Free Will

[centauri]

 

 

 

 I can honestly say that I do love all people and I just want them to come to a knowledge of the truth.

If you want them to do something then your love is conditional.

As for the "truth", you really mean your version of the truth.

 

On the contrary, I whether you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ or not I still love you. Therefore, my love is unconditional. I would just be greatly thrilled to see you Come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

 

 

Well, it seems to me from what you just wrote that you're seeking thrills and those thrills hinge on someone accepting your version of "truth".

That gets back to my original point about "truth" being subjective.

It's a bit like wanting other people to accept my favorite foods as their favorite foods.

It just doesn't work as objective "knowledge".

It's only a personal perspective, often rooted in nothing more than tradition and popular cultural habit. 

For me, the Bible lost its authority years ago when I pulled back the pretty curtain and found roaches.

[TrueBeliever]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A 6 day creation is historically accurate?

A global flood is historically accurate?

A mud man and a rib woman as the first two human beings, is historically accurate?

 

These things are true history?

 

Ok.

 

No, those things take an element of faith to believe. I admitted that you have to take some things of the Bible by faith. Who can prove there position of how the world came about? I know from other posts of yours that you believe in the multiverse theory, but can you prove it as fact? That would be impossible because you would then have to be able to ALL the outcomes of of every single universe.  This is impossible because there are an infinite number of possibilities and you my friend, as all of us do, have a finite life. So, it will always be a theory. 

 

 

Hello TB.

 

Before I respond fully to your last message, I'd like to ask you to clarify exactly what you meant by the sentence... 

"No, those things take an element of faith to believe."

 

So, you believe them to be... what ...exactly? 

Since you don't accept them as bona fide historical facts, please explain what you do accept them as.

 

Ditto, with the sentence... "I admitted that you have to take some things of the Bible by faith."

 

What things?  An example, please.  And please explain your reasoning as well.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

"So, you believe them to be... what ...exactly? 

Since you don't accept them as bona fide historical facts, please explain what you do accept them as."

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I do accept them as historical facts because of my faith.

 

Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." This is what I use a definition for faith.  A definition similar to this can be found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. There is no real proof that God created the world in that way what I can say is there is a lot of evidence to back up this theory. A good website for this is answersingenesis.org.  

 

"Ditto, with the sentence... 'I admitted that you have to take some things of the Bible by faith.'

 

What things?  An example, please.  And please explain your reasoning as well." 

 

Take for example the existence of God. I could sit here and give argument after argument for the existence of God, but every argument consists only of evidence that there is a God. To prove that God exists I would have to bring Him within the realm of our 5 senses. Since I cannot do that I must have faith.

 

Well, you're doing a fine job of confusing me, TB.

 

You say that there is no real proof that God created the world in that way - but you don't make it clear which way you mean.  Which way?  The 6 day creation?

 

And then you say that there is a lot of evidence to back up this theory. Which theory? 

So far between us, the only theory that's been mentioned is Multiversal theory.  So you seem to be saying that there's a lot of evidence for Multiversal theory. 

Or did you mean to say that there's a lot of evidence for a Young Earth - which is what the Creationists at AIG believe?

But then, why would they bother with evidence if they rely on faith in things unseen, as you say they do?

 

You go on to cite AIG as being a good site - but good for what?

 

Not for supporting Multiversal theory, that's for sure!

 

The Creationists there do not believe that 'by faith in unseen things' that God created the world in 6 days. 

They claim to have bona fide scientific evidence (within the realm of the 5 senses) for a Young Earth. 

They don't rely on faith in unseen things, but on the visible and testable evidence they claim to see all around us. 

 

TB, you don't seem to understand what Creation Science is, if you think that it means 'faith in unseen things'.

 

In fact, it means the opposite.  

 

Even if God did present Himself to you within the realm of our 5 senses would that be enough for you to believe? 

 

That question will have to wait.

 

TB, a troll would make the kind of rookie-level mistake you've made here.

 

Please convince me that you're not a troll by explaining why the Creation Scientists at AIG don't use faith in things unseen to hold to the doctrine of 6-day creation.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

Hey, TB!

 

I entered the query, "Physical Evidence" into the Search facility at AIG.  Here's what came up...

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/?q=physical+evidence&search=Go

 

So why do they need concrete, physical evidence of a 6-day creation, when (according to you) they use faith in unseen things, to believe in the Genesis narrative?

 

 

Care to explain... Mr. Troll?

They do not need physical evidence to believe. They never say they have to have it, they simply provide evidence for the the theory of a young earth created by God in order that people who have been deluded by the world can see that the evidence points to what they already believe. 

You already know all the arguments that any christian apologist has offered and all the evidence that we as Christians have. You in fact were one of us at one point. 

I am not being a troll. I am simply stating what I believe which is what my God tells me to do. I never wanted to start an argument I only wanted to provide a christian perspective on free will.  If any thing I have said has offended anyone I am sorry. The Bible says the gospel is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. This is found in 1 Peter 2:8.

I am not closed minded at all I have looked at both sides with much scrutiny and have found your side wanting. If you as an atheist are right then I as christian will lose nothing I will simply be put into the ground to rot, but if I as a christian am right then you lose everything. Wisdom would tell you that you should be a christian. I am sorry but to me all the knowledge in the world cannot compete with wisdom.  

I will continue to pray for you all. 

[TrueBeliever]

 

 

 

 

 I can honestly say that I do love all people and I just want them to come to a knowledge of the truth.

If you want them to do something then your love is conditional.

As for the "truth", you really mean your version of the truth.

 

On the contrary, I whether you come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ or not I still love you. Therefore, my love is unconditional. I would just be greatly thrilled to see you Come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

 

You need to read your bible... without the interpretation of your pastor or current apologist.

 

There is almost NO evidence for the veracity of the Bible as the 'word of god'. If you have some, as an historian... I'd be very interested in seeing it.  

You are right that is where faith comes into play, but as a historian you must admit that the bible is historically accurate and is therefore, in regards to history, true.

 

Okay.. most of my esteemed friends here know how upset I get when LIES about history are promoted. Sooo... No.. I don't.. and no it isn't.

 

The Bible is NOT historically accurate, except in very minor ways, and no honest historian or archaeologist would make that claim. The Bible is not considered a history book by Historians. There are some characters mentioned who did exist, and we have some verification of that..But the Illiad and the Oddysey also mention places and names of the time.. so what?  MOSTLY Kings of other countries, Like Cyrus the Great and such. But anyone alive at that time, or even around that time would have known of the RULERS OF THE KNOWN WORLD. There are SOME places we can verify, but the events the Bible said happened, not so much.

 

A lot of the stories told, in regards to the rest of the middle east are flat out bullshit. The Hebrews were not the first people on earth, nor even close to the first civilization (the Sumers were) - they came out of the hills of Canaan and are more related to the Canaanites and Phoneicians (you know the Phoneicians.. those are the guys whose language the Hebrew language comes from), Yahweh came out of the Canaanite Pantheon...the father god of the Canaanites was El (El Shaddai) (source: Ugarit texts)

 

The Exodus never happened, the Flood NEVER HAPPENED and Sodom and Gommorah were not smited by Yahweh. The creation story and the flood story are 'borrowed' sometimes almost word for word from earlier writings of the Babylonians. (Source: Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh). The Egyptians never had millions of Hebrew slaves, nor is "Moses" a name... it means "son of"... son of who?  They never say, because they didn't understand the CONTEXT of the Egyptian word. (Like TutMOSES.. son of Tut) Oh... the story of Moses birth, etc.. is also ripped off from a much earlier story of SARGON of Akkad.  Oh, and Moses didn't write the Tanach, nor did Peter, John, Mark and Luke write the gospels. (it seems Paul however is the author of some of the New Testament)

 

Even modern Jews admit as much, and they would have the most to lose by admitting it.

 

Nazareth didn't even exist as a place at the time Jesus was supposedly from there... it didn't exist until later. There was never a census that required people to return to their place of birth... NEVER HAPPENED. The sun has never stopped moving in the sky.. and David and Solomon have never been found, nor their cities, or well... anything really. and it goes on and on and on...

 

It's all lies...and historians, the honest ones - not the apologists, and the archaeological community know it.

 

Add to all this crap the fact that Constantine and the council of Nicea hand-picked the scriptures they though backed up their view and discarded the rest because there was a theological war going on between various different factions of christians at the time.. 325AD

 

Josephus is a forgery

 

YOU HAVE BEEN LIED TO.

 

If you have EVIDENCE that I am wrong... bring it on. I can cite and cross-reference my knowledge. I don't have to take it on faith, or believe what some other person has written. I can PROVE my assertions (as far as history can be proved, it's not a hard science)... pick a topic on Biblical history.. any topic and we can have a go.

 

Please educate yourself. If what you believe is true it will stand up to scrutiny. It should, shouldn't it?

 

I am researching everything you have said. I will get back with you as quickly as I can. I will say, the Bible never claims the Hebrews were the first people on earth.

[LivingLife]

I am researching everything you have said. I will get back with you as quickly as I can. I will say, the Bible never claims the Hebrews were the first people on earth.

Are you serious?

 

Both lineages if jesus trace all the way back to Adam. Did you miss that? The OT is based off Hebrew scriptures so by inference, they are descendants of the genesis couple.

 

It is all bullshit as we know that humans have been around for 15M years. The Hebrew written culture is not even the oldest. Earlier on you were provided with true origins of these tales and you would do well to research them on your own. It is all myth upon myth not precept upon precept, line upon line.

[Ravenstar]

Yes.. it does. There is a clear line of genetics from Adam to Jesus in the Bible. You HAVE read all the 'begats' right? I know it's dry and boring - but it's there for a purpose. (By the way Abraham was from Ur, a Babylonian, no, actually an Akkadian city...heavy influence from Persia and the Zoroastrians there)

 

Try Wikipedia as a launching point. The Skeptics Annotated Bible is a good resource also. Here are some webpages that aren't apologist or too terribly biased.

 

http://www.lifes-big-questions.org/where-does_bible_comefrom.php

 

http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/mesopotamia-cradle-of-civilization.htm

 

http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/flood.php

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus

 

http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/com_geba.htm

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_for_the_Exodus

 

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

 

http://www.houseofdavid.ca/hist_bib.htm

 

http://freethought.mbdojo.com/archeology.html

 

 

And from Israel:

These are the opinions of mainstream archaeology regarding the bible:

"This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel. Perhaps even harder to swallow is the fact that the united monarchy of David and Solomon, which is described by the Bible as a regional power, was at most a small tribal kingdom. And it will come as an unpleasant shock to many that the God of Israel, Jehovah, had a female consort and that the early Israelite religion adopted monotheism only in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. Most of those who are engaged in scientific work in the interlocking spheres of the Bible, archaeology and the history of the Jewish people - and who once went into the field looking for proof to corroborate the Bible story - now agree that the historic events relating to the stages of the Jewish people's emergence are radically different from what that story tells."   ~Ze'ev Herzog. professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University, Israel

 

And scholarly papers on biblical archaeology:

In 1974 Thomas L. Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives reexamined the record of biblical archaeology in relation to the Patriarchal narratives in Genesis and concluded that "not only has archaeology not proven a single event of the Patriarchal narratives to be historical, it has not shown any of the traditions to be likely."

 

In 1975 John Van Seters' Abraham in History and Tradition reached a similar conclusion about the usefulness of tradition history: "A vague presupposition about the antiquity of the tradition based upon a consensus approval of such arguments should no longer be used as a warrant for proposing a history of the tradition related to early premonarchic times."

 

Note the DATES of the papers.. they've known this in the historical and archaeological community for over 30 YEARS! 

 

and if you still can't see it, this organization is fairly neutral and peer reviewed (that means they have to prove their claims to those who know when they could be making stuff up)

 

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine/

 

Happy reading!

 

 

p.s.  If you STILL think there is evidence, then pick ANY subject on the history (Jericho is a good one) and I will debate it. I'm not saying the entire Bible is fiction, obviously some of the authors reported on certain events and places, but it's mostly inaccurate..and highly political and subjective... and 98% unprovable.

[mymistake]

The Hebrews start in Genesis 9 when the Canaanite grandson of Noah is made the forever slave of the Hebrew son of Noah.  The Bible doesn't say that the Hebrews were the only first people.  But it does make everybody in the local geography around Israel into the immediate offspring of Noah.  Of course the story would be impossible.  It couldn't be true so why did it become a story?  The answer, of course, was to justify genocide and slavery.   When we attack you and rape you it's punishment for the way your ancestor laughed at the nakedness of Noah!  When we enslave you don't whine about it because Noah gave us permission.

 

The reality of it was that Egypt was building pyramids and China was building libraries during the supposed time of the great flood.

[Ravenstar]

It's going to take more than an afternoon to research deeply enough, cross-reference, check sources and citations to the point where you actually have a solid base to argue from. I suggest you begin with basic critical thinking.... otherwise how will you be able to discern the decent information from the illogical, biased and manipulative?

 

Anything less is lazy and disingenuous, and kind of insulting. I've been studying ancient history for over 20 years. Please take your time.

 

I'm in no rush.  

[Ravenstar]

Oh... I know I've kind of taken this thread sideways, sorry, but as I see it free will kind of demands that one have accurate information to make decisions from... and believing lies kind of works against that. Soooo, it is related.

