Good "god" arguments!

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: Gurck
It's not faith, it's an educated guess. There's a difference between believing something not yet proven but with supporting evidence and something without it.

Yes, there's a difference, but how do you define evidence? If somebody prayed for healing and was healed, would you see that as evidence of God's existence? Some would, some wouldn't. The point is that you can see "evidence" of a lot things, but until you see proof, you ultimately have to take it on faith. Your mother's love included.

That's just the thing; this simply doesn't happen, for all intents and purposes. While the occasional medical mystery does occur, it happens no more often to religious people than others, proportionately. We're already aware that there are a great many things about the body and brain we have yet to discover.

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Then there's no way for a true atheist to become a christian. You are limiting yourself by only accepting cold hard scientific evidence. Explaining to you the possibility of God is like trying to tell a blind person about color. Except i dont believe that all these critics are "true atheists"

Again, thanks for the laugh The same could of course be said for the opposite situation; explaining the possibility of no deity or deities existing - only then the 'blind not seeing color' analogy would hold some water, if "color" is considered to be basing beliefs on factual information and "self-limitation" considered to be the lack of this... Amusing though, that those most in the dark often tell themselves their situation is better to the point of believing it. I see this with owners of other crappy, but highly marketed, products and services as well; iPods, Bose speakers, and AOL, for a few examples. Religion would be considered a service, of course
 

flawlssdistortn

Senior member
Sep 21, 2004
680
0
0
They're trying to say that evidence is scientific or logical explanations, and that's fine, but i don't believe them when they say that they only believe things that have this "evidence."
 

EpsiIon

Platinum Member
Nov 26, 2000
2,351
1
0
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

Nope, again you've ignored all that has been said. Atheism is theory based on evidence, nothing more or less.

No, atheism is a theory based on a perceived lack of evidence. And anybody intellectually honest with himself will agree that a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

Nope, again you've ignored all that has been said. Atheism is theory based on evidence, nothing more or less.


Then there's no way for a true atheist to become a christian. You are limiting yourself by only accepting cold hard scientific evidence. Explaining to you the possibility of God is like trying to tell a blind person about color. Except i dont believe that all these critics are "true atheists"

Tehn tell me, explain to me, why do you think god exists, even without an proof at all. Enlighten me!
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

Nope, again you've ignored all that has been said. Atheism is theory based on evidence, nothing more or less.

No, atheism is a theory based on a perceived lack of evidence. And anybody intellectually honest with himself will agree that a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

In this case your're wrong. What i i tould you Santa existed? Would you believe me?I mean, there's no evidence he doesn't exist! Inf act, you're like kids, only it's not santa you're talknig about!
 

flawlssdistortn

Senior member
Sep 21, 2004
680
0
0
Originally posted by: Gurck

Again, thanks for the laugh The same could of course be said for the opposite situation; explaining the possibility of no deity or deities existing - only then the 'blind not seeing color' analogy would hold some water, if "color" is considered to be basing beliefs on factual information and "self-limitation" considered to be the lack of this... Amusing though, that those most in the dark often tell themselves their situation is better to the point of believing it. I see this with owners of other crappy, but highly marketed, products and services as well; iPods, Bose speakers, and AOL, for a few examples. Religion would be considered a service, of course

If you mean that my analogy could be used in the opposite situation, then you must assume that "god exists" is a default and that "does not exist" is taking a step further. Therefore your "color" would be the missing link that would widen my perspective, show me the light so to speak, and show me that God does not exist. The opposite perspective is that "does not exist" is a default and that "god exists" is taking a step further. That is my perspective. And you miss my point again. The "color" or sense of sight in my analogy is not factual information, it is the ability to not be limited by factual information!!! So there you go, my analogy does hold water:beer:
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: EpsiIon
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

Nope, again you've ignored all that has been said. Atheism is theory based on evidence, nothing more or less.

No, atheism is a theory based on a perceived lack of evidence. And anybody intellectually honest with himself will agree that a lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.

