A Biblical Scholar who can answer most of your questions

[Micah643]

No, if you want to say that there is absolutely no God, the proof is on you as much as it is on anyone else.  Anyone claiming to be a person of science/evidence must have something to support their claim.  The fact is there is no proof against God.  You don't have infinite knowledge, so you can't possibly know that He doesn't exist. 

I think it is unfortunate when one takes this stance.  So, by this approach, it is now incumbent upon all of us to prove that EVERYTHING EVER CLAIMED is not real?  Exactly how is this position useful Micah?  This is a very, very simple concept.  When one makes an extraordinary claim, such as "dinosaurs still exist today", would you think it more appropriate to spend your time proving this to be false?  Or would it make more sense to you to demand that the claimant provide proof?  Exactly how would you go about proving that dinosaurs no longer exist (I know you would not bother, as you would immediately consider the claim patently ridiculous.)

If you believe God is real, and I think your claim is ridiculous, I can say with great certainty that your God does not exist, until you prove otherwise.  The fact that I cannot prove your claim is false, is largely irrelevant, and does not add any validity to your claim - just like the dinosaur analogy.

Jetson, thank you for your post.

If someone told me that dinosaurs are still alive today on some remote island, I would not believe them.  Furthermore, I would not spend any time trying to research it in order to come to a conclusion; howerver, I also wouldn't tell them that they are stupid, that they are an idiot, or that they are "delusional."  I may say, "I don't think that is possible," or "That seems far fetched to me."

Most people who don't believe are agnostic b/c they realize this, thus they say they think there is no God.

Peace - Micah

[yoski]

The problem with Objectivism is that: if you are truly objective, then nothing can be proven.  Eventually the Subject has to step in and say,"okay, now I will believe it."   

The only difference between Theists and Atheists is the amount of evidence needed.  No one can prove or disprove anything with matters of belief as long as there is a subjective sliding scale for acceptance of truth.  Even logic is based on math.  Math, in certain respects, is illogical.  This means that logic itself is not sound.  Logic is pretty good, but still you have to accept it based upon however much evidence you (the subject) deems sufficient. 

So when you find a way to prove something 100%, then there will be a burden of proof.  Until then it is a matter of acceptance.   

[xphobe]

If someone told me that dinosaurs are still alive today on some remote island, I would not believe them.  Furthermore, I would not spend any time trying to research it in order to come to a conclusion; howerver, I also wouldn't tell them that they are stupid, that they are an idiot, or that they are "delusional."  I may say, "I don't think that is possible," or "That seems far fetched to me."

What if 85% of the people around you not only believed in the island dinosaurs, but also believed that the dinosaurs dictated their moral principles, and demanded that the dinosaurs be acknowledged in our government and schools?

[jetson]

If someone told me that dinosaurs are still alive today on some remote island, I would not believe them.  Furthermore, I would not spend any time trying to research it in order to come to a conclusion; howerver, I also wouldn't tell them that they are stupid, that they are an idiot, or that they are "delusional."  I may say, "I don't think that is possible," or "That seems far fetched to me."

What if 85% of the people around you not only believed in the island dinosaurs, but also believed that the dinosaurs dictated their moral principles, and demanded that the dinosaurs be acknowledged in our government and schools?

Thanks for the follow up.  Usually, the analogies go right over the heads of believers - as they do not see their particular beliefs as harmful in any way.

[jazzman]

The evidence for intelligent design is staggering.  There are so many holes in Darwinian theories. 

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to present some of that evidence here.  And while you're at it, describe some of the holes in Darwinian theory.

By the way, when you present your evidence for intelligent design, be sure not to offer statements that merely assert that evolution could not produce this thing or that thing, or that evolution can't produce the kind of complexity we see in nature.  Such assertions will require evidence to support them.  What you'll need to present is evidence of an intelligent designer gained through scientific observation and confirmed through scientific peer review.  Your argument for intelligent design will benefit greatly if you can describe for us the theory of intelligent design, and if you can describe for us some of the basic scientific experiments that have been devised to test for an intelligent designer and how those experiments led to the theory of intelligent design.  Oh, and finally, you can really help your argument if you can name several major research universities -- three or four, perhaps -- that use the theory of intelligent design as the basis for their biology programs.  None of this should be very hard if the staggering evidence for intelligent design is really as staggering as you believe it to be.