[bornagainathiest]

 

They do not need physical evidence to believe. They never say they have to have it, they simply provide evidence for the the theory of a young earth created by God in order that people who have been deluded by the world can see that the evidence points to what they already believe. 

You already know all the arguments that any christian apologist has offered and all the evidence that we as Christians have. You in fact were one of us at one point. 

I am not being a troll. I am simply stating what I believe which is what my God tells me to do. I never wanted to start an argument I only wanted to provide a christian perspective on free will.  If any thing I have said has offended anyone I am sorry. The Bible says the gospel is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. This is found in 1 Peter 2:8.

I am not closed minded at all I have looked at both sides with much scrutiny and have found your side wanting. If you as an atheist are right then I as christian will lose nothing I will simply be put into the ground to rot, but if I as a christian am right then you lose everything. Wisdom would tell you that you should be a christian. I am sorry but to me all the knowledge in the world cannot compete with wisdom.  

I will continue to pray for you all. 

 

 

Ok, TB.

 

Perhaps you could explain something to me?

If the universe is as exactly as old as the Bible says (about 6,000 years), then it MUST be impossible for astronomers to discover that it isn't, right?  If they start off with the wrong age (13.8 billion years) and make false and deluded predictions based on their false and deluded assumptions, these predictions MUST confirm the true, Biblical age of the universe, right?  It's not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, is it?  Deluded people cannot be proven right by God's creation, can they?  The created universe MUST agree with the Bible... yes?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

You don't have to grasp the technical stuff here, TB.  All you have to do is scroll down to the 'Features' section and look at the diagram on the right.  If you read the latter half of the wordage, it says...

"...the error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve."

 

I'll explain this for you.

The astronomers predicted the shape of the curve on this graph, based upon their 'deluded' understanding of the universe's age.  They made this prediction before they acquired the data, using telescopes and satellites.

 

The agreement between their prediction and the observed data is perfect.  Got that?  PERFECT.  PERFECT.

 

So perfect that it's impossible to tell the difference between their prediction and the data they observed.  They made a perfect prediction and it was perfectly validated by what they saw in the sky.  Their predicted 13.8 billion year age of the universe was perfectly confirmed by light from the heavens.

 

So, please explain to me how this can be - if the universe is only 6,000 or so years old.  As scripture says it is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Astreja]

TB, your argument "If I as a christian am right then you lose everything" is flawed. The odds of you being right decrease with each possible god, and humanity has created literally thousands of gods. What if the Norse Eddas are right? You might find yourself in Niflheim with My cousin Hel, sitting around in a drafty cave with a collection of old Reader's Digest magazines and only reruns on TV. Your behaviour here certainly isn't worthy of Valhalla.

[bornagainathiest]

TB, your argument "If I as a christian am right then you lose everything" is flawed. The odds of you being right decrease with each possible god, and humanity has created literally thousands of gods. What if the Norse Eddas are right? You might find yourself in Niflheim with My cousin Hel, sitting around in a drafty cave with a collection of old Reader's Digest magazines and only reruns on TV. Your behaviour here certainly isn't worthy of Valhalla.

 

Astreja,

 

I reckon that TB's presenting you with his spin on Pascal's Wager.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AAAAAAAGH!

 

Can't get the link to work.   

Just Google it, A. 

[Ravenstar]

I just want to say this TrueBeliever: we aren't angry with you... we are presenting the facts as we know them because for the vast majority of us TRUTH is extremely important. We came here because we could no longer justify our belief (mostly.. each of us is an individual... and some of our members do observe some form of spirituality, some don't)

 

Most of us have been exactly where you are...we get it, but this is EX-Christian.net, not 'never was a christian.net'. Most of us have done tons of research to get where we are today, from our christian roots. Some of us were even missionaries and pastors, or in at least one case, biblical scholars. Those of us who aren't scholars probably know the Bible better than the average christian, and we know the apologetics, ad nauseum.

 

Sometimes we come across strongly, but it's not personal. (unless you tell us we are going to hell, that's not nice) You are not offending us... but we enjoy debating.

 

Just thought I should clarify.  

[Astreja]

BAA, I'm familiar with Pascal's Wager; hence My counter-argument in favour of the Norse gods.

 

What I don't understand, though, is why believers continue to use Pascal in an attempt to bully people into believing. Odds are only in a believer's favour if the only possibilities are {no afterlife} versus {1 god who punishes people for non-belief, and who doesn't know or care if people are pretending to believe just because they're scared of hell}. Add more gods, or change a god's opinion on faux belief, and it's a whole new ball game.

[TrueBeliever]

 

 

They do not need physical evidence to believe. They never say they have to have it, they simply provide evidence for the the theory of a young earth created by God in order that people who have been deluded by the world can see that the evidence points to what they already believe. 

You already know all the arguments that any christian apologist has offered and all the evidence that we as Christians have. You in fact were one of us at one point. 

I am not being a troll. I am simply stating what I believe which is what my God tells me to do. I never wanted to start an argument I only wanted to provide a christian perspective on free will.  If any thing I have said has offended anyone I am sorry. The Bible says the gospel is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. This is found in 1 Peter 2:8.

I am not closed minded at all I have looked at both sides with much scrutiny and have found your side wanting. If you as an atheist are right then I as christian will lose nothing I will simply be put into the ground to rot, but if I as a christian am right then you lose everything. Wisdom would tell you that you should be a christian. I am sorry but to me all the knowledge in the world cannot compete with wisdom.  

I will continue to pray for you all. 

 

 

Ok, TB.

 

Perhaps you could explain something to me?

If the universe is as exactly as old as the Bible says (about 6,000 years), then it MUST be impossible for astronomers to discover that it isn't, right?  If they start off with the wrong age (13.8 billion years) and make false and deluded predictions based on their false and deluded assumptions, these predictions MUST confirm the true, Biblical age of the universe, right?  It's not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, is it?  Deluded people cannot be proven right by God's creation, can they?  The created universe MUST agree with the Bible... yes?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

You don't have to grasp the technical stuff here, TB.  All you have to do is scroll down to the 'Features' section and look at the diagram on the right.  If you read the latter half of the wordage, it says...

"...the error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve."

 

I'll explain this for you.

The astronomers predicted the shape of the curve on this graph, based upon their 'deluded' understanding of the universe's age.  They made this prediction before they acquired the data, using telescopes and satellites.

 

The agreement between their prediction and the observed data is perfect.  Got that?  PERFECT.  PERFECT.

 

So perfect that it's impossible to tell the difference between their prediction and the data they observed.  They made a perfect prediction and it was perfectly validated by what they saw in the sky.  Their predicted 13.8 billion year age of the universe was perfectly confirmed by light from the heavens.

 

So, please explain to me how this can be - if the universe is only 6,000 or so years old.  As scripture says it is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

First, the bible never says that the earth is only 6000 years old much less the universe itself. The universe could possibly be much older that is not what I argue. I argue the the creation within the world was created by God. Day 1 Light and Dark Day 2 Sky  Day 3 Land Day 4 Plants Day 5 Animals Day 6 Humans

I quote you "It's not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, is it?"

You are correct in that assertion. I have a question though how do you know that they did not start off with the wrong assumption? Many creationists have started with the prediction that the earth is only 6000 years old and those predictions have been verified as true.

Here is an example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n4/magnetic It is about the age of the earth in relation to the earths magnetic field.

So which one started off with the wrong assumption? Who is to say one way or another? That is if you truly do believe there are no absolutes?

There is evidence to support both sides while both side claim to have the right evidence yet they both came at it from there own preconceived predictions.

The only way to actually prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any of this would be to go back to both times and see what was taking place.

You say it is not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, well what are the wrong assumptions? 

[Ravenstar]

That's what it comes down to, isn't it. IF Yahweh knows your heart and all the thoughts you have, INCLUDING the subconscious ones... then Pascal's wager is a death sentence. "belief' because of gamble isn't really belief at all.. or at least it isn't what I would call faith.

 

There's no way to fool this being, as described... if it isn't completely sincere, well, Jesus talks about that now doesn't he? What adult has the faith of a child? 

 

It also seems odd to me that this being would allow ALL the facts to discredit his claims also... how does that work?

 

example: I have faith that the sun will rise every morning... because in my experience it always has, and physics backs up that faith. I do not have faith that the moon will change direction, because it never has, and it's highly unlikely because of physics.

 

Thomas doubted and Jesus PROVED, empirically I might add, that what he was saying was true... he didn't cast him aside for his doubt. (I'm not saying I believe the story - but the LESSON, the EXAMPLE is that Jesus [aka: god] does use empirical proof to people who doubt, at least he did so once). Why should that have changed?

[TrueBeliever]

I just want to say this TrueBeliever: we aren't angry with you... we are presenting the facts as we know them because for the vast majority of us TRUTH is extremely important. We came here because we could no longer justify our belief (mostly.. each of us is an individual... and some of our members do observe some form of spirituality, some don't)

 

Most of us have been exactly where you are...we get it, but this is EX-Christian.net, not 'never was a christian.net'. Most of us have done tons of research to get where we are today, from our christian roots. Some of us were even missionaries and pastors, or in at least one case, biblical scholars. Those of us who aren't scholars probably know the Bible better than the average christian, and we know the apologetics, ad nauseum.

 

Sometimes we come across strongly, but it's not personal. (unless you tell us we are going to hell, that's not nice) You are not offending us... but we enjoy debating.

 

Just thought I should clarify.  

Thank you. You can be sure I will never condemn any of you to Hell.

 

That's what it comes down to, isn't it. IF Yahweh knows your heart and all the thoughts you have, INCLUDING the subconscious ones... then Pascal's wager is a death sentence. "belief' because of gamble isn't really belief at all.. or at least it isn't what I would call faith.

 

There's no way to fool this being, as described... if it isn't completely sincere, well, Jesus talks about that now doesn't he? What adult has the faith of a child? 

 

It also seems odd to me that this being would allow ALL the facts to discredit his claims also... how does that work?

 

example: I have faith that the sun will rise every morning... because in my experience it always has, and physics backs up that faith. I do not have faith that the moon will change direction, because it never has, and it's highly unlikely because of physics.

 

Thomas doubted and Jesus PROVED, empirically I might add, that what he was saying was true... he didn't cast him aside for his doubt. (I'm not saying I believe the story - but the LESSON, the EXAMPLE is that Jesus [aka: god] does use empirical proof to people who doubt, at least he did so once). Why should that have changed?

You are right he also showed himself to Paul.  My answer is John 20:29

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

Here is an example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n4/magnetic It is about the age of the earth in relation to the earths magnetic field.

 

the advertisement for Ken Ham's new book on the Young Earth, attached to TB's link above, says that two-thirds of the younger generations are leaving the church.  Cool.

[florduh]

The only way to actually prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any of this would be to go back to both times and see what was taking place.

 

You say that only because you don't understand, or possibly just deny or ignore, any scientific and historical evidence that contradicts what the Bronze Age tribes made up. Education and thinking are not bad things. Really.

[midniterider]

 

If you as an atheist are right then I as christian will lose nothing I will simply be put into the ground to rot, but if I as a christian am right then you lose everything.

 

Well, most of the people here are already aware of the non-believer's response to Pascal's wager but I'm bored and will type it anyway.

 

If the atheist is correct then you as a Christian will actually have lost all that time you spent praying, praising, worshiping, etc. It will have been for naught. You could have used that time doing something useful or enjoyable for yourself or your family. But instead you felt compelled under fear to say "Jesus" three times an hour like one of my relatives or post religious crap on FB for your illusory master and do all the other fear and shame based baloney that Christians do. And if you're an evangelist and it turns out that there is no God, no heaven and no hell, then you've caused (or assisted) other people to waste their lives doing the same BS.

 

Evangelism: Helping others to be afraid of something. Spreading fear, shame and guilt. Meeting new people for the sole purpose of creating a lifelong battle that exists only in their mind. That is the Great Commission.

[Guest end3]

 

The only way to actually prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any of this would be to go back to both times and see what was taking place.

 

You say that only because you don't understand, or possibly just deny or ignore, any scientific and historical evidence that contradicts what the Bronze Age tribes made up. Education and thinking are not bad things. Really.

 

<George Bush 1...."It's bad, bad"> via Dana Carvey

[mymistake]

 

Many creationists have started with the prediction that the earth is only 6000 years old and those predictions have been verified as true.

Here is an example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n4/magnetic It is about the age of the earth in relation to the earths magnetic field.

So which one started off with the wrong assumption? Who is to say one way or another? That is if you truly do believe there are no absolutes?

There is evidence to support both sides while both side claim to have the right evidence yet they both came at it from there own preconceived predictions.

 

 

This simply isn't true.  You are taking Christian wishful thinking.  We know that our magnetic field is sporadic in strength and has not reversed for over 700,000 years.  But prior to that it had many reversals in almost a non-pattern.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Magnetosphere/geomagnetic_reversals_160mya.html

 

Christian apologetics are out to confirm their own bias and sooth their own doubts.  So Christians stop looking once they find anything that confirms the Bible.  Scientist on the other hand are looking for the truth so they keep improving their data and their picture gets clearer all the time.  That is why Creations still quote studies from the 1960's that scientists laugh at.  The Earth's magnetic field proves the Earth is over 150 million years old.  Of course other methods have proven that the Earth is billions of years old but the point is that we would never have found the truth if we had settled for answers in Genesis.

[mymistake]

. . .  he also showed himself to Paul.  

 

Unless Paul lied.  Now wait a minute, the entire New Testament couldn't be lies because then that would mean Christianity is all a lie.

 

 

 

You see John 20:29 is the perfect propaganda piece.  Knowing that somebody will ask to see evidence before believing they made up a story about some guy who did get to see evidence.  Darth Vader saw the evidence and believed.  If you believe without evidence then you will be even more blessed than Darth Vader (who actually got no blessing at all because he never existed in the first place).  

 

But the New Testament can't be all lies . . .

[Ravenstar]

Sorry - I can't let you get away with that. This is sophistry, and NOT what Genesis actually says:

[1:1] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth

 

 

[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

 

What exactly does 'formless void' mean. Does it mean a vacuum? Or that the accretion disc had not yet coagulated?

 

[1:3] Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
 

Light before the sun, ayup

 

[1:4] And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

 

...and how exactly did he do this before creating the sun?

 

[1:5] God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day.

 

A first day without the sun?

[1:6] And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.

 

a dome? Seriously... this tells us that the writers of Genesis thought the earth was flat, and it was covered with a dome. Ooookay then.

[1:7] So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.

 

What waters above the dome, in space maybe?

[1:8] God called the dome Sky. And there was evening and there was morning, the second day.

[1:9] And God said, "Let the waters under the sky be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so.

 

This supposed that the early earth was completely covered with water, unlikely

 

[1:10] God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good.

[1:11] Then God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation: plants yielding seed, and fruit trees of every kind on earth that bear fruit with the seed in it." And it was so.

 

No stars yet, no sun, but plants.. and before the ocean had life, really?  Didn't happen that way.

[1:12] The earth brought forth vegetation: plants yielding seed of every kind, and trees of every kind bearing fruit with the seed in it. And God saw that it was good.

[1:13] And there was evening and there was morning, the third day.

[1:14] And God said, "Let there be lights in the dome of the sky to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years,

This is astrology, plain and simple.

 

[1:15] and let them be lights in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth." And it was so.

 

Sooo.. the lights in the dome, like... stuck in the dome of the sky?  bwahahahaha...no.

[1:16] God made the two great lights - the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the night - and the stars.
 

The moon is NOT a light.

[1:17] God set them in the dome of the sky to give light upon the earth,
[1:18] to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good.

 

Aha!  Here is the sun, and stars (most of which are FAR older than the earth) but the plants came before the sun, didn't they? (why are they photosynthetic then?)

[1:19] And there was evening and there was morning, the fourth day.

[1:20] And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky."

 

Okay, now we get sea life... after the plants and sun and stars. But, but... life started in the ocean!

[1:21] So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, of every kind, with which the waters swarm, and every winged bird of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

Sea animals and birds, gotcha, no insects yet though.

[1:22] God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

[1:23] And there was evening and there was morning, the fifth day.

[1:24] And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures of every kind: cattle and creeping things and wild animals of the earth of every kind." And it was so.

[1:25] God made the wild animals of the earth of every kind, and the cattle of every kind, and everything that creeps upon the ground of every kind. And God saw that it was good.

 

Here are the insects! (that probably predate other land animal life - arthropoda being one of the very oldest living orders)

[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."

[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

 

God's image is male and female?  No problem.

[1:28] God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."

[1:29] God said, "See, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food.

[1:30] And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so.

[1:31] God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

 

Animals were created on the same day as humans in this account.. the sixth day.

 

 

The SUN is a star, not a 'greater light'...it's actually a smallish star, and there is NO dome. For the architect of the universe to make such glaring factual errors ^^^^^  in the very first chapter of the Bible is pretty amazing, isn't it?

 

Sheesh, can't even read what's actually there, have to make it fit. This is what makes me angry...

[RipVanWinkle]

TrueBeliever: "Many creationists have started with the prediction that the earth is only 6000 years old and those predictions have been verified as true."

 

Really. Do you understand their "reasoning"? If you do you will be the first. These people start their "research" not to discover the truth, but to find anything they can use to appear to justify their

preexisting conclusion. These Creation scientists are sponsored by Xtian organizations. They are

required to sign a pledge acknowledging that they are Xtians.

 

There are many books written by real scientists that demonstrate the falsehood of Genesis. Have you

read them? Ravenstar has pointed out some of the basic reason from a plain reading of Genesis. Books by scientists go into technical detail explaining why their position is true.And it is consistent with natural law.

