[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] When should we change our reasoning / beliefs?

[jimbohank]

So you claim.

I'll assume you imagined it unless you have evidence to the contrary.

Not sure why it is assumed by non-believers that it is the responsibility to "prove" God exists. Would it not be more that non-believer's "prove" God does not exist? They have a reason for their non-belief yet they cannot prove that God does not exist.

Let's say the non-believer is right. Let's surmise that there is no God and we are just kidding ourselves that the bible is real and the words are not true and it is just a fable told and retold. But during my life as a Christian I find goodness, unimaginable fulfillment and incredible peace. My personal relationships through my life are much richer and my love for life and others is so much more intense than it would be otherwise. Will I be embarrassed after I die to find out there is nothing there? How could I? In their logic there is nothing beyond life right? But what if they're wrong?

Does it require faith to believe in God? Absolutely! But I believe it requires more faith to not believe in God. I say this based on what I have seen, what I now see, have experienced and experience every day as my relationship grows closer to Him and in Him.

When I look at God's Word I see a perfect story, one of love, glory, honor and grace starting in Genesis and perfectly consistent through Revelation. 66 books written over thousands of years completely consistent both forward and back. I honestly hate that the world has blinded so many people to such a glorious thing! All it takes is one tiny bit of honest personal introspection, just honestly asking the question. Are we too afraid of what our heart may find if we do? May it prove that we are all in need of a savior? That our self idolization is truly a dead end?

 

[Chriliman]

we can barly see other planets, and barly tell if they MIGHT have life, it's a bit premature to say how many planets. There are planets/moons in our solar system that might have life, but untill we drill down into say Europa or dig down into mars and such we won't know for sure and these are things close enough to test. Short of them coming by to invade/drop in only way we might find life beyond your solar system in our life times, is finding a signal in the right band we can read.

I agree and I definitely think we should continue searching for life. We should always search for the truth. However, based on how I believe God works, He'll reveal to many that He exists by the fact that we just can't find life elsewhere, other than the planet earth. This is just one way I believe He'll remove all excuses. If we somehow determine that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe...that screams God!

Either way, if we do or don't find intelligent life or any life, it will make things interesting! Great time to be alive and know you have eternal life ahead of you! God is good! Amen?

 

[dcarrera]

From your position, absolute truth has not been defined,

Are a more basic level, you'd have to convince us that it makes sense to divide "truth" into two categories. How is "absolute truth" different from "truth"?

would it make sense for that absolute truth to be falsifiable? It would not makes sense, right? Because if it was falsifiable, it would not be absolute truth.

Uhm... no, what you said is nonsense. If I am to believe that a claim is true in any sense of the word, the claim must be falsifiable. Falsifiable means that you can test it. If there is no test, there is no reason to believe the claim.

I believe there is only two possible absolute truths about life.

This sounds like lack of imagination.

As I've said above, its unreasonable to expect absolute truth to be falsifiable. Yes, I understand I'm claiming by beliefs to be true without physical evidence to back my claims, but I'm backing my claims with sound reason that makes sense and if you refuse to believe sound reason that makes sense, you are then the one who is being unreasonable.

You are not backing your claims with sound reason. You have not given any reason that I can see. Furthermore, I gave reasons why you are wrong: there is no reason to believe any claim that cannot be tested.

Sound reason that makes sense does not have to be proven. All that is expected is that you believe it until proven otherwise, then when it is proven otherwise you are justified in changing your beliefs.

How do you know that your reasoning is sound? I think that it isn't, and history is filled with examples of wrong beliefs that were supported by what people at the time thought was "sound reasoning". The problem is that too often "sound reasoning" becomes an excuse for intuition, sloppy thinking and lack of imagination.

Actually there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do not exist. Have you ever heard of Drake equation or Fermi paradox. According these, we should have come into contact with aliens a long time ago.

This is an example of sloppy thinking. I happen to know about this because I am an astronomer and I am interested in alien life. (1) The Drake Equation is useless, trivial and only appears in TV shows. It has no predictive power because many of the terms are basically unknown. (2) The Fermi paradox could as well indicate that life is just rare, or maybe just that technological life is rare. We might be the first technological life in our galaxy.

I don't have personal evidence of aliens, so it would be unreasonable for me to believe in aliens and in fact I've been given sound reason to believe they don't exist.

And the irony is that you just demonstrated the problem with "sound reasoning". You are not qualified to judge whether your reasoning is sound. You may think that it is sound, but there may be errors in your logic or your information that you are not aware of. Everyone can be wrong. It is arrogant and wrong to put your own reasoning on a pedestal and claim that empirical evidence is not needed because your logic is so awesome.

 

[dcarrera]

Actually, there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do exist, and it isn't a matter of receiving a radio response. Space is endless, yes? As far as we know.

We don't now whether space is endless, and the latest CMB data is consistent with both a closed universe (which would be finite) and an open universe (which would be endless). But in any case, if space is endless, then alien life is basically guaranteed. In an infinite universe, the most mind-boggingly unlikely event is guaranteed to happen an infinite number of times. If the universe is infinite, there will be a place where a bunch of atoms suddenly came together to make an exact duplicate of the Earth except that everyone looks like Tom Cruise or Madona.

 

[loveofourlord]

I agree and I definitely think we should continue searching for life. We should always search for the truth. However, based on how I believe God works, He'll reveal to many that He exists by the fact that we just can't find life elsewhere, other than the planet earth. This is just one way I believe He'll remove all excuses. If we somehow determine that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe...that screams God!

Either way, if we do or don't find intelligent life or any life, it will make things interesting! Great time to be alive and know you have eternal life ahead of you! God is good! Amen?

yeah :> Heck I got my dream I've been waiting almost my entire life for last month when we finally saw Pluto up close :> I was so annoyed/disapointed that none of the earlier probes went near Pluto. Now it's just annoying that were looking at like 20 or so years before a mission to Europa that might test to see if anything in the oceans heh.

 

[dcarrera]

So its reasonable to expect that in time we will find out if there are extraterrestrial aliens within the universe somewhere, right?

Wrong. Life could exist in a galaxy that is far enough from us that it is receding from us faster than the speed of light.

But if we scan thousands upon thousands of inhabitable planets and find no life at all, what would you begin to think then?

If we do a meaningful scan for life and find nothing, we will be able to calculate a probable upper bound on the frequency of life in the galaxy (and probably similar galaxies).

then on the other hand you say "God is unknowable", yet God is possible

How do you now that god is possible? I am not even sure that the specific deity proposed by modern Christians is even coherent.

and if He does exists, its reasonable to believe He will reveal Himself because it makes sense that He would.

This is not "reason", it is an appeal to your personal intuition. Your intuition is shaped by the features that you would like god to have, or have been taught that god should have. For the same of example, let me offer an alternative: the universe was created in some machine by a committee of super intelligent aliens. The appearance of life is merely a side-effect of the parameters of the universe, and the aliens couldn't care less about it.

This alternate view has many advantages over the Christian god: I have not required unphysical features like being omniscient, a changeless mind, or spaceless and timeless beings.

 

[dcarrera]

Are thought experiments any different than physical experiments? Both should help us find the truth, right?

Yes, they are very different. There have been examples in history where thought experiments were useful in developing a hypothesis, but they have never replaced physical experiments. A physical experiment tells you whether the universe behaves the way your reasoning suggested that it should. Some times our reasoning is just wrong, and some times the universe is completely unintuitive.

 

[jimbohank]

The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Most atheists do not claim there is no God. They are just not convinced by the arguments presented for them.



Pascal's wager? Takes more faith to be an atheist? Really? Are you new at this whole religion vs. atheism conversation?

Neither of these are convincing. Pascal's Wager applies to you just as much to any atheist, arguably moreso. What if you chose the wrong religion and wind up in the hell of some other all powerful god who is not Yahweh? There are thousands to choose from. How do you know you picked the right one? Does it happen to have anything to do with where you were born?

And if you value faith, as I know Christianity does, then how is telling the atheist that he has more faith an argument? Shouldn't you be striving to be more like the atheist in this case if you really believe it takes more faith and faith is a virtue? We both know this is an empty insult. Stop using it.



Right, because no non-believer ever has honestly looked at your holy book and come to the conclusion it's probably just myth and stories written by people and not the words of any god. That's pretty presumptuous. Self-idolization? How is believing that everything was made just for us by a god who personally cares for each and everyone of us not self-idolizing and the most narcissistic position one could possibly have with regard to our existence?