Thanks

Jazzman

[xphobe]

Thanks for the follow up.  Usually, the analogies go right over the heads of believers - as they do not see their particular beliefs as harmful in any way.

My last three posts have gone unanswered by the believers.  I know I'm by no means the strongest debater here, so it should be a piece of cake to shoot me down, yet they are silent.  Thus I concur that my posts have simply gone right over their heads.

[Hermes]

Thanks for the follow up.  Usually, the analogies go right over the heads of believers - as they do not see their particular beliefs as harmful in any way.

My last three posts have gone unanswered by the believers.  I know I'm by no means the strongest debater here, so it should be a piece of cake to shoot me down, yet they are silent.  Thus I concur that my posts have simply gone right over their heads.

Take it as a concession that they are unable to answer without spouting what will clearly be seen as nonsense or that they would have to concede your points publicly.

[Micah643]

Xphobe:

My last three posts have gone unanswered by the believers.  I know I'm by no means the strongest debater here, so it should be a piece of cake to shoot me down, yet they are silent.  Thus I concur that my posts have simply gone right over their heads.

Hermes:

Take it as a concession that they are unable to answer without spouting what will clearly be seen as nonsense or that they would have to concede your points publicly.

May be instead going "right over [our] heads," we just haven't had a chance to respond?  There has been nothing said here that is remotely intimidating to believers.

What if 85% of the people around you not only believed in the island dinosaurs, but also believed that the dinosaurs dictated their moral principles, and demanded that the dinosaurs be acknowledged in our government and schools?

If this were the case, I would most likely be interested in it and learn as much as I can about it.  If the dinosaurs were trying to be acknowledged in American schools I would be against it, even if I was a believer in the dinosaurs.  Because America has freedom of religion, the dinosaurs should not be singled out and lifted up by the schools, same goes for God; however, asking questions and dialoguing about the belief in dinosaurs/God should not be abolished.  Thankfully that hasn't happened yet in American schools.

Vynn:

Epic Fail. That was not my trap. You should review my post. Perhaps you'll see it, perhaps not. I don't have much confidence in your ability to spot it, even though it's 20 feet tall, right in the middle of your path, and painted day-glo orange.

Since non of your atheists/agnostic counterparts have replied to my challenge saying that you are making sense, maybe it is user error?  Please explain to me what the trap is, that is easy enough.

Likely as not, i can't show you. I imagine that you're too brainwashed to consider whether or not you might be wrong in your presumptions. I would expect an existing god to have proof as undebatable as sunshine or gravity. The fact that you can't even demonstrate that your god exists makes debating about whether or not he's reasonable pretty funny.

Okay, then don't say, "I can show how the God of the Bible is not sensical."  In one post you say you can, now you say you can't.  I imagine you are too brainwashed to consider whether or not you might be wrong in your assumptions too!  You ASSUME that "an existing God would have proof as undebatable as sunshine or gravity."  Fine, you can have your assumptions, but the intricate and delicate order of the universe, cells, DNA, etc. are very convincing for an intelligent designer.  Please realize you are working through your own assumptions of what should or should not be.

Quote from: Micah643 on Today at 01:04:08 AM
In the MOST sensible way you can, please demonstrate how you know that God doesn't "jive" with reality and how the universe works.

Prove he exists, and we'll talk.

NO, you are the one who said,

Biblegod doesn't jive with reality and how the universe works.

  If you have made another silly and unprovable statement, just let us know and retract.  You just want to say "NO, NO, NO," but when someone asks you why you don't answer. 

So, like i said, you don't worry about other gods. I agree, people adopt stances out of ignorance. I sure think that you have.

How are you defining "worry" in these posts?

Please show what you think is proof of YOUR god existing, and i'll show you how it doesn't make sense. I don't have the burden of proof, you do.

Again, you saying God doesn't make sense puts the burden of proof on you.  Saying he doesn't make sense says that you have already thought through it with his existence, so please just tell us how He doesn't make sense.

I rather think the majority of atheists and agnostics will read my post and understand my point, unlike you. I can hardly help it that you're not even arguing against what i actually said.

