Headlines & Current Articles

Friday, November 15, 2013

In The Matrix With Stephen Hawking

The one thing that we are sure of is if people want to make up excuses to not believe in God, they will go to the limits of craziness and strange assertions and "pretend" that they are being rational. One of the modern atheist "heroes" is no different. Here is a part of Frank Turek's examination of Stephen Hawking's book, "The Grand Design" and the philosophical metaphysical naturalist conclusions and presuppositions that he makes. 

If you liked that you may also like these articles I did on the philosophy of science and other modern novel speculations as it pertains to science.

Blessed!



73 comments:

  1. Now if one wants to deal with materialism, why wouldn't one post in a forum that deals with it? First deal with Turek's argument. Atheists like confusion. They feel teh more confusion the better so their positions won;t be fully exposed. Too bad...we expose bad positions all day....

    ReplyDelete
  2. I see you deleted my posts about Sathya Sai Baba who was born in 1926 and has millions of followers today and his followers claim he walked on water, raised the dead, can fly w/o technology, and can fortell the future!!!! And, we can actually talk to his followers, who number in the millions about his miracles! Yet when subjected to criticism, and scientific questioning, all of these miraculous miracles fail miserably. And it's the same with Bishop Hines claim to have raised from the dead. Baba's followers have many stories they claimed to have "witnessed" him raising folks from the dead and at least, you can actually read about several accounts of him doing it on the internet even though none of it has been verified under scrutiny. With Bishop Hines claim, we can't even do that.

    Now why do you disbelieve Sathya Baba's claims? Because there is no reason to believe in them. There is no evidence to support them and just because there are "witnesses" doesn't mean anything, because we know that people embellish and because we know that when people really want to believe something, they will ignore all natural explanations and jump straight to the supernatural. So you will reserve disbelief in his claims of flight, raising the dead, fortelling the future etc. until there is evidence to demonstrate his claims. Sufficient evidence that is in proportion to his claim. The only difference between Hines claim and someone else who claimed that Baba raised them from the dead, is that you have an emotional connection to believing Bishop Hines claim is true, because he's attributing it to YOUR God.

    And the man in this video is just philosophising. He's not proving anything. He just saying what "could be" and that stephen Hawking cannot say for sure that there is no God or gods. I agree. And I never, at any time, claimed that no God exist. I have said though, that there is no evidence for any God, even the christian God, thus, there is no reason for me to believe the christian God exist, any more than there is any reason for me to believe Allah exist, Zeus exist, Ra exist, fairies exist, Spider-Man exist etc. Any of those could exist, and I acknowledge the possibility. However, if you want me to believe that there is an alternate universe where comic book characters exist in physical reality, you have to demonstrate that if you are making the claim. It's not enough to tell me it's a possibility and that I ought to thus believe it. I acknowledge the possibility, but I still won't believe it's true. Now if I say, "Nope, there is no alternate universe where comic book characters don't exist in physical reality", well now, the burden of proof is in my court to prove a negative, which I have no way of doing. So, it's one thing to reserve disbelief until evidence is shown, it's another to make a claim that something doesn't exist, which I think Stephen Hawking was doing.

    The same goes for the Christian God, the same goes for the Muslim God, the same goes for Zeus or Ra or whoever. As far as intelligent design goes, all the credible evidence points to evolution. However, as I said before, even if evolution is debunked tomorrow with solid scientific evidence, that still doesn't prove the biblical creation story, it still doesn't prove the christian God. Even if all the evidence pointed to ID, it still won't prove the biblical story, that has to be proven on it's own. Allah could be behind ID, it could be Zeus, it could be Superman who has a universe making machine in the fortress of solitude. We don't know until we investigate. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that the christian God absolutely does not exist anymore than I am saying Zeus absolutely does not exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said: I see you deleted my posts about Sathya Sai Baba who was born in 1926 and has millions of followers today and his followers claim he walked on water, raised the dead, can fly w/o technology, and can fortell the future!!!!

      I really don't understand what your function is. Nobody simply follows someone because he does "miracles" or claimed miracles. It is a Christian value to "try the spirit" this is 1 John 4:1 ~ Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

      Now, the ONLY reason for spiritual skepticism is because of the real possibility of spiritual deception. We understand that there is an enemy to our souls called the devil and we have been warned thoroughly of him. However, unlike you, skepticism doesn't rule our lives. With you and skeptics like you, there is an unhealthy skepticism that says, "everything that I don't understand is an automatic lie, until it can be proven" and there is what is called an ANTI-SUPERNATURAL bias, That means that even IF there is adequate proof of something, if that something superceeds natural laws you simply redefine the question and move the goalposts, because there is automatically, out of hand, according to the you, NO spiritual reality. That is called Antisupernaturalism and Ultra Materialism...I have written adequately about that HERE: http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/antisupernaturalism-historical-critical-methodology/

      Antisupernaturalism is a bias against the spiritual that does not allow anything spiritual to exist by definition. In other words, as soon as "spiritual" is mention, then there is an automatic dismissal out of hand. As has been written over and over, this is the false assumption that we live in what is called a "closed continuum". The problem with this theory is that IF the continuum is truly closed, we would not witness anything out of the ordinary or contrary to the laws of the continuum. However, the EVIDENCE is that we see events everyday that occur by reason and methods unknown to how the continuum works. In many cases they are called, "unexplained medical mysteries" or things "science will tell us more about in the future" or at worst, "anomalies". In either case, no matter what we call them, the SPIRITUAL is automatically ruled out. This is called scientism.

      That very process is unscientific! Does not science teach, follow the evidence wherever it may lead? If the evidence leads to the spiritual or supernatural, why is there a bias and presupposition against it? You say, because it can't be seen or tested...well, thoughts and memories cannot be seen or tested either, but we KNOW they exist.

      Delete
    2. As I said, if they can be seen and tested, stick a needle in a brain and harvest a memory and view it under a microscope. It is YOU that make the claim that all things that are real are testable and observable.That is simply a FALSE premise and PROVES as the FACTS speak for themselves that your theory is wrong.

      Now, Let us assume for a minute, that you are right. If this is the case, only what can be perceived by the senses can exist. However, any rational being looking at that statement automatically knows that is not true. Many things cannot be perceived by the senses but are real. Love, and my level of love cannot be perceived by the senses. A brain scan is not a perception of that sense or love. (so don't even try something that bogus) Further, as I said, "MIND" cannot be perceived by the senses. Even though you are indoctrinated to believe that "brain activity" indicates mind, that has been PROVEN to be false, when folk with NO BRAIN ACTIVITY appear with in tact, accurate, and new memories. However, you must believe that in order for your worldview to work.

      Logic, as I have noted, cannot be proven, cannot be sensually perceived, but is real. There is a list of things that are not subject to sensory perception but are real. René Descartes understood this view and set forth some rather convincing statements regarding how things are perceived. http://jdcard.com/descar.htm

      Now, We can believe that Sathya Sai Baba did all that is recorded of him. But what he SAID negates the reason we should follow him. he SAID: "Jesus never laid any claim to His association with God either as a Messenger or a Son. It is only in order that men may realise their own relation with God that such interpretation is made." (24.11.1998)

      based on the PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE of scriptural reading we KNOW that to be false. We have been taught: Galatians 1:8 ~ But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

      So the man is rejected, not because he preformed miracles or not and not because he was either a good or bad man, but because what he TAUGHT was NOT in accord with what SCRIPTURE which is the highest authority of matters such as this, teaches.

      You have a problem with Hines's story don't you. I think you are afraid. unlike Mantz, Hines is a spiritual man and knows that God raised him from a death to life. (He's in no way the only one...you are kind of living in the dark ages) Nevertheless, you are also intimidated, because he is available. Just a phone call away and rather than confront him with all the skepticism you have you cower down in excuse and rebuttal...that is called S P I N E L E S S!!!!

      You said: "And the man in this video is just philosophising"

      Aaaaahhhhh...did you not UNDERSTAND that he is talking about philosophy as SCIENCE does not make assertions but scientists do and the SCIENTISTS assertions are ALWAYS philosophy??? What about that did you not understand? Stephen Hawking is doing no more than many antisupernaturalists...rendering what is called the PHILOSOPHY of materialism.

      Got news for you, since you came in on the late train...evolution has already been DEBUNKED and is old hat. It is not even rational especially when abiogenesis is considered.

      Delete
    3. Like I said, YOU are afraid of Hines's evidence and testimony. Like I said I have seen it all personally for myself. He used to travel with news clippings. videotape of news reports, medical records and all. Most people already know all of this and like I said, because a lot of people were dead and are now alive and praising the Lord, it is not really an issue, with us that are in the know.

      But you said this:"I don't want to know about it that bad. If he were raised from the dead, the evidence would be abundant, I would easily be able to search the internet for information and what find tons of information, there would be scientific papers I could find on google concerning it, there would be lots of books written on it which I would find at Barnes and Nobles. I would be able to go to Youtube and probably be able to view news footage about that historical incident."

      You think that "google" and the "internet" is a source of verification?-LOL THAT is more funny than the atheist who told me he wouldn't believe in Jesus unless there was a videotape of him.

      That is RANK LUNACY!!!!-LOL It is soooooooooo laughable that it is notable. The thing that gets me is that after Al Gore invented the internet (ROTFL!!!) I suppose that it can only hold so much at a time...maybe Hines's story is just one that got away...Since everything is covered by CNN even 25 to 30 year old events like new, maybe they just dropped that reel on the floor....

      I believe you...you said, you "don't want to know about it that bad"???? Then why is it so important that he is lieing? why is it sooooooo important to you that there is some other excuse???

      Like I said...THAT is not in the bible...His story is just a PHONE CALL away and a sit down review the EVIDENCE and even talk to the doctors away and YOU are a SPAGHETTI BACKED, LIMP NOODLE!!!!

      Since you are hanging your complete life's philosophy on the "pretension" that all he has is "anecdotal" evidence...I DARE you to go to Wisconsin and see for yourself. See CHRISTIANS are not afraid of ANY EVIDENCE. Even the MADE UP evidence of philosophical materialism...but YOU and folk like you are all day long!!!!!

      SMH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    4. You also stated previously (and I go back through your comments because they are so AMUSING and full of denial of facts).

      Here you "correctly" make the distinction between clinical death and biological death:"Clinical death is when you flatline and your vitals stop. Biological death is when you are permenantely deceased and their is no reversal. Clinical death can be reversed and hospitals do it all the time. If anything, I can say with near certainty that Bishop Hines was "clinically dead" and that is why he was able to be resuscitated. That would also explain the lack of attention that his "resurrection" received."

      Now, Bishop Hines was dead for 45 MINUTES. Dead...Here is what we know about the conditions of clinical and biological death:

      "The difference between clinical death and biological death is small: just a few crucial minutes, in fact. Clinical death is the point at which a person's heart stops beating. At that time, breathing and blood circulation stop. Biological death occurs some four to six minutes later, when the brain cells die from lack of oxygen. When brain death occurs, all neurological functions irreversibly cease. The brain simply cannot survive for very long without oxygen. When oxygen is withheld beyond that six-minute threshold, brain death is the result. The reason the brain-death clock starts ticking down once the heart stops is because cardiac activity is the whole ballgame for our bodies, and brains. When the heart stops, oxygen cannot be transported to the brain and the brain dies from lack of it. The legal time of death is noted at the moment in which a doctor determines that a patient's entire brain has ceased to function."

      So you are trying to make us believe that YOU know more than his DOCTORS and know that he was only dead for less than 6 minutes when ALL NEWS REPORTS and even a MEDICAL RECORD states that he was DEAD....CLINICALLY AND BIOLOGICALLY for 45 minutes???

      So suddenly, you are omniscient??? You are after all all knowing...an atheist who KNOWS IT ALL, stating proudly...THERE IS NO GOOOOWWWWDDDD!!!!

      OK, yea, we (whoever "we" are) believe you!!!!!

      I'm gonna call Bishop and ask him to expect a call from you. Do you need the number?

      Delete
    5. Yes! Send me the number!!! But let's put it this way....once and for all....I'm not picking on Bishop Hines and I'm not singling him out, but when someone asks me to believe something outside of what I know about reality, my default position is disbelief!!! Not JUST with Bishop Hines, but with whomever!!! So don't think i'm just picking on Bishop Hines, after all, you brought it up, not me.

