# How do you convince atheist there is a God?



## DYI hunting

I have a friend, he is a strong atheist.

I have tried to debate God, but I am not the most knowledgeable by far at the subject.  I am really outgunned with this one.

I talk about the spiritual feeling people get while in prayer.  He says it is the same as the peaceful feeling he gets in meditation and nothing more than functions of our brain responding to deep relaxation.

I say there had to be a God to create everything because it is too complex to be random and the Universe had to have a beginning.  He says if God created the Universe, who created God because everything has to come from somewhere.  If the Universe was created from nothing, the who created God because he too has to have a beginning and could not just become out of nowhere.  If the Universe has always been, then it could not have been created by God.

Any advice on how to counter these debates?


----------



## rjcruiser

First off....I applaud your boldness in witnessing to him.  Many will not even discuss God and Christianity with there unsaved friends.

Now...about the arguments...you will never be able to convince someone there is a God.  Only God and the Holy Spirit can do that.  It is amazing at the number of threads in this forum between those who believe in God and those who don't.  The arguments on boths sides are compelling and well thought out.  But I don't think I've seen one person change their mind on the subject because of these facts.

My advice?  Keep telling your friend that there is a God.  Bring up experiences as you live life and interact that show you that He is real.  Keep sharing the gospel message with him.  That is what we as Christians are commanded to do.  That is what our reward in Heaven will be for.  Only God can soften their hearts.


----------



## dawg2

You can not.  Try convincing your 18YO kid there is a real, live Santa.  That is how they (Atheists) will view your "testimony."


----------



## Sargent

You can't convince them.  They have to convince themselves. 

All you can do is plant the seed.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

DYI hunting said:


> I say there had to be a God to create everything because it is too complex to be random and the Universe had to have a beginning.  He says if God created the Universe, who created God because everything has to come from somewhere.  If the Universe was created from nothing, the who created God because he too has to have a beginning and could not just become out of nowhere.  If the Universe has always been, then it could not have been created by God.



Looks like somebody's been doing some questioning.


----------



## BeenHuntn

DYI hunting said:


> I have a friend, he is a strong atheist.
> 
> I have tried to debate God, but I am not the most knowledgeable by far at the subject.  I am really outgunned with this one.
> 
> I talk about the spiritual feeling people get while in prayer.  He says it is the same as the peaceful feeling he gets in meditation and nothing more than functions of our brain responding to deep relaxation.
> 
> I say there had to be a God to create everything because it is too complex to be random and the Universe had to have a beginning.  He says if God created the Universe, who created God because everything has to come from somewhere.  If the Universe was created from nothing, the who created God because he too has to have a beginning and could not just become out of nowhere.  If the Universe has always been, then it could not have been created by God.
> 
> Any advice on how to counter these debates?




try to get him to review some creation websites like www.creationevidence.org and ask him to study with you some of their material.  if he will start to see how creation happened he is on his way to believing in a creator which could lead to believing in THE Creator.

if he wont do that explain Hosea 4:6 which God says His people perish from a lack of knowledge and that he needs knowledge, we all do... of course. and there is nothing wrong with knowledge, its a good thing.

if you can get him to understand how things were created by a Creator that is totally 100% holy and cannot allow sin into heaven... you can lead to why people need a savior.

explain how the Bible is the 100% perfect Word of God and is accurate... give him the proof of the Bible, for example the Messianic prophecies. such as found here:
http://www.messianic-prophecy.net/

if you can get him to understand the infallibility of the Word of God then you are on your way to getting him to understand the need of the Savior. why sins are an abomination to a Holy perfect God and why we are to fear and reverence the Holy God. get him more and more Bible truth and knowledge.  dont teach religion, church or denominations. God has promised that when a person gets into His Word and studys... salvation can come...  a person getting right with God is what is important... not going to church.

James 1:21
Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted Word, which is able to save your souls.

and yes it is God who does the saving but your influence and persistence can be huge... and people here will tell you that you have nothing to do with his salvation but thats not biblical.

Proverbs 11:30 - The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he that winneth souls is wise

James 5:20 - Let him know, that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

if you can get this far with him than get him more and more in the Word of God where he can learn the need for Jesus Christ...

your buddy needs more friends like you...  may God bless your efforts and save your friend...


----------



## Jranger

Why bother? Most of them take much more pleasure from the argument no matter what they really believe.


----------



## jmharris23

rjcruiser said:


> First off....I applaud your boldness in witnessing to him.  Many will not even discuss God and Christianity with there unsaved friends.
> 
> Now...about the arguments...you will never be able to convince someone there is a God.  Only God and the Holy Spirit can do that.  It is amazing at the number of threads in this forum between those who believe in God and those who don't.  The arguments on boths sides are compelling and well thought out.  But I don't think I've seen one person change their mind on the subject because of these facts.
> 
> My advice?  Keep telling your friend that there is a God.  Bring up experiences as you live life and interact that show you that He is real.  Keep sharing the gospel message with him.  That is what we as Christians are commanded to do.  That is what our reward in Heaven will be for.  Only God can soften their hearts.



Amen. Good advice. You cannot change his heart. That's God's job. Pray that God will change his heart.


----------



## Huntinfool

Brother...if you figure it out, let me know. 


I've got a few guys on here I'd like to "try" it out on.


----------



## BeenHuntn

Jranger said:


> Why bother? Most of them take much more pleasure from the argument no matter what they really believe.



yeh, why bother...? just a soul that will spend eternity in helll.  no need to bother.  souls are unimportant and should not be worried about... 

i wonder when this soul gets to helll, if he will then agree that his friend made the right decision by doing nothing to share the truth of Christ with his friend, who is now in helll?  i think this man in helll will look back and say, "he was no friend of mine..."


----------



## Jranger

BeenHuntn said:


> yeh, why bother...? just a soul that will spend eternity in helll.  no need to bother.  souls are unimportant and should not be worried about... lets all just go fly a kite...



I'll keep my house in check before I worry about my neighbors. Ultimately it is their choice to make. I think with non-believers you will make a much better impression by your actions over your words.


----------



## mtnwoman

Pray for him....plant the seed....let the Holy Spirit take it from there.

If you're prayed out and not even sure what to pray then remember this...HE knows what our needs and desires are already.

Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.


----------



## earl

Actions always speak louder than words.


----------



## Knotwild

mtnwoman said:


> Pray for him....plant the seed....let the Holy Spirit take it from there.
> 
> If you're prayed out and not even sure what to pray then remember this...HE knows what our needs and desires are already.
> 
> Romans 8:26
> Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.



I think she is right. Pray. God is the one who opens the eyes. Be a good example and keep planting seeds. You never know when or how it may come to fruition. 

I once worked on a farm part time, and each time I left a tractor I left the radio tuned to my favorite Christian station. After a year of this one of the guys came to me and he started asking questions. His life is now changed so that his face is always turned to God. I only planted the seeds.


----------



## mtnwoman

Knotwild said:


> I think she is right. Pray. God is the one who opens the eyes. Be a good example and keep planting seeds. You never know when or how it may come to fruition.
> 
> I once worked on a farm part time, and each time I left a tractor I left the radio tuned to my favorite Christian station. After a year of this one of the guys came to me and he started asking questions. His life is now changed so that his face is always turned to God. I only planted the seeds.



Awesome!!


----------



## sullivanfire1

Yeh, you gotta pray for them. And yes they will know come judgement day "every knee will bow and every tongue confess". No matter if they are believers now or not, they will be sooner or later.


----------



## BeenHuntn

all i can say is... thank God that i had a friend that loved me enough to hammer me with the truth of Christ and the truth of my errors and didnt just say, "i'll go pray for him but let him make his own decision"...  he was a true friend.


what does God think of such passivity with His Gospel?

Ezekiel 33:6
But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand...

Ezekiel 33:8
When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

Ezekiel 33:9
Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

Acts 20:31
Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

Colossians 1:28
Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus:

1 Thessalonians 5:14
Now we exhort you, brethren, warn them that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient toward all men.

did yall see the Titanic movie? there were some men who were brave and helped others get onto the "life" boats with disregard of themselves and their own danger.

and there were other men and i use the word "men" rather loosely... that ran away and did nothing for anyone else and did not try to help anyone get saved off of the sinking ship...  they were only concerned with themselves...  this world is a sinking ship.


----------



## jmharris23

I don't think anyone was saying that lovingly confronting them with the truth was not the right action? 

From what I've read I think most in here are saying that without God's call on the life of a man or woman - his or her's eyes will not be opened. No matter how hard you hammer


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

one way is the route lifelong atheist and Oxford philosophy professor Antony Flew took....by eventually tiring of fighting the evidence.    

"go where the evidence leads"  Antony Flew


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Jranger said:


> Why bother? Most of them take much more pleasure from the argument no matter what they really believe.



If I'm reading this correctly, you assert that atheists remain atheists because they enjoy arguing regardless of "what they really believe".  

1) On what do you base this assertion?

2) Regardless of what they really believe?  If they believe something other than the point of view of an atheist then they are not atheists.  Or have you surmised that a lot of people are pretending to be atheists?


----------



## Jranger

Six million dollar ham said:


> If I'm reading this correctly, you assert that atheists remain atheists because they enjoy arguing regardless of "what they really believe".
> 
> 1) On what do you base this assertion?
> 
> 2) Regardless of what they really believe?  If they believe something other than the point of view of an atheist then they are not atheists.  Or have you surmised that a lot of people are pretending to be atheists?



I have no basis for my assertions other than my personal experiences speaking with a few people regarding the presence of God or the absence.

I think... that a lot of people claiming to be atheist enjoy arguing about the topic with anyone who will engage in the topic. I also think... many people who might claim to be atheist might also secretly harbor some sort of belief system even though it may be way off the beaten path of so called enlightenment.


----------



## WTM45

"How do you convince atheist there is a God?"

At least you are looking at this from the right view.  Atheism is the logical default position.  It is up to those who believe in a deity to convince others their deity belief system is valid.
Which deity you wish to discuss makes a big difference in the approach you must choose.

Short of performing a miracle, you can not force a person to adjust their own faith.
That's totally individual in nature.


----------



## rjcruiser

BeenHuntn said:


> all i can say is... thank God that i had a friend that loved me enough to hammer me with the truth of Christ and the truth of my errors and didnt just say, "i'll go pray for him but let him make his own decision"...  he was a true friend.



BH,
I think people admire persistence up to a certain point.  Then it becomes, unbearable.  Sure...it can be the deciding factor, and per your above post, seems to be what brought you to the Lord.  However, I've seen that persistence turn people away.

Ultimately, it is upto the Lord to soften the heart of a person.  Look at how Moses and Aaron "convinced" Pharoah to release the people of Israel from bondage.  Plagues and Miracles couldn't convince his heart....ONLY God's divine intervention softened his heart.

We are the tool's that God uses.  Each is used differently.  In other words...there is more than one way to skin a cat...there is more than one way that God can use us to influence the lives of others.  Unfortunately, imho, "Hammering the truth" down someone's throat on an internet forum does more harm than good.


----------



## pnome

There are many arguments that you can use to try to convince your friend that there is "a god" out there somewhere.

Here are just a few:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument

And my favorite top ten list:
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God

Now, it might be that one of those arguments convinces him.  For the sake of discussion, let's say that he is convinced by one of the above.  Understand, that at this point, you have only convinced him that a god exists.  Not that God (with a capitol G) exists.

If you want to convince him to be a Christian, the best way, in my opinion, is by example.


----------



## BeenHuntn

jmharris23 said:


> I don't think anyone was saying that lovingly confronting them with the truth was not the right action?
> 
> From what I've read I think most in here are saying that without God's call on the life of a man or woman - his or her's eyes will not be opened. No matter how hard you hammer



thats true. God does the saving. but we are the instruments He uses to get them saved. if you buy a guitar and put in your closet, it will never make music...

when someone is saved but are having trials we love them and pray for them, share their burden... if they are not saved, they need the fear of God and the Word.  they wont hear the Gospel from the world. the world hates Christ. they wont hear the Gospel at work. offices hate Christ. they dont go to church, so they wont hear it from a preacher...

who else are they gonna hear the Gospel from if not from those who are saved?


----------



## pnome

BeenHuntn said:


> if they are not saved, they need the *fear* of God and the Word.



Fear, the time honored tool of the proselytizer.


----------



## WTM45

BeenHuntn said:


> the world hates Christ. they wont hear the Gospel at work. offices hate Christ. they dont go to church, so they wont hear it from a preacher...
> 
> who else are they gonna hear the Gospel from if not from those who are saved?



The world tends to be questioning of anything that makes supernatural claims.  That's not limited to any one specific religious belief system, but all of them.

Everyone is Atheist to an extent.  Most tend to only believe in one deity and it's belief system exclusively.


----------



## BeenHuntn

rjcruiser said:


> BH,
> I think people admire persistence up to a certain point.  Then it becomes, unbearable.  Sure...it can be the deciding factor, and per your above post, seems to be what brought you to the Lord.  However, I've seen that persistence turn people away.
> 
> Ultimately, it is upto the Lord to soften the heart of a person.  Look at how Moses and Aaron "convinced" Pharoah to release the people of Israel from bondage.  Plagues and Miracles couldn't convince his heart....ONLY God's divine intervention softened his heart.
> 
> We are the tool's that God uses.  Each is used differently.  In other words...there is more than one way to skin a cat...there is more than one way that God can use us to influence the lives of others.  Unfortunately, imho, "Hammering the truth" down someone's throat on an internet forum does more harm than good.



these 2 friends are not on an internet forum and thats who were discussing. a saved friend should try and help his friend see the light. i am not saying beating them in the head with a Bible, although that is what opened my eyes.

we were not commanded to go out into the world and "pray" for the lost. we were told to convert them if possible. if not so be it... but we have to at least try.

i watched a friend go off to work for 2 years and bad mouth a "Christian" at his work who gave him Bible verses for 2 years and to explain why he was in a cult...

my friend hated this guy for "hammering" him with a Bible... but what happened? God opened his eyes, thanks to his friends persistence. my friend is now a true Christian and out of his cult thanks to his coworkers persistence...  my friend is very grateful to his coworker for being a true friend and wanting to see him find Christ... it pays off guys.

and what if you do turn them off with the Bible?  are you saying God does not have the power to still convert them? i hope not.  there may be few who were as "turned off" as Paul was... God opened his eyes...


----------



## WTM45

BeenHuntn said:


> who else are they gonna hear the Gospel from if not from those who are saved?





Depending on the "gospel" in question, it might very well be the government that does it.


----------



## scoggins

As Brothe Dave Gardner once said ...
"If you believe in nothing; that's VAST"

And you can't fix stupid


----------



## Ronnie T

1.  Never talk down to an unbeliever.  Don't tell them how dumb they are and how smart and logical you are.  Nothing will turn them off quicker.

2.  If they are an atheist, don't plan a 3 hours marathon class so that YOU can convince them of the truth.  Show them your faith.  Show them your life.  Give them something to think about so that they'll ask questions.

3.  Keep it simple.

4.  Remember, your only job is to plant the seed.  

* Look at Acts 17.  Paul taught unbelievers in Athens about the existance of God.  He included these things............
1- God is the creator of the universe
2- He is the ruler of the nations
3- He is the sustainer of life
4- He is the Father of us all
5- He wants to be our Savior
6- He will someday judge the world

After Paul taught them............. Acts 17:32 "When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, ‘We want to hear you again on this subject.’"

          In other words, some laughed at what he taught, and some wanted to hear more.

Like it or not, either they will believe, or they will not.


----------



## Roberson

Man, i'm glad heavymetalhunter finally got banned. Now, if we could just get Diogenes mad enough.......................


----------



## Roberson

Six million dollar ham said:


> If I'm reading this correctly, you assert that atheists remain atheists because they enjoy arguing regardless of "what they really believe".
> 
> 1) On what do you base this assertion?
> 
> 2) Regardless of what they really believe?  If they believe something other than the point of view of an atheist then they are not atheists.  Or have you surmised that a lot of people are pretending to be atheists?


I make this assertion on the fact that you spend an inordinate amount of time arguing on this subject. If you don't believe, why argue?


----------



## earl

Gatorcountry said:


> Man, i'm glad heavymetalhunter finally got banned. Now, if we could just get Diogenes mad enough.......................



Don't stop there. Mke it a Christian only forum. That should convince them .


----------



## Roberson

earl said:


> Don't stop there. Mke it a Christian only forum.


No, I want you to hang around, earl. you're fun to argue with.  I've missed our deep discussions during my extended hiatus.......


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Gatorcountry said:


> Man, i'm glad heavymetalhunter finally got banned. Now, if we could just get Diogenes mad enough.......................



Classy.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Gatorcountry said:


> I make this assertion on the fact that you spend an inordinate amount of time arguing on this subject. If you don't believe, why argue?



Not that I asked you, but some people enjoy debate.


----------



## Inthegarge

I always ask 1 question..... Where did the 1st spark of life come from ??  It could not of come from nothing according to them. If not God where did it come from ????   RW


----------



## gordon 2

You or I can't do it. God can do it and when He choses, if He choses, they will lighten up.

In the mean time, make the best of their jive.

 <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J9b3ZZywQvg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J9b3ZZywQvg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## bat

You can either choose to believe in God or not believe in him..  but what if you choose not to....  and you are wrong!    I'll take my chances believing.  It is our duty to go out and try to bring others in... we have to answer for this when our turn comes.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

bat said:


> You can either choose to believe in God or not believe in him..  but what if you choose not to....  and you are wrong!    I'll take my chances believing.  It is our duty to go out and try to bring others in... we have to answer for this when our turn comes.



So do you _really _believe in Jesus or are you just going through the motions and playing it safe?  Just curious because I think that's what a LOT of people do.  The only difference in them and me is I no longer hedge my bets.


----------



## Ronnie T

A person that believes in God just because it's the safe thing to do might not actually believe in God anyhow.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

I don't know where life or matter originated.  I do think physicists, biologists, microbiologists, botanists, and astronomers of today have a better, rational idea than a bunch of guys who wrote the bible.


----------



## Diogenes

Let’s see . . . ‘How do you convince an atheist there is a God?’

Beat him over the head with a Book of words written by other men? . . . .  Nah.

Prey on his fears by making threats of ETERNAL SUFFERING if he doesn’t see things your way?    . . . . Nah.

Pretend to be privy to ‘insider knowledge’ that he can gain if only he joins your exclusive club? . . . . Nah.

Immediately delete his words in hopes that you can also delete his thoughts?  . . . . Nah.

Explain in exhausting and inventive detail that the absolutely impossible is completely true, because you say so? . . . .  Nah.

Invent new explanations, daily, of ‘what God really meant’ so that ‘God’s Words’ will actually make sense?  . . . . Nah.

Tell him that you, and you alone actually know what God really said, and who He said it to?   . . . . Nah.

Claim that God spoke to you personally, and so you can speak with the authority of a peer? . . . . Nah.

Point to scientific facts that you were too lazy to learn about, and claim that the existence of those facts ‘proves’ that God did it?   . . . . Nah.

Claim that you had a personal experience that was odd and cannot be explained to your satisfaction except as a proof of God?   . . . . Nah.

You want to convince me?  Easy enough.  Quit dithering around with threats and high-handed certainties that you reinvent and continually defend, and do something that no ‘believer’ in any ‘God’ throughout all of the long and sordid human history of ‘Gods’ has ever done – Show me.

No, no.  Don’t tell me.   You’ve all done plenty of telling, and the fact seems to be that you make it up as you go along, putting words and reasons in the mouth of this God as suits only your own purposes.   A real God ought not need such a spirited and imaginative defense. 

Show me.

Put your God front and center.  I have plenty of questions for him.  Short of that, you have nothing.


----------



## BeenHuntn

Six million dollar ham said:


> I don't know where life or matter originated.  I do think physicists, biologists, microbiologists, botanists, and astronomers of today have a better, rational idea than a bunch of guys who wrote the bible.




hammy, as a kid i learned that there was 9 planets and a 1000 stars. now theres billions of stars and many more planets than previously thought.   the astronomers were wrong then and they're probably wrong now.  

also that there was 109 elements in the periodic table. now there is 115 (i think)...  the chemists were wrong.

i was taught there was 30 orders of insect but now there is   
31... the biologists were wrong. 

for thousands of years scientists thought the earth was flat... 

the earth used to be 3 mil years old, then it was 24 mil years old, then 190 mil years old then 4 bill years old... when are they gonna get it right? never.

God knows everything because He created it all...
if God had given us a Bible that outlined all of His creation in explicit detail... men would worship the creation more than Him and men would have no faith in Him...

the way He has decided to share Himself with us in the Bible gives us enough detail and science in the Bible to prove He is the Creator... but not so much it destroys the faith in Him that He wants men to have.  think about it.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

It just goes to show that science doesn't inflexibly declare that "THIS is how it is", as opposed to biblical teachings.  It's always up for debate (whatever "it" is) and if currently held consensus can be proven wrong, then the new findings win out as conventional wisdom.  That's why I stated that the aforementioned scientists have a better idea of the origins of life and matter.  



BeenHuntn said:


> the way He has decided to share Himself with us in the Bible gives us enough detail and science in the Bible to prove He is the Creator... but not so much it destroys the faith in Him that He wants men to have.  think about it.



Oh and can you give me some examples of science in the bible?  I'd like to see some of it.  That's back when people (not just scientists, as you assert) believed the world to be flat.  "Science in the bible" is an oxymoron on the highest order.


----------



## Diogenes

No, Ham – Wait!  There is plenty of Science!

Folks got turned into pillars of Salt!  Plagues and pestilence rained out of the skies!  The entire Earth was consumed by a Flood, and only a few people and the beasts they managed to fit on a boat survived!  Then a Sea actually Parted!  ‘The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.’  So there was water, first, in the void, for God to move upon!  This is scientific, okay?  So pay attention . . .  It says that quite clearly.  But then God didn’t like not being able to see stuff, and so God said, let there be light, and there it was.  Scientific, I tell you.  “And God saw the light, that it was good.”  Well no wonder!  Did God think that his light could have been bad?  “And God divided the light from the darkness.”  Whew!  Close call there, huh?  Might have been a right mess otherwise . . .   

Hey!  This is Science, I’m trying to teach you . . . geez.  Get back here . . . It is true!  I swear!   Says so right here . . .


----------



## repoman34

Diogenes said:


> No, no.  Don’t tell me.   You’ve all done plenty of telling, and the fact seems to be that you make it up as you go along, putting words and reasons in the mouth of this God as suits only your own purposes.   A real God ought not need such a spirited and imaginative defense.
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Put your God front and center.  I have plenty of questions for him.  Short of that, you have nothing.



x2.  I hate having this debate, but I'm going to jump in here this time anyway. 
What is quoted above is the only way you're ever going to convince an atheist that there is a God. Stand him in front of me, let me chat with him, maybe wave his hand and part the waters in front of me or something, and then I'll believe it, but short of that, you'd simply be wasting your breath.
I have a few personal beliefs on why most people choose to believe in God.
*They need something to look forward to. Most people can't handle the thought that when you die, it's just over. Poof! Lights out. And that's it. When I have Christians trying to talk to me and get me to believe in God and I tell them that, thats how I feel; that one day you're here, one day you're gone, and it's all over.......most of them kinda freak out. They're voice gets nervous (they're starting to think rationally now), and they all say the same thing next: "There has to be a God. If there wasn't, then where did we come from?" "Where do we go when we're gone? There has to be something after we're dead", etc. My bottom line belief is that people believe in God, so that they don't have to be afraid of dying. So for those of us out there that feel the way I do about it, and who have come to terms with the fact that when the lights go out for the last time...they're out for good; there's no sense in trying to convince us, because the same thing is going to happen that happens every time: The Christian is going to walk away frustrated that he/she couldn't convince this other person that there's a god and a heaven/Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, etc., then later on they're probably going to go say a prayer about it.    The atheist is going to also walk away frustrated that he just wasted the last 30 minutes of his/her time listening to this person babble on about some great being that lives up in the sky and watches down on us, and has things in store for us, etc....  In the end, you both end up thinking that the other is a complete fruit loop, and you haven't accomplished anything.
I'm not trying to offend anyone here, and if I have, I apologize. Just wanted to throw my $0.02 in here


----------



## repoman34

Inthegarge said:


> I always ask 1 question..... Where did the 1st spark of life come from ??  It could not of come from nothing according to them. If not God where did it come from ????   RW



We don't know. But just because we don't know, doesn't automatically mean that God did it, and if God did do it, then where did God come from? How come the Bible doesn't say anything about where God came from? It just kinda starts with him, and then everything magically appears? I don't buy it.
If we had to come from God, then God had to have come from somewhere too


----------



## BeenHuntn

good video on science... yalll should love it....



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EN2oc7l1mPU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EN2oc7l1mPU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## Sterlo58

Interesting video !!
First let me say I am not an atheist.
I , like many believers and non-believers, have many questions that cannot be answered by man. I believe that something or some being (God ) created us. My problem is in accepting any one religions set of rules, guidelines and explanation of how and why we were created. That is the dilema. From the beggining of documented history there have been many many religions that claim to have the correct answers. Not sure any of them know for sure. All of these religions are based on faith in a set of beliefs. I don't think science or religion can explain creation or evolution. I am a moral responsible person but don't think anyone has all the answers.

Oh and by the way I do pray and do hope that my prayers are heard. I am not an atheist but not completely devoted to a set of beliefs based on faith alone.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Diogenes said:


> Let’s see . . . ‘How do you convince an atheist there is a God?’
> 
> Beat him over the head with a Book of words written by other men? . . . .  Nah.
> 
> Prey on his fears by making threats of ETERNAL SUFFERING if he doesn’t see things your way?    . . . . Nah.
> 
> Pretend to be privy to ‘insider knowledge’ that he can gain if only he joins your exclusive club? . . . . Nah.
> 
> Immediately delete his words in hopes that you can also delete his thoughts?  . . . . Nah.
> 
> Explain in exhausting and inventive detail that the absolutely impossible is completely true, because you say so? . . . .  Nah.
> 
> Invent new explanations, daily, of ‘what God really meant’ so that ‘God’s Words’ will actually make sense?  . . . . Nah.
> 
> Tell him that you, and you alone actually know what God really said, and who He said it to?   . . . . Nah.
> 
> Claim that God spoke to you personally, and so you can speak with the authority of a peer? . . . . Nah.
> 
> Point to scientific facts that you were too lazy to learn about, and claim that the existence of those facts ‘proves’ that God did it?   . . . . Nah.
> 
> Claim that you had a personal experience that was odd and cannot be explained to your satisfaction except as a proof of God?   . . . . Nah.
> 
> You want to convince me?  Easy enough.  Quit dithering around with threats and high-handed certainties that you reinvent and continually defend, and do something that no ‘believer’ in any ‘God’ throughout all of the long and sordid human history of ‘Gods’ has ever done – Show me.
> 
> No, no.  Don’t tell me.   You’ve all done plenty of telling, and the fact seems to be that you make it up as you go along, putting words and reasons in the mouth of this God as suits only your own purposes.   A real God ought not need such a spirited and imaginative defense.
> 
> Show me.
> 
> Put your God front and center.  I have plenty of questions for him.  Short of that, you have nothing.



Have a Man fulfill prophecy written hundreds of years before His appearance and raise that Man from the dead after a prophesied 3 days?    That has converted many atheists.....and still does.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

BeenHuntn said:


> good video on science... yall should love it....



Enjoyed it.    Makes most people contemplate the impossibility of life and how finely tuned the laws of the universe are.     

Man, we sure are lucky.   (sarcasm intended)


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Six million dollar ham said:


> I don't know where life or matter originated.  I do think physicists, biologists, microbiologists, botanists, and astronomers of today have a better, rational idea than a bunch of guys who wrote the bible.



Nope....they still have no clue.   From space?  Nah   From thermal vents?   Nah   From primordial soup?  Nah  

OOL is still a huge problem for atheism and naturalism. 

HUGE Problem

Minimum gene set for self-existing reproducing hypothetical organism......   256    

Irreducibly complex systems in organisms = ID.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

repoman34 said:


> We don't know. But just because we don't know, doesn't automatically mean that God did it, and if God did do it, then where did God come from? How come the Bible doesn't say anything about where God came from? It just kinda starts with him, and then everything magically appears? I don't buy it.
> If we had to come from God, then God had to have come from somewhere too



What IS known is that something that has a beginning also has a cause.   Science supports a beginning to our universe, and thus, a beginning.   That 'beginning' was not material....but was timeless (since there was no time) and not physical (since there was no material)

You already believe everything magically appeared.   No?   Let's here your best 'how things got here' story.


----------



## Big Mike

Why must you convince an atheist of anything? You wouldn't want someone to deny you your beliefs would you? I have seen a lot of religious people try to force their opinions on others and completely refuse to acknowledge the opinion of the one they are trying to convince.


----------



## afterfire6942

Big Mike said:


> Why must you convince an atheist of anything? You wouldn't want someone to deny you your beliefs would you? I have seen a lot of religious people try to force their opinions on others and completely refuse to acknowledge the opinion of the one they are trying to convince.



Exactly! I was raised a Catholic....did the religion classes, was confirmed, all that. That said I am not a religious person. I am also not a devout atheist. I believe that we are all entitled to our opinions. What I hate is when someone tries to convince me to believe in their god, or their religion. There is no reason for you to "convince" your friend that there is a god. Just leave it alone, because I promise you it is highly annoying to your buddy to be pestered about it(I know it is to me). You can be just as good a person and human being without religion in your life. Its what I practice every day. Be a decent human being, treat others well, and be happy. In the end, thats all that really matters in life.


----------



## 1john4:4

afterfire6942 said:


> Exactly! I was raised a Catholic....did the religion classes, was confirmed, all that. That said I am not a religious person. I am also not a devout atheist. I believe that we are all entitled to our opinions. What I hate is when someone tries to convince me to believe in their god, or their religion. There is no reason for you to "convince" your friend that there is a god. Just leave it alone, because I promise you it is highly annoying to your buddy to be pestered about it(I know it is to me). You can be just as good a person and human being without religion in your life. Its what I practice every day. Be a decent human being, treat others well, and be happy. In the end, thats all that really matters in life.




First off I would like to say that I am not trying to convince you that God is real ok. But I will answer why the thread starter is trying to convince his FRIEND. You see to him and many of us here... The Lord Jesus Christ is REAL in our lives. He has brought us out of spiritual darkness and into the light. And when God saves you His word takes a whole new meaning in your life and you realize that God is Holy and He will not tell a lie so the Word is the truth. Like the thread starter I believe the Bible from Genesis all the way throught to the maps to be truthful and with that being said lets look at Revelation 20 The Great White Throne Judgement... We all will stand before Jesus Christ one day and when the BOOKS are opened up there is only one book that will matter... The Book of Life! vs.15  And anyone not found in the Book of Life will be cast into the lake of fire! He did not say probably cast or maybe cast, but they will be cast. Sadly even a lot of people who believe that God exists but have never repented of there sin and called on the name of the Lord Jesus will also be amongst that group. Matthew 7:21! When believers are heartbroken for lost souls they realize that eternity is way too long and helll is way to hot not to tell those about the unseen danger that is in their lives. I respect his question and efforts and if only more christians were willing to get broken over their friends and family imagine what God would do.


----------



## BeenHuntn

BeenHuntn said:


> good video on science... yalll should love it....
> 
> 
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EN2oc7l1mPU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EN2oc7l1mPU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>




80, dio, hammy, yall still here?

just wandering what yall thought of the video where the scientist was using science to prove creation and the Creator...?


----------



## 1john4:4

Big Mike said:


> Why must you convince an atheist of anything? You wouldn't want someone to deny you your beliefs would you? I have seen a lot of religious people try to force their opinions on others and completely refuse to acknowledge the opinion of the one they are trying to convince.




Big Mike if you see a true Christian who says he is religious, RUN. The religious people were the ones who persecuted and sought to kill the Lord Jesus. All through the new testament you will read accounts of Jesus healing someone spiritually and then physically. Notice what happened after they were healed. They went and told someone. It is all about the relationship. I love the one about four men and a friend... They tore the roof off of a house just to get their friend at the feet of Jesus. That is what it is all about.


----------



## earl

How do you tell a Christian from one who is religious ?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

earl said:


> How do you tell a Christian from one who is religious ?



Religion is man trying to earn God's favor through works.

Christianity is God, through Christ, offering His favor to man.  

CS Lewis said grace was what makes Christianity different.   Undeserved favor.


----------



## earl

So how do you tell when talking to one or discussing on a forum ? If you change the word ''favor'' to ''gift'' I would agree with your definition. A favor is some thing you do for folks and expect it to be returned.
Religion on the other hand is a way of life and a way to control other men. It does not necassarily have anything to do with God.


----------



## gordon 2

earl said:


> How do you tell a Christian from one who is religious ?


The christian says "we shall overcome" and the religious says "I have."


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

earl said:


> So how do you tell when talking to one or discussing on a forum ? If you change the word ''favor'' to ''gift'' I would agree with your definition. A favor is some thing you do for folks and expect it to be returned.
> Religion on the other hand is a way of life and a way to control other men. It does not necassarily have anything to do with God.



I agree.    I hate religion.    

I disagree though that when you do a favor you expect something in return.....at least not all the time.


----------



## gordon 2

I think that there are in some cases religious spirits that are wholesome. For example the teaching ministries that are caused and supported by religious organization is admirable. 

It is true also that religious spirits can be controling and destructive.


----------



## Israel

DYI hunting said:


> I have a friend, he is a strong atheist.
> 
> I have tried to debate God, but I am not the most knowledgeable by far at the subject.  I am really outgunned with this one.
> 
> I talk about the spiritual feeling people get while in prayer.  He says it is the same as the peaceful feeling he gets in meditation and nothing more than functions of our brain responding to deep relaxation.
> 
> I say there had to be a God to create everything because it is too complex to be random and the Universe had to have a beginning.  He says if God created the Universe, who created God because everything has to come from somewhere.  If the Universe was created from nothing, the who created God because he too has to have a beginning and could not just become out of nowhere.  If the Universe has always been, then it could not have been created by God.
> 
> Any advice on how to counter these debates?



Don't say anything. 
Or at least find the place where you know you don't need to.
God is not trying to prove he exists to anyone.
In truth, God never tries to do anything.
In fact he is the only one doing anything, everything else is a reaction.
Ask God to open your eyes. (and pray for me, too)
Then only say what you believe God is saying to your friend.
You will have gotten out of the way, and your friend and God will then have room in the ring.


----------



## Ronnie T

afterfire6942 said:


> Exactly! I was raised a Catholic....did the religion classes, was confirmed, all that. That said I am not a religious person. I am also not a devout atheist. I believe that we are all entitled to our opinions. What I hate is when someone tries to convince me to believe in their god, or their religion.
> 
> Me, and God, agree with you.  There is no convincing.  A person has to accept.  A Christian should not be beating you up side the head in an attempt to convince.
> And I think that's what all the comments from Christians has reflected.
> 
> 
> There is no reason for you to "convince" your friend that there is a god. Just leave it alone, because I promise you it is highly annoying to your buddy to be pestered about it(I know it is to me). You can be just as good a person and human being without religion in your life. Its what I practice every day. Be a decent human being, treat others well, and be happy. In the end, thats all that really matters in life.



God bless.


----------



## Ronnie T

Israel said:


> Don't say anything.
> Or at least find the place where you know you don't need to.
> God is not trying to prove he exists to anyone.
> In truth, God never tries to do anything.
> In fact he is the only one doing anything, everything else is a reaction.
> Ask God to open your eyes. (and pray for me, too)
> Then only say what you believe God is saying to your friend.
> You will have gotten out of the way, and your friend and God will then have room in the ring.




Profound.

And it's the same things God has already told us.

Thanks.


----------



## ambush80

BeenHuntn said:


> 80, dio, hammy, yall still here?
> 
> just wandering what yall thought of the video where the scientist was using science to prove creation and the Creator...?



For 10 minutes this guy basically says: "I don't understand it.  It must be God."

Maybe he should try harder to understand it.  If he saw the lottery numbers come up 1,2,3,4,5,6 do you think that he would see the hand of God in it?  What if they came up 1-10,000 in numerical order?   How about 1-100 bazillion?

The heart of the matter is: How do you want to pre-dispose yourself?  Do you want to be the kind of person that hears a door close mysteriously or the sound of disembodied voices and think immediately "Ghosts!!", or do you want to be the kind of person that tries to find a cause for the phenomena that fits into what you understand?  What kind of person, parent, neighbor, friend does either pre-disposition make you?


----------



## BeenHuntn

ambush80 said:


> For 10 minutes this guy basically says: "I don't understand it.  It must be God."
> 
> Maybe he should try harder to understand it.  If he saw the lottery numbers come up 1,2,3,4,5,6 do you think that he would see the hand of God in it?  What if they came up 1-10,000 in numerical order?   How about 1-100 bazillion?
> 
> The heart of the matter is: How do you want to pre-dispose yourself?  Do you want to be the kind of person that hears a door close mysteriously or the sound of disembodied voices and think immediately "Ghosts!!", or do you want to be the kind of person that tries to find a cause for the phenomena that fits into what you understand?  What kind of person, parent, neighbor, friend does either pre-disposition make you?




well we're not really discussing ghosts and the monster hiding under the bed. so i am not sure how to answer your question.

i dont fully understand science or God. how could i? but then again who does?  all i know is that the Bible is the Word of God. the way it is written is proof. i know the universe HAD to come from a Creator. nothing can be created out of thin air, not even a grain of sand. so if a grain of sand cannot be created out of thin air... how can the universe?

so if there is a Creator...  who is He? well if you research all of the religions of the world that claim to have knowledge of this Creator... you can narrow them down to the God of the Bible being the Creator. buddha didnt explain creation, nor brahma, zeus, mithra, isis or any of the gods or religious people throughout the centuries.

yall bash the Bible all day long but you have no proof it is wrong. being one who has read it cover to cover a few times... the Bible lays out perfectly and flows like a mountain stream. when you study the Bible thoroughly with an open mind you realize how amazing it really is.

but if your opinion is proud and haughty why should a Holy God even open your eyes? He explains in the Bible why He doesnt.  its usually because most men think they know everything about the world and science, life etc.

all i can wrap my little brain around is that i was athiest. then i believed in a false god then i was in a cult. then i went to a church for a while that had a crazy false preacher... but i finally found the God that exists and what He is looking for.

Jesus said, "narrow is the way and few that be there that find it..."

It has to be "found". and if you're not lookin you wont find it. and if your anti looking, you wont find it.

if there is a creator and i think there is... i want to know Him fully. because if He created the universe... He also controls my destiny, life, heartbeat and oxygen intake... He's got to be the most amazing awesome being ever.

good luck trying to find that "phenomenon" that you're in search of... i hope you find it. i found mine, maybe you'll find yours too... one word of advice. it may be a little easier to find if you're not trying to find the "source" that "fits your understanding"... if you try to squeeze a round peg in a square hole, it wont fit...  

i think many people use their "understanding" as the base of their foundation and then go out searching for something to fit their beliefs... instead of going out there with an open mind and an attitude of... "hey i dont know it all, but i wanna find out..."

just because people dont believe in a God does not mean He does not exist.  i do hope you find your way...


----------



## ambush80

BeenHuntn said:


> well we're not really discussing ghosts and the monster hiding under the bed. so i am not sure how to answer your question.



When you talk to an atheist about God, you are EXACTLY talking about ghosties and ghoulies and things that go bump in the night; from their point of view.



BeenHuntn said:


> i dont fully understand science or God. how could i? but then again who does?  all i know is that the Bible is the Word of God. the way it is written is proof. i know the universe HAD to come from a Creator.



You could try to understand science more if you wanted to.   What makes you know that the Universe had to have a creator?  A very strong feeling in your tummy?



BeenHuntn said:


> nothing can be created out of thin air, not even a grain of sand.  so if a grain of sand cannot be created out of thin air... how can the universe?



Except God, of course.  Oh, he was here the whole time?  Well, why couldn't the Universe just have been here the whole time?



BeenHuntn said:


> so if there is a Creator...  who is He? well if you research all of the religions of the world that claim to have knowledge of this Creator... you can narrow them down to the God of the Bible being the Creator. buddha didnt explain creation, nor brahma, zeus, mithra, isis or any of the gods or religious people throughout the centuries.



You should google: "Creation Stories".  Most of them are as colorful and fantastical as the one that you chose to believe in.



BeenHuntn said:


> yall bash the Bible all day long but you have no proof it is wrong. being one who has read it cover to cover a few times... the Bible lays out perfectly and flows like a mountain stream. when you study the Bible thoroughly with an open mind you realize how amazing it really is.



I don't bash.  I call a spade a spade.  One can study the Bible with an open mind, but to believe in it, one must ultimately slam that same mind shut.



BeenHuntn said:


> but if your opinion is proud and haughty why should a Holy God even open your eyes? He explains in the Bible why He doesnt.  its usually because most men think they know everything about the world and science, life etc.



Scientists readily admit to knowing nothing for certain.  Certainty is reserved for those with faith.



BeenHuntn said:


> all i can wrap my little brain around is that i was athiest. then i believed in a false god then i was in a cult. then i went to a church for a while that had a crazy false preacher... but i finally found the God that exists and what He is looking for.
> 
> Jesus said, "narrow is the way and few that be there that find it..."
> 
> It has to be "found". and if you're not lookin you wont find it. and if your anti looking, you wont find it.
> 
> if there is a creator and i think there is... i want to know Him fully. because if He created the universe... He also controls my destiny, life, heartbeat and oxygen intake... He's got to be the most amazing awesome being ever.
> 
> good luck trying to find that "phenomenon" that you're in search of... i hope you find it. i found mine, maybe you'll find yours too... one word of advice. it may be a little easier to find if you're not trying to find the "source" that "fits your understanding"... if you try to squeeze a round peg in a square hole, it wont fit...



3 days in a fish....That's a great big peg that fits in no hole.



BeenHuntn said:


> i think many people use their "understanding" as the base of their foundation and then go out searching for something to fit their beliefs... instead of going out there with an open mind and an attitude of... "hey i dont know it all, but i wanna find out..."
> 
> just because people dont believe in a God does not mean He does not exist.  i do hope you find your way...



I believe that's called science.


----------



## georgia_home

Step 1. Find an atheist . Sounds like you did that

step 2. Get u atheist and loaded gun in same room

step 3. Kill you

step 4. Kill atheist

step 5. When the two of you meet again in front of the Lord, maybe atheist will believe.

Seriously, is it worth trying to FORCE someone to believe the same as you?

Sorta like all the other forums here. Think, live, believe my way or you ain't worth nothin'


----------



## BeenHuntn

georgia_home said:


> Step 1. Find an atheist . Sounds like you did that
> 
> step 2. Get u atheist and loaded gun in same room
> 
> step 3. Kill you
> 
> step 4. Kill atheist
> 
> step 5. When the two of you meet again in front of the Lord, maybe atheist will believe.
> 
> Seriously, is it worth trying to FORCE someone to believe the same as you?
> 
> Sorta like all the other forums here. Think, live, believe my way or you ain't worth nothin'



if i killed myself first... how could i then kill the athiest???   

i think its funny yall can go sit in a humanistic school for 16 years and be taught what the teacher believes and blindly accept whatever that teacher teaches....   

then reject what other people believe in and share...   

i dont see where any believers "force" anyone to believe what they believe... you cant force anyone to believe anything.

you just share with them what you believe and why you believe it... no big deal.

like i said, 80. i hope it works out for you...


----------



## ambush80

BeenHuntn said:


> if i killed myself first... how could i then kill the athiest???
> 
> i think its funny yall can go sit in a humanistic school for 16 years and be taught what the teacher believes and blindly accept whatever that teacher teaches....



Most of it makes sense.  Besides, alot of it you can test out yourself.



BeenHuntn said:


> then reject what other people believe in and share...
> i dont see where any believers "force" anyone to believe what they believe... you cant force anyone to believe anything.
> 
> you just share with them what you believe and why you believe it... no big deal.
> 
> like i said, 80. i hope it works out for you...



It's working out just fine, thanks. Except for the hunting and eating chimps thing.  Without accepting that I've been granted dominion over all living things, I'm afraid I'm still trying to sort that one out.


----------



## Ronnie T

How do you convince atheists that they have a right to not believe in God and it's their choice to make?
They don't have to justify it to me or other Christians.


----------



## pnome

ambush80 said:


> The heart of the matter is: How do you want to pre-dispose yourself?  Do you want to be the kind of person that hears a door close mysteriously or the sound of disembodied voices and think immediately "Ghosts!!", or do you want to be the kind of person that tries to find a cause for the phenomena that fits into what you understand?



Well, I've seen that movie and the guy who goes to check out that strange noise always dies first!


----------



## ambush80

pnome said:


> Well, I've seen that movie and the guy who goes to check out that strange noise always dies first!



A man of science would send a chimp first.


----------



## Israel

And a wise chimp would send a macaque...


----------



## speechless33759

I agree with what Earl said before....Action speak louder than words...He won't care about what you know until he knows how much you care. Plus you have to realize that no one is born a Christian...they were once atheists, agnostics and the like.


----------



## dawgforlife

Dont push it on anyone. That is so annoying to see someone push their religion on another. Let them be who they want to be and you be yours.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Here's a thought - what if the atheist decided they believe in a god....just not the one you believe in?  Do you then change to a conversion approach?


----------



## BeenHuntn

dawgforlife said:


> Dont push it on anyone. That is so annoying to see someone push their religion on another. Let them be who they want to be and you be yours.



i dont see where anybody is pushing... oh except where you (we) were forced to go to a secular humanistic school for 16 years but thats ok... we take it acceptingly even tho we hated it...  doesnt matter that what you learned for 15 of those years is worthless...  they jam lies of devilution, lincoln, astrology and socrates down our throats and thats ok. dont question our secular schools whatever you do...  

people get secular humanism jammed down their throats from age 4 till whenever... and thats ok... but if somebody wants to share the Gospel of Christ and you folks get in an uproar...

God said men would worship the creature more than the Creator and thats exactly what we see today... men worshiping trees, money, men, booze and every other man made thing on the planet....

but you mention the Gospel of Christ and people treat you like you are from another planet...  how funny. you got ramrodded with lies in secular schools for years... and later somebody wants to mention Christ and you wont stand for it...  

maybe its got something to do with the secular, humanistic, gov't lovin schools that owned you for 16 years before the Gospel of Christ could ever get to your ears and parents who do nothing to teach their kids about Christ...?


----------



## dawgforlife

exactly like the schools pushing Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- knowledge on you that (i agree) is very useless, we take that abuse for so many years. People are going to do as they please and believe what they want. Who are you to control or want to talk someone in to be controlled by one more thing. Its not enough if you still have your parents on your case, school teachers pushing useless info, or bosses treating you like utter crap. I cant say I am treated by all of the above but at some point I have seen it all. Religion is a crutch for the weak. If god is all knowing and really does know everything-in theory he should know the second you are born if your going to heaven or Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. So whats the point of the useless tail chasing through out your life. I am not for one or the other, I am myself and happy with it. My problem is people pushing religion just let it be man!


----------



## BeenHuntn

dawgforlife said:


> exactly like the schools pushing Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- knowledge on you that (i agree) is very useless, we take that abuse for so many years. People are going to do as they please and believe what they want. Who are you to control or want to talk someone in to be controlled by one more thing. Its not enough if you still have your parents on your case, school teachers pushing useless info, or bosses treating you like utter crap. I cant say I am treated by all of the above but at some point I have seen it all. Religion is a crutch for the weak. If god is all knowing and really does know everything-in theory he should know the second you are born if your going to heaven or Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----. So whats the point of the useless tail chasing through out your life. I am not for one or the other, I am myself and happy with it. My problem is people pushing religion just let it be man!



not really what you were saying there... most of it got deleted... try to not cuss... 

like i said, someone wants to mention the Gospel of Christ and yall get frantic... why is it you allow fox news to jam their false agenda down your throat but Christ is offensive?

if a doctor, policeman, politician or judge tells you to do something, you do it.  but the Creator of heaven and earth asks you to do something and you cry foul?

dont you see the irony?


----------



## dawgforlife

i dont consider h3LL a cuss word when used as we are speaking. the first one was just shortened to 2 letters so that it wasnt shown but guess thats to much. Sorry dont watch the news.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Six million dollar ham said:


> Here's a thought - what if the atheist decided they believe in a god....just not the one you believe in?  Do you then change to a conversion approach?



Yes.   It would be a continuation of progress.     It would be a sign that their brain was beginning to function.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

There are no atheists.....WHEN RESTORING FROM BACKUP!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

ambush80 said:


> For 10 minutes this guy basically says: "I don't understand it.  It must be God."
> 
> Maybe he should try harder to understand it.  If he saw the lottery numbers come up 1,2,3,4,5,6 do you think that he would see the hand of God in it?  What if they came up 1-10,000 in numerical order?   How about 1-100 bazillion?



They've calculated the odds that life could have spontaneously generated from dirt at 1 in 10 to the 40000 power.   These odds are so great as to equate to impossible.

Harvard University biochemist George Wald states, "One has to only contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet we are here–as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation."

I wish that I had that kind of faith as a Christian!   Man, what an example he is!


----------



## Israel

Why do we assume obedience to the faith is an intellectual matter? If we could but produce enough miracles, had the right argument, then men would "fall into line".


Luke 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:Luke  For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, _If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead._

Jesus didn't seem to think so.
Some will, for God's purposes alone, remain his enemy.
Do we know who? 
No.
Should we ever fret? 
I think that's what a lot of folks think believers should be doing..."hey, they say...I don't think you're being loving enough toward me to convince me of God's goodness like you're supposed to...waaaaa"
Which basically means :
"You're not respecting the intellectual twaddle I'm pushing as "my truth" enough and giving me my props...waaaa"

And the word of the Lord came to me, and behold it was:

Whatever dude.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Why do we assume obedience to the faith is an intellectual matter? If we could but produce enough miracles, had the right argument, then men would "fall into line".
> 
> 
> Luke 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:Luke  For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.Luke 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, _If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead._
> 
> Jesus didn't seem to think so.
> Some will, for God's purposes alone, remain his enemy.
> Do we know who?
> No.
> Should we ever fret?
> I think that's what a lot of folks think believers should be doing..."hey, they say...I don't think you're being loving enough toward me to convince me of God's goodness like you're supposed to...waaaaa"
> Which basically means :
> "You're not respecting the intellectual twaddle I'm pushing as "my truth" enough and giving me my props...waaaa"
> 
> And the word of the Lord came to me, and behold it was:
> 
> Whatever dude.



It's true.  There isn't an intellectual argument that will cause someone to believe in God.


----------



## DYI hunting

Lot of good things in these posts, thanks guys.

It is not as much as I am try to convince him by pushing religion, rather debating the possibilities of all religions.  We have interesting debates about politics, religion, science all the time.  He can bring some pretty compelling reasoning.

The last debate was do Christians, Jews, and Muslims worship the same God and just disagree with the history of the world similar to how different branches of Christianity disagree.


----------



## The Original Rooster

earl said:


> Actions always speak louder than words.



Wise advice! Live the life and your life will speak for you. Your friend may not be able to "see" God, but he can see God's influence on you.


----------



## The Original Rooster

ambush80 said:


> I don't bash.  I call a spade a spade.  One can study the Bible with an open mind, but to believe in it, one must ultimately slam that same mind shut.



On the contrary ambush, I believe you must expand your mind to believe in the Bible. Anyone can see and believe in what's around him, that's easy. It takes a much broader view of the world we live in to believe in the Bible.


----------



## Diogenes

BeenHuntn asks: “80, dio, hammy, yall still here?

just wandering what yall thought of the video where the scientist was using science to prove creation and the Creator...?”


 (Yawn.  Stretching.  Tryin to wake up here . . . )

I tried, really, but then I got to this part – “ . . . but you mention the Gospel of Christ and people treat you like you are from another planet... how funny. you got ramrodded with lies in secular schools for years... and later somebody wants to mention Christ and you wont stand for it...”  and fell back asleep.

See, I keep running into the same problem with folks trying all the time to ‘prove’ stuff – on the one hand I’ve got folks who know that they don’t know, and are out there working their butts off trying to cure diseases and figure out stuff like the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model and the problem of why the Higgs particle seems to be so light when there are large quantum contributions to its mass from virtual particles.  Then, on the other hand, I’ve got folks who already know everything, and for whom anything and everything that does not have their Christ as the explanation is clearly nothing more than lies that have been shoved down our throats by a clearly Satanic unbelieving bunch of evil heretics.

You guys make it so hard to decide.

Yawn.  

Find me that part where Jesus lectures the masses about the particles, about weak charges, leptons and quarks (fermionic particles), and about how come the all of the lightest stable quarks and leptons have heavier replicas.  Somewhere in the NT God must have mentioned that the muon, an element of His Cosmic Rays, was nothing more than a 200 times heavier version of His electron.  Probably the Divinely Inspired scribes of the time were too busy waiting for some more loaves and fishes or something to have written any of that part down, but darn, it seems like a pretty basic thing to have left out.

So, um?  Really.  Bring on a real scientist, who did something like actually study science.  Or do something even more fun, and equally impossible – (Let’s do this twice, since word substitution is such fun in the revealing of flawed logic) – try this one --“ . . . but you mention [Islam] and people treat you like you are from another planet... how funny. you got ramrodded with lies in secular schools for years... and later somebody wants to mention [Islam] and you wont stand for it...”   

Then again: “ . . . but you mention [education] and people treat you like you are from another planet... how funny. you got ramrodded with lies in [religious] schools for years... and later somebody wants to mention [knowledge] and you wont stand for it...” 

EEK!  (Yawn.)  

What else have you got?  Rants get boring, and are tough things to discuss, and a whole bunch of ‘AMEN BROTHER’ stuff  doesn’t make me want to run right down to the Chevy Dealer and pledge my troth . . .  Even if Obama personally stands in front of the warranty . . . 

For example, Rooster states: “I believe you must expand your mind to believe in the Bible. Anyone can see and believe in what's around him, that's easy. It takes a much broader view of the world we live in to believe in the Bible.”   

Yikes.  Indeed.  Takes a broader mind still to have condensed all of what needs to be known into an ancient and barely credible book of only a bit over 1,200 pages, while rejecting all of the Library of Congress and all of the assembled and accumulated learning of thousands of years in favor of what the local preacher said in between the commercial breaks, the collections, and the consultations with his bankers. Takes a very broad mind to only believe in one thing, and see nothing else . . .   

(Yawn.)


----------



## Diogenes

Wake me up when you've got something, okay?


----------



## Double Barrel BB

DYI hunting said:


> I have a friend, he is a strong atheist.
> 
> I have tried to debate God, but I am not the most knowledgeable by far at the subject. I am really outgunned with this one.
> 
> I talk about the spiritual feeling people get while in prayer. He says it is the same as the peaceful feeling he gets in meditation and nothing more than functions of our brain responding to deep relaxation.
> 
> I say there had to be a God to create everything because it is too complex to be random and the Universe had to have a beginning. He says if God created the Universe, who created God because everything has to come from somewhere. If the Universe was created from nothing, the who created God because he too has to have a beginning and could not just become out of nowhere. If the Universe has always been, then it could not have been created by God.
> 
> Any advice on how to counter these debates?


 
Plant the seed and nature it... God will do the convincing.

DB BB


----------



## gtparts

Diogenes said:


> BeenHuntn asks: “80, dio, hammy, yall still here?
> 
> just wandering what yall thought of the video where the scientist was using science to prove creation and the Creator...?”
> 
> 
> (Yawn.  Stretching.  Tryin to wake up here . . . )
> 
> I tried, really, but then I got to this part – “ . . . but you mention the Gospel of Christ and people treat you like you are from another planet... how funny. you got ramrodded with lies in secular schools for years... and later somebody wants to mention Christ and you wont stand for it...”  and fell back asleep.
> 
> See, I keep running into the same problem with folks trying all the time to ‘prove’ stuff – on the one hand I’ve got folks who know that they don’t know, and are out there working their butts off trying to cure diseases and figure out stuff like the hierarchy problem of the Standard Model and the problem of why the Higgs particle seems to be so light when there are large quantum contributions to its mass from virtual particles.  Then, on the other hand, I’ve got folks who already know everything, and for whom anything and everything that does not have their Christ as the explanation is clearly nothing more than lies that have been shoved down our throats by a clearly Satanic unbelieving bunch of evil heretics.
> 
> You guys make it so hard to decide.
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Find me that part where Jesus lectures the masses about the particles, about weak charges, leptons and quarks (fermionic particles), and about how come the all of the lightest stable quarks and leptons have heavier replicas.  Somewhere in the NT God must have mentioned that the muon, an element of His Cosmic Rays, was nothing more than a 200 times heavier version of His electron.  Probably the Divinely Inspired scribes of the time were too busy waiting for some more loaves and fishes or something to have written any of that part down, but darn, it seems like a pretty basic thing to have left out.
> 
> So, um?  Really.  Bring on a real scientist, who did something like actually study science.  Or do something even more fun, and equally impossible – (Let’s do this twice, since word substitution is such fun in the revealing of flawed logic) – try this one --“ . . . but you mention [Islam] and people treat you like you are from another planet... how funny. you got ramrodded with lies in secular schools for years... and later somebody wants to mention [Islam] and you wont stand for it...”
> 
> Then again: “ . . . but you mention [education] and people treat you like you are from another planet... how funny. you got ramrodded with lies in [religious] schools for years... and later somebody wants to mention [knowledge] and you wont stand for it...”
> 
> EEK!  (Yawn.)
> 
> What else have you got?  Rants get boring, and are tough things to discuss, and a whole bunch of ‘AMEN BROTHER’ stuff  doesn’t make me want to run right down to the Chevy Dealer and pledge my troth . . .  Even if Obama personally stands in front of the warranty . . .
> 
> For example, Rooster states: “I believe you must expand your mind to believe in the Bible. Anyone can see and believe in what's around him, that's easy. It takes a much broader view of the world we live in to believe in the Bible.”
> 
> Yikes.  Indeed.  Takes a broader mind still to have condensed all of what needs to be known into an ancient and barely credible book of only a bit over 1,200 pages, while rejecting all of the Library of Congress and all of the assembled and accumulated learning of thousands of years in favor of what the local preacher said in between the commercial breaks, the collections, and the consultations with his bankers. Takes a very broad mind to only believe in one thing, and see nothing else . . .
> 
> (Yawn.)





Diogenes said:


> Wake me up when you've got something, okay?



Go back to sleep.


----------



## Israel

Although both the muon and the more recently suspected homon are thought to exist in a very unstable and ephemeral state they have been detected indirectly by the mass effects that they induce upon other, more easily observed particles by use of the Dagnitz/Remenford Deutero Obfuscator.
Present work at the Large Hadron Collider has tentatively assigned these particles, which, by general understanding actually share less in common with matter as we know it and display properties more amenable to sonic wave descriptors, nevertheless have been detected to a pseudo mass of 1x10 (-13) or 1.35MmMM (Mini micro Michael Moore).
The muon, first found emanating from the Hoggs Bison, and which, at one time was believed to be the anti-matter counterpart of the homon, are now found to occupy both the same space and time infundibulum when the homon is coupled with it's corresponding depleted twin.
The hom particle, lacking the principle and multi exclusionary "on" sequence once assumed to be a necessary sub subscriptor when found in such subatomic particles continues to baffle physicists.
In fact the esteemed researcher Hans Guber Weirdedier is said to have become so distracted by his own protracted and single minded research into it that that particle, the Hom-homon, deranged Weirdedier to the point where he could no longer see where the antelope play.
So, presently, in light of these recent and distressing developments researchers have opted instead to use the CERN collider to catch a glimpse of the future by accelerating particles well past the speed of light and calculating a trajectory through a narrow target known as the Portal of Rajneesh in hopes of getting a glimpse into the presently unseen world of next week's winning lottery numbers.


----------



## gtparts

*Diogenes, repeat after me....*

Hmmmmmmmmmm-ah.   Hmmmmmmmmm-ah.









Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmah!







Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmah!






Hotdog.

Humah, humah, hotdog.

And that's all I have to say about that.


----------



## BeenHuntn

Diogenes said:


> BeenHuntn asks: “80, dio, hammy, yall still here?
> 
> Takes a very broad mind to only believe in one thing, and see nothing else . . .
> 
> (Yawn.)






blah blah blah

as always just one of your long winded rants that is meaningless..

you sidestepped the video like tony dorsett rushing for a touchdown.  you fail to see anything. wise beyond his years yet unable to open your eyes...

what are all your muons or muoffs or leptons or teplons or whatever gonna do for mankind? will they save the world?
no. they will do nothing. science and the use of science by evil men are destroying the world and have you fooled that something good will come from it all.

you are dying. i am dying. the world is dying. theres more to life than e=mc(sq)...  and pi or peptons and all that garbage.  you say you are not religious yet your religion is science...  your priests are the men wearing a lab coat.

men are spending their whole lives looking for science to make the world smarter, while missing the trees for the forest. all  that is needed is the One who created all of the universe and the science that goes along with it.

a person can rely on man to find the knowledge that is desired in their hearts or can devote their hearts to the One who created it all. my brain will be reserved for the One who created it and His wisdom and not the wisdom of the world which is merely, vain babbling. foolishness is loving al gore and his global warming lies over the God of the Bible...


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> Although both the muon and the more recently suspected homon are thought to exist in a very unstable and ephemeral state they have been detected indirectly by the mass effects that they induce upon other, more easily observed particles by use of the Dagnitz/Remenford Deutero Obfuscator.
> Present work at the Large Hadron Collider has tentatively assigned these particles, which, by general understanding actually share less in common with matter as we know it and display properties more amenable to sonic wave descriptors, nevertheless have been detected to a pseudo mass of 1x10 (-13) or 1.35MmMM (Mini micro Michael Moore).
> The muon, first found emanating from the Hoggs Bison, and which, at one time was believed to me the anti-matter counterpart of the homon, are now found to occupy both the same space and time infundibulum when the homon is coupled with it's corresponding depleted twin.
> The hom particle, lacking the principle and multi exclusionary "on" sequence once assumed to be a necessary sub subscriptor when found in such subatomic particles continues to baffle physicists.
> In fact the esteemed researcher Hans Guber Weirdedier is said to have become so distracted by his own protracted and single minded research into it that that particle, the Hom-homon, deranged Weirdedier to the point where he could no longer see where the antelope play.
> So, presently, in light of these recent and distressing developments researchers have opted instead to use the CERN collider to catch a glimpse of the future by accelerating particles well past the speed of light and calculating a trajectory through a narrow target known as the Portal of Rajneesh in hopes of getting a glimpse into the presently unseen world of next week's winning lottery numbers.



Are you poo pooing science?


----------



## ambush80

BeenHuntn said:


> blah blah blah
> 
> as always just one of your long winded rants that are clueless.
> 
> you sidestepped the video like tony dorsett rushing for a touchdown.  you fail to see anything. wise beyond his years yet unable to open your eyes...
> 
> what are all your muons or muoffs or leptons or teplons or whatever gonna do for mankind? will they save the world?
> no. they will do nothing. science and the use of science by evil men are destroying the world and have you fooled that something good will come from it all.
> 
> you are dying. i am dying. the world is dying. theres more to life than e=mc(sq)...  and pi or peptons and all that garbage.
> 
> men are spending their whole lives looking for science to make the world smarter, while missing the trees for the forest. all  that is needed is the One who created all of the universe and the science that goes along with it.
> 
> a person can rely on man to find the knowledge that is desired in their hearts or can devote their hearts to the One who created it all. my brain will be reserved for the One who created it and His wisdom and not the wisdom of the world which is merely, vain babbling. foolishness is loving al gore and his global warming lies over the God of the Bible...



Wow....  Another science hater.


----------



## BeenHuntn

ambush80 said:


> Wow....  Another science hater.



nope nothing wrong with science until it becomes a god. but i have to admit, that it does more harm than good.  its science that evil men use to build bombs and technology that kills.  science used to save lives is good. used to kill, is bad. used as a god, is bad...  just like money... its a god.  

and the majority of the science teachers are athiests. so if a Christian decides to gp thru college and have to listen to one of these science teachers... they are gonna get pounded by the teacher about things that "try" to prove there is no God.
they are a danger to the unsuspecting Christian...


----------



## Israel

ambush80 said:


> Are you poo pooing science?



Are you kidding?
Without science I couldn't poke my friends on Facebook!


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

BANDERSNATCH said:


> There are no atheists.....WHEN RESTORING FROM BACKUP!




Come on!   No one found that even a little bit funny?  



Ok...no more jokes from me.    Only sarcasm


----------



## WTM45

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Come on!   No one found that even a little bit funny?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok...no more jokes from me.    Only sarcasm



I thought it was a reference to a "resurrection."
Thought it best not to go there.......


----------



## WTM45

BeenHuntn said:


> nope nothing wrong with science until it becomes a god. but i have to admit, that it does more harm than good.  its science that evil men use to build bombs and technology that kills.  science used to save lives is good. used to kill, is bad. used as a god, is bad...  just like money... its a god.
> 
> and the majority of the science teachers are athiests. so if a Christian decides to gp thru college and have to listen to one of these science teachers... they are gonna get pounded by the teacher about things that "try" to prove there is no God.
> they are a danger to the unsuspecting Christian...



Science should be praised most by those who follow the beliefs of intelligent design as it promotes the full use of and development of a brain and a skill set.

Amazing someone can boil science down to good/bad simply by equating it to the destruction of or the saving of human life.  You should write a book, or at least give a lecture on that one at a major institution like Harvard or Yale.
What I'm saying (tongue in cheek) is it just is not that simple.

Most Atheists in the educational field spend their lives attempting to prove to themselves a deity exists, not to prove one does not to others.  Think about it.  They are not required to prove something that they do not claim, but spend much time trying to find any evidence outside of faith they can find.
They openly allow discussion from and understand those who use faith to answer the toughest questions.  It's simply faith alone is not enough for them personally.
They are not the ones that most often dismiss out of hand.

A "unsuspecting Christian" that finds the thoughts and discussions of an Atheist as "dangerous" need to look within themselves and adjust their own level of faith belief.
Open minded review can only make one who truly believes through their faith a stronger believer.


----------



## BeenHuntn

WTM45 said:


> Science should be praised most by those who follow the beliefs of intelligent design as it promotes the full use of and development of a brain and a skill set.
> 
> Amazing someone can boil science down to good/bad simply by equating it to the destruction of or the saving of human life.  You should write a book, or at least give a lecture on that one at a major institution like Harvard or Yale.
> What I'm saying (tongue in cheek) is it just is not that simple.
> 
> Most Atheists in the educational field spend their lives attempting to prove to themselves a deity exists, not to prove one does not to others.  Think about it.  They are not required to prove something that they do not claim, but spend much time trying to find any evidence outside of faith they can find.
> They openly allow discussion from and understand those who use faith to answer the toughest questions.  It's simply faith alone is not enough for them personally.
> They are not the ones that most often dismiss out of hand.
> 
> A "unsuspecting Christian" that finds the thoughts and discussions of an Atheist as "dangerous" need to look within themselves and adjust their own level of faith belief.
> Open minded review can only make one who truly believes through their faith a stronger believer.



for me and many others believers... nothing is more important than their walk with Christ.  education, science, health, wealth, success, happiness takes a back seat to Christ.  i find nothing wrong with education and wanting to better ones self in vocation, life, etc.

but if any of those things become a stumbling block for the Christian than that Christian should be careful.. how disheartening for a Christian parent to raise up a child in the admonition of the Lord for 18 years just to have that child go off to college and learn to funnel beer, fornicate and get taught evolution...  what took 18 years to build can be destroyed in a semester...

i huntn buddy of mine was saved at 20'ish...  went to college and while his co-students were partying like the world was gonna end... he was holding Bible studies and sharing the Gospel of Christ with his fellow students....  but not all Christians are that strong... 

the Bible warns the follower of Christ to be very careful about who you are friends with, entertain, hang out with, what you do, etc....  God knows how weak we are and how susceptible we are to the outside world...

i say a believer needs to be picky about their career choice,  classes taken, friends, etc...  this world got along fine for 6000 years without science and evolution and i dont see where it is mandatory or edifying for a believer to get entwined with those things.  my life is no less thrilling because i am not expert on nuclear science... quite frankly i love having God as my nucleus... and the world as far away as possible...


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

WTM45 said:


> I thought it was a reference to a "resurrection."
> Thought it best not to go there.......



LOL    No, actually it was a joke I use at work when discussing system backups.   When users delete important data and ask us to restore it, you can hear 'prayer' in their voice!   

I guess in a way it is a resurrection inference!


----------



## gtparts

Did I miss something?

How is it that some assume that Christianity and science are mutually exclusive? 

As a Christian, it is completely obvious that science is the result of God, incrementally revealing  His creation to mankind through man's inquiry, experimentation, and observation. 

The only fly in the ointment, so to speak, is where we have some of the science wrong. The Bible is not a science book. Science is not even some secondary purpose for inspiring its writing. All true and accurate science is confirmation of God's creative nature. The balance of science is just the result of man's erroneous conclusions based on some faulty assumptions. The short-comings in the current status of scientific knowledge is no reason to throw out the whole thing. I don't!


----------



## gtparts

WTM45 said:


> Science should be praised most by those who follow the beliefs of intelligent design as it promotes the full use of and development of a brain and a skill set.
> 
> Amazing someone can boil science down to good/bad simply by equating it to the destruction of or the saving of human life.  You should write a book, or at least give a lecture on that one at a major institution like Harvard or Yale.
> What I'm saying (tongue in cheek) is it just is not that simple.
> 
> Most Atheists in the educational field spend their lives attempting to prove to themselves a deity exists, not to prove one does not to others.  Think about it.  They are not required to prove something that they do not claim, but spend much time trying to find any evidence outside of faith they can find.
> They openly allow discussion from and understand those who use faith to answer the toughest questions.  It's simply faith alone is not enough for them personally.
> They are not the ones that most often dismiss out of hand.
> 
> A "unsuspecting Christian" that finds the thoughts and discussions of an Atheist as "dangerous" need to look within themselves and adjust their own level of faith belief.
> Open minded review can only make one who truly believes through their faith a stronger believer.



If they dismiss the matter of faith, they exclude the only key to the question they seek to answer.

Why frustrate yourself that way? You can't do an end run to God by ruling out the necessity of faith. 

You would be more successful trying to row a boat around the world using a six inch piece of 4# monofilament as an oar.


----------



## WTM45

BeenHuntn said:


> this world got along fine for 6000 years without science and evolution and i dont see where it is mandatory or edifying for a believer to get entwined with those things.



Wow.
I am at a loss for words.


----------



## WTM45

BANDERSNATCH said:


> LOL    No, actually it was a joke I use at work when discussing system backups.   When users delete important data and ask us to restore it, you can hear 'prayer' in their voice!
> 
> I guess in a way it is a resurrection inference!



I was with you all along!
I have "crucified" more than one hard drive.  I'm just hoping I never sacrifice a server!


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> If they dismiss the matter of faith, they exclude the only key to the question they seek to answer.
> 
> Why frustrate yourself that way? You can't do an end run to God by ruling out the necessity of faith.
> 
> You would be more successful trying to row a boat around the world using a six inch piece of 4# monofilament as an oar.



Oh, they very much accept faith in a deity as being a real thing for some people.  They honestly do.
Many of them know more about faith and it's relationship to a believer than the average believer does.


----------



## gtparts

WTM45 said:


> Oh, they very much accept faith in a deity as being a real thing for some people.  They honestly do.
> Many of them know more about faith and it's relationship to a believer than the average believer does.



If "knowing about faith" were the same as "having faith", we wouldn't be having this thread. They are not the same and so we are having this discussion. A superior knowledge about faith is of no value at all. Only having faith (or not) has eternal spiritual implications.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> Only having faith (or not) has eternal spiritual implications.



Only according to the particular faith you have.

Me?  I have faith that, if there is a God, he rewards works and not just faith.


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> If "knowing about faith" were the same as "having faith", we wouldn't be having this thread. They are not the same and so we are having this discussion. A superior knowledge about faith is of no value at all. Only having faith (or not) has eternal spiritual implications.



I can agree.  No one can completely define it.  It is quite individual in scope and definition.
Is it necessary?  To follow the religious belief system, yes.
It is not unique to Christianity either.


----------



## ambush80

WTM45 said:


> Wow.
> I am at a loss for words.



U don't need them high fallutin words no how.  U don't need that book learnin' arith-e-matic neither.

Trust and obey, trust and obey, trust and obey........


----------



## BRANCHWYNN

Jranger said:


> Why bother? Most of them take much more pleasure from the argument no matter what they really believe.


 
 ATHEIST=LOST.....THATS WHY. The HOLY SPIRIT can change all of them...not most of them. And we are COMMANDED to spread the GOSPEL. Sure glad someone was willing to SHARE with me.


----------



## The Original Rooster

Diogenes said:


> Yikes.  Indeed.  Takes a broader mind still to have condensed all of what needs to be known into an ancient and barely credible book of only a bit over 1,200 pages, while rejecting all of the Library of Congress and all of the assembled and accumulated learning of thousands of years in favor of what the local preacher said in between the commercial breaks, the collections, and the consultations with his bankers. Takes a very broad mind to only believe in one thing, and see nothing else . . .



Yikes indeed, Diogenes! However, I  don't believe that the Bible is a condensed version of everything there is to be known about the world. The "accumulated learning of thousands of years" holds some interest for me as well. Of course, my beliefs don't always fall in line with conventional doctrine.


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> Only according to the particular faith you have.
> 
> Me?  I have faith that, if there is a God, he rewards works and not just faith.



The conditional "if" you included in your post negates any declaration of faith. God is; whether He meets your criteria or not is another thing altogether.

I think you reject the notion of God because His character conflicts with your own. If you can't have God on your terms, you will to not have any of Him. 

Since you see some things conditionally, how about this?

IF there is a God, would it be more reasonable for you to allow yourself to be moulded to His will for you...OR... to expect, even demand, that He assist you in doing as you will to do?

I can tell you from experience, it only works the first way I described. I recognize that the one who loves me the most and knows me the best, is committed to me reaching all the highest potential He created in me.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> I think you reject the notion of God because His character conflicts with your own. If you can't have God on your terms, you will to not have any of Him.
> 
> Since you see some things conditionally, how about this?
> 
> IF there is a God, would it be more reasonable for you to allow yourself to be moulded to His will for you...OR... to expect, even demand, that He assist you in doing as you will to do?



If a god exists, and it turns out that he is malevolent, would you serve him?  Just because he reigns?  Would you mold yourself to his will?

Don't worry though.  I think the likelihood of  a malevolent creator god is much lower than that of an intentionally mysterious yet benevolent one.


----------



## gtparts

*Pnome*

Though you did not answer my question, I will respond to your question, though I see no support for your supposition.

Yes, if there were a malevolent supreme creator, it would only be rational to do his bidding, even on the almost certain probability that he would wind up "squashing" me like the insignificant being that I am.

Yielding to the absolute authority of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, that is experientially known to truly exist, is rational.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> Though you did not answer my question, I will respond to your question, though I see no support for your supposition.
> 
> Yes, if there were a malevolent supreme creator, it would only be rational to do his bidding, even on the almost certain probability that he would wind up "squashing" me like the insignificant being that I am.
> 
> Yielding to the absolute authority of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, that is experientially known to truly exist, is rational.



I'll have to think about this some.  It's an interesting question.   Would it make more sense to obey such a god?  

What would serving such a god earn me?  Eternal life, so long as I obey?  Eternal suffering should I not.  If those are the stakes, then there is no such thing as free will.


----------



## johnnylightnin

DYI hunting said:


> I talk about the spiritual feeling people get while in prayer.  He says it is the same as the peaceful feeling he gets in meditation and nothing more than functions of our brain responding to deep relaxation.
> 
> I say there had to be a God to create everything because it is too complex to be random and the Universe had to have a beginning.  He says if God created the Universe, who created God because everything has to come from somewhere.



Sorry, I haven't read through all these pages, so this may have been answered.  This is how I would deal with the two claims above.

1. I wouldn't argue anything based on a spiritual feeling.  That's intensely personal and incredibly subjective.  I'd just concede that one and move on.

2. This argument, however, is just as applicable to the philosophical naturalist as it is to the Christian.  If he believes that everything has to come from somewhere, he also must account for all we see.  He may point to the Big Bang, but that had to come from somewhere to.

He is arguing using certain assumptions.  When asking where God came from, he assumes that God is subject to all the natural laws that his creation is subject to.  The Christian position is that God did not come from anywhere.  He's always been.  He can create from nothing.  The links that pnome provided show how the fact that everything we see comes from something actually points to someone who started it all...that's God.

He should know that many atheists are backing away from the Big Bang theory because they know it can point toward an unmoved mover.


----------



## possum steak

I've debated atheists for years. I still do at carm.org (Christian Apologetic website). These guys are big into science & tend to be much more informed than your average Christian.

My advice, don't get deep into the philisophical debates, instead, live what you believe (be salt & light ) and let your LIFE be the witness for Christ.

They may win a debate, but they can never ever take away your testimony!


----------



## passionpink

Why are we trying to convince anyway? You called him your friend. The scriptures tell us to love our neighbor, it did not give any stipulations to that love. We all have our own beliefs and ideas. Its great when friends can get together and have these deep discussions. One thing that was not mentioned, does the atheist friend debate you into why he believes there is not a God, trying to change your belief? Why cant we all just join together as one?


----------



## WTM45

passionpink said:


> Why are we trying to convince anyway? You called him your friend. The scriptures tell us to love our neighbor, it did not give any stipulations to that love. We all have our own beliefs and ideas. Its great when friends can get together and have these deep discussions. One thing that was not mentioned, does the atheist friend debate you into why he believes there is not a God, trying to change your belief? Why cant we all just join together as one?



It is simply due to the exclusivity found in nearly all religious belief systems, especially in those that encourage their followers to evangelize.
That exclusivity, often found superiority and overly agressive evangelizing tends to cause non-believers and the followers of different religious belief systems to assume a defensive posture.

It is quite healthy to openly discuss those differences, agreements and issues.  It makes for better friendships, it can strengthen one's own belief and can allow for a better understanding of another's thoughts and ideals.


----------



## johnnylightnin

passionpink said:


> 1. Why are we trying to convince anyway?
> 2. You called him your friend. The scriptures tell us to love our neighbor, it did not give any stipulations to that love.
> 3. We all have our own beliefs and ideas. Its great when friends can get together and have these deep discussions.
> 4. Why cant we all just join together as one?



1. Because he believes his friend is in danger of eternal punishment.  If he's wrong, no big deal.  If he's right, his friend will, literally, have heck to pay.

2. It certainly did give stipulations to that love.  There are even instances that the Scripture tells us to have nothing to do with certain individuals.  That's an aside though.  Would it be loving to allow a friend of yours to be hit by a truck if you could prevent it just by telling him to move?  No...in fact, that would be downright evil.  The loving thing to do is to be honest and tell the truth.  Just because some folks don't like it doesn't make it unloving.

3. Sure we do.  The question is whether or not all of our beliefs are equally valid.  I don't think they are.  Can you convince me otherwise?

4. What does that even mean?  We can't join together as one because we aren't one.  This guy cares deeply for his friend and that care compels him to tell his friend some difficult truths.  There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with that.  

Atheists don't have to evangelize because the ending is the same (if they are right) whether others adopt their beliefs or not.  The same can't be said for Jews, Christians, or Muslims.  They MUST evangelize if they take their beliefs seriously.


----------



## Dominic

BeenHuntn said:


> www.creationevidence.org


 
Please don't send him here, unless he needs a laugh. There are much better arguments for the existence of God, which do not need faked museums and made up archaeological finds.


----------



## Jeffriesw

How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

If there's no god, someone tell me how that next Kleenex pops up out of the box when you pull one out?


----------



## BeenHuntn

Dominic said:


> Please don't send him here, unless he needs a laugh. There are much better arguments for the existence of God, which do not need faked museums and made up archaeological finds.



any evidence of your claim they are frauds?


----------



## pnome

BANDERSNATCH said:


> If there's no god, someone tell me how that next Kleenex pops up out of the box when you pull one out?



That's just how the kleenex evolved.  Their ancestor, the handkerchief, didn't have a box to pop up out of.


----------



## Jeffriesw

pnome said:


> That's just how the kleenex evolved.  Their ancestor, the handkerchief, didn't have a box to pop up out of.



That is just not nice at all! 

Pickin on a poor defenseless hanky because it ain't got no box. 


But since you is a heathen non believer and have not
evolved yet I'll let it slide this one time. 









Ya'll have a good Friday and stay safe


----------



## formula1

*Re:*

To the OP:

Let your light shine always! Love, plant, water and leave the increase to God himself.

For some it just takes lightning bolts, blindess, a voice from Heaven, and the healing power of God on the eyes.


----------



## Diogenes

Now, now, that Israel fella is a learned man, and if he says that the subatomic particles on his home planet are used entirely to leaven their bread then I’m convinced.  I can hardly afford enough tin foil to refute a position like that, so let the fella be, huh?  He might have Klingons off the starboard bow, and that takes a bit of a man’s concentration . . .

But: BeenHuntn asks: “what are all your muons or muoffs or leptons or teplons or whatever gonna do for mankind? will they save the world?
no. they will do nothing. science and the use of science by evil men are destroying the world and have you fooled that something good will come from it all.”

Well, now, convincing me that there is a God is going to be a terribly tough road if your position is that science is Evil and the manifestations of Belief are Good.  Far more people have been killed in the ongoing history of this odd world we occupy in the zealous pursuit of Belief than have been killed by scientists.  While Believers have been busy trying to conquer non-believers by force and terrorism, science has been quietly curing diseases, providing clean water, generating electricity, building bridges and highways and dams, mitigating floods, creating global navigation satellites, establishing instantaneous communications such as this one, and generally solving the problems that you folks create . . .


Then: “. . . you are dying. i am dying. the world is dying. theres more to life than e=mc(sq)... and pi or peptons and all that garbage. you say you are not religious yet your religion is science... your priests are the men wearing a lab coat.”    

Um?   Huh?  Allow me a first question – there is more to life?   How very philosophical.  What is that?  What more is there to life?  Would you put forward the contention that using guns and bows and boats and fishing gear (the products of science) to kill small innocent animals (the products of your God, as you would have it), knowing full well that no matter how many chicken-fried steaks you eat a surgeon will be able to give you a triple by-pass so you can go out and kill some more critters somehow invalidates science and validates God?  Pay attention.  If you wish to put the contention forward that science is my religion, then what is it, in reality, that you rely upon?  Did God hand you a 30-06, electricity, a vehicle, a house, a roadway, a hospital, gasoline, indoor plumbing, and psychotropic drugs?  Be serious.  Science is responsible for 100% of the things that stand between you and living in a cave.

Then more: “men are spending their whole lives looking for science to make the world smarter, while missing the trees for the forest. all that is needed is the One who created all of the universe and the science that goes along with it.”   

Right.  The world was much smarter 2000 years ago.  If all that is needed is your Belief in the One, then I challenge you to renounce science here and now.  No equivocating – there was no science at all that went along with it, so trying to merge the two is so much quivering nonsense.  The Bible did not mention sanitary systems, clean water, or central air-conditioning.  I checked.  Set science aside, I dare you.   

Then even more!  “and the majority of the science teachers are athiests. so if a Christian decides to gp thru college and have to listen to one of these science teachers... they are gonna get pounded by the teacher about things that "try" to prove there is no God.
they are a danger to the unsuspecting Christian...”   

Yikes!  Now wait a minute.  One of the stock-in-trade contentions here (undemonstrated) has been that the Christians are the majority of the scientists, and have proven scientifically that God is the actual answer.  Now you are saying that the scientists are all atheists, and the ‘unsuspecting’ Christians are merely victims.  C’mon now – you can’t be so very sure of one contention or another and still describe yourselves as ‘unsuspecting,’ now can you?

See, you need to listen to gtparts – “As a Christian, it is completely obvious that science is the result of God, incrementally revealing His creation to mankind through man's inquiry, experimentation, and observation. 
The only fly in the ointment, so to speak, is where we have some of the science wrong.”   

Here, you will see, God is manifest in the works of man –“ incrementally revealing His creation to mankind through man's inquiry, experimentation, and observation.”  Man has nothing to do with it, you see.  God is just letting us struggle along, and is revealing things to us slowly, and incrementally, in accordance with His Plan.  Except for when He isn’t – of course – since “The only fly in the ointment, so to speak, is where we have some of the science wrong.”   

So God is incrementally revealing His Plan to us, except where gtparts disagrees, and in those cases God is fallible, and isn’t actually doing any such thing, but is letting us get it wrong . . .

It all makes perfect sense to me.

I’m convinced.

(And that Kleenex thing?  Geez.  Which part of the Holy Tissue did you guys miss?  I mean, it is all right there if you pay attention . . . )


----------



## mtnwoman

formula1 said:


> To the OP:
> 
> Let your light shine always! Love, plant, water and leave the increase to God himself.
> 
> For some it just takes lightning bolts, blindess, a voice from Heaven, and the healing power of God on the eyes.



Well it almost took lightning bolts for me, but thank God the plant bloomed and the light bulb came on just in time. Stepped from darkness into light in the twinkling of an eye!


----------



## BeenHuntn

the question should be...

When IS the atheist convinced that God is real?

answer:

about 2 seconds after death.


----------



## BeenHuntn

Diogenes said:


> Now, now, that Israel fella is a learned man, and if he says that the subatomic particles on his home planet are used entirely to leaven their bread then I’m convinced.
> 
> (And that Kleenex thing?  Geez.  Which part of the Holy Tissue did you guys miss?  I mean, it is all right there if you pay attention . . . )



a couple of questions for you dio, if i may... 

1) you never did comment on the video i put up about the scientific reasons why God is the Creator...  
why not?

2) dio, the library of congress in DC (the district of corruption) has over 50 million documents, books, articles, etc..  of those 50 million publications, how much of that info do you have memorized? a % would be ok...

3) do you think God does not exist because of the evil in the world?


----------



## BeenHuntn

BeenHuntn said:


> a couple of questions for you dio, if i may...
> 
> 1) you never did comment on the video i put up about the scientific reasons why God is the Creator...
> why not?
> 
> 2) dio, the library of congress in DC (the district of corruption) has over 50 million documents, books, articles, etc..  of those 50 million publications, how much of that info do you have memorized? a % would be ok...
> 
> 3) do you think God does not exist because of the evil in the world?


----------



## BeenHuntn

1lineman said:


> Only one way to convince them.
> You have to beat the crap out of em/ and choke them till they black out..all while screaming "there is a god...God is real" when they wake up ....then they are believers.



GOOD STUFF lineman!  best advice i've seen here in weeks... nothing wrong with a rock to their temple as long as that Rock is Jesus, right?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

BeenHuntn said:


> GOOD STUFF lineman!  best advice i've seen here in weeks... nothing wrong with a rock to their temple as long as that Rock is Jesus, right?



Stay classy, beenhuntn.


----------



## owens

rjcruiser said:


> First off....I applaud your boldness in witnessing to him.  Many will not even discuss God and Christianity with there unsaved friends.
> 
> Now...about the arguments...you will never be able to convince someone there is a God.  Only God and the Holy Spirit can do that.  It is amazing at the number of threads in this forum between those who believe in God and those who don't.  The arguments on boths sides are compelling and well thought out.  But I don't think I've seen one person change their mind on the subject because of these facts.
> 
> My advice?  Keep telling your friend that there is a God.  Bring up experiences as you live life and interact that show you that He is real.  Keep sharing the gospel message with him.  That is what we as Christians are commanded to do.  That is what our reward in Heaven will be for.  Only God can soften their hearts.



Paul said if they didnt accept it to dust your feet as  you left that is in quote, some people will be turned over to a rprobate mind and be Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ---- if they choose it but is our job as a christian to be a witness


----------



## owens

DYI hunting said:


> I have a friend, he is a strong atheist.
> 
> I have tried to debate God, but I am not the most knowledgeable by far at the subject.  I am really outgunned with this one.
> 
> I talk about the spiritual feeling people get while in prayer.  He says it is the same as the peaceful feeling he gets in meditation and nothing more than functions of our brain responding to deep relaxation.
> 
> I say there had to be a God to create everything because it is too complex to be random and the Universe had to have a beginning.  He says if God created the Universe, who created God because everything has to come from somewhere.  If the Universe was created from nothing, the who created God because he too has to have a beginning and could not just become out of nowhere.  If the Universe has always been, then it could not have been created by God.
> 
> Any advice on how to counter these debates?



tell him at least as a christian and it not be real you have something to lose what does he have to lose


----------



## BeenHuntn

Six million dollar ham said:


> Stay classy, beenhuntn.



just kiddin around, hammy.


----------



## faceplate66

Shoot him. When he goes to Hel* he will believe then.  Just kidding of course.


----------



## Ducks23

The real problem is that these so called "atheists" think they have to have an answer for everything because they are too smart for there on good.  ha joke...atheists or lost ones just simply want to argue and need an answer for things because they are the types of people that are probably right about everything.  A Christian who is confident in their faith knows the Truth, which is Jesus Christ dying on the cross for our sins, He is the way the truth and the light.  There is a He@@ and there is a Heaven an He@@ is no place anyone wants to go. Period.  I could go on an on about explain but i gotta get some sleep but God is a loving and forgiving God an we are saved by his grace because we all have our problems from day to day.  The real Christian will plant the seed, pray, for them and the rest is up to that person because God gives us the choice.  If everyone was going to Heaven then there wouldnt be a need for He@@.  People are going to be against God, just like they were in the Bible.  Our job is to expose, pray, and hope people come to know him.  Not argue with  people that are gonna deny him or are unwilling too come to the Lord, simply expose them, guide them in the right direction, and hope they make the right choice.  But i can sure tell you with confidence that he is an AWESOME  God!


----------



## Israel

What makes any of us think it's our business to convince anyone of anything?

You be convinced.

And when you are convinced, God will work through you all the convincing necessary.

While it's still a debating club exercise, it's only because your need to be right shows that you haven't been convinced of anything.

Jesus didn't chase down one unbeliever, one scorner, one resister of the truth.
You want liberty?

Or do you think you are better equipped to take on what Jesus never did?


----------



## pileit

Israel said:


> What makes any of us think it's our business to convince anyone of anything?
> 
> You be convinced.
> 
> And when you are convinced, God will work through you all the convincing necessary.
> 
> While it's still a debating club exercise, it's only because your need to be right shows that you haven't been convinced of anything.
> 
> Jesus didn't chase down one unbeliever, one scorner, one resister of the truth.
> You want liberty?
> 
> Or do you think you are better equipped to take on what Jesus never did?


----------



## hunter rich

Swamp Runner said:


> How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?



A woodchuck would chuck all he could, if a woodchuck could chuck wood!


----------



## WTM45

owens said:


> tell him at least as a christian and it not be real you have something to lose what does he have to lose



Oh, the selfish desire to live forever.
Pascal's Wager............again.


----------



## BeenHuntn

Israel said:


> What makes any of us think it's our business to convince anyone of anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark 16:15 - *And He said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Acts 18:24-28 -
> 24And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.
> 
> 25This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
> 
> 26And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.
> 
> 27And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
> 
> 28For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Titus 1:8-10
> 
> 8But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate;
> 
> 9Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jude 1:15
> To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You be convinced.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *already am*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And when you are convinced, God will work through you all the convincing necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *if we're already convinced why does He need to work a convincing in us? *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While it's still a debating club exercise, it's only because your need to be right shows that you haven't been convinced of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *its got nothing to do with being "right" but being obedient to Christ and caring for the souls of men*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or do you think you are better equipped to take on what Jesus never did?
Click to expand...




> *better equipped? no... but we are to be equipped....
> 
> Ephesians 4:11-13
> 
> 11 And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, 12 for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, 13 till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ
> 
> 2 Timothy 3:16-17
> 
> 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.*



because the Word commands us to convince...


----------



## BeenHuntn

any feedback?


----------



## BeenHuntn

BeenHuntn said:


> any feedback?


----------



## crackerdave

Israel said:


> What makes any of us think it's our business to convince anyone of anything?
> 
> You be convinced.
> 
> And when you are convinced, God will work through you all the convincing necessary.
> 
> While it's still a debating club exercise, it's only because your need to be right shows that you haven't been convinced of anything.
> 
> Jesus didn't chase down one unbeliever, one scorner, one resister of the truth.
> You want liberty?
> 
> Or do you think you are better equipped to take on what Jesus never did?



So - what's your take on Matthew 28:18-20    A.K.A. "The Great Commission?"


----------



## BeenHuntn

people can come up with their own ideas of God but if its not Biblical...  well, it doesnt hold water.

the truth cannot be refuted by anyone...  God is perfect.


----------



## BeenHuntn

BeenHuntn said:


> a couple of questions for you dio, if i may...
> 
> 1) you never did comment on the video i put up about the scientific reasons why God is the Creator...
> why not?
> 
> 2) dio, the library of congress in DC (the district of corruption) has over 50 million documents, books, articles, etc..  of those 50 million publications, how much of that info do you have memorized? a % would be ok...
> 
> 3) do you think God does not exist because of the evil in the world?




dio, you still here?


----------



## watashot89

I dont understand why people would worry about religion. There's are hundreds of beliefs and religions out there, and all of them are made up by man so they can feel safe. I believe that when I die, that's it. History. The only thing that would change my mind is if I saw living proof of a god. Otherwise, I just dontworry/think about it.


----------



## Israel

crackerdave said:


> So - what's your take on Matthew 28:18-20    A.K.A. "The Great Commission?"


 
The preaching of the gospel is done as a statement of truth, not an attempt by men to convince anyone of anything.
The Lord promises he will back the truth up with the conviction of the Holy Spirit. What remains unconvicted, or at least says so...(for I believe there is a wickedness that refuses to hear the truth) is not a concern.
Our concern is to only deliver the message clearly without carnal appeal or taint...and watch God.
If we have any work...it is not in trying to come up with arguments to convince others of anything, but to put to death the deeds of the flesh and walk in the spirit.
A man walking in the spirit of God will be ready at any time to answer, or be silent as the spirit gives liberty.
Our only work is to agree with God in all things, and one of the first we need to understand to be able ministers is that through Christ, God has gotten us out of the way. 
We need to plumb the depths of this spoken by the Lord..."Of myself, I can do nothing..."
And having been put to death with Christ the new man comes forth...and that man alone is equipped to hear and speak what is not his own words, from his own heart, of his own life.
Yoda was not far from the truth: Try not, do or not do.
A man walking after the flesh may well preach the gospel, for even reading from the scriptures has power...but he can never make disciples for Christ...for if he himself is not following, he cannot teach others what following is.
Just as a good husband is to teach a wife what it is to follow, not by telling her "I am your head", but by being an example to her of one following his head, Christ.

What we do not have of Christ's power in our words, we do not have of Christ.

What we cannot teach by example...we cannot teach.

God may well use a carnal man as an example of what a disciple is not...


----------



## johnnylightnin

watashot89 said:


> I dont understand why people would worry about religion. There's are hundreds of beliefs and religions out there, and all of them are made up by man so they can feel safe. I believe that when I die, that's it. History. The only thing that would change my mind is if I saw living proof of a god. Otherwise, I just dontworry/think about it.



People worry about religion because you might be wrong.  If you are, the price for your temporary laid back posture toward religion is higher than what I am willing to pay.

Just for grins, what would you consider "living proof of a god"?


----------



## watashot89

johnnylightnin said:


> People worry about religion because you might be wrong.  If you are, the price for your temporary laid back posture toward religion is higher than what I am willing to pay.
> 
> Just for grins, what would you consider "living proof of a god"?



A "miracle" that I can physically see. Not someone being healed from sickness or anything like that though. I dont believe those are miracles.


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> People worry about religion because you might be wrong.  If you are, the price for your temporary laid back posture toward religion is higher than what I am willing to pay.



Sounds very selfish to me.  The human desire to be as a "god" and live forever.  Hmmmmmm.....  
Wouldn't an omnipotent, omnicient and omnipresent deity see right though that?

Pascal's Wager.......again.


----------



## hunter rich

Faith is "belief in things that aren't based in fact." Since God knows everything, he can't have faith, and because he's already the highest power, he doesn't believe in a higher power.  I guess that makes him an athiest..


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> Sounds very selfish to me.  The human desire to be as a "god" and live forever.  Hmmmmmm.....



That certainly fits you're argument, but it's not what I said.  I also should've said, it's more than MOST are willing to pay.  I don't think the Wager is a good reason to believe (and I don't think it will sustain what is required of Christians).  That said, I was addressing why people worry about religion.  Do you think I'm right?


----------



## watashot89

hunter rich said:


> Faith is "belief in things that aren't based in fact." Since God knows everything, he can't have faith, and because he's already the highest power, he doesn't believe in a higher power.  I guess that makes him an athiest..



 Thats one way to look at it.


----------



## johnnylightnin

hunter rich said:


> Faith is "belief in things that aren't based in fact." Since God knows everything, he can't have faith, and because he's already the highest power, he doesn't believe in a higher power.  I guess that makes him an athiest..



Nope...it makes him God.  He doesn't believe in a higher power because there is no higher power...he certainly is very well aware of himself.


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> That certainly fits you're argument, but it's not what I said.  I also should've said, it's more than MOST are willing to pay.  I don't think the Wager is a good reason to believe (and I don't think it will sustain what is required of Christians).  That said, I was addressing why people worry about religion.  Do you think I'm right?





Partly.
People worry over anything that is unknown and unanswered.  So, they "create" these ideas of eternity and deities in an attempt for peace or closure.
It's been that way since man could communicate to each other.
It will continue.


----------



## johnnylightnin

watashot89 said:


> A "miracle" that I can physically see.



What reason do you have to trust your eyes?  My bet is that if you did physically see something, you would be able to explain it away in one way or another.  In fact, my assertion is that you HAVE physically seen something, you just refuse to acknowledge that it is what, in fact, it is.
_
 18For(A) the wrath of God(B) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be(C) known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,(D) have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they(E) became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22(F) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and(G) exchanged the glory of(H) the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things._

Romans 1:18-23


----------



## holton27596

I have a lot of religous friends and I am glad that thier religion makes them happy. But I will only tell them once that I have no interest in it. After that, if they keep pushing it they will not be allowed back on my property. (However, if they want to pray before a meal or something thats their business, even at my house)


----------



## Israel

WTM45 said:


> Sounds very selfish to me.  The human desire to be as a "god" and live forever.  Hmmmmmm.....
> Wouldn't an omnipotent, omnicient and omnipresent deity see right though that?
> 
> Pascal's Wager.......again.



Glad we agree.
God ain't stupid.
But, if we proceed from the truth that Jesus is "the normal man" of God...
Excellent? yes.
Preeminent? of course
Worthy of praise? without contradiction...

But also...the example of what God sees as the normal course life is to take when a man is filled with the Holy Spirit.
Now, none can refute the only reason the Holy Spirit is made available to any of us is through Jesus name...and in his name, his work/death on our behalf.
But that being said, now  having access through his name to the Father by the Holy Spirit, we are given Jesus as our example...not to tantalize, not to tease or torment...but as the real outworking of the spirit within with which we should not be unfamiliar.

The minute we say (in order to resist the spirit) "But it was different for Jesus..." We have made him into something else, so that we can also be something else. 
It's a wonderful thing to realize that Jesus didn't "like" taking up the cross anymore than we do until we humble ourselves in obedience and see the glory revealed in submission to God.
Then we come to understand the cross as the deliverance from blindness, death, self preservation and fear.
The better news is, of course, that this has already been done for us...and our agreement, which brings about the outworking of what is really not our labor at all, is still credited, so to speak, to our account as righteousness.
God says, well done...we say, but it wasn't me, but Jesus...and God says even more heartily...very well done indeed.

What can one do with such a crown but laughingly, joyously, hilariously throw it at the feet of the one who rightly earned it...

We are given to see what is taking place in heaven...and believe him who said:

I go to prepare a place for you...that where I am, you may be also...

Where is Jesus?
Where are we?


----------



## watashot89

johnnylightnin said:


> What reason do you have to trust your eyes?  My bet is that if you did physically see something, you would be able to explain it away in one way or another.  In fact, my assertion is that you HAVE physically seen something, you just refuse to acknowledge that it is what, in fact, it is.
> _
> 18For(A) the wrath of God(B) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be(C) known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,(D) have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they(E) became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22(F) Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and(G) exchanged the glory of(H) the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things._
> 
> Romans 1:18-23



Thats not the case. And what really hangs me up is there has to be a beginning, for everything. God wasnt just there forever sitting bored before "he made us". There would have to be something to create him. And I dont understand it, so I just dont worry about it.


----------



## johnnylightnin

watashot89 said:


> Thats not the case. And what really hangs me up is there has to be a beginning, for everything. God wasnt just there forever sitting bored before "he made us". There would have to be something to create him. And I dont understand it, so I just dont worry about it.



That's what makes God God.  He is the one, unique thing in the universe that doesn't need a beginning.  If God needed a beginning, he would just be another created thing.  It's a difficult concept and I feel like I'm hijacking this thread, so I won't pursue it further...we can start another thread if you want.

As for not worrying about things you don't understand, that makes no sense to me...unless you fancy yourself someone who can understand everything that's worth worrying about.  I don't understand how the world bank influences the economy in middle-georgia, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't concern myself with it.  I don't understand how my blood pressure pills affect my electrolyte levels, but if I don't concern myself with it, I could die.

In my experience, not understanding something is NO reason to ignore it.


----------



## watashot89

I guess it's just easier to ignore it.


----------



## hunter rich

johnnylightnin said:


> Nope...it makes him God.  He doesn't believe in a higher power because there is no higher power...he certainly is very well aware of himself.



Just pointing out that the basic usual definition of an athiest can be applied to even god.  
The topic of this thread is how to convince athiests that there is a god.  Thats like trying to convince a christian that there is no god, or convince Obama that capitalism is good for the country...


----------



## johnnylightnin

watashot89 said:


> I guess it's just easier to ignore it.



Absolutely it is.  And, if all belief systems are of equal value and there is no eternal significance to making the right choice, the logical thing to do would be to ignore it.

The issue is, somebody is right and somebody is wrong.  If your choice is to ignore because there is no eternal significance, you need to be REAL sure you're right.


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> In my experience, not understanding something is NO reason to ignore it.



Even if it is purely fantasy that can ONLY be believed through faith?


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> Absolutely it is.  And, if all belief systems are of equal value and there is no eternal significance to making the right choice, the logical thing to do would be to ignore it.
> 
> The issue is, somebody is right and somebody is wrong.  If your choice is to ignore because there is no eternal significance, you need to be REAL sure you're right.



You forgot the choice "C."

They all can be wrong.


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> Even if it is purely fantasy that can ONLY be believed through faith?



How could you believe that without some modicum of understanding?


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> You forgot the choice "C."
> 
> They all can be wrong.



No, if they're all wrong, WTM45 is right...somebody is still right.


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> How could you believe that without some modicum of understanding?





As you have stated before, it can be hard to believe what your own eyes see.
Do I believe in the existance of UFO's?  Yes.  There are things that can only be interpreted by an eyewitness as an unidentified flying object.
But to state "There is a God" takes a much bigger leap of understanding, one I believe is truly impossible outside of pure faith in what SOMEONE ELSE has told us.


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> No, if they're all wrong, WTM45 is right...somebody is still right.



Nope.  If they are all wrong, I'm included in that group as well.

It's only the ones that claim to know the answers for sure that bear close watching and observation.  They just might be apt to lick a cold and frozen flagpole outside the Scotiabank Place in Ottawa mid January.


----------



## gtparts

watashot89 said:


> Thats not the case. And what really hangs me up is there has to be a beginning, for everything. God wasnt just there forever sitting bored before "he made us". There would have to be something to create him. And I dont understand it, so I just dont worry about it.



I think even the regular contributors to this forum who reject the existence of God would caution you against choosing intellectual "death".

"And I dont understand it, so I just dont worry about it."

Wow!
I have found few who embrace complacency, to the point of remaining totally ignorant. But then, you did come on this forum, so you must be looking for something. Answers, perhaps?

If there is something in this life worth devoting some time to, it seems that, whether God exists and if so, what directives He might have dispensed for our knowledge and benefit, would be of paramount interest.


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> I think even the regular contributors to this forum who reject the existence of God would caution you against choosing intellectual "death".
> 
> "And I dont understand it, so I just dont worry about it."
> 
> Wow!
> I have found few who embrace complacency, to the point of remaining totally ignorant. But then, you did come on this forum, so you must be looking for something. Answers, perhaps?
> 
> If there is something in this life worth devoting some time to, it seems that, whether God exists and if so, what directives He might have dispensed for our knowledge and benefit, would be of paramount interest.




Very good post!
It is that thirst for knowledge and understanding that keeps the human spirit alive.  That desire in and of itself proves life is valuable.


----------



## crackerdave

Israel said:


> The preaching of the gospel is done as a statement of truth, not an attempt by men to convince anyone of anything.
> The Lord promises he will back the truth up with the conviction of the Holy Spirit. What remains unconvicted, or at least says so...(for I believe there is a wickedness that refuses to hear the truth) is not a concern.
> Our concern is to only deliver the message clearly without carnal appeal or taint...and watch God.
> If we have any work...it is not in trying to come up with arguments to convince others of anything, but to put to death the deeds of the flesh and walk in the spirit.
> A man walking in the spirit of God will be ready at any time to answer, or be silent as the spirit gives liberty.
> Our only work is to agree with God in all things, and one of the first we need to understand to be able ministers is that through Christ, God has gotten us out of the way.
> We need to plumb the depths of this spoken by the Lord..."Of myself, I can do nothing..."
> And having been put to death with Christ the new man comes forth...and that man alone is equipped to hear and speak what is not his own words, from his own heart, of his own life.
> Yoda was not far from the truth: Try not, do or not do.
> A man walking after the flesh may well preach the gospel, for even reading from the scriptures has power...but he can never make disciples for Christ...for if he himself is not following, he cannot teach others what following is.
> Just as a good husband is to teach a wife what it is to follow, not by telling her "I am your head", but by being an example to her of one following his head, Christ.
> 
> What we do not have of Christ's power in our words, we do not have of Christ.
> 
> What we cannot teach by example...we cannot teach.
> 
> God may well use a carnal man as an example of what a disciple is not...



That's your explanation of the Great Commission and Jesus' intention for His followers?


----------



## Israel

crackerdave said:


> That's your explanation of the Great Commission and Jesus' intention for His followers?



If you understand by what was posted...that we are to no longer speak of ourselves, live to ourselves, have Christ as nothing less than our very life...yes. 
That which is of the flesh...and even our best "intentions" is of the flesh.
That which is born is born of the spirit, and is only of the spirit, accomplishes for God all he has ever desired.

If some want to make a law of "Go ye therefore" they will find little in it but man's weak attempts at which the law could never make perfect.

If men see, rather, we are now set free to preach something of which we were totally unfamiliar, but is now revealed...and is completely out of our hands...and rejoice in the same...he will know the peace of God.

A man who loves his bride because he is commanded...and a man who is set free and delighted to do so...will find a great difference in this word....Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church...


One will attempt to please God...one will see God as the one who has patiently waited till he saw how good his wife has always looked through God's eyes.

God remains in no man's debt.
It is always he alone who does us the favor...even when he instructs us to preach the gospel.

If one does not yet know that, he still thinks he can, of himself, do something.


----------



## pileit

Israel said:


> If you understand by what was posted...that we are to no longer speak of ourselves, live to ourselves, have Christ as nothing less than our very life...yes.
> That which is of the flesh...and even our best "intentions" is of the flesh.
> That which is born is born of the spirit, and is only of the spirit, accomplishes for God all he has ever desired.
> 
> If some want to make a law of "Go ye therefore" they will find little in it but man's weak attempts at which the law could never make perfect.
> 
> If men see, rather, we are now set free to preach something of which we were totally unfamiliar, but is now revealed...and is completely out of our hands...and rejoice in the same...he will know the peace of God.
> 
> A man who loves his bride because he is commanded...and a man who is set free and delighted to do so...will find a great difference in this word....Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church...
> 
> 
> One will attempt to please God...one will see God as the one who has patiently waited till he saw how good his wife has always looked through God's eyes.
> 
> God remains in no man's debt.
> It is always he alone who does us the favor...even when he instructs us to preach the gospel.
> 
> If one does not yet know that, he still thinks he can, of himself, do something.




Execellent Post


----------



## ambush80

gtparts said:


> I think even the regular contributors to this forum who reject the existence of God would caution you against choosing intellectual "death".
> 
> "And I dont understand it, so I just dont worry about it."
> 
> Wow!
> I have found few who embrace complacency, to the point of remaining totally ignorant. But then, you did come on this forum, so you must be looking for something. Answers, perhaps?
> 
> If there is something in this life worth devoting some time to, it seems that, whether God exists and if so, what directives He might have dispensed for our knowledge and benefit, would be of paramount interest.



Trust and obey, trust and obey, trust and obey......


----------



## BeenHuntn

crackerdave said:


> That's your explanation of the Great Commission and Jesus' intention for His followers?



cd,  the great commission is just symbolic. we're not to actually spread the good news of Christ.  when Jesus said do the work of an evangelist... He was just kiddin. c'mon, you cant take all that bible stuff literally...


----------



## ambush80

BeenHuntn said:


> cd,  the great commission is just symbolic. we're not to actually spread the good news of Christ.  when Jesus said do the work of an evangelist... He was just kiddin. c'mon, you cant take all that bible stuff literally...



Especially 3 days in a fish.


----------



## crackerdave

I give up! I should have stayed out of this thread,just like I thought when I first saw it.  It can not do anything to change the mind of an unbeliever - only God can.


----------



## BeenHuntn

ambush80 said:


> Especially 3 days in a fish.



if you saw the bass on my wall... you would believe.


----------



## crackerdave

[QUOTE=Israel;4583917]If you understand by what was posted...that we are to no longer speak of ourselves, live to ourselves, have Christ as nothing less than our very life...yes. 
That which is of the flesh...and even our best "intentions" is of the flesh.
That which is born is born of the spirit, and is only of the spirit, accomplishes for God all he has ever desired.

If some want to make a law of "Go ye therefore" they will find little in it but man's weak attempts at which the law could never make perfect.

If men see, rather, we are now set free to preach something of which we were totally unfamiliar, but is now revealed...and is completely out of our hands...and rejoice in the same...he will know the peace of God.

A man who loves his bride because he is commanded...and a man who is set free and delighted to do so...will find a great difference in this word....Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church...


One will attempt to please God...one will see God as the one who has patiently waited till he saw how good his wife has always looked through God's eyes.

God remains in no man's debt.
It is always he alone who does us the favor...even when he instructs us to preach the gospel.

If one does not yet know that, he still thinks he can, of himself, do something.[/QUOTE]

I understand by what God's Word says.The command given in the verses I asked you about are not hard to understand,but they are easy for an eloquent speaker/writer to dance around.


----------



## Israel

crackerdave said:


> [QUOTE=Israel;4583917]If you understand by what was posted...that we are to no longer speak of ourselves, live to ourselves, have Christ as nothing less than our very life...yes.
> That which is of the flesh...and even our best "intentions" is of the flesh.
> That which is born is born of the spirit, and is only of the spirit, accomplishes for God all he has ever desired.
> 
> If some want to make a law of "Go ye therefore" they will find little in it but man's weak attempts at which the law could never make perfect.
> 
> If men see, rather, we are now set free to preach something of which we were totally unfamiliar, but is now revealed...and is completely out of our hands...and rejoice in the same...he will know the peace of God.
> 
> A man who loves his bride because he is commanded...and a man who is set free and delighted to do so...will find a great difference in this word....Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the Church...
> 
> 
> One will attempt to please God...one will see God as the one who has patiently waited till he saw how good his wife has always looked through God's eyes.
> 
> God remains in no man's debt.
> It is always he alone who does us the favor...even when he instructs us to preach the gospel.
> 
> If one does not yet know that, he still thinks he can, of himself, do something.



I understand by what God's Word says.The command given in the verses I asked you about are not hard to understand,but they are easy for an eloquent speaker/writer to dance around.[/QUOTE]

OK.


----------



## gurn

Well the way Im lookin at this is. Scientifically , or just plain old common sense says, nothing comes from nothing. 
The existence of a creator, or the universe are impossible.  
Therefor you have two options.
Believe you do not exsit, or believe in the scientifically impossible. 
Both lines of thought would be a religion based on pure faith.
One without a disigner and one with.


----------



## hunter rich

gurn said:


> Well the way Im lookin at this is. Scientifically , or just plain old common sense says, nothing comes from nothing.
> The existence of a creator, or the universe are impossible.
> Therefor you have two options.
> Believe you do not exsit, or believe in the scientifically impossible.
> Both lines of thought would be a religion based on pure faith.
> One without a disigner and one with.



What is scientifically impossible?  The big bang?  There is more proof for it than there is for a "creator". I lean more toward the big bang theory simply because however slight the chance of it being the "beginning", it is a lot better than someone or thing (is god a being or a "thing"?) existing in nothingness deciding to make the world and the universe.  You have faith in something that can NEVER be proved and was devised by MAN thousands of years ago to explain their existence. I think that the BBT, while still hard to grasp by most, will be proved in the future and all the people killed in the name of one god or another will have been for nothing...but you don't care because you will be long gone by then.  Kind of like old politicians spending future generations $$.  Just my .02


----------



## gtparts

hunter rich said:


> What is scientifically impossible?  The big bang?  There is more proof for it than there is for a "creator". I lean more toward the big bang theory simply because however slight the chance of it being the "beginning", it is a lot better than someone or thing (is god a being or a "thing"?) existing in nothingness deciding to make the world and the universe.  You have faith in something that can NEVER be proved and was devised by MAN thousands of years ago to explain their existence. I think that the BBT, while still hard to grasp by most, will be proved in the future and all the people killed in the name of one god or another will have been for nothing...but you don't care because you will be long gone by then.  Kind of like old politicians spending future generations $$.  Just my .02



If you carry that thought to its only logical conclusion, if there is no god, there is NO reason for anything or anyone. Our existence has no ultimate purpose. Life is all just futile striving, that only ends in a sentient mass of living matter reverting to non-sentient cosmic debris. There is no absolute defined good or evil. The only logical position to adopt is to acquire and keep all you can for as long as you can to fulfill your own needs and desires. It serves you no good to procreate other than the temporary pleasures of the sex act. After all, it does nothing to improve or prolong your existence to have offspring that encumber you and consume your resources. There is no nobility in doing anything to preserve the species.....you are still going to die and so will all other beings. Humanity is a colossal, meaningless accident.


----------



## tell sackett

200 posts in this thread and a lot of discussion about different things, but as far as the answer to the o.p. rj pretty much nailed it in the very first reply. My.02


----------



## gurn

What is scientifically impossible?

The fact that something can come from nothing. That would have to be by faith.


----------



## WTM45

The "something" we now know as life, the universe and the earth just might have come from something else.
Previous worlds and life forms?  Possible.

There's simply no proof that everything we know came from nothing.  Only speculation, theory and religious belief systems.

We just very well might be a small part of a progression of things that have simply always been.

There is as much a need to "know" where things started as there is a need to "know" where things end.  There might not be an understanding reached of either a beginning or an end.  So, humans strive to find something they can wrap their minds around.


----------



## gurn

There's simply no proof that everything we know came from nothing. Only speculation, theory and religious belief systems.

Yes and thats where what some think of as fact, whether it be we came from nothing, or a creator, is in fact simply faith based. Your left to your own common sense to choose.


----------



## WTM45

gurn said:


> There's simply no proof that everything we know came from nothing. Only speculation, theory and religious belief systems.
> 
> Yes and thats where what some think of as fact, whether it be we came from nothing, or a creator, is in fact simply faith based. Your left to your own common sense to choose.



Very true.
Some just do not require a "fairy tale story" type of answer.
"I don't know" really requires no "faith."  Just intellectual honesty.


----------



## gurn

Yep, thats why one mans institutionalized "sicence", "fact", or religion, is another mans fairy tale. The truth is not changed by ones ignorance of it.


----------



## WTM45

Would you agree that "truth" can be found through the scientific process?


----------



## gurn

I don't know. 
Just being intellectual honest.


----------



## WTM45

gurn said:


> I don't know.
> Just being intellectual honest.



And I am right there with you!

I do accept some widely known and accepted scientific experimentation results as truth.  They have been clearly proven to my satisfaction.
Other things just are not so clear.
There's a lot out there where the "I simply don't know" answer just has to suffice.  At least for me......


----------



## gurn

Yep I believe in science that can be tested and repeated to the point of near no doubt. Like antibiotics killing bacteria.
Thank God for it, or many of us wouldnt be able to be here.


----------



## WTM45

Not so sure about the origins being with a deity, but the list is VERY long.
...dynamite, combustion, hydrolics, semiconductors, filtration, radiation imaging...etc...


----------



## gurn

True science to me is like problem solving. You have a problem. You take all known recources you have, and relate them to that problem. When your all done, you test to see if your work has solved the problem. Then you must be able to repeat the process many times over with the same result in order to say this is a fact. Even though you have deemed it a fact. With the process there can be another reason the problem keeps going away. Something that your doing in your process that you dont even recognize, because of your limited to presently known knowledge. 
What I described above is my own personal definition of good science. That I do have some faith in because I've been involved in that very same thing. 
Others may feel less than than that is good science. Thats their own faith. We all have a choice in what we believe.


----------



## crackerdave

gurn said:


> True science to me is like problem solving. You have a problem. You take all known recources you have, and relate them to that problem. When your all done, you test to see if your work has solved the problem. Then you must be able to repeat the process many times over with the same result in order to say this is a fact. Even though you have deemed it a fact. With the process there can be another reason the problem keeps going away. Something that your doing in your process that you dont even recognize, because of your limited to presently known knowledge.
> What I described above is my own personal definition of good science. That I do have some faith in because I've been involved in that very same thing.
> Others may feel less than than that is good science. Thats their own faith. We all have a choice in what we believe.




And there you have it -straight from the wilds of southeast Michigan: The answer to the original question,five pages later!


----------



## BeenHuntn

you came from a rock that came from a big bang that came from nothing and is going back to nothing...  thats a religion founded on nothing.  nothing is nothing.  a dismal hopeless nothing.  maybe thats why pet rocks used to be so popular? people were having family reunions and enjoyed spending time with their ancestors.

what a gift of hope to have the scales removed from your eyes by the God of the Bible and given eternal life thru Jesus Christ that we may share in His glory that lasts forever...


----------



## hunter rich

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

This definition of faith would lead me to think that you cannot have faith in science because it uses logic and proof as well as material evidence.  I didn't say that we came from nothing as in the BBT but it is the one we have come closest to proving logically with material evidence....

The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation. As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago), and continues to expand to this day.

From biblical references, we know that the elapsed time between Adam and the birth of Christ was roughly 4,000 years. From other historical records, we know that Christ was born roughly 2,000 years ago. Since Adam was created on the sixth day of the creation week, we can conclude that the earth, the entire universe, and everything in it were created approximately 6,000 years ago.

Big time difference...


----------



## Israel

Quando omni flunkus moritati?


When all else fails...kill yourself?
Or is it "when all else falls call (Pat) Morita"?


----------



## hunter rich

Israel said:


> Quando omni flunkus moritati?
> 
> 
> When all else fails...kill yourself?
> Or is it "when all else falls call (Pat) Morita"?



When all else fails play dead..."the Red Green Show"


----------



## Israel

hunter rich said:


> When all else fails play dead..."the Red Green Show"



Thanks for the response.
You may not know how close to the truth that is...except for the "play" part.
Especially in reference to this thread.


----------



## gurn

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

What is "logical" to one, may not be to another. Based on their "faith" in how, or where the"proof" came from, and or  derived.
"Proof" and "evidence" can be be determined good or bad on a personal basis. Using the same standard.
Your chosen difinition of faith is full of ambiguous words, as all the different seperate difinitions might be of many of the words in it..
In the end we all have a personal standard of faith to base your belief on.
As I mention before. Saying one thing or the other is based on "science" does not mean the same standard was used, or equal burden of "proof" was required. In the end you chose which "sicence" you will have enough faith to form a belief in.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Some see 'staggeringly improbable odds' as proof....others just see it as an unimaginable miracle.   

We all believe in the 'miracle'.   Some believe that we were intelligently designed, while others believe in astronomically improbable odds.   

Bandy


----------



## gurn

Well said.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

gurn said:


> What is scientifically impossible?
> 
> The fact that something can come from nothing. That would have to be by faith.



But most, even atheists, either believe that everything came from nothing, or that something has existed eternally....which itself is miraculous.    Eternity only exists in our minds...it is not observable in our universe.

I asked a guy before (it may have been on this thread...i'm not sure) to give me his best 'how things got here' story since he didn't believe in God...but he didn't reply.    I'm sure he realized his position was too weak to withstand a debate.    Unless you believe that material has eternally existed, then you have to believe in a miraculous start to our universe.


----------



## pnome

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Unless you believe that material has eternally existed, then you have to believe in a miraculous start to our universe.



Not exactly.


First off, I'd like to state that I do not know how the universe came to be.  I don't pretend to know. 

That said,  as far as science can tell right now, the universe started about 14 billion years ago.  In the "Big Bang"

So, this raises your question "So what happened before that to cause it?"  AKA The Cosmological Argument

This argument immediately leads to an infinite regression of "First Causes".   If everything that is has to have a cause and if God caused the Universe, what caused God?  What caused God's cause? etc.....

At this point the theist will make what is called a special plea for God to be exempt from the "everything that is must have been caused by something" rule.  

To this, we can just apply some Occam's razor.






So much for needing "God" to explain this, since God doesn't really explain anything, he only raises more questions.


My next line of attack on this argument is that the Universe has existed and will exist _at every point in time_.  This is not to say that the universe is eternal, or that it will exist for an infinite amount of time.  But rather, that _time itself_ is part of our universe.   

Without our universe there is no such thing as time.  Hence, there was no _time_ before our universe.  Nor will there be time, after our universe is gone.  I know that is hard to grasp at first.  Without time, you cannot have a before and after.  A cause and effect.  Causality is itself part of our universe.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

I agree, P.    Everything that has a beginning has a cause. (basic agreed logic)     That cause was timeless.  Immaterial.  Not constrained to laws of our universe.

I call that 'god'.    

But, I'm a theist mainly because of Jesus' resurrection!       That convinced me.


----------



## gurn

My next line of attack on this argument is that the Universe has existed and will exist at every point in time.

I think that is what most common folks refer to as eternal. 

There is no good sicence based facts involving words such as eternal, or thoughts of something existing at all points of time, being in the natural as we know it. Those things are believed, or not believed by faith. The word sicence, or even trying to relate, or connect it to these things should be rejected.
They are all in the realm of religion, mystical, or super natural with our present information.. Any scientist, preacher, mystic, or followers of them do so by faith.


----------



## pnome

gurn said:


> My next line of attack on this argument is that the Universe has existed and will exist at every point in time.
> 
> I think that is what most common folks refer to as eternal.



Not the same thing.

Eternal implies an infinite duration.  That is not what I am getting at.  I'm saying that time has existed for as long as our universe has because time is part of our universe.   It's not easy to grasp, it took me a while myself before I got it, but think about it.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> Not the same thing.
> 
> Eternal implies an infinite duration.  That is not what I am getting at.  I'm saying that time has existed for as long as our universe has because time is part of our universe.   It's not easy to grasp, it took me a while myself before I got it, but think about it.



Time is just a measure of change.

As for your assertion that a prime mover or uncaused cause only raises more questions, that's only true if you presuppose a philosophically naturalistic worldview.  The cosmological argument is that there is nothing naturally that we have observed that can account for motion, time, change, whatever you like to call it.  If there can be no infinite regress, then something outside of what we've observed started things. 

 What makes this thing different (and, getting to this "thing" is still a far cry from the Christian concept of God IMO) is that, unlike what we naturally observe, it can't have had a beginning.


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> What makes this thing different (and, getting to this "thing" is still a far cry from the Christian concept of God IMO) is that, unlike what we naturally observe, it can't have had a beginning.




Why not just say that the Universe is this "thing"?  Why the unnecessary extra step?


----------



## gurn

pnome said:


> Not the same thing.
> 
> Eternal implies an infinite duration.  That is not what I am getting at.  I'm saying that time has existed for as long as our universe has because time is part of our universe.   It's not easy to grasp, it took me a while myself before I got it, but think about it.



Well I think were splittin hairs here. I could be wrong, but what I was trying to say was many common folks consider infinite and eternal as going on forever. Both are still in the supernatural at this point, with present information.
Actually as far as I know. The only good repeatable "fact" science I know of, and have faith in, have both a begining and a end. Recon that would leave either of them words out.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Science supports the fact that our universe had a beginning.   

from chaos....order.


----------



## pnome

gurn said:


> Well I think were splittin hairs here. I could be wrong, but what I was trying to say was many common *folks consider infinite and eternal as going on forever*. Both are still in the supernatural at this point, with present information.
> Actually as far as I know. The only good repeatable "fact" science I know of, and have faith in, have both a begining and a end. Recon that would leave either of them words out.



That's correct but not what I am saying.  Our Universe is not eternal.  It had a beginning and will likely have an end (as far as we know).  Same is true of time.  Since time is part of our universe, it too will end when our universe ends as it began when our universe did.  There is no such thing as eternity.


----------



## pnome

BANDERSNATCH said:


> Science supports the fact that our universe had a beginning.
> 
> from chaos....order.



Not disagreeing with you.  My point is that beginning did not need to have a cause.  Because there was no time, and no causality, before our universe.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> Why not just say that the Universe is this "thing"?  Why the unnecessary extra step?





pnome said:


> That's correct but not what I am saying.  Our Universe is not eternal.  It had a beginning and will likely have an end (as far as we know).  Same is true of time.  Since time is part of our universe, it too will end when our universe ends as it began when our universe did.  There is no such thing as eternity.



You answered your own question.  What we naturally observe points to the universe having a beginning.  As such, it doesn't meet the requirements of an unmoved mover.  The absence of time doesn't solve anything because then you must account for the first motion (change) that precipitated measuring change (time).  It's the same problem, just different labels.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> Because there was no time, and no causality, before our universe.



I don't think you can jump from no time to no cause.  They aren't the same.  We view causal relationships temporally, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.  Something can be causally prior without being temporally prior.  One of the naturalistic accounts for motion is that there was some sort of universal magnetism that set everything off.  If they are right, there would've been something causally prior to motion that would also make that cause atemporal if there was no motion prior to the motion caused by the magnetism.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

pnome said:


> Not disagreeing with you.  My point is that beginning did not need to have a cause.  Because there was no time, and no causality, before our universe.



That is illogical.   Everything observable that has a beginning had a cause.   To say that our universe started but didn't have a cause is to turn a blind eye to logic....IMO.


----------



## hunter rich

Up until very recently, perhaps even this century, most of the theories of origin have been religious in nature. 
    When we speak of having a religious nature, we speak of faith. Religious beliefs are held upon faith; 
no rational explanation is required or sought after. Examples would inlcude the origin myths of the 
ancient Greeks, whose fiery gods battled and bore children and eventually formed the universe as we 
know it today, or the origin myths of the Judeo-Christian tradition, whose god spoke, and beheld a 
universe before him, or even the origin stories of the Hopi Indians whose ancestors descended from a 
first man in a world far below the present one and who climbed up through four successive worlds 
along a reed and emerged into the world we know today. As one would observe who studied the various 
origin myths of the world, the majority are deeply dependent upon a faith in the existence of a Divine 
Being, a First Creator who started it all but who cannot be seen. Such faith is not dependent upon 
scientific proof of such a Divine Creator. These are the stories that explain how our universe came to 
be, the work of Divine purpose


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> I don't think you can jump from no time to no cause.  They aren't the same.  We view causal relationships temporally, but that doesn't mean they are equivalent.  Something can be causally prior without being temporally prior.  One of the naturalistic accounts for motion is that there was some sort of universal magnetism that set everything off.  If they are right, there would've been something causally prior to motion that would also make that cause atemporal if there was no motion prior to the motion caused by the magnetism.



First I've heard of that theory but....

You cannot have a cause and effect relationship without time.  There is no way to get to the effect from the cause without a passage of time.


----------



## johnnylightnin

hunter rich said:


> When we speak of having a religious nature, we speak of faith. Religious beliefs are held upon faith; no rational explanation is required or sought after.



That sounds good, but it doesn't jive with reality.  Supernatural causes are looked to because philosophical naturalism is insufficient to explain why things are the way they are.  The "Father of Logic" understood this and proposed an unmoved mover that was very different from the popular religious conceptions of his time.


----------



## hunter rich

The theory of the big bang essentially is not dependent at all upon the existence of a supreme Deity. While it does not prove that such a Divinity does not exist, it surely makes a case for the universe in which one is not necessary. I would like to quote Stephen Hawking on the matter, a matter which he has surely considered deeply with every irreverent insight he has had over time. In his A Brief History of Time, he writes, "Existence [prior to the Big bang] can be ignored because it would have no observational consequences. One may say that time had a beginning at the big bang, in the sense that earlier times simply would not be defined...One could still imagine that God created the universe at the instant of the big bang, or even afterwards in just such a way as to make it look as though there had been a big bang, but it would be meaningless to suppose that it was created before the big bang. An expanding universe does not preclude a creator..."


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> First I've heard of that theory but....
> 
> You cannot have a cause and effect relationship without time.  There is no way to get to the effect from the cause without a passage of time.



You can't have an effect.  Why can't you have a cause?  Even if you could give me a sufficient answer (and you very well may be able to), you still have to account for the first motion...and the universe itself for that matter.

Your explanation, as I understand it, is still supernatural.  Instead of God, you've appeal to the universe as a brute fact, but there's no evidence for that as it appears to have had a beginning.


----------



## pnome

BANDERSNATCH said:


> That is illogical.   Everything observable that has a beginning had a cause.   To say that our universe started but didn't have a cause is to turn a blind eye to logic....IMO.



Everything observable is in our Universe.

Have you ever been watching the Discovery channel when they have a show about Black Holes?

Almost without fail you will here a phrase like this "And in the center of the black hole is a singularity, which scientist do not understand fully because our laws of physics "break down" at that point."   The beginning of our Universe was a singularity.     Cause and effect (the essence of physics) do not hold true there because time doesn't hold true there.  

I don't have an answer to the question of "Why are we here?"  I'm just saying that the idea that the Universe had to have a cause is flawed, because before the universe there was no such thing as causality.


----------



## hunter rich

The singularity at the beginning of the universe was in a condition for which man has no ability of prediction. Our mathematical and physical laws cease to apply, and we can neither say what will come after nor what came before. 
     At this point, man’s ability to describe the state of the universe is extremely limited. The laws of physics under such a condition are not known. Indeed, nothing then would be recognizable to man, or comparable to the state of the universe which he observes today. Therefore, man cannot say why the events which happened next did so; he can only say that they happened…. 
     For an unknown reason, the universe suddenly began to expand.


----------



## hunter rich

Now, before we get into the discussion of quarks and anti-quarks may I ask what happened to the quest of proving to an athiest that ther is a god?


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> You can't have an effect.  Why can't you have a cause?  Even if you could give me a sufficient answer (and you very well may be able to), you still have to account for the first motion...and the universe itself for that matter.



It accounts for itself. 



> Your explanation, as I understand it, is still supernatural.  Instead of God, you've appeal to the universe as a brute fact, but there's no evidence for that as it appears to have had a beginning.



It has had a beginning.  But there was no "before" it for a cause to have happened. 

It's pretty mind boggling I know.

Now, an interesting question is: Does time exist separate from our Universe?   If so, then the Universe had to have a cause.   What, exactly, that cause was would be a subject for debate though.


----------



## pnome

hunter rich said:


> Now, before we get into the discussion of quarks and anti-quarks may I ask what happened to the quest of proving to an athiest that ther is a god?



This thread has turned into an object lesson on the topic.


----------



## johnnylightnin

It's not that it's mind boggling, it's that it is illogical.  The universe can't account for itself.  You don't account for it.  You're assuming that a cause can't exist without motion, but that assumption is baseless.  Can a cause and effect exist without change?  No.  That doesn't mean that a cause cannot. 

Absence of time does not equate to the absence of existence.  It is an interesting theory, but I think it violates the tenants of philosophical naturalism just as much as it violates the tenants of Christianity.


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> It's not that it's mind boggling, it's that it is illogical.  The universe can't account for itself.  You don't account for it.  You're assuming that a cause can't exist without motion, but that assumption is baseless.  Can a cause and effect exist without change?  No.  That doesn't mean that a cause cannot.
> 
> Absence of time does not equate to the absence of existence.  It is an interesting theory, but I think it violates the tenants of philosophical naturalism just as much as it violates the tenants of Christianity.



OK, for argument sake, let's accept your point that the Universe must have had a cause because all things that are, must have a cause.  Then how do you get out of the infinite regression of causes?


----------



## hunter rich

"And in the beginning there was nothing. And God said 'Let there be light.' And there was still nothing, but now you could SEE it!" -- Anonymous  

ahh, humor...where would we be without it...?


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> OK, for argument sake, let's accept your point that the Universe must have had a cause because all things that are, must have a cause.  Then how do you get out of the infinite regression of causes?



All things that we naturally observe must have causes.  I didn't say all things that are must have a cause.  You get out of this by looking beyond what we naturally observe...just like Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas did.

there must be something that does not have a cause, but nothing we've observed meets that criteria.  Therefore, it must be something beyond (higher, different, not subject to the natural laws) what we can (or at least have) observed.


----------



## hunter rich

*cause and effect*







How is this for "Cause and Effect" ?


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> All things that we naturally observe must have causes.  I didn't say all things that are must have a cause.  You get out of this by looking beyond what we naturally observe...just like Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, and Aquinas did.



Metaphysics. 



> If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.
> — David Hume


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> Metaphysics.



And I think Hume makes the same mistake that many of the current new atheists and philosophical naturalists make...they assume if something cannot be scientifically observed it must not be considered.  That may be true, scientifically, but there are other pertinent studies.  When science does not provide a sufficient answer, one is warranted in looking beyond it.

Can science prove God?  I don't think so.  But, science has at all times in the past recognized that there are questions that it is not capable of answering.  What science can do, and does in this instance, is show that nothing natural can account for what we observe.

"I don't like metaphysics" isn't a very compelling argument.

In essence, philosophical naturalism says to the theist, "Prove to me that the supernatural exists, but know that I will reject all answers that are not scientifically verifiable."  Or...what is the sum of two and two?  The answers I'll accept are: 3, 5, and 7.  It's question begging of the highest order.


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> In essence, philosophical naturalism says to the theist, "Prove to me that the supernatural exists, but know that I will reject all answers that are not scientifically verifiable."




That is correct.  Otherwise, you're just guessing.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> That is correct.  Otherwise, you're just guessing.



Much like scientists must guess at origins and unguided evolution from non-living to living.  That's the inherent hypocrisy.  They reject the guesses of others (even scientists with other "guesses" are shunned).

What happened to history?  Can science prove to me that Nero existed?  Is it any less true because they can't?

The fact that nature cannot account for motion paired with divine revelation (takes the guesswork out) gives the Christian a rational leg to stand on.

Had you been one of the 500 that saw Jesus after he was killed, you'd be a Christian too.  Sadly, they can't make you see it (only he can).


----------



## hunter rich

Here is the answer to the original question as best as I can say...


An unrestricted negative is a claim to the effect that something doesn't exist anywhere. Since no one can exhaustively examine every place in the universe, the reply goes, no one can conclusively establish the non-existence of anything.

  Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it. 
  In other words, to undermine the scientific proof for the non-existence of god, theists have to prove an unrestricted negative, namely, that no natural explanation of a phenomenon will be found. And that, I believe, is an unrestricted negative that no theist will ever be able to prove.


----------



## johnnylightnin

hunter rich said:


> Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations



Inferior to what?


----------



## gurn

Yall got me interested enough in your faith to look up these words. 

Infinite
1.Having no boundaries or limits.
2.Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3.Mathematics. 
a.Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
b.Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
c.Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

Infinity 
(symbolically represented by ∞) is a concept in mathematics and philosophy that refers to a quantity without bound or end.

Eternal
1.Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time. See synonyms at infinite.
2.Continuing without interruption; perpetual.
3.Forever true or changeless: eternal truths.
4.Seemingly endless; interminable. See synonyms at ageless, continual.
5.Of or relating to spiritual communion with God, especially in the afterlife.

Sounds pertty much kinda like dang close to the same thing.


----------



## BANDERSNATCH

Yep....and they exist only in a man's mind.

infinity is similar to the square root of -1.    'i'

an idea.


----------



## Israel

What is curiously missing from this discussion is how little of consequence might be accomplished with all our intellectual flatulence and gyrations to try to do something only the Lord himself is able to do.
Additionally, believing there is a "god" is hardly what the Lord told us to go preach.

Would be remarkably funny, except for the total applicability in every historical circumstance of man's finally finding the "winning theological formula".

It would be amusing to awake tomorrow and see posts all over the forum, springing up like daffodils in the early spring...each one saying something like this:

Diogenes/Pnome/earl (maybe)/WTM..."thanks guys for bearing with me...I finally believe in god and am off to the mosque in a few hours"


----------



## gordon 2

Oh Isreal! On post 39 someone at his piket said this:



gordon 2 said:


> You or I can't do it. God can do it and when He choses, if He choses, they will lighten up.
> 
> In the mean time, make the best of their jive.
> 
> <object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/J9b3ZZywQvg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/J9b3ZZywQvg&hl=en_US&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>



And you know that Earl believes in God, don't you!: and that just like the rest of us he has issues with some of His children, that's all.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> Oh Isreal! On post 39 someone at his piket said this:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know that Earl believes in God, don't you!: and that just like the rest of us he has issues with some of His children, that's all.



I think that's why I put (maybe) after his name.


----------



## WTM45

Israel said:


> It would be amusing to awake tomorrow and see posts all over the forum, springing up like daffodils in the early spring...each one saying something like this:
> 
> Diogenes/Pnome/earl (maybe)/WTM..."thanks guys for bearing with me...I finally believe in god and am off to the mosque in a few hours"



Many have claimed to find "god" in mosques just like those who visit chapels, temples, churches, shrines, tabernacles and even tents.
I'd simply say, "Have a good time."


----------



## earl

gordon 2 said:


> Oh Isreal! On post 39 someone at his piket said this:
> 
> 
> 
> And you know that Earl believes in God, don't you!: and that just like the rest of us he has issues with some of His children, that's all.





Hey mods !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!personal attack !!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Madman

> What is curiously missing from this discussion is how little of consequence might be accomplished with all our intellectual flatulence and gyrations to try to do something only the Lord himself is able to do.... Israel



 Good remark.


 To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
John 18:37

Ultimately the question comes down to: who hears His voice and what are you doing that they might "hear" it?


----------



## gordon 2

Madman said:


> Good remark.
> 
> 
> To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
> John 18:37
> 
> Ultimately the question comes down to: who hears His voice and what are you doing that they might "hear" it?



Hearing aids are a gimmick.


----------



## Israel

Madman said:


> Good remark.
> 
> 
> To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.
> John 18:37
> 
> Ultimately the question comes down to: who hears His voice and what are you doing that they might "hear" it?



Precisely.
The work is always and only in me... to put to death as God reveals, and by his grace revealed through the cross everything of "me" that interferes, causes carnal static and self serving sibilance to impede the clarity of Christ's proclamation and command..."repent and believe the gospel". 
The same mouth that said "let there be light" says "believe".
God didn't explain to the light how it would come forth...it simply had to.
When it is that same life speaking through us...repentance and faith must manifest in whomever the Lord is speaking to. Do we care who? No, it is always for the one with ears to hear.

Sometimes we so desperately want it to be "that one" (and please let the reader consider Paul's anguish over his brothers after the flesh) While God says..."No...I am sending you to 'that other one'."

Our confidence is in the Lord's ability...to not only make it plain to the hearer...but to also work in us to be a faithful sound system.


----------



## Madman

gordon 2 said:


> Hearing aids are a gimmick.


----------



## earl

Madman , Good to see you. Glad they let you off the chain occasionally.


----------



## gordon 2

earl said:


> Hey mods !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!personal attack !!!!!!!!!!!!!




How can I make a mend?


----------



## hunter rich

johnnylightnin said:


> Inferior to what?



Take the whole sentence...

Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it.

I admit to our lack of complete knowledge...this isn't a personal attack on theists, just a debate...


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> Hearing aids are a gimmick.



Not knowing whether you are being facetious...but do you mean using "gimmicks" to try to get folks exposed to the message of the cross and our salvation through Christ is what you inferred from Madman's comment?

I didn't get that sense from him, and I believe you'd see I thought he was referring to the extent to which we will cooperate with God in his work in us to make us both able and fit messengers.
None of us can do anything beyond prayer (which is indeed powerful) on behalf of the hearer(s)...but as to the clarity and delivery of Christ alone, each one of us is charged with taking up the cross for the joy set before us...so that we do not pollute and dilute the message either with our religious selves, aggrandizing selves, or whatever variety of cover the self may take to try and keep itself alive and flourishing.


----------



## gtparts

gordon 2 said:


> Hearing aids are a gimmick.





Israel said:


> Not knowing whether you are being facetious...but do you mean using "gimmicks" to try to get folks exposed to the message of the cross and our salvation through Christ is what you inferred from Madman's comment?
> 
> I didn't get that sense from him, and I believe you'd see I thought he was referring to the extent to which we will cooperate with God in his work in us to make us both able and fit messengers.
> None of us can do anything beyond prayer (which is indeed powerful) on behalf of the hearer(s)...but as to the clarity and delivery of Christ alone, each one of us is charged with taking up the cross for the joy set before us...so that we do not pollute and dilute the message either with our religious selves, aggrandizing selves, or whatever variety of cover the self may take to try and keep itself alive and flourishing.



Perhaps it is to recognize that raising ones voice does no good if the hearing impaired choose to turn their hearing aids off much as the childish poke their fingers in their ears and.......

La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la!

Much like the truth of teaching a pig to  sing........ at some point you must realize you are wasting your time and annoying the pig.


----------



## johnnylightnin

hunter rich said:


> Take the whole sentence...
> 
> Given the inherent inferiority of supernatural explanations and the incompleteness of our knowledge, theists would be justified in offering a supernatural explanation for a phenomenon only if they could prove that it is in principle impossible to provide a natural explanation of it.
> 
> I admit to our lack of complete knowledge...this isn't a personal attack on theists, just a debate...



I don't feel attacked...don't worry about that.  It is a debate and I'm fond of debates.  That said, you need to further explain your comment about inferiority.  It is a relative term and I don't see where the other relative is.  Supernatural explanations inherently inferior to what?


----------



## Israel

gtparts said:


> Perhaps it is to recognize that raising ones voice does no good if the hearing impaired choose to turn their hearing aids off much as the childish poke their fingers in their ears and.......
> 
> La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la!
> 
> Much like the truth of teaching a pig to  sing........ at some point you must realize you are wasting your time and annoying the pig.




Yep.
Jesus had some things to say about dust and feet, pearls and swine, and hitting the road once the message is faithfully delivered.
I think the title of the thread has been given a very broad range of understanding...I have always taken it on its face...
Q: How do you convince atheist there is a God?

I think from that, some have had it devolve into a discussion of:
Should we ever preach the gospel to unbelievers or atheists...?
Which is surely answered on every page of Acts, and by Jesus himself rather frequently.

(But even a facile reading of the question shows that is definitely not what's being queried.)

There is no clever argument, no final "gotcha" proof, no means of doing in every circumstance what Jesus himself didn't do.
As Madman says, deliver the message, what is of God will hear...(even if you do not see the immediate fruit)...and (as I infer from both his spirit and the comment)
be unconcerned with anything other than being a faithful messenger.

Repeat prn.


----------



## gtparts

johnnylightnin said:


> I don't feel attacked...don't worry about that.  It is a debate and I'm fond of debates.  That said, you need to further explain your comment about inferiority.  It is a relative term and I don't see where the other relative is.  Supernatural explanations inherently inferior to what?



If I read him correctly, he finds the supernatural explanation inferior to the scientific explanation (of incomplete knowledge, which combines some knowledge with abysmal ignorance).

The confidence associated with what is scientifically known is rendered of no value by that which is not known nor understood. X - Y =?

To arrive at "I don't know." is intellectually honest and utterly useless. After all, this is the same position science has held for thousands of years. They are really no closer now than then. For all the effort, the answer will always be "I don't know." Science is THE WRONG TOOL!

Those who hold to this method of confirming or denying the existence of God are merely treading water, while those, who know the living LORD, stand on sold spiritual ground.


----------



## hunter rich

The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to being above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.[1] Religious miracles are typically supernatural claims, as well as spells and curses, divination, the afterlife, and innumerable others. Supernatural beliefs have existed in many cultures throughout human history.

Forgive me for my ineptitude at proper word usage. One can always find something, be it a word or phrase or what have you, to examine out of context or in context for that matter, to attack just that word/phrase while ignoring the rest. Take out inherent inferiority and go on.  I am sure you would not have said anything if that was left out and incomplete knowledge was left as is.  

  Maybe you would, you point out my admission of it I am sure.


----------



## Madman

Gordon2,

I am a pretty basic fellow.  I am commanded to be prepared:   “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; (1 Peter 3:15).

If someone genuinely wants to hear my story I am glad to give it.  There may be something in there for them to ruminate on.  

As for “gimmicks”, there are none.  It is all about Christ Jesus, not music, not “different” Gospels, not about denominations.  If proclaiming the FACT that Christ lives is a gimmick, I am guilty.

I have nothing more to offer than this.

 1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, concerning the Word of life— 2 the life was manifested, and we have seen, and bear witness, and declare to you that eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we declare to you, that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with His Son Jesus Christ. 4 And these things we write to you that your[a] joy may be full.  1 John 1

I have that same testimony, that which I have seen with my eyes, I have handled with my hands, et. al.   I have lived on the other side of the cross and now my joy is full.

Accept it or don’t, they are not denying me but I will always end with this:

Go on your way into the world in peace….
Be of good courage; Hold fast that which is good;
Render no man evil for evil; strengthen the faint hearted;
Support the weak; Help and cheer the sick; Honor all men; 
Love and serve the Lord;
And the Grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of 
God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us 
all evermore.


----------



## johnnylightnin

hunter rich said:


> The term supernatural or supranatural (Latin: super, supra "above" + natura "nature") pertains to being above or beyond what is natural, unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.[1] Religious miracles are typically supernatural claims, as well as spells and curses, divination, the afterlife, and innumerable others. Supernatural beliefs have existed in many cultures throughout human history.
> 
> Forgive me for my ineptitude at proper word usage. One can always find something, be it a word or phrase or what have you, to examine out of context or in context for that matter, to attack just that word/phrase while ignoring the rest. Take out inherent inferiority and go on.  I am sure you would not have said anything if that was left out and incomplete knowledge was left as is.
> 
> Maybe you would, you point out my admission of it I am sure.



I'm not trying to nitpick.  Claiming one sort of explanation as inferior implies that there is another sort that is superior.  I was simply trying to understand your presuppositions.  I think GTparts addressed my point fairly well.


----------



## Dominic

BeenHuntn said:


> any evidence of your claim they are frauds?


 
You mean aside from the museum itself?


----------



## BeenHuntn

Dominic said:


> You mean aside from the museum itself?



how is it a fraud?  do they claim to have a museum but it doesnt actually exist?   i am asking because i dont know.


----------



## hunter rich

I again apologize for the "inferior" statement earlier. I was not trying to say that my explanations are superior to any other, I made a mistake while typing faster than my brain was editing...

  Our knowledge of the world is continuously increasing. Some occurrences, once assumed supernatural, can today be explained by scientific theories. This leads one to believe that what is supernatural today could be explained in the future as our knowledge grows.

One thing the Bible definitely is not is inerrant in matters of science.

  We criticize and question the picture of reality held by others; it is rare to question one's own, rarer still to admit our own is distorted.


----------



## faceplate66

Shoot him.  When he goes to he'll, he'll believe.




DYI hunting said:


> I have a friend, he is a strong atheist.
> 
> I have tried to debate God, but I am not the most knowledgeable by far at the subject.  I am really outgunned with this one.
> 
> I talk about the spiritual feeling people get while in prayer.  He says it is the same as the peaceful feeling he gets in meditation and nothing more than functions of our brain responding to deep relaxation.
> 
> I say there had to be a God to create everything because it is too complex to be random and the Universe had to have a beginning.  He says if God created the Universe, who created God because everything has to come from somewhere.  If the Universe was created from nothing, the who created God because he too has to have a beginning and could not just become out of nowhere.  If the Universe has always been, then it could not have been created by God.
> 
> Any advice on how to counter these debates?


----------



## pnome

faceplate66 said:


> Shoot him.  When he goes to he'll, he'll believe.



You know, it's posts like these that make me want to stop posting here.   

If this doesn't prove my point to you about how dangerous and evil religion is, I don't know what else will bring it home.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> You know, it's posts like these that make me want to stop posting here.
> 
> If this doesn't prove my point to you about how dangerous and evil religion is, I don't know what else will bring it home.



Really?  This is your great evidence of the "evil" of religion?  A random post by a random dude (possibly meant as a poor joke) on a random board topic?  Sorry, that doesn't bring it home for me.  

Not to mention the sentiment expressed, if not in jest (and poor jest at that) is totally non-Christian and directly violates one of the 10 commandments.

Come on pnome, you're smarter than that.


----------



## BeenHuntn

johnnylightnin said:


> Really?  This is your great evidence of the "evil" of religion?  A random post by a random dude (possibly meant as a poor joke) on a random board topic?  Sorry, that doesn't bring it home for me.
> 
> Not to mention the sentiment expressed, if not in jest (and poor jest at that) is totally non-Christian and directly violates one of the 10 commandments.
> 
> Come on pnome, you're smarter than that.



lightnin, i think you're givin pnome too much credit here...


----------



## 1john4:4

johnnylightnin said:


> Really?  This is your great evidence of the "evil" of religion?  A random post by a random dude (possibly meant as a poor joke) on a random board topic?  Sorry, that doesn't bring it home for me.
> 
> Not to mention the sentiment expressed, if not in jest (and poor jest at that) is totally non-Christian and directly violates one of the 10 commandments.
> 
> Come on pnome, you're smarter than that.




I agree... Hard to believe that someone who would answer that way is one that has ever experienced God's grace... Pitiful excuse for a christian if indeed he is one!


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> Really?  This is your great evidence of the "evil" of religion?  A random post by a random dude (possibly meant as a poor joke) on a random board topic?  Sorry, that doesn't bring it home for me.
> 
> Not to mention the sentiment expressed, if not in jest (and poor jest at that) is totally non-Christian and directly violates one of the 10 commandments.
> 
> Come on pnome, you're smarter than that.



It is entirely all too common.  And it is a shame when it is not addressed directly, especially by those who promote the fundamentals of Christianity.  I wondered how long it would sit without comment.


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> It is entirely all too common.



Seriously?  I had no idea Christian murder out of spite in order to prove the existence of God was all too common.  Y'all must live in some rough places.  Over here in Milledgeville, I've never seen such.

Y'all been reading too much Hitchens.


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> Not to mention the sentiment expressed, if not in jest (and poor jest at that) is totally non-Christian and directly violates one of the 10 commandments.



I'll be willing to bet he's read all 10 of the commandments.

I'd also wager Joshua knew them too.  Didn't stop him from murdering the entire population of Jericho.

Thou shalt not kill.  Unless, of course, your convinced that is what your God wants you to do.  And _that_ is where the problem with religion lies.


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> Seriously?  I had no idea Christian murder out of spite in order to prove the existence of God was all too common.  Y'all must live in some rough places.  Over here in Milledgeville, I've never seen such.
> 
> Y'all been reading too much Hitchens.



The comment made above is what I am discussing.  Not an actual action, but a simple comment.

All too often such sarcasm is found in the comments of "believers."  Veiled threats, insult, namecalling, etc.. seems to be the fallback position for many who really have nothing more to add to a discussion of religious beliefs.

I never take it serious, don't worry.  And I never "broad brush" every believer as one who uses such a tactic.
I'm glad it has been addressed here.


----------



## earl

Tiller killer ring any bells for you ? The folks out west who let their kid die? The woman in the north who starved her kids to death to prove God would provide ? And then you have the Wacos and the Jim Jones . The list just keeps getting longer. I wouldn't doubt faceplate66 makes the news one of these days . Of course ,it's a Christian thing. I wouldn't understand.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> I'll be willing to bet he's read all 10 of the commandments.
> 
> I'd also wager Joshua knew them too.  Didn't stop him from murdering the entire population of Jericho.
> 
> Thou shalt not kill.  Unless, of course, your convinced that is what your God wants you to do.  And _that_ is where the problem with religion lies.



You're letting me down Pnome.  Is there no difference in killing in time of war and murder?  Of course there is.  You need to heed WTM's advice and avoid those broad brush strokes.  It makes for a poor argument.

If anything, his post shows the value of Christianity.  His comment was directly in contrast to the teaching of Scripture and you and I can both agree that it was errant.  Hooray!  Score one for the Scripture, it's universal truth has been discovered and applied.  Glad you're a follower of at least one of the commandments pnome!


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> You're letting me down Pnome.  Is there no difference in killing in time of war and murder?  Of course there is.  You need to heed WTM's advice and avoid those broad brush strokes.  It makes for a poor argument.
> 
> If anything, his post shows the value of Christianity.  His comment was directly in contrast to the teaching of Scripture and you and I can both agree that it was errant.  Hooray!  Score one for the Scripture, it's universal truth has been discovered and applied.  Glad you're a follower of at least one of the commandments pnome!



That's actually an ideal that goes back much further, inclusive of the Hammurabi Code.


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> That's actually an ideal that goes back much further, inclusive of the Hammurabi Code.



The idea of atonement was around too, but if was perfected by Christ.  Others rightly said you shouldn't murder.  Christianity gave you the right reason why.


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> The idea of atonement was around too, but if was perfected by Christ.  Others rightly said you shouldn't murder.  Christianity gave you the right reason why.





OK.


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> OK.



Don't tell me I popped popcorn for two emoticons and two letters!  I was expecting a great non-religious exposition on the ethics of a mutual agreement not to kill each other.


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> I was expecting a great non-religious exposition on the ethics of a mutual agreement not to kill each other.



Survival Instinct.


----------



## Israel

yep.
There are those that have embraced something that has caused them to work in opposition to instinct; to be actors rather than reactors, and to, when necessary and expedient willingly let go of everything instinct argues to keep when they have seen something faith has shown them is not only far superior...but true.
Pinocchio leaving puppetland for a place and maker where freedom reigns.
I truly look for those who are free thinkers...not those who imagine they are.


----------



## pnome

Israel said:


> yep.
> There are those that have embraced something that has caused them to work in opposition to instinct; to be actors rather than reactors, and to, when necessary and expedient willingly let go of everything instinct argues to keep when they have seen something faith has shown them is not only far superior...but true.
> Pinocchio leaving puppetland for a place and maker where freedom reigns.
> I truly look for those who are free thinkers...not those who imagine they are.



Could you provide some examples of such people?  And I will show you what I mean.


----------



## gtparts

earl said:


> Tiller killer ring any bells for you ? The folks out west who let their kid die? The woman in the north who starved her kids to death to prove God would provide ? And then you have the Wacos and the Jim Jones . The list just keeps getting longer. I wouldn't doubt faceplate66 makes the news one of these days . Of course ,it's a Christian thing. I wouldn't understand.



earl, you seem to build your position against Christianity on the most highly publicized, extreme actions of an incredibly small minority, whose understanding of Christianity is highly questionable and whose commitment to it is even more suspect. From the standpoint of debate, you have carved out for yourself an area about the size of a pin point! Keep referencing the whackos and ignore the millions upon millions of Christians who actually strive daily to follow Christ's example of love towards God and towards people.

And pnome, you might also take note of how you discount those same Christians that clothe and feed millions around the world daily, who supply medicine and the seed and tools for farming, and then supply the trained volunteers who teach or provide the medical care or instruction on the best agricultural methods. The money to build schools, hospitals, to provide clean water by "digging" deep water wells and installing pumps. Collectively, Christians have done more, for more people, than any other group in the world with greater positive impact and at less cost.

And you have the audacity to throw Christianity in with all the world religions and declare them "evil"? Sir, you don't know the meaning of the word.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> And pnome, you might also take note of how you discount those same Christians that clothe and feed millions around the world daily, who supply medicine and the seed and tools for farming, and then supply the trained volunteers who teach or provide the medical care or instruction on the best agricultural methods. The money to build schools, hospitals, to provide clean water by "digging" deep water wells and installing pumps. Collectively, Christians have done more, for more people, than any other group in the world with greater positive impact and at less cost.



I wonder if those same people would still try help others, if they were Buddhists? I would wager that their Christian faith is only incidental to their altruism.  

In fact, that is what most religions count on.   It's part of the sale.  Love, peace, harmony, and fellowship at the front door.  Bigotry, intolerance, indoctrination and dogma once you get inside.


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> I wonder if those same people would still try help others, if they were Buddhists? I would wager that their Christian faith is only incidental to their altruism.
> 
> In fact, that is what most religions count on.   It's part of the sale.  Love, peace, harmony, and fellowship at the front door.  Bigotry, intolerance, indoctrination and dogma once you get inside.



Keep wondering, pnome.

Buddhism is about achieving for oneself the "Oneness" of supreme enlightenment, to ascend to a state of nothingness, to throw off all "excess baggage", including all the physical and anything of "self". It is all about a personal journey. Altruism is not a part of the goal of Buddhism.

You would lose that wager.

As for your generalization about religions, you would be generally correct,.......however, it can be found that within some local Christian bodies you will find love, peace, harmony, and fellowship and that, because sanctification is a process that each individual is to experience, those things which are contrary to love, peace, harmony, and fellowship are constantly opposed. If you seek or expect perfection within the church, itself, you will be disappointed, for it is absolutely true, the church is for the healing of those who know they are "sick", not the treatment of those who think they are "healthy". As for individuals, you would have to spend at least a few days, I would think, every waking hour to assess their capacity for love, peace, harmony, and fellowship....and even then one would expect to find some remnant of bigotry and intolerance.

I will exclude indoctrination and dogma from my response, as they may each exist as dichotomies. For me , at least, they exist in the forms of good indoctrination and dogma and evil indoctrination and dogma.


Luke 6:45
A good person produces good things from the treasury of a good heart, and an evil person produces evil things from the treasury of an evil heart. What you say flows from what is in your heart.


----------



## Israel

Pnome wrote:

"Could you provide some examples of such people? And I will show you what I mean." 


You may read of more accounts, or I could send you a copy of John Foxe's book.

http://www.urbana.org/articles/martyrdom


As the fire was started at Ridley’s feet, Latimer said his famous words, “Be of good comfort Mr.Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle by God’s grace in England, as I trust shall never be put out”. Ridley and Latimer “with wonderful loud voices” cried out, “Lord, receive my spirit.” Latimer died quickly, but the poorly lit fire consumed Ridley’s lower body before even scorching his upper torso. He cried out “Lord have mercy upon me, let the fire come unto me, I cannot burn, I cannot burn”. And so he died in anguish.

These and other stories are told in endless horrific detail by John Foxe in his Book of Martyrs—stories of the many people in England who, during the reign of Queen Mary, were burned at the stake for refusing to compromise their faith; people who went to their deaths singing hymns, and some even clapping their hands with joy as the flames consumed their flesh.

Paul, writing from prison to the church in Philippi said, “For me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

What special spirituality did Paul and these people have which enabled them to die, and in some cases, die joyfully, for what they believed? Why, when so many more people give in to compromise or fear, are these people able to endure unbearable pain and loss? Do they have something significant to teach those of us who live in the pluralistic and comfortable culture of today?

Other questions come to mind: Who, in fact does face persecution and martyrdom in 2005? How must we respond to the knowledge of the fact that fellow believers are suffering for their faith today? And finally, is Christian martyrdom different from that in any other religious tradition?

Can we at all relate to those days? What do we think of John Rogers, who, when on his way to be burned at Smithfield was met by his wife and ten children plus an eleventh suckling at her breast, and was given one more opportunity to recant, but refused? As Foxe writes, “This sorrowful sight of his own flesh and blood could nothing move him, but that he cheerfully took his death in defense of Christ’s gospel”. I’m sure some of us would question his decision and his sense of priorities.


----------



## pnome

Israel said:


> What special spirituality did Paul and these people have which enabled them to die, and in some cases, die joyfully, for what they believed?



It's nothing special.  They were, no doubt, completely convinced that they were not actually going to die.  But that they would _survive_ for eternity in heaven.

Why does the suicide bomber die joyfully?  I assure you, it's for the exact same reason.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> however, it can be found that within some local Christian bodies you will find love, peace, harmony, and fellowship and that, because sanctification is a process that each individual is to experience, that those things which are contrary to love, peace, harmony, and fellowship are constantly opposed.



This path of discussion leads to works based salvation vs faith based.  Last I checked you were still on the faith based train.

"All those not like us will be punished."  Is not exactly a message of peace and harmony.


----------



## Israel

pnome said:


> It's nothing special.  They were, no doubt, completely convinced that they were not actually going to die.  But that they would _survive_ for eternity in heaven.
> 
> Why does the suicide bomber die joyfully?  I assure you, it's for the exact same reason.


Oy.

Here's what you could not have forgotten, (but which I fear many do) because you have yet to know it.
God is the God of life.
The God of all joy.
The God of all pleasure.

If you think I am trying to establish the testimonies  of these brethren as having some value because they are simply willing to make a sacrifice of themselves, you are in error.
They have seen what Paul describes as the "far greater weight of eternal glory" that awaits those who endure the temporary afflictions for the Lord's sake.
I am not trying to contend they have made a pathetic attempt to "prove" their worthiness by giving up something that is of unspeakable value...no, they have, by faith through grace been given to see what is, if you will, supra-instinctual...above the synapses and chemically mediated imperatives of which you spoke.
No, they have seen, again, if you will...and acted out of "enlightened" self interest...because they have seen a self, a supra self, that is worth attaining.
No, we are not a bunch of self mutilating masochists screaming "Look at us, look at how much we sacrifice of ourselves..." (although I will admit it is often erroneously seen that way, even by those claiming Christ...cause I've done it myself)
Jesus delivers.
His promise is joy.
He didn't say..."follow me and show how much you can get beaten up"
He says (to me at least)..."follow me and I'll show you a place where beating has never been part of the program, but which, by the deceit you embraced, mistook as my kingdom."
Nope...I'm not about flagellation...but flyeration...and if those that seek to keep you down need to inflict a few blows out of their own blindness or jealousy...well...ain't nothin but a thang...


----------



## pnome

Israel said:


> the "far greater weight of eternal glory" that awaits



That's my point.  They believed that they would exist forever in bliss and joy.  Eternal survival.  

What is heaven if it is not the ultimate in survival.   And you are trying to tell me that this "heaven" is not just a product of our instinct to survive?


----------



## Israel

Then I suppose the atheist is totally incapable of running into that burning building for that child on the third floor.
Or does he himself have something inside him that testifies of righteousness beyond his own experience?
Does he, by righteousness, deny himself and his credo?
Truly, that man is not far from the Kingdom of God.


----------



## pnome

Israel said:


> Then I suppose the atheist is totally incapable of running into that burning building for that child on the third floor.
> Or does he himself have something inside him that testifies of righteousness beyond his own experience?
> Does he, by righteousness, deny himself and his credo?
> Truly, that man is not far from the Kingdom of God.



Certainly not.  Theists do not have a corner on the empathy market.   

Ask yourself this:  Why would someone run into that building?  Is the answer not to ensure that the child survives?  We're still talking about survival.

So, whence cometh empathy?  Empathy is an evolved survival instinct present in many animals:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/LU8DDYz68kM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/LU8DDYz68kM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> This path of discussion leads to works based salvation vs faith based.  Last I checked you were still on the faith based train.
> 
> "All those not like us will be punished."  Is not exactly a message of peace and harmony.



The works are evidence of what has already taken place in the spiritual realm, not in an attempt to earn or justify the free gift of salvation. It simply can't be done.

"All those not like us will be punished."  True, but it need not be so. This truth is not without a great sadness and reluctance that some would choose to turn their backs on the One who created them, sustained them, and provided a means to be reconciled to Him. There is no joy in heaven or in the heart of a Christian for those who seek to suffer the just consequences of their own sin, just so that they can live their lives in opposition to the perfect will of God. The peace and harmony is never found in opposition to God, only as one offers himself in repentance and obedience to God does one truly find peace and harmony.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> "All those not like us will be punished."  True, but it need not be so.



Yes, all is well if you only submit to our God.

You were explaining how Christianity is different then all the other religions?


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> Really?  This is your great evidence of the "evil" of religion?  A random post by a random dude (possibly meant as a poor joke) on a random board topic?  Sorry, that doesn't bring it home for me.
> 
> Not to mention the sentiment expressed, if not in jest (and poor jest at that) is totally non-Christian and directly violates one of the 10 commandments.
> 
> Come on pnome, you're smarter than that.




Now that I've had some time to think about it, you're wrong.  I'm apparently not smarter than that.

That post just got under my skin and I shouldn't have responded to it at all.


----------



## WTM45

pnome said:


> Now that I've had some time to think about it, you're wrong.  I'm apparently not smarter than that.
> 
> That post just got under my skin and I shouldn't have responded to it at all.



Nope, you were 100% right to call it out.

Such a comment shames all.


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> Yes, all is well if you only submit to our God.
> 
> You were explaining how Christianity is different then all the other religions?




Is it the idea that you are not the penultimate expression of power and reason that bothers you so much, that you will not acknowledge any god? (Purely rhetorical)

 I would expect any "god that might exist" would set the rules for his living creations to include obeisance  and obedience. This, of course, is not one of the distinctions I have offered as separating Christianity from the religious concoctions of men.  Furthermore, submitting to your God is not a panacea for life's pain and disappointment. However, it is a good start at becoming who He intended you to be.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> Is it the idea that you are not the penultimate expression of power and reason that bothers you so much, that you will not acknowledge any god? (Purely rhetorical)



I am the wisest man in Athens.



> I would expect any "god that might exist" would set the rules for his living creations to include obeisance  and obedience.



Then why the illusion of free will?  I say illusion, because, in your theology, we do not have true free will.   If one choice is eternal "separation" and the other is eternal bliss, there really isn't much choice is there?  

Why not just make us all obedient robots so that we never run the risk of ****ation?  That would be the just and kind thing to do.


----------



## johnnylightnin

Might be another thread, but I'd be interested in pnome's definition of freedom.  The above post sounds as if freedom is only "real" if there is freedom to choose between two equally pleasurable choices.  Not to de-de-de-rail further, just an interesting topic to me.  There are MANY definitions of freedom and it is my belief that the most popular conception is an impossibility (libertarian freedom).


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> I am the wisest man in Athens.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why the illusion of free will?  I say illusion, because, in your theology, we do not have true free will.   If one choice is eternal "separation" and the other is eternal bliss, there really isn't much choice is there?
> 
> Why not just make us all obedient robots so that we never run the risk of ****ation?  That would be the just and kind thing to do.



Athens? Doesn't say much for Athens!


What would true free will look like to you? Seems like you are exercising your free will on this forum on a daily basis. You have spoken strongly against God here. God will not force you to choose to acknowledge Him and He will not stop you from seeking you own destruction. Seems just to me. As for kind, that too is your choice. Or not.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> What would true free will look like to you? Seems like you are exercising your free will on this forum on a daily basis. You have spoken strongly against God here. God will not force you to choose to acknowledge Him and He will not stop you from seeking you own destruction. Seems just to me. As for kind, that too is your choice. Or not.



If your choices were:

1) Pick the cotton
2) Get whipped

Are you free?


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> If your choices were:
> 
> 1) Pick the cotton
> 2) Get whipped
> 
> Are you free?



That would be a resounding YES! 

I believe I would choose picking cotton. What would you choose?


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> That would be a resounding YES!
> 
> I believe I would choose picking cotton. What would you choose?




Yeah, I'd be picking the cotton too.  

But I wouldn't think I was free.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> Yeah, I'd be picking the cotton too.
> 
> But I wouldn't think I was free.



You'd be free from a beating.

Again, it comes down to your definition of freedom.  Christianity doesn't claim to provide absolute libertarian freedom (whatever that is).  The promise is just the opposite...Christians are supposed to be slaves to righteousness.  You're a slave to something whether you recognize it or not.  The question is who will be your master.


----------



## WTM45

History and experience gave factual first hand evidence that compliance did not always result in "freedom from beatings."

Neither did it guarantee any future favorable treatment, before or after death.

It did not take "faith" on behalf of the slave to believe anything about what the future held.  It only took a belief in the facts of what they experienced already and what they knew as a fact to be very real.


----------



## gtparts

WTM45 said:


> History and experience gave factual first hand evidence that compliance did not always result in "freedom from beatings."
> 
> Neither did it guarantee any future favorable treatment, before or after death.
> 
> It did not take "faith" on behalf of the slave to believe anything about what the future held.  It only took a belief in the facts of what they experienced already and what they knew as a fact to be very real.



If the issue is slavery, then pnome stacked the deck and the issue is NOT freedom of choice at all. 

Suppose the son of the one in charge stepped in and took the whipping? If the punishment was well earned, deserved, then the whipping constitutes justice. Are you against just punishment? If the overall situation is basically unjust, then we are not looking at apples and apples, but apples and oranges. 

The relationship in slavery is one of men to men..... involuntary servitude. Men owning men is not evil in and of itself, yet most examples would include the element of a wrongful  relationship.

The relationship between God and men is not an equivalent  situation.....Creator to created, being a completely different relationship.

If we use a false premise to start with, any conclusion could only be erroneous.


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> The relationship between God and men is not an equivalent  situation.....Creator to created, being a completely different relationship.
> 
> If we use a false premise to start with, any conclusion could only be erroneous.



Correct.

Your last sentence quoted above reflects how Atheists view the sentence above that.
They do not believe in "Creation" as they do not believe in a deity with a history of "Intelligent Design."
So they will view the believer's stance as a false premise.
Some will dismiss it outright as out of hand.
That does not happen here very often from the Atheist, unbeliever or doubters camp.

Thankfully, our society has moved forward and past the acceptance of "owning" other humans.


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> History and experience gave factual first hand evidence that compliance did not always result in "freedom from beatings."
> 
> Neither did it guarantee any future favorable treatment, before or after death.
> 
> It did not take "faith" on behalf of the slave to believe anything about what the future held.  It only took a belief in the facts of what they experienced already and what they knew as a fact to be very real.



All analogies fall short at some point.  For me, the issue is not slavery (though my faith teaches that there might have been some favorable treatment after death...interesting that you feel able to speak to that) but the concept of freedom.

Pnome attacks Christianity on the grounds that the freedom there is not genuine.  I'm just wondering what tenant of Christianity promises freedom (as pnome is using the phrase) in the first place.


----------



## WTM45

My understanding of the belief system is all I have when it comes down to the discussion of the concept of eternity...
years of voluntary study on top of forced indoctrination.
Yes, I have read the references regarding eternal reward for the "good and faithful."  But the uncertainty of what occurs after death has always existed.  And will continue.

Don't you consider being "chosen" and "forgiven" as being free from the burden of uncertainty?
The belief system as a whole promotes the concept of free will.


----------



## ambush80

johnnylightnin said:


> All analogies fall short at some point.  For me, the issue is not slavery (though my faith teaches that there might have been some favorable treatment after death...interesting that you feel able to speak to that) but the concept of freedom.
> 
> Pnome attacks Christianity on the grounds that the freedom there is not genuine.  I'm just wondering what tenant of Christianity promises freedom (as pnome is using the phrase) in the first place.




It seems to me that Christians participate in willing servitude.  What Christians are really saying to unbelievers is:  "You best get your mind right because when the Massa calls you up to da Big House youse gonna get a might powerful whuppin."   Problem is,  no one has ever returned from "da Big House" to tell about the Paradise or the "whuppin".   It may not be real.


----------



## WTM45

ambush80 said:


> It seems to me that Christians participate in willing servitude.  What Christians are really saying to unbelievers is:  "You best get your mind right because when the Massa calls you up to da Big House youse gonna get a might powerful whuppin."   Problem is,  no one has ever returned from "da Big House" to tell about the Paradise or the "whuppin".   It may not be real.



Many have claimed to have done that.
Many claimed to be the "Messiah" too.


----------



## gtparts

WTM45 said:


> Correct.
> 
> Your last sentence quoted above reflects how Atheists view the sentence above that.
> They do not believe in "Creation" as they do not believe in a deity with a history of "Intelligent Design."
> So they will view the believer's stance as a false premise.
> Some will dismiss it outright as out of hand.
> That does not happen here very often from the Atheist, unbeliever or doubters camp.
> 
> Thankfully, our society has moved forward and past the acceptance of "owning" other humans.



If you check the flow of posts pnome and I have going, you will see that for the sake of discussion and understanding the position I hold, he is willing to permit the assumption of a God ( not that he concedes anything). It is quite novel to find an atheist who will allow discussion on this level. pnome has given me the opportunity to "kick the ball". It would not advance the dialogue to jerk the ball away like Lucy Van Pelt, as you seem to be trying to do. You needn't remind me of the position he holds. He has been quite clear on that point.

As to owning humans, we are NOT past that. Globally, millions are still enslaved, including children and women sold into prostitution. The fact that you think we have moved on only shows a callous attitude to those still wearing "chains".


----------



## WTM45

gtparts said:


> If you check the flow of posts pnome and I have going, you will see that for the sake of discussion and understanding the position I hold, he is willing to permit the assumption of a God ( not that he concedes anything). It is quite novel to find an atheist who will allow discussion on this level. pnome has given me the opportunity to "kick the ball". It would not advance the dialogue to jerk the ball away like Lucy Van Pelt, as you seem to be trying to do. You needn't remind me of the position he holds. He has been quite clear on that point.
> 
> Although you are inferring I am either not making the attempt to read and follow along with the discussion or I am exhibiting an inability to follow the discussion, you simply overlooked the very point I was attempting to make.
> That point being there is a healthy discussion happening here, which is all too often not found between the Atheist and the believer on this website.  Not due to the stance of the Atheist, but most often due to the stance of the believer.
> That open discussion is very much in line with the question the OP presented in his first post.
> I applaud it.
> 
> 
> As to owning humans, we are NOT past that. Globally, millions are still enslaved, including children and women sold into prostitution. The fact that you think we have moved on only shows a callous attitude to those still wearing "chains".
> 
> I speak of the society in which I find myself a part of.  I am well aware of the situations found in other social groups which inhabit this planet.  How you can conclude my attitude of thanks for the proven ongoing improvements in humanity and the human condition as being "callous" is beyond me completely.



Somewhere, there is a "failure to communicate."

My apology if I am at fault, or if I am weak in my presentation of ideas, opinions and thoughts.
I continue to do my best.


----------



## pnome

Let me put it this way:

Your "known" choices are:

1) Eternal bliss with God in heaven.
2) Some nebulous but eternal "separation" punishment.


Is ANYONE going to EVER knowingly choose #2?


----------



## pnome

WTM45 said:


> Nope, you were 100% right to call it out.
> 
> Such a comment shames all.



Looking back at my posts from yesterday you can tell I was postin' angry.


----------



## WTM45

pnome said:


> Looking back at my posts from yesterday you can tell I was postin' angry.



faceplate66 deserves every bit of the emotion sent his way.  You were entitled, my friend.

Posts like his, even if it was tongue in cheek, leads me to wonder if some people really know how to use their brain at all.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> Let me put it this way:
> 
> Your "known" choices are:
> 
> 1) Eternal bliss with God in heaven.
> 2) Some nebulous but eternal "separation" punishment.
> 
> 
> Is ANYONE going to EVER knowingly choose #2?



Sure...they do all the time.  There are sacrifices required in choice #1.  You may truly believe these aren't the choices, but I've met people who grew up in church and believe in God and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, but they refuse to curtail their lifestyle according to the Scripture.


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> Sure...they do all the time.  There are sacrifices required in choice #1.  You may truly believe these aren't the choices, but I've met people who grew up in church and believe in God and Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----, but they refuse to curtail their lifestyle according to the Scripture.



I think you missed my point.

Imagine that you are at the Gates of heaven and God tells you: "Johnny, you've been good but I want to offer you a choice.  Would you like to spend the rest of eternity with me, here in heaven, or would you prefer "the other place"?

What's your choice?


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> I think you missed my point.
> 
> Imagine that you are at the Gates of heaven and God tells you: "Johnny, you've been good but I want to offer you a choice.  Would you like to spend the rest of eternity with me, here in heaven, or would you prefer "the other place"?
> 
> What's your choice?



I know my choice, but I don't think my freedom has been violated.  Just because two equal choices aren't presented doesn't mean that you don't have the freedom to choose.

Again, it depends on how you choose to define freedom.


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> I know my choice, but I don't think my freedom has been violated.  Just because two equal choices aren't presented doesn't mean that you don't have the freedom to choose.
> 
> Again, it depends on how you choose to define freedom.



Are those two choices equal?  I don't think so.  One is great and the other is terrible.  It's not like you are choosing between playing the guitar for eternity or playing the banjo.

My point is that no one in their right mind would ever consciously choose ****ation.  So it's a false choice.


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> Don't you consider being "chosen" and "forgiven" as being free from the burden of uncertainty?
> The belief system as a whole promotes the concept of free will.



Yes, I feel free from uncertainty about my final destination, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm free from the burden of uncertainty.  

I'm just not sure what you mean in saying the system as a whole promotes the concept of free will.  Freedom from punishment and "free will" as it is popularly conceptualized are not even close to the same thing.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> Are those two choices equal?  I don't think so.  One is great and the other is terrible.  It's not like you are choosing between playing the guitar for eternity or playing the banjo.
> 
> My point is that no one in their right mind would ever consciously choose ****ation.  So it's a false choice.



False as in not real or false as in not fair?  Where in the world did you get the idea that freedom requires the ability to choose between equal options?

Wherever you got the idea, it wasn't from Scripture.


----------



## WTM45

johnnylightnin said:


> Yes, I feel free from uncertainty about my final destination, but that certainly doesn't mean I'm free from the burden of uncertainty.



Why not?
As sure as you are of your eternal outcome, which I respectfully understand, why would you not be relieved from the burden of uncertainty?


----------



## gtparts

pnome said:


> Are those two choices equal?  I don't think so.  One is great and the other is terrible.  It's not like you are choosing between playing the guitar for eternity or playing the banjo.
> 
> My point is that no one in their right mind would ever consciously choose ****ation.  So it's a false choice.



The choices, whether between two options or among multiple options, do not have to be balanced to be a matter of a legitimate free decision of personal will.

 I do think it should be noted that the choice you characterize as being the one only a person devoid of sanity would choose for himself, is exactly the choice that many make. You hold that position as we "chat".

 Gentle and good-natured, of course.

Do you make that choice as a matter of being out of your right mind or do you do it unconsciously?
(Reference your statement below)




> My point is that no one in their right mind would ever consciously choose ****ation.


----------



## pnome

johnnylightnin said:


> False as in not real or false as in not fair?  Where in the world did you get the idea that freedom requires the ability to choose between equal options?
> 
> Wherever you got the idea, it wasn't from Scripture.



False as in not an actual choice.  If it's "Do this or die" do you really have a choice?  Isn't that the very essence of _force_?


----------



## johnnylightnin

WTM45 said:


> Why not?
> As sure as you are of your eternal outcome, which I respectfully understand, why would you not be relieved from the burden of uncertainty?



Because there are a myriad of other things in my life that are uncertain.  My eternal outcome is a LONG way away (Lord willing) and between here and there there is little else in my life that is certain.


----------



## pnome

gtparts said:


> The choices, whether between two options or among multiple options, do not have to be balanced to be a matter of a legitimate free decision of personal will.
> 
> I do think it should be noted that the choice you characterize as being the one only a person devoid of sanity would choose for himself, is exactly the choice that many make. You hold that position as we "chat".
> 
> Gentle and good-natured, of course.
> 
> Do you make that choice as a matter of being out of your right mind or do you do it unconsciously?
> (Reference your statement below)



No, I do not believe that those are my options from which to choose.


----------



## johnnylightnin

pnome said:


> False as in not an actual choice.  If it's "Do this or die" do you really have a choice?  Isn't that the very essence of _force_?



Yes.  Your choices are do this or die.  You are free to do either.  There is a strong compulsion to do one, but it doesn't invalidate the choice.

Again I ask, why do you feel that freedom requires two EQUALLY GOOD choices?  That's not a biblical idea.  It's also not an idea that is true, for the most part, in our observable reality.


----------



## jmharris23

Two things from reading most of this: 

1. I'm not sure the burden of convincing unbelievers that there is a God lies on us. I don't believe that I can convince them of that. 

2. Heaven is a place for people who love God, not a place for people who are afraid of Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----Edited to Remove Profanity ----.


----------



## faceplate66

Totally meant as a joke only.  If it offended you, I am truly sorry.  However, here is a point to ponder.  If you believe there is a God and there is not, what have you lost?  If you do not believe in God and there is, what have you lost?  Is it truly worth the risk?




faceplate66 said:


> Shoot him.  When he goes to he'll, he'll believe.


----------



## WTM45

faceplate66 said:


> Totally meant as a joke only.  If it offended you, I am truly sorry.  However, here is a point to ponder.  If you believe there is a God and there is not, what have you lost?  If you do not believe in God and there is, what have you lost?  Is it truly worth the risk?



Pascal's Wager......again.


----------



## Diogenes

Full circle.  Yikes.  

May I?

Gentlemen, of the twelve classical “Proofs” of “God,” eleven of them end up refuting themselves for the failure to extend to the logical conclusion expected, which is simply – ‘Therefore: God.’

I know that nobody likes to read much here, so I won’t annoy you by elaborating those eleven, but will sum them up by the collective indictment that they posit their end goal as a premise, which is not satisfactory for any proof, and so hold no merit.

The enduring appeal of Pascal’s Wager has been that it makes no such logical error of premise.  The question it poses is simple: If you live your live as if there is no God, and it turns out that there is, then you have made a mistake.  But, if you live your life as if there is a God, and it turns out that there is not, then what have you lost?

Sounds, on the surface, like a compelling argument.  But here the assumptions and logical flaws are internal, and the argument lacks traction on many levels.  The first of the many problems arise in the assumption that a God may be at all concerned or interested in how you live your life and knows what you think and/or believe, and will judge each individual human on the basis of that knowledge.  In making this assumption we not only implicitly posit the existence of such a God, but go much further and assign Him a personality and characteristics, deciding ahead of time, for Him, what He may want or not want, and may see or not see, and what He may care about or not care about.  

Unfortunately, there are as many ideas of God as there are believers, it appears, and it is illogical and actually impossible for anything whatsoever to be assigned all of the attributes that all of the various human believers wish to be the proper ones for their particular idea of God.  

Without becoming exhaustive, the second major problem with the Pascal’s Wager argument is that it assumes, again internally, that nothing is lost by following one’s ‘religious’ teachings.  It depends, you see, on which God one has posited, and the attributes one has assigned.  If you believe that your God wishes you to avoid conjugal relations except for strict procreation, tithe 10% of your income to the support of your leaders, deny yourself ‘Earthly Pleasures,’ devote yourself to the pursuit of ‘converting the heathen,’ and suffer for your ‘Sins,’ and you live your life accordingly, then you have actually given away and lost quite a lot.

Some believe that their God requires them to strap bombs to themselves, and that they will be rewarded for their devotion.  Pascal’s Wager does not make this separation, and, as an argument, applies equally.  Yet, on both extremes, from the apparently benign to the suicidal fanatics, the flaw is evident – quite a lot is lost by following, ranging from the ceding of one’s independent thoughts, free will,  and the fruits of one’s individual labors to the actual sacrifice of one’s life in the name of belief.  

On the other side of the argument, from any perspective, lies the Promise of Reward for the life lived according to the presumed desires of whichever God is proposed and followed.  Unfortunately, nobody, at all, regardless of belief system, has an iota of evidence that any such Reward actually exists.  It is purely imaginary, and the nature of this Reward varies wildly among the various believers as well. All of the strong believers have their Faith, but none have any actual knowledge.

Clever as the argument sounds, on the surface of it, it still suffers from the flaw of the other eleven by failing to lead to the simple conclusion – ‘Therefore: God,’ – and goes further into the illogical and irrational by arguing that obedience is rational since disobedience might be punished.  That is a parental argument posed to a child, or a Sovereign argument to the subjects of the dictator – not a rational argument accepted by thinking men.


----------



## threejack

I just found this thread, I didn't even know this was on the forum. I thought it was an outdoors forum....anyway..

I struggled with believing in God for a long time.  I was raised in church but from about age 16-21 I really questioned the existence of God or any god.  

Scientifically it is impossible to prove to an atheist or really anyone that God exists and that was my main hang-up.  but really what it came down to for me was faith.  I had to make a decision that although I couldn't necessarily prove God, I was going to have enough faith to believe he was there.  So I do my best to live my life according to the standard of the Word.  The way I figured, if it does happen that I die and there truly is no God, have I wasted my time living according to the Word? No.  I'm a good father, husband, a positive influence in my workplace, etc.

Not saying that an atheist can't be those things too, but it helps to have that standard to live by.  So in my mind, I had nothing to lose being a Christian and believing in God.  

"Without faith it is impossible to please God"  Heb 11:6


----------