Well, they haven't acknowledged in the positive for you yet.  Hmmm....
When you start making coherent statements and backing up the illogical statements you have already made, I will be happy to debate them

No one can simply debate against "God doesn't make sense and I can show how He doesn't," without knowing what context you are talking about.

If you wish to continue to dodge the statements you have made, that is fine.  We can agree to go our separate ways.  There are those on this site who have honest questions, but if you don't, like I said, we can go our separate ways.

Peace - Micah

[Ambassador Pony]

0 for 7, I forgot about Micah.

[xphobe]

What if 85% of the people around you not only believed in the island dinosaurs, but also believed that the dinosaurs dictated their moral principles, and demanded that the dinosaurs be acknowledged in our government and schools?

If this were the case, I would most likely be interested in it and learn as much as I can about it.  If the dinosaurs were trying to be acknowledged in American schools I would be against it, even if I was a believer in the dinosaurs.  Because America has freedom of religion, the dinosaurs should not be singled out and lifted up by the schools, same goes for God; however, asking questions and dialoguing about the belief in dinosaurs/God should not be abolished.  Thankfully that hasn't happened yet in American schools.

Actually it happens all the time in America.  Prayer in classrooms and on sports fields.  Biblical creationism in science classes.  Ten commandments in courtrooms.  Oaths of office and religious tests.  Religious discrimination in the military.  Tax-exempt churches.  Religious slogans on our money and in our Pledge.

Each time we point out a problem however, rather than being thanked for our vigilance defending the Constitution, we are excoriated by the theist majority.  "They're just troublemakers.  Everyone knows this is a Christian country, founded on Christian principles.  Why do they want to stir things up and change them?  They are attacking our most sacred traditions.  Why don't they just leave it alone?"  (conveniently forgetting that it was they who instituted the changes in the first place)

Micah, there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and it is the fastest growing religion on the planet.  Would it bother you to live in a country where the great majority believed that Islam is the source of their morality?  Are you interested in Islam, and trying to learn as much as you can about it?  Have you read the Quran cover-to-cover?  Have you listened to it in the Arabic, as Muslims will tell you is the only proper way to experience it?

[Micah643]

XPhobe:
Thank you for the polite reply and honest questions.  They are much appreciated.

Actually it happens all the time in America.  Prayer in classrooms and on sports fields.  Biblical creationism in science classes.  Ten commandments in courtrooms.  Oaths of office and religious tests.  Religious discrimination in the military.  Tax-exempt churches.  Religious slogans on our money and in our Pledge.

Prayer should be allowed and is allowed in classrooms and sport fields, as long as it isn't a school initiated event.  If I was a teacher, I would never stop a Muslim from praying.  It is his/her right under the constitution.  I don't think biblical creationism should be taught, but I do think Intelligent design should be since it is a tenable position.  In doing so, I don't think any religion should be named, but to dismiss it is to be biased against it.  Any not-for-profit organization shouldn't be taxed.  I am okay with no religious slogans on money or pledges, but to take them off just for that reason is just as wrong as the reason they were put on, perhaps.

Each time we point out a problem however, rather than being thanked for our vigilance defending the Constitution, we are excoriated by the theist majority.  "They're just troublemakers.

If one is truly an atheist, why do they care.  If Everything is meaningless, why would they bother about what people believe?  Even if they thought those beliefs were dangerous, who cares?  Like 911, who cares?  Those were just meaningless people who died in a meaningless act, right?  Of course I don't believe this, especially since my sister was in the second tower.

Everyone knows this is a Christian country, founded on Christian principles.

I am not sure this is a Christian country, but the nation was founded on Christian principles.  Though not all of the original founding fathers were theists, the constitution reveals religious/Christian principles.

Micah, there are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, and it is the fastest growing religion on the planet.

This is actually a misnomer, Islam is not the fastest growing religion in the world.  Islam is the fastest growing in Europe, but they are second in the world to Christianity.  There is also a much different reason to their growth than to the growth of Christianity.

Would it bother you to live in a country where the great majority believed that Islam is the source of their morality?

Yes, b/c their morality sucks.  Their abuses of women and such is appalling. Morality based off Islam is not even comparable to the morality which comes from Christianity.

Are you interested in Islam, and trying to learn as much as you can about it?  Have you read the Quran cover-to-cover?

Yes, I am.  I once flew to New York to visit my sister and I met a Muslim who was flying to NY to fly to India.  I knew more about Islam than he did.  It really surprised him, to say the least.  I have not read the entire Quran cover-to-cover, but I have read a great deal of it.  It actually has some of the most beautiful language of God, and talks about Jesus.  A few verses from the Quran that have stuck with me are:
"He is God, besides whom there is no other deity.  He is the sovereign Lord, the Holy One, the Giver of peace, the Keeper of Faith; the Guardian, the Mighty One, the All-powerful, the Most High!  Exalted be God above their idols!  He is God, he Creator, the Originator, the Modeler.  His are the most gracious names.  All that is in the heavens and the earth gives glory to him.  He is the Mighty, the Wise One."  Surah 59:22-24

Have you listened to it in the Arabic, as Muslims will tell you is the only proper way to experience it?

Unfortunately I don't speak Arabic yet, so I have not listened to or read the Koran in it's original language.  You are right though, they only believe that you can experience Allah through the original language.  Talk about an exclusive religion!!

There are many beautiful verses about God in the Quran, but it isn't the word of God to Muhammad.  There are many noted issues surrounding the text and the historicity of it.

Peace - Micah

[Vynn]

Since non of your atheists/agnostic counterparts have replied to my challenge saying that you are making sense, maybe it is user error?  Please explain to me what the trap is, that is easy enough.

The trap was for MoG. He was trying to show that you can't dismiss their being a god without omniscience. I busted him because i demonstrated how he dismisses all gods but his without omniscience. I showed how he is guilty of what he accuses others of doing. Go back and read my post to see how i did it.

Okay, then don't say, "I can show how the God of the Bible is not sensical."  In one post you say you can, now you say you can't.  I imagine you are too brainwashed to consider whether or not you might be wrong in your assumptions too!  You ASSUME that "an existing God would have proof as undebatable as sunshine or gravity."  Fine, you can have your assumptions, but the intricate and delicate order of the universe, cells, DNA, etc. are very convincing for an intelligent designer.  Please realize you are working through your own assumptions of what should or should not be.

Oh, i can show it, i just don't know if some people will accept it or not. Some people are way to scared to ever give up their belief no matter how much i demonstrate that it is false. That's why to you, i said "Likely as not i can't show you." Perhaps i should have worded that better and said that i can show you, but you're probably to afraid and brainwashed to turn accept what i show you. Sorry about that improper wording on my part. Good call!

As to the rest of your post about all that "intelligent designer" crap, you can go fly that kite somewhere else. You and i were discussing biblegod, and you can't just switch parameters whenever you feel like it. That's cheap and childish and you should consider it beneath you.

NO, you are the one who said,

Biblegod doesn't jive with reality and how the universe works.

  If you have made another silly and unprovable statement, just let us know and retract.  You just want to say "NO, NO, NO," but when someone asks you why you don't answer. 

Oh settle down 'lil pardner. You said this:

In the MOST sensible way you can, please demonstrate how you know that God doesn't "jive" with reality and how the universe works.

Now, since i have no clue which god you're talking about, i hardly know where to begin. If you're talking about "designer god" like you sometimes do, than i have to present something altogether different than if you're talking about biblegod. (And you must admit that you go back and forth as if proving one is proving the other. How stupid is that?!? LOL!)

So, the point is to you. You prove to me whichever god you feel like proving, and we'll go from there. The burden of proof is on you. Don't worry if you can't do it all the way, i'll meet you where you are and go from there. In any case i can demonstrate how the god you posit is illogical.

How are you defining "worry" in these posts?

Oh please! If you're going to get that technical about common colloquialisms used all the frickin' time than don't worry about it.

Again, you saying God doesn't make sense puts the burden of proof on you.  Saying he doesn't make sense says that you have already thought through it with his existence, so please just tell us how He doesn't make sense.

Depends on which god. If you want me to believe, you need to provide proof. You have that burden.

Biblegod doesn't make sense for all sorts of reasons. I can hardly list them here as it would take 20 pages or so. Start with the screwed up creation account. What a pitiful failure to have such an account as that in the bible!! What kind of god would have that in his holy book that he wants everyone to follow. (See, we're not even 10 verses into the bible!)

