| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jason