English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

1. The "unexplained" is not evidence.

Using God as a dumping ground for everything you dont understand is only the evidence of lazy thinking and you being bias towards any other possiblities. The top scientists are 85% Atheist, 10% agnostic, and 5%. theist. That's because the more you know, the less likely you are to believe in God.

A. Why is the "unexplained" not evidence? (Ex. How did everything
come about, unborn babies, ect.)

Just because scientists haven't figured out everythiing yet doesn't mean we should pass them off as being miracles. That would be nothing but assumptions, not facts.

B. So called "miracles" are not evidence. (They're never investigated)

C. "Delusions" are not evidence. Mentally ill people see things that aren't there all the time

D. The "bible" is not evidence. It's all hear say. So many contradictions. http://www.evilbible.com How many times has it been rewritten?

E. A "feeling" is not evidence. "Feelings" have mislead people

2007-01-23 10:43:14 · 37 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

37 answers

Your struggle is evident in your question.

Have faith in God's grace. It is what it is, and I'm very thankful for it.

2007-01-23 10:50:16 · answer #1 · answered by Tony C 3 · 0 2

Warning: veeeeery lengthy reply

Hostile much?

1. I agree that the unexplained should be explored. That being said I have read some scientific papers that have expounded some of the most ridiculous sounding theories in an effort to avoid God, even when it's starting them in the face. Some of the posited explanations for the universe require as much faith as belief in God does. (Infinite parallel universes? Sorry, doesn't pass the Ocham's razor test)

There is a correlation to Atheists in the science field, but I would really hesitate to make the claim that it's causal. The scientific field is incredibly hostile to Theists.

A. Scientists do their own fair share of assumption. Here you are assuming the non-existence of God without evidence (ok, I'm flip, I apologize). Paleontologists 'knew' that collagen could not exist in dinosaur fossils. Recently it was discovered that viable collagen is still in the bones.

Einstein added a 'fudge' factor to a formula of his when he realized that he had just proven that the universe was expanding (and thus had a starting point and thus was not eternal), to make the formula fit his preconceived notion of the way the universe should behave. (his 'fudge factor' changed the formula to imply that the universe expanded and contracted - without having any evidence for the contraction) he later called this 'the biggest mistake he ever made'

Scientists have also been long hoping to find 'dark matter' matter which they assume exists even though they have no proof of it.

D. The Bible is internally coherent. Things may seem to contradict each other, but when taken in context and the understanding that the Old Testament serves an entirely different purpose than the New Testament, there are no contradictions. Many of the 'rules' in the Old Testament were no longer necessary in the New Testament. The Bible is accurate, but not literal.

The Bible has proven to be remarkably accurate archeologically and historically (a marvel considering that it was written over a thousand years).

The Bible has proven to remarkably accurate scientifically in the first chapter of Genesis. Bear in mind that it was written by a people who were predominantly shepherds and nomads who did not have the understanding of the universe that we take for granted today.

The word day in the first chapter of genesis is actually the word 'yom' in hebrew which only means '24 hour' day if it is paired up with an accompanying adjective. Depending on the word it is partnered with it can also mean 'first watch' or 'sunrise.' So if we take the word 'yom' to mean 'distinct period of time' (ie: 1 billion years here, another there - bear in mind that ancient cultures did not have a concept for a number as high as a billion) then Genesis 1 is remarkably close to what science tells us about the big bang. If someone were standing where the earth would be and watch the big bang unfold around them, it would be spot on with the Genesis 1 description. Genesis 1 passes the Ocham's Razor test. There is no way, other than divine inspiration, that a ancient people could come up with something that scientifically accurate.

Bear in mind that other religions' creation stories of the time presuppose that the earth and heavens already existed (instead of 'first there was nothing') and mostly the world is created through sex or war between the gods.

B. The only miracle I'm going to reference here is the miracle that we're all here to begin with. The odds of a universe spontaneously coming about with all the fine tuning necessary to create a stable system is 1:10^10^26 (ten with twenty six zeros behind it - more than the number of particles there are in the universe). This is almost (but not quite) the odds that a tornado will go through a junkyard and form a 747. This is the number that makes atheist scientists nervous enough to come up with preposterous theories that are more complicated than the idea of God. These odds don't even take into account the development of life (much less intelligent life). That's a whole 'nother barrel of worms.