Well, they haven't acknowledged in the positive for you yet.  Hmmm....

Yes, but meanwhile look at what they've said about your posts. If i were you, i'd not put much stock in simple public opinion, but if you insist, we can.

When you start making coherent statements and backing up the illogical statements you have already made, I will be happy to debate them

This is rich coming from someone who has to have my posts explained two and three times.

No one can simply debate against "God doesn't make sense and I can show how He doesn't," without knowing what context you are talking about.

Oh my gosh!! You think maybe that's why i specifically said that biblegod doesn't make sense?!?! HUH?!? I wonder if that was why i said that? What do you think?!?

If you wish to continue to dodge the statements you have made, that is fine.  We can agree to go our separate ways.  There are those on this site who have honest questions, but if you don't, like I said, we can go our separate ways.

Wow! What a threat! How shall i go on now?

[Ambassador Pony]

but I do think Intelligent design should be since it is a tenable position.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!!

[bertatberts]

The evidence for intelligent design is staggering.  There are so many holes in Darwinian theories. 

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to present some of that evidence here.  And while you're at it, describe some of the holes in Darwinian theory.

By the way, when you present your evidence for intelligent design, be sure not to offer statements that merely assert that evolution could not produce this thing or that thing, or that evolution can't produce the kind of complexity we see in nature.  Such assertions will require evidence to support them.  What you'll need to present is evidence of an intelligent designer gained through scientific observation and confirmed through scientific peer review.  Your argument for intelligent design will benefit greatly if you can describe for us the theory of intelligent design, and if you can describe for us some of the basic scientific experiments that have been devised to test for an intelligent designer and how those experiments led to the theory of intelligent design.  Oh, and finally, you can really help your argument if you can name several major research universities -- three or four, perhaps -- that use the theory of intelligent design as the basis for their biology programs.  None of this should be very hard if the staggering evidence for intelligent design is really as staggering as you believe it to be.

Thanks

Jazzman

Micah what is wrong with the above post (584) by jazzman, that you have too ignore it totally, and yet you reply to the next two posts.
Shouldn't you reply, or are you going to sling me the same BS as you did in the pm you sent me.
IE "I do think I answer most questions I am asked; however, there are a few people on here that are just looking to twist words and who are not here for a free trade of ideas. I am not interested in going back and forth with that kind of person."

[PingTheServer]

glad to have vynn back.

[jazzman]

The evidence for intelligent design is staggering.  There are so many holes in Darwinian theories. 

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to present some of that evidence here.  And while you're at it, describe some of the holes in Darwinian theory.

By the way, when you present your evidence for intelligent design, be sure not to offer statements that merely assert that evolution could not produce this thing or that thing, or that evolution can't produce the kind of complexity we see in nature.  Such assertions will require evidence to support them.  What you'll need to present is evidence of an intelligent designer gained through scientific observation and confirmed through scientific peer review.  Your argument for intelligent design will benefit greatly if you can describe for us the theory of intelligent design, and if you can describe for us some of the basic scientific experiments that have been devised to test for an intelligent designer and how those experiments led to the theory of intelligent design.  Oh, and finally, you can really help your argument if you can name several major research universities -- three or four, perhaps -- that use the theory of intelligent design as the basis for their biology programs.  None of this should be very hard if the staggering evidence for intelligent design is really as staggering as you believe it to be.

Thanks

Jazzman

Micah what is wrong with the above post (584) by jazzman, that you have too ignore it totally, and yet you reply to the next two posts.
Shouldn't you reply, or are you going to sling me the same BS as you did in the pm you sent me.
IE "I do think I answer most questions I am asked; however, there are a few people on here that are just looking to twist words and who are not here for a free trade of ideas. I am not interested in going back and forth with that kind of person."

Hi Bertatberts:

Thank you for urging Micah to respond, but I don't expect he will.  The most obvious reason is that he won't be able to provide any evidence to support the idea of intelligent design.  He also won't be able to highlight holes in "Darwinian" theory that offer valid reasons to reject evolution.  It's likely he's not familiar enough with the theory of evolution to be able to discuss it intelligently.

