I was raised an Atheist..I did not turn to God until I was 28 years old..
My life was in total turmoil..I was a drug addict, child abuser.. my heart was filled with hatred and anger toward everyone that believed in religion..
It was my brother which asked me to go to church..It really screwed up my plans though..you see I was going to kill myself that day.. :(
I was mean and rude to the Pastor and all that were there..
The following Sunday I went back to do more of the same..but before I could say anything, the Pastor asked who would like to be baptized..my hand went up in the air..so I was baptized that very afternoon, in back of the little church where many years before, I made fun of all the little goody too shoes..
Nothing changed that day..I even smoked a joint on the way home..But the next morning when I awoke, I was Praising the Lord and quoting the Bible (I had never read it before)..
I no longer was swearing..I no longer wanted or needed drugs and my precious 10 year old daughter Sherry (which I could never love) came to see what was going on..
Her sweet face and big green eyes touched my heart and I told her I Loved her, we hugged one another and cried together.. :)
I believe that there is a God or some sort of higher power. Religions are learned from books, and those are too easily either rewritten or read in ones perspective.
I'm assuming you're speaking of the bible (a lot of non-believers will use similar phrasing when they mean to say the bible)....The bible has not changed once since it's been canonized and it's authenticity has been proven again, and again, and again, etc. When you have a book that has proven accurate over 6k artifacts, anthropological details, names, places, dates, cities, astronomical and geological events and has made staunch believers out of nearly every scientist who has ever tried to disprove anything within it...the "too easily re-written" argument holds no weight...as for the "one's perspective", I'm not sure if you even have something specific in mind or if that general conjecture, but true born-again Christians know and understand that we are to read the bible.....the holy spirit offers the meaning. The bible is not just some random book, it is God's word and it takes faith to understand it!
Interesting enough though, science, math, geology, health, government, civics, and every single other topic you ever took a class in school on was learned from a book (except for maybe PE) ;-)
Actually I don't just mean the bible, I meant all religious books. While what you say is true, there are a lot of authenticated or whatever artifacts, Tell me that a person can not think that there is a chance that things written in the bible were once true but Many many years ago could have been slightly/ or changed completely. It can still include the right place/names/dates and so on. I didn't mean that it can be re-written now, what with people being able to communicate large distances easily and google "Originals" & etc..
But back in the really old days when people could just change things in a printing and then give it to people, people wouldn't truly be able to know if something was re-written somehow. Thats what I was trying to say, and this is just All in my opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone with it, I just wanted to state my opinion. :)
And Everything I took in class that I have learned from books, they are being constantly changed due to new discoveries, charts, surveys, movement of the earth and etc.. So aren't they also being constantly re-written? Ex: Pluto used to be a planet in my old science books XD ^-^
So, the problem with your hypothesis is that sure....the bible could be re-written now....in fact it has been by many different authors, but the reality is these are not the books by which most Christians receive the word today (as most of us don't really trust these new versions very much). The fact is, the bible was written by 40+ different authors, over 1500 years, across 3 different continents and agrees (pointedly) on over 6000 details that have so far been confirmed.... pretty impressive, considering that not a single scientist, archaeologist, astronomer, geologist or anthropologist has ever disproved one fact from the bible....ever.
Most Christians have a collection of bibles of various versions (My personal bible is NSRV that I receive when I was first baptized, but I also have a NLT, KJV, NKJV, LT, DL, and a few others as well). Most Christians today follow either KJV or NSRV for "authority" while perhaps reading one of the others for less intense study. That said, the differences between these versions (as it should be understood) is primarily along of scale between direct translation of word on one end (KJV) vs direct translated though in contemporary language (LT) on the other end. Word for word or thought for thought, with some offering annotations, some offer...
So, the problem with your hypothesis is that sure....the bible could be re-written now....in fact it has been by many different authors, but the reality is these are not the books by which most Christians receive the word today (as most of us don't really trust these new versions very much). The fact is, the bible was written by 40+ different authors, over 1500 years, across 3 different continents and agrees (pointedly) on over 6000 details that have so far been confirmed.... pretty impressive, considering that not a single scientist, archaeologist, astronomer, geologist or anthropologist has ever disproved one fact from the bible....ever.
Most Christians have a collection of bibles of various versions (My personal bible is NSRV that I receive when I was first baptized, but I also have a NLT, KJV, NKJV, LT, DL, and a few others as well). Most Christians today follow either KJV or NSRV for "authority" while perhaps reading one of the others for less intense study. That said, the differences between these versions (as it should be understood) is primarily along of scale between direct translation of word on one end (KJV) vs direct translated though in contemporary language (LT) on the other end. Word for word or thought for thought, with some offering annotations, some offering Jesus words in Red, some offering expansive galleries of maps, words, Hebrew diction, etc.