I'll make you a deal Black Atheist, I will read every word of the evilbible website (which for the record seems to place a lot of stock in the 'feelings' argument you want to avoid.) if you will pick up a copy of Creator and The Cosmos and read it cover to cover. It's a fantastic book for the science minded on the beginning of the universe and the first chapter of Genesis. High on science (astronomy and physics), low on theology I promise (it only concerns itself with the events of Genesis 1). If your interest is in biology then 'Darwin's Black Box' is a good book. I might also recommend 'A Case for Faith' which was written by a formally atheist journalist who investigated the bible from a journalistic standpoint (heavy on historical documentation, heavier on theology than the other two). We can have a well educated debate then (I having read the material you'll be arguing from and you having read the material I'll be arguing from)

There's my argument, without any reference to feelings, delusions, and only one miracle. Hope it helps.

2007-01-23 11:31:08 · answer #2 · answered by LX V 6 · 0 0

A. It is a mistake to assume that the unexplained is not explainable. Like the scientists do not know how life can grow on thermo-vents in the depths of the sea, but no scientist throws in the towel and cries " contradiction!' "

B. There were several eyewitnesses to the miracles. These are not only recorded in the Bible but also outside of the Bible.

C. I have a personal relationship with God, no one can take it away from me.

D. While the Bible is the word of God, and such, cannot have errors,nonetheless, this does not mean there are not difficulties. We have so many copies of the Bible that no other historical book has. There are translation problems, not very many contradictions at all when you investigate them.

E. no comment

2007-01-23 11:02:04 · answer #3 · answered by SeeTheLight 7 · 0 0

Dear mis-guided friend,

1. Many so-called "miracles" are investigated, documented and proven to be, indeed, miraculous. Of course, the word miracle is avoided and instead the incidents are dismissed as "unexplained".

2. Don't go by the poor scholarship of such a website as evilbible.com. There are so many distortions and misunderstandings there...

3. Assuming your percentages about scientists are correct (where is your evidence -or are you guilty of believing what simply others have told you? ), it only proves the validity of God's word: God chooses to reveal His truth not to the so-called wise and powerful of the world but to the poor and the humble of heart.

But you are right on your last point: feelings are certainly not evidence. But an empty tomb is.

god bless

2007-01-23 11:03:35 · answer #4 · answered by happy pilgrim 6 · 0 0

so this all just happened? by coincidence?
i watched that Richard Dawkins video about the big question: why are we here and how did we get here
but it does not explain how the first organism gets here. the way he explained is saying we came here originally from the first bird. everything was created using that..but it does not explain how that bird got here. there has to be an ultimate creator of some sort
-how do you explain neardeath experiences?
my father (who im having problems with right now) nearly died from a car accident before i was born. he was on the edge of death. but do you know why he lived? because i was going to be born. if it wasnt for God i wouldnt even be here right now.
-just because you can not see something doesnt mean it isnt there. you cant see oxygen, you cant see air. but is it there? yes we are thriving on it. you cant see the wind but you know its blowing.
-sometimes things are hard to explain. you have to have faith. it doesent mean it doesnt exist. there are alot of things in life that you cant explain and you just have to accept it
-even some scientists are convinced..they didnt believe in any of that stuff before but now they know hell exists. there is hard scientific proof that it does (and with a hell there must be a heaven..otherwise everyone would be damned)
you people are the reason i almost lost all my belief and thought everyone just rotted in the ground when they died. but this website is the reason i regained my belief: http://www.av1611.org/hell.html
yes there is some bible quotes but there is also scientific facts too so read it throughly and i guarantee you will have all the proof you need. it is quite a bit to read but i would recommend reading all of it including the bible quotes because without them the scientific facts wouldnt necesarily make sense.
P.S. if you cant get the audio recording on that article to work (which i couldnt) then search on RealPlayer for screams from hell..the recording is called dig2hell.