Intelligent design has been thoroughly denounced and refuted as non-scientific.  There is no ID theory to speak of.  There are no legitimate scientific research programs anywhere in the world that are based on the idea of intelligent design, as opposed to the theory of evolution, as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.  ID offers nothing of scientific value.  We learn nothing about our world by holding to the idea that the complexity that exists in our world is best explained as the work of an intelligent designer.  ID "theory" is a research stopper, not an avenue to greater understanding of how our biological world works.  In short, ID is bunk.

Micah can't support his claim of "staggering evidence for intelligent design," and he won't spend any time searching for or presenting evidence to support that claim.  That's why he won't respond to it.  But thanks for trying.

Jazzman

[Micah643]

The evidence for intelligent design is staggering.  There are so many holes in Darwinian theories. 

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to present some of that evidence here.  And while you're at it, describe some of the holes in Darwinian theory.

By the way, when you present your evidence for intelligent design, be sure not to offer statements that merely assert that evolution could not produce this thing or that thing, or that evolution can't produce the kind of complexity we see in nature.  Such assertions will require evidence to support them.  What you'll need to present is evidence of an intelligent designer gained through scientific observation and confirmed through scientific peer review.  Your argument for intelligent design will benefit greatly if you can describe for us the theory of intelligent design, and if you can describe for us some of the basic scientific experiments that have been devised to test for an intelligent designer and how those experiments led to the theory of intelligent design.  Oh, and finally, you can really help your argument if you can name several major research universities -- three or four, perhaps -- that use the theory of intelligent design as the basis for their biology programs.  None of this should be very hard if the staggering evidence for intelligent design is really as staggering as you believe it to be.

Thanks

Jazzman

Micah what is wrong with the above post (584) by jazzman, that you have too ignore it totally, and yet you reply to the next two posts.
Shouldn't you reply, or are you going to sling me the same BS as you did in the pm you sent me.
IE "I do think I answer most questions I am asked; however, there are a few people on here that are just looking to twist words and who are not here for a free trade of ideas. I am not interested in going back and forth with that kind of person."

Hey Bertaberts.  I am just popping in and saw your post.  I have been underwater with school work here at the end of the semester.  I will try to answer the post in question more thoroughly. 

I have studied the Darwin's theories more than some may think.  Intelligent Design is apparent in the research done even by non-theists.  When Darwin was making bold claims regarding cell structure, he had no clue how advanced the cell was, he couldn't due to the limits instruments he was working with.  If the cell then was like a record player, we now know it to be like the most advanced super computer.  The cell is unlike anything in the physical world that we know of.  Some will just dismiss it as not that big of a deal, which shows me they don't know much about cellular processes.  There is simply information found in the cell that cannot be accounted for in undirected movement.  Even the most brilliant scientists will admit (whether openly or behind closed doors) that there has to be an information source.  Where does the information come from?  Darwin assumed that this increasing information that created more advanced cells came from natural selection, but natural selection reduces genetic information.  As a Christian, I don't have an issue with natural selection.  We can see natural selection happening in the here and now, but when it is taken to a higher level to show differentiation between kinds I do have an issue.  You go and only procreate with your own family for the next 100 years and you will see that no new genetic information has been created, but you will see the loss of genetic information resulting in deformities and retardations.  It isn't that less DNA is being exchanged, but that DNA is having less info.  Instead of having genes that could produce either blue or green eyes, the DNA begins to only be able to produce blue.  Same amount of DNA, just less information.

I think most of us have done the DNA models in class.  If a dog with long hair/short hair(LS) mates with another dog with LS, then they produce offspring with either SS, LS, or LL.  If the LL mates with another LL, then they can only produce LL.  The genetic information is lost permanently for short hair.  The question is where did all of the original information come from?  Natural selection shows repeatedly that it decreases the amount of genetic information.

Ah!  I must go.  There is much to be discussed about this topic, but I need more than a few minutes.  I must write my paper.  I may not be on until Tuesday night, but I do look forward to discussing it further.

Also, it is funny how many times people on here have said I won't be coming back.  I almost find it funny how they are wrong in their assumptions again and again.  Eugenie Scott, a name many of you might be familiar with, once said, "I think I'd be satisfied if Americans got into two habits.  First, ask, 'Is there another explanation?' ....next, 'How do I tell which explanation is better?' ("Science and Religion, Methodology and Humanism," National Center for Science Education, May 1, 1998).  Maybe I can't answer right away b/c there is another explanation, other than I can't answer something?  Maybe there is another explanation to the answers science posits as absolute when they aren't based off anything absolute.  Something to think about.