The second statement you make about someone changing something during printing doesn't make sense.. For one, someone could just as easily pick up their "old version", compare it to the new and see the flaws of the new (most notably, the SBC just did this with the new gender-neutral tones of the proposed release of one particular version in 2011). Second, printing of bibles was traditionally done by hand, by monks.....lets just say they had a duty to maintain authenticity.
Great point about what you are learning! Since it was canonized, the King James Version has not changed, second the fact that books in schools are changing means that they can't really be taken as authority, 3rd, remember that an amateur built the Ark, professionals built the titanic ;-)
Lol, Before I say anything. I want to point out, I like you (And no this is not a confession) XD Yeah, I shall never accuse a person who gave their lives to religion like Monks (Even as an agnostic, I still have respect for people who can believe That much to give their life to it) And I really could not help but laugh at that last statement. Oh so true! XD The people who build the Titantic should be ashamed to be beaten by an amateur XD
And Moving on I guess XD
I honestly have no idea about NLT,KJV, and etc.. So I'm not sure on how they are but I have no rebuttal this time. This has been interesting though. :)
Question 1: If I'm not worthy of proof, what's the point of salvation? If the Christian god exists... a god of infinite love and benevolence... he would want me to be saved from an eternity of damnation. All he needs to do to earn my belief is provide proof of his existence. If he can't be bothered to do that, then he's a mean-spirited bastard not worth worshipping.
Question 2: Any proof that conclusively proves his existence. Simple. It needs to be unequivocal, incontrovertible and testable.
to your first answer, salvation is offered by faith alone, God reveals himself to those who believe. There are many ways by which God can and does reveal himself, dreams, visions, in our heart, by the words of others (such as mine to you) and even with Angelic delivery if necessary.
The point of salvation is accepting that you will never do enough in your entire lifetime to earn your way into heaven and that Christ alone can bridge that Gap. No one gets to the father but through Christ and you will not find God until you first find Christ!
But I will entertain your question of proof with a few concrete examples that have been powerful enough to turn even the most ardent of atheists back to Christ, in fact, they were even penned by them;
Moral law exists, which is one of the largest sign-posts (ok, billboards) for God's existence. If moral laws exist (which we know they do, even in the natural world), then so too does a moral lawgiver. In order for a lawgiver of morals to author morals he must be sufficiently of character quality as to not violate the very laws he creates (as this would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction and would be actually impossible). God cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Second, would be something called the anthropic principal. Guillermo G...
to your first answer, salvation is offered by faith alone, God reveals himself to those who believe. There are many ways by which God can and does reveal himself, dreams, visions, in our heart, by the words of others (such as mine to you) and even with Angelic delivery if necessary.
The point of salvation is accepting that you will never do enough in your entire lifetime to earn your way into heaven and that Christ alone can bridge that Gap. No one gets to the father but through Christ and you will not find God until you first find Christ!
But I will entertain your question of proof with a few concrete examples that have been powerful enough to turn even the most ardent of atheists back to Christ, in fact, they were even penned by them;
Moral law exists, which is one of the largest sign-posts (ok, billboards) for God's existence. If moral laws exist (which we know they do, even in the natural world), then so too does a moral lawgiver. In order for a lawgiver of morals to author morals he must be sufficiently of character quality as to not violate the very laws he creates (as this would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction and would be actually impossible). God cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Second, would be something called the anthropic principal. Guillermo Gonzalez put together an awesome movie called The Privileged Planet, but the summary of this principal I like best is offered by Hugh Ross (The Creator and the Cosmos), he writes,
"There are over 100 factors that must be in perfect balance in order for human life to exist. These include: (1) 21% oxygen in the air is just right for life (more and we would burn up, less and we would suffocate); (2) the sun is just the right distance from the Earth (closer and we would burn up, farther and we would freeze); (3) the tilt of the Earth is just right for life (otherwise it would get too cold at night and to hot in the day); (4) the gravitational force is just right to make movement possible but to keep us from flying off into space; (5) the position of Jupiter is just right to protect the Earth from cosmic bodies destroying us; (6) the nuclear force is just right to hold the atoms together, and so on -- dozens and dozens of factors make human life possible."
That's just 6, when you add the mathematical probability of even a few of these things (let alone all) occurring (and sustaining) in the natural world simultaneously, your result is the undeniable mathematically equivalent of 0 (zero).
Norman Geisler summized the works of Michael Behe's work (scientist) "The Edge of Evolution", as "The Critical prearrangement of so many parts, all co-conspiring for the same end, is always a sign of intelligent design. We never observe natural laws doing such a thing." Behe also concludes in his work called "Darwin's Black Box", "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principals of logic or science. [So] life on Earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity".
In regard to your first point, I reject categorically that any just, benevolent god would demand worship based solely upon faith in something that cannot be proven and condemn those who decline to eternal damnation. Not only does it make no sense logically, it necessarily means that such a god is, by definition, evil. Or, at the very least, profoundly disingenuous and unfair.
Further, the argument so often produced by Christians (and other believers) that faith, in and of itself, is somehow more desirable than logic falls flat. There is nothing inherently noble about adhering to a belief that you cannot prove. There's nothing inherently WRONG with it either, so long as you don't pretend that you're right and everyone else is wrong, I suppose.
Allow me to address your "proof" now.
"Moral law exists"
You're guilty of circular logic there. You pre-suppose that you are correct to prove that you are correct. There is no moral law but what a given society chooses to conceive as morality. That is why codes of laws and what constitutes socially acceptable behavior differ from culture to culture.
"The Anthropic Principle"
You're guilty of profound egocentrism here. The goal of evolution, both on a biological scale and universal scale, is to produce organisms adapted to their environm...
In regard to your first point, I reject categorically that any just, benevolent god would demand worship based solely upon faith in something that cannot be proven and condemn those who decline to eternal damnation. Not only does it make no sense logically, it necessarily means that such a god is, by definition, evil. Or, at the very least, profoundly disingenuous and unfair.
Further, the argument so often produced by Christians (and other believers) that faith, in and of itself, is somehow more desirable than logic falls flat. There is nothing inherently noble about adhering to a belief that you cannot prove. There's nothing inherently WRONG with it either, so long as you don't pretend that you're right and everyone else is wrong, I suppose.
Allow me to address your "proof" now.
"Moral law exists"
You're guilty of circular logic there. You pre-suppose that you are correct to prove that you are correct. There is no moral law but what a given society chooses to conceive as morality. That is why codes of laws and what constitutes socially acceptable behavior differ from culture to culture.
"The Anthropic Principle"
You're guilty of profound egocentrism here. The goal of evolution, both on a biological scale and universal scale, is to produce organisms adapted to their environment. When life began here, it didn't begin with human beings in mind. We are not the "end goal", we are just an extremely well-adapted animal native to this planet.
Would we have evolved on another planet? Nope. Or at least extremely unlikely. But that doesn't make the case for a creator. It simply means that our species adapted well to this planet.
"Intelligent Design"
We won't get into this. I'm not a scientist, so my refutations of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" would necessarily be imperfectly informed. However, I have seen real scientists absolutely demolish the claims of ID proponents. Their pseudo-science does not support your argument at all.
So, I will respond in kind, though I must admit I stopped reading after your first statement...what you've stated is not accurate.
In assessing judgement, God has permitted free world into the world as he would not be just if he forced his will onto anyone. You, as such, have the free will to choose whether or not to accept Christ and therefore God. By making the choice to not accept Christ, God simply honors your request by election of your free will choice to do so. Forcing you to spend eternity in heaven with a being you have you chosen to reject would summarily be the equivalent of hell, would it not? In contrast to your statement about fairness, I don't see how there could be anything more fair.
"There is nothing inherently noble about adhering to a belief that you cannot prove." This is failed logic "in and of itself" as you put it, a belief does not require proof and proof does not require belief...that would be a preponderance of your own circular logic.
"There is no moral law but what a given society chooses to conceive as morality" False.....there are unquestionable values inherent to every society, western or eastern, industrialized or tribal, which are echoed in every country on every continent. To say otherwise would demonstrate an abysmal understanding of glo...
So, I will respond in kind, though I must admit I stopped reading after your first statement...what you've stated is not accurate.
In assessing judgement, God has permitted free world into the world as he would not be just if he forced his will onto anyone. You, as such, have the free will to choose whether or not to accept Christ and therefore God. By making the choice to not accept Christ, God simply honors your request by election of your free will choice to do so. Forcing you to spend eternity in heaven with a being you have you chosen to reject would summarily be the equivalent of hell, would it not? In contrast to your statement about fairness, I don't see how there could be anything more fair.
"There is nothing inherently noble about adhering to a belief that you cannot prove." This is failed logic "in and of itself" as you put it, a belief does not require proof and proof does not require belief...that would be a preponderance of your own circular logic.
"There is no moral law but what a given society chooses to conceive as morality" False.....there are unquestionable values inherent to every society, western or eastern, industrialized or tribal, which are echoed in every country on every continent. To say otherwise would demonstrate an abysmal understanding of global sociology and require the disregard of nearly every anthropological authority on the planet. Its simple logic....if moral law (something) exists, that it had to originate (be authored) somewhere or by someone, for the values of it to permeate at some level even the most primitive of societies means that the source of this innate value system of right and wrong transcends logical summary by sheer coincidence or happenstance. Especially when there is recorded evidence of these rules and laws practiced by remote peoples not in contact with any other cultural group.
"Would we have evolved on another planet? Nope. Or at least extremely unlikely. But that doesn't make the case for a creator. It simply means that our species adapted well to this planet."
Has our species adapted to this planet? Absolutely, but it is futile, sophomoric and lackadaisical to ignore the mathematical precision of probability to which has been well recorded that state specifically the number of conditions that have had to simultaneously align for those conditions to exist to even make it possible. Without an intelligent orchestration of said things, that probability is so finitely small, it is the mathematical equivalent of 0.
"Their pseudo-science does not support your argument at all."
And by what proof (beyond ardent elocution) do they offer their refutations?
If you can't be bothered to read and address my post as it stands, then don't bother to pretend that you can converse with me. The second you close your mind, I close the window.
I read and responded to the rest of your statements sir, a favor you have not returned I might add....I only mentally noted that the categorical rejection (sorry, but pretty profound statement that serves little purpose beyond a "kill statement" of your own), was impossible to ignore.
I get tired of the free will canard Christians throw out there. It's not free will if I am punished for using it. It's simply "my way or the highway".
If your god is infinitely loving and benevolent, he would acknowledge that giving someone the ability to reason, then punishing them for using it is inconsistent with kindness. Indeed, it is an evil act.
"Forcing you to spend eternity in heaven with a being you have you chosen to reject would summarily be the equivalent of hell, would it not?"
If he's so great, I would love to spend eternity in heaven contemplating the nature of the universe he created. All I need to believe in him is proof that he's there. It's not a hard thing for your god to do, but he chooses not to. Because, for some reason, it amuses him to deny us proof of his existence, then condemn us to hell when we shrug our shoulders and say "Well, I guess he's not there."
"False.....there are unquestionable values inherent to every society, western or eastern, industrialized or tribal, which are echoed in every country on every continent."
Such as? Loathing of murder and incest? I could just as easily explain those prohibitions in an anthropological sense. They don't require the existence of a god to exist themselves.
Here is a link for you to follow regarding th...
>
I get tired of the free will canard Christians throw out there. It's not free will if I am punished for using it. It's simply "my way or the highway".
If your god is infinitely loving and benevolent, he would acknowledge that giving someone the ability to reason, then punishing them for using it is inconsistent with kindness. Indeed, it is an evil act.
"Forcing you to spend eternity in heaven with a being you have you chosen to reject would summarily be the equivalent of hell, would it not?"
If he's so great, I would love to spend eternity in heaven contemplating the nature of the universe he created. All I need to believe in him is proof that he's there. It's not a hard thing for your god to do, but he chooses not to. Because, for some reason, it amuses him to deny us proof of his existence, then condemn us to hell when we shrug our shoulders and say "Well, I guess he's not there."
"False.....there are unquestionable values inherent to every society, western or eastern, industrialized or tribal, which are echoed in every country on every continent."
Such as? Loathing of murder and incest? I could just as easily explain those prohibitions in an anthropological sense. They don't require the existence of a god to exist themselves.
Here is a link for you to follow regarding the scientific refutation of Intelligent Design and Creationism. I realize that the look of it is a bit intimidating and spartan. But there is good information in there.
Because, for some reason, it amuses him to deny us proof of his existence,
Again, a simple question....what proof would satisfy you? God has proven his existence time and again yet you aren't willing to accept that proof and I doubt you would accept it if he handed it to you on a silver platter. If you refuse to have faith and you refuse to accept Jesus, you will never know God.
" I would love to spend eternity in heaven contemplating the nature of the universe he created" That's great! Except, you don't believe in him and you've rejected his son (as well as the salvation that is available through Jesus), so why should you have that opportunity?
I've actually read through your site (extensively, great reads but nothing that shakes my faith)....in kind, a link for you (since you asked about salvation)....
EDIT: Seriously? You blocked me because you can't baffle me with your theist BS? What a coward you are.
"Again, a simple question....what proof would satisfy you?"
As I said before:
Any proof that conclusively proves his existence. It needs to be unequivocal, incontrovertible and testable.
"God has proven his existence time and again"
If he had, I wouldn't question his existence. There is no such proof.
"I doubt you would accept it if he handed it to you on a silver platter"
Then you misjudge me profoundly.
"If you refuse to have faith and you refuse to accept Jesus, you will never know God."
Your god, if he exists, knows exactly what I need to believe in him. If he exists, he has chosen (at least so far) not to provide that. My "salvation" cannot be very important to him, if he's there at all.
"That's great! Except, you don't believe in him and you've rejected his son (as well as the salvation that is available through Jesus), so why should you have that opportunity?"
I have not rejected it. Far from it. I acknowledge that what you believe MAY be true. I simply require proof that it is before I will believe it. I find that position to be quite reasonable. In no other situation in life am I expected to make such a monumental decision without any information on which course is...
EDIT: Seriously? You blocked me because you can't baffle me with your theist BS? What a coward you are.
"Again, a simple question....what proof would satisfy you?"
As I said before:
Any proof that conclusively proves his existence. It needs to be unequivocal, incontrovertible and testable.
"God has proven his existence time and again"
If he had, I wouldn't question his existence. There is no such proof.
"I doubt you would accept it if he handed it to you on a silver platter"
Then you misjudge me profoundly.
"If you refuse to have faith and you refuse to accept Jesus, you will never know God."
Your god, if he exists, knows exactly what I need to believe in him. If he exists, he has chosen (at least so far) not to provide that. My "salvation" cannot be very important to him, if he's there at all.
"That's great! Except, you don't believe in him and you've rejected his son (as well as the salvation that is available through Jesus), so why should you have that opportunity?"
I have not rejected it. Far from it. I acknowledge that what you believe MAY be true. I simply require proof that it is before I will believe it. I find that position to be quite reasonable. In no other situation in life am I expected to make such a monumental decision without any information on which course is true.
As to your link, I was raised Christian. I know the arguments provided there and reject them, as all are predicated on the pre-supposition that god exists and that the bible is his word. Neither has a shred of evidence of proof.
He does! Indeed he believes in us so desperately that he sent his only son to die in our place that we might accept this grace, repent of our sins and lead others to him....
I was raised an Atheist..I did not turn to God until I was 28 years old..
My life was in total turmoil..I was a drug addict, child abuser.. my heart was filled with hatred and anger toward everyone that believed in religion..
It was my brother which asked me to go to church..It really screwed up my plans though..you see I was going to kill myself that day.. :(
I was mean and rude to the Pastor and all that were there..
The following Sunday I went back to do more of the same..but before I could say anything, the Pastor asked who would like to be baptized..my hand went up in the air..so I was baptized that very afternoon, in back of the little church where many years before, I made fun of all the little goody too shoes..
Nothing changed that day..I even smoked a joint on the way home..But the next morning when I awoke, I was Praising the Lord and quoting the Bible (I had never read it before)..
I no longer was swearing..I no longer wanted or needed drugs and my precious 10 year old daughter Sherry (which I could never love) came to see what was going on..
Her sweet face and big green eyes touched my heart and I told her I Loved her, we hugged one another and cried together.. :)
That is how I know that God is Real..
With Love..In Christ.. :o)
((((((( HUGS )))))))
Our Lord is risen!
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Interesting enough though, science, math, geology, health, government, civics, and every single other topic you ever took a class in school on was learned from a book (except for maybe PE) ;-)
Grace to you, Glory to God!
But back in the really old days when people could just change things in a printing and then give it to people, people wouldn't truly be able to know if something was re-written somehow. Thats what I was trying to say, and this is just All in my opinion. I don't mean to offend anyone with it, I just wanted to state my opinion. :)
And Everything I took in class that I have learned from books, they are being constantly changed due to new discoveries, charts, surveys, movement of the earth and etc.. So aren't they also being constantly re-written? Ex: Pluto used to be a planet in my old science books XD ^-^
Most Christians have a collection of bibles of various versions (My personal bible is NSRV that I receive when I was first baptized, but I also have a NLT, KJV, NKJV, LT, DL, and a few others as well). Most Christians today follow either KJV or NSRV for "authority" while perhaps reading one of the others for less intense study. That said, the differences between these versions (as it should be understood) is primarily along of scale between direct translation of word on one end (KJV) vs direct translated though in contemporary language (LT) on the other end. Word for word or thought for thought, with some offering annotations, some offer...
Most Christians have a collection of bibles of various versions (My personal bible is NSRV that I receive when I was first baptized, but I also have a NLT, KJV, NKJV, LT, DL, and a few others as well). Most Christians today follow either KJV or NSRV for "authority" while perhaps reading one of the others for less intense study. That said, the differences between these versions (as it should be understood) is primarily along of scale between direct translation of word on one end (KJV) vs direct translated though in contemporary language (LT) on the other end. Word for word or thought for thought, with some offering annotations, some offering Jesus words in Red, some offering expansive galleries of maps, words, Hebrew diction, etc.
The second statement you make about someone changing something during printing doesn't make sense.. For one, someone could just as easily pick up their "old version", compare it to the new and see the flaws of the new (most notably, the SBC just did this with the new gender-neutral tones of the proposed release of one particular version in 2011). Second, printing of bibles was traditionally done by hand, by monks.....lets just say they had a duty to maintain authenticity.
Great point about what you are learning! Since it was canonized, the King James Version has not changed, second the fact that books in schools are changing means that they can't really be taken as authority, 3rd, remember that an amateur built the Ark, professionals built the titanic ;-)
Grace to you, Glory to God!
And Moving on I guess XD
I honestly have no idea about NLT,KJV, and etc.. So I'm not sure on how they are but I have no rebuttal this time. This has been interesting though. :)
2nd question, what "proof " would satisfy you?
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Question 2: Any proof that conclusively proves his existence. Simple. It needs to be unequivocal, incontrovertible and testable.
The point of salvation is accepting that you will never do enough in your entire lifetime to earn your way into heaven and that Christ alone can bridge that Gap. No one gets to the father but through Christ and you will not find God until you first find Christ!
But I will entertain your question of proof with a few concrete examples that have been powerful enough to turn even the most ardent of atheists back to Christ, in fact, they were even penned by them;
Moral law exists, which is one of the largest sign-posts (ok, billboards) for God's existence. If moral laws exist (which we know they do, even in the natural world), then so too does a moral lawgiver. In order for a lawgiver of morals to author morals he must be sufficiently of character quality as to not violate the very laws he creates (as this would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction and would be actually impossible). God cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Second, would be something called the anthropic principal. Guillermo G...
The point of salvation is accepting that you will never do enough in your entire lifetime to earn your way into heaven and that Christ alone can bridge that Gap. No one gets to the father but through Christ and you will not find God until you first find Christ!
But I will entertain your question of proof with a few concrete examples that have been powerful enough to turn even the most ardent of atheists back to Christ, in fact, they were even penned by them;
Moral law exists, which is one of the largest sign-posts (ok, billboards) for God's existence. If moral laws exist (which we know they do, even in the natural world), then so too does a moral lawgiver. In order for a lawgiver of morals to author morals he must be sufficiently of character quality as to not violate the very laws he creates (as this would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction and would be actually impossible). God cannot violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Second, would be something called the anthropic principal. Guillermo Gonzalez put together an awesome movie called The Privileged Planet, but the summary of this principal I like best is offered by Hugh Ross (The Creator and the Cosmos), he writes,
"There are over 100 factors that must be in perfect balance in order for human life to exist. These include: (1) 21% oxygen in the air is just right for life (more and we would burn up, less and we would suffocate); (2) the sun is just the right distance from the Earth (closer and we would burn up, farther and we would freeze); (3) the tilt of the Earth is just right for life (otherwise it would get too cold at night and to hot in the day); (4) the gravitational force is just right to make movement possible but to keep us from flying off into space; (5) the position of Jupiter is just right to protect the Earth from cosmic bodies destroying us; (6) the nuclear force is just right to hold the atoms together, and so on -- dozens and dozens of factors make human life possible."
That's just 6, when you add the mathematical probability of even a few of these things (let alone all) occurring (and sustaining) in the natural world simultaneously, your result is the undeniable mathematically equivalent of 0 (zero).
Norman Geisler summized the works of Michael Behe's work (scientist) "The Edge of Evolution", as "The Critical prearrangement of so many parts, all co-conspiring for the same end, is always a sign of intelligent design. We never observe natural laws doing such a thing." Behe also concludes in his work called "Darwin's Black Box", "The conclusion of intelligent design flows naturally from the data itself--not from sacred books or sectarian beliefs. Inferring that biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent is a humdrum process that requires no new principals of logic or science. [So] life on Earth at its most fundamental level, in its most critical components, is the product of intelligent activity".
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Further, the argument so often produced by Christians (and other believers) that faith, in and of itself, is somehow more desirable than logic falls flat. There is nothing inherently noble about adhering to a belief that you cannot prove. There's nothing inherently WRONG with it either, so long as you don't pretend that you're right and everyone else is wrong, I suppose.
Allow me to address your "proof" now.
"Moral law exists"
You're guilty of circular logic there. You pre-suppose that you are correct to prove that you are correct. There is no moral law but what a given society chooses to conceive as morality. That is why codes of laws and what constitutes socially acceptable behavior differ from culture to culture.
"The Anthropic Principle"
You're guilty of profound egocentrism here. The goal of evolution, both on a biological scale and universal scale, is to produce organisms adapted to their environm...
Further, the argument so often produced by Christians (and other believers) that faith, in and of itself, is somehow more desirable than logic falls flat. There is nothing inherently noble about adhering to a belief that you cannot prove. There's nothing inherently WRONG with it either, so long as you don't pretend that you're right and everyone else is wrong, I suppose.
Allow me to address your "proof" now.
"Moral law exists"
You're guilty of circular logic there. You pre-suppose that you are correct to prove that you are correct. There is no moral law but what a given society chooses to conceive as morality. That is why codes of laws and what constitutes socially acceptable behavior differ from culture to culture.
"The Anthropic Principle"
You're guilty of profound egocentrism here. The goal of evolution, both on a biological scale and universal scale, is to produce organisms adapted to their environment. When life began here, it didn't begin with human beings in mind. We are not the "end goal", we are just an extremely well-adapted animal native to this planet.
Would we have evolved on another planet? Nope. Or at least extremely unlikely. But that doesn't make the case for a creator. It simply means that our species adapted well to this planet.
"Intelligent Design"
We won't get into this. I'm not a scientist, so my refutations of the pseudoscience of "Intelligent Design" would necessarily be imperfectly informed. However, I have seen real scientists absolutely demolish the claims of ID proponents. Their pseudo-science does not support your argument at all.
In assessing judgement, God has permitted free world into the world as he would not be just if he forced his will onto anyone. You, as such, have the free will to choose whether or not to accept Christ and therefore God. By making the choice to not accept Christ, God simply honors your request by election of your free will choice to do so. Forcing you to spend eternity in heaven with a being you have you chosen to reject would summarily be the equivalent of hell, would it not? In contrast to your statement about fairness, I don't see how there could be anything more fair.
"There is nothing inherently noble about adhering to a belief that you cannot prove." This is failed logic "in and of itself" as you put it, a belief does not require proof and proof does not require belief...that would be a preponderance of your own circular logic.
"There is no moral law but what a given society chooses to conceive as morality" False.....there are unquestionable values inherent to every society, western or eastern, industrialized or tribal, which are echoed in every country on every continent. To say otherwise would demonstrate an abysmal understanding of glo...
In assessing judgement, God has permitted free world into the world as he would not be just if he forced his will onto anyone. You, as such, have the free will to choose whether or not to accept Christ and therefore God. By making the choice to not accept Christ, God simply honors your request by election of your free will choice to do so. Forcing you to spend eternity in heaven with a being you have you chosen to reject would summarily be the equivalent of hell, would it not? In contrast to your statement about fairness, I don't see how there could be anything more fair.
"There is nothing inherently noble about adhering to a belief that you cannot prove." This is failed logic "in and of itself" as you put it, a belief does not require proof and proof does not require belief...that would be a preponderance of your own circular logic.
"There is no moral law but what a given society chooses to conceive as morality" False.....there are unquestionable values inherent to every society, western or eastern, industrialized or tribal, which are echoed in every country on every continent. To say otherwise would demonstrate an abysmal understanding of global sociology and require the disregard of nearly every anthropological authority on the planet. Its simple logic....if moral law (something) exists, that it had to originate (be authored) somewhere or by someone, for the values of it to permeate at some level even the most primitive of societies means that the source of this innate value system of right and wrong transcends logical summary by sheer coincidence or happenstance. Especially when there is recorded evidence of these rules and laws practiced by remote peoples not in contact with any other cultural group.
"Would we have evolved on another planet? Nope. Or at least extremely unlikely. But that doesn't make the case for a creator. It simply means that our species adapted well to this planet."
Has our species adapted to this planet? Absolutely, but it is futile, sophomoric and lackadaisical to ignore the mathematical precision of probability to which has been well recorded that state specifically the number of conditions that have had to simultaneously align for those conditions to exist to even make it possible. Without an intelligent orchestration of said things, that probability is so finitely small, it is the mathematical equivalent of 0.
"Their pseudo-science does not support your argument at all."
And by what proof (beyond ardent elocution) do they offer their refutations?
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Grace to you, Glory to God!
If your god is infinitely loving and benevolent, he would acknowledge that giving someone the ability to reason, then punishing them for using it is inconsistent with kindness. Indeed, it is an evil act.
"Forcing you to spend eternity in heaven with a being you have you chosen to reject would summarily be the equivalent of hell, would it not?"