2007-01-23 11:09:59 · answer #5 · answered by Garbo's snowflake 6 · 0 0

><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The proof and evidence is all around you and everywhere, undeniable proof, and indisputable visible evidence. It is called creation and life. Unless your are blind, deaf, and senseless. You can see, smell, taste, hear, feel, and examine the evidence.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
We live on a planet teeming with life. Plant life with approximately 250,000 species, animal life with over a million species. Scientists are learning just how complex life is. So complex that it requires design. The evidence of design requires a designer. Scientists are also learning the conditions for life; just how perfect conditions here on planet Earth are to support all this life.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
The human brain, it absorbs forty megabytes per second of data while awake. That is two terabytes of data a day. At night, it sorts and stores that data through the creation of new chemical bonds and synaptic connectors.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Sure, right, this all just happened and evolved. This sort of thinking takes considerable faith, exponentially more faith than believing in a creator.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
Wayne Murray

2007-01-23 10:49:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Actually, for you, nothing is evidence of what you don't want to believe. So what's the point?
If I told you I had found a dvd player that works, that I found it in a cave 40 years ago, that nobody ever made it, that it just produced itself naturally by a series of amzing coincidences over billions and trillions of years, you would say I was crazy - and you would be right. But the universe - no, just the galaxy - no just the solar system - no, just one of your skin cells, is so amazing, to assume it came to being through a series of amazing coincidences over trillions of years (I know, you are still in the billins, but it will become trilions with the next generation of scientists) - and that no intelligent person made it - well, I would respectfully call that one very hard to swallow. I consider I have proof that God exists.

2007-01-23 10:50:57 · answer #7 · answered by Mr Ed 7 · 3 0

God has chosen Faith from before the foundation of the world.
God does not change. He is unchangable. Immutable. He said I change not therefore you the sons of men are not consumed.
God is merciful and slow to anger and slow of wrath. But He also is a God of wrath and takes vengence where He sees it nesseccary. So take heed lest you be destroyed. Don't tempt God as the children of Israel tempted God and saw His great works in the wilderness whwere many of them were destroyed instantly and then went on to judgement after that as well. God didn't put up with their crap or unbelief why should He put up with yours. Only one reason He loves you and He is giving you time to repent before your end. You will be without excuse because He has given you more than He gave those He slew in the wilderness and more than those other nations who Moses slew with God's helping hand. You are with out excuse now and it won't get any better towards the end of your life. It is easier to turn when you are young than when you are old so consider it now.

2007-01-23 10:57:09 · answer #8 · answered by justice 2 · 0 0

Well, you got from the mindless cultists exactly what we all thought you would get:

1. Oh, how can you look at a flower and not see god?
2. You can only know god with faith first...
3. Everyone who wrote the bible knew god/jesus, so it is the word of god (using the bible to prove the bible again).
4. Every time I see a sunset, I know god exists.

And, on and on and on and on with the usual mindless, superstitious cult ranting.

Yikes!! The plight of the bible-home-schooled.

2007-01-23 10:57:47 · answer #9 · answered by jen1981everett 4 · 0 0

You asked a similar question recently,but apparently you weren't satisfied with the responses.You clearly aren't going to accept any of our explanations,so the best advice I can give you is to find the evidence yourself. Remember though,you can't find something without looking for it first. And just a hint. You won't find the evidence you seek by searching for the answers in all the wrong places.

2007-01-23 15:10:11 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 0 0

Christianity, or religon of any kind for that matter, is not based on evidence, it is based on faith. If you can't accept that, that is fine. Has any Christian ever held you down and tried to force you to accept it? I think not, so what are you going on about in the first place? Just live your own life the way you choose. All Christians ask for is to be respected, so what's wrong with that? Just because you don't believe it gives you no right to disrespect it or mock our God. TO EACH IS OWN! Since you are so open-minded and enlightened, you should know that.

By the way, when the Bible is read in completion, it is no way contradictory.

2007-01-23 10:57:56 · answer #11 · answered by kdc 1 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers