Jaden

The old testament law is very draconian - it shows that even the smallest of sins are still sins, and are worthy of punishment. It shows us that we can never be worthy of God. The new testament, however, teaches mercy and forgiveness. (for example in John 8 1-12.) Jesus does not condemn sinners before their time of judgement, and neither should we. Yes, that's right. If one does not believe in a God, then morality would be decided by the individual. However, people can have very different perceptions of morality, and what one person might consider to be a heinous act may be considered perfectly ok by somebody else. We as individuals do sometimes need a moral guide. For most people, that guidance is provided by the general consensus of society. The general consensus of our society, currently, is strongly influenced by Christian traditions and principles. However, if religion were to be eliminated by science, then society as a whole would lose it's moral guide. With the removal of the order which was provided by Christianity, and a collection of differing individual opinions now shaping "morality", who could know the outcome? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that it is correct, and this thread is not the place to debate the issue. Anyway, I was referring more to the idea of an all knowing God, and the effect that that can have on people. If someone believes that God is watching over them, then this belief will surely be more powerful than any law set by a government.

Most people would probably be unable to understand this proof, and continue to believe anyway. However, if people did stop believing in God(s) there would be a lot of changes, both positive and negative, to society.. ie there would probably be less wars and less discrimination, but we (humanity as a whole) would eventually lose our moral compass and probably become more self-centered. In my opinion, this would make the world a worse place to live in overall. The Christian bible has been the moral guide of western civilization for centuries. If people were to lose faith in its authority, then the moral standards of society would gradually decay. People would no longer obey the moral teaching of Jesus, "love your neighbor as yourself." Governments could make laws of course, but no human authority could ever match the authority of an all-knowing, all-powerful God. It depends on the individual. Some probably think they are helping people by "correcting" their "false beliefs." Others (such as Richard Dawkins) try to make a career of it. There could be numerous other reasons. Most theists (at least the Christians) wish to convince others that God is real, because they believe that they are saving other people from punishment for their sins, by allowing them the opportunity to repent. Atheists disagree with the theists, generally thinking that belief in God is foolish and/or pointless, and so they usually wish to debate the points made by theists.

The mighty Gandalf is an exception, of course Lately, the Wheel of Time series. It's quite good, even if a bit slow paced. That would depend on what you're trying to achieve. If your only goal is to try and prove me wrong, then your not doing a very good job of it. I won't ignore anything you say. If someone makes a claim and they try to support it, I will investigate. For example, when Moontanman referred me to a list of videos which supposedly contained evidence for abiogenesis, I spent many hours watching them. I am not so stubborn that I won't admit when I have been proven wrong. It's just that you havn't done so, no matter how much you insist that you have. Again, you are making unsupported claims. I have given up on trying to convince you that the miracle I explained is in fact a miracle, so unless you can explain your position, lets just agree to disagree on that point. As for the prophecies though, I checked every single one that i listed. They have been fulfilled, and you saying that they haven't isn't going to change that. All of them are supported by historians and archaeologists. It is an observation. Science is about observations, and so far I have yet to see anything happen without a cause. You could also call it logic. It seems illogical for anything to happen without a reason. Thanks mooey. Yes, I'm aware of this. Prophecy though, was not intended to be a prediction of the future. It was more of a warning to the nations - change their ways, or suffer the wrath of God. Jeremiah 18 verses 7-10 show this: If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted,and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. If you view prophecies as warnings rather than as predictions, it makes perfect sense that they would not always be fulfilled. Many of them are, but many more are quite specific. I listed a few of these specific prophecies which have been fulfilled in an earlier post, but I'll re-create the list here for convenience: Amos 9: 7-15. Outlines the destruction of the nation Israel, but says that its people will not be totally destroyed. They will instead be scattered "among all the nations." During this time the walls and ruins of Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Then a time will come when the people will be brought back from exile, and never again be "uprooted" from their land. Jeremiah 25: 8-14. Israel and its surrounding nations will be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar and the "peoples of the north." They will serve Babylon for seventy years. After the seventy years, Babylon will be punished for its crimes, and then they themselves shall be defeated and made to serve other nations. The Babylonian empire will be destroyed forever. Matthew 24: 1-2. The temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed completely. Not even one stone will be left upon another. Luke 19: 41-44. Jesus says that because the people of Jerusalem have rejected Him, the city will be surrounded by enemies and destroyed. Daniel 9: 24-26. At the time this prophecy was written, many of the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. Jerusalem and its temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians. Daniel says that the people will return to Jerusalem and rebuild. Later an 'Anointed One' (Jesus) will come, but will be rejected and killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing. Then a ruler will come with his armies and again destroy Jerusalem and the temple (as in Luke 19 41-44.) Micah 3: 12. Jerusalem will be destroyed, the temple hill will become a mound overgrown with thickets, and Mt Zion will be ploughed like a field. Nahum 3. The city of Nineveh will be destroyed with fire (verse 15) and many casualties (verse 3,) and never recover (verse 19.) Their guards will flee like a swarm of locusts in the sun (verse 17.) Nahum 1: 10. The people of Nineveh will be drunk when they are defeated. Matthew 24:14. The gospel will be preached in every nation of the world. Luke 21: 33. The words of Jesus will never be forgotten. Some of them are very accurate. But not all of them will be, because they are dependent on the response of the people involved (as shown by Jeremiah 18.)

