From Christian to Atheist. Your thoughts?

[Heatios]

I NEVER said original, but yes there are copies of the OT that go back further than you would guess. You come across pretty snarky, is that your intent?

I only come across snarky because you aren't used to people disagreeing with you. If I were being snarky, it would involve insults, demeaning posts, that's not what i'm doing, so I can't help the fact that the tone in which you read my posts is snarky, and you have chosen to accept that it is me being snarky, not simply the voice in your head while reading adopting a tone of its own.

There are some pretty old copies of the OT. There are some incredibly old copies of books in the world, the oldest book dates 3000 BCE, so I am not at all surprised in fact. As well, maybe if there were an original copy of the OT, I would be much more inclined to take the personal testimony as evidence, even though regardless it would still not amount to enough evidence required to justify believing in such an extraordinary claim.

I quote from Matt Dilahunty:

"The belief in a god that has an important message for mankind, that somehow only reveals himself to certain individuals who then write this down and thousands of years later after this initial revelation we have to rely on copies of copies of translations of copies by anonymous authors with no originals. And the textual testimony to a miracle for example the loaves and fishes there's no amount of reports anecdotal tesimonial reports that could be sufficient to justify believing that this event actually happened as reported, no amount. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this, and if he wanted to convey this information to people in a way that was believable would not be relying on text's to do so, and this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity.

The god that christians believe in is amazingly stupid if it wants to actually achieve its goal of spreading this information to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony. That's not a pathway to truth, and anything that would qualify for God should know this. Which means either that God doesn't exist, or doesn't care enough about those people who actually understand the nature of evidence to present it." - Matt Dillahunty

 

[farout]

I only come across snarky because you aren't used to people disagreeing with you. If I were being snarky, it would involve insults, demeaning posts, that's not what i'm doing, so I can't help the fact that the tone in which you read my posts is snarky, and you have chosen to accept that it is me being snarky, not simply the voice in your head while reading adopting a tone of its own.

There are some pretty old copies of the OT. There are some incredibly old copies of books in the world, the oldest book dates 3000 BCE, so I am not at all surprised in fact. As well, maybe if there were an original copy of the OT, I would be much more inclined to take the personal testimony as evidence, even though regardless it would still not amount to enough evidence required to justify believing in such an extraordinary claim.

I quote from Matt Dilahunty:

I certainly apologize for misreading your tone. But let me assure you I am completely used to people disagreeing with me, arguing, and standing in my to get their point across. I live with my wife, two daughter ages 28 and 45 and a 21 year old granddaughter. Let me tell you I don't stand a chance!

I have read articles like this many times before. I have learned that dialoguing with anyone that thinks this way, does not want to listen to what you have to say. Ever heard "don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up!" Heck it's not my intention to change anyone's mind, I am not fluent in my key board due to hand issues, to go on and on unless there is a sincere desire to know more fully to explorer a possibility there just might be a little bitty bit I do not know about God
and someone is really interested. I have very seldom is ever run into such a person. Oh that's all I can say. I am glad you posted again.

 

[Heatios]

I certainly apologize for misreading your tone. But let me assure you I am completely used to people disagreeing with me, arguing, and standing in my to get their point across. I live with my wife, two daughter ages 28 and 45 and a 21 year old granddaughter. Let me tell you I don't stand a chance!

I have read articles like this many times before. I have learned that dialoguing with anyone that thinks this way, does not want to listen to what you have to say. Ever heard "don't confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up!" Heck it's not my intention to change anyone's mind, I am not fluent in my key board due to hand issues, to go on and on unless there is a sincere desire to know more fully to explorer a possibility there just might be a little bitty bit I do not know about God
and someone is really interested. I have very seldom is ever run into such a person. Oh that's all I can say. I am glad you posted again.

I honestly don't understand what you think I said that ever professed "Don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up". Provide. Evidence. That simple. You have not provided facts. I gave you a link with no relation to the bible and you somehow turned it in to something that was disproving god, in some way. I'm glad you posted, you've simply replied laughing, in the most ironic and hypocritical manner, saying that I am the one who isn't relying on facts, while failing to provide them, and failing to even make an argument as to why I am wrong or Matt is wrong, if you've never met someone such as my self, you have never met someone who disagrees with you.

Laugh all you want, pretend as though you've won, it doesn't make your claim any more valid, no matter how many times you manage to convince yourself it is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So I want to start a discussion about religion and more in depth Christianity.
I want to first start by saying that I'm an Atheist but that wasn't always the case. I was born in to a Christian family and for most of my childhood and early teens I was. That was until I started studying science.
What I don't like about religion is the fact that it makes no room for questions, when I was a school it was "don't ask how Noah built the ark just accept that he did" and if I did question the church I would get in trouble.

I guess my real question is how people can blindly(faith) follow a book that was written 4000 years ago but just ignore facts and common sense?

(Sorry about the grammar I like science not English)

Hello Aussie,

While I sympathize with your wanting to question whatever form of Christian faith you are familiar with, and to challenge the frustration you feel with Christians who try to close down investigation, I don't see why science has to get in the way of faith. It didn't for me ...

In my evaluation, people who attach themselves to the Christian faith are only as blind as they choose to be. Blindness is not a religious mandate, nor is it a goal recommended by the New Testament writers.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Heatios]

Hello Aussie,

While I sympathize with your wanting to question whatever form of Christian faith you are familiar with, and to challenge the frustration you feel with Christians who try to close down investigation, I don't see why science has to get in the way of faith. It didn't for me ...

In my evaluation, people who attach themselves to the Christian faith are only as blind as they choose to be. Blindness is not a religious mandate, nor is it a goal recommended by the New Testament writers.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

I can agree with this, that a christian can very much believe, whilst not rejecting science in some sense. However that being said, there is some line that they make along the way, they may not know this, but subconsiously they will draw a line somewhere and decide to reject science on that front. The Science simply does not support the argument, and even though you may claim to accept science, that may be true largely, however at some point or another in order to arrive at the belief you have, you must have rejected some claim, or some scientific evidence, because the conclusion that science arrives at differs wildly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can agree with this, that a christian can very much believe, whilst not rejecting science in some sense. However that being said, there is some line that they make along the way, they may not know this, but subconsiously they will draw a line somewhere and decide to reject science on that front. The Science simply does not support the argument, and even though you may claim to accept science, that may be true largely, however at some point or another in order to arrive at the belief you have, you must have rejected some claim, or some scientific evidence, because the conclusion that science arrives at differs wildly.

Well, I can see that you're a perceptive young man, and fully aware of the possible philosophical collisions that can, and often do, exist between science and Christian faith, but I can't really think of any specific science that I've "rejected." However, maybe I'm not clear as to what constitute the specific "drawn lines" you are referring to here. Care to explain this just a little more for me?

2PhiloVoid

 

[Heatios]

Well, I can see that you're a perceptive young man, and fully aware of the possible philosophical collisions that can, and often do, exist between science and Christian faith, but I can't really think of any specific science that I've "rejected." However, maybe I'm not clear as to what constitute the specific "drawn lines" you are referring to here. Care to explain this just a little more for me?

2PhiloVoid

I.E: Denying evolution because the bible doesn't agree with the theory, even though it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

There are some archaeological things as well that don't add up, to which evolution may seem like a big rejection in contrast, but there is almost always some line drawn, where science points one way but you are inclined to believe the opposite either because you want to or because you are told to.

You seem to have a very liberal POV for a Christian though, which I respect greatly.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I.E: Denying evolution because the bible doesn't agree with the theory, even though it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Thank you, Heat, for the clarification! You're right. A common approach to defusing the power of science among Christians involves the denial of evolution, but I'll be the first in line to admit that this approach typically doesn't satisfy the intellect. Fortunately, there are other routes to affirm the value of biblical faith, and that without necessarily scuffing the virtues of science.

There are some archaeological things as well that don't add up, to which evolution may seem like a big rejection in contrast, but there is almost always some line drawn, where science points one way but you are inclined to believe the opposite either because you want to or because you are told to.

Yes, these can be a couple of the reasons why; but the consideration as to why people commit to faith--despite the scientific evidence--isn't exhausted by the explanations of personal desire, or submission to indoctrination.