      With that being said, it doesn't matter who tells me they were raised from the dead, whether it be Bishop Hines or whether it be one of Baba's converts. It doesn't matter who tells me the supernatural exists whether it be you or a Hindu, I reserve disbelief for ALL WILD CLAIMS, ALL SUPERNATURAL CLAIMS, until they can be demonstrated with the appropriate evidence.

      It would be intellectually dishonest of me to accept supernatural claims from you, but not accept supernatural claims from Sathya Sai Baba, simply because he's a hindu or whatever, when neither one of you have sufficient evidence of your claims! Why should I accept a wild claim of yours simply because you attribute it to your God, but reject someone elses claim because they attribute it to their god? Why should I accept the christian supernatural, for which no evidence exist, but reject the hindu supernatural, for which no evidence also exist? I can't, without being hypocritical.

      Now once again, you keep bringing up "spiritual" and "supernatural" to make your points. That means nothing to me. Number 1, you haven't defined what you mean by those terms and second, you haven't demonstrated that there is any such thing. Calling me anti-supernatural is like calling me anti-santa claus or anti-leperchaun, just because I don't believe they exist or have no reason to. And like santa claus or leperchauns, there is no evidence for the existence of either one!

      And you are being intellectually dishonest by rejecting the claimed miracles of Sathya Sai Baba, not because of the evidence or lack thereof, but simply because they don't agree with your holy book. That's special pleading. If those miracles happened, they happened, regardless of your holy book. You just don't get to reject those "supernatural" claims, simply because they don't agree with your holy book. Whether it agrees with your holy book says nothing as to whether those events happened or not. At least I hold a consistent standard. I'm skeptical towards ALL supernatural claims until they are demonstrated to be true. I don't cherry pick the one's I want to believe and ignore all the rest.

      Delete
    6. Not being able to explain something, doesn't make me "anti-supernatural". If something happens I can't explain, then I have a mystery on my hands. But just because I can't explain something, doesn't mean YOU get to claim it was magic, and you expect me to just accept it. Lets say I go outside and find my car flipped over. I look and see that it wasn't struck by anything like another car because there's no impact damage. So, i'm scratching my head, trying to figure out how my car got flipped over. I know it's impossible for a person to just flip a car over, and there are no large animals in the area, like an elephant, which would be strong enough to do such a thing. So my neighbor comes out and tells me that a super-strong demon she keeps chained up in her garage escaped and flipped my car over. I'm skeptical as to whether or not demons exist, so I tell her that can't be right. She challenges me to come up with another reason. "How else could a car get flipped over!!!" she says. Well, while I may not be able to give an answer on the spot and may really not know, doesn't mean that she owns a demon, doesn't mean that a demon lives in her garage, or even that demons exist. What it means, is that we have a mystery that we have to get to the bottom of.

      Delete
    7. Regarding Bishop Hines claim of being raised from the dead, I'm going to explain why I don't believe it and why I believe there is an alternate natural explanation, so follow me here. Based on what I know about reality, I know that it is impossible for anyone to be raised from the dead, at least as of this moment. I also know that, if such a claim were to be true and confirmed, it would cause certain events to occur. The first would be that it would be thoroughly documented, not just by local newspapers, but an event of a genuine resurrection would be one of historical significance and scientific significance. An event like that would attract every major news organization in the world like CNN and MSNBC and ABC. Scientists and doctors from around the globe would be studying this, as this man may hold the key to human immortality. The object of this resurrection, Bishop Hines, would have been extensively interviewed by many scientists and doctors, he would have been on numerous talk shows around the country. There would be countless books written about him. The event of his resurrection would be almost universal knowledge, so much so that you and I wouldn't even be having this discussion, because I certainly would have already heard about it. There would be countless writings and discussions about it on forums and blogs across cyberspace. The name of Darrell Hines would be known by scientists around the world and his name would be in countless college textbooks.

      So I ask myself, if his claim is genuine, why hasn't any of this happened? It doesn't add up. Somebody, somewhere, outside of those immediately involved with the situation would have taken notice of it and at least wrote something down. I mean, someone coming back from the dead is a impossible occurence, yet it happened. Someone would want to figure out how it happened and why it happened, yet no one seemed to care.

      None of that makes 1 ounce of sense. It does not make sense that something as important as someone being raised from the dead would be virtually ignored and treated as if it didn't happen.

      Unless it really didn't happen.

      See, the fact that none of the above happened, which one would expect to happen in the event of a genuine resurrection that has been confirmed and verified, tells me all I need to know. Even though it happened 30 years ago, I would no trouble finding information on it, due to the nature of the event. I mean, I can easily find information on World War 2 which ended almost 70 years ago and wars are fought all the time. People being resurrected doesn't happen all the time, in fact, it never happens. And that would make it all that much more special if it did happen.

      The fact that Bishop Hines has newspaper articles, news clippings, videotape of news reports, medical records and all isn't sufficient evidence to prove a claim of being raised from the dead. And i'm trusting you're being honest about him actually having those things. I say that because, newspaper articles and even videos can be faked if you know what you're doing. I mean, you can make fake documents look very real and official.

      I mean, all of those documents and videos would have to be demonstrated to be genuine before I'd accept them as evidence, because it is much more likely that this is a hoax rather than a genuine resurrection, and even after that, there would need to be more investigating to be done.

      And this is for anybody making that claim. If one of Sathya Sai Baba's followers told me he was resurrected, I would disbelieve his claim and he would have to meet an extremely HIGH burden of proof if he wanted me to believe his claim. Newspaper clippings wouldn't cut it.

      Delete
    8. Not only that, if this resurrection actually happened and was confirmed to be an actual resurrection and not resuscitation, this would certainly be known by christians all over the world. They would be able to claim the 1 and only confirmed, verified, and documented resurrection which could be attributed to the christian God. No athiest, Muslim, Hindu, Jew or anyone else would ever hear the end of it. And no one would be able to rebut it because it is a confirmed, factual event. It would be like denying World War 2, it wouldn't be up for debate.

      Delete
    9. Whether you like the label or not, and I know folk generally don't like labels so I won't push the issue, if you don't believe in the supernatural and you believe that all that exists are natural laws, then you are by virtue of that an anti-supernaturalist. You hold that the continuum is a closed one. That is not a besmerchment (sp) of character. Own it.

      Also, argue against what I argue, not what you think I should argue...I have no problem with the miracles, claimed or not, of Sathya Sai Baba. I stated as much. I don't reject him because he either preformed or did not perform miracles. I reject him based on his closely held belief that Jesus was not God, nor the Son of God as scripture clearly makes the claim. I don't care if he made the moon settle in the ocean...he would not be and cannot be a savior. One thing I KNOW about God is that he is omnipresent. If god decided to heal some folk that followed him, who am I or you to claim that can't be done? The difference is the union and fellowship with God. He can't enjoin that as I do, no matter what else he could perform. Relationship with God is based or rooted in performance. Anyway....so you can't claim, "intellectual dishonesty" whereas I can claim that you assumed I would state something that I didn't.

      Please c'mon with the baby steps to intelligence...what do you think a Christian and a religious person means by spiritual and supernatural? Don't pretend you don't know now...if you didn't know, then how can you reject something you have no clue about...That would be rather ignorant...So are you standing by the claim that you don't know what I am talking about when I refer to those terms? If so, why are you even here? Please don;t revert to kindergarten on me....

      Then your argument is basically..."well, if my worldview is jacked up, that doesn't mean yours is right" That is like a reductio ad adsurdum argument of some sort and it is a horrible way to argue anything. You position, like Bush's math, is FUZZY...You are drawing a contrast, but that contrast does not advance your argument. So PLEASE get rid of that...I like that technique at times when we are delineating point by point, but as stated, it doesn't do a thing to advance anything you are saying, so why say anything at all...

      Delete
    10. So far as Hines you said: "I also know that, if such a claim were to be true and confirmed, it would cause certain events to occur. The first would be that it would be thoroughly documented, not just by local newspapers, but an event of a genuine resurrection would be one of historical significance and scientific significance."

      Evidently you don;t watch TV often. There are all kinds of fantastic stories and discoveries and happening on the news and elsewhere. The news cycle doesn't last long no matter how fantastic the claim. That's just the way it is. Like Jesus himself in the Roman empire, he attracted attention of some and other totally overlooked him and claimed his insignificane and even wonder why almost 100 years later people were still believing him and what he had done. So your examination of this is not balanced and or in line with what is obvious about modern news, claims and how the secular world trats spiritual and religious claims.

      As I stated, the EVIDENCE is on hand and there are no fake papers or news reports etc...Further, your statement is incorrect. JESUS was raised from the dead not just after 45 minutes, but after about 3 Jewish days. So there has been a resurrection and if God is God as he stated, the miracle of resurrection which included the miracle of not allowing the Mortis boys to show up could very well happen. If you believe that life and ultimately a sentient being could come from a rock, then to believe that God performed a miracle of resurrection should be any easy thing to fathom...Now in light of your approach and conspiracy theory claim just on Hines and the bona fide events surrounding his death and regeneration to life, can you better understand Luke 1:1-4? I can.

      Just like you hear and reject the story of Hines, people will reject anything, no matter how much evidence there is for it. You reject the bible and God and there is evidence from life to death and all in between. Either a person will believe or they won't believe. Folk have a choice. I have never seen evidence overwhelm a person into believing if they don't have a will to believe. I have seen divorces and I have seen people marry all because of the WILL that they apply to whatever they wish to believe.

      THAT my friend is called FREEDOM. THAT is a total difference between what you believe and what I believe from an operational standpoint. You've even said it yourself referring to a "default" position. See under a Christian and spiritual worldview, I an FREE to make decisions. My decisions are mine, I own them. I am not fatalistically determined to accept or reject anything. I have true freedom.

      The materialist is only acting out on the program of natural law or genes. Physicist and atheist Alexander Krauss says that "all laws are deterministic" everything in the world, including your thoughts are made, produced and created by your physiology and predetermined natural process. You can't escape your own actions. You are a SLAVE to your thoughts and cannot change them. In a real sense, under your materialistic belief, you cannot possibly be responsible for your own actions, good or bad. You are merely acting out the program and programming.

      Get this, under a materialistic view, even the murderer is not responsible for his murder. He was just doing what his genes told him to do. How can he be guilty of following what he was created to do? This is the TRAP of materialism. It is NOT life...it is a consignment to death. Like a leading atheists know, there is no hope of changing anything. It is all determined. That is sad and only leads to futility.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1wVO8UXoUw

      Delete
    11. You said "Whether you like the label or not, and I know folk generally don't like labels so I won't push the issue, if you don't believe in the supernatural and you believe that all that exists are natural laws, then you are by virtue of that an anti-supernaturalist. You hold that the continuum is a closed one. That is not a besmerchment (sp) of character. Own it. "

      I said- I am open to the supernatural, once it has been demonstrated to exist. And I'm not going to make a special exception for your "supernatural" without believing in ALL "supernatural".

      You said "Also, argue against what I argue, not what you think I should argue...I have no problem with the miracles, claimed or not, of Sathya Sai Baba"

      Yes, but you're automatically discounting them, not based on the lack of evidence, but because the "wrong" god is claimed to have done it. If one of his followers came to you and claimed he raised them from death, you would, naturally, disbelieve the claim until the appropriate evidence is presented. However, you waive that standard of evidence when it is attributed to your God, and think everyone else should to, simply because it is attributed to your god.

      You said "Evidently you don;t watch TV often. There are all kinds of fantastic stories and discoveries and happening on the news and elsewhere. "

      Yes and why do you think they all just fizzle out? It's because those claims are determined not to have merit to them. I go back to Sathya Sai Baba. He's like a modern-day Jesus, in that many of the miracles he claims to perform are those that Jesus did and then some. He supposedly can fly, walk on water, raise the dead, fortell the future with extreme accuracy, and make items materialize out of thin air. Yet, why do you think only people in India know about him? If he could fortell the future with accuracy, governments around the world would be contacting him before they made ANY decision of importance. If he could raise the dead, he wouldn't just be doing it in a 3rd world country, where everyone is superstitious. He'd be doing it in places like Detroit, Chicago, New York City, London. And skeptics like me would see it, repeatedly, and have no choice but to believe in the supernatural, because anything else would be living in denial.

      Yet, you probably hadn't even heard of him until I mentioned his name. What does that tell you? It should tell that the supernatural powers attributed to Baba are baseless, most likely. I mean, you know who Michael Jordan is, everyone does who haven't been living in a cave for the last 30 years, and all he did was play basketball, which is a very ordinary activity. Here, you have a modern day Jesus walking around, and no one outside of his 3rd world country notices him.

      My point is, people make supernatural claims all of the time, and they always turn out to be baseless upon further investigation.

      You said "Like Jesus himself in the Roman empire"-

      See my reference on Sathya Sai Baba who has supposedly done in modern times what Jesus supposedly did 2000 years ago (minus die on the cross). And there are supposedly millions of "witnesses" to these miracles of his. The difference between now and 2000 years ago is that we have modern technology like tv's and radios which can broadcast events as they happen all over the world. Yet, with this Baba guy flying around raising people from the dead, we still ignore him. Gee, I wonder why?

      Delete
    12. You said "As I stated, the EVIDENCE is on hand and there are no fake papers or news reports etc"

      You have to admit, it is much more likely that someone would forge a newspaper article than be raised from the dead. People fake papers all of the time, people don't come from the dead all the time. If you think im being highly critical of his claim, you bet I am. The same way I'd be critical of a Muslim telling me he flew to Mecca on a magical unicorn. A simple newspaper article wouldn't cut it. And if he did show me a newspaper article, due to the nature of his claim, I'd think it was fake until proven otherwise.

      You said "JESUS was raised from the dead not just after 45 minutes, but after about 3 Jewish days. So there has been a resurrection"

      http://www.saibaba.ws/miracles/resurrectionradhakrishna.htm. These 2 resurrections happened in 1953 and 1960, not 2000 years ago. One guy who was raised from the dead had been dead for 3 days (not 45 minutes) his body had began to decompose. What do you make of those claims? Yo can't just dismiss them because the "wrong" god did them. And you can't all of a sudden have this high standard of evidence for these claims, simply because a hindu god made them happen. Yours isn't the only rodeo in town. I reject all of them, no matter what god or gods, they are attributed to until the appropriate evidence is presented.

      You said "Either a person will believe or they won't believe."

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are implying that belief is a choice, which is silly. If I tell you I have an invisible dragon in my closet and you come look and all you see is clothes, unless I can prove that an invisible dragon is there, you wouldn't believe me. If I told you I had clothes in my closet, and you looked, and sure enough, you see clothes, you have no choice but to believe it, otherwise, you're being delusional. You can't just believe there's an invisible dragon in my closet, without evidence of such a thing. When I was a kid, I believed in Santa Claus, over time, I stopped believing. Now, I can't just will myself to believe in Santa Claus, because there is no evidence as to his existence.

      You said "Get this, under a materialistic view, even the murderer is not responsible for his murder. He was just doing what his genes told him to do."

      At least we know genes exist. Growing up in COGIC, everytime someone did something, it was because a spirit of (insert whatever they did here). So, in your mind, a much more reasonable explanation than genes is some evil spirit influencing or possessing someone to do something. So when a murderer kills someone, its because of a "spirit of murder" rather than his genes.

      The problem with that explanation is that there is no evidence for the existence of evil spirits, so you're attributing something to a possibly nonexistent cause.

      Delete
    13. You said: "I said- I am open to the supernatural, once it has been demonstrated to exist. And I'm not going to make a special exception for your "supernatural" without believing in ALL "supernatural"

      You are arguing what I haven't asserted as I will demonstrate next. But think of it this way...the world as we know it works logically...I am sure you would agree. Now, when we reason and try to prove a cause by and with the cause itself, we call that circular reasoning incoherent. One cannot prove a cause WITH or BY the cause itself.

      If the Natural laws that exist are self starting, there are MANY problems, but the primary problem before that even gets out of the gate, is the circular nature of the claim. In other words it would be incoherent for the laws of nature to be self starting. The cause would be reason for the cause. The natural laws would point to themselves. That is confusion. There must be, by virtue of a logical and ordered existence of all things a CAUSE greater than the effect. That CAUSE is God. A supernatural CAUSE is the ONLY explanation for what we now see and experience. To assume that natural laws were self starting is a logically incoherent statement and assumption. What created natural law was superior to natural law in order to begin it. Even in science a "quantum singularity" is pretty advanced and does not seem to have the same characteristics of the laws that would be produced by it. A Quantum singularity however is a force and is an inadequate answer when it comes to creation itself. A MUCH better explanation that as I said FITS the data that we already know, is GOD. Knowing that, along with the teleological and cosmological arguments are a pretty sound demonstration of a supernatural, personal being as described within the bible.

      So far as my view of the claimed miracles of Sathya Sai Baba, you said: "Yes, but you're automatically discounting them, not based on the lack of evidence, but because the "wrong" god is claimed to have done it. If one of his followers came to you and claimed he raised them from death, you would, naturally, disbelieve the claim until the appropriate evidence is presented "

      Either you don't read too well, don;t pay attention, or want to simply argue against yourself, either way, THAT is nothing that I said. I said that his miracles could be authentic. That is NOT an issue. I said that it doesn't matter if they are, WE simply don;t believe in and follow anyone because of their supposed "miracle working power". He has CONFESSED a different Jesus than is taught in scripture even under the most liberal and basic interpretation. Because of that, he is unworthy of my allegience as I said even if he made the moon go into the sea and back...That's a FAR CRY from your misrepresentation of my statements. Maybe you weren't prepared for that sort of argument, but every Christian worth his salt would say the same...In addition, AS I SAID, God can bless anyone, anywhere and anytime EVEN a Sathya Sai Baba follower, but the fellowship and relationship with a TRUE and living savior, Jesus, is reserved for the SAINTS as he has a different Jesus.

      Delete
    14. So far as the lasting nature of supernatural claims, you saidYes and why do you think they all just fizzle out? It's because those claims are determined not to have merit to them.

      You oversimplify. That is not the only reason. The reason is that humans seek something new all the time. A story that was bread and butter today is relegated to the cut and edit floor tomorrow. I know this. I work with media OFTEN enough to know how anything is treated. Hines HAS been all around the country. How do you think that he got famous? However, his experience is not unusual. It is only unusual to YOU! I can go to a Convocation and ask folk for medical records confirming miracles and get all kinds of bona fide information from folk. You are just in the dark on the issue, but like I said...call the man and ask to go over his miracle incident detail by detail...I'm kind of tired of you talking about it, if you are not going to have NERVE enough to confront the info with all your skepticism. (really that word is only a cover for UNBELIEF)

      The reason that Michael Jordan is hailed is because he dealt with NO moral issues playing basketball for a living. In other words there was no moral reason to have disdain for him. In the case of Jesus he dealt with life's issues and fought not only religious, but social establishment, So there is plenty of reason he got little play in his day, but YET, the world hinges on him...have you looked at your calendar lately???

      And belief IS a choice. One can believe anything in the world they choose to believe. You worldview claims as much doesn't it. If you're an atheist, you're a beginner. You don;t affirm much of what atheism and agnosticism (which is really what you are) describes and affirms. Agnosticism, by the way, is worse than atheism in my opinion. It is lukewarm. On one hand agnostics don't have enough nerve to claim that God certainly does not exist, and on the other hand don't have enough assurance in their own arguments in favor of naturalism, to claim that there is nothing other than natural causes for everything. Agnostics are REALLY confused, as if atheists weren't already confused enough.

      There's plenty of evidence for evil spirits. They are those things in part that haunt you in your dreams and give you anxiety about living. They are those things that drive you away, further into your own self deception and away from what you once knew. Simply look in the mirror past yourself and into yourself one day...you'll KNOW that evil spirits exists because they have influenced you away from you God. But God's got you, that's why you're yet hanging around arguing with someone who will NEVER change from what I already KNOW and have EXPERIENCED...that God is real and Jesus IS Lord!

      Delete
    15. This is simply confused and is a double standard like many skeptical and atheistic conclusions. You said regarding creation adn attributing that to teh God of the bible: "If scientist did that, to be fair, they would have to give equal consideration to ALL gods, all magic genies, all supermen, etc who religions claim created the universe. They just can't assume YHWH did it anymore then they can assume Allah or Thor did it."

      Now, that sounds reasonable enough. So WHICH of these God's stated that they did any of these things? All of them did not. The CHRISTIAN is the only one of the lot who claimed supremacy, as a creator of all things would have to be, claimed intimacy with his creation and at that point nearly every other one falls or fails and demonstrated in real time his authority over life, death, sickness and sin through his resurrection. So unlike the prophet you mentioned above who was a Hindu that attributes his miracles to an impersonal cosmic consciousnesses, The bible God is personal, real, in touch with his creation and tends to it. He is the only one who makes the claims that he does and they are exclusive. You seem to think that just because something is and can be called "GOd" that it and they all have the same attributes...Your parallel is as false as they come and kind of amateurish when it comes to the subject. You keep mentioning Thor. Well Thor would fail on MANY accounts, including but not limited to the fact that he was not a historical figure and that he even in the author's imagination, was in conflict with other gods and therefore was not supreme and made no promises of creation or otherwise. You really need a publication on discerning how Jesus and the Christian GOd is distinct and unique for all other deities of antiquity. Stating the same bad argument over and over doesn't make it right the next time around.

      You also said this: "Without the god of the Bible being demonstrated to exist, the whole story is untestable and that's why science ignores it. It can't be proven or disproven."

      Like I said, you have been given ample evidence here in this thread and the other. It is evidence that you choose to reject. That is your business, but everyday, it never changes. Secondly, the principle of falsifiability is a false premise. There are many FACTUAL things that CANNOT be falsified...Like I said, LOGIC, MATH, MIND, THOUGHTS and a host of other things cannot be falsified, nor placed under a microscope and examined...the Big bang cannot be reduplicated and therefore cannot be falsified, but we hold ALL OF THESE THINGS to be real and even real science. So your statements ARE FALSE! As I said, saying them over and over does not and will not ever make then your statements true or right.

      Delete
  3. I've also heard the accusation that all the evidence for evolution was put here by Satan. I heard that from Christians and Muslims. Both have claimed that the evidence for evolution, dinosaur fossils,etc was put here by Satan to lead people away from their particular religions. That claim is absurd as me saying that the evidence for evolution was put here by Lex Luthor to lead us away from the worship of Superman, without presenting credible evidence to back up my claim. First and foremost, I have to show the existence of Lex Luthor before I can accuse him of doing anything. I'd have to start there first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't care what you've heard. That's not what the bible teaches. In addition, You have heard that from rocks morality and complex biological functions and system spring too. Though there's ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE for that you still believe it...so I would imagine you will believe just about anything!

      Delete
    2. The evidence for evolution is out there if you care to research it, but be that as it may, what makes biblical creationism any more plausible??? You have a being, who may or may not exist, speaking something and it just appears. No explanation at all as to how this is possible. At least, for any faults evolution may have, they explain what they do know in thorough detail. And what they don't know, they have the guts to say I don't know. Your explanation is that a god said "let there be light" and think that that is more plausible than the biology, geology, cosmology and physics which explain evolution!!!!

      I mean, creationism is every bit as absurd as my earlier Superman analogy, in that they both have 0 evidence to support them and they are both way, way far fetched!!! And I don't believe for 1 second morality comes from the bible, seeing as most christians base what they believe to be moral more or less off of secular morality.

      Delete
    3. What makes creationism any more plausible than saying a magical genie did it??? Lets keep all the details of the biblical creation story the same, but let's replace God with a cosmic magic genie...do you still believe creationism makes sense?? Really??? Or are you making it make sense because it's in the bible and it's not attributed to a magic genie?

      Delete
    4. So you can't figure out how God did something so you "make up" something that sounds plausible to you? OK. Does that even sound reasonable? Just because you can't figure out how something doesn't mean that it is "intellectually honest" as you say, to just make up a bunch of stories, give them a name and say that's science. What that is, is a lie.

      GOd creating doesn't take away from science, scientific discovery or anything that has to do with science and or natural law.With God what you have, as the bible describes, is a being, whom creates of his own free will, sets natural order in motion, leaves evidence of his operations and leaves us open to discover his works.

      In fact the first scientist, being from the church, set out to do just that...discover the handiworks of God and the order of his creation. If a mind created, then one has a pattererned order and set of circumstances which reveal a mind and order and not just a haphazzard rambling jumbled together thing.

      We talk about fine tuning. The atheist minimizes this claiming that thousands of asteroids are on the loose and that Andromeda is on a crash collision course with our universe etc...OK, look, I don't care if an asteroid hits earth tomorrow, the universe IS finely tuned for life on this planet. If any number of variable were different billions of light years away from us, we would not exist. That, no matter what you say, is EVIDENCE of a God and not only a God a CHRISTIAN god as he has described himself as good, creating something that is "fearfully and wonderfully made". In other words, the evidence FITS the bible description.

      In fact the evidence of biology, cosmology, geology and physics itself is best explained and described in light of a spiritual mind, a creator of all things a supernatural being, not a force. So what claim did superman make to creation? What evidence did he leave of his presence in creation? I'll tell you...NONE!
      God however made some claims. Then he said the heaves declare his glory. How is that? He said that one observing the known universe could come to faith in him simply by looking and thinking. however upon investigation scientists are right to conclude the following:

      "In light of these and other examples, (speaking of certain facts of the universe and conditions for life to exist)“Almost everything about the basic structure of the universe … is balanced on a razor's edge for life to occur.” (Collins 1999, 48)." (parenthesis added)

      The design of the universe is to be discovered by science. If scientist were FAIR, they would make no philosophical conclusions because they don't see YHWH spelled out someplace. I had a guy say that...the only way he would believe is if he saw the printed name of God on something...that is STUPID!!!
      Anyway, information both for an against the design argument is here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleological-arguments/

      So I am pointing out more than one thing I know. The fault and frailty of evolution to 1- get man out of the gate and bring life from non-life and rocks. The BETTER explanation is that God breathed life into man whom he had formed of the earth as a unique creation and gave him abilities that he did not give any other being on earth. and 2- The universe and cosmos itself. I know both of these things are different, but both are best explained in light of scripture and scripture is wholly consistent with what evidence that there is that is found regarding both things...

      Delete
    5. You said "So you can't figure out how God did something so you "make up" something that sounds plausible to you? OK. Does that even sound reasonable? Just because you can't figure out how something doesn't mean that it is "intellectually honest" as you say, to just make up a bunch of stories, give them a name and say that's science. What that is, is a lie"

      I thought we went over this earlier, you have to demonstrate the existence of something before you can claim it does things. When you demonstrate the existence of whatever, in this case God, then we can talk about and determine what he does. Until then, it is the same as just making something up. Without demonstrating the existence of God, I can say the magic genie or Superman created the universe and it would be just as valid. I can say "Just because you can't figure out how Superman does things doesn't mean you can make up something that sounds plausible to you.

      We're both in the same boat. Before I can claim Superman does things, like create universes, I have to first demonstrate the existence of Superman. If I can't do that, my whole spiel about Superman creating the universe falls apart, because no one even knows if superman actually exists (outside of a comic book). You have to demonstrate that God exist before we can take claims seriously about what he does, like create universes.

      You said "In other words, the evidence FITS the bible description. "

      Sure it does. Just like there's some great conspiracy to hide "THE TRUTH" as you call it.

      You said "GOd creating doesn't take away from science, scientific discovery or anything that has to do with science and or natural law.With God what you have, as the bible describes, is a being, whom creates of his own free will, sets natural order in motion, leaves evidence of his operations and leaves us open to discover his works. "

      First of all, if scientist are just going to say "God did it", without first demonstrating the existence of God, why should it be YHWH? Why can't they attribute it to Allah or Vishnu. The biblical creation story has to be proven. And without a God being conclusively proven to exist, there is no way to test that claim. Science doesn't deal in unfalsifiable claims, that is, claims that can't be tested. And without being able to demonstrate God exists, there is nothing to test.

      Delete
    6. You said "In fact the evidence of biology, cosmology, geology and physics itself is best explained and described in light of a spiritual mind"

      Demonstrate why this is. A muslim could say the same thing, but be implying that you can only understand those things by looking at it from an Islamic point of view. You have to explain why those things can only be understood from your point of view, otherwise you're just making a claim. And you don't get to use the bible, like a muslim wouldn't get to use the Quran. Why should I care what the bible or the Quran says? I have no reason to believe in any of it.

      You said "The design of the universe is to be discovered by science. If scientist were FAIR, they would make no philosophical conclusions because they don't see YHWH spelled out someplace"

      If scientist did that, to be fair, they would have to give equal consideration to ALL gods, all magic genies, all supermen, etc who religions claim created the universe. They just can't assume YHWH did it anymore then they can assume Allah or Thor did it.

      Without the god of the Bible being demonstrated to exist, the whole story is untestable and that's why science ignores it. It can't be proven or disproven.

      You said "The BETTER explanation is that God breathed life into man whom he had formed of the earth as a unique creation and gave him abilities that he did not give any other being on earth. and 2- The universe and cosmos itself. I know both of these things are different, but both are best explained in light of scripture and scripture is wholly consistent with what evidence that there is that is found regarding both things..."

      The problem with this explanation is that, since you (or anyone else) have failed to show the existence of God, then I can take your statement and substitute Superman for God, and it would be just as valid. Because you are attributing this to, as far as anyone knows, a nonexistant cause.

      Delete
    7. Let me make this clear, I'm not saying with absolute certainty that nothing beyond the natural world exist. All I'm saying is that if anything is being claimed to exist beyond this physical realm that I cannot detect with my 5 senses (because as of now, thats the best way I can know if anything is real or not) then before I will believe it, the appropriate evidence must be shown. And so far, none has been shown. And if you show me something that may appear to be supernatural, but upon looking, I find an alternate natural explanation, the natural explanation wins, simply because I can't attribute something to a cause, which as far as I know, doesn't exist i.e. the supernatural.

      If I find my box of Lucky Charms missing and I don't know what happened to them, the explanation that a leprechaun broke into my apartment and stole my cereal doesn't fly. Even if I don't know where my cereal went, it doesn't follow that a leprechaun burglarized my apartment and stole from me. Why? Because, leprechauns have not been demonstrated to exist and, as far as I know, there is no evidence for their existence, so I have no reason to believe they exist.

      In other words, for something to be a cause of another thing, the cause has to exist. So for the supernatural or leprechauns to be a cause of anything, it must first exist. Otherwise, saying a leprechaun or the supernatural caused something is a nonanswer. It answering a mystery with a mystery.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrWrwXl6t60

      Delete
    8. Clearly you are an agnostic which, as I said is about the most spineless position that one could have. You also say that you don;t believe anything if it cannot be perceived with your 5 senses. The 5 senses are Smelling, Tasting, Hearing, Seeing, Feeling (touching)...OK, now, can you , smell, taste, hear, feel or see a thought in my mind (whenever you figure out what "mind" really is? However, you KNOW that thoughts exist and since I am communicating with you, I have thoughts. But that is deductive isn't it? The thoughts in my mind DO NOT in any way satisfy either of your senses in order for you to know that my thoughts are real.

      That is just thoughts. I could mention many different and various sorts of things that you can;t touch, taste, feel, smell, or see that are completely real. So, how you claim to know what is real is really based upon a FALSE premise. Materialism is far apart from reality in almost every way.

      William Lane Craig lays down some arguments that have not been refuted by any atheist that I have ever seen on the evidences for the existence of God. I think if you really want to seriously look at this issue you should know his arguments as he often parallels the alternatives and counterpoints and examines them in detail. There is NO leading atheist, or non leading atheist that wants to debate him and them that do only want to do so for popularity, not because they have any plausible counter points. He has destroyed them all, including Hitchens in debate and Richard Dawkins runs away like a scared child. He has destroyed astrophysicists like Alex Krauss.

      http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-new-atheism-and-five-arguments-for-god

      Delete
    9. Thoughts are bio-chemical reactions from the brain. And thoughts are things that can be demonstrated. The bottom line is this

      1. No god or gods have been demonstrated to exist, whether it be YHWH, Allah, Thor, or Zeus. I have no reason to believe in anything that has not been demonstrated to exist.

      2. Nothing supernatural has been proven to exist. The moment to believe in something is when there is evidence to do so. So far, there is none.

      3. I am not making any claim. I'm not saying any god doesn't exist. I'm not saying fairies and pixies don't exist. I'm not saying Superman doesn't exist. None of those anyone can say conclusively doesn't exist. Why? Because there is no way to search all of reality to check and see if those things are out there. Scientists talk about the idea of parallel universes. There could be an alternate universe in which the biblical God indeed exists. There may be an alternate universe in which Superman is a real being and not just a comic book character. All of those are possibilities. But, as far as I know, in practical, everyday reality, none of those have been demonstrated to exist, whether it be God or Superman.

      4. You have to understand, if you make the claim, the burden of proof is on you. My job is not to disprove your claim. My position is just disbelief until you demonstrate your claim, because your claim does not match with what I know about reality. Now, if you take the position that I should just believe your supernatural claims, you have to have a reason why I should just believe your supernatural claims, but ignore or require a standard of evidence for everyone else's supernatural claims? And telling me you're right because your holy book says so, isn't saying much of anything, because I have no reason to believe the bible just because it's the bible. If it's the perfect word of a perfect God, that God has to be demonstrated to exist first. Then we can determine if he write's books.

      Why shouldn't I believe a muslims claims? Why shouldn't I believe the claims of someone who says a magic genie created the universe?

      5. Craigs argument is not airtight. Number 1, he says everything has to have a cause, but he doesn't say why. He just makes a claim he assumes has to be accepted as true. It doesn't. He says the explanation for the universe is God. Why? And why does it have to be your version of God? Why not Thor, the magic genie from Alladin, Raiden (the god of thunder from Mortal Kombat), or Allah? His argument is just a round about way of saying "Look at the moon, stars, and tree's!!! Who else coulda dunnit???" An argument from ignorance. Oh, and here's a bit of trivia for you. The Kalaam Cosmological Argument was first revised by Muslim theologians to prove the creation of the universe by Allah. That is what I mean by you have to have an argument that can be exclusive to your version of God. You can't have an argument where you can (insert your version of god here).

      6. Remember, you have the burden of proof when you make a claim. And also remember, before you can attribute something as a cause, that thing must first exist.

      Delete
    10. A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.
      Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, “intelligent design” creationism makes no testable predictions at all – it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer’s goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided – and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them – ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science. -patheos.com

      Delete
    11. You keep say evolution has been debunked. Well, all the evidence points to evolution, a theory is as high as you can go in science. This explains what a theory is in science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory. It's not just "what they think happened". Creationism is "what they think happened". This explains evolution, it's not just "something came from nothing" in the sense that you're trying to imply, as if nothing was there and then something appeared out of thin air. Actually, that's creationism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution.

      Despite your ignoring of all the evidence which points to evolution, and despite your claim that it has been debunked, it is yet being taught in schools and colleges around the country and the world as a scientific fact. No evolution is not perfect and no it does not explain everything, but it is the best explanation we have right now. Creationism has not one shred of evidence to support it, except speculation about what "could be".

      And if you think that there is some great conspiracy to suppress the truth of creationism, no disrespect, but you belong in the tin foil hat group.

      The scientist who could debunk evolution and prove biblical creationism using science, would be rich, famous, win a Nobel Prize, be on the cover of magazines, have grants rolling in from all over the place, be a hero to christians everywhere, textbooks everywhere would have to be rewritten and have his career written in stone. So why wouldn't any scientist want a piece of being able to prove biblical creationism. If I were a scientist, and I had reason to believe that I could use science to prove biblical creationism conclusively, and once and for all debunk evolution, I would do it, if only out of my own self interest.

      So no, I do not believe there is a conspiracy going on to "HIDE THE TRUTH".

      I think that as the evidence for evolution continues to pile up, eventually the church, mosque, etc will have to concede defeat on the issue, because then they'll start looking like quacks. And the reason why biblical literalists are so stubborn in admitting evolution is that because if the creation story is proven to have never taken place by evolution being proved correct, then the whole house of cards of biblical inerrancy comes tumbling down. That's why you're so dogmatic in defending it, despite the fact it has 0 hard evidence to support it. I, on the other hand, hold no loyalty to the theory of evolution. If it's proven wrong tomorrow, I'll shrug my shoulders and life goes on. I won't be in mourning over it. Science isn't held to be inerrant or infallible and is always subject to change.

