communicating His existence through all creation as well as His divine attributes. Faith without evidence? I dont know where it says He requires that. Abraham worked off pure faith which was accredited to Him as righteousness from God. There is plenty of evidence we have today that suggests a creator.

  127. on 18 Nov 2010 at 12:55 pm 127.dxt said …

    #125 Lou,

    Severins last post makes it clear to me that debating him is useless. I tried to answer him as directly and in the most simple ways I could and its just isn’t working. I just need to leave it alone because I feel that there is no hopes in breaking through……

  128. on 18 Nov 2010 at 1:17 pm 128.azriel said …

    126 dxt

    thanks again……

    I think I’m still going to be in the dark about this central facet of the christian belief. I really don’t understand your reasoning, I guess we fundamentally differ in the way we view things.

    It seems to me that in order to understand it, you already need to be a believer and take some things on faith – and since I’m not it will always seem impenetrable to me. You have to first believe the text you point to in the bible before you can come to the understanding you describe,

    thanks for describing your thoughts on this, I don’t agree; but at least I can appreciate a little better what christians mean by the significance of this element of thier faith

  129. on 18 Nov 2010 at 1:18 pm 129.goth said …

    hey, are dxt and severin the same person? just arguing with him/herself to fuel the debate? if so, which side is s/he on? lol

  130. on 18 Nov 2010 at 5:44 pm 130.severin said …

    125 Lou
    “How does “Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica” somehow disprove God…”

    Thanks for telling lies.
    No one used Newton’s book to disprove god.
    No one needs to disprove god. Ones who claim there is god have to prove themselves right.
    That is normal way to talk: if I claim there is a flying tea pot, I have to prove it, you have nothing to disprove, only to laugh and wait for my arguments.

    Of course, and typical, when you come to the wall, you start lying as your ultimate tool.

    I only used the book to show that there is no “absolute truth”.

    You prove your god exists.

  131. on 18 Nov 2010 at 6:08 pm 131.Biff said …

    “In contrast to this, those who just stick to texts that are thousands of years old deprive themselves of many opportunities to learn more.”

    Joe,

    Lets see if we can follow your logic? If Christians believe the Bible then we in turn cannot accept classical mechanics, universal gravitation and planetary motion? I must say, I obviously have missed something in the Bible. As noted above Newton was a very solid Christian.

    Could you enlighten me as to where the Bible and these Newtonian laws conflict? At this point I must confess, this is one of the stupidest attempts to marginalize Christians I have ever seen. However, I withhold judgment until your explanation.

  132. on 18 Nov 2010 at 8:07 pm 132.severin said …

    131 Biff
    “Could you enlighten me as to where the Bible and these Newtonian laws conflict?”

    Light before sorce of light
    Splitting of sea…

  133. on 18 Nov 2010 at 8:53 pm 133.severin said …

    131 Biff
    125 Lou

    It is amazing how these people (Lou, Biff…) deliberately twist words of other people to try to make themselves right.
    No one ever used Newton to disprove god, but Lou needed to tell a lie that someone did, to make a “base” for himself to say something.

    Biff claims that example of Newton’s book was used to marginalize Christians, which is, of course a lie.
    See above why was that book mentioned.

    Is Christianity so weak in your own eyes, that you feel that lies are necessary to defend it?

    It is called paranoia.

  134. on 18 Nov 2010 at 9:11 pm 134.Lou said …

    Biff,

    I don’t think Joe will be defending his position. But alas, since Joe seems to fearful of these men who read ancient texts maybe we can assume he will bot longer be accepting Newton’s work. I mean would Newton be considered a lunatic??

  135. on 18 Nov 2010 at 10:23 pm 135.dxt said …

    #129 goth,

    Dont think so. I really don’t think its fueling anything but Severins impatience with me.

  136. on 18 Nov 2010 at 10:52 pm 136.severin said …

    134 Biff
    You ARE paranoic.
    Neither Joe ever said he did’n accept Newton’s work (on the contrary, see his post 119), nor anyone ever said Newton would be considered a lunatic.
    Your imputing of claims that were never said, to people, is worse than just paranoia; THAT could be called lunacy.

    Why is your need to lie so strong?
    Wisit a shrink, man!

  137. on 18 Nov 2010 at 11:00 pm 137.severin said …

    Sorry Biff!

    My post #136 should be addressed to #134 Lou, not to you.

    So,134 Lou
    My #136 is for you, not for Biff

  138. on 18 Nov 2010 at 11:16 pm 138.severin said …

    135 dxt
    It was not matter of inpatience but of boring.

    When you find some arguments other than repeating like a parrot: “see Bible”, “see my post”, you are welcome to expose them, and they will be answered.
    As long as all your arguments start and end with Bible (or with your own unargumented claims), I have nothing to more say to you.

  139. on 19 Nov 2010 at 2:22 am 139.DOG is GOD backwards said …

    Kind of hard for you people wake up to reality when you think God is everywhere and everything. Once you see that it is possible for God not to be everything, the pieces of reality start to fall together. Until then, there is no way for you to see reality until you can get past that.

    So quit trying so hard to try to prove your God is real. All you are doing is trying to make things look like they are proof in any way you can. If God wanted us to know about his creation, then why did he wait until just 2000 years ago?

  140. on 19 Nov 2010 at 3:00 am 140.dxt said …

    Dog,

    If you are going to debate with Christians you should know, at least a little bit, of what they believe. God is everywhere and everything? God is certainly omnipresent but is not “everything”. What you describe sounds like a form of mysticism, which the Scriptures prohibit. Its a form of idolatry.

  141. on 19 Nov 2010 at 3:45 am 141.DOG is GOD backwards said …

    dxt,
    You claim God created everything, so doesn’t that also mean he is everything?

    Also, I should have added to “If God wanted us to know about his creation, then why did he wait until just 2000 years ago?”…that God hasn’t done anything since similar to what he supposedly did 2000 years ago.

  142. on 19 Nov 2010 at 3:56 am 142.Boz said …

    “Once you see that it is possible for God not to be everything, the pieces of reality start to fall together.”

    LOL, Dawg you bounty hunter. God is not “Everything”. God is the creator of everything. God is what brings everything together. I have been an atheist. I know you are searching. Maybe when you get a little older you will see the truth of God.

    Hey, but you won’t find Him in the lab. Sorry, get out of the lab and live. He has proven Himself to me and its not my place to prove Him to you. That is all up to you.

  143. on 19 Nov 2010 at 4:33 am 143.Gwad said …

    “get out of the lab and live.”

    How about get out of the churches on Sunday or any other day of the week that you hardcore Christians go to. Sleep in on Sundays. And if you get to sleep in on Sunday, that means you are able to stay up late and “live” on Saturday nights instead of going to bed by 9:00.

  144. on 19 Nov 2010 at 4:36 am 144.Gwad said …

    By the way, if God is present everywhere, created everything, and brings everything together, doesn’t that mean he “is everything”?

  145. on 19 Nov 2010 at 9:59 am 145.azriel said …

    If god was omnipresent, then he seems to be indifferent to human suffering; he would witness all the terrible things that happen and do nothing

    if there is a god, it seems he either can’t or won’t intervene. If he can’t, he is not omnipotent as christians believe, if he won’t he is not perfect love as they describe, in my opinion

    btw; why is it only the christian theist view we get on this site? any others out there? scientologists, bhuddists etc?

  146. on 19 Nov 2010 at 12:36 pm 146.dxt said …

    Azriel,

    This world as we see it today, with all the death and suffering, Is the effects of mans sin in disobedience to God. Since God is Sovereign, omnipotent, omnipresent etc., He has already provided the means from sin as foreordained from before the foundation of the world. The new heaven and new earth will be the antithesis to what we see in this world today. The serpents head has already been crushed.

    “btw; why is it only the christian theist view we get on this site? any others out there? scientologists, bhuddists etc?”

    Because the God of the Bible is creator and sustainer of everything that exists. He is the only one true living God. Statues don’t talk and they have no authoritative texts to rely on, nor do their texts claim to be authoritative. Their just another false religion whos god doesn’t care if they defend their texts….its not truth and doesn’t claim to be so why care about sharing it and offering any answers.

  147. on 19 Nov 2010 at 12:38 pm 147.dxt said …

    #144 gwad,

    No.

  148. on 19 Nov 2010 at 12:45 pm 148.Gwad said …

    dxt,
    But if everything we see today is because of man’s sin, then what was the point of Jesus dying for our sins?

    ….and your only response to #144 is no? Please explain why you think that isn’t true.

  149. on 19 Nov 2010 at 12:49 pm 149.Boz said …

    G

    You built a strawman. For now on we just call you straw (or maybe wad). You built it therefore you are it!

    BTW, I LIKE being at church and want to be there. I stay up until 11:30PM and I am there at Sunday at 7am my choosing. I have no desire to hang out in bars getting puking drunk, sleeping around and waking up in some cheap hotel.

  150. on 19 Nov 2010 at 1:01 pm 150.dxt said …

    #148 gwad,

    Are you into mysticism? Christ died for God to restore a portion of mankind. He didn’t die for “everything”. “Everything” we see in this world today is part of the curse from the effects of sin, that doesn’t make “everything” sin.

    I said “no” because I have yet to hear such a thing and didn’t feel like elaborating on such nonsense.

  151. on 19 Nov 2010 at 5:13 pm 151.azriel said …

    dxt i’m really suprised at your attitude towards other beliefs. Surely once you’ve made the leap of faith required to believe in supernatural beings, then it is easier to believe or at least accept the belief in other ones? As far as i can see, they are all pretty much the same, some of them much older than your particular one.

  152. on 19 Nov 2010 at 6:28 pm 152.dxt said …

    Azriel,

    Im sorry if you are surprised at my attitude toward other belief systems. Christianity is crystal clear in its major doctrines. Truth is incompatible with error and share no attributes. I understand that people believe differently than Christians and also understand why. Christianity does not accept the union of other beliefs because it is none other than idolatry, to say the least. Others don’t hold a candle to the credentials of the Scriptures as a self proclaimed authoratative source of Truth. If a text is going to claim itself as an authoritative source on anything, it should be able to back it up which the God of Scripture does so beyond convincingly. So, with the backdrop of the Scriptures, why should I believe what another individual has to say about another belief? I would ask the individual to produce convincing evidence of their source of authority. It never has happened, never will happen because it can’t ever happen again. Nevertheless, we are commanded to share it in love because we did not attain it on our own, it requires the Grace of God to shed the light of Truth on the individual. I apologize for coming across as such but was only stating the issues.

  153. on 22 Nov 2010 at 12:42 pm 153.God is a Delusion said …

    Theists,
    You might want to start reading books such as the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. If you don’t feel like reading the whole book, just pick out a chapter or two on the topic you would like to know most about.

  154. on 27 Nov 2010 at 6:58 am 154.Jacob James said …

    124 azriel

    your not being dense… lol
    when i think of sacrifice, i think of a father dying for his little girl, or someone taking a bullet for a loved one, love requires sacrifice to survive, sacrifice in a relationship, like making time for a spouse, or loving them when their not not lovable. Marriage is an example of that, staying through it thick and thin, for richer or poorer, through sickness or health….

  155. on 27 Nov 2010 at 9:08 am 155.Severin said …

    154 JC

    Thank you for wonderful definition of what normal human being can call “sacrificing”!

  156. on 27 Nov 2010 at 12:42 pm 156.Xenon said …

    “You might want to start reading books such as the God Delusion by Richard Dawkins.”

    I have read the atheist Bible. What should i have read that proved God was not real and Christ is not my savior?

    I have the personal experience of Christ changing my life. What did Dawkins provide in his book that should have refuted my experience?

    I have asked these same questions here before but never get an answer.

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply