PDF God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point Counterpoint)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point Counterpoint) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point Counterpoint) book. Happy reading God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point Counterpoint) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point Counterpoint) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF God?: A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist (Point Counterpoint) Pocket Guide.
Navigation des articles
Contents:


  1. "If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists"
  2. Kant’s Philosophy of Religion
  3. Site Meter
  4. Browse more videos

These are facts. There are mountains of empirical evidence proving these facts. If your particular translation of the Bible says that our bones are made of butter, does that make it so? If it said that God was a potato, would that make it so? Of course not; the Bible was penned by fallible human beings.

Even if you believe that God INSPIRED the Bible which is what it says He did , then you still have to take into account the ignorance of the writers, most of whom lived in a remote desert during the Bronze Age, and who had formerly worshipped a volcano god before converting to El worship, and then converting to Yahweh worship — and still trying to hold onto the concept of the wife of God. The history of religion is clear. The facts regarding science are clear. Get over yourself, and just believe in God — but accept science at the same time. Yes, the bible was written by humans, 40 unrelated humans, over years.

And if you bother to look you can find it. Shallow really rocks through my mind right now…. Proof is in the creation that surrounds all living things. I understand you mean more then what we all can clearly see… and Faith, really? What big while you were alive like Moses you met God almighty? Would God make you have faith if you met God and knew God is Real? Maybe we can all come back… well except for the shallow ones that never make it….

Just believe in God? Of course. Just believe in science? God obviously loves science…He created it and made it available to us. You need to get over the false idea that science and God are in conflict. Wow, this is so wrong, firstly. Faith is out of context, our faith is sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. But it also says that we gain faith through hearing the word, and then the word is also proclaimed as Jesus, who is alive today and who is God. Your facts were taught by man, and our facts were in essence taught by the Holy Spirit, who is God.

Ours is drawn from a long line of historical culture of the Jews, who spoke a few of the broadest oldest languages around then. Honestly if any man was to right the bible, it would be the biggest hypocrisy ever, we as people love sin and doing our evil desire full things, which are noted in the bible for us not to do. There is nothing we get out of doing good on earth, apart from consequences for our actions.

Those facts that you mentioned are facts that are not accepted by every scientist and they have a tendency to change. What did life and the universe evolve from? How can something evolve into a system that works quite well without specific instruction to do so? What are the chances of that even happening randomly? We share DNA with bananas, that does not make you a banana. It would sure seem helpful at times.

The Bible does not say the earth is flat. The Bible does describe the God as exactly the being He would have to be in order to be able to create what has been created. As ignorant as you want to make the writers, they wrote of things that could not have been observed with the naked eye or quite impossible for those days.

They described things in the skies and provided details on geography climate, geology, topography, etc that they could simply not have discovered themselves at that time. Apparently they were not that ignorant since Biblical historical writings have been widely used by all sorts of groups that have done studies in that area of our planet. The Bible certainly cannot be held up as such.

What about other current religions with differing gods? What about previous ones? They can all point to books, visions and miracles to back up their cases. I am not denying your right to believe, religion served humanity well and much of what we created to replace it has done a worse job for society. So god, as an intelligent entity, must also be code based? Also, I get the argument posted about statistics and the infinitely small probability of information evolving in DNA.

Life seems almost invetiable? For the purposes of debate, there are some interesting articles here that offer a potential explanation of a evolution of DNA and b why the low probability argument is flawed? Be interested to see the counter arguments? This would also seem to offer some good arguments for evolution in action, although I know many religious people now accept evolution in terms of being a click that started ticking after creation of a fully formed organism e.

Human but not before. Some people regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.

Hasnain, if Allah is true, how is it he does not know what Christians believe about Jesus and the Trinity? Have you met a ghost, spirit, demon, Damon, cheer up, Genie, Jen? I just wanted to know who or what you are? Quran is the most corrupted book. Full with contradicting surahs. Islam is full of bogus claimed. A rocks language comes from frequency, all things have frequency which would come from a design a creator….

So do you need faith if you know God truly esist? I mean if you met God and physically seen and spoke with God? For it is in the Skeptics nature to be in denial and to deny others. Everything again has design, has code, has instruction, is from knowledge. There is intelligent design from the most smallest particles to the entire Cosmos, every sentient being is from something. The shallow mind body and soul of skeptic is that of a lost person in a forest starred in half-crazed tearing through the woods lost.

Peace to everybody God save you all and God bless. I just have to add one more thing God is great come God is so great X offended t x Cosmos X forever plus so much more than you could ever imagine. Why do we have to limit so much about God? Why are we so limited in our thinking? I believe that sentience is overrated and you are so arrogant to believe that you are better than a rock to this world than your speech about God.

We dont need a ruler but the means to rule ourselves. That way is a hard way rather that expect that a God or God fix everything or hope for an afterlife. That means than nothing we do matters and we just need to believe and stay in line like cattle. So no more creation, no more improvement, no future just mindless obedience. You cant say you are scientific more than you can say than you are a hipocrite. Dont believe that I am insulting you I just think that you pretty much gave up of this world because you are lazy with the prospect of salvation.

And that to the generations to come is disappointing because ultimately we need to transcend this world not because you care for salvation it is rather for disregarding reality which is to me the only thing we can improve. Rocks must be space junk minus carbon. Our life span for example exceed our bodies capabilities, vital organs were not designed to live as long as the entire body. We live to the 70s and to s today lingering until death finally arrives and releaves suffering. Humanity has created their own perfect designer in the Bible with nothing but mythic stories and fables from lunatics.

I love those mythic stories and fables, they made my life safe. However, you did not substantiate that claims, unless you defined things differently. No, I think we agree on the same definitons. God will only intervene as we humans allow Him.

A Christian and an Atheist Swap Questions at the Veritas Forum

Marshall makes excellent points for intelligent design. Bacteria seems to be the catalist that gets everything started. The Bible is an excellent roadmap, Jesus and the Holy Spirit were present at mans creation. The Holy Spirit has a roll in everything today. The Bible is written on a 6 to 7 grade level and therefore its easy to understand. It is no scientific book that offers proof. It offers an answer to communicate with God.

Both are are right I guess. To sustain my position, recently a rift in the Atlantic Ocean is a recorded fact. Some people have erroneously made a statement that God caused the rift. They apparently never studied geology. The Dead Sea is a result of Asia separating from Africa, rift. A natural occurence. There is not a shred of evidence thus far. Despite claims god made male and female, we even see fish change gender due to environmental inputs and humans born as both.

We ought to be well past all this. Sorry, my phone causes some silly typos! I meant shamanic drugs, but hopefully you could figure that out. Jack, you really think fish change genders? I suppose even rocks talk, that is the electrons, protons and photons that interact are in motion and therefore subject to laws of sound in very hard for us to hear frequency.

Gilbert Lay:Crystals vibrate at a frequency that can be used to run a very accurate watch. There is a natural frequency to everything. We do not have the tester that will test everything but if we had one it would prove that even rocks have a frequency. GME Of course our bodies run out before we do but you fail to understand we out grow our bodies and hence we leave it behind.

Now you need to find out why rather than using unproven myths as means of proving something is untrue and try and find the truth. How does a myth become a myth? Are all myths untrue? Are myths an exaggeration of the truth? What is the truth? Actually you must start with being true to yourself first otherwise it really would be a pointless quest. Ultimately, water is just two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Things change. We call that evolution in the biological world. It can be Darwinian by natural selection, the passing on of beneficial traits or other methods such as horizontal gene transfer and selective breeding.

Populations of light moths, over a few generations, turn dark if left on darker tree bark due to environmental changes. They pass on dark colouring. Man breeds dogs. Want a guard dog? Breed based on aggression, size etc. Bacteria have been shown to swap DNA by several methods, resulting in antibiotic resistance spreading globally very quickly. Why no dinosaurs in the bible? Why are fossil records different depending on what layer loosely, with layers of sedimentary rock representing periods in time they are found in?

