The existence of God is a subject that has occupied schools of philosophy and theology for thousands of years. Most of the time, these debates have revolved around all kinds of assumptions and definitions. Philosophers will spend a lifetime arguing about the meaning of a word and never really get there. One is reminded of the college student who was asked how his philosophy class was going. He replied that they had not done much because when the teacher tried to call roll, the kids kept arguing about whether they existed or not. Most of us who live and work in the real world do not concern ourselves with such activities. We realize that such discussions may have value and interest in the academic world, but the stress and pressure of day-to-day life forces us to deal with a very pragmatic way of making decisions. If I ask you to prove to me that you have $2.00, you would show it to me. Even in more abstract things we use common sense and practical reasoning. If I ask you whether a certain person is honest or not, you do not flood the air with dissertations on the relative nature of honesty; you would give me evidence one way or the other. The techniques of much of the philosophical arguments that go on would eliminate most of engineering and technology if they were applied in those fields.
The purpose of this brief study is to offer a logical, practical, pragmatic proof of the existence of God from a purely scientific perspective. To do this, we are assuming that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real. If you do not believe that you exist, you have bigger problems than this study will entail and you will have to look elsewhere.
THE BEGINNING
If we do exist, there are only two possible explanations as to how our existence came to be. Either we had a beginning or we did not have a beginning. The Bible says, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1 :1). Most atheists maintain that there was no beginning. The idea is that matter has always existed in the form of either matter or energy; and all that has happened is that matter has been changed from form to form, but it has always been. The Humanist Manifesto says, "Matter is self-existing and not created," and that is a concise statement of the atheist's belief.
The way we decide whether the atheist is correct or not is to see what science has discovered about this question. The picture below on the left represents our part of the cosmos. Each of the disk shaped objects is a galaxy like our Milky Way. All of these galaxies are moving relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day. If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B. and C in the second diagram below, and if they are located as shown, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.
Now let us suppose that we made time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that, we were still closer. Ultimately, where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At the beginning! At what scientists call a singularity! In 1999, it was discovered that the galaxies are accelerating in their expansion. Any notion that we live in an oscillating or pulsating universe has been dispelled by this discovery. The universe is not slowing down, but speeding up in its motion. A second proof is seen in the energy sources that fuel the cosmos. The picture to the right is a picture of the sun. Like all stars, the sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the sun compresses 564 million tons of hydrogen into 560 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. Throughout the cosmos there are 25 quintillion st*beep*ach converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?
Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I am going to run out of gas! If the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we can see the hydrogen 21-cm line in the spectrum--a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!
A third scientific proof that the atheist is wrong is seen in the second law of thermodynamics. In any closed system, things tend to become disordered. If an automobile is driven for years and years without repair, for example, it will become so disordered that it would not run any more. Getting old is simple conformity to the second law of thermodynamics. In space, things also get old. Astronomers refer to the aging process as heat death. If the cosmos is "everything that ever was or is or ever will be," as Dr. Carl Sagan was so fond of saying, nothing could be added to it to improve its order or repair it. Even a universe that expands and collapses and expands again forever would die because it would lose light and heat each time it expanded and rebounded.
The atheist's assertion that matter/energy is eternal is scientifically wrong. The biblical assertion that there was a beginning is scientifically correct.
THE CAUSE If we know the creation has a beginning, we are faced with another logical question--was the creation caused or was it not caused? The Bible states, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Not only does the Bible maintain that there was a cause (a creation) but it also tells us what the cause was. It was God. The atheist tells us that "matter is self-existing and not created." If matter had a beginning and yet was uncaused, one must logically maintain that something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy, and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.
In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics and demanding that your TV set not work! Your television set may not work, but that is not the reason! In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.
The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and selfexisting is also incorrect. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence.
THE DESIGN
If we know that the creation had a beginning and we know that the beginning was caused, there is one last question for us to answer--what was the cause? The Bible tells us that God was the cause. We are further told that the God who did the causing did so with planning and reason and logic. Romans 1:20 tells us that we can know God is "through the things he has made." The atheist, on the other hand, will try to convince us that we are the product of chance. Julian Huxley once said:
We are as much a product of blind forces as is the falling of a stone to earth or the ebb and flow of the tides. We have just happened, and man was made flesh by a long series of singularly beneficial accidents. The subject of design has been one that has been explored in many different ways. For most of us, simply looking at our newborn child is enough to rule out chance. Modern-day scientists like Paul Davies and Frederick Hoyle and others are raising elaborate objections to the use of chance in explaining natural phenomena. A principle of modern science has emerged in the 1980s called "the anthropic principle." The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life. If chance is not valid, we are constrained to reject Huxley's claim and to realize that we are the product of an intelligent God.
4/17/2009 7:53:43 PMPrimate,
you still have not answered any of my questions. And the big bang
"Theory" is the stupidest idea man has come up with to support the idea
that there is no God. Scientifically there is no proof there.
Primate, the reason the big bang theory is not disapproved openly, is because there is nothing to disapprove of in the first place, it is just a hypothesis really. The whole idea is all a guess. We have books on our faith and eye witnesses. Where you have imagination.
Of all the lessons that I present concerning the existence of God and of all the material that I try to make available to people to learn about God's existence, the present lesson, "Why I Left Atheism," is the lesson in the series that I frankly do not like to present. I guess none of us like to look back in our lives to a time when we made poor judgments and foolish mistakes--when we took rather really *beep*ic positions--and admit this, especially to people we are not well acquainted with. I present this lesson, however, because it is my fervent hope and prayer that perhaps by exposing my mistakes and by pointing out the things that were a part of my early life, some who might be following the same paths (to a greater or lesser extent) might not make those same mistakes. Someone once said that nobody is totally useless; if we cannot do anything else, we can at least serve as a bad example. That is sort of my situation. I am hoping that by presenting these materials and telling you something about my early life, some of you may be able to recognize the lack of wisdom and perhaps the poor judgment that is involved in rejecting God and living a life that demonstrates such a rejection. Most of the time when I speak to religious groups or to people who believe in God, someone will ask me somewhat incredulously, "Well, were you really an atheist? Did you really not believe in God?" I want to start by asserting that the answer to that question is a very affirmative "Yes." At one time in my life, I was totally and firmly convicted that there was no such thing as God and that anybody who believed in God was silly, superstitious, ignorant, and had simply not looked at the evidence. I felt that believers in God were uneducated and were just following traditions, superstitions, and things that really made no sense to a person who was aware of what was going on around them. Of course, that kind of life and conviction led me to do and say things and to be something that was really very unpleasant. I lived a life that was immoral and which reflected a lack of belief in God. I lived in a way that was very self-centered and that satisfied my own pleasures and desires regardless of whether or not other people were hurt in the process of what I was doing. In the process of doing this, I did a lot of things that affected me through my whole life. It is because of this that I present these materials hoping that perhaps some of you will not make the mistakes and suffer the consequences that I have suffered. I cannot clearly remember all of the events that took place or the proper sequence of events because I was not taking notes. I never expected that I would be trying to recall these things, much less tell someone else about them. Still, I can recall in a general way much of what happened, and I am very sure of the concepts. The concepts are what will be most useful to you.
I guess the reason that I was an atheist is the same reason that many of you are believers in God if you are. That was because I had been indoctrinated in that particular persuasion. My background, the variables that were exposed to me as a child, led me very strongly in that direction. Just as many of you believe in God because your parents believe in God and because they instilled this belief in you, I also questioned, challenged, and rejected God because that was the kind of indoctrination that I received as a child. I can remember my mother saying to me as a child something like, "Do you really believe there is an old man, floating around in the sky, blasting things into existence here upon the earth? Do you really believe that crummy looking structure on the corner could be something beautiful called 'the church?' Do you really believe that there is a hole in the ground that I am going to be thrown into and burned eternally if I do not live just the way some preacher thinks I ought to?" Of course, I could not conceive of these things as a child and did not know enough to realize they are not what the Bible teaches. Consequently, I came to believe that anybody who believed in God was just silly, superstitious, ignorant, and unlearned. You may wonder how it would be possible for a person coming out of this type of background and kind of learning situation to become a strong believer in God today, devoting his life to trying to help people to understand that there is a God in heaven and that the Bible is His literal and verbally inspired Word. It is the purpose of this booklet to try and point out at least some of the things that entered into my acceptance of God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible as God's Word.
My high school career was one in which I grew quite rapidly academically. I enjoyed science and decided that I wanted to be a scientist of some kind. I entered Indiana University majoring in the field of physical science. It was actually at this point that one of the great improvements that occurred in my life took place. I enrolled in a course in astronomy at the feet of one of the great astronomers of our day. In that particular course, we were studying the problem of origins--the creation of matter from nothing. As we discussed this particular subject, we went into all those theories that are in that particular material. We talked about the big-bang theory, the quasistatal theory, the continuous generation theory, the planetessimal theory, etc.
When we got to the conclusion of that discussion, I asked the professor which of the particular theories was the one that is most acceptable and that satisfactorily explains the creation of matter from nothing. He leaned over the desk and looked me straight in the eye and said, "Young man, you need to learn to ask intelligent questions." That rather upset me. I did not appreciate that and I said, "Well, what do you mean?" He said, "This is not a question that a scientist tries to answer. This is a question for the philosopher or theologian, but this is not something that falls into the realm of science." In today's discussions of black holes and parallel universes, things have not changed. The basic question of the creation of matter/energy from absolutely nothing is not an area that can be scientifically explored. I was very disturbed by that answer. I had always felt that science could ultimately answer all the questions that man had--that there was nothing that science could not eventually take care of as far as what man might challenge and want to know about. Yet this learned man, an expert in his field, said that this was an area that the scientist should not even try to answer--that it was totally beyond the capacity of science to explain and explore.
Not too long after that, I enrolled in a course in biology at the feet of one of the great primitive life scientists in the country. As we discussed the initial beginning of life upon the earth in that class, we talked about the synthesis of various primitive chemical materials such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). As we discussed this, I once again asked a question related to the one that I had asked previously. I asked this professor what the process was by which the original life--the original living cells upon the earth--came into existence. How did the structure or generation of DNA occur? Once again, this man said, "Young man, that is not a question that falls within the realm of science." In today's world we understand more about biochemical processes, but we cannot answer how in the environment of the primitive earth these processes came into operation. I guess what was happening to me was the same thing that Lord Kelvin, a very famous British scientist, described in his writings when he made the statement, "If you study science deep enough and long enough it will force you to believe in God." That is what happened to me. I began to realize that science had its limitations--that science, in fact, strongly pointed to other explanations than natural ones to certain questions.
It was about this time when another thing happened in my life and that was that a woman entered it. A lot of things begin with women (some things end with them, too). In this particular case, this young lady was by all means the most bull-headed, stubborn, cast-iron willed individual I had ever met in all my life. I can make those statements because some six years later I married her. This was the first girl I ever met that I felt I could respect. Sometimes you will hear preachers, who know absolutely nothing about what they are talking about from the role of experience, make statements such as, "If you hold on to your virtues and maintain your moral standards, a man will respect you more." Let me tell you, as one who has lived on the other side of the fence and has thought as one who is alienated from how God thinks, that statement is true. I will guarantee you that I never thought seriously about marrying anyone until I met this girl whom I could respect--who really stood for something. Not only did she stand for something morally, she believed in God and read her Bible. Though she could not answer all my questions, she kept going back to the Bible. I also learned quickly not to let her know what I was really like morally. I knew if she really knew that, she would have nothing to do with me. I did not seem to be able to break her faith as I had been able to do with other people and the thing that happened was that as a result of her stubbornness and refusal to reject the Bible, she forced me to read the Bible.
I read the Bible through from cover to cover four times during my sophomore year in college for the explicit purpose of finding scientific contradictions in it. By that, I mean statements in the Bible that were false that I could throw back at her to show her how ridiculous it was to believe in God. I had even decided to write a book called All the Stupidity of the Bible. Something amazing happened as I did this. As I considered and thought about these things, I found that I could not find a contradiction--to find some kind of scientific inaccuracy in the Bible. I just simply was not able to do it. I gave up writing the book because of lack of material! It is amazing to me that as I talk to people, I find many who claim to be Christians and who perhaps claim to have been Christians for many years who have not read the Bible through cover to cover once. I find it hard to believe that they believe in God very much if they do not even want to know what He has to say.
As I read the Bible through again and again, I began to realize that not all of the things I had been told about God and religion were what the Bible said. They may have been what organized religion said or what some men taught, but not what the Bible itself said. For example, the Bible did not say that God was an old man floating around in the sky, blasting things into existence here upon the earth. The Bible said, "God is a spirit:..." (John 4:24) and that God is not flesh and blood. Jesus made the statement, "...for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17). There are many people today who do not understand this. A Russian astronaut once made the statement, "See, I told you there was no God; I didn't see him when I was in orbit." The question might be, "What was he looking for?" I began to recognize that God was not an old man in the sky. I had an anthropology professor who made the statement in all dead seriousness, "We all know what God is; He is an old man with a long white beard and big flowing robes." I am sure that this was his concept of "God." I began to recognize that this was not the biblical concept of God.
I began to recognize that the Christian life was not an altruistic life. I had been told by several people as a child that if you ever become a Christian, you cannot ever be happy, you cannot ever own anything, and you have to walk around with a long sad face and your chin dragging on the ground. Yet when I read the Bible, I read statements like, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it,..." (Ephesians 5:28-29). I read about the Ethiopian eunuch who went on his way rejoicing because he had found Jesus Christ and the happiness that went with that acceptance of Jesus in his life. I have had many problems come into my life, but all I have to do is to look back at how miserable life was without Christ and I can realize that life, as it is now with Jesus, is beautiful in comparison.
I began to recognize that the Church was not a building. I can remember that when we lived in Alabama, there was a meeting place of some religious group just down the street from us. My mother used to point to that as we drove or walked by and say, "Look at that. How could anybody believe in God when the Church looks like that." I realized that the Bible did not teach that the Church is such a structure. First Corinthians 3:16 makes the statement, "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God...." As an atheist, I recognized that you could meet on the moon, in a submarine, out in the desert, or any place else and still be the Church. The Church was not a building. What a tragedy it is that so many today have invested enormous amounts of money in edifices and buildings, while other human beings have gone hungry nearby.
I began to recognize that hypocrisy was not confined to religion. I had the idea that every hypocrite in the world sat in a pew on Sunday morning, and thus that everybody who was not sitting in a pew was not a hypocrite. I remember the lesson I learned on this. There was a young man who would sit elbow to elbow with me arguing against the religionist from time-to-time. He was in the hospital once with a very serious ailment. I went up to visit him and as I opened the hospital door, I saw him down on his knees praying to God. I stood at the door of that hospital room screaming at him, "You hypocrite--you dirty hypocrite!" until I was escorted out of the hospital. It slowly began to dawn on me that hypocrisy is a function of humanity, not religion. You deal with hypocrites at the grocery store, at the filling station, on the job, at school, and at the golf course (maybe more there than anywhere else). You do not quit buying groceries because the grocer says one thing and does another. You do not quit your job because your employer tells you to do something that he himself would not touch with a ten-foot pole. You do not deprive yourself or your child of a good education because a teacher teaches one thing and lives something else. You do not quit playing golf because your buddy takes a stroke in the rough and does not count it when he thinks you did not see it. Sure there is hypo-crisy in the Church, because there are human beings in the Church, and as long as you deal with human beings, you are going to deal with hypocrisy. Do you want to get away from hypocrisy? Dig a 20-foot hole in your back yard, jump in, let someone cover you with dirt, and even then you are going to be sitting down there in the bottom of that hole with one hypocrite. There is not a one of us breathing air that is as consistent as we ought to be, but the person who says, "I'm not going to be a Christian! I'm not going to serve God! I'm not going to get involved in the work of the Church because there are hypocrites in the Church," is just logically inconsistent! We do not use that kind of thinking anywhere else in our lives. How can we do it in our relationship to God? There were many, many misconceptions that I had to get rid of to understand truly what the Bible really teaches.
Another thing that I think needs to be mentioned here as we discuss some of the things that led me to believe in God were things that had to do with my happiness. I remember that as a young person, I had what would be an ideal home by worldly standards. My parents were marvelous people; there was no divorce, unfaithfulness, or neglect in my family. We did things as a family. We enjoyed each other, yet I ran away from home. I was rebellious and antagonistic. As I look back at God's Word today, I can see why these things happened. In Colossians 3:20, for example, the Bible says, "Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well-pleasing unto the Lord." Obedience was not a characteristic of John Clayton as a young man. Living in Bloomington, Indiana, Indianapolis was known as the party town, and if I wanted to go to Indianapolis, I went. When my mother said she did not want me to go, I disconnected the speedometer and went. I did anything and everything I wanted to do. After all, there was no God. All my parents were doing was restricting my fun and enjoyment in life; why should I obey them? I lived a life that was totally antagonistic to everything that my parents stood for. It is amazing to me today that some parents, who do not believe in God and demonstrate this lack of belief to their children by what they say or the way they live, wonder why their children will not obey them. Why should they? They have removed the only source of authority that they have, and no child is going to obey a parent who has destroyed that source of authority. I am convinced that much of our law and order problems center around this very question.
Years ago I was talking to a young man in Michigan who had been a participant in some of the riots at the University of Michigan. He made the statement to me that he had done these things and I asked him why he had not obeyed the law. He said, "What law?" and I said, "The law of the land--the law that God has instituted." He looked at me and laughed and said, "Man, I don't believe in God." I do not believe we can have law and order when we remove the source of the authority to that law and order. Certainly, my rebelliousness and failure to obey my parents brought a great deal of unpleasantness and misery not only into my life, but into theirs as well. The very next verse, Colossians 3:21, contains another statement that I think had a great deal to do with my unhappiness and rebelliousness as a child. The statement is made, "Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged." My parents had a tradition when I was a young man--a tradition they called the *beep*tail hour. I have never seen my parents drunk, but they would drink a few martinis and my mother would ask me questions that ordinarily she would not have asked. I remember, for instance, she would sometimes ask, "What did you do with the girl you took out last night?" That was the last thing I was going to tell my mother, so I learned to look her right straight in the eye and lie. I could lie to her or anybody else without batting an eyelash. I conditioned myself to do things that were wrong. I conditioned myself to steal. I remember the first time that I stole something. It was a box of raisins from the IGA store. I felt so badly that I took it back and apologized. Sometime later, I stole a comic book from a drug store; I took it back, but I did not apologize. Six months later, I was stealing almost anything I could get my hands on, not because I needed it, but because it was fun--it was a challenge. I even went so far as to be caught stealing money from my parents. That brings me to the next point, which is certainly another thing that had to do with my happiness.
When I read passages in the Bible like Psalm 53, for instance, I sometimes feel like God is describing John Clayton some years ago. Psalm 53:1-3 says:
The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God." Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good. God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Another statement, made by Solomon in Ecclesiastes 1:2-3, 14, says:
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?...I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and, behold, all is vanity and vexation of spirit.
I have tried almost everything you can imagine to find pleasure and happiness. I will not try to tell you that I did not find pleasure using my own system of following my own desires, but I can guarantee you that I did not find happiness. I tried every conceivable thing you can think of. I tried all kinds of things--things that were immoral, that were wrong, that hurt other people, and things that I would not even want to describe. I did those things because I was trying to find pleasure and happiness and, as I say, I found pleasure sometimes. However, I never went to bed at night satisfied or happy with my life and enjoying my living. I never got up in the morning looking forward to a new day. Life was just one long chain of misery.
Judge Roy Moore of Lawton, Oklahoma, who deals with the legal problems precipitated by the presence of Fort Sill in that area, once made the statement to me, "I've never seen a young man on drugs live more than seven years without taking his life." You may not be able to understand that, but I have sat on the edge of my bed with a .22-caliber rifle between my legs, trying to have enough guts to pull the trigger. I bottomed out that low; I got that emotionally disturbed and upset with my desire and attempt to find happiness. Please listen to me and profit by what I am saying. You can try every conceivable thing that this world has to offer. You can try sex, drugs, alcohol, stealing, and all kinds of things in a desperate attempt to find happiness. I can testify from experience that you may find pleasure, but you will not find happiness. I can go back to Bloomington today and meet people who refuse to believe that I have changed my life--people that I hurt and who knew the kind of life I lived. The reason that I think many things happen with young people today is because they try to find happiness living their own way. It simply does not work. Have you ever wondered why it is that when a person gets clean from drugs, gets rid of the problem of alcohol, or conquers some of the problems like the ones I had, that the person always seems to get involved in some religious cause, halfway house, or something like that? Why is that? I can tell you from my own experience that we have learned that the only place you find happiness is in using God's system--in following God's way. Perhaps people that have lived without God appreciate so much more than people that have grown up in religious structures--what you have in the Church. You do not find happiness living your own system, but only in living God's way and in being a part of God's system.
As perhaps you are beginning to realize as we get into this discussion more thoroughly, there were a variety of things that led me to believe in God. One other thing that I think ought to be mentioned is the fact that I entered a period of military service about this time. For the first time in my life, I came in contact with death. I began to think about the reasonableness of death as I Iooked at it as an atheist. Perhaps a more accurate way to describe this was the way that I had to look at life because of death. As an atheist, I realized that I had to look at life with all of its problems, difficulties, and terrible things that I experienced as the best thing that I could ever look forward to. Yet I realized that as a Christian, I would be able to look at life with all of its joys, beauties, and wonderful things that we all enjoy as the absolute worst that I was ever going to have to experience. Yet from a philosophical point, I began to realize that Christianity offered a great deal in this particular area. I did not get scared into believing in God, but I think this area together with all these other things helped me to realize that there really was quite a change in my understanding of what Christianity and God are all about. I began to recognize that perhaps there were some things about the Church and what it had to offer that were important to me.
About this time in my life, I decided that other religious systems might be as good as the Bible. To check them out, I began reading the Vedas, Koran, Sayings of Buddha, writings of Bahaullah and Zoroaster and found that other religions taught many things I could not accept. There were teachings in their writings concerning what life was like after this life that were unrewarding and unrealistic and there were descriptions of God that were illogical and inconsistent. There were also many scientific inaccuracies in their works. There were many teachings about life and how to live it that were not workable. This included the role and position of women in the Koran, the Holy War concept of Mohammed, the pantheism of nearly all other systems, reincarnation, idol worship, polygamy, and a myriad of ideas which I had expected to find in the Bible, but did not. I began to realize that nothing matched the Bible's system of life. Only in the Bible could I see statements which would stand in the face of the scientific facts that I knew to be true and only the Bible offered a system of life that I felt was reasonable and consistent. I decided that if I ever came to believe in God, it would be a belief based upon the Bible.