      But never fear. As I said earlier, since there is no universal way to correctly interpret the bible, and, you can, for the most part, interpret it any way you want, christian apologists everywhere will then attempt to spin the creation story into one where God is revealing evolution to Moses long before any scientists ever thought of it. They will then say the creation story is a metaphor on how God created the world through evolution and that he was explaining it in a way "the people" (whoever they are) would understand, instead of using all that science talk, which would've just confused everybody.

      And they will then search out bible passages which they will now interpret as describing evolution. So don't worry, biblical scholars will find a way to rescue your doctrine of biblical inerrancy. I promise you that.

      Delete
    12. You said: "Thoughts are bio-chemical reactions from the brain. And thoughts are things that can be demonstrated."

      Abjectly FALSE assumption under scientific method. There is NO WAY to prove a thought using scientific method. It is a DEDUCTIVE argument that thoughts exist. So scientific method including falsifiability are wholly inaccurate to even prove a thought. So you are wholly incorrect. Now if you don;t know this stuff you needs some good resources and some more study. Here is a non-Christian author that makes the case clearly. There are MANY THINGS that are not subject to empiricism and are real. Sorry you didn't know this Mr. OSTRICH!

      http://www.amazon.com/The-Outer-Limits-Reason-Mathematics/dp/0262019353

      Now you are about to get booted out of the forum for wasting time and talking stupid. Here you go, between points 2 and 3 you show your utter confusion:

      You say::"Nothing supernatural has been proven to exist. The moment to believe in something is when there is evidence to do so. So far, there is none." Then immediately following you say: "I am not making any claim. I'm not saying any god doesn't exist. Then you go on to argue for the existence of Superman in an alternate universe??? What kinda GARBAGE is that??? Nobody is talking about alternate universes.

      What you are saying is that if God exists, you REJECT all the CURRENT EVIDENCES and proofs presented and say that they are inadequate to satisfy your criteria for evidence. The fact is that God is READILY and ABUNDANTLY demonstrated to exist there are many arguments that are both philosophically sound logically reasonable and logically coherent. All of those things combined with personal experience of MILLIONS and even BILLIONS of people cannot simply be written off.

      Peter Kreeft placed together at least 20 arguments that offer solid proofs and evidences over the years to prove the existence of not only a spiritual real and a theistic God, but when the evidences are applied, to prove the existence of a Christian or biblical God as well.

      http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

      So the question is, since you reject all evidences, which is utterly irrational at best, what type of evidence would satisfy your requirements of evidence for the existence of God? This ought to be fun....

      You say Craig's argument is wrong because he says:"Number 1, he says everything has to have a cause, but he doesn't say why." name ONE THING that begins to exist without a cause. PLEASE name 1.

      The reasoning is self-evident and his argument is sound. Christian have no burden of proof in any argument. What you have is a priori naturalism. That I have demonstrated is a faulted worldview. Naturalism could not have always existed even though Daniel Dennett says that the universe was self starting, that still yet points to a cause. So agnostics and atheists, whatever you want to claim when it is convenient for you to claim such, are all jacked up, rejecting evidence as they see fit and claiming that things they make up such as fictional characters have any place or basis in history and could possibly be god...How jacked up can your thinking be....My goodness!!!!

      Delete
    13. You said: "A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable"

      Stop listening to the idiots feeding you that garbage. The Big bang is a scientific hypothesis and even stated to be a scientific fat. It is neither testable nor is it falsifiable. So get rid of that argument, as many times as you state it, I will refute it with its own proposition. Sheeesh!!!!

      You said:"I think that as the evidence for evolution continues to pile up"

      I think there is a PILE of stuff, but it sure ain't called evidence for evolution. What you don;t seem to understand is that evolution, as in species developing into an new or completely different species, which is the claim of evolution, doesn't exist. Variations within species everyone agrees. Big dogs, little dogs, dautsuns and German Shepherds...but yet they are ALL dogs.

      The evolutionary claim is that first, non living matter became life and living matter. That is called abiogenesis. There is nothing the world that has ever proved that in in the most minute detail. Secondly, that life, begin to mutate changing itself over time and environmental pressure into all kinds of various species and forms of life. So the deer is related to the giraffe, to the alligator, to the swan...etc...that is complete HOGWASH!

      The courts can't tell us what truth is. Neither can they implement religious premises. So we are stuck with evolution for many reasons, some of which has to do with a CONSPIRACY against truth, when it claims to come from a bible position or perspective.

      Delete
    14. If you want to read more about how the Big Bang theory has been tested and why it is the prevailing cosmological model, you can read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang_theory.

      You're making a strawman about evolution, you don't see cats turning into dogs because thats not what evolution says you should find. You can feel free to read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution and here http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution. The only reason you ignore the evidence for evolution is because you're just presupposing that the bible is right about everything. So when there is a conflict between the bible and reality, you have to find a way to make the bible win.

      If there is some conspiracy against the bible, demonstrate it.You are the one making the claim you have the burden of proof! I don't know why you find that so hard to understand.

      Delete
    15. You are the WIKIPEDIA king...Look, Big Bang has NEVER been tested. It is untestable! Do you even read what you post? This is what it says...PLEASE pay close attention:

      The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, and it is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram.

      The Big bang theory is not science because it can be tested...it is TRUE (as science calls it true) in as much as it is CONSISTENT WITH OBSERVATIONS, or what we already know to be true. There is no test to falsify it.

      MY GOODNESS...it's like talking to a rock on vacation. This is RUDIMENTARY!

      Delete
    16. Ok, if you want to play word games about what is a thought and how do I know they exist. Well we all have thoughts and they are demonstrated by our speech and actions. Someone can ask me "What am I thinking" and i can give them a response as to what is in my brain at the moment. I'm even putting my thoughts down on this computer screen. That's how I know thoughts exist. They can be demonstrated, even if they can't be seen.

      I am not arguing for the existence of an alternate universe where superman exist. You're purposely twisting my argument to make yours make sense. Let me explain in the best possible way I can. That was an analogy to say that it is impossible to prove a negative. What I was saying is that no one can say as an absolute certainty that no gods exist anywhere in reality anymore than anyone can say with an absolute certainty that somewhere out in reality superman doesn't exist. And I think you know that is what I was saying. I also think you know that I was not arguing that superman exists and that I was drawing a parallel.

      None of those arguments prove that God exist, especially any specific God (YHWH, Allah, Zeus). In his first argument he defines God as " there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe". Is it a force or a being? He doesn't say. I guess it's up to the reader to interpret. And there are numerous flaws in all of his arguments, it would take a while to go through all of them, but I'll take a couple. Argument from miracles.

      Delete
    17. The Argument from Miracles

      A miracle is an event whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
      There are numerous well-attested miracles.
      Therefore, there are numerous events whose only adequate explanation is the extraordinary and direct intervention of God.
      Therefore God exists.

      Well, first of all, in the way he defines a miracle, there can be no natural explanation. Generally I agree. However, he can't presuppose that because a miracle happens, his specific God, the christian God exist and/or that he is the only god which exist. Thats a form of the argument from ignorance. I hate to beat a dead horse, but I go back to Sathya Sai Baba, who has millions of followers in India who claim to have seen him perform miracles such as raising the dead, fly without technology etc. Now those miracles were attributed to Hindu gods. So by his argument, those gods MUST exist as well. If he says they don't, then he is special pleading.

      He can't set forth a criteria which is that if miracles exist, God exist but only apply it if those miracles are attributed to the christian God. So now he is in a position, which by his own criteria, he must admit the existence of other gods. He just doesn't get to disregard all other miracles simply because they are attributed to other gods. But somehow, I suspect he would.

      The Kalam argument
      Whatever begins to exist has a cause for its coming into being.
      The universe began to exist.
      Therefore, the universe has a cause for its coming into being.

      Well one thing, why does this cause have to be a god, more specifically the christian god? Why can't it be a magic genie? Why can't it be Superman? That has to be answered and you can't use claims out of the christian bible to explain it. Because many of the claims the bible makes are untestable. How exactly are we supposed to test eternal life? There is no way. It's just a belief on faith, so you can't talk about it as if it's a fact of science, unless you're willing to provide a solution which will allow science to go about testing it.

      The second thing is, if everything MUST have a cause, why does your God get to be exempt? I mean, you've already established that everything must have a cause. So, then, it logically follows, that your God must have a cause. If you say the universe couldn't spontaneously appear, then why could your God? And if you admit that your God could appear without a cause, then why can't the universe? Why does your God get to be the special exception to the rule you put forth?

      I mean, the whole thing about those arguments are that any one of them could apply to any god, magic genie, superhero. None of them are exclusive to their being a christian God. The only way you can read any of those and conclude "therefore the christian god" is if you already come to the table with a presumption that the christian God is the one and only God, and you would have to believe he already exists anyway. At best, those arguments might point to a generic "God", certainly not any specific God. Even Pascals wager, that can apply to any religion. Assuming Islam is the right religion, then you're bound for hell like anyone else is that is non-muslim. So to be safe, using his system, you would have to believe in ALL gods. The problem with that is, the way to believe in those gods are mutually exclusive to the specific god. I.E. to be an orthodox christian, you must believe Jesus to be God, whereas to be an orthodox muslim, you have to believe Allah is God and that Jesus was just a prophet. You can't do both, so you can either be christian or muslim.

      Delete
    18. What type of evidence will convince me of a God? Well, for starter something thats readily observable and demonstrable. Let's go no further than the bible. The ten plagues, Moses parting the red sea, God speaking in a loud and audible voice so everyone could hear him and everyone heard the same thing (not none of this vague, voice in your head, I heard it in my spirit crap), water from a rock, feeding 5000 with a few fish and loaves of bread, raising the dead (I don't mean resuscitated through medical procedures, I mean someone stone cold dead, like I'm at a funeral and the preacher prays to God and the deceased person spontaneously comes back to life, kind of like Lazarus).

      The bible is chock full of unambiguous miracles that he made sure that everyone knew was attributed to him and him only. I mean, if I were around then and was seeing that Gods existence would be as obvious to me as my own (which is why I have never been able to make sense of the Golden Calf story, it's ridiculous). God interacted with the physical world in undeniable ways all of the time back then where only a delusional person or someone in denial could deny his existence. The fool says in his hear there is no God, wrote Solomon. Yeah I guess you would have to be a fool to say that back then, I mean, just yesterday, he made a pillar of fire come from the sky and he made sure everyone knew it was him who did it, not none of that Zeus crap. Who could forget????

      Now fast forward 2-3000 years and the best "miracles" we get is some guy who gets lost in the woods and then finds his way out and a whole list of other ambiguous "miracles" that can all be attributed to natural causes. And when he "speaks" all we get is some vague voice in our head or "spirit". This sums up all of my thoughts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VY2u7JZck_I

      Delete
    19. You stated...You are the WIKIPEDIA king...Look, Big Bang has NEVER been tested. It is untestable! Do you even read what you post? This is what it says...PLEASE pay close attention:

      The Big Bang is the scientific theory that is most consistent with observations of the past and present states of the universe, and it is widely accepted within the scientific community. It offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of observed phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure, and the Hubble diagram.

      The Big bang theory is not science because it can be tested...it is TRUE (as science calls it true) in as much as it is CONSISTENT WITH OBSERVATIONS, or what we already know to be true. There is no test to falsify it.

      Creationnism is untestable....creationism is not science!!!! There is no way to falsify creationism!!!! The big bang theory is well explained, you just don't want to accept it, because the bible is always true no matter what and if it comes down to reality vs the bible, then the bible has to win.

      So if you don't want to accept evolution or whatever else because it contradicts with your holy book, be my guest. But arguing with me won't change the facts. If you have proof that evolution is WRONG and that creationism is RIGHT...don't offer it up to me. Become rich and famous by once and for all debunking evolution and proving creationism. Go win your Nobel Prize, go change history. I guarantee you that on December 31, 2099, when people all over the world will be preparing to bring in the 22nd century, you'll probably be long dead, but when the news media is going over the top 10 most important scientific discoveries of the 21st century, Pastor Harvey Burnett will be in the list as the one who proved the literal biblical creation story to be scientific fact and debunked evolution as "junk science". You'll be in between discovering a cure for cancer and establishing space colonies on the moon and Mars.

      But since you have no such proof, then you won't do that. You'll just put your hands over your ears and say "blah blah blah evolution is wrong, the bible is always right".

      Delete
    20. This type of answer PROVES what I mean: "Ok, if you want to play word games about what is a thought and how do I know they exist. Well we all have thoughts and they are demonstrated by our speech and actions. Someone can ask me "What am I thinking" and i can give them a response as to what is in my brain at the moment."

      What that is, is a deductive argument. That is not a evidence subject to empiricism. Like I said it is a deduction that you make. In fact it is an assumption as well. So you AFFIRM my statements that thoughts CANNOT be proven by senses as you stated. You cannot prove MY thoughts by senses as well. That AFFIRMS my argument...typed words on a computer screen are not thoughts. They are typed words on a computer screen that proceed from thoughts. Again, seeing types words and claiming thoughts is a deductive argument. The two are NOT one in the same.

      Either you, don't know how to reason are you are simply ambivalent about a truly rational argument.

      you say:However, he can't presuppose that because a miracle happens, his specific God, the christian God exist and/or that he is the only god which exist.

      You are talking about going from the transition of a theistic God to a Christian God or God of the bible. The proof of this is contained with the person of Jesus himself. Jesus claimed to be God. he demonstrated that claim with immutable signs and wonders, not only that but a propitiation for sin and the resurrection of the dead. This was rooted in the promise of God, not only his his lifetime, but for centuries beyond him.

      Delete
    21. So far as the evidence for God that you will accept. You said: Well, for starter something thats readily observable and demonstrable.

      OK, what does that mean? Observable as in the evidence for the Big Bang? Well, you have that all day and I have filled the page with all kinds of various arguments of that. Demonstrable? Like I said, what does that mean? I have already proven that science doesn't have to be demonstrable for it to be true. Why do you apply a double standard to God?

      You argue with a double standard...at least that is miles away from that FALSIFIABLE garbage that you were on previously. So we may be advanced some. Now, you are simply delivering a false standard of acceptance....

      So define, "demonstrable" and "observable" in light of the fact that the Big Bang is not demonstrable nor observable, but yet considered science.

      Delete
    22. In addition, all the other things that God did in history were witnessed by others. This is the difference between Judaism and Christianity in general. There were plenty of witnesses. Internal and external witnesses to various parts of the narrative. I don;t have to prove any of that to you, you should study what you say you don't believe better.

      then you say this: Creationnism is untestable....creationism is not science!!!!

      ABSOLUTELY TRUE! God creating WAS NOT a scientific proposition. How he created was. However, even if you could distinguish the differen, this does not advance your argument against God creating.

      You said: There is no way to falsify creationism!!!!

      So what? THAT DOES NOT MATTER! Drawing this parallel does not disprove God's creating the universe, as secular hypothesis are also UNTESTABLE...Is the light bulb coming on for you????

      You said: The big bang theory is well explained,

      That is true...it is EXPLAINED not PROVEN DUE TO TESTS OR FALSIFIABILITY!!!!!! Get it now??????

      Somebody give this guy some electricity and a switch so he can turn on the LIGHTS!!!!!

      Delete
  4. You said "So what claim did superman make to creation? What evidence did he leave of his presence in creation? I'll tell you...NONE!
    God however made some claims. Then he said the heaves declare his glory."

    Just because a claim is made, doesn't mean anything. The claim has to be demonstrated. Especially if it's a claim by something possible nonexistant. And I'll assume you meant leaves instead of heaves, but when I see a leaf I see a leaf. I see nothing that indicates the existence of any god. I don't know who you get from "Here's a leaf, therefore God". One problem with that is the argument you put forth, must be exclusive to your God. With a statement like the one above, I can say "Heres a leaf, therefore Allah" and point to some statement in the Quran to base my claim on, assuming I take the Quran as the word of God. In fact, every argument you make, anyone can substitute their god (or magic genie, or superhero) and their holy book and make the exact same claim!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whoever made the claim means EVERYTHING especially when that claim corresponds to human reality and experience. There was no advantage to Jesus making a claim if it were not true and proven to be true. One scientific principle I learned in science 101 was that any untrue proposition fades into obscurity. Neither Jesus, not his claims have faded into anything obscure and the WORD still hinges upon him and his actions in real time.

      Time will erode all false gods and deities as it has. But yet Jesus STANDS at the pinnacle of all human history and the more people know, learn and experience, the greater his influence and message and TRUTH becomes. The atheists had over 2500 years to black him out, yet they are a small group, though gaining in numbers in the US, not hardly mentioned worldwide for anything significant.

      The biblical God offers much more explanation to life, its meaning and the real of creation than anything true science could offer because TRUE science only deals with discovery, not philosophical conclusions as Turek says.

      Delete
    2. You said "Whoever made the claim means EVERYTHING especially when that claim corresponds to human reality and experience. There was no advantage to Jesus making a claim if it were not true and proven to be true. One scientific principle I learned in science 101 was that any untrue proposition fades into obscurity. Neither Jesus, not his claims have faded into anything obscure and the WORD still hinges upon him and his actions in real time.

      Time will erode all false gods and deities as it has. But yet Jesus STANDS at the pinnacle of all human history and the more people know, learn and experience, the greater his influence and message and TRUTH becomes. The atheists had over 2500 years to black him out, yet they are a small group, though gaining in numbers in the US, not hardly mentioned worldwide for anything significant.

      The biblical God offers much more explanation to life, its meaning and the real of creation than anything true science could offer because TRUE science only deals with discovery, not philosophical conclusions as Turek says."

      You haven't even demonstrated that this biblical god even exists, so you're saying something that may not exist is making a claim that everyone is supposed to take seriously. A claim that science can neither confirm nor deny, thus making it unfalsifiable. And just because christianity has been around for a long time doesn't make it true. Hinduism has been around longer and is one of the worlds major religions. Islam, while not having been around as long as either 2, is the fastest growing religion there is today. So, I think you will agree that simply having been in existence for a long time doesn't therefore presuppose truth, unless you're willing to take hinduism as more true than christianity, simply because it's older.

      The biblical god has to be shown to conclusively exist before it can offer an explanation of anything. Once again, before something can be a cause of another thing, that something must 1st exist. Otherwise I can take your statement and say "The magical genie offers much more explanation to life, its meaning and the real of creation than anything true science could offer because TRUE science only deals with discovery, not philosophical conclusions as Turek says.

      Well, magical genies, like your god, have never been demonstrated to exist. So before that statement can even mean anything, gods and genies have to first be demonstrated to exist, otherwise it;s just another claim and we all can make claims.

      Delete
    3. And what are you defining as science? We must have different definitions on what science is. Science is simply taking an observation, making a hypothesis about the observation, testing the hypothesis and coming to a conclusion of the hypothesis based on the results, I don't know why you're calling science philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

      Delete
    4. You said: "You haven't even demonstrated that this biblical god even exists, so you're saying something that may not exist is making a claim that everyone is supposed to take seriously. A claim that science can neither confirm nor deny, thus making it unfalsifiable"

      As I said and will RESTATE again as much of science IS unfalsifiable...Stop listening to the idiots feeding you that garbage. The Big bang is a scientific hypothesis and even stated to be a scientific fat. It is neither testable nor is it falsifiable. So get rid of that argument, as many times as you state it, I will refute it with its own proposition. Sheeesh!!!!

      Since I have produced and present an overwhelming amount of evidence for God to which you just say, "there is no evidence" OSTRICH...what type of evidence would you accept...and DON'T give me that garbage about falsifiable evidence because I have PROVEN AND DEMONSTRATED that much of science is not falsifiable and or testable.

      So if you can't come up with something SPECIFIC and NEW...DON'T COMMENT AGAIN All you are doing is wasting time with obscurantism and goal post moving.

      Delete
    5. You have no CLUE as to what science is...I think your comments have convinced me of that if nothing else!

      Delete
    6. So far as longevity of religion...take Hinduism...who's calendar do they use to mark time...what is the dating based on? VIshnu, Brahma(sp) or any of them?...Why not? They have been around for centuries....That is because JESUS is at the pinnacle of history because of his TRUTH not in spite of it...

      In addition, you keep rendering the "magical genie" parallel as if it makes some kind of sense to anyone rational. But as I stated. CLAIMS mean everything. So I think I will begin by posting each one of my CAT DIED analogy on this subject bu course...

      Delete
  5. So why can't any of the other 20,000 gods fit theories for the cause and creation of life and existence and miracles? As promised here is the CAT DIED analogy by course. This is the site from which this info is taken: http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cat-died/

    C- Claims. Pagan gods and mythological figures made no claims to bless humanity or better lives in any way. Why should there be an expectation of an intervention from them when there is no claim made to do so in any way? This is a primary reason as well as an evidence that no other so-called deity can be responsible for blessing either a Christian, humanity in general, or any individual in any way. Any such parallels are not only sparse to non-existent, but also produced after Christianity was gaining strength and broader acceptance in ANE (Ancient Near East) times.

    “There is a sort of notion in the air everywhere that all the religions are equal because all the religious founders were rivals, that they are all fighting for the same starry crown. It is quite false. The claim to that crown, or anything like that crown, is really so rare as to be unique. Mahomet(d) did not make it any more than Micah or Malachi. Confucius did not make it any more that Plato or Marcus Aurelius. Buddha never said he was Brahma. Zoroaster no more claimed to be Ormuz than to be Ahriman.” ~ G.K. Chesterton (1834-1936) The Everlasting Man 1925

    ReplyDelete
  6. #2
    So why can't any of the other 20,000 gods fit theories for the cause and creation of life and existence and miracles? As promised here is the CAT DIED analogy by course. This is the site from which this info is taken: http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cat-died/

    A- Absence. Pagan gods and mythological figures offer no ongoing presence either in history or current reality. They show no evidence of having existed within historical reality and have left no promise to exist in our current reality or continuum. Further, in whatever literary evidence that does exist, these beings show no interest in the human condition in any way. In most literature pagan gods are usually selfish, self centered, can be undermined by stronger gods, and show a disinterest in the condition of humanity. Still yet others, such as Osiris for example, exist only in the underworld in a state of zombification.

    ReplyDelete
  7. # 3
    So why can't any of the other 20,000 gods fit theories for the cause and creation of life and existence and miracles? As promised here is the CAT DIED analogy by course. This is the site from which this info is taken: http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cat-died/

    T- Testimony. There is no independent or otherwise testimony that pagan gods or mythological beings either helped or continue to help anyone in any way. In fact records left for any claimed miraculous events are sparse, not multiply attested, inconsistent, and serve to only display the dependence of the supposed deity or being upon other deities in constant and reoccurring death scenarios linked to crop harvest and seasons such as Spring, Summer, Winter, and Fall.

    ReplyDelete
  8. # 4
    So why can't any of the other 20,000 gods fit theories for the cause and creation of life and existence and miracles? As promised here is the CAT DIED analogy by course. This is the site from which this info is taken: http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cat-died/

    D – Demonstration Neither pagan gods or mythological figures offer observable and multiply attested demonstration of power or sustained miraculous performance without limitation in any manner. In fact, as noted above, many pagan gods were in constant struggle with one another, and sometimes had each other killed. This indicates limitation of power and authority. Concepts of a god with limited power and authority is not descriptive of the God described within scripture. Further, and most specifically, Jesus demonstrated his power over life and death through the immutable fact of the resurrection and claims sole authority over all powers that exist both seen and unseen. Those concepts do not exist in pagan mythology.

    ReplyDelete
  9. #5
    So why can't any of the other 20,000 gods fit theories for the cause and creation of life and existence and miracles? As promised here is the CAT DIED analogy by course. This is the site from which this info is taken: http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cat-died/

    I – Invitation. There is no invitation by any pagan god or mythological figure for humanity to take part in any sort of ongoing blessing or special promise. There is no extension or invitation of humanity to enter into the “graces” of any deity or mythological figure. Pagan gods have a closed door policy, act in secrecy and tell their adherents to not tell or spread the news of their existence and whatever benefits offered. They are certainly not evangelical and do not operate under a commission to proliferate the ideas and concepts of the deity.