If he's so great, I would love to spend eternity in heaven contemplating the nature of the universe he created. All I need to believe in him is proof that he's there. It's not a hard thing for your god to do, but he chooses not to. Because, for some reason, it amuses him to deny us proof of his existence, then condemn us to hell when we shrug our shoulders and say "Well, I guess he's not there."
"False.....there are unquestionable values inherent to every society, western or eastern, industrialized or tribal, which are echoed in every country on every continent."
Such as? Loathing of murder and incest? I could just as easily explain those prohibitions in an anthropological sense. They don't require the existence of a god to exist themselves.
Here is a link for you to follow regarding th...
>
If your god is infinitely loving and benevolent, he would acknowledge that giving someone the ability to reason, then punishing them for using it is inconsistent with kindness. Indeed, it is an evil act.
"Forcing you to spend eternity in heaven with a being you have you chosen to reject would summarily be the equivalent of hell, would it not?"
If he's so great, I would love to spend eternity in heaven contemplating the nature of the universe he created. All I need to believe in him is proof that he's there. It's not a hard thing for your god to do, but he chooses not to. Because, for some reason, it amuses him to deny us proof of his existence, then condemn us to hell when we shrug our shoulders and say "Well, I guess he's not there."
"False.....there are unquestionable values inherent to every society, western or eastern, industrialized or tribal, which are echoed in every country on every continent."
Such as? Loathing of murder and incest? I could just as easily explain those prohibitions in an anthropological sense. They don't require the existence of a god to exist themselves.
Here is a link for you to follow regarding the scientific refutation of Intelligent Design and Creationism. I realize that the look of it is a bit intimidating and spartan. But there is good information in there.
http://www.talkorigins.org/in...
target="_blank">http://www.ta...
Again, a simple question....what proof would satisfy you? God has proven his existence time and again yet you aren't willing to accept that proof and I doubt you would accept it if he handed it to you on a silver platter. If you refuse to have faith and you refuse to accept Jesus, you will never know God.
" I would love to spend eternity in heaven contemplating the nature of the universe he created" That's great! Except, you don't believe in him and you've rejected his son (as well as the salvation that is available through Jesus), so why should you have that opportunity?
I've actually read through your site (extensively, great reads but nothing that shakes my faith)....in kind, a link for you (since you asked about salvation)....
http://carm.org/questions/abo...
Grace to you, Glory to God!
"Again, a simple question....what proof would satisfy you?"
As I said before:
Any proof that conclusively proves his existence. It needs to be unequivocal, incontrovertible and testable.
"God has proven his existence time and again"
If he had, I wouldn't question his existence. There is no such proof.
"I doubt you would accept it if he handed it to you on a silver platter"
Then you misjudge me profoundly.
"If you refuse to have faith and you refuse to accept Jesus, you will never know God."
Your god, if he exists, knows exactly what I need to believe in him. If he exists, he has chosen (at least so far) not to provide that. My "salvation" cannot be very important to him, if he's there at all.
"That's great! Except, you don't believe in him and you've rejected his son (as well as the salvation that is available through Jesus), so why should you have that opportunity?"
I have not rejected it. Far from it. I acknowledge that what you believe MAY be true. I simply require proof that it is before I will believe it. I find that position to be quite reasonable. In no other situation in life am I expected to make such a monumental decision without any information on which course is...
"Again, a simple question....what proof would satisfy you?"
As I said before:
Any proof that conclusively proves his existence. It needs to be unequivocal, incontrovertible and testable.
"God has proven his existence time and again"
If he had, I wouldn't question his existence. There is no such proof.
"I doubt you would accept it if he handed it to you on a silver platter"
Then you misjudge me profoundly.
"If you refuse to have faith and you refuse to accept Jesus, you will never know God."
Your god, if he exists, knows exactly what I need to believe in him. If he exists, he has chosen (at least so far) not to provide that. My "salvation" cannot be very important to him, if he's there at all.
"That's great! Except, you don't believe in him and you've rejected his son (as well as the salvation that is available through Jesus), so why should you have that opportunity?"
I have not rejected it. Far from it. I acknowledge that what you believe MAY be true. I simply require proof that it is before I will believe it. I find that position to be quite reasonable. In no other situation in life am I expected to make such a monumental decision without any information on which course is true.
As to your link, I was raised Christian. I know the arguments provided there and reject them, as all are predicated on the pre-supposition that god exists and that the bible is his word. Neither has a shred of evidence of proof.
I shake the dirt from my sandals...
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Grace to you, Glory to God!
Edit: and you can't kill life? What the hell? People die everyday.