Like I said, it isn't up to me to prove to you the existence of God, nor is it my responsibility to save your soul. All I can do is witness and pray. It is interesting to see how blind many are. Apparently so angry at whatever happened in their life that they can't, for one second, pull the chip of vanity off their own shoulder to see that there is more than what they see while falling in the rabbit hole. Time will prove this, though, but even then many will be so angry and selfish in their heart that they will battle against God just prior to bowing before Him. Truth is truth even if someone says it isn't.

I have banged my head against the wall for years trying to open the eyes of narcissistic atheists. It gets old hearing requests for "peer reviewed material" or names of contemporary writers during the time of Christ, when after offering them, without even a look at them they deny that they are legit. It gets too old. You sound like you have your argument response at the ready, perhaps pre-written and ready for pasting for a time like this. My point isn't to argue but to hope that you are willing to see truth, not your hated assumed truth but truth based on the Word of God, the Word that proves itself perfectly. There is no "peer reviewed document" or contemporary writer of any age that can compare to that written by God Himself. Trust me, I know what your next argument will be and you can save your breath since this is my last response. I have done my due diligence in witnessing, now I will pray for you, dcarrerra, and all the other non-believers who feel it is their duty to try and discourage those who are trying to find love and fulfillment through God, through Yashewah, Jesus Christ.

 

[loveofourlord]

We don't now whether space is endless, and the latest CMB data is consistent with both a closed universe (which would be finite) and an open universe (which would be endless). But in any case, if space is endless, then alien life is basically guaranteed. In an infinite universe, the most mind-boggingly unlikely event is guaranteed to happen an infinite number of times. If the universe is infinite, there will be a place where a bunch of atoms suddenly came together to make an exact duplicate of the Earth except that everyone looks like Tom Cruise or Madona.

well even in a finite universe, or a looped universe the chances are high, the trouble is we just don't know how frequent life is, and how frequent it reaches out level, there should be billions of planets in our galaxy with life, but none of them get past multicellular stage for various reasons. Also as someone pointed out the problem of technology.

I think the biggest hurdle is the tech window. Now we don't know if it's possible but if FTL comunications are possible, we barly be able to detect that there might be a signal let alone understand it, so you could be trying to find a 100-500 year window where a civilization has the technology to send the kind of signals we can recieve, untill they vanish.

Also there is a problem I read about thats interesting wich is that while signals go on forever, they have a realistic limited range, like even our signals are going to difuse too much beyond a few hundred or so lightyears where you would need super intensive means of picking up the signals. Like right now were not looking for the alien equivalent of MSNBC, were looking for the carrier signal for the alien MSNBC because signals with actual data would likly be too faint to detect, but the carrier signal signifying that there is data there would be noticable, wich would then let us build more sensative listening devices to try to pick up the other signal.

 

[paulm50]

If you have been given personal proof that eternal life is real and that those who don't currently believe this truth are at risk of missing out, what would you do? I think you would do exactly what I'm doing, try to give those who don't believe a sound reason to believe and hope they will believe and pray they will receive eternal life(I don't have control over your eternity, only you make the choices that determine your eternity). I'm sacrificing my time in order to explain why my beliefs are based on sound reason and why you should also believe, but not blindly believe, believe because it makes sense, therefore, I believe what I do with the rest of my time on this finite earth is very important and this only supports my beliefs and my reasoning. So in essence the more you object to what I believe the stronger my beliefs become and the better my argument for my beliefs becomes.

If I had been given personal proof, I would believe. Have you been given this proof and if so how?

Tell me your sound reasonings, it might convince me.

A YT videos that has mere humans telling me to believe, isn't proof.

A spiritual experience, while being completely rational, not delusional. A real experience as real as reality can get.

Please elaborate.

 

[Chriliman]

Are a more basic level, you'd have to convince us that it makes sense to divide "truth" into two categories. How is "absolute truth" different from "truth"?

You're right, I see no distinction between absolute truth and truth, I believe truth is infinite and timeless. This infinite timeless truth encompasses all truth and leaves no room whatsoever for anything false. So it can easily be imagined that truth is eternal and anything included with that truth will then last forever as true.

Uhm... no, what you said is nonsense. If I am to believe that a claim is true in any sense of the word, the claim must be falsifiable. Falsifiable means that you can test it. If there is no test, there is no reason to believe the claim.

I think the term "falsifiable" gets used incorrectly. It actually means:

1. A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaningnot "to commit fraud" but "show to be false".

I'm saying infinite timeless truth would only ever be true and never be false. Can we agree that truth can be described in this way? Thereby agreeing that truth is not falsifiable? Because if truth were shown to be false this would obviously render the previously accepted truth as false. Meaning truth must be infinite and timeless, never being falsifiable? Do you agree?

You are not backing your claims with sound reason. You have not given any reason that I can see. Furthermore, I gave reasons why you are wrong: there is no reason to believe any claim that cannot be tested.

See above. If you think truth should always be falsifiable, then you think truth is meaningless in the end. Its reasonable and logical to believe that there must come a point in time where truth stands as true, nothing false about it. And after this point in time, onward would be forever true. In other words forever devoid of all falsity.

How do you know that your reasoning is sound? I think that it isn't, and history is filled with examples of wrong beliefs that were supported by what people at the time thought was "sound reasoning". The problem is that too often "sound reasoning" becomes an excuse for intuition, sloppy thinking and lack of imagination.

I know my reasoning is sound because I've defined truth in the only way it should ever be defined. Truth is infinite and timeless, no human can alter it, humans can only submit to truth.

This is an example of sloppy thinking. I happen to know about this because I am an astronomer and I am interested in alien life. (1) The Drake Equation is useless, trivial and only appears in TV shows. It has no predictive power because many of the terms are basically unknown. (2) The Fermi paradox could as well indicate that life is just rare, or maybe just that technological life is rare. We might be the first technological life in our galaxy.

All valid speculation, but thats all it is, speculation. This is why I firmly support the search for life, we should always search for the truth about our existence, but we should search with honest hearts.

And the irony is that you just demonstrated the problem with "sound reasoning". You are not qualified to judge whether your reasoning is sound. You may think that it is sound, but there may be errors in your logic or your information that you are not aware of. Everyone can be wrong. It is arrogant and wrong to put your own reasoning on a pedestal and claim that empirical evidence is not needed because your logic is so awesome.

I'm actually more qualified to judge my own reasoning that you are to judge my reasoning. Just like you're more qualified to judge your own reasoning than I am to judge your reasoning. However, human reasoning can only take us so far, it can never get us to infinite timeless truth. Only something beyond human reasoning can reveal infinite timeless truth. Obviously I believe this something is God and He is continually revealing infinite timeless truth through our finite experiences of time.

 

[paulm50]

we can barly see other planets, and barly tell if they MIGHT have life, it's a bit premature to say how many planets. There are planets/moons in our solar system that might have life, but untill we drill down into say Europa or dig down into mars and such we won't know for sure and these are things close enough to test. Short of them coming by to invade/drop in only way we might find life beyond your solar system in our life times, is finding a signal in the right band we can read.

Here's the contradictions.
A. If there is no life, why create so much that has no use?
B. If there is life, why wouldn't a god create other worlds with life?

A. The Big Bang theory without the need for a god supports there being no life out there and therefore no god. It would be pointless to create more than we need. However, there's a lot more than Jews needed, and a lot more than Christians need. And god seems happy to allow all the others to prosper. He gave most of the oil to the Muslims.

B. The above fits perfectly. God has no problem with picking a minor tribe who never amounted to much. Until the US helped them. Even sent his son to rescue those Jews from their wicked ways. Christianity would of fizzled out without Peter and Paul. So god is happy with lots of other people not following him, not believing in him and even fighting the people who do believe. He's always on the side of the "bigger and better equipped".

Whatever is proven, the believers will claim it as a sign there's a god.

 

[Winken]

I know my reasoning is sound because I've defined truth in the only way it should ever be defined. Truth is infinite and timeless, no human can alter it, humans can only submit to truth.......

However, human reasoning can only take us so far, it can never get us to infinite timeless truth. Only something beyond human reasoning can reveal infinite timeless truth. Obviously I believe this something is God and He is continually revealing infinite timeless truth through our finite experiences of time.

So why don't you just leave it alone? God IS. Faith IS. Destination IS. Eternity IS. I seem to recall something written, somewere, that went something like this:

"I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

Stick with it.

 

[oi_antz]

I am not going to look through the whole thread. But you have asked for help from an observer's POV, and I think I have an observation that you could find helpful:

Can anyone determine why my reasoning below with Davian is wrong?

The good news SHOULD be welcomed by those who seek...if it is not, that is a sign of your identity as not being of God. But that is okay, the poor in spirit, shall inherit the earth (return to it). Enjoy!

What is this "good news" that you allude to?

Jesus

This is cliche and probably you are assuming that Davian understands what this cliche means to you, when in fact he doesn't understand it the way you do.

I was at a church the other day, they did that slide "there is a chasm between God and man, which man tries to bridge with Philosophy, religion, good works, but man always fails. But, God has made a bridge: (Picture of the cross reaching from side to side and people walking across it)".

There were energetic people in the audience cheering over that. But do you know that none of the people in that church except the pastor demonstrated a working knowledge of the mechanism of salvation through Jesus Christ? Sure, there were people in that audience who had emotional gratitude etc, and who clearly have some real involvement with Him in their daily lives, but because there is so much rote belief in Christianity and lots of that is misled false doctrines, those who have real, genuine faith often believe things that aren't true! How can we expect a cliche like this to effectively communicate to someone who insists on discerning reliable truth, when the cliche most often does not represent reliable truth?

I would bet that every single regular of that church, if they were asked how it is that Jesus bridges the gap, would say something like "He died to pay for my sin, so my sins are forgiven and I can live in heaven when I die". Well as the pastor continued his sermon, a great sleep came over the place and I found myself subdued by it, and had to snap put of it to pay attention to what was being said. He started describing how sin is the chasm and when we sin we create that chasm, but I know that I probably was the only one (being a visitor in that church) who had recognized the darkness that had come over the place, so most people probably were enveloped by that darkness and not fully realizing the truth that was being said.

Please remember the scripture that says the god of the world has blinded those who cannot see, and remain patient with them (holy), as The Holy Spirit uses your words to break through that darkness. I know Davian will want to jeer at this, as I have encountered him before, and nothing I said to him appeared to break through that deception, seeing as I was not behaving in a holy manner.

Still the observation here is this: if you have an opportunity to share the gospel, then share it! Don't just say that Jesus is the Good News. That is like burying the talents He has entrusted to you.

 

[laurie2777]

If we don't go by the absolutes in the Bible..we have anarchy. That's how we know that the Bible is true. If you throw it out and go by man's rules, you have anarchy. Which is were we are now imo. Every time one (an absolute) is chiseled out and replaced with the opposite.. society gets crazier. People don't know what to believe or who to trust anymore. Used to when someone hit rock bottom..they knew to call on God..it wasn't questionable. Nowadays it's all about; does God exist or did we come from a big bang.. never mind where the material come from to create the explosion. Common since tells us we have a creator.. that something cannot come from nothing. For that to be the most important and most talked about issue in today's world shows us the battle between good and evil is waging stronger than ever before...

 

[jackcv]

It depends. How, exactly, could someone prove you wrong?

"For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:12)​

How does one falsify the knowledge of what salt tastes like? Can't. It is not arrived at logically, but experientially.
Likewise the existence and nature of God. "God unrevealed remains unknown." It is a mystery, in the biblical sense of the word, which never means something that cannot be understood.

"...stewards of the mysteries of God", "those entrusted with the mysteries God has revealed." (1 Cor 4:1)
"Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven." (Matt 16:17)​

When one has had a personal, unmistakable, personal interview with the Almighty, then one knows. Falsification is irrelevant. And our Father in heaven wants, invites that interview with each of us:

"'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me." (Rev 3:20)​

Why? For what purpose? The next verse tells us:

"To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne." (Rev 3:21)​

That is how this Mormon boy (member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) sees it.
Until one chooses to open the door, one faces a simple (I think) question: What do I love?
Does one love the concepts of meaningless existence and/or predatory evolution? All of the great world religions have the same root and trunk: there is a greater purpose, in fact enlightened being(s) who are full of love and power to save, and they want us to be likewise.
Since you don't know which is true, I recommend that each bets his/her life on what s/he loves.

 

[jackcv]

PS. Revelation almost always comes in answer to a question, and usually an urgent question. Not always, but most of the time.

 

[Davian]

Not sure why it is assumed by non-believers that it is the responsibility to "prove" God exists.

I am not asking for proof. I am asking if you have some means, even small, of demonstrating that this god of yours is not simply a character in a book.