The next question was that if I ever became a believer in God, which of all the religious organizations claiming to be Christianity would be the correct one. I recognized that I did not want to be a part of all these traditional religious bodies that taught the error that I had been taught and had believed in my early years, so I started visiting the various religious organizations in southern Indiana at that time. I visited almost every religious organization that I could get into, to try and see what they taught, to see if they followed the Bible and if they understood what the Bible had to say or if they followed men's theologies. My experience was that as I went from one to another, each of them taught something that was not in the Bible. They honored some men above other men, they taught that unreligious writings were equivalent to the Bible and they did not follow the Bible literally and verbally. I had had enough of religious confusion and error. I did not want any more of that sort of thing, so I continued looking. In a real sense, I guess you could say I am still looking--I am still trying to find that true Church. I did find the religious group that seemed to me to follow the Bible very closely. In Bloomington, there was a group of people who met on the corner of 4th and Lincoln streets. They were called the Church of Christ. These people still did not totally follow what I understood to be the biblical system. My challenge today to young people who are Christians would be to do a job of totally restoring New Testament Christianity. This group did have the doctrine of Christianity pretty well restored as I understood it. I recognized that passages like 1 Peter 3:21 ("The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us....") had to be interpreted as meaning what it said, and this group did interpret that in a way that I felt was consistent with that passage. This group did interpret Acts 2:38 ("...be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins,...") in a way that I felt was consistent and they did reject men as their source of authority.
As a matter of fact, I remember hearing one of the first lessons that I ever heard in that building preached by a man named Raymond Muncy. Mr. Muncy said, "Now, don't you ever listen to anything any preacher says," and I said amen to that. He went on and talked about how we should not rely upon man and I want to tell you here an now that you should never believe anything any preacher says. Do not ever listen to any preacher, under any circumstance, unless you can find for yourself in the Bible that what that man says is consistent with God's Word. This is, in essence, what Mr. Muncy was saying and I was very impressed by it, but that group of people did not give as they were prospered. Yes, they worshipped according to God's format, but they did not give as they were prospered. They were not involved in teaching their neighbors about Jesus Christ. There was a very small percentage who were active in the work and they certainly did not manifest the kind of love and appreciation for each other that I understood the Bible to teach. The generation before you has restored the doctrine of Christianity--I believe that. However, they have yet to restore the spirit of New Testament Christianity and that is your challenge. Restore the spirit of New Testament Christianity--the love and the concern for the souls of others that the early Church had. I recognized that the Church of Christ was the closest thing that I had seen to what the Bible taught. I determined that if I ever became a Christian, I would become a member of this group--a group that was trying to follow the Bible literally and verbally, that would not accept the teachings of men and would not try to be influenced by the traditions of the past.
I guess the real straw that broke the camel's back occurred some six months later. I was enrolled in my first geology course at Indiana University. The professor was a brilliant, well-known atheist. On the first day of class, in response to a discussion, he made a statement something like, "I'm going to show you that the Bible is a bunch of garbage," and I thought, "Now this is going to be great," because I was getting concerned. I was still saying that I was an atheist to those who knew me well. I was still rejecting God and holding on tenaciously to my lack of belief. It is hard to change a life that has gone a certain direction for years and all of a sudden make it go another direction, I was not ready for that. I thought this man was going to be able to provide me with some arguments that would finally defeat this girl that I had been dating all these years. She was a Christian--although perhaps not as strong as she might have been. I was going to show her that this religion stuff was really a lot of bunk and I was even convinced that I might even be able to show Ray Muncy that belief in God was not realistic. Mr. Muncy was a man who had great patience and knowledge, but he had not been given much of an opportunity to convince or teach me much of anything.
The professor started the class out by showing us the various methods of dating rocks and other parts of the creation. He then asserted that everyone knew that the Bible said the earth was 6,000 years old. I asked where it said that. He replied that he believed it was in Genesis the 52nd chapter. I started looking, not knowing much about the Bible, to Genesis 40, Genesis 49, Genesis 50, Exodus 1--I said, "Wait a minute; Genesis only has 50 chapters." He sputtered around a few minutes, but he never did find that passage. Of course, the Bible does not say the earth is 6,000 years old. The Bible is totally silent on the age of the earth and I realized that. This man made the statement that the Bible says that God created two *beep*er spaniels, two English terriers, and two German shepherds. We all had a good laugh when we figured out how big the Ark would have to be to hold the 20 million groupings of this kind. Once again, I asked where the word kind was defined in that way. It did not seem to me that the word kind meant that. We looked at it and he finally said he guessed that maybe it did not. First Corinthians 15:39 is the only definition of the word kind and that is a very broad definition ("All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another fishes, and another of birds."). Genesis 1 uses the same terminology and the same break-down as 1 Corinthians 15. To make a very, very long story fairly short, when I turned in my final exam the last day of class, I said to this learned professor, "Sir, you have not really shown me any contradiction between what we have studied in this course and in what the Bible has to teach." He jerked my paper away from me and said, "Well, I guess if you really study it, there is no contradiction." I was shocked! I was appalled! Here was a man who had a Ph.D. and was a leading atheist, yet he could not answer the silly questions from an ignorant college junior who was on his side. I remember that February day very clearly. I walked back to my room in the dormitory in a state of shock. I could not believe what had happened. I got to my room about 11:00 and sat on my bed thinking what a stupid, ignorant fool I had been. I had rejected God; I had been dishonest. I had actually been stupid in my response to the evidence available to me. I did not like people who refuse to look at the evidence and draw intelligent conclusions. I did not like people who could not break free of their parents' thinking and do their own thinking. I had always accused the religionists of doing this, yet I recognized that I had been guilty of the same thing. I had refused to be honest--to look at the evidence. I had refused to make comparative choices based upon what was available to me. I was miserable.
Supper time came and I was sitting there. My roommate came in and said, "Are you ready to eat?" I said, "No, I'm not hungry." He said, "Are you sick?" I said, "Yes, I'm sick of me!!! I'm sick of being selfish, I'm sick of using people, I'm sick of being dishonest, I'm sick...." I was still telling him what I was sick about as he left for supper. At the time, I did not understand what was happening, but I do now! That is what repentance is all about--to get sick of a selfish, egotistical, destructive life and turn to God's way--to turn to a life that has value, meaning, and direction. My roommate went on to eat and I just sat there determined that I had to do something. I could no longer sit back and be dishonest and continue to refuse to accept the obvious evidence that was available to me. About 6:30, I got up and started walking toward the building where the Church of Christ met on Wednesday nights. The invitation was extended at the Church of Christ that evening for anyone who wished to accept Christ and come forward. I went forward, understanding that I now believed totally and completely in God. I recognized that I needed to start a new life and be willing to tell people that I accepted the existence of God and believed that Jesus is His Son. I also realized that I was totally and completely lost in my sins and that I needed to be baptized to have forgiveness (as the Bible commanded). I started down the aisle that night and Raymond Muncy went into a mild state of shock. I remember the expression on his face. I do not think he believed that the power of God could ever reach a man as divorced as I was from anything good, decent, and godly. I was baptized into Christ that evening for the remission of my sins, as I understood the Bible to teach. To show you how far I was from God, I called this girl, I had been dating for some six years at that time. I said, "Phyllis, I've become a Christian!" She said, "I don't believe you. You quit lying to me." I had to have the preacher's wife talk to her to convince her that I had, in fact, become a Christian. There are people today who still do not believe it--that the power of God could change a man that was as divorced and alienated from God as I was--but I want to tell you that in many respects, this is just the beginning of this story. God promised His help to those who are His followers. Having a close personal relationship to God and to other followers enable us to conquer enormous problems and do things we could not possibly do on our own (see Philippians 4:13).
I had a lot to overcome. I could not talk without swearing. You could not go to the preacher's house and say pass the @$#%& potatoes. I had to learn a new way of talking, a new way of living, a new set of values, and a new morality, because I had lived in opposition to God. I asked God's help in these things and I found I was able to overcome things I had never been able to overcome before. I have a whole new set of problems--a whole new set of things that I have to work on--but the problems I have today are nothing like the problems I had in the past. If anyone had told me twenty years ago that I would be openly using my limited abilities to publicly convict disbelievers of God's reality, I would have thought they were insane. Nonetheless, God has blessed my feeble efforts in spectacular ways--totally beyond anything I could have ever done.
I want to close this lesson by asking you a very simple question--a question that you need to answer for yourself and that each person needs to answer I suppose nearly every day. Are you an atheist (not perhaps as man would define it, but as God defines it)? Are you an atheist? Oh, I realize you may not be the kind of atheist that I was. Perhaps you are not immoral or hurting people or dishonest or doing the kinds of things that I did. I am thankful that you are not, but do you realize the way Jesus views an atheist? Matthew 12:30 says, "He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad." What is He saying? He is saying that you are either for God or you are against God. You are either an atheist or a Christian; you cannot be both. I can understand how a man can be an atheist. I have been an atheist a good part of my life. As an atheist, I believed (and still believe) that my life was consistent, reasonable, and defendable.
Evidence For Design In The Universe from Limits for the Universe by Hugh Ross, Ph.D. in Astronomy
1 Gravitational coupling constant If larger: No stars less than 1.4 solar masses, hence short stellar life spans If smaller: No stars more than 0.8 solar masses, hence no heavy element production 2 Strong nuclear force coupling constant If larger: No hydrogen; nuclei essential for life are unstable If smaller: No elements other than hydrogen 3 Weak nuclear force coupling constant If larger: All hydrogen is converted to helium in the big bang, hence too much heavy elements If smaller: No helium produced from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements 4 Electromagnetic coupling constant If larger: No chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron are unstable to fission If smaller: No chemical bonding 5 Ratio of protons to electrons formation If larger: Electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation If smaller: Electromagnetism dominates gravity preventing galaxy, star, and planet formation 6 Ratio of electron to proton mass If larger: No chemical bonding If smaller: No chemical bonding 7 Expansion rate of the universe If larger: No galaxy formation If smaller: Universe collapses prior to star formation 8 Entropy level of universe If larger: No star condensation within the proto-galaxies If smaller: No proto-galaxy formation 9 Mass density of the universe If larger: Too much deuterium from big bang, hence stars burn too rapidly If smaller: No helium from big bang, hence not enough heavy elements 10 Age of the universe If older: No solar-type stars in a stable burning phase in the right part of the galaxy If younger: Solar-type stars in a stable burning phase would not yet have formed 11 Initial uniformity of radiation If smoother: Stars, star clusters, and galaxies would not have formed If co*beep*r: Universe by now would be mostly black holes and empty space 12 Average distance between stars If larger: Heavy element density too thin for rocky planet production If smaller: Planetary orbits become destabilized 13 Solar luminosity If increases too soon: Runaway green house effect If increases too late: Frozen oceans 14 Fine structure constant* If larger: No stars more than 0.7 solar masses If smaller: No stars less then 1.8 solar masses 15 Decay rate of the proton If greater: Life would be exterminated by the release of radiation If smaller: Insufficient matter in the universe for life 16 12C to 16O energy level ratio If larger: Insufficient oxygen If smaller: Insufficient carbon 17 Decay rate of 8Be If slower: Heavy element fusion would generate catastrophic explosions in all the stars If faster: No element production beyond beryllium and, hence, no life chemistry possible 18 Mass difference between the neutron and the proton If greater: Protons would decay before stable nuclei could form If smaller: Protons would decay before stable nuclei could form 19 Initial excess of nucleons over anti-nucleons If greater: Too much radiation for planets to form If smaller: Not enough matter for galaxies or stars to form 20 Galaxy type If too elliptical: Star formation ceases before sufficient heavy element buildup for life chemistry If too irregular: Radiation exposure on occasion is too severe and/or heavy elements for life chemistry are not available 21 Parent star distance from center of galaxy If farther: Quantity of heavy elements would be insufficient to make rocky planets If closer: Stellar density and radiation would be too great 22 Number of stars in the planetary system If more than one: Tidal interactions would disrupt planetary orbits If less than one: Heat produced would be insufficient for life 23 Parent star birth date If more recent: Star would not yet have reached stable burning phase If less recent: Stellar system would not yet contain enough heavy elements 24 Parent star mass If greater: Luminosity would change too fast; star would burn too rapidly If less: Range of distances appropriate for life would be too narrow; tidal forces would disrupt the rotational period for a planet of the right distance; uv radiation would be inadequate for plants to make sugars and oxygen 25 Parent star age If older: Luminosity of star would change too quickly If younger: Luminosity of star would change too quickly 26 Parent star color If redder: Photosynthetic response would be insufficient If bluer: Photosynthetic response would be insufficient 27 Supernovae eruptions If too close: Life on the planet would be exterminated If too far: Not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets If too infrequent: Not enough heavy element ashes for the formation of rocky planets If too frequent: Life on the planet would be exterminated 28 White dwarf binaries If too few: Insufficient fluorine produced for life chemistry to proceed If too many: Disruption of planetary orbits from stellar density; life on the planet would be exterminated 29 Surface gravity (escape velocity) If stronger: Atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane If weaker: Planet's atmosphere would lose too much water 30 Distance from parent star If farther: Planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle If closer: Planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle 31 Inclination of orbit If too great: Temperature differences on the planet would be too extreme 32 Orbital eccentricity If too great: Seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme 33 Axial tilt If greater: Surface temperature differences would be too great If less: Surface temperature differences would be too great 34 Rotation period If longer: Diurnal temperature differences would be too great If shorter: Atmospheric wind velocities would be too great 35 Gravitational interaction with a moon If greater: Tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe If less: Orbital obliquity improvements would cause climatic instabilities 36 Magnetic field If stronger: Electromagnetic storms would be too severe If weaker: Inadequate protection from hard stellar radiation 37 Thickness of crust If thicker: Too much oxygen would be transferred from the atmosphere to the crust If thinner: Volcanic and tectonic activity would be too great 38 Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) If greater: Runaway ice age would develop If less: Runaway green house effect would develop 39 Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere If larger: Advanced life functions would proceed too quickly If smaller: Advanced life functions would proceed too slowly 40 Carbon dioxide level in atmosphere If greater: Runaway greenhouse effect would develop If less: Plants would not be able to maintain efficient photosynthesis 41 Water vapor level in atmosphere If greater: Runaway greenhouse effect would develop If less: Rainfall would be too meager for advanced life on the land 42 Ozone level in atmosphere If greater: Surface temperatures would be too low If less Surface temperatures would be too high; there would be too much uv radiation at the surface 43 Atmospheric electric discharge rate If greater: Too much fire destruction would occur If less: Too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere 44 Oxygen quantity in atmosphere If greater: Plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily If less: Advanced animals would have too little to breathe 45 Oceans to continents ratio If greater: Diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited If smaller: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited 46 Soil materializations If too nutrient poor: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited If too nutrient rich: Diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited 47 Seismic activity If greater: Too many life-forms would be destroyed If less: Nutrients on ocean floors (from river runoff) would not be recycled to the continents through tectonic uplift *(A function of three other fundamental constants, Planck's constant, the velocity of light, and the electron charge each of which, therefore, must be fine-tuned)
And also, this is why God cannot be explained, because:
Since God (of the kind to which the proofs/arguments relate) is neither an entity in the universe nor a mathematical object it is not obvious what kinds of arguments/proofs are relevant to God's existence. Even if the concept of scientific proof were not problematic, the fact that there is no conclusive scientific proof of the existence, or non-existence, of God[9] mainly demonstrates that the existence of God is not a normal scientific question. John Polkinghorne suggests that the nearest analogy to the existence of God in physics are the ideas of quantum mechanics which are seemingly paradoxical but make sense of a great deal of disparate data.[10] Alvin Plantinga compares the question of the existence of God to the question of the existence of other minds, both of which are notoriously impossible to "prove" against a determined skeptic.[11] One approach, suggested by writers such as Stephen D. Unwin, is to treat (particular versions of) theism and naturalism as though they were two hypotheses in the Bayesian sense, to list certain data (or alleged data), about the world, and to suggest that the likelihoods of these data are significantly higher under one hypothesis than the other[12] Most of the arguments for, or against, the existence of God can be seen as pointing to particular aspects of the universe in this way. In almost all cases it is not seriously suggested by proponents of the arguments that they are irrefutable, merely that they make one worldview seem significantly more likely than the other. However, since an assessment of the weight of evidence depends on the prior probability that is assigned to each worldview, arguments that a theist finds convincing may seem thin to an atheist and vice-versa.
so your question is that you want us to prove that God exists. but what i am saying is why you should believe that he exists. there is a difference. If you simply want to beat us down and act like we are *beep*s, we are "brain washed" then go ahead and shoot yourselves. Because you have no meaning in life and the only reason you continue on with it, is because of the pleasures that God allowed us to have.
Please, you are completely disregarding my questions.
""Primate, could you please pm the proof of what you say? Or are you just assuming. and also, why do you suppose that every believer does that? Why are you waisting your time here? Do you honestly think that by a believer reading what you type down, they are going to change their mind completely about God and Jesus?"'
I am simply saying that Christians and believers alike don't need to know that God is real, they believe with everything they have that this is true. So you taking the context of a deifinition and putting it into your own words, Primate, does nothing to prove or disprove the fact that there is no god. Stop spewing if you can't throw solid facts around. You have stated so many false facts already that even I, an agnostic, am disgusted by your posts. Sit back, do some research and come back with some eveidence to support your claims...and leave all the debating to Cobra..who seems to be the only educated one here.
Before you read any further, stop and close your eyes for a moment. Now consider the following question: for the moment your eyes were closed, did the world still exist even though you weren't conscious of it? How do you know? If this sounds like the kind of unanswerable brain teaser your Philosophy 101 professor used to employ to stretch your philosophical imagination, you might be surprised to discover that there are actually physicists at reputable universities who believe they have answered this question—and their answer, believe it or not, is no.
Now consider something even more intriguing. Imagine for a moment the entire history of the universe. According to all the data scientists have been able to gather, it exploded into existence some fifteen billion years ago, setting the stage for a cosmic dance of energy and light that continues to this day. Now imagine the history of planet Earth. An amorphous cloud of dust emerging out of that primordial fireball, it slowly coalesced into a solid orb, found its way into gravitational orbit around the sun, and through a complex interaction of light and gases over billions of years, generated an atmosphere and a biosphere capable of not only giving birth to, but sustaining and proliferating, life.
Now imagine that none of the above ever happened. Consider instead the possibility that the entire story only existed as an abstract potential—a cosmic dream among countless other cosmic dreams—until, in that dream, life somehow evolved to the point that a conscious, sentient being came into existence. At that moment, solely because of the conscious observation of that individual, the entire universe, including all of the history leading up to that point, suddenly came into being. Until that moment, nothing had actually ever happened. In that moment, fifteen billion years happened. If this sounds like nothing more than a complicated backdrop for a science fiction story or a secular version of one of the world's great creation myths, hold on to your hat. According to physicist Amit Goswami, the above description is a scientifically viable explanation of how the universe came into being.
Goswami is convinced, along with a number of others who subscribe to the same view, that the universe, in order to exist, requires a conscious sentient being to be aware of it. Without an observer, he claims, it only exists as a possibility. And as they say in the world of science, Goswami has done his math. Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics, and leaning heavily on the ancient mystical traditions of the world, Goswami is building a case for a new paradigm that he calls "monistic idealism," the view that consciousness, not matter, is the foundation of everything that is.
A professor of physics at the University of Oregon and a member of its Institute of Theoretical Science, Dr. Goswami is part of a growing body of renegade scientists who in recent years have ventured into the domain of the spiritual in an attempt both to interpret the seemingly inexplicable findings of their experiments and to validate their intuitions about the existence of a spiritual dimension of life. The culmination of Goswami's own work is his book The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World. Rooted in an interpretation of the experimental data of quantum physics (the physics of elementary particles), the book weaves together a myriad of findings and theories in fields from artificial intelligence to astronomy to Hindu mysticism in an attempt to show that the discoveries of modern science are in perfect accord with the deepest mystical truths.
Quantum physics, as well as a number of other modern sciences, he feels, is demonstrating that the essential unity underlying all of reality is a fact which can be experimentally verified. Because of the enormous implications he sees in this scientific confirmation of the spiritual, Goswami is ardently devoted to explaining his theory to as many people as possible in order to help bring about what he feels is a much needed paradigm shift. He feels that because science is now capable of validating mysticism, much that before required a leap of faith can now be empirically proven and, hence, the materialist paradigm which has dominated scientific and philosophical thought for over two hundred years can finally be called into question.
Interviewing Amit Goswami was a mind-bending and concept-challenging experience. Listening to him explain many ideas with which he seemed perfectly at home, required, for me, such a suspension of disbelief that I at times found myself having to stretch far beyond anything I had previously considered. (Goswami is also a great fan of science fiction whose first book, The Cosmic Dancers, was a look at science fiction through the eyes of a physicist.)
But whether or not one ultimately accepts some of his more esoteric theories, one has to respect the creativity and passion with which he is willing to inquire. Goswami is clearly willing to take risks with his ideas and is fervently dedicated to sharing his investigation with audiences around the world. He speaks widely at conferences and other forums about the exciting discoveries of the new science and their significance, not only for the way science is done, but for society as a whole. In India, the country of his birth, he is actively involved in a growing organized movement to bridge the gap between science and spirituality, through which he is helping to pioneer a graduate institute in "consciousness studies" based on the premise that consciousness is the ground of all being.
Goswami is considered by some to be a pioneer in his field. By attempting to bring material realism to its knees and to integrate all fields of knowledge in a single unified paradigm, he hopes to pave the way for a new holistic worldview in which spirit is put first. In fact, as far as we know, he is the only new paradigm scientist who is taking a clear stand against the relativism so popular among new age thinkers. At a time when the decay of human values and the erosion of any sense of meaning has reached epidemic scale, it is hard to imagine what could be more important than this.
And yet, for all the important and valuable work he seems to be doing, in the end we are left with serious reservations as to whether Goswami's approach will ultimately lead to the kind of transformation he hopes for. Thinkers such as Huston Smith and E. F. Schumacher have pointed to what they feel is an arrogance, or at least, a kind of naiveté, on the part of scientists who believe they can expand the reach of their discipline to somehow include or explain the spiritual dimension of life. Such critics suggest that the very attempt to scientifically validate the spiritual is itself a product of the same materialistic impulses it intends to uproot and, because of this, is ultimately only capable of reducing spirit, God and the transcendent to mere objects of scientific fascination.
Is science capable of proving the reality of the transcendent dimension of life? Or would science better serve the spiritual potential of the human race by acknowledging the inherent limits of its domain? The following interview confronts us with these questions.
This is just disrespectful. I dislike this forum thread. So much hatred over a topic about God. Also, whoever posted the chart on who killed more people in the bible on page 1 of this forum, I've got a response. Here goes: God killed more people because he wanted to make an example on nonbelievers that he was real and there. God chooses to be silent and chooses to talk. Satan, on the other hand, doesn't kill physically, but mentally. He possesses his victims and uses them to try to gather more and more people. He doesn't merely kill, but tries to spread a faith that is not right. End of story. By the way, also, IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HE KILLED *beep*?!!?!?
no...the pleasure in a nub copy pasting half the wikipedia without trying to understand what he is posting.... If God were nothing and everything...which do you believe??? A naked dude listens to his naked wife that heard from a snake that they could become gods by eating from an apple. Then we man left the perfect place, had incestious sex with themselves to populate the earth, then built an aircraft carrier sized ship out of primitive tools and wood, survived a huge flood with all the animals on borad...then once again had incestious sex to repopulate the earth because God killed everyone in the flood...then got stuck in egypt, as slaves building pyramids....which have since been proven to be the work of full time, exceptionally well looked after people who had a dental plam....before an entire country got up...walked across deserts...lived there for 200 years before coming to the promised land filled with milk and honey....have you even been to Israel...not much milk and honey...big let down there....then a girl falls pregnant without sex....has a baby...who lives quietly for 40 years unmarried...when the marriage age in those days for a man was 16...before he developed god complex...heard voices and decided he was god because he said so...did miracles which by modern days standards....not very impressive....see David Blane....lives for 4 years as the son of god before getting killed either on the Friday or the Saturday, depending which of the 4 books telling his story, you want to believe....becomes a zombie and cures all our sins...then flys off to space to come back sometime in errr....lets see...1066....1999....2110...2999...well...it improvements but we got windows to save us from that bug...and four guys on horses are going to wipe us all out to be judged by an invisible being and either sent to a perfect place or damnation for eternity...which sound a lot like marriage....
Beatness, your post is very far fetched. Try make some actual since of why God killed people. I know for a fact that it was not because he wanted to make an example of non believers. If God allowed Satan and his demons to physically attack people i believe he would. in the since of satan convincing someone to kill someone else. Like all these shootings at the school and churches.
4/17/2009 9:39:28 PM This is just disrespectful. I dislike this forum thread. So much hatred over a topic about God. Also, whoever posted the chart on who killed more people in the bible on page 1 of this forum, I've got a response. Here goes: God killed more people because he wanted to make an example on nonbelievers that he was real and there. God chooses to be silent and chooses to talk. Satan, on the other hand, doesn't kill physically, but mentally. He possesses his victims and uses them to try to gather more and more people. He doesn't merely kill, but tries to spread a faith that is not right. End of story. By the way, also, IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HE KILLED *beep*?!!?!?
You aren't undrstanding me Paracelzus, I didn't say he killed nonbelievers to make an example of them, I said he killed them to show nonbelievers he existed... It's a simple concept, if a god exists why not worship him? =/
" When in fact, you are not 100% sure God does not exist."
No, you're right I can't say 100% that there is no god, but I can say it's highly unlikely, so only 99%. The remaining 1% is all you have, a 1% that come from a logical nonpossibility.
"believers will always point to the bible or their faith as substantial
enough proof of his existance...yet both can be scientifically
discounted....therefore they are false statement.as it is unsubstantiated by reasonable proof, it is not a hypothesis...merely a statement."
the bible is obviously false, but proof that the bible is false does in no way constitute proof that god doesn't exist. surely even somebody as retarded as you can understand that simple distinction...
as for your lack of understanding of what a hypothesis is... dictionary
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the
occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a
provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working
hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established
facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4.
a mere assumption or guess.
both the first half of the first meaning or the fourth show that you have no *beep*ing clue what a hypothesis is.
"God killed more people because he wanted to make an example on
nonbelievers that he was real and there. God chooses to be silent and
chooses to talk. Satan, on the other hand, doesn't kill physically, but
mentally. He possesses his victims and uses them to try to gather more
and more people."
I'll remember that defense next time I'm on trial for murder, here's my arguement... "Judge I might have killed and slaughtered many people, but the other guy was tricking so they had to die." What do you think? Sounds nice and logically, a sure winner in the courtroom.
"IF GOD DOESN'T EXIST HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE HE KILLED *beep*?!!?!?"
The bible said so, chances are god doesn't exist, but if god of the bible is real than he's, well somebody much smarter than me put it perfectly, let me quote him..."a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,
pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".
The ONLY evidence of God, used by believers is the bible. Outside of that book, they have nothing. So to disprove his existance, we disprove the events of the bible...leaving them no cause for pointing to the bible. So I will create a new post, which Paracelzus is banned from....because he'll have posted the whole of wikipedia on zeta's forum by the time im half way through god killing!
The bible is not proof if the existance of god, that's why proving the bible is false does not disprove god, regardless of how much you or I might like it.
I'll remember that defense next time I'm on trial for murder, here's my arguement... "Judge I might have killed and slaughtered many people, but the other guy was tricking so they had to die." What do you think? Sounds nice and logically, a sure winner in the courtroom.
and to push this point further...how many times in the last twenty years has someone used, "God told me to do it." defense? And has it worked? No, the 99.99% of the time get thrown in the crazy house. Three examples: 1.Joseph H. Hagerman III- lifelong church goer. Cut off his 5 yr old sons head because God had said that Satan was going to get him. 2.Deanna Laney - this women tied up her kids to trees (2 out 3) and chucked boulders at them, not rocks huge 10 pound boulders, because god sent her on a divine mission to carry out the lord's will. Said she got the message to stone her children when she tripped over the rock while she was dragging her kids outside. 3. Andrea Yates-(convicted of murder)-I believe she was quoted in her confession, ""It was the seventh deadly sin. My children weren't righteous. They stumbled because I was evil. The way I was raising them, they could never be saved. They were doomed to perish in the fires of hell." So what did she do, she proceeded to drown her five kids: Noah, 8 John, 7 Paul, 5 Luke, 3 Mary, 2
I just love chasing other people out of religious debates. Now that i think about it, i am kinda sorry for primate, that he had to put up with me and my copy and past articles. I realized, why type something up about an argument, that has already been fought and won, just copy it from multiple sites (I hate wikipedia). I might do the same to you Joseph. However, I wont waist my time spending hours on end, typing out an argument to try to help stubborn headed fools such as yourselves, with your prognostic brainwashed ideas floating in a ocean of corrupted world views, such as the one you uphold. Your sleaze arguments are to much for me, they simply drown me in pointless sordid details, who knows, there still might be some hope for you.
I was wondering, by the time your life is over, you could have debated on forums all your life, never changed a thing, you feel so accomplished at your pathetic life, that as you are dying, you start cursing every person that ever had you doubt that you were correct. And in the end, you find yourselves in front of Jesus, at the judgment seat illuminated with blinding light, and as He glances at your pathetic form, as a tear runs off his cheek, he tells you he never knew you.
And that is why i am a Christian, not because i am a coward, that i can't take care of myself without believing in a fictitious god, but because if i wasn't a Christian, I would dread the day i died, knowing in the end that i am wrong about life, that it is pointless, and it has no meaning.
It does have a meaning, and I hope all you who are waisting your time here realize that in some point of your life. Maybe during a crises within your own life or someone that is close to you, you will realize that you need someone to help you, to pick you up and help you on your way to fulfilling a life that is worth living.
Your talking Pascals Wager...You willing to stake your life on it? Thats exactly what you're talking about. No Josef might not be changing minds here on VU but at least he's not afraid to state his feelings and beliefs like a lot of other people that believe in the same thing. Its a scary world for those who go against anothers religion. For christs sake they start wars over the very thing...but as for me, I am not putting all my hope into one religion and wagering my life on the hope that I am correct come the day I die. Not a gambler and never want to, especially with my life.
I find it hilarious that you claim to know the mind of a God that you yourself admit is beyond knowing. If on the day I die I meet up with Jesus I'll ask him to send me to hell where all the smart and interesting people will be, heaven would be borefest.
hahaha! scared little boy! the boogeyman is coming for you! hahaha!
"drown me in sordid detail" ... yes, when in crisis you turn to god, you need an excuse? feeling to embarassed? need some reassurance? santa didn't come last year?
and why/how would the existance of a god make your life more meaningfull? or an afterlife? do you need redemption so badly? did you commit such unforgivable crimes (in that case you don't deserve a second chance anyway?, because you are too cowardly to correct your mistakes in this life?)?
you're just living an illusion ... and trying to avoid responsibilities (you're god will make it right, right?)
Im not gone Paracelzus...just couldnt be bothered scrolling past 5 pages of the wiki to make a post...far as im concerned thats *beep*ming the forum. Secondly....your proofs are not proof....your god doesnt exist.....never has and never will...i look forward to this hell...
A Texan dies and goes to hell. While down there the Devil notices that the Texan is not suffering like the rest. He checks the gauges and sees that it's 90 degrees and about 80% humidity. So he goes over to the Texan and asks why he's so happy. The Texan says, "I like it here. The temperature is just like Texas in June.
The Devil isn't happy with the Texan's answer and decides to get him, so he goes over and turns up the temperature to 100 degrees and the humidity to 90%. After turning everything up he goes looking for the Texan. He find him standing around unbuttoning his shirt, just as happy as can be. The Devil quizzes the Texan again as to why he's so happy. The Texan says, "This is even better. It's like Texas in July."
The Devil, now upset, decides to really make the Texan really suffer. He goes oer to the controls and turns the heat up to 120 deegrees and the humidity to 100%. "Now lets see what the Texan is up to," he says. So he goes looking for the Texan. He find him taking his shirt off, even happier than before. The Devil can't figure it out. He asks the Texan why he's happy now. The Texan replies, "This is great, it's just like Texas in August".
The Devil says, "That's it, I'll get this guy." He goes over and turns the temperature down to a freezing 25 degrees. "Let's see what the Texan has to say about this. "The Devil looks around and finds the Texan jumping up and down for joy yelling, "THE RANGERS HAVE FINALLY WON THE WORLD SERIES!".
everyone is agnostic... gnostism is about knowledge of god, no one can know god. you either have faith in such a being or you do not, people who claim to be agnostics are saying nothing. atheists, are both atheist and agnostic. theists are both theist and agnostic.
if people were gnostic the implications and point of faith goes out the window. christian dogma is hugely based upon faith.
and btw... faith to me is an excuse for when you cannot back up your claim when pushed.
*shoots a ton of superheated sp@m into Plato's head*
O_O I'm not a multi!
I only read this thread for the funny pictures and videos, as most of your arguements about atheism, religion, and every other little thing you all are going on about is invalid. Why? Because you all are, in fact, narrow-minded to think that your belief, religious or scientific, is the only correct way to live, and that all other ways of thinking are incorrect and that everyone should shun them from society. Gee, who does this remind me of... oh yeah, Hitler. He believed in God, but murdered the Jews!? When in fact Christianity is from the Jewish beliefs!? Also, let's not forget the Christians who ram their cars into abortion clinics and kill everyone there. Oh, and maybe we should consider that 9/11 occured only because some people decided that the Western ways are wrong, and that their god Allah commands them to destroy all toilets, McDonald's, or anything else that has to do with Western beliefs. Oh, and of course, some scientists laugh at faith as something childish and that science is the only correct belief.
everyone is agnostic... gnostism is about knowledge of god, no one can know god. you either have faith in such a being or you do not, people who claim to be agnostics are saying nothing. atheists, are both atheist and agnostic. theists are both theist and agnostic.
if people were gnostic the implications and point of faith goes out the window. christian dogma is hugely based upon faith.
and btw... faith to me is an excuse for when you cannot back up your claim when pushed.
*shoots a ton of superheated sp@m into Plato's head*
O_O I'm not a multi!
I only read this thread for the funny pictures and videos, as most of your arguements about atheism, religion, and every other little thing you all are going on about is invalid. Why? Because you all are, in fact, narrow-minded to think that your belief, religious or scientific, is the only correct way to live, and that all other ways of thinking are incorrect and that everyone should shun them from society. Gee, who does this remind me of... oh yeah, Hitler. He believed in God, but murdered the Jews!? When in fact Christianity is from the Jewish beliefs!? Also, let's not forget the Christians who ram their cars into abortion clinics and kill everyone there. Oh, and maybe we should consider that 9/11 occured only because some people decided that the Western ways are wrong, and that their god Allah commands them to destroy all toilets, McDonald's, or anything else that has to do with Western beliefs. Oh, and of course, some scientists laugh at faith as something childish and that science is the only correct belief.
This is pathetic. Copy-paste entire articles just shows you have no
concept of what you are trying to argue and would let others do it for
you. I'd do some actual debating but the format of the forums here in VU makes it an absolute pain, and I'm busy enough already as it is.
And Sorra, that's one of the stupidest misrepresentations of atheism I've ever seen. In a nutshell.
As for the whole list of "evidences for ID," that's pretty stupid. If you see a snowflake and say that since it looks so unique, there must be a snowflake-crafting God or pixie army or guru. Or you could actually learn about the context of the "evidence" and realize it's fallible to claim that there is no alternative, natural method that something could have occured.
"And that is why i am a Christian, not because i am a coward, that i
can't take care of myself without believing in a fictitious god, but
because if i wasn't a Christian, I would dread the day i died, knowing
in the end that i am wrong about life, that it is pointless, and it has
no meaning."
All this shows is your lack of understanding for the secular viewpoint. Children grow up and eventually realize that life doesn't always turn out the way you want it to be, that sometimes there is a tragic ending and that sometimes things just happen by chance. Does no longer believing in Santa make you think Christmas is worthless? No. You just learn to find the meaning yourself.
No wonder Christianity so often proclaims "blessed are the children." It's easier to believe that what you wish for will make it be than to face the delusion.
it proclaims blessed are the children because we were created by God (the father). it doesnt mean it literally you donut.
And for those who celebrate christmas who arent christian tell me why do you? you celebrate the birthday of a man you do not believe existed ? and you call us hypocrites?
and to those who are christian who celebrate it , When in the bible does it tell you to celebrate jesus' birthday. No where. the fact is your celebrating the winter solstice , an event were pagans used to pray to there gods for the days to get longer.
im not gonna return here to argue. there are dumb christians like theo running around and then dumb athiests like duchess sessa running around who post crap meaning i have to search for josef's posts and other interesting ones making this pointless.
![](\"http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif\")
", "6");
interfaceflash.addparam("loop", "false");
interfaceflash.addparam("quality", "high");
interfaceflash.addparam("menu", "false");
interfaceflash.addparam("salign", "t");
interfaceflash.addparam("flashvars", "soundurl=http%3a%2f%2fcache.lexico.com%2fdictionary%2faudio%2fluna%2fh05%2fh0521900.mp3");
interfaceflash.addparam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write();
[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] 
show ipa
ə
