I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done. I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
Tell me if this sounds familiar? You can't prove a negative. That means you don't prove no God, you prove there is a God.
If that does sound familiar, what part of it are you having such a hard time comprehending?
You have been presented with evidence that science can't explain.
That doesn't mean we should just play make believe and pretend we have an answer when we don't. That means we should honestly say that we don't know and keep searching for a valid answer.
And all you do is searching for controversy in its explanation and blatantly conclude that the entire thing is false.
I try and poke holes in any claim presented to me. It's not my problem if holes can be made due to how flimsy the claim is.
Claiming something is false without proving does not make the statement less true. This discussion ends in stalemate.
Don't start this again.
Any proof?
We can reasonably explain many of the things you claim God did without him. Even in the unknown where God creates the singularity that expanded into the universe but God doesn't need a creator, we can simply take such an attribute and apply it to the singularity that expanded into the universe and save our selves a step.
If that does sound familiar, what part of it are you having such a hard time comprehending?
Where's the contrast you are speaking about? I'm not seeing a thing that's not explainable with the assumption that God exists.
How old is the world?
This is old already. (Pun intended, if seen) You see, Bible states that on "day one" God created light, and on "day three" God created sun, moon and stars. This means "day two" is indefinitely long. If one of the "days" is indefinitely long, others can be as well. So, if science claims the universe is 15b years old, and Earth is 4.5b years old, this does not contradict with God creating it.
we can simply take such an attribute and apply it to the singularity that expanded into the universe and save our selves a step.
What attribute? I don't understand you fully.
That means we should honestly say that we don't know and keep searching for a valid answer.
Well, you turn a deaf ear to those stating you will fail to find such an answer, and you turn a deaf ear to those who combine all the unexplainable evidence to show you that God exists. You are free to do this, after all we can't force you into believing. But your wanting proof of God's existance contradicts with you not wanting to hear it.
Failed use of the term theory, it's just a hypothesis.
You might, however, make an experiment to reproduce such effects.
That's actually a good idea. Several dead bodies should be used or perhaps an equivalent such as a pig could act as a stand in. We wouldn't need to take it to an actual tomb but just recreate the conditions, several other conditions should be also tried in the event a tomb was not the location where this took place. Difference combinations of treatments to both the bodies (or stand ins) and shrouds could be done while leaving an untreated one as a control. I unfortunately don't have the equipment or money to carry out such an experiment. Perhaps someone who does would like to give it a try?
Where's the contrast you are speaking about? I'm not seeing a thing that's not explainable with the assumption that God exists.
Science is based on objective observations. Faith is just baseless claims with at best subjective claims. That's where the contrast is. You don't just assume something exists in science. If you can't see this I suggest opening your eyes.
What attribute? I don't understand you fully.
Even in the unknown where God creates the singularity that expanded into the universe but God doesn't need a creator, we can simply take such an attribute and apply it to the singularity that expanded into the universe and save our selves a step.
Well, you turn a deaf ear to those stating you will fail to find such an answer
That's because time and time again we have managed to find an answer to those things that were claimed to be unexplainable events caused by God. We have been filling the gaps in our knowledge.
and you turn a deaf ear to those who combine all the unexplainable evidence to show you that God exists.
That's because they don't amount to any sort of evidence showing anything. No amount of personal testimony can be accepted as valid evidence.
But your wanting proof of God's existance contradicts with you not wanting to hear it.
I want objective evidence, this means it can be independently verified. This means eliminating the bias of having to presuppose God exists to prove God exists.
If you can't see how offering nothing but weird feelings, subjective evidence and circular arguments is bad logic I don't know what else to say.
Even in the unknown where God creates the singularity that expanded into the universe but God doesn't need a creator, we can simply take such an attribute and apply it to the singularity that expanded into the universe and save our selves a step.
Ah, the attribute of not needing a creator? This singularity is time, as I can comprehend. So, time created everything. Then, there is infinite time behind the Big Bang and etc. What has happened then? And, if it's indeed time that you mean as not needing a creator, then cause-and-effect law is still applied to the Big Bang, as there was something before it. Who or what, then, created the Big Bang?
No amount of personal testimony can be accepted as valid evidence.
I'll wait until it hits YOU. I believe it will.
That's because time and time again we have managed to find an answer to those things that were claimed to be unexplainable events caused by God. We have been filling the gaps in our knowledge.
Um, any proves? I request a document about an event that's named miracle by the Church, and was later explained by science.
I unfortunately don't have the equipment or money to carry out such an experiment. Perhaps someone who does would like to give it a try?
I don't have neither. Maybe we could request this off STURP to conduct such an experiment? I think the main trouble will be to get the body, as it should be of a recently dead person, whose death is kind of forced, and all of them are subjects to investigation of the cause and probability of a murder. Traffic accidents count as well...
I want objective evidence, this means it can be independently verified. This means eliminating the bias of having to presuppose God exists to prove God exists.
The main trouble with this is that God is not the one to act upon command, and such a verification is a demand for Him to act. He'll just say "no, not yet" and your verifications will be futile. And with this, you'll happily say there's no God, regardless of initial evidence. You have a message from Fatima, you have a message via Gloria Polo, you have a message from Lourdes, you have a recent message from Amsterdam, you have more messages hidden in the history like say Guadeloupe's evidence, and you have all the messages in the Bible. But you are still free to not believe any of them and continue searching for God in material world with material science. Science is good to describe what laws are in action in the universe, but interacting with God is only for souls and those who believe - and God, as He can address anyone He wants.
offering nothing but weird feelings, subjective evidence and circular arguments is bad logic
Logic? Yes, bad logic, but God does not need to comply with logic - ask Einfach for details, we're polemising with him though this topic for long enough, and actually have found at least one agreement point.
Because we believe (and this was revealed to us several times) that a child receives a soul at the moment of his conception, so whenever a zygote or an embryo dies, it's the end of that child's life. We also know that baptizing is "second birth" to the Holy Spirit, so all past sins including Adam's sin are forgotten, so if a person couldn't commit sin but was baptized and died, he will be saved and will go straight to Heaven. But we are not sure about the fate of souls that die prior to being baptized, such as souls that die in their mother's womb, regardless of reason. We don't know if a child is given a too short life by God or by men, if a spontaneous abortion happens, but we know that if an abortion was intended, it's a mortal sin, and all who are involved participate in the guilt for it. We also know that evil done by one is somehow spread onto others, sometimes making others choose to sin again, and thus spread evil further.
If a child receives his soul at the moment of conception, where BTW is this said in the bible, then by losing the opportunity to conceive a soul you are effectively killing a potential soul and committing the same sin as abortion. Since this is clearly stupid logic your logic doesn't apply either.
On an unrelated note I have here 666 Proofs of Gods existence. At least one must be right.[url=http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm]
then by losing the opportunity to conceive a soul you are effectively killing a potential soul
If a soul has not yet arrived here, it can't be counted as killed, its opportunity to live a life is not yet lost, because the mortal life begins with conception. So this conclusion is false.
where BTW is this said in the bible
Book of Job, 3:3, 10:8-12. And please read chapters 37 onward. Job stated that his life began with his conception, God later said that Job's "more right" than his friends, but objected a lot of his sayings about His ways, while not stating something against this particular statement. Is this enough?
An embryo can't think when it's conceived in the womb so how can it have a soul. It has as much a soul as a potential embryo. And just because some 2000 year old book says it it doesn't means it's true
And the link was supposed to be [url=http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm]
just decided to run through that site. It looks like most of the arguments are specially made illogical. However, #263 recently happened in Chile, 33 miners for 17 days in a collapsed copper mine. #538 seems to be valid, if the cause-and-effect law is applied to the Big Bang, as the only initial moment we're capable of deriving. #568 is still an argument - especially in case of already-happened miracles. #660 is unrefuted, and is used. #51 is constantly used against me - weird #287 repeatedly happens, and sometimes science (medicine) cannot explain the recuperation. #290 is probably the best there... and in some cases there's also proofs coming along, like with Golria Polo. Most of the rest are plain false, some are emotionally-based valid claims but are logically unsupported, and since there are many of them, I could miss something.
Hoping that you understood that's a sarcastic site, I'll try to explain you where the sarcasm is in the ones you cited. 263 and 538 both assumes that some things (saving the miners or creating the universe) can be only made by god, but it's clearly not true. 568, science can't explain everything for now, but if we stop believing in what a 2000 years old said and we start to actually look for answers, we will be able to explain almost everything sooner or later. 660 some people got healed in normal ways, and they thought about the virgin Mary to explain it. That really doesn't prove nothing, sorry. I will write more after.
I know it's a sarcastic site, I mean it's on a website called godless geeks. I posted it becuase it was funny. Thanks Vesperbot for saying how to do links. I read through it a while ago and as far as I remember none of them actually work