Would it not be more that non-believer's "prove" God does not exist? They have a reason for their non-belief yet they cannot prove that God does not exist.

I do not know what you mean by "God". Is there anything that might show that your experiences are faulty? Are you infallible?

Let's say the non-believer is right.

Non-beleif is not a truth statement.

Let's surmise that there is no God and we are just kidding ourselves that the bible is real and the words are not true and it is just a fable told and retold. But during my life as a Christian I find goodness, unimaginable fulfillment and incredible peace. My personal relationships through my life are much richer and my love for life and others is so much more intense than it would be otherwise.

The placebo effect is well documented. That this belief gives you personal comfort does not make it an accurate description of reality.

Will I be embarrassed after I die to find out there is nothing there? How could I? In their logic there is nothing beyond life right? But what if they're wrong?

What if you have picked the wrong god?

Does it require faith to believe in God? Absolutely! But I believe it requires more faith to not believe in God.

What are you talking about? Do you need faith that extraterrestrial aliens are not going to abduct you tonight?

I say this based on what I have seen, what I now see, have experienced and experience every day as my relationship grows closer to Him and in Him.

Is this a two-way relationship? does it rise above chance and confirmation bias?

When I look at God's Word I see a perfect story, one of love, glory, honor and grace starting in Genesis and perfectly consistent through Revelation. 66 books written over thousands of years completely consistent both forward and back.

Or, it is not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

I honestly hate that the world has blinded so many people to such a glorious thing! All it takes is one tiny bit of honest personal introspection, just honestly asking the question.

Is that an accusation of dishonesty? Do you find that only honest people agree with you?

Are we too afraid of what our heart may find if we do?

Afraid of what? I dote over my wife, love my kids, work hard, and contribute to the community.

May it prove that we are all in need of a savior?

Knock Knock

• Davian
• Jan 1, 2015

That our self idolization is truly a dead end?

Your religious opinion, or "self-idolization"? Is that the only two options you see?

 

[Davian]

I agree and I definitely think we should continue searching for life. We should always search for the truth. However, based on how I believe God works, He'll reveal to many that He exists by the fact that we just can't find life elsewhere, other than the planet earth. This is just one way I believe He'll remove all excuses. If we somehow determine that we are the only intelligent life in the entire universe...that screams God!

Or, it just says that the universe is a big place, and we can only see so far.

Either way, if we do or don't find intelligent life or any life, it will make things interesting! Great time to be alive and know you have eternal life ahead of you!

How do you know this?

God is good! Amen?

 

[Davian]

Like I said, it isn't up to me to prove to you the existence of God, nor is it my responsibility to save your soul. All I can do is witness and pray. It is interesting to see how blind many are.

I cannot see this thing you talk about if you are only imagining it.

Apparently so angry

Are you using one of those mind-readiing hats I have seen on TV? It's just a hoax, you should know.

at whatever happened in their life that they can't, for one second, pull the chip of vanity off their own shoulder to see that there is more than what they see while falling in the rabbit hole.

What is this "more" that you allude to?

Time will prove this, though, but even then many will be so angry and selfish in their heart that they will battle against God just prior to bowing before Him.

Time? You don't have anything right now?

Truth is truth even if someone says it isn't.

I do not accept your religious opinion as truth.

I have banged my head against the wall for years trying to open the eyes of narcissistic atheists. It gets old hearing requests for "peer reviewed material" or names of contemporary writers during the time of Christ, when after offering them, without even a look at them they deny that they are legit. It gets too old. You sound like you have your argument response at the ready, perhaps pre-written and ready for pasting for a time like this.

It would be up to the religionists to develop new material.

My point isn't to argue but to hope that you are willing to see truth,

I do not accept you religious onion as truth.

not your hated assumed truth but truth based on the Word of God, the Word that proves itself perfectly.

Or, it doesn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Bible

There is no "peer reviewed document" or contemporary writer of any age that can compare to that written by God Himself.

Written by "God" or by men?

Trust me,

Trust is earned.

I know what your next argument will be and you can save your breath since this is my last response. I have done my due diligence in witnessing, now I will pray for you, dcarrerra, and all the other non-believers who feel it is their duty to try and discourage those who are trying to find love and fulfillment through God, through Yashewah, Jesus Christ.

Are you not here on a voluntary basis, in a forum not intended for this subject?