Lack of evidence can be evidence in and of itself; it's situational, and is indeed evidence here. Something so vital to the vast majority of the world's population, integral to peoples' lives for many millenia, without a shred of backing evidence? Anybody capable of rational thought can see that it's a ridiculous proposition - which brings me back again to the point of it being genetically inclined. Genetic code and logic don't mix very well; I've seen this myself in my irrational and very strong fear of spiders. Logically, I know that the hairy 2-3" legspan wolf spiders in my area aren't poisonous or aggressive, and pose me no threat - but I'm helpless to not have a 150+ heartrate upon seeing one or to argue logically in favor of my fear. The parallel is strong, I urge you to give it some thought. If you missed it (I wouldn't blame you - it's a long thread), this was linked earlier by Schadenfroh. Good read.

Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
If you mean that my analogy could be used in the opposite situation, then you must assume that "god exists" is a default and that "does not exist" is taking a step further. Therefore your "color" would be the missing link that would widen my perspective, show me the light so to speak, and show me that God does not exist. The opposite perspective is that "does not exist" is a default and that "god exists" is taking a step further. That is my perspective. And you miss my point again. The "color" or sense of sight in my analogy is not factual information, it is the ability to not be limited by factual information!!! So there you go, my analogy does hold water:beer:

Perhaps I misunderstood your point; I read it as being an atheist is self-limiting, sorry if my repsonse was off-topic. On your original point, I'd still disagree though. Cold hard evidence is a useful tool, and can indeed all of what we might want to know - the problem, however, is that at this point science hasn't advanced far enough to provide the evidence needed to prove the nonexistence of a deity. Also have to say I'm curious why you'd say I'm not a true atheist It couldn't be any clearer for me, the logical arguments against the existence of god fit together in my mind like a 500 piece puzzle without so much as a missing piece.
 

flawlssdistortn

Senior member
Sep 21, 2004
680
0
0
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

Nope, again you've ignored all that has been said. Atheism is theory based on evidence, nothing more or less.


Then there's no way for a true atheist to become a christian. You are limiting yourself by only accepting cold hard scientific evidence. Explaining to you the possibility of God is like trying to tell a blind person about color. Except i dont believe that all these critics are "true atheists"

Tehn tell me, explain to me, why do you think god exists, even without an proof at all. Enlighten me!

Actually, I dont believe yet. I'm 22, an engineering student, and I'm pretty busy. I think anyone at my age or even at say 30, who "has it all worked out" or "believes" without any doubts or questions - is just naive. However, you are also naive if you are quick to disbelieve. I have not closed my mind, and I hope that in the future i'll be able to look at all the angles, and with some help from God (if he exists), become a christian. I know many people who are much older and smarter than me who have travelled down a long spiritual and intellectual journey and ended up believers in God.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Originally posted by: Gurck

Again, thanks for the laugh The same could of course be said for the opposite situation; explaining the possibility of no deity or deities existing - only then the 'blind not seeing color' analogy would hold some water, if "color" is considered to be basing beliefs on factual information and "self-limitation" considered to be the lack of this... Amusing though, that those most in the dark often tell themselves their situation is better to the point of believing it. I see this with owners of other crappy, but highly marketed, products and services as well; iPods, Bose speakers, and AOL, for a few examples. Religion would be considered a service, of course

If you mean that my analogy could be used in the opposite situation, then you must assume that "god exists" is a default and that "does not exist" is taking a step further. Therefore your "color" would be the missing link that would widen my perspective, show me the light so to speak, and show me that God does not exist. The opposite perspective is that "does not exist" is a default and that "god exists" is taking a step further. That is my perspective. And you miss my point again. The "color" or sense of sight in my analogy is not factual information, it is the ability to not be limited by factual information!!! So there you go, my analogy does hold water:beer:

The only reason your analogy holds is because you're twisting the words... Or atleast being, well, absurd!
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Originally posted by: Gurck
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Faith is more like having the willingness to accept something that you would not have accepted based on merely your own thought processes. So, if you say "faith is believing in what isn't", you are basically saying that anything you can't comprehend does not exist.

Nope, again you've ignored all that has been said. Atheism is theory based on evidence, nothing more or less.


Then there's no way for a true atheist to become a christian. You are limiting yourself by only accepting cold hard scientific evidence. Explaining to you the possibility of God is like trying to tell a blind person about color. Except i dont believe that all these critics are "true atheists"

Tehn tell me, explain to me, why do you think god exists, even without an proof at all. Enlighten me!