Do you even believe rocks were layer down by that process, among others? Absurdity of Atheism If abiogenesis spontaneous creation without specific design can be admitted under such conditions of regularity, then purposeful generation and definitely balanced creation can be the result of error ad perplexity, since these two are opposed to abiogenesis. Such a statement is highly absurd that order and rectitude should come about without a Creator, and disorder and impropriety of design and fate should suppose a Creator. He is an ignoramus who says this, because anything produced without design will never be exact and proportioned, while disorder and contrariness cannot co-exist with orderly design.

Allah swt is far above what the heretics say. Who said anything was random and disordered? Chemistry, the driver of biology, certainly isnt either. Neither is physics. They are both predictable but just complex, with so many influences, so goat herding nomads and the like invented gods — lots of them, all claiming their brand is best and in fact the only right one. The alternatives to creation and evolution, for example, are laughably silly.

A biblical flat earth around which the sun orbits? Mud statues? Using ribs from man to make woman? Talking snakes? Magic apples? Talking burning bushes? Purposeful creation is very fast compared to natural processes on the same scale. The Great Wall of China was built for about a millenia — and look at what the end result is. Abiogenesis lasted for millions of years, and its end result is a mix of simple organic elements capable of reproducing with errors and engulfing elements needed for reproducing. Compare those two, and you get a pretty good idea how the former is impossible to do with the latter.

Do children with 12 fingers not get born? Do children without a head not get born? Do people with one leg shorter then the other not get born? Are we not all different from one another in some small or great way? What exact proportions do you see in life? You used a good prognosis of the computer and the programmer. Now how do we know the difference between sweet and bitter good and bad? Today man has developed more power computers which can process things far faster than us yet we still have ultimate control over them.

If they get a virus they tend to crash. We also try to stop the virus but sometimes we just have to replace the hard drive and start again. No suppose we have been designed in a similar way for example we can be corrupted we can contract a virus and ultimately when we stop working out creator can retrieve our memory and brings us back to life with a new body faster memory faster processors and more intelligence. A computer? Does it know it has a maker Can it choose to decide and follow the makers inputs.?

How can you say something is not true because it is not scientifically proven? How many times have the scientists books been rewritten because of new discoveries and new scientific development. How many people thought the world was flat and assumed the end of the flat world was the sea which stretched out forever.

Man decide I can cross that sea or I can attempt to fly like that bird. Man has not yet grown his own wings and flown with then yet. Can science prove this can be done? Why do birds have wings? Will man evolve into being able to fly? We can choose to accept we have a creator who has ultimate control or not. Religious has there are others in the form of angels however we depict what they look like. What if Instructions have been left for us to live and develop. What if how we choose to process these instructions has been left entirely up to us as individuals.

Once the code is cracked do you think the designer will sit back or will he be alerted of this? We know why computers have updates. To prevent viruses and fix bugs as well as improve usage efficiency which in prevents over heating and over use. Suppose this is what our creator wants if we were to have one I have not even touched on things like sleep , time domains , male and female, Science has proven that science alone does not hold all the answers. Basically what i am saying is why does talking and moving and seeing and everything else in between feel so natural if there is a very complex design behind it?

The biological processes of cellular reproduction are completely independent from mental processes. Learning more about biology will let you make more persuasive arguments about it. H2O particles created a strand of DNA while combining with different elements.

Why do u think we survive on water today and how we absorb water molecules. A human can go a week and a half without drinking water. Proving that u will die without water and the fact that DNA thrives on water as the moleculic structure is absorbed. Where did they come from and how are they constant? Great website! Very stimulating information. Perry ponder this; What scienfic evidence do you have for the perfect Axis tilt?

Cosmic collision? Einstein Law r being Disproved as we speak, bouyancy weight. Engineer disputes the Law, look it up. Not metion CERN by miliasecond speed of light, etc. Is it magic too that two of our planets spin in opposite directions? How does that affect laws of space and time? It has zero to do with any magic sky kingdom for dead people. Sure, some religious people made scientific advances, but this has been despite religion NOT because of it.


  1. The Philosophy of Edmund Husserl.
  2. See a Problem?.
  3. An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America?
  4. The Kimota Anthology.

Excommunicated astronomers and the like. Burnt women knowledgeable about herbal remedies. How does heaven even work anyway? Equally valid or not gods as far as I can see. What about the millions of South American natives killed by Christians, who were happily worshipping their particular jaguar gods etc? Them or you? What about people throughout a million or so years of probable human and human ancestor religious worship? Animism for example the worship of eg mountains.

Im just fine. You have stated that matter cannot have existed for forever. Will you also acknowledge the fact that matter cannot be created or destroyed? If so this does seem to purport the universe to be God designed, as there must have been a first un-caused cause. However, why is it no more valid to suggest that matter has always been in existence than it is to suppose a God has always been in existence? This hypothesis would be entirely consistent with the First Law of Thermodynamics. The singularity, as it has been stated many times, was all matter condensed into something smaller than an eighth of an atom, and not as you assume to be the beginning of all matter.

Therefore there really is no need to jump to the conclusion that God started the Big Bang, because your assumption that the big bang was the point in which all matter began is false. Now on to your information theory. Simply because there is a lack of an understanding of the information given does not mean that God is inferred.

No knowledge of one thing does not prove the other. So here is my issue with your argument. You are stating that because information is not material, it can only be created by the mind. Firstly you are assuming that labeling DNA as information is completely correct.

In fact the use of this word comes from our own biases as human beings. It is not as though, that DNA passes on thoughts and feelings. This information perfectly reflects the person physically. Essentially it could be looked as like a photograph of a person, but with such immense detail that it covers all aspects of the person perfectly.

Photographs do contain information, but in a different way than what is being written on this page. However even if you do look at it this way your argument still does not stand to reason. Most importantly however, it does not mean that it is proof of creation. Simply because we cannot explain the mind, or how DNA originally came to be does not make the lack of knowledge evidence of a creator. Essentially what you are arguing is this: Person 1: I do not believe in the Easter bunny.

Person 2: How do you explain the decorated eggs hidden around the house? We were both asleep last night. Person 2: Well if you cannot provide me with the answer then the Easter bunny must exist. It could be very well that there is an alternative explanation, which would make more sense than a large rabbit hiding eggs around the house. The majority of the population knows that the Easter bunny is in fact a fictitious character.

Is the Big Bang the beginning of time? Because somewhere you have to have a finite starting point otherwise the energy of the universe is completely spent once you get to now. You can posit alternative explanations all you want, but what I am asking for is evidence. I assume that when you say eventually you have to find a finite starting point, you are saying this because you believe that an infinite regression of causes is impossible.

So you posit a creator in order to solve this. First let me ask you who created the creator? He is the first un-caused cause. So then I ask, if God can be thought to be un-caused then why can we not think of the big bang to be un-caused? That does not mean that I retract the idea I was trying to convey. You are arguing fallaciously from ignorance. You state that because we do not have any evidence to the contrary, this lack of evidence proves the existence of your claim. Let me formalize a similar argument to yours. If God does not exist then we should have evidence that He does not exist.

We do not have evidence that He does not exist. Therefore God exists. If God does not exist then we should have evidence to support that He does not exist 2. God exists. Let God not existing be represented by the annotation N. Let evidence to support that God does not exist be represented by the annotation E. We cannot think of the big bang as un-caused because of entropy. If the universe were infinitely old, it would be burned out by now.

If the universe is not infinitely old then it has a cause. Which brings us back to the necessity of an uncaused cause. The uncaused cause has to be metaphysical. There are thousands of codes we do know the origin of and all of them are designed. There are no codes that we have observed that were not designed.

Yes there is always room for doubt. But I am arguing based on what we do know, not what we might find out someday. Based on the scientific method — which uses inference and induction — we have every reason to believe DNA is designed. There is some room to doubt it is designed but there is vastly more room to doubt that it is not designed. If you reject my inference to design then on the same grounds you would have to reject the assertion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.

When teaching my children about the evidence for origins, my goal is not to prove or disprove anything. My goal is to show them that the evidence we have is inconclusive ambiguous so what ever they choose to believe, based on the available evidence will require them to believe in something unseen. Both positions require making assumptions that go beyond the scope of the available evidence. Science will never prove or disprove the existance of God, that is one of its limitations, but to use that lack of proof to deny that there is any compelling evidence that points in the direction of a creator or to deny that scientists also have faith in somehing when evidence is lacking ie.

What people choose to have faith in after examining the evidence will have much more to do with what they want the evidence to show than what it actually shows and what they choose will ultimately be less of a reflection on their inteligence, and more of a reflection on the kind of life they want to live. We could be nothing but bacteria on an atom, these bacterias kill one another, could we not be the results of an experiment by somebody very very big, could we ourselves have killed off many many planets galaxies and universes when we split the atom!!! When we look through a microscope we see living organisms, on those organisms there are more organisms and on and on its infinite.

What has religion got to do with it, i believe that religion was invented by man after cosmic beings visited the earth and tried to impose some kind of order, when we crucified one of them they gave up and left after coming to the conclusion that we were too violent. The inference to the best explanation is this is the product of intelligence, yes it might not be the right explanation but it is for all we know right now the best explanation, are you willing to concede that much, if not, why not, what epidemic paradigm do you hold to that stops you freely making such a basic logical inference?

Now the Bunny and the eggs. I have always thought the very same question but rarely asked who created the creator. Suppose the creator has no knowledge of how he came into existence but was left instructions of what to do. Would it be acceptable to if this were true? According to traditional beliefs, God was never created; he has always existed. Without limit. My reasoning are for sceptics not necessarily non believers. The point is there are many scenarios which would give good reason for justification. We can either accept his word or not. The fact is his words are true because he says they are.

Now who believes that you and I do as many others. The point is for those who do not accept this there can be endless reasons to make assumptions on whether God was created or not. This is where faith plays an important role. Does this mean he must tell you the brakes are not working in order for you not to drive it? Just as our Islamic friends state we do not have or can comprehend the higher state of our Creator so how can you explain something that your mind can not cope with.

Can a new born baby walk or carry out the complexity of mathematical sums. If we do not accept we or limited mentally, physically as well constraint within the human body for a time then we will continue not to accept that this is how things will be until we return. Patience and time are great tests. It would be irresponsible of him not to mention it. But that has nothing to do with your overall point.

Navigation des articles

Spencer, the Biblical God is eternal. My position is He created our universe. So, the Biblical God created time, matter and space. His Word also says that He created the laws that govern our universe, which is a reference to the laws of physics. My response is the Biblical God. That concept has always troubled me, that God existed for an eternity before anything else did, or existed before time itself.

Like an infinite stack of turtles. But the Bible warned us to expect that. Here is an example of two forms of wording, the second of which is about twice as successful as the first: 1. Easy Personal Protection Training 2. Fast Personal Protection Training Suppose we were to write a programme to change characters at random in the first phrase with the following constraints: 1. Any letter can change. The probability of a letter changing is p. If the change does not produce the desired result, ie phrase 2. The programme runs fast enough to attempt one mutation every microsecond.

T depends on the value of p selected. A shorter time results if we consider a sequence of 30 amino acids and consider changing just one of them in a defined way. The quantity z is 4 and all else remains the same. These designs are complex. We still can not determine what direction light will go when it hits a prism based on identical condition each time the light hits the dispersion can not be pre determined. If science could calculations prove all outcomes then many of our scientists would be successful wealthy professional gamblers.

Well done. Agreed that specified complex information is always the result of intelligence without exception. Within the context of English every reply here is specified complex. Likewise within the context of life every protein and enzyme is specified complex. In order to disprove this well established well documented fact, the naturalist has to PROVE that nature is capable of reproducing specified complex information absent of intelligence with an example we know the origins of.

After a million tries with 0 success it turns into worldview bias rather than truth seeking. The Evolution 2.

enter site

"If you can read this sentence, I can prove God exists"

His Easter bunny is correct. Belief, not proof. To which you are entirely welcome. It is an amalgamation of amino acids, which have evolved over billions of years. You are wrong and need to consult a basic biology book. What about the creation of the metals in stars?

Kant’s Philosophy of Religion

All stars of a given mass evolve and create metals in the same way and with increasing complexity giving rise to all the elements on the periodic table. There is no known code for this yet it happens uniformly in an inevitable cascade. Similarly there is a similar inevitability from interactions between the lithosphere, hydrosphere and geosphere where the cascade path of least resistance leads inevitably toward life.

That it took microbial organisms at least 2. I can see how those that want to believe in a creator, have a limited education or do not understand the principles of evolutionary biology may be taken in by your argument but in reality it is a simple straw man argument and proves nothing. I am entirely enthusiastic about the possibility of someone solving this problem. But to date, nobody has solve the design problem in biology.

If someone can solve the Evolution 2. Yes matter can not be destroyed but who said the big Bang was the the start of creation. I ask you also how did matter start. Was it just here? Can water be destroyed or is it converted? If wood is burned it turns to ash. What matter can be destroyed? This is a question not a statement. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus. Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.

They did not suddenly accidentally show up. They did not evolve into position. The point is that Easter eggs were not the result of a cosmic accident… but deliberately placed by an intelligent force. You can call that entity anything you want. You have taken advantage of the fact that people dismiss the Easter Bunny as ridiculous which directs attention away from the fact that you still have not explained how the eggs got there…..

Perry posits that it was not accidental…. The DNA has evolved over billions of years. It simply looks like an eagle to us, because we want it to. How do you, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter? Just let me tell you that you Intelligent Design is just a disguise of the same old imagination named creationism.

Stop pretending, it is NOT a fact, and you know it. Stop faking, most of the people knows the truth and want to be enlightened by real facts, still few, but only science has given them. First let me complement you on your argument. Let me explain:. Evolution is the random creation of useful biological structures which are sorted by natural selection. If the DNA can preserve itself, it is passed to the next generation. Therefore, the origin of biological information is the same as cause of evolution.

Lie on your back and look up. Do you see any shapes in the clouds? Can you name them? Unless you believe that God is talking to you through the clouds at which point I will walk away from this discussion , then you have just witnessed randomly generated information. For years before modern navigation, sailors used the stars to find their way around the world. Again, those of you who think that God engineered messages into the stars for you should stop reading now.

If you take it as given that the stars are random, then they are an example of non-designed information. This would suggest that you do not need an intelligent typist. You only need a reader that is primed to interpret information and able to do something with it.

A cloud is a cloud, an electron is an electron, sunlight is photons, a snowflake is a snowflake. None of these things symbolically represents anything other than itself. Three Guanines are not Glycine, they are instructions to make Glycine. Clouds are not built from instructions. They are built from chaos.

Site Meter

It is impossible to predict what cloud will appear next. It is possible to predict what a creature will look like, given sufficient knowledge of its DNA. You misunderstand. I am not using clouds to model creatures, I am using them to model DNA. You say:. The point is that clouds are a randomly generated form of information.

The cloud is in fact created from chaos and water droplets as you say and humans can interpret them as shapes that do not have to do with the medium. The same is true of the stars which move in predictable and navigationally informative patterns. In other words, coded information does not have to come from a mind. None of these things can be properly labeled as communication systems. No offense meant. The idea of Information Entropy and any appeal to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is inherently flawed. These things fuel all the processes of both our cellular and sexual reproduction.

We constantly expose ourselves to new information when we eat steak. Looking at the universe as a whole, entropy goes up, information is lost, etc. There is no contradiction that implies anything further. This is classically illustrated by thinking of a person who is trapped in an entirely in a black and white room. As they grow older, they become an expert in the field of color, even though they have never seen it. One day, though, someone tosses an apple into the room, and suddenly their understanding of color transcends anything they had previously known.

In this lies qualia. There is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia. From this we deduce merely that there is another substance beyond what we traditionally think of as the material world. I have recently come to the conclusion that, by and large, God intentionally does not reveal himself in scientifically verifiable means. Instead, God operates on a personal level. If God truly desires a relationship with us, he would not reveal himself in a bland and dispassionate manner.

For example, I have had a very clear and distinct vision from God several years back, for which I thank God and consider myself incredibly blessed. It is this vision which has brought me here, even, as in it I received my purpose in directly combating the New Atheism and baseless moral structure that now plagues our society.

But it is not scientifically verifiable. But if I earn their trust and show them that I have something real and good, then I will be able to minister to their needs. What we need on offense is good philosophy to expose the poor philosophy inherent in so many modern ideas. I was very, very grateful to have found this book, and the circumstances surrounding that are rather extraordinary, as well.

As I picked it up just yesterday, I discovered that the way had already been prepared in terms of discovering the roots of these modern ideas, and as I read, I could see my own ideas which I had been thinking on for several months — if not years — suddenly unfolding in completion before me. So anyhow, I highly recommend you pick it up. In it, I think you will find the true battleground where we must fight our spiritual battle against modern ideas. I agree with a lot of what you said except your whole spiel on understanding. To see a color is not to understand it, it is to experience it. Experience does not necessarily equate to knowledge.

A sensation or experience is only understood through mutual experiences, not knowledge. For instance, someone who has never felt pain, will not be able to share in a the mutual experience when the idea is expressed, instead he will always have an abstract idea of it. So I would have to disagree that it is redundant. Next you said that as far as we are aware there is no eveidence that any proton, neutron, electron, or any known particle or substance can produce qualia. I find this a little confusing because qualia originates from your brain, and your brain is made of atoms.

So while an atom independently may not be able to cause qualia, it definitely is responsible indirectly for it. Anyhow, I think you misunderstand me when I say the person who sees an apple understands color on a deeper level. But I hold that atoms cannot produce qualia. Yes, they are responsible for producing the signal that ultimately gets translated into qualia, but qualia transcend physical existence. Computers store information and churn out responses regularly. Hi blind sight I just wonder why does man want to recreate.

Why do most men or women desire having child. If some people do not believe in afterlife why create life knowing I will have will be gone again forever. Why love someone only to be hurt when you lose them. Ultimately why would you desire to continue living, working, struggling, enjoying what for? I say after life because some people believe there is life after death but may not accept God as the reason What is sciences answer to emotion. We know be bad can lead to self destruction and good can lead to longevity and peace. Why do most prefer the later. Can you count all the stars or all the sand on the earth.

You call it chaos because it can not be calculated by man. What else do assume is chaos because we can not pre determine the outcome. Some things will forever be beyond us while we are here on earth. Would you show the world how to time travel if you ever discovered a way to do it? Looks like the first two lines there were quoting you, Perry. Check the last comment up the thread. Just got correct you there, Evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense when they had to modify it is random mutation followed by natural selection. However a replicating replicator DNA has to be in existence before it can mutate and be selected for or against.

Evolution has nothing to say about the billions of codons already existent in the first simple cell if such a simple cell existed. Read Mr. I believe I discovered he believes as I do, God uses the evolutionary process in creation. Face it, we may never really know our origins. Yes you are right Dave and intelligent as we humans may seem we are not the most intelligent. We live in a dimension created for us with laws and human limitations, much like a creation we have not been able to built till now.

Which serves our causes but does in some manner harm to us too. Example: We have been so far been able to develop a new world within our world and that is the Cyber World, right!? Anything and everything in this world is created by us too. Do you think that anything which is created in the realm of the Cyber world could possibly think or understand its creator?

A creation cannot understand its creator unless or untill the creator wishes. Now God creator has created us humans for some sort of exam. Religion it seems is the only guideline that makes sense. Since God the creator, Imagine yourself as a creator of a world and with set rules and laws, predictions, timelines etc etc…. It is the destructive nature of man which comes from greed and impatience that can never allow the human race to live in peace.

What is nature. A creator almost never wants its creation to kill itself or to take over the creator. A scientist if not working to kill its specimen will not want any such occrance to occur. Why would any loving creator do that. Is God a loving creator or not? God is a loving creator and that he has mentioned in the Quran more so often. It is the choice that makes the difference. Choice comes from within and not from any outer source. There is no such thing as destiny unless you want it that way. Crusades were fought by Muslims for the very peace that they had in their world and they wanted the same for the people under barbaric and currupt rulership.

Leaving Islam or Religion aside, God has always sent us messages, for those who want to listen to them or want to know the truth and the whole truth. For those who consider that life as we know it is everything, and cannot comprehend the existence of God or a Loving Creator can always continue to live as they wish. The only problem in that is they will live a hard harsh life with no rules and no boundaries much like the apemen were living in the past when they didnt believe in anything. Remember that time?! Is it not true that Apemen as we know them or the early people were Athiests and didnt know how to light fire!?

We as humans will not evolve and have five hands with 10 fingers. We as living beings have been given the gift of adapting to our surroundings. If this code was not written we would not be able to survive in this world. Human out of all beings on this earth is the most intelligent so much so that it has been said the universe has been created for us…The question is will we be able to live long enough to see the corners of it.

God has created perfection, Humans have not been able to do it. So are you gonna side with the Devil and curse the creator or accept and respect HIM your god your creator. Judgment day!! As soon as he realises its time, he will pull the plug.. Life is a gift…. There never were any apemen.


  • Kant’s Philosophy of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
  • Veil of Darkness: Book One of The Earthsoul Prophecies.
  • Special edition using Filemaker Pro 7.
  • Historical dictionary of Guam and Micronesia.
  • The whole idea of apemen is atheistic. As far as cave men there are people who live in caves today. Some of the Neanderthals who had bigger brains than we do, made super glue , flutes, planted flowers on the graves of their dead, cared for their sick and held religious services lived in caves. These are well known facts but to explain away God they are portrayed as more animal than human.

    They were as human as you are and you in fact may be one of their descendants as I may be as well. History teaches us the oldest people we have records of worshiped one God, the creator of heaven and earth, they were not atheists. Pantheism and the animism of people such as the Arabs with their jins etc. The whole concept of apemen has no basis in fact and neither does your assertion the ancients were atheists. While your note about the Piltdown man is accurate, you have ignored a monument of scientific information that address pre-human bipedal primates.

    Browse more videos

    Modern humans are very recent. Further, the earlier primates were clearly non-human i. Fazale Rana. Richmond, B. No matter what the evidence those that deny God must bend it to their view. I would find the whole story hysterically funny as well as absurd save so many will be lost over it. Go to the Field Museum, P. Barnum would blush at the Lucy doll with her absolutely human figure,hands feet, eyes, nose etc. The people who made the one in St. Louis went so far as to add human genitalia to fool children into believing this side show freak display you call science is true.

    Tell me Jim, since you think you are a scientist how any dating beyond what can be cross checked with human historical record can be done without at least 3 assumptions that are pulled straight from the air? Otherwise you are telling me your faith , not science. Sinnott-Armstrong made a few good points in his argument. First of all, all of those who want to insist an all good and Almighty God in the philosophical sense must be asked to prove they believe so rationally. Religious experience and miracles are not accessible to everyone who seeks for evidence.

    Unlike in the case of flea, where a microscope may suffice it to wipe out all skepticisms, classical theism cannot be proven rational in the evidential sense. When more evidence about and from such a God should have fostered better faith in Him hence more people are saved and a better world , it is absurd that an all good and Almighty God still makes Himself ambiguous to many.

    But here I have to point out his drawbacks even as it applies to classical theism. This resilient faith would benefit from its own anti-fragility. Another line of critique, commonly advanced by reformed epistemologists, is that Sinnott-Armstrong fails noticing that certain beliefs in our lives are just properly basic. Questioning them will simply lead to sheer skepticism or agnosticism or sollicism. However, I do not get why those who think they have experienced an all-good and Almighty God should not take their belief and experience as properly basic.

    His skepticism-driven argument becomes even more problematic when he insists that the traditional God is obliged to manifest Himself more evidently p. The famous case of butterfly effect teaches us that the complexity of this universe is beyond us. So who is to say that more evidence will save more or achieve greater good? Lastly, I hope to say that no evidence can proof an all-good and Almighty God, and it is not of my interest to defend such a God.

    The created universe reveals His relationship to us as a creator; our moral conscience may indicate His relationship to us as a lawgiver and ours to Him as image-bearers. Our knowledge and belief of these do not come through deductive reasoning but through the revelation of analogies.