You seem to have a very liberal POV for a Christian though, which I respect greatly.

Good observation, Heat. Yes, my background is in philosophy and social science, so I like to describe myself as one who takes a more philosophically "expansive" view of biblical faith, one that doesn't have to begin with the usual premises and is able to assume evolution from the start.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Hospes]

I never came to the conclusion there is no god, please don't be so ignorant. Agnosticism and Atheism answer two SEPARATE questions. Agnosticism is a question of what you know, atheism is a question of what you believe. I am an agnostic atheist, as well as a large majority of the community who identify as atheists are. Do I know god does not exist? No, nobody can know that, that's silly. However, do I actively believe that a god exists? No, I don't. Therefore, because I don't know, and don't actively believe, I am an agnostic atheist.

Hey bud, NOBODY'S CLAIMING THERE IS NO GOD. CHECK YOUR DEFINITIONS.

Please be patient with my ignorance and help me dispel some of it: if I understand you correctly, you do not know if there is a God, but believe he does not exist. Is this belief then an atheistic step of faith of some sort? In my ignorance I am struggling to see the rational thought necessary to not know if something exists while believing it does not exist. How do you know something and not believe it or not know something and disbelieve it? Trying to understand such thinking makes my silly mind swim!

 

[Heatios]

Please be patient with my ignorance and help me dispel some of it: if I understand you correctly, you do not know if there is a God, but believe he does not exist. Is this belief then an atheistic step of faith of some sort? In my ignorance I am struggling to see the rational thought necessary to not know if something exists while believing it does not exist. How do you know something and not believe it or not know something and disbelieve it? Trying to understand such thinking makes my silly mind swim!

No you've still made a mistake.

I am an agnostic, meaning I do not know if a god could or could not exist, because the only way to do that would be ruling out every other possibility, nearly impossible, and nobody can know for sure. However, I am an Atheist, meaning I do not actively believe in a god, do not confuse this with disbelieving in gods because that would be ignosticism, I simply have no active belief in god, as in I do not currently believe it to be true, and at the same time don't believe it to be false, I just do not hold a belief that one exists as of right now.

I don't know if there's an example I could give to better explain it. It's not that I believe that it's 50/50 whether or not a god could exist, I believe the evidence points toward one not existing, but that's not the question atheism addresses. Basically what makes me an atheist is simply that I do not actively live my life with a belief that god exists, nor do I live my life with a belief that one does not exist.


Also I want to point out something. Religion is different from the concept of god. I can actively believe a religion to be false, whilst at the same time not actively believing god to be false.

 

[KWCrazy]

I want to first start by saying that I'm an Atheist but that wasn't always the case. I was born in to a Christian family and for most of my childhood and early teens I was. That was until I started studying science.

I have a bit of a problem with your opening. Being born into a Christian family and going to church 5 times per week does not make you a Christian. Teaching Sunday school doesn't make you a Christian. The only thing that makes you a Christian is confessing your sins to the Lord, asking for Jesus to be your Lord and Savior, and giving your life to the Lord. If you ever had the indwelling of the Holy Spirit then you had a personal connection to God. It is logically impossible to later disavow His existence. If you did not, then how would logically say the you were a Christian? Being bombarded by religious instruction and not accepting does not make you a disciple of Christ.

What I don't like about religion is the fact that it makes no room for questions,

Not at all. All thinking people ask questions. Maybe you just didn't have people around you who liked what you were asking.

when I was a school it was "don't ask how Noah built the ark just accept that he did" and if I did question the church I would get in trouble.

I was fortunate enough to have a pastor who welcomed questions.

I guess my real question is how people can blindly(faith) follow a book that was written 4000 years ago but just ignore facts and common sense?

We don't. We follow a very real Jesus Christ who died for our sins, rose again from the grave and who now sits at the right hand of the Father. Common sense? Where's your evidence?

 

[Heatios]

We don't. We follow a very real Jesus Christ who died for our sins, rose again from the grave and who now sits at the right hand of the Father. Common sense? Where's your evidence?

Same thing as blind faith. You are simply making an unsupported assertion.