Actually, I dont believe yet. I'm 22, an engineering student, and I'm pretty busy. I think anyone at my age or even at say 30, who "has it all worked out" or "believes" without any doubts or questions - is just naive. However, you are also naive if you are quick to disbelieve. I have not closed my mind, and I hope that in the future i'll be able to look at all the angles, and with some help from God (if he exists), become a christian. I know many people who are much older and smarter than me who have travelled down a long spiritual and intellectual journey and ended up believers in God.

Wel, i'm 19, so...

But i can tell you for a fact that god does not exist! And i'm not quick to disbelieve, i'm just not fond of humans, so i don't take what they say for a fact. But believing in god, without _any_ shred of evidence, except for what you have been taught, is ignorant. Because there exists no evidence! That's just like trying to tell a kid that santa does not exists! Now, you know the kid is wrong here right?
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Actually, I dont believe yet. I'm 22, an engineering student, and I'm pretty busy. I think anyone at my age or even at say 30, who "has it all worked out" or "believes" without any doubts or questions - is just naive. However, you are also naive if you are quick to disbelieve. I have not closed my mind, and I hope that in the future i'll be able to look at all the angles, and with some help from God (if he exists), become a christian. I know many people who are much older and smarter than me who have travelled down a long spiritual and intellectual journey and ended up believers in God.

I'm 27 and have given it a lot of thought; I haven't jumped to any conclusions, though I'll grant that religion never made sense to me from a very early age on. While I think people with a lot of life experience are often very interesting and good people, I couldn't care less about conclusions they've drawn from their lives. Basing beliefs on what others think is really just relying on strength in numbers, or in other words following the herd instinct. I prefer to draw my own conclusions.
 

flawlssdistortn

Senior member
Sep 21, 2004
680
0
0
I think one of the major hangups is the issue of scientific evidence. Do some reading on the Theory of Knowledge and that will "broaden" your perspective, or at least challenge your confidence in science and in facts. I have taken a few classes on this and it has made me realize how limited science and our perspective can really be.
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
I think one of the major hangups is the issue of scientific evidence. Do some reading on the Theory of Knowledge and that will "broaden" your perspective, or at least challenge your confidence in science and in facts. I have taken a few classes on this and it has made me realize how limited science and our perspective can really be.

I study physics at the university of copenhagen, i understand the basics of scientific evidence, trust me! And i also understand that religion was made up by people who were feeling lost and needed guidance.
That will every educated psychologist, or atleast most of them, agree with me on. Like under pressure, some people immediatly panick, and await others to make decisions for them. It's psychological, all of it. And yes, i did study psychology for a while.
 

flawlssdistortn

Senior member
Sep 21, 2004
680
0
0
Originally posted by: Gurck

I'm 27 and have given it a lot of thought; I haven't jumped to any conclusions, though I'll grant that religion never made sense to me from a very early age on. While I think people with a lot of life experience are often very interesting and good people, I couldn't care less about conclusions they've drawn from their lives. Basing beliefs on what others think is really just relying on strength in numbers, or in other words following the herd instinct. I prefer to draw my own conclusions.

Well it's a sad fact that much of organized religion has not done much in recent years to explain or promote the fundamentals. Of course it looks stupid when a lot of the people that attend church just blindly believe and can't explain beyond the "feelings." Many services are just opportunites for a bunch of bible thumpers to jump around and sing - it's too "feel-good" oriented. I myself dont get much out of going to church. But i have met some priests who are actually true intellectuals. My experiences with them are what keeps my mind open.
 

flawlssdistortn

Senior member
Sep 21, 2004
680
0
0
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
I think one of the major hangups is the issue of scientific evidence. Do some reading on the Theory of Knowledge and that will "broaden" your perspective, or at least challenge your confidence in science and in facts. I have taken a few classes on this and it has made me realize how limited science and our perspective can really be.

I study physics at the university of copenhagen, i understand the basics of scientific evidence, trust me! And i also understand that religion was made up by people who were feeling lost and needed guidance.
That will every educated psychologist, or atleast most of them, agree with me on. Like under pressure, some people immediatly panick, and await others to make decisions for them. It's psychological, all of it. And yes, i did study psychology for a while.


No, im talking more in the area of philosophy, stuff like Descartes. If you read on the topics of "Theory of Knowledge" i think another term is epistemology, that challenges the entire study of science (which includes psychology.)
 

Forsythe

Platinum Member
May 2, 2004
2,825
0
0
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
I think one of the major hangups is the issue of scientific evidence. Do some reading on the Theory of Knowledge and that will "broaden" your perspective, or at least challenge your confidence in science and in facts. I have taken a few classes on this and it has made me realize how limited science and our perspective can really be.

I study physics at the university of copenhagen, i understand the basics of scientific evidence, trust me! And i also understand that religion was made up by people who were feeling lost and needed guidance.
That will every educated psychologist, or atleast most of them, agree with me on. Like under pressure, some people immediatly panick, and await others to make decisions for them. It's psychological, all of it. And yes, i did study psychology for a while.


No, im talking more in the area of philosophy, stuff like Descartes. If you read on the topics of "Theory of Knowledge" i think another term is epistemology, that challenges the entire study of science (which includes psychology.)

Actually no, i didn't, even though i did study philosophy at high school! I don't remember that much Descartes, but i remember he made sense. Find me the reading on the internet and i'll comment i cba to be honest, i'm reading physics atm, preparing. But i'm still awaiting any response to what i said!

[Edit]

My teacher was obsessed with the moral philosophy, and the philosophy (actually it was phycology, but he liked psycology) of languages. He was nice and very wise on some points, allthough he was a poor old lonely right-winged, bastard...
 

flawlssdistortn

Senior member
Sep 21, 2004
680
0
0
Originally posted by: Gurck

Perhaps I misunderstood your point; I read it as being an atheist is self-limiting, sorry if my repsonse was off-topic. On your original point, I'd still disagree though. Cold hard evidence is a useful tool, and can indeed all of what we might want to know - the problem, however, is that at this point science hasn't advanced far enough to provide the evidence needed to prove the nonexistence of a deity. Also have to say I'm curious why you'd say I'm not a true atheist It couldn't be any clearer for me, the logical arguments against the existence of god fit together in my mind like a 500 piece puzzle without so much as a missing piece.

Lol, i know this is confusing. I am saying that being an atheist is self-limiting. I do not believe that science can evolve to a point where it could prove or disprove God. (I'm gonna find some reading material on this.) That is why I am saying that you cannot rely soley on that. You must "step outside the box" so to speak and reach out to God, who will give you the persective that allows you to believe. Yeah it sounds stupid, but i think it would be worth it to take the chance and try. How do you step outside the box? Ask a priest (one who has actually studied theology, there are a lot of uneducated ones out there...)

Now why do I say that you are not a true atheist? Because I dont think you need hard evidence to make all your decisions. Just try and think of an example where you do something based on faith. What do you think about marriage? That's an example where two people believe that they love each other and take the chance that they always will. That's what the vows are, and there is no hard evidence for that.
 

crazeinc

Member
Jul 11, 2004
164
0
0
The rebuttal that non-believers need to prove that God doesn't exist is laughable, they're not the ones trying to pull a all-powerful being out of thin air.
 

Gurck

Banned
Mar 16, 2004
12,963
1
0
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
Originally posted by: Gurck

Perhaps I misunderstood your point; I read it as being an atheist is self-limiting, sorry if my repsonse was off-topic. On your original point, I'd still disagree though. Cold hard evidence is a useful tool, and can indeed all of what we might want to know - the problem, however, is that at this point science hasn't advanced far enough to provide the evidence needed to prove the nonexistence of a deity. Also have to say I'm curious why you'd say I'm not a true atheist It couldn't be any clearer for me, the logical arguments against the existence of god fit together in my mind like a 500 piece puzzle without so much as a missing piece.

Lol, i know this is confusing. I am saying that being an atheist is self-limiting. I do not believe that science can evolve to a point where it could prove or disprove God. (I'm gonna find some reading material on this.) That is why I am saying that you cannot rely soley on that. You must "step outside the box" so to speak and reach out to God, who will give you the persective that allows you to believe. Yeah it sounds stupid, but i think it would be worth it to take the chance and try. How do you step outside the box? Ask a priest (one who has actually studied theology, there are a lot of uneducated ones out there...)

Now why do I say that you are not a true atheist? Because I dont think you need hard evidence to make all your decisions. Just try and think of an example where you do something based on faith. What do you think about marriage? That's an example where two people believe that they love each other and take the chance that they always will. That's what the vows are, and there is no hard evidence for that.

By that logic, belief is just as self-limiting, and the only way to be "open to all possibilities" is to be agnostic... personally though I think agnostics are for the most part too scared to choose a side.

I'd rather not bother seeking out a clergyman, as it would infer a desire to convert or at the very least learn about what doesn't interest me (the specifics of their particular religion), and most would go full-bore with the dogma at that point. The lens they view life through would be painfully obvious and I wouldn't gain anything from the experience - I already know the sheer strength of belief many have in the face of logic. Even somewhat more enlightened religious people often come off as a bit saddened for your lack of salvation or whatnot, and most will go on and on about it given half a chance.

As I stated, but maybe didn't put enough emphasis on, my view of it could be compared to a large, fully completed puzzle; it all fits together perfectly, not so much as an anomaly. You could say my belief found me more than I found it, as I never looked for a particular answer, but just what such a vast number of clues led to.
 

flawlssdistortn

Senior member
Sep 21, 2004
680
0
0
Originally posted by: crazeinc
The rebuttal that non-believers need to prove that God doesn't exist is laughable, they're not the ones trying to pull a all-powerful being out of thin air.

Fine be like that, we don't need your sorry ass anyway. We were just trying to save you from going to hell...
Ahaha, im jokin... Lol yeah i know what you mean. I dont know what to say to that.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: Forsythe
Originally posted by: flawlssdistortn
All evidence is not scientific.

??? Are you arguing against the scientific method?

And if there is no argument pro god without any faith, then there is no god. Because faith is believeing in what isn't.

Well that is a wee bit arrogant that a little spec of human being could "prove" there is a All Powerful God. It is an all to common one though. I know it sounds self serving but if God made it plainly obvious for people of little/no faith there wouldn't be a point to God. Not to mention would he want you?

If you want numbers go find studies of cancer patients with people praying for them vs. patients with no prayer. Even a liberal rag like 60 mintues (or was it 20/20?) reported that the results were unsettling that the patients w/o any prayer for did measurably worse. It has been years since it was on. They need to play it again.

 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
"The first law of thermodynamics states that energy, the stuff of which the universe is made, can neither be created nor destroyed. Two conclusions follow: (1) the total energy in the universe remains constant; and (2) energy must be self-existent and eternalexactly what the Bible says about God. Is science promoting energy as "God"?

The second law of thermodynamics states that while total energy remains constant, usable energy and order continually decrease as entropy increases. Common sense tells us that all fires eventually burn out. Neither our sun nor the other stars could have been burning forever. There must have been a time when neither stars nor the energy of which they consist existed. Clearly, the universe had a beginning, as the Bible declares: "In the beginning..." (Gn 1:1).

The conflict between these two laws poses a serious problem for science. Energy could not have been here forever as the first law implies, or, according to the second, ages ago it would have reached the state of maximum entropy, but it hasn't. The contradiction can be resolved in only one way: since energy could not have been created by any means known to science, yet has not always existed, it must have been created by God.

Matter, life and intelligence could not arise spontaneously from nothing. Therefore, all that now exists was created either by a self-existent eternal energy, or by a self-existent eternal Person. The first choice is eliminated by the second law of thermodynamics, because energy itself and all things it produces deteriorate. Furthermore, whereas energy is physical, there is a demonstrable nonphysical dimension to human existence. Nor could energy, being impersonal, create personal beings such as man.

We are driven to the conclusion that some One always existed, an infinite Person without beginning or end, who is capable of creating out of nothing the entire universe and all the creatures in it, including man. Our finite minds cannot conceive of God always having existed. Yet we know He must exist eternally or nothing would exist. And He must be outside of time for a number of reasons, including human freedom of choice in spite of His foreknowledge, which we have shown in the past.

Science says the universe began with a "Big Bang." But what was the source of that energy? It could not have existed forever or (according to the second law) it would have reached maximum entropy before it "banged." Obviously the energy from which the universe is made came into existence simultaneously with the universe a finite number of years ago. It could not have arisen out of nothing by any natural process and thus its origin had to be supernatural. Accurately, the Bible says, "God said, Let there be..." (Gn 1:3,6,9,11,14,20, 24,26); "...the worlds were framed by the word of God..." (Heb 11:3a). That God made the uni-verse out of nothing is also clear: "...things that are seen were not made of things which do appear" (Heb 11:3b). It has taken science thousands of years to catch up with the Bible.

Did God create the universe in a sudden burst of energy? We don't know. We do know that a "Big Bang" could never produce the digitally organized database imprinted on the single cell (the size of the period at the end of this sentence) with which each human life begins. This immense store of self-replicating information (with enzymes that check for copy errors and correct them) directs the construction, operation and differentiation of tens of trillions of cells as different as those in the heart and hairan incredible feat which science can't even begin to unravel.

The written instructions are encoded so that only the proper protein (of which there are tens of thousands of types) can decipher it. Darwin knew nothing of DNA or the structure and operation of the cell, today's knowledge of which has relegated his theory of evolution to the trash heap of absurdities, where it belonged from the beginning. If the simplest cell were broken into its chemical components, the odds that they would ever come back together in the right way is 1 chance in 1 followed by 100,000,000,000 zerosand the human body has trillions of cells.

With a retina which solves in a fraction of a second complex equations that would occupy a supercomputer for 100 years, the human eye's 100 million light-sensitive cells send information through a million fibers of the optic nerve to the brain. We can't produce optical instruments that come even close to the human eye. A newly discovered starfish has more than 1,000 eyes, each with a lens at least ten times better than anything science has yet been able to constructand all evolved independently yet simultaneously by chance? Please!

The human brain, with its 100 billion nerve cells linked by 240,000 miles of nerve fibers and 100 trillion connections, storage capacity 1,000 times that of a Cray-2 supercomputer and operating at a thousand trillion computations per second, is even more incredible than the eye, whose optical impulses it translates into three-dimensional images to which it directs numerous parts of the body to react instantly. And all this was produced by a "Big Bang" plus chance, eons of time and survival of the fittest? But until they worked, the eye and brain could not aid in survivalthus the "evolution" it supposedly took to create this incredible optical/intelligence system produced millions of intermediate stages in the right succession by pure chance without any "survival of the fittest!" Yet in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, evolution continues to be promoted as fact by the media and taughtin fact mandatedin our schools!

Instead of a spontaneous "Big Bang" of previously nonexistent energy that suddenly created itself, the Bible introduces us to the Creator, a personal God who always existed and was able to make the universe out of nothing by speaking the word. Science and reason demand the very God the Bible presents.

In contrast to the pitiful gods of the world's religions which hold their followers in darkness, superstition and fear, the Bible describes God exactly as He must be: self-existent ("i am that i am" - Ex 3:14), eternal ("the eternal God is thy refuge" - Dt 33:27; "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God" - Ps 90:2); and a personal Being who wills ("this is the will of God" - 1 Thes 4:3; 5:18; "by the will of God" - Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 2 Tm 1:1; and many other verses), who thinks ("my thoughts are not your thoughts" ­ Is 55:8), has personal emotions ("God is angry with the wicked every day" - Ps 7:11; "we love him, because he first loved us" - 1 Jn 4:19; "I was grieved with that generation" - Heb 3:10, etc.), and speaks ("the Lord spake" is found 144 times, "the word of the Lord" is found 258 times in Scripture, etc.).

Except for God's unique qualities (self-existence, omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, perfection, sinlessness, etc.) man reflects, though imperfectly, God's characteristics listed above. "God created man in his own image..." (Gn 1:27), but not physically, because God "is a Spirit" (Jn 4:24). Thus man must also be a spirit living in a physical body. There is no other explanation for man's intellectual abilities (to form conceptual ideas and express them in words, etc.) inasmuch as intelligence, thoughts, will, emotions, etc. are not physical but spiritual. That easily proven fact (which we touch upon in the following Q&A) involves serious consequences from which physical death provides no escape: "...it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment" (Heb 9:27); "...the rich man also died, and was buried; and in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments..." (Lk 16:22,23). .." http://www.thebereancall.org/N...+Newsletters/4460.aspx
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |