[__ Science __ ] Scientific argument for God's existence

[Not_Now.Soon]

Each topic fails to be searched fully, and then is buried under another topic that just as mush fails to be fully looked into. Sometimes even to the point that the topics are rebaried under previous points that were not given the chance to be challenged or to prove their merit.

This dynamic sucks. I see it over and over again in topics between Christians and atheists. I see it actually between atheists and any religion, but I'm less exposed to those conversations.

In this case, there is the first topic. 1) Is God real. That topic can be put into a few subtopics of if there is any evidence for God, and if the bible is accurate in both coming from God and describing Him. Honestly those two subtopics are related and intertwined, but it might be better to approach them separately. That said, before even finishing the topic of God being real, it's buried under a second topic/question/point. 2) is God moral. This topic supersedes the previous topic of if God is real and instead moves on to whether the God is moral in the bible, and it can move on to whether God is moral in today's world. However, since the first point hasn't actually been fully addressed of the reality of God being real, the second point does nothing but add a smokescreen to the conversation. It's worse when trying to address either of the two topics individually, too often (as it's been done here) taking on one point That God is real is thrown under the assumption that God is immoral. Then if the point of God's morality is looked at, then it is thrown under the belief that God isn't real. He hasn't been proven.

Clizby, I've seen this dynamic before in other forums as well as by a few short term members here on this site. I doubt you realize the dynamic I am seeing is what you are doing unless it's pointed out to you. So that's what I'm doing now. No hard feelings, I'm sure you didn't know. If you want to talk about the evidence of God, or the reliability of the bible over the reliability of evolution great. Lets finish that subject matter fully before addressing a second complaint that it doesn't matter because you don't think God is moral. Or if you want to suspend the topic of God existing to first look at if He is real, awesome, then lets do that, everyone here that is replilying to you us trying to address each point, which is thrown at them before having the chance to shoe the merit of the point they were just discussing.

With that in mind don't get angry if people are misrepresenting what you've said, because the conversation itself is stacked deceptively. (Again I doubt that was your intent though).

 

[Clizby]

I think your evolutionary bias is showing.
Simply asserting that "your tribe" is right simply because you have basis to refute is no better than "my tribe" is right because we can refute.

I am asserting that what I believe can be demonstrated to be true.

This mentality leads to argument and quarreling that only serves to reinforce tribalism. This mentality is not a disease I want to saturate my forum.

If we are both to be intellectually honest, we must expose our assumptions.

I assume God is real and the Bible is true. For me, this is truth.

For you, you assume our God does not exist and for you, that is truth.

This is untrue. I do not assert that God does not exist. You assume God is real, I try to believe things that have sufficient evidence.

Science assumes both carbon dating and radio active decay has been consistent across millions of years. However, based on the half life of carbon, it is only valid for 10,000 years and radioactive decay must be used to age fossils.

Lots of different isotopes are used for dating, not just carbon.

But the truth is that we have not been following the rate of decay so we assume it is consistent in a world of change.

So, your tribe argues this and our tribe argues that. Really, what does it matter if it causes us to put up walls against one another. In this case, you affirming your superior intellect over us uneducated Christians.

I never affirmed I have a superior intellect. This is untrue. I have just affirmed that I studied the evidence which anyone can do.

You see, our tribe has a great hope, but it is not simply for ourselves, but for others as well.

I have hope to but it is based in reality.

As far as slaves in the OT, you have only shown that you understand a piece of text with your own understanding with no desire to truly understand what is being written.

In regard to Gods laws,
Deuteronomy 4:6
Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.

So the question isn't, Does God condone slavery but rather, how does slavery fit into being considered wise and understanding to other nations. Especially if those slaves are from other nations?

Why is this so convoluted? Does it not say a slave or whatever are property and can be beaten?

Secondly, it has always been agreed that all of the laws hinge on the two greatest commandments.

So the question is, how does owning a slave in ancient times fulfil the royal law of loving your neighbor as yourself.

If you studied these things within their full and proper context, you would see this.

Then give me the answer to how owning another person as property and beating them is loving them as yourself?

 

[Clizby]

Each topic fails to be searched fully, and then is buried under another topic that just as mush fails to be fully looked into. Sometimes even to the point that the topics are rebaried under previous points that were not given the chance to be challenged or to prove their merit.

This dynamic sucks. I see it over and over again in topics between Christians and atheists. I see it actually between atheists and any religion, but I'm less exposed to those conversations.

In this case, there is the first topic. 1) Is God real. That topic can be put into a few subtopics of if there is any evidence for God, and if the bible is accurate in both coming from God and describing Him. Honestly those two subtopics are related and intertwined, but it might be better to approach them separately. That said, before even finishing the topic of God being real, it's buried under a second topic/question/point. 2) is God moral. This topic supersedes the previous topic of if God is real and instead moves on to whether the God is moral in the bible, and it can move on to whether God is moral in today's world. However, since the first point hasn't actually been fully addressed of the reality of God being real, the second point does nothing but add a smokescreen to the conversation. It's worse when trying to address either of the two topics individually, too often (as it's been done here) taking on one point That God is real is thrown under the assumption that God is immoral. Then if the point of God's morality is looked at, then it is thrown under the belief that God isn't real. He hasn't been proven.

Clizby, I've seen this dynamic before in other forums as well as by a few short term members here on this site. I doubt you realize the dynamic I am seeing is what you are doing unless it's pointed out to you. So that's what I'm doing now. No hard feelings, I'm sure you didn't know. If you want to talk about the evidence of God, or the reliability of the bible over the reliability of evolution great. Lets finish that subject matter fully before addressing a second complaint that it doesn't matter because you don't think God is moral. Or if you want to suspend the topic of God existing to first look at if He is real, awesome, then lets do that, everyone here that is replilying to you us trying to address each point, which is thrown at them before having the chance to shoe the merit of the point they were just discussing.

I agree with a lot that you have said here. Conversations wander. The morality of God is a separate topic.

We can discuss the evidence for the existence of a god if you wish or you can just say you have faith and that will be the end of the discussion unless we want to talk about the validity of faith.

With that in mind don't get angry if people are misrepresenting what you've said, because the conversation itself is stacked deceptively. (Again I doubt that was your intent though).

The only thing I get angry about is being misrepresented is the claim that I deny god exists. I do not, I don't believe he does due to the lack of evidence just like I don't believe the tooth fairy exists, she could but there is insufficient evidence to believe she does.

 

[stovebolts]

Clizby
You said,
I am asserting that what I believe can be demonstrated to be true.

There is no need to assert your belief over mine or Christianity. When we take the attitude that I'm right and your wrong, it invokes pride which leads to closed minds which stifles growth and honestly..

Point in case, I and others can demonstrate that God is real in our lives, but that does not mean that what we use to quantify our own assertions will be accepted by others.

You said,
This is untrue. I do not assert that God does not exist. You assume God is real, I try to believe things that have sufficient evidence.

Let me see if I understand you. You agree that I assume God is real, but you really don't know if He is real. Instead, you are looking for Scientific evidence that He is real.
Is your position that until Science or any other form of convincing manner proves to your satisfaction that God is real, you do not believe He is real. Please be clear.

You said,
I never affirmed I have a superior intellect. This is untrue. I have just affirmed that I studied the evidence which anyone can do.

Is there something wrong with a superior intellect? Scientists are some of the smartest people I know. The one's with PHD's can be a bit quirky in my opinion, but there is certainly nothing wrong with being intelligent.
My response was somewhat of a throwback to a comment you made to another member earlier to the effect that science can be demonstrate but faith cannot. I will touch on this a bit later in this post.

You said,
I have hope to but it is based in reality.

Everyone has hope, and everyone has faith. The real question is, in what do we put our hope / faith in?
You have demonstrated with your words that you put your hope and faith in the knowledge you posses through your studies and it is with that knowledge that your world view is created.
What is reality and does science dictate reality, or does it simply try to answer the bigger question of why and how? If the later, then science and Christianity have a common theme.

You talk about demonstrating ones belief.
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

God is demonstrated every day through those who believe. But just like creation, if you dont know what to look for you may not see it.

Let me ask you, does your reality account for life after death, or does your reality conclude that life is finite and when you die, that's it? I am curious, what does your reality demonstrate once a person dies?

You said,
Why is this so convoluted? Does it not say a slave or whatever are property and can be beaten?

Yes, it does say that. There are many things in scripture that confound the wise. Jesus even said,
Matthew 10:39
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

You said,
Then give me the answer to how owning another person as property and beating them is loving them as yourself?

That is not for me not for me to give. I understand that you are a custom to putting Christians in a position to defend themselves and scripture. But that's not how scripture tells me to respond. Also, it's not an example Jesus gives us for responding.

You are an intelligent person with time on your hands to socialize. Why not dedicate the next six months studying Jewish scholars on the Torah. Personally, I recommend RAMBAN. That's an N at the end not to be mistaken for an M.

If you seek, you will find. But if you will not seek or are not willing to seek, you will never find.

However, if you already have the answer, then you will find that which builds your faith.

 

[Edward]

You want an easy answer of which there is none. Like I said I can start a thread with evidences next week, but it will take many posts to get the evidence to come together. Creationism is easy, God did it, the real world is not easy.

But that's thing though. It actually is easy. God is not the author of confusion, it takes the carnal mind of man to make it complicated. Let me ask you something...do you believe that you have a spirit in you?

I think that the reason that you require proof is probably because you either don't believe that you have a spirit or maybe just don't realize how you and I work. Our flesh brain holds our carnal mind, and it demands, intelligence, logic reason and proof.

Your spirit dwells in our heart I think, and our heart has I they said 4 times the thinking capacity that our brain does. Our heart thinks (HeartMath.org) and is actually our spirit within that thinks also. Now our Bible tells us that, the carnal mind can not accept the things of God, for it is foolishness to him. So we have to approach these matters from our spirit and not from our intellect and carnal mind. Until that happens, the truth will remain a mystery to us!

...and actually, if you do not believe that you have a spirit...I can walk you through proving it for yourself in your own home. That one is easy, lol.

 

[Barbarian]

There's no need to argue about evolution. At least not if you accept the scientific definition of the word. It's a change in allele frequency in a population over time. And that's directly observed to happen. Most people who suppose they object to evolution either object to agencies of evolution like natural selection or random mutation, or they object to consequences of evolution like increased fitness in a population, speciation, or common descent.

In general, most creationists only object to some of those things. So if one is going to have a useful conversation, it's good to find out to which of them, a particular creationist objects.

 

[Clizby]

Clizby
You said,
I am asserting that what I believe can be demonstrated to be true.

There is no need to assert your belief over mine or Christianity. When we take the attitude that I'm right and your wrong, it invokes pride which leads to closed minds which stifles growth and honestly..

Why would you believe something if you did not think it was correct? I am not saying that god does not exist or that your are wrong, only that I don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe you are right. Of course I believe I am right and you believe you are right. It is not prideful to believe you are right it is prideful to believe you are right without the possibility of being wrong.

Point in case, I and others can demonstrate that God is real in our lives, but that does not mean that what we use to quantify our own assertions will be accepted by others.

You can demonstrate it to yourself but can you demonstrate it to others?

You said,
This is untrue. I do not assert that God does not exist. You assume God is real, I try to believe things that have sufficient evidence.

Let me see if I understand you. You agree that I assume God is real, but you really don't know if He is real. Instead, you are looking for Scientific evidence that He is real.
Is your position that until Science or any other form of convincing manner proves to your satisfaction that God is real, you do not believe He is real. Please be clear.

I don't need scientific evidence necessarily. I would need sufficient evidence of some sort. Until then my position is non belief.

You said,
I never affirmed I have a superior intellect. This is untrue. I have just affirmed that I studied the evidence which anyone can do.

Is there something wrong with a superior intellect? Scientists are some of the smartest people I know. The one's with PHD's can be a bit quirky in my opinion, but there is certainly nothing wrong with being intelligent.
My response was somewhat of a throwback to a comment you made to another member earlier to the effect that science can be demonstrate but faith cannot. I will touch on this a bit later in this post.

I don't think I have a superior intellect than most, probably pretty average. This has nothing to do with intellect but of evidence.

You said,
I have hope to but it is based in reality.

Everyone has hope, and everyone has faith. The real question is, in what do we put our hope / faith in?
You have demonstrated with your words that you put your hope and faith in the knowledge you posses through your studies and it is with that knowledge that your world view is created.
What is reality and does science dictate reality, or does it simply try to answer the bigger question of why and how? If the later, then science and Christianity have a common theme.

Science does not dictate reality, it tries to understand and explain reality. I just think that science has a better track record than Christianity in explaining the universe with evidence.

You talk about demonstrating ones belief.
James 2:18
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

God is demonstrated every day through those who believe. But just like creation, if you dont know what to look for you may not see it.

What should I look for?

Let me ask you, does your reality account for life after death, or does your reality conclude that life is finite and when you die, that's it? I am curious, what does your reality demonstrate once a person dies?

I don't know. My suspicion is that we cease to exist but I have no way of knowing what is or if there is an afterlife.

You said,
Why is this so convoluted? Does it not say a slave or whatever are property and can be beaten?

Yes, it does say that. There are many things in scripture that confound the wise. Jesus even said,
Matthew 10:39
He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Are you willing to explain it to me?

You said,
Then give me the answer to how owning another person as property and beating them is loving them as yourself?

That is not for me not for me to give. I understand that you are a custom to putting Christians in a position to defend themselves and scripture. But that's not how scripture tells me to respond. Also, it's not an example Jesus gives us for responding.

If Christians won't tell me what the Bible is saying how am I ever supposed to know?

You are an intelligent person with time on your hands to socialize. Why not dedicate the next six months studying Jewish scholars on the Torah. Personally, I recommend RAMBAN. That's an N at the end not to be mistaken for an M.

If you seek, you will find. But if you will not seek or are not willing to seek, you will never find.

However, if you already have the answer, then you will find that which builds your faith.

I bet that most Christians believe without studying these scholars. Is your faith based on studying these scholars?

 

[Clizby]

But that's thing though. It actually is easy. God is not the author of confusion, it takes the carnal mind of man to make it complicated. Let me ask you something...do you believe that you have a spirit in you?

No.

I think that the reason that you require proof is probably because you either don't believe that you have a spirit or maybe just don't realize how you and I work. Our flesh brain holds our carnal mind, and it demands, intelligence, logic reason and proof.

Why wouldn't requires some type of evidence for all of your beliefs?

Your spirit dwells in our heart I think, and our heart has I they said 4 times the thinking capacity that our brain does. Our heart thinks (HeartMath.org) and is actually our spirit within that thinks also. Now our Bible tells us that, the carnal mind can not accept the things of God, for it is foolishness to him. So we have to approach these matters from our spirit and not from our intellect and carnal mind. Until that happens, the truth will remain a mystery to us!

On what basis do you believe this?

...and actually, if you do not believe that you have a spirit...I can walk you through proving it for yourself in your own home. That one is easy, lol.

Ok, how do I do that?

 

[Clizby]

There's no need to argue about evolution. At least not if you accept the scientific definition of the word. It's a change in allele frequency in a population over time. And that's directly observed to happen. Most people who suppose they object to evolution either object to agencies of evolution like natural selection or random mutation, or they object to consequences of evolution like increased fitness in a population, speciation, or common descent.

In general, most creationists only object to some of those things. So if one is going to have a useful conversation, it's good to find out to which of them, a particular creationist objects.

I agree that it is a distraction to the claim of a God existing. God could exist regardless if evolution is true or not. But if evolution is true the implication to Christians is that the Bible is not a literal history.

 

[stovebolts]

I agree that it is a distraction to the claim of a God existing. God could exist regardless if evolution is true or not. But if evolution is true the implication to Christians is that the Bible is not a literal history.

True.
Atheists purposefully undermining Christianity using Evolution has caused more than one believer to fall away. The idea is if part of the Bible is unreliable, then all of can become unreliable.

 

[Michael74]

God could exist regardless if evolution is true or not.

Yes.

But if evolution is true the implication to Christians...

Consider that the fossil record tends to support punctuated equilibrium. Long eras of basically the same creatures, with short bursts of myriad new creatures appearing in a short interval. The periods of dramatic change agree with the Genesis account of active intervention from time to time. You might find the books by Dr. Hugh Ross et al to be interesting. He was a skeptic like yourself, but his investigation led him to belief in the God of the Bible. He is mostly into how astrophysics supports the Bible, but some of his associates deal with evolution.

I find his books quite interesting, but his ministry is primarily to fellow scientists who have studied this stuff for years. Many people find his works to be too complicated, but Hugh has had good success in winning scientists for Christ with this approach.

People come to the Lord in various ways. Few are scientists who demand rigorous scientific proof, or even understand science. Paul for example was successful using this approach in his ministry:

And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 NKJV

When I was with you, I was patient and worked all the powerful miracles and signs and wonders of a true apostle. 2 Corinthians 2:12 NCV

You will find many Christians who have no real understanding of science, and that's okay. Its not necessary to be a scientist to find salvation. If a Christian thinks the world is flat, and that the moon is made of green cheese, they are still saved. Doesn't matter. If they come to God because of miracles, God talking to them directly, or because they are attracted to the love Christians have for each other, that is just fine.

 

[Clizby]

True.
Atheists purposefully undermining Christianity using Evolution has caused more than one believer to fall away. The idea is if part of the Bible is unreliable, then all of can become unreliable.

It is not purposefully undermining Christianity. It is showing that there is sufficient evidence for evolution. There are many Christians that believe evolution happened and is happening.

 

[stovebolts]

Clizby
You said,
Why would you believe something if you did not think it was correct? I am not saying that god does not exist or that your are wrong, only that I don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe you are right. Of course I believe I am right and you believe you are right. It is not prideful to believe you are right it is prideful to believe you are right without the possibility of being wrong.

It sounds like you are talking in circles.
Is it prideful to believe that gravity exists? If you said the world was flat, would it be pride to tell you your wrong?

I know with certainty that there is a God and there is no question in my mind. My own life attests to this through what I do and who I've become.

What is prideful, is for me to assert my belief over you, which I will not do because Gods Word, which I have tested to be true, not only tells me not to, but by way of example shows me not to.

This is how I demonstrate Gods truth.

In response to the afterlife you said,
I don't know. My suspicion is that we cease to exist but I have no way of knowing what is or if there is an afterlife.

The Bible is clear in this area. Jesus rose from the grave and people were persecuted and died for believing this. There is ample outside sources that affirm that many believed this. Why? Because there was first hand eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.

Of course, you do not believe this. It's not my place, nor any Christians place to assert these truths over you. Again, Jesus never asserted that he was the Christ over anyone. He said what he had to say and if you accepted it, then great. If not, then we are told to shake the dust off our feet so our peace would return to us.

As for the rest of our conversation, I cannot help you.

 

[stovebolts]

It is not purposefully undermining Christianity. It is showing that there is sufficient evidence for evolution. There are many Christians that believe evolution happened and is happening.

This is not truth.
There are many atheists dating back to Darwin who have capitalized on Evolution to disprove the Bible and cause Christians to falter and in many cases, lose their faith.

Many of the questions you bring up are directly out of Atheists anti Christian campaign. I'm no stranger to the questions you ask because you did not discover many of your questions from your own biblical studies. They are arguing points you have been given from those who seek to undermine Christianity.

It was the campaign from Atheists against Christianity which helped to develop the Curriculum at Answers In Genesis which this site supports. This same Atheistic group also has campaigns to smear AIG and their scientific research and many of your replies have been textbook.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I agree with a lot that you have said here. Conversations wander. The morality of God is a separate topic.

We can discuss the evidence for the existence of a god if you wish or you can just say you have faith and that will be the end of the discussion unless we want to talk about the validity of faith.

I don't think I have much more to add to the conversation so outside of what I've already said. Well maybe if we talked about the validity of faith, I don't think that topic has been talked about in great detail yet. But that would probabley go into reading and understand the bible. It could arguably be another side topic in this conversation.

What I was trying to address in my last comment though is to allow a point or counterpoint to be fully addressed and challenged or agreed with, before bouncing around to other topics to address at the same time.

The morality of God is a related topic, and can be explored. Just let people explain themselves and challenge them on that topic for a while instead of bouncing around.

The only thing I get angry about is being misrepresented is the claim that I deny god exists. I do not, I don't believe he does due to the lack of evidence just like I don't believe the tooth fairy exists, she could but there is insufficient evidence to believe she does.

I hear you, but I think this kind of conversation already has a likely chance of getting people frustrated with one another over issues that seem deceptive or unfair on both sides of the conversation. Being misrepresented seems to go hand in hand with high frustrations. I don't like it, but it seems to be the case.

On the other hand some of the misrepresentations that I see claimed in these kinds of discussions are right on the mark, and really aren't misrepresenting anything. A guy might say "I didn't say that, I said this." But when it comes right down to it, what was said was only slightly different, or what was meant was exactly what they say was being misrepresented.

As for the here and now though, maybe an explaination of what you mean would help. You said that you aren't denying that God exists, just that you haven't accepted that He does. That kind of language makes it sound like you are on the fence about God. Kind of like I neither accept nor reject something, but am willing to consider both sides. The question then can be asked, are you really on the fence about God, or are you angry with Him if He does exist, and angry with looking for God for so long if He doesn't exist.

I don't know your stance as well as you, but from what I read it does seem like you've already taken a stance on God existing or God being immoral. I'm not so sure there was much misrepresentation going on.

Can you ellibrate the difference between denying that God exists, and your position of not accepting Him as real?

 

[Clizby]

Yes.



Consider that the fossil record tends to support punctuated equilibrium. Long eras of basically the same creatures, with short bursts of myriad new creatures appearing in a short interval. The periods of dramatic change agree with the Genesis account of active intervention from time to time.

Because something explains a phenomenon does not mean that it is true. These relatively short intervals still hold to evolutionary principles and do not contradict them. They still are on the order of 35 million years or so which is plenty of time for the life to diversify. Also, we have fewer fossils of organisms with only tissue and no bones because of the fossilization process. So these rapid expansion may not be as rapid as we think.

to say they fit into the Bible narrative is one thing, to demonstrate that is true is another which has not been done.

You might find the books by Dr. Hugh Ross et al to be interesting. He was a skeptic like yourself, but his investigation led him to belief in the God of the Bible. He is mostly into how astrophysics supports the Bible, but some of his associates deal with evolution.

I read Hugh Ross when I was a Christian. I did like his books and videos. Again his conclusions just say that the Bible can explain something, it does not give evidence that it is the explanation. This is a difference I think you are missing. How can the Bible as an explanation for phenomenon be falsified?

I find his books quite interesting, but his ministry is primarily to fellow scientists who have studied this stuff for years. Many people find his works to be too complicated, but Hugh has had good success in winning scientists for Christ with this approach.

What about the scientists that do not believe in god? Just because he is an expert in astronomy does not make it any more or less credible that a god exists. Demonstration does.

People come to the Lord in various ways. Few are scientists who demand rigorous scientific proof, or even understand science. Paul for example was successful using this approach in his ministry:

And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 NKJV

When I was with you, I was patient and worked all the powerful miracles and signs and wonders of a true apostle. 2 Corinthians 2:12 NCV

You will find many Christians who have no real understanding of science, and that's okay. Its not necessary to be a scientist to find salvation. If a Christian thinks the world is flat, and that the moon is made of green cheese, they are still saved. Doesn't matter. If they come to God because of miracles, God talking to them directly, or because they are attracted to the love Christians have for each other, that is just fine.

I agree. Most Christians do not come to faith by science or by apologist arguments. It is usually an emotional reason or a feeling that God exists.

 

[Clizby]

Clizby
You said,
Why would you believe something if you did not think it was correct? I am not saying that god does not exist or that your are wrong, only that I don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe you are right. Of course I believe I am right and you believe you are right. It is not prideful to believe you are right it is prideful to believe you are right without the possibility of being wrong.

It sounds like you are talking in circles.
Is it prideful to believe that gravity exists? If you said the world was flat, would it be pride to tell you your wrong?

This is not my point. Being willing to have your beliefs challenged and changed to fit the evidence is not prideful. Asserting a truth without sufficient evidence and not be willing to have you mind changed is prideful in my opinion. If the theory of gravity was demonstrated to be untrue I would accept that as truth although I doubt that will happen.

I know with certainty that there is a God and there is no question in my mind. My own life attests to this through what I do and who I've become.

OK, I believe you believe in God. But it seems you cannot demonstrate that to others. That's OK if that is the way God works.

What is prideful, is for me to assert my belief over you, which I will not do because Gods Word, which I have tested to be true, not only tells me not to, but by way of example shows me not to.

What does "assert my belief over you" mean?

This is how I demonstrate Gods truth.

Ok but it is not sufficient for me. I don't quite get what you are saying though.

In response to the afterlife you said,
I don't know. My suspicion is that we cease to exist but I have no way of knowing what is or if there is an afterlife.

The Bible is clear in this area. Jesus rose from the grave and people were persecuted and died for believing this. There is ample outside sources that affirm that many believed this. Why? Because there was first hand eye witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus.

We don't know these were eyewitness accounts and people dying for a belief just means that they believed what they died for not that their belief was true.

Of course, you do not believe this. It's not my place, nor any Christians place to assert these truths over you. Again, Jesus never asserted that he was the Christ over anyone. He said what he had to say and if you accepted it, then great. If not, then we are told to shake the dust off our feet so our peace would return to us.

What do you mean by asserting truths over me?

As for the rest of our conversation, I cannot help you.

I don't get this. You say my interpretation of a passage is wrong but refuse to tell me what the correct interpretation is?

 

[Clizby]

This is not truth.
There are many atheists dating back to Darwin who have capitalized on Evolution to disprove the Bible and cause Christians to falter and in many cases, lose their faith.

Ok, but I am not doing that.

Many of the questions you bring up are directly out of Atheists anti Christian campaign. I'm no stranger to the questions you ask because you did not discover many of your questions from your own biblical studies. They are arguing points you have been given from those who seek to undermine Christianity.

Can you show me the campaign or materials I was given? Look, there is no conspiracy or campaign. These are just reasons that atheist do not believe. Yes I have studied epistemology and other atheists arguments but so have you for the existence of god. If God was as real as you say and can be demonstrated then atheism would be finished and you would not have to put up with my honest questions.

It was the campaign from Atheists against Christianity which helped to develop the Curriculum at Answers In Genesis which this site supports. This same Atheistic group also has campaigns to smear AIG and their scientific research and many of your replies have been textbook.

Questioning research and demonstrating the flaws in their conclusions is not a smear but is how science actually works.

 

[Clizby]

I don't think I have much more to add to the conversation so outside of what I've already said. Well maybe if we talked about the validity of faith, I don't think that topic has been talked about in great detail yet. But that would probabley go into reading and understand the bible. It could arguably be another side topic in this conversation.

What I was trying to address in my last comment though is to allow a point or counterpoint to be fully addressed and challenged or agreed with, before bouncing around to other topics to address at the same time.

The morality of God is a related topic, and can be explored. Just let people explain themselves and challenge them on that topic for a while instead of bouncing around.



I hear you, but I think this kind of conversation already has a likely chance of getting people frustrated with one another over issues that seem deceptive or unfair on both sides of the conversation. Being misrepresented seems to go hand in hand with high frustrations. I don't like it, but it seems to be the case.

On the other hand some of the misrepresentations that I see claimed in these kinds of discussions are right on the mark, and really aren't misrepresenting anything. A guy might say "I didn't say that, I said this." But when it comes right down to it, what was said was only slightly different, or what was meant was exactly what they say was being misrepresented.

As for the here and now though, maybe an explaination of what you mean would help. You said that you aren't denying that God exists, just that you haven't accepted that He does. That kind of language makes it sound like you are on the fence about God. Kind of like I neither accept nor reject something, but am willing to consider both sides. The question then can be asked, are you really on the fence about God, or are you angry with Him if He does exist, and angry with looking for God for so long if He doesn't exist.

I don't know your stance as well as you, but from what I read it does seem like you've already taken a stance on God existing or God being immoral. I'm not so sure there was much misrepresentation going on.

Can you ellibrate the difference between denying that God exists, and your position of not accepting Him as real?

Some atheists make a claim that God does not exist. That is a claim that requires sufficient evidence to warrant belief. I have not seen sufficient evidence that this is the case and I don't think it is possible to give sufficient evidence that god does not exist. This is like providing evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist, how can this be demonstrated?

So, just as the tooth fairy example. I bet you don't believe in the tooth fairy due to a lack of evidence, I don't believe in a God due to the lack of evidence. I cannot prove he does not exist. God could exist and I have not seen the evidence for him or he could not exist I don't know. When I have good reason to believe in a god I will, until then, I will remain an atheist.

Let me know if this explains it sufficiently.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

Some atheists make a claim that God does not exist. That is a claim that requires sufficient evidence to warrant belief. I have not seen sufficient evidence that this is the case and I don't think it is possible to give sufficient evidence that god does not exist. This is like providing evidence that the tooth fairy does not exist, how can this be demonstrated?

So, just as the tooth fairy example. I bet you don't believe in the tooth fairy due to a lack of evidence, I don't believe in a God due to the lack of evidence. I cannot prove he does not exist. God could exist and I have not seen the evidence for him or he could not exist I don't know. When I have good reason to believe in a god I will, until then, I will remain an atheist.

Let me know if this explains it sufficiently.

The tooth fairy example fits well actually. I would actually say that the toothfairy doesn't exist. It wouldn't be just a lack of evidance to say this either, it would also be based on the context of the tradition of the tooth fairy being something parents do for their kids that lose a tooth. I've seen atheists argue on the same principle of trying to explain away God by explaining away the context that we believe Him from. "People only believe because of ______ or ________." Or "myths about God were used to explain the world, but we don't need that any more." I've seen these arguments be used to ignore or discredit perspectives from Christians and other religions.

I know you aren't doing that, but it just jumped out at me from your example of the toothfairy.

Let's try another example. I would say that I don't believe in the toothfairy, not just because of lack of evidance, but lack of evidance is included. I wouldn't say the same thing about Global warming though, or about life on other planets. In those cases I'd say I'm truely on the fence about those topics because of a lack of evidance or an unreliability in the information on those topics. On those topics I woun't really say I'm a denier or believer of climite change or aliens, though I do have strong opinions on misrepresenting data, and hopes that we're not alone in the universe, Li think being on the fence is a fairly accurate stance for me on those topics.

Would you say the same for you about the topic of God? Do you reject that He exists until, you have evidence to say otherwise (like the toothfairy). Or are you on the fence about God until you have evidence for His existance (like being unsure about aliens)? That might be a small distinction to make, but I think it's the same level of dinstinction that you've said is being misrepresented for you by saying you deny that God exists.

I'm a bit worried that in the end the misrepresentation here is over semantics more then there's an actual difference. If it's misrepresented it might be because it's so close to being the same thing.

Sorry for the tangent. I get feeling slighted by being misrepresented, but I also think the difference from what you mean and what was said for your stance, is small enough to understand why it happened and let it go.