I must go.

Peace - Micah

[ksm]

Of course, you totally failed to answer the question.

While you're off writing your paper consider this: how many papers have been written on the Theory of Intelligent Design?

And don't depend on your high school knowledge of genetics - real genetics is turning out to be far more complex.

[moG]

My question after you address Pony: How can free will exist if your god is omniscient?

You ask an excellent question that is extremely controversial within Christianity so I would say your question would be answered different by different sects of Christianity. I've actually just been studying this subject and can refer you to a good book called: "Perspectives on the Doctrine of God, 4 views," edited by Bruce Ware. In this book four different scholars argue about four different approaches to this very issue.

Admittedly it is a difficult subject but not one that I believe is without answer (though the answer is theoretical). Here is the best way I can explain how it is at least possible that free will and omniscience can coexist:

I believe the key is in the ability of God to limit himself. Some open theists would argue for a different theory of time. In other words there is no future for God to know, since God is progressing with time and thus the decisions we make are not exhaustively know by God. In this I disagree. I believe there is a real ontological future, but I believe God limits his understanding of this future in various contexts. I believe God is able to see what he wants to see and to limit what he does not want to see. This would mean that there would be two different ways that God deals with the world: General and Specific. God has a general plan for the ages that he will bring to pass (Like the birth, life, death, Resurrection, and return of Christ, and the climax of the world and time). God positively acts to bring this reality to existence sometimes despite our free will (sort of like the legal system which draws boundaries that sometimes impose on our free will). But God is so grand that he is also able to bring this general reality to pass well allowing individuals true free will in their own spectrum. So God truly does not always know exactly what we as individuals are going to do for he has allowed us to exert our free will decisions in the executing and managing of our life. He guides our life according to our responses to him and to the world, sometimes allowing us to go down certain roads unchecked, while at other times warning us not to go down a certain road, because of his wisdom of knowing where it likely will lead us. God will never allow us do to anything that would destroy his general plan (and at times God surely does impose upon our free will) but he does allow us to have a vital relationship with him while at the same time limiting his knowledge to our exact future and responses. Therefore when our responses happen they happen in real time and they really affect our reality though they do not in any way thwart the general plan of God.

So my summary answer to your question is this: God limits his omniscience in order to leave room for specific, individual free will.

Thanks for your question,
ic

Are you saying that you believe the salvation of the individual is synergistic?Are you saying that God is not immutable?

[Micah643]

Of course, you totally failed to answer the question.

While you're off writing your paper consider this: how many papers have been written on the Theory of Intelligent Design?

And don't depend on your high school knowledge of genetics - real genetics is turning out to be far more complex.

Hey, taking a quick break to pose another thought to you.

How many papers do you think have been allowed to be written on Intelligent Design?  I know there are peer reviewed researches done in ID, hopefully I can track them down, but there is block of sorts in the science world.  You can question everything, except anything related to ID.  The science world is not unlike this website. If I suggest there even MIGHT be an intelligent designer, I am dismissed.  Many Many top scientists have lost their jobs, tenure, careers for only suggesting ID and wanting it to be brought up for discussion.  Talk about closed mindedness!

Even Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project, has written a book The Language of God.  This is based off the fact the the human DNA is so perfect, incredible, and beyond us that there had to be a source for the information.  Language necessitates a transcriber. 

I would like to say more, but I must go.  On page 10 so I'm half way home.  I hope to write more on Tuesday night.

Peace - Micah

[Hermes]

ID is not a scientific theory.  It isn't even a proven hypothesis in part let alone a full blown theory.  At best, it's an assertion based on an abstraction.

[xphobe]

How many papers do you think have been allowed to be written on Intelligent Design?  I know there are peer reviewed researches done in ID, hopefully I can track them down, but there is block of sorts in the science world.  You can question everything, except anything related to ID.  The science world is not unlike this website. If I suggest there even MIGHT be an intelligent designer, I am dismissed.  Many Many top scientists have lost their jobs, tenure, careers for only suggesting ID and wanting it to be brought up for discussion.  Talk about closed mindedness!

Have you been "fired" from this website?  Are we still talking to you?  You should try arguing the atheist perspective on a Christian web site if you want an experience in closed mindedness.

The science world does tend to winnow out and discard fringe pseudoscience based on a lack of evidence.  You can try to build a perpetual motion machine, or advocate for the existence of inhabitants of a hole in the middle of a hollow Earth, but good luck finding grants.  Creationism is a thoroughly debunked crackpot idea, and as the Dover trial elegantly demonstrated, ID is merely Creationism disguised.  ID is not even a testable scientific theory, because the assertion that "God did it" can't be falsified.

Creationists should seriously ask themselves if their concept of God is not a belittling one: the Intelligent Designer as "tinkerer" who is forced to break his own created laws of nature once in a while because they are insufficient to achieve certain stages in the development of the material world. From a theistic philosophical perspective, the actual findings of science suggest a much grander idea of God: the Designer who laid out an elegant and self-sufficient set of laws of nature that accomplish the unfolding of his creation by inducing self-organization of the material world. This idea is easily compatible with the concept of God of many mainstream religions, including most Christian ones. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/originoflife.html

[moG]

ID is not a scientific theory.  It isn't even a proven hypothesis in part let alone a full blown theory.  At best, it's an assertion based on an abstraction.

Professor Dawkins  says that ID is a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth.HHHmmm,aliens??

[Hermes]

ID is not a scientific theory.  It isn't even a proven hypothesis in part let alone a full blown theory.  At best, it's an assertion based on an abstraction.

Professor Dawkins  says that ID is a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth.HHHmmm,aliens??

How does Ben Stein's propaganda address my comments?

[moG]

ID is not a scientific theory.  It isn't even a proven hypothesis in part let alone a full blown theory.  At best, it's an assertion based on an abstraction.

Professor Dawkins  says that ID is a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth.HHHmmm,aliens??

How does Ben Stein's propaganda address my comments?

Are you saying that Professor Dawkins is only a puppet under the control of puppeteer Ben Stein?

[Hermes]

ID is not a scientific theory.  It isn't even a proven hypothesis in part let alone a full blown theory.  At best, it's an assertion based on an abstraction.

Professor Dawkins  says that ID is a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth.HHHmmm,aliens??

How does Ben Stein's propaganda address my comments?

Are you saying that Professor Dawkins is only a puppet under the control of puppeteer Ben Stein?

Did you address my comments, or are you dodging the issue?

[ksm]

Hey, taking a quick break to pose another thought to you.

How many papers do you think have been allowed to be written on Intelligent Design?  I know there are peer reviewed researches done in ID, hopefully I can track them down, but there is block of sorts in the science world.  You can question everything, except anything related to ID.  The science world is not unlike this website. If I suggest there even MIGHT be an intelligent designer, I am dismissed.  Many Many top scientists have lost their jobs, tenure, careers for only suggesting ID and wanting it to be brought up for discussion.  Talk about closed mindedness!

Rubbish. Conspiracy theory rubbish.

Name the TOP scientists who have lost their positions over ID.

There is a reason why you cannot write a scientific paper on ID. ID is not science, its magic.

Even Francis Collins, the director of the human genome project, has written a book The Language of God.  This is based off the fact the the human DNA is so perfect, incredible, and beyond us that there had to be a source for the information.  Language necessitates a transcriber. 

DNA is not perfect, although it is "incredible".

Argument from authority. Francis Collins may be smart, but smart people still make mistakes.

Who invented (transcibed) the English language?

DNA is not a language - its a molecule.

I would like to say more, but I must go.  On page 10 so I'm half way home.  I hope to write more on Tuesday night.

Peace - Micah

[jetson]

ID is not a scientific theory.  It isn't even a proven hypothesis in part let alone a full blown theory.  At best, it's an assertion based on an abstraction.

Professor Dawkins  says that ID is a possible explanation for the origin of life on earth.HHHmmm,aliens??

How does Ben Stein's propaganda address my comments?

Are you saying that Professor Dawkins is only a puppet under the control of puppeteer Ben Stein?

In the Expelled movie, Dawkins was deliberately baited and edited for the Stein propaganda.

[kevyrat69]

Sorry Biblical Scholar, You have not answered my questions that I have had all my life and you never will because god is imaginary