Mooeypoo, is it correct that you have read the original Hebrew bible? Is it your opinion that Genesis chapter 1 (or the Hebrew equivalent) could support the idea of old earth creationism? I have read that the word translated as day in the bible is 'yom', which could also mean any unspecified period of time. I ask this because OE creation makes a lot more sense (from a scientific perspective) than YE creation. Agreed. I was just pointing out that it must at least seem reasonable to most people. I have already explained why it could not be a coincidence. If you wish to convince me that it was only a coincidence, then you must explain how it possibly could be. So far, on this topic, you have only made statements with no explanations. How could a miracle occur if there is no God? The purpose of this thread is not to give observable evidence, it is to justify a personal belief in God. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me or my grandparents, but I do. I don't reject the research itself - it's just that despite the research, there is still no evidence to support this theory. It also has many flaws, some of which I have explained. Do you even read my posts before replying to them? I never said that I reject the big bang model. In fact, I explained in the very post that you are replying to that I do not. If you read posts 531 and 542, you will see that there is more to it than that. Also, this is not the only reason for my belief. It is only one of many. Please explain how you believe my logic is flawed. You ignore the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, you ignore the millions who have experienced Gods presence, and you claim that some amino acids found in space are proof of the chemical evolution of life (unless, of course, you believe that there is better evidence than this.) And then you say that I am the one who is "being quite hypocritical and applying nasty double standards." And as for changing my mind, if you wish to do that, then you will need to start explaining and supporting your opinions instead of just stating them. And you would also need to refute the evidence I have given, especially the prophecies I listed in post 542. What would it require for you to believe in God's existence? Nothing can happen without a cause. This is true. However, the Judeo-Christian God has much supporting evidence, and if this God is real then we already know the cause of the Big Bang. No other theory has any evidence. The difference between God and the Big Bang is that the big bang was an event. Something happened, and therefore there must be a cause. God never 'happened,' he is eternal. There was never an event, and therefore no cause is required. If the universe was eternal, then I would have no problem accepting that it does not need a cause. However, we know that this is not the case. If there is so much evidence for abiogenesis, then why can't you show me any? I have given plenty of evidence for God in previous posts. The links you gave did not contain any evidence. How would that confirm there is no god? It would certainly eliminate that particular reason for my belief, but I would still have many more. What events could possibly produce homochirality in amino acids? What if that assumption is wrong? Where in the Bible does it say that God created unchangeable species? Evolution is a fact of nature; life adapts, but how does this disprove God? I have given evidence earlier in this thread. The bible contains a huge number of prophecies which have been fulfilled throughout history. I listed some of these in an earlier post (#542). No-one in this thread has, as of yet, attempted to nullify this evidence. It seems they prefer to ignore it.

There are numerous references to and descriptions of Satan in the new testament, which was written in the first century AD. For example: 1 John 3: 8 Ephesians 2: 1-2 Revelation 3: 9 John 8: 44 Acts 5: 3 2 Corinthians 2: 10-11 2 Corinthians 11: 14 James 3: 14-15 2 Thessalonians 2: 9-10 1 John 3: 10 Acts 13:10 2 Timothy 2: 25-26 Miracles are, almost by definition, not repeatable. I would be very surprised to find a miracle that can be repeated. If you are looking for an example of any miracle though, I have given one in post 531 of this thread (and further explained in post 542): http://www.sciencefo...d/page__st__520 This type of miracle is obviously not able to be repeated for scientific analysis - you either beleive the people who tell you about it, or you don't. This page argues against the need for extraordinary evidence: http://carm.org/extr...dinary-evidence And these pages give evidence for the resurrection. http://carm.org/does...us-resurrection http://toptenproofs....esurrection.php

Well, there is the miracle I described in post #531, and I did give one example of a fulfilled bible prophecy in post #539. However, I will list a few more. I've checked, and all of these either have been fulfilled (most) or else they clearly will be in the near future (the last 2.) Amos 9: 7-15. Outlines the destruction of the nation Israel, but says that its people will not be totally destroyed. They will instead be scattered "among all the nations." During this time the walls and ruins of Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Then a time will come when the people will be brought back from exile, and never again be "uprooted" from their land. Jeremiah 25: 8-14. Israel and its surrounding nations will be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar and the "peoples of the north." They will serve Babylon for seventy years. After the seventy years, Babylon will be punished for its crimes, and then they themselves shall be defeated and made to serve other nations. The Babylonian empire will be destroyed forever. Matthew 24: 1-2. The temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed completely. Not even one stone will be left upon another. Luke 19: 41-44. Jesus says that because the people of Jerusalem have rejected Him, the city will be surrounded by enemies and destroyed. Daniel 9: 24-26. At the time this prophecy was written, many of the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. Jerusalem and its temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians. Daniel says that the people will return to Jerusalem and rebuild. Later an 'Anointed One' (Jesus) will come, but will be rejected and killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing. Then a ruler will come with his armies and again destroy Jerusalem and the temple (as in Luke 19 41-44.) Micah 3: 12. Jerusalem will be destroyed, the temple hill will become a mound overgrown with thickets, and Mt Zion will be ploughed like a field. Nahum 3. The city of Nineveh will be destroyed with fire (verse 15) and many casualties (verse 3,) and never recover (verse 19.) Their guards will flee like a swarm of locusts in the sun (verse 17.) Nahum 1: 10. The people of Nineveh will be drunk when they are defeated. Matthew 24:14. The gospel will be preached in every nation of the world. Luke 21: 33. The words of Jesus will never be forgotten. Individually, these prophecies may not seem like strong evidence. But considering that the bible is full of similar prophecies, and taking into account the existence of miracles and the fact that many millions of Christians (including myself) have experienced the presence of the Holy Spirit, a strong case can be made for the existence of God. Comparing this miracle to thunder being evidence of Thor is, quite frankly, ridiculous. Anyway, from the way you have written your post, you seem to think that my grandfather narrowly escaped a car accident and then he later attributed this to God. I was quite clear though, in post 531 that this was not the case. Before changing to the wrong lane, my grandfather informed my grandmother of his intentions. He told her not to worry, because it was an instruction from God. He was very clear to her, saying that God had told him to do so. He then changed lanes, and as a result of this he avoided the collision. Since you are persistent in your assertion that it must have been coincidence, I will spell this out to you again. God gave an instruction to my grandfather. My grandfather informed my grandmother of Gods instruction (she has confirmed this.) He then did what God had told him, and as a result of this a collision was avoided and lives were probably saved. This is obviously not just a "coincidence to which you've attached personal meaning and emotional valence," as my grandfather had told my grandmother that it was an instruction from God, before he carried out that instruction thereby preventing a major collision. "Clearly converging lines of research", eh? Scientists are no closer to having any evidence for abiogenesis than they ever have been. All of the experiments done so far have only found further problems, some of which I will explain later in this post. I most certainly do NOT reject the Big Bang Hypothesis! I never said I do. Considering that the universe is known to be expanding, a beginning is inevitable. Something, however, must have caused that beginning. The best explanation physicists can give is that our universe was 'spat out' by some kind of multi-verse which can randomly create other universes. This multi-verse, however, has absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever. The only explanation for the cause of creation of the universe that even has indirect, circumstantial evidence is the Creator God of the Christian Bible. The prophecies and miracle which I have explained in this post are evidence for that God. Considering that there is evidence for a God who created life and the universe, and there is no evidence for either abiogenesis, or a universe spawning multi-verse, or for any other theory which attempts to explain the existence of life or the universe, I think we can safely say that God is the best explanation. He is in fact the only explanation with any supporting evidence at all. As for God being a place holder of the "gap" in our collective scientific understanding, I think I should point out that this "gap" is no longer getting any smaller... It is actually increasing as we learn of things such as a beginning of the universe, and the requirements necessary for abiogenesis to occur. Thanks for the link. I have watched a few of these videos (many hours of them), but I must admit that I haven't yet watched all of them due to lack of time. However, in the ones that I did watch, there was a lot of speculation but no real evidence to support abiogenesis. If you do believe that there is evidence in these videos, then please be specific with which videos and how far into them. The closest thing to evidence in the videos that I watched was that amino acids have been found in asteroids. However, while they were quick to point out that they found over 70 different amino acids, they failed to mention that those 70 only included about half of the amino acids necessary for life as we know it. The same applies to the amino acids which were created in the laboratory experiments. They also neglected to mention that amino acids are chiral. Amino acids cannot form proteins unless they are homochiral - all of them - and there is no conceivable mechanism by which amino acids could become homochiral. Also, nucleosides found in RNA (cytosine, uracil, adenine and guanine) do not form outside of living cells. Pyramidine nucleosides (cytosine and uracil) are not found in outer space either. DNA and RNA cannot form without enzymes, nor can ribose, and enzymes cannot form without RNA templates and ribosomes. Not only is abiogenesis without evidence, it actually appears to be impossible. God, on the other hand, seems logical (as evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of the worlds population beleive in a god or gods) and does have supporting evidence. Nevertheless, I'm sure athiests will continue to insist that abiogenesis is the superior theory.

1. Jesus 2. Muhammed 3. Confucious 4. Buddha 5. Moses 6. Christopher Columbus 7. Karl Marx 8. Sir Isaac Newton 9. Paul of Tarsus 10. Abraham Lincoln 11. Adolf Hitler

Chad, I can see a major problem with your statement... Humans cannot reproduce asexually. So how then do you propose that we survived for over 50,000 years without the ability to reproduce? Do you think that women, for over 50,000 years, reproduced asexually to produce other women? And then one of them somehow spawned man? This would be completely illogical, even impossible.

It's just a combination of genetics, diet, health and mental attitude.

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:34-39) Also this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16) And this: "Know, recognize, and understand therefore that the Lord your God, He is God, the faithful God, Who keeps covenant and steadfast love and mercy with those who love Him and keep His commandments, to a thousand generations." (Deuteronomy 7:9)

Agreed, they would not. There may be some though who genuinely wish to serve the US military, but who may have divided loyalties when placed in certain circumstances (even if it would be rather unusual.) I was just trying to point out that the military officials who decided to have this test may have reasons other than the obvious.

I wonder what the purpose of this testing is? The military should not discriminate between peaceful religious and non-religious soldiers, but I can understand that they may not want to have, for example, Islamic extremists amongst their ranks when they are fighting against the Taliban.

I was referring mainly to the numerous prophecies in the bible which have been fulfilled throughout history, and some of the miracles I have heard about. Please read post #531 above. Of course my inability to believe something doesn't affect reality. However, the reason I am unable to believe in abiogenesis is because I have yet to find any good evidence to support this theory, or even to show that it is possible for all of the neccesary amino acids (which are required to form the proteins found in living cells) to form in naturally occuring conditions, or even in laboratory conditions outside of already living organisms. And I have spent some considerable time searching, so if you can show me evidence for this then please do so. Rather, it seems that any amino acids produced would not be able to be used in living cells. (please read this link here: http://www.chick.com.../123/123_01.asp) This is not true. I do not see how you could have derived that I am behind the current research... However if there are any recent discoveries which show good evidence for abiogenesis, or which can explain how the Big Bang occured with real science and without obscure and unproven concepts, then please show them (or else give a link to a website which does.) I agree. But it does mean that God is the best available explanation at the present time. Abiogenesis is unproven, but it is still widely accepted amongst athiests because it is thought to be the most feasible explanation for life. Why should intelligent design not be allowed this same status? My disbelief in abiogenesis is no different than an athiests disbelief in God. If you believe that the author of this book has mis-represented the theory of abiogenesis, then please explain how so that we can discuss the issue. Please show me this evidence. I did not say that the Bible was the only religious text to contain specific prophecies. I said that it was the only religious text to contain specific prophecies which have often historically proven accurate. There is a difference. An example of a fulfilled bible prophecy is Amos 9 8-15. This was written by the prophet Amos in about 750BC, and it's fulfillment was throughout recorded history untill its (arguble) completement in 1948AD. Many other religious texts do contain prophecies, but they are all either unfulfilled, predict things which could easily have been discerned through logic or else are so vague that they could be interpreted however you want to interpret them. This is merely an observation based on my own research, and I welcome you to prove me wrong. If my grandfather had had a sudden, unexplainable urge to drive on the wrong side of the road over that hilltop, which resulted in the avoidance of an accident, then that may have been coincidence. But that is not what happened, he was told to do so by God. This could not have been coincidence. All of these miracles, at least those that I have heard about, can easily be attributed to either coincidence or to the placebo effect; the example I have given (in post #531) cannot. I would not decribe it as a moment of "clarity." I knew that the Spirit of God was with me. But regardless of whether or not others claim to have had similar experiences, it was still a convincing moment for me personally. I do not claim that this is scientifically valid proof of what I believe, but I was merely stating my reasons for belief, as was the purpose of this thread. This encounter helped to inspire in me a faith that goes deeper than mere reasoning. I cannot prove to you that my experience was real; therefore you cannot know with certainty that I am being truthful. Likewise, the people of other religions cannot prove that the experiences they claim to have are real; therefore neither of us can know that they are real. The only experience that I know with any certainty to be real is my own. Therefore your statement that this "necessitates that the majority of these experiences must be explicable by natural phenomena" is effectively meaningless, from my perspective. This particular reason is applicable only to me personally, and to people who have had similar experiences, but the miracle testimonies and especially the (uniquely) clear, specific and accurate prophecies found in the bible are valid logical reasons for anyone to choose Christianity over the many other religions.

This statement may be true for many people, but I have never chosen to believe in God. Belief for me is not something that can be chosen, it is the result of looking at evidence and forming opinions based on that evidence. Would you not agree from my post above that there can be logical reasons for a belief in God?