 

If you really want the truth, read Genesis for what it actually says rather than for what you have been told its says. This requires, not a casual reading, but a study. Also read what real scientists have

written The real test, though is whether yuu are willling to accept the truth, no matter what it is.

about it. At this time, you are truly mislead. bill

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

They do not need physical evidence to believe. They never say they have to have it, they simply provide evidence for the the theory of a young earth created by God in order that people who have been deluded by the world can see that the evidence points to what they already believe. 

You already know all the arguments that any christian apologist has offered and all the evidence that we as Christians have. You in fact were one of us at one point. 

I am not being a troll. I am simply stating what I believe which is what my God tells me to do. I never wanted to start an argument I only wanted to provide a christian perspective on free will.  If any thing I have said has offended anyone I am sorry. The Bible says the gospel is a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. This is found in 1 Peter 2:8.

I am not closed minded at all I have looked at both sides with much scrutiny and have found your side wanting. If you as an atheist are right then I as christian will lose nothing I will simply be put into the ground to rot, but if I as a christian am right then you lose everything. Wisdom would tell you that you should be a christian. I am sorry but to me all the knowledge in the world cannot compete with wisdom.  

I will continue to pray for you all. 

 

 

Ok, TB.

 

Perhaps you could explain something to me?

If the universe is as exactly as old as the Bible says (about 6,000 years), then it MUST be impossible for astronomers to discover that it isn't, right?  If they start off with the wrong age (13.8 billion years) and make false and deluded predictions based on their false and deluded assumptions, these predictions MUST confirm the true, Biblical age of the universe, right?  It's not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, is it?  Deluded people cannot be proven right by God's creation, can they?  The created universe MUST agree with the Bible... yes?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

You don't have to grasp the technical stuff here, TB.  All you have to do is scroll down to the 'Features' section and look at the diagram on the right.  If you read the latter half of the wordage, it says...

"...the error bars are too small to be seen even in an enlarged image, and it is impossible to distinguish the observed data from the theoretical curve."

 

I'll explain this for you.

The astronomers predicted the shape of the curve on this graph, based upon their 'deluded' understanding of the universe's age.  They made this prediction before they acquired the data, using telescopes and satellites.

 

The agreement between their prediction and the observed data is perfect.  Got that?  PERFECT.  PERFECT.

 

So perfect that it's impossible to tell the difference between their prediction and the data they observed.  They made a perfect prediction and it was perfectly validated by what they saw in the sky.  Their predicted 13.8 billion year age of the universe was perfectly confirmed by light from the heavens.

 

So, please explain to me how this can be - if the universe is only 6,000 or so years old.  As scripture says it is.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

First, the bible never says that the earth is only 6000 years old much less the universe itself. The universe could possibly be much older that is not what I argue. I argue the the creation within the world was created by God. Day 1 Light and Dark Day 2 Sky  Day 3 Land Day 4 Plants Day 5 Animals Day 6 Humans

I quote you "It's not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, is it?"

You are correct in that assertion. I have a question though how do you know that they did not start off with the wrong assumption? Many creationists have started with the prediction that the earth is only 6000 years old and those predictions have been verified as true.

Here is an example http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v13/n4/magnetic It is about the age of the earth in relation to the earths magnetic field.

So which one started off with the wrong assumption? Who is to say one way or another? That is if you truly do believe there are no absolutes?

There is evidence to support both sides while both side claim to have the right evidence yet they both came at it from there own preconceived predictions.

The only way to actually prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, any of this would be to go back to both times and see what was taking place.

You say it is not possible to get the right answer if you start off with the wrong assumptions, well what are the wrong assumptions? 

 

 

You miss the point entirely, TB.

 

If the universe was only 6,000 years old, that's the result the light seen by the telescopes would have been - regardless of any human assumptions, false or otherwise.  The universe is not beholden to us to show any other age than that which it really is, regardless of our assumptions, correct or not.

 

Since it was measured to this value, in exact agreement with predictions you think are deluded, then you must be wrong about the delusions you say these scientists are laboring under.

 

The critical point TB is this.

 

The universe doesn't lie about itself, nor can it be deluded about itself, nor does it make any assumptions about itself.

 

If I measure something with the wrong expectation, then I will not get the answer I expect, regardless of my assumptions.  Wrong expectations can never yield correct answers, regardless of any assumptions I make.  Therefore, my false expectation is proven false by the true measurement.

 

But if I measure something with a correct expectation, I will get the answer I expect.  Seeing as the universe itself is giving me true knowledge about itself, my expected result MUST therefore be true also.

 

Clear now?

 

BAA