    ReplyDelete
  10. #6
    So why can't any of the other 20,000 gods fit theories for the cause and creation of life and existence and miracles? As promised here is the CAT DIED analogy by course. This is the site from which this info is taken: http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cat-died/

    E – Evidence. There is a marked and defined absence of any normally accepted historical evidences such as eyewitness testimony, literary evidences, archaeological evidences, or multiple attestations from both friendly and hostile sources. Christianity demonstrates all of these sorts of evidences and more. As stated, historical finds down through the centuries have only served to validate or place valuable perspective on accounts recorded within the biblical narrative and have not to date overturned any narratives recorded within scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  11. #7
    So why can't any of the other 20,000 gods fit theories for the cause and creation of life and existence and miracles? As promised here is the CAT DIED analogy by course. This is the site from which this info is taken: http://dunamis2.wordpress.com/cat-died/

    D – Discipleship. As contrasted with Christianity, pagan gods and mythological figures had no uniform message or creed, never garnered individuals to proliferate their messages, offered parallels that were of a historically late date, and were ever changing in nature as myth tends to do, and certainly not life impacting in any manner. Whereas Christianity had disciples who were of all persuasions, skeptics who were converted such as James and Paul and a remarkably consistent set of truths or creeds espoused and taught both early (within some 10 years of Jesus death) and expansively in many regions of the known world. Where Christianity was taught certain doctrines were also taught with great consistency and in an unevolving manner. Teachings such as the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus were commonly passed down and taught in every region where Christian writings have been retained. We call those consistent set of principles, beliefs and teachings, essentials of the faith.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In short, one can't attribute anything divine to any being who never made the claim. The reason that we can;t consider a "genie" or any other silly, and made up god to exist or to have done anything in time is that none of them claimed to have. Why assert something to anything that made a claim. If one is to say that unreal things don't make claims...that's the point! GOD IS REAL and he has made the claim.

    So one cannot REASONABLY argue that "it could have been anything" when "anything" such as a "myth" does not make claims. Jesus was a REAL person of history. He was God. he has made certain claims. Those claims are unique in history. Those are the claims that should be examined.

    So one cannot talk about "proving the existence of God" without first knowing that if Jesus was real, claimed to be God, preformed all those things that are said of him and recorded in history and was RESURRECTED from the dead...That alone IS the proof of the existence of God. It follows the SCIENCE of history as historical studies are methodoligical.

    If we can't know history, then we can know nothing historically at all. That would be a ridiculous proposition, but it is one that radical atheists and extremists are willing to try to assert, that all history is lost, and that we can know nothing of it. That is about the most foolish, sick and sad argument that there ever was. Unfortuately that is what the radical atheist and agnostic is willing to resort to in their denial of God.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Look I don't care about claims Jesus made!!!!! None of them have been demonstrated to be true. None of them, perhaps the most important one, eternal life can even be tested. And the ones that can be tested like Mark 11:24,Matthew 21:21, Matthew 18:19 fail consistently and miserably when actually put to the test. Why should I care what claims the bible makes??? And it's debatable at best as to whether Jesus existed, and even if he did, that says nothing to his supernatural claims which have to be demonstrated separately. And just because 500 people supposedly saw him after his resurrection and just because Josephus wrote about him means nothing.

    I mean, your whole argument is "The bible says...." which has to presuppose that the bible is correct. I don't share that position. I have no reason to. You might as well be telling me "Alice in wonderland says....". Thats irrelevant to me until such time it can be demonstrated that God exists, then demonstrated that the bible is his word. Otherwise, you're quoting an old book to me.

    I mean, there is a man in India, right now in the 20-21st century doing miracles exactly what Jesus is said to have done. And he has millions of followers whom we can go talk to right now. No one can talk to any of those claiming to have seen Jesus. So we have a man who lived 2000 years ago, who supposedly did miracles in a superstitious culture where everyone thought everything they couldn't explain was caused by magic.

    I am sure that 2000 years from now there will be writings on Sathya Sai Baba which will say millions of people saw him fly and raise the dead. And there will be historical writings on him from outside sources. Ok and? Just because Sathya Sai Baba existed doesn't mean he could fly.

    He died in 2011, but some of his followers are already saying he has come back from the dead. And claims of resurrection are not unique to christianity. There are many jesus-like stories in other religions which pre-date christianity.

    And you can't use the bible to judge other religions, at least not from a 3rd party objective sense. You're judging them based on a christian perspective, which will always lead you to a biased conclusion. It's like a christian saying "Islam doesn't deal with the problem of sin". Thats because according to Islamic theology, it's not a problem. So it's absurd to say Islam doesn't deal with a christian problem. Of course it doesn't, it's Islam.

    So to say pagan gods make no promises or they don't have a uniform creed....why do they have to have that? And what does that have to do with their existence one way or the other?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In short. if you can take the undeniable, indisputable evidence that you have that biblical creation is right and that God exist, I'll see you being interviewed on CNN and i'll be thinking "Well I'll be dog on....he was right all along". And my promise to you is that I will come on here and take back everything I said and admit that you were right. I will make it my business to come to your church in Peoria (I think I see you have one in Detroit, if you do I'll come to that one) to tell you face to face that you were right I was wrong and if you have a church in Detroit, I will make it my business to join. I don't care if im the only member there, it'll just be me and you.

      So before you say I'm being dogmatic and inflexible and I won;t change, on the contrary, I will, I just need the appropriate evidence for supernatural claims.

      Delete
    2. You said: Look I don't care about claims Jesus made!!!!

      LOOK, I AND WE DO! In fact those claims make all the difference in the world. The only problem is your understanding. You have NONE as to why that is important especially in light of the fact that he DEMONSTRATED his claims. by and according to all lines of historical evidence which includes but is not limited to the biblical record itself.

      i don;t mind debating with folk who can comprehend the issues and what they mean. But I don;t like wasting time with neophytes who won't listen to reason, obviously have no or little experience dealing with the issues and who can only offer unwarranted radical dissension on primary issues that even leading atheists affirm that, if true, demands that they leave atheism in the dust.

      Anthony Flew, understood that the evidence for god was so overwhelming, that he left years of atheist dogma in the dust. Some say he only reverted to deisim. However, among the facts that caused Anthony to leave atheism were not only the complexity of the physical world, but also the overwhelming facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1e4FUhfHiU

      This man thought circles around both of us and held championed and wrote of many of the positions you now hold and left them all for the CERTAINTY that there is a God and ultimately that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God.

      Here is explains his position after being criticized by Richard Dawkins: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MPne8NGgRE

      He states that Dawkins set forth his propositions without awareness of studies that were available to him in order to evaluate the info better. It seems that you follow the way of Dawkins. That is more closely related to insanity than rationality.

      Remember C.S. Lewis was an atheist who set forth most of your theories and objections as well. This is what he said about the reason he converted:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXbq3aVNlGg

      At the end of the day, it's not about an argument or doing handstands to convince you. It is about a person exercising their FREEDOM to believe. The EVIDENCE stands. It cannot be changed and will not be rearranged to suit you. The only question is, do you and people like you really want to be free?

      Delete
    3. You have never once defined what the "appropriate evidence for the supernatural" is for you. In addition, that is wholly subjective anyway. So until you know what type of evidence that you would accept, you can't really talk about and criticize the evidence that exists.

      God has been proven over and over...Then there are the MILLIONS and BILLIONS of personal experiences with him that only reaffirm him. The only question is will you continue to be an Ostrich, or will you wake up and come back to reality?

      Delete
    4. Dr. Francis Collins set out to affirm his atheism in light of the evidence. Listen to what this SCIENTIST came to the conclusion of. In this case it was the moral law which demanded a moral law giver. THIS is how rational people reason.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qygy14tC3I

      Delete
    5. Here is former atheist and legal evidence, journalist scholar, Lee Strobel asserting why the CLAIM of Jesus is important and so unique and why Islam did not make and or parallel the claims and the poofs of Jesus. He has already argued ALL of your arguments and buried them like most will when they allow the evidence to speak.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fpp37iJogFI

      Delete
    6. I did describe the evidence it would take. Didn't you read my whole spiel on the miracles that happened in the bible? I want to see those or something in the same vein as those. Why can't I?

      And you quoting the bible is no different from the muslim quoting the quran or a hindu quoting the veda texts, which, by the way, pre date the bible. As for personal experiences, your personal experience is not evidence for me. It's evidence for you. I haven't had any such experience.

      You keep making claims...a moral law demands a moral law giver? And why does it HAVE to be the christian God? Those why questions still haven't be answer. You just keep quoting bible scriptures without answering the question and saying "it's obvious", no it isn't. If it was, there'd be nothing to talk about. Why aren't we talking about whether Thanksgiving exist as a holiday? Because THAT's obvious!!!

      And if the christian God does exist, his morality is suspect at best. I'd go so far as to say I'm more moral than him and so are you. I don't think any of us would mercilessly torture someone for an eternity for honestly being mistaken as to the correct religion. I don't think any of us would mercilessly torture someone for not believing in something for which there is no evidence. I don't think you would sanction slavery, command people to be murdered for worshipping the wrong god (I hate when christians point the finger at how violent Allah is, while conveniently forgetting how violent there own god is), murdering people for things they didn't even do (murdering 70,000 people for what David did, murdering babies and animals in a global flood for things they didn't do, how wicked could a baby or a goat be, cursing all of mankind with a sin nature because someone thousands of years ago ate a fruit), murdering kids with grizzly bears for calling Elisha bald, murdering Ananias and Sapphira for telling a lie, allowing Job, a righteous man by all accounts, to be tormented and have his life destroyed over a bet with Satan.

      Gods biblical kill count is in the millions if you factor in the flood. On the other hand, Satan, the prince of darkness, the evil one, has a kill count of 10. And even then, those killings were allowed by God. In the book of Isaiah, he admits to creating good AND evil.

      And despite that kill count, that doesn't count the billions of people who he plans to have tortured and burned alive for eternity for such high crimes as nonbelief and having sex with your girlfriend or going to a nightclub. Arbitrary things which warrant NO punishment at all. If there was an earthly ruler who tortured his subjects for not worshipping him or not believing in something for which no evidence exist, we would call him a tyrant, a monster and agree he ought to be stopped.

      So I don't find God excessively loving, merciful, just or moral.

      Delete
    7. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_God_personally_killing_people
      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Examples_of_Satan_personally_killing_people

      Delete
    8. So far as the evidence it would take for you to acknowledge that there is a God (although you say that there could be based on what you contend to be no evidence) You are incoherent as they come in your reasoning. Anyway, you said: "I did describe the evidence it would take. Didn't you read my whole spiel on the miracles that happened in the bible? I want to see those or something in the same vein as those. Why can't I?

      Ooh you mean like the evidence of a dead man, being raised back again to life after 45 minutes of being declared dead? Or do you mean like the miracle of God protecting a church filled with over 600 people from an F-4 tornado that reached the outer edges of the parking lot before mysteriously turning away, or in that same city, after having destroyed nearly 1,000 homes only resulting on 1 death and 8 serious injuries? ooh, that just happened 2 WEEKS AGO in Washington, IL, less than just 15 minutes from my home..Some years ago, a young lady explained how that for nearly 3 days, she and her family were in a small space in the bathroom of a home in Rowanda trying to escape a renegade militia who was raping and killing women. All they could do was try to go without anyone hearing them and stay until the soldiers left. For 3 days the soldier walked by and around the bathroom, but never ONCE entered for any reason and any sound that was made by this family of women was unheard. The whole thing was miraculous! Her testimony was astounding. guess what and who she credits...The God of the bible that she called on.

      But no, you won't accept that as any evidence. It is all simply coincidence to you. It is something that "science will explain one day"

      So far as your human morality...PLEASE...let''s show how moral humans are in the aftermath of tragedy with scams schemes and looting of stores. Washington, IL,. was a White and well to do community...when the tornado happened, CROOKS were the first to make it to the scene...police had to staff to keep crooks out. Everything you know about being moral you know from God and him alone You sir are a RUDE and IMPETUOUS child sitting on God's lap and slapping him in the face...SO SAD!!!!

      Historically, if a person doesn't want God, then to be forced in his presence in eternity is an injustice and would be hell. Why should God save you apart from your own will and desire? To bad you don;t understand that this life is an eternal deal...let that light go off too!!! How long should Hitler be punished for his crimes against humanity? Were the lives of the millions he killed not important or important enough for you to place a time limit on it? PLEASE...your demand is like a kindergartner trying to teach a MIT University Math Professor, math....

      Delete
    9. Ok, I need more details about those miracles before I can make a determination You could be making it all up for all I know. And all those things are AMBIGUOUS!!! WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER CHURCHES THAT HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER WOMEN WHO WERE RAPED AND MURDERED???

      And you can't compare looting to eternally torturing billions of people!!! And Hitler only killed 6 million jews, which, ironically he was doing in the name of God and God could have prevented the whole thing by appearing to Hitler and telling him not to do it! But he watched it happen!

      Be that as it may, 6 million jews is nothing compared to the millions God killed in the bible, the billions God plans to kill during the tribulation, and the billions more he plans to eternally torture!!! And since those 6 million jews probably didn't believe in Jesus as the son of God, according to your theology, they are among the billions of unfortunate souls God is torturing right now!

      And don't make it sound like God is really doing everyone a favor by eternally torturing people rather than "let them be in his presence, because thats actually worse". Nonsense. No one will volunteer to be burned alive forever. I'm sure most, sane people will rather bow down to God rather than be tortured forever. I can prove it. In 1979, in Iraq, when Sadaam Hussein ruled, they were reading off a list of traitors to be executed. And while this list was being read, his officials were shouting praises to him. Obviously, they didn't want to be on his list of those to be executed. So I think, if given the ultimatum between worshipping God and being eternally tortured, they'd choose to worship God.

      And why does torture have to be the only alternative to not being in his presence? That's just an arbitrary rule he made up.

      I judge people or God, based on their actions. Thats the only way I can tell if anyone is good or not is by their actions.

      Delete
    10. What is a "never happen to anyone rule"? That is what you are suggesting. the real key here is this and I want you to think about it...You said: I'm sure most, sane people will rather bow down to God rather than be tortured forever

      I fully agree with that. I believe that to be true. God has done all that is necessary for folk to come to faith in him. He is present everyday and in every way, giving and dispensing grace even to live. Now, if a person says, I REJECT you God and all that you have done, or say, "I don't believe you and If I did know you existed hold you guilty for all evil and therefore don't want you" and they do this, not out of their ignorance, but out of their knowledge, then how just would God be, to, against all of their knowledge, MAKE THEM live and stay in HIS eternal presence? Why and how would that make sense?

      The issue is this...where hell and the Lake Of Fire is, and I won't play with you on the issue because I really don't know. It is a place however, where the presence of the Lord IS NOT. Man will not be bothered with God, his morality, his word, his will, his ways or anything else. I have NO CLUE as to where that could possibly be. That is a stumper to me wholly because one of the things that God is, is omnipresent.So is it, and I am not asking you, a place where his presence is shielded, or where his presences is not??? I don't know, there seems to be biblical consequences and conditions to both answers.

      Back to you and your argument...You would claim that "eternity" is too long in hell for disobedience or for what we know as sin. Well everyone sins because of disbelief. The same holds about what I was saying earlier. If a person does not wish to believe God, then why should he be bothered with God for an eternity? More specifically, to the point, why is "eternity" too long for punishment and just right for reward? If eternity was abbreviated, then heaven would have to be abbreviated as well. So this is totally consistent.

      Now, the problem with naturalism is that it devalues life. There is no purpose, plan or design behind life. Therefore 6 million can die and that is no big deal. Although it was actually about 12 million, how about the the 51 million under Stahlin? Or how about the Mao Zedong who killed about 70 million, how about Pol Pot who killed about 3 million folk, nearly one third of his country? The church fought hard against Hitler. he did not do this in the name of God. He was his god!

      I have already gone over this ground in debate with a university professor. read that debate so you will see how I have already addressed those type of concerns

      Delete
    11. In the face of that and much more, to say that God should be silent is atrocious. When we look at the bible and the mandates and the poetic language of the prophecies, we see God commanding death upon the enemies of Israel. I would agree if this was unprovoked and unwarned. Take Jericho for instance. They KNEW God was coming for nearly 40 years. they were afraid of the God of Israel for what had happened in Egypt. That is what Rahab told Joshua and Caleb...very few of the inhabitants of the city left. They had 40 years to do so, but shook their finger in God's face and dared him to do what he said he would do...Feeling sorry for Amalek? Well that was the same Amalek who had over 70 years from the prophecy of their destruction and judgement to do right and repent. What did they do? Antagonize Israel and even sought to have a curse pronounced on them...God said "he who curses you shall be cursed" (Genesis 12:3), Now, what was God to do? Does his word mean nothing? If he did not destroy Amalek, then he is a liar. If he destroys Amalek without warning, maybe you can say he is cruel. In this case, Amalek is given nearly 70 years to repent, change and or vacate the city...What do the inhabitants of Amalek do? They too shake their finger in the face of God....

      Now, there are 2 ways discipline is dispensed. There is a relational basis and there is a consequential basis. The relational basis of discipline teaches nothing. Everything is based on "our relationship". This is how the "teacher's pet" is handled. however, every good athlete and achiever knows that the best way that discipline is dispensed is in light of consequences. If something is lost, or has the ability to be lost, or if there is some consequence to actions, whether positive or negative, achievement and improvement is made.

      Like I said, a good athlete knows he or she will play and do well, IF they put the discipline and hard work in. If they do neither and still play, that may last for a season, but will end in despair and a short unsuccessful career. Bringing it back to focus, God destroying his enemies was NOT merciless, neither was it sudden, malicious or any of the sort. He gave mercy...folk wagged a finger at it...JUST LIKE MODERN ATHEISTS....

      What should God do, IF his word means anything, he MUST judge ALL that rebuff him and his plan. That is another post....

      Delete
  14. So....in keeping with God's morality....since all morality does come from him, I suspect i'll have to adjust my behavior.
    Next time someone calls me a name, how should I kill them? I don't own any bears, can I just use my dog? 2 Kings 2:23-24
    Next time I come across a woman who is not married, and also not a virgin, can I just shoot her to death or do I have to go through all the trouble of getting all the men in Detroit together to stone her? Deuteronomy 22:20-21
    I don't have a daughter I can sell into slavery, do you think God would be ok with me selling my sister instead? Exodus 21:7
    My brother insists on working on Sunday, how should I kill him? Is running him over with my car ok or do I once again have to go through the trouble of getting all the men of Detroit together to stone him? Exodus 35:2
    I have a friend who is a muslim, and I'm confused, should I torture him now to help God get the ball rolling (Revelation 21:8) or should I just kill him as sanctioned in Deuteronomy 13:9 or can I torture him and then kill him? I mean after all, it's not my fault he's using his free will to practice Islam, therefore, I'm not torturing him (or killing him), he's doing it to himself!!!

    Thank you for reminding me that morality comes from the christian God and I want to be just as moral as he is and I think God would appreciate that I want to follow his laws to the letter. So please, help clear up my concerns so i'll know the exact way in which to please God.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So what have we learned in this diatribe?

    We have learned that scientific evidence is not limited to evidence that can be discerned by the 5 senses.
    We have learned that there are many real things that cannot be proven empirically and that empirical evidence is only one line of proof for the existence of anything.
    We have learned that things such as thoughts, memories, math, and even logic itself is not subject to empiricism and yet exist in real time.
    We have learned that just as certain facts as mentioned above exist, but are not subject to empiricism, the existence of God is also not subject to empiricism.
    We have learned that it is impossible for naturalism to be self starting. That is a logically incoherent contradiction.
    We have learned that the priori naturalism in scientific conclusions that many scientists impose are only metaphysical philosophy of naturalism.
    We have learned that all things have a cause and since the natural universe could not start itself, the cause must be a supernatural one. To state otherwise is a logical contradiction.
    We have learned that the Christian God, through Jesus who is God, made certain claims in real time as a real historical person that are and were unique in history.
    We have affirmed without any retort, that Jesus was resurrected from the dead after having done many infallible proofs to demonstrate his power over life, the elements, sin and ultimately death itself.
    We have learned that God is not simply authenticated by miracles and that God, in spite of men, blesses men anyway.
    We have learned that Christians only follow those who proclaim that Jesus is Lord no matter how many miracles anyone else performs.
    We have learned that if there is anything such as morality, it cannot be gained or delivered by naturalism alone. If there is moral law, there must be a moral law giver. The literary biblical evidence suggests that the God of the bible has dispensed whatever sense of morality that we have and not merely rocks or elements of nature who clearly have no moral position one way or another.

    We have also learned that people who make claims about what god isn't should expect to have those claims challenged in real time and if they don't know the arguments shouldn't make them simply because one idiot has stated it. Here is an example of an idiot stating something that other idiots claim...even he was debunked by an agnostic:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUQMJR2BP1w

    Totally laughable!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. I haven't learned any of that. But I do think that if God exists and if morality does come from him, he constantly violated his own morality. If morality comes from God, then what's moral for him to do, must be moral for me to do. Otherwise, it becomes a do as I say, not as I do deal. Which is hypocrisy. I see people wearing What would Jesus do wristbands. Well, since Jesus is God, if someone is found gathering sticks on the sabbath, you kill them. If someone goes to a strip club, my guess is that you ought to torture them or douse them with gasoline and set them on fire. I mean, that is what Jesus would do.

    If my kids break my arbitrary rules, like violating curfew, then I should take them to the basement to the torture chamber I have constructed and while I couldn't possibly torture them for an eternity, can I just torture them for like an hour? I mean, they have free will, and they used their free will to violate my curfew, therefore, it follows, they must go to my torture chamber (even though I make the rules and I could just NOT send them to my torture chamber, just to be nice). And get this, it's not me torturing them, they're torturing themselves!!!! Not my fault.

    Despite the fact that I torture my kids in a torture chamber for breaking my arbitrary rules, I still love them.

    Wait, whats that? Thats evil when I do it? But, I'm following the morality....which I get from the christian God and torturing and burning people perpetually is what he does when someone breaks his arbitrary rules (which he call sin). I'm confused, why is it evil when I do it and even many christians would agree that I should be locked up in the nearest prison and have the key thrown away, but when God does the same actions, he's moral and just and loving and merciful? I dont get it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You said: I haven't learned any of that.

      That's because you are slightly ignorant-LOL!!!! Read my comment above about the dispensing of God's justice and judgement.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. No matter how you slice it, it's not moral to kill others for crimes they did not commit. Like killing babies or all animals in the global flood. It's immoral to torture people for arbitrary rules, I don't care if you warned them that you would do it. Especially arbitrary rules that harm no one.How does a man and woman who happened to be unmarried but have sex, hurt anyone? And how does it warrant torture, whether eternally or for 1 hour? How does gathering sticks warrant murder? How does calling someone baldy justify death by bears? How does not believing something, warrant eternal torture? How does people complaining, warrant murder? How is purposely "hardening Pharoah's heart" just so you can show out by smiting everyone else with plagues and eventually killing innocent firstborn children and even adults and animals, how is that moral? It isn't. That's immoral.

      Let's run a thought experiment. Lets suppose....and we're just supposing, i'm not endorsing this religion....that Islam is indeed the correct religion. Now, according to the Quran, all nonbelievers in Islam are destined for hell. You are not a believer in Islam. So you spend your life being a sincere Christian, very sincere in your belief, really having faith that you are serving God and you have the right belief system. You are generally a good person. Now, according to Islam, Satan is deceiving you with christianity (THIS IS JUST A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT, IM NOT SAYING YOU'RE BEING DECEIVED). If you are being deceived, you don't know you're being deceived, you think you're really serving God. So you die, and when you die, it's not what you were expecting.

      You finally meet God, who, to your surprise is Allah. He ask you "Why did you not believe Islam???" You say "Well, I sincerely believed I was serving you by being a christian and I thought that the bible was your word. If I had known you were God, I would've been a muslim" And you were telling the truth. Allah replies "I revealed myself through my perfect, infallible word, the Quran! I sent you my messenger, Muhammad! I made it obvious that Islam is my 1 and only religion through my word, the Quran." "But I was deceived, you can't fairly blame me for being deceived by Satan" you reply. "It doesn't matter! I sent my word and my prophet!" says Allah as he pulls the lever and the floor opens up and you drop into hell.

      Now, let me ask you? Do you think that you deserve to go to hell, assuming Islam is correct? Despite your sincerity, despite the fact you tried to be a good person, despite the fact that you were thoroughly tricked (because people being deceived usually don't know it). And since Allah is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent, he can appear to you right now and he would know exactly the way to show you that Islam is the right religion, but does he do it? No. He lets you mosey on through life being wrong. And obviously, since you are NOT a muslim, then the Quran and the prophet Muhammad is not all it takes to let you know Allah is God and Islam is the right religion.

      Now I ask you, would Allah be moral to condemn you to damnation?

      Delete

Please send me an email if you try to post a comment and cannot do so. Dunamis1@netzero.com. Thanks.