 

[KWCrazy]

A common approach to defusing the power of science among Christians involves the denial of evolution, but I'll be the first in line to admit that this approach typically doesn't satisfy the intellect. Fortunately, there are other routes to affirm the value of biblical faith, and that without necessarily scuffing the virtues of science.

We also deny that the rocky mountains are made of peanut butter and that the ocean is actually strawberry Jello; things which are obviously false. Genetic mutations cannot and do not cause increasing complexity. Science proved this by irradiating fruit flies for tens of thousands of generations. The only thing they were able to produce is messed up fruit flies which reverted to their original form in subsequent generations once the radiation was removed. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that even under conditions that could never have happened under carefully orchestrated procedures that amino acids couldn't randomly form a single protein, let alone the sequence of left handed proteins needed to create the simplest of living things. So an understanding of science confirms that life could neither begin nor advance without external direction; in this case from the Lord.

Science, properly understood, compliments religion. It does not and cannot contradict it because science is the study of the natural world and religion is the study of the supernatural world. Science can no more disprove the Bible than biology could contradict cosmology. Yes, we know creating the universe in six days violates natural law. The difference is that we believe in an authority much higher than natural law.

 

[KWCrazy]

Same thing as blind faith. You are simply making an unsupported assertion.

Absolutely untrue.
If I told you I had a friend named Bill you could believe me or not.
If you met Bill, ate dinner with him, went to his house, spent your days with him and talked with him on a regular basis then you would know that Bill was real. If someone then told you that Bill's existence was an unsupported assertion, what would you think?

In the old covenant God regularly proved His existence to man. It was much more difficult for man to find favor with the Lord and it required the sacrifice of something they could barely afford to lose. In the New Covenant the only requirement is faith. Because faith is the key to salvation and because faith is the belief in the things unproven, were God to prove Himself to you it would be impossible for you to have that faith. That said, faith is hard; especially when others challenge it on a daily basis. It's easy for people to sew the seeds of doubt, especially if you are less than diligent in your devotions to the Lord. We all know that much of what is written in the Scriptures violate natural law. Some of us submit to a higher law. Some do not.

 

[Heatios]

We also deny that the rocky mountains are made of peanut butter and that the ocean is actually strawberry Jello; things which are obviously false. Genetic mutations cannot and do not cause increasing complexity. Science proved this by irradiating fruit flies for tens of thousands of generations. The only thing they were able to produce is messed up fruit flies which reverted to their original form in subsequent generations once the radiation was removed. The Miller-Urey experiments proved that even under conditions that could never have happened under carefully orchestrated procedures that amino acids couldn't randomly form a single protein, let alone the sequence of left handed proteins needed to create the simplest of living things. So an understanding of science confirms that life could neither begin nor advance without external direction; in this case from the Lord.

Science, properly understood, compliments religion. It does not and cannot contradict it because science is the study of the natural world and religion is the study of the supernatural world. Science can no more disprove the Bible than biology could contradict cosmology. Yes, we know creating the universe in six days violates natural law. The difference is that we believe in an authority much higher than natural law.

Argument from complexity is flawed.
If you are going to argue that because the universe is so complex it had to have a creator, the creator must have been much more complex to create a complex universe and still exist in his own complex self. So if we say all complex things must have a creator, the creator who is much more complex must also have a creator, and then that creator must have a creator, it becomes infinite regression.

The truth is we don't know, and probably never will. The chance of "God" coming from nothing, is more implausible than a universe coming from nothing, so you are not answering a question but proposing a bigger one.

Absolutely untrue.
If I told you I had a friend named Bill you could believe me or not.
If you met Bill, ate dinner with him, went to his house, spent your days with him and talked with him on a regular basis then you would know that Bill was real. If someone then told you that Bill's existence was an unsupported assertion, what would you think?

In the old covenant God regularly proved His existence to man. It was much more difficult for man to find favor with the Lord and it required the sacrifice of something they could barely afford to lose. In the New Covenant the only requirement is faith. Because faith is the key to salvation and because faith is the belief in the things unproven, were God to prove Himself to you it would be impossible for you to have that faith. That said, faith is hard; especially when others challenge it on a daily basis. It's easy for people to sew the seeds of doubt, especially if you are less than diligent in your devotions to the Lord. We all know that much of what is written in the Scriptures violate natural law. Some of us submit to a higher law. Some do not.

You are making an invalid comparison and irrelevant conclusion. If I went to Bill's house and ate dinner with him in person, and could see him as well eating dinner with me, confirming the constant of both realities, spent my days with him in person, talked to him, yes I would think he was real.

However this is nonsense to say that going to church is eating with christ, you get that from a book which you blindly believe, you do not talk with him, speak with him, he is not physical, he is not distinguishable from simply talking to an inanimate object thinking in your head you can hear him. Bill is. You have not even remotely demonstrated Jesus to be real.

Let me give you a little hypothetical shall we?
Say there's a person for example, who lives in the house next to yours. Now this person isn't ordinary you see, he believes he is Elvis Presley. He truly, in his heart of hearts, believes with all his might that he is Elvis, he is not trying to convince himself that he is Elvis, he knows he is. You can go to him and say he is not Elvis, but he will consistently deny it as if you have no evidence, he also claims the death was a lie, he claims this is really him and you can't prove it isn't. However, does this make him Elvis Presley? No it does not.

You see, subjective truths have no business in effort to find an objective truth. Just like the man who thinks he's elvis, the fact you think you are speaking and talking to Jesus, spending time, and eating with him, does not mean you are actually talking to Jesus in the slightest NOR does it mean it is true in any way shape or form.


What you have done is you have attempted to give a subjective argument and pass it off as an objective one, where you have provided NO objective evidence, and NOTHING that would make your claims any more valid. Claiming that you have just made some huge revelation or have proven anything is intellectual dishonesty to the highest degree.

 

[Hospes]

No you've still made a mistake.

I am an agnostic, meaning I do not know if a god could or could not exist, because the only way to do that would be ruling out every other possibility, nearly impossible, and nobody can know for sure. However, I am an Atheist, meaning I do not actively believe in a god, do not confuse this with disbelieving in gods because that would be ignosticism, I simply have no active belief in god, as in I do not currently believe it to be true, and at the same time don't believe it to be false, I just do not hold a belief that one exists as of right now.

I don't know if there's an example I could give to better explain it. It's not that I believe that it's 50/50 whether or not a god could exist, I believe the evidence points toward one not existing, but that's not the question atheism addresses. Basically what makes me an atheist is simply that I do not actively live my life with a belief that god exists, nor do I live my life with a belief that one does not exist.

(I know some of my questions have been tongue-in-cheek. This one is not.) Does this analogy work for you: before rolling dice, you do not know if upon rolling they will come up with a specific value. Nonetheless, you choose to believe and act on the results of the roll being seven.

Regardless if my analogy works, it seems your missionary zeal for encouraging the OP to hold fast to atheism is incongruent with not knowing "if a god could or could not exist." Also, why be so adamant at trying to dispel a person's belief in God if you yourself are not certain he does not exist?

 

[KWCrazy]

Argument from complexity is flawed.
If you are going to argue that because the universe is so complex it had to have a creator, the creator must have been much more complex to create a complex universe and still exist in his own complex self.

We know from the second law of thermodynamics that the universe is winding down; that energy will continue to flow from hot to cold until the universe is a giant soup of unusable energy. Thus we know it will have and end. It is not infinite.

From the first law of thermodynamics we know that the spontaneous creation of everything from nothing is impossible. Since the universe has an end it had to have a beginning, and that beginning is disallowed by the fact that energy or matter cannot be created under natural law. To claim that the universe could have come into being without a creator demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic physics. The first law of thermodynamics demands an external source for the origination of the universe.

From the third law of thermodynamics we know that in the event of absolute zero; the absence of any heat producing energy, no activity occurs. So if you start with nothing you will still have nothing a hundred trillion years later. Adding time to an equation may alter probability but it can't erase the fact that if there is no provision for something happening in science then it cannot happen scientifically. All scientific theories of origination share the same commonality; they are not possible.

The truth is we don't know, and probably never will.

Speak for yourself. Millions of us know because the Creator of the universe told us very specifically how He did it. The difference between God's description of creation and all the "scientific" theories is that only God offers a method of creation consistent with natural law. He supersedes it.

The chance of "God" coming from nothing, is more implausible than a universe coming from nothing, so you are not answering a question but proposing a bigger one.

Nope. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it must be eternal. Unlike the universe, God has no increasing entropy and nothing erodes His power. Beyond that, by definition God is supernatural and not by any way bound by the physical laws of the world He created.

If I went to Bill's house and ate dinner with him in person, and could see him as well eating dinner with me, confirming the constant of both realities, spent my days with him in person, talked to him, yes I would think he was real.

Your eyes don't see reality, they gather reflected light. Your ears gather sound waves. You brain determines what it considers reality. To those who have known the presence of God, He is as real as if our eyes and ears had confirmed it. The Lord communicates to His own, but He doesn't prove Himself to unbelievers for reasons previously stated. Fortunately, there is no shortage of people who have seen and experienced things which have no logical explanation with our understanding of natural law.

However this is nonsense to say that going to church is eating with christ,

Good, because nobody said that.
Eating with Christ means asking His blessing before a meal and inviting him into your home.

you get that from a book which you blindly believe,

Respectfully, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

you do not talk with him, speak with him, he is not physical, he is not distinguishable from simply talking to an inanimate object thinking in your head you can hear him.

Respectfully, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You have not even remotely demonstrated Jesus to be real.

Nor have I made such an attempt.

Let me give you a little hypothetical shall we?
Say there's a person for example, who lives in the house next to yours. Now this person isn't ordinary you see, he believes he is Elvis Presley. He truly, in his heart of hearts, believes with all his might that he is Elvis, he is not trying to convince himself that he is Elvis, he knows he is. You can go to him and say he is not Elvis, but he will consistently deny it as if you have no evidence, he also claims the death was a lie, he claims this is really him and you can't prove it isn't. However, does this make him Elvis Presley? No it does not.

Fortunately, the King of Kings is not deluded into thinking he's the king.
Your commentary from ignorance is uninspiring and anecdotal.
Jesus, you see, is still changing lives. Beyond that, He is readily found by any who seek Him. Closing your mind and saying He doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance. Millions know otherwise.
Your belief that our world is controlled purely by natural, physical laws is another exercise in projected ignorance. Again, millions have seen and experienced thing which defy natural explanation. Millions have experience the presence of the Lord and have felt His peace in their lives. Millions have overcome addictions or other destructive behaviors by reaching out to Christ. On this website alone people have posted personal experiences with miracles or supernatural encounters.

My challenge remains out there, and as yet none of the "enlightened" atheists who post on this web site have dared to take it up. That challenge is this: seek out a clergyman with at least 20 years of experience, sit down with him and ask him to tell you what he has seen. Personally, I could look you in the eyes and tell you things that would keep you awake at night and challenge your perception of what is truly real in this world. That can't be done with words on a page. So go find a clergyman of your choice and talk with him. I have to warn you, though. My brother, who was a hate filled bigot who despised the very thought of God tried to "enlighten" a black minister about how stupid religion was. He became a deacon in the church and today resides in Heaven. Nobody but the Lord could make such a change in such a hate filled person. The day he died he walked two miles in 90+ degree heat to get groceries for an elderly black woman who could only get around with a wheelchair.

No God? Please! Your denial of the obvious is laughable.

 

[Heatios]

We know from the second law of thermodynamics that the universe is winding down; that energy will continue to flow from hot to cold until the universe is a giant soup of unusable energy. Thus we know it will have and end. It is not infinite.

From the first law of thermodynamics we know that the spontaneous creation of everything from nothing is impossible. Since the universe has an end it had to have a beginning, and that beginning is disallowed by the fact that energy or matter cannot be created under natural law. To claim that the universe could have come into being without a creator demonstrates a lack of understanding of basic physics. The first law of thermodynamics demands an external source for the origination of the universe.

From the third law of thermodynamics we know that in the event of absolute zero; the absence of any heat producing energy, no activity occurs. So if you start with nothing you will still have nothing a hundred trillion years later. Adding time to an equation may alter probability but it can't erase the fact that if there is no provision for something happening in science then it cannot happen scientifically. All scientific theories of origination share the same commonality; they are not possible.

Speak for yourself. Millions of us know because the Creator of the universe told us very specifically how He did it. The difference between God's description of creation and all the "scientific" theories is that only God offers a method of creation consistent with natural law. He supersedes it.

Nope. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Therefore it must be eternal. Unlike the universe, God has no increasing entropy and nothing erodes His power. Beyond that, by definition God is supernatural and not by any way bound by the physical laws of the world He created.

Your eyes don't see reality, they gather reflected light. Your ears gather sound waves. You brain determines what it considers reality. To those who have known the presence of God, He is as real as if our eyes and ears had confirmed it. The Lord communicates to His own, but He doesn't prove Himself to unbelievers for reasons previously stated. Fortunately, there is no shortage of people who have seen and experienced things which have no logical explanation with our understanding of natural law.

Good, because nobody said that.
Eating with Christ means asking His blessing before a meal and inviting him into your home.

Respectfully, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Respectfully, you don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Nor have I made such an attempt.

Fortunately, the King of Kings is not deluded into thinking he's the king.
Your commentary from ignorance is uninspiring and anecdotal.
Jesus, you see, is still changing lives. Beyond that, He is readily found by any who seek Him. Closing your mind and saying He doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance. Millions know otherwise.
Your belief that our world is controlled purely by natural, physical laws is another exercise in projected ignorance. Again, millions have seen and experienced thing which defy natural explanation. Millions have experience the presence of the Lord and have felt His peace in their lives. Millions have overcome addictions or other destructive behaviors by reaching out to Christ. On this website alone people have posted personal experiences with miracles or supernatural encounters.

My challenge remains out there, and as yet none of the "enlightened" atheists who post on this web site have dared to take it up. That challenge is this: seek out a clergyman with at least 20 years of experience, sit down with him and ask him to tell you what he has seen. Personally, I could look you in the eyes and tell you things that would keep you awake at night and challenge your perception of what is truly real in this world. That can't be done with words on a page. So go find a clergyman of your choice and talk with him. I have to warn you, though. My brother, who was a hate filled bigot who despised the very thought of God tried to "enlighten" a black minister about how stupid religion was. He became a deacon in the church and today resides in Heaven. Nobody but the Lord could make such a change in such a hate filled person. The day he died he walked two miles in 90+ degree heat to get groceries for an elderly black woman who could only get around with a wheelchair.

No God? Please! Your denial of the obvious is laughable.

Your emotional pandering is still simply and utterly an argument from ignorance/incredulity, and chalk full of non-sequitor's.

 

[Heatios]

(I know some of my questions have been tongue-in-cheek. This one is not.) Does this analogy work for you: before rolling dice, you do not know if upon rolling they will come up with a specific value. Nonetheless, you choose to believe and act on the results of the roll being seven.

Regardless if my analogy works, it seems your missionary zeal for encouraging the OP to hold fast to atheism is incongruent with not knowing "if a god could or could not exist." Also, why be so adamant at trying to dispel a person's belief in God if you yourself are not certain he does not exist?

No, the analogy is flawed. If you roll a dice you know it will produce a number, you may not know for sure, but you know, and have no reason to believe a single number over another. With the universe however, we don't know if it is result of god for sure, we don't have any inclination to believe it is based on the fact that we have no other universe's to use for comparison, and so we have no reason to believe god exists or any one claim god exists over another.

You seem to be really trying hard to discredit my position.

I did not encourage the OP to hold atheism, read it again, I encouraged him to hold the position he arrives at after questioning, and figuring it out for himself. I specifically said that if the conclusion he arrives at is god, that's fine, but the most important thing is to care enough about your beliefs to research them, and know what they are based on, instead of just taking it on blind faith, because that is never a pathway to truth.

 

[KWCrazy]

Your emotional pandering is still simply and utterly an argument from ignorance/incredulity, and chalk full of non-sequitor's.

You're the one who seems unable to understand the very science you espouse to reign dominant. The fact is, on matters of origination the only truthful scientific answer is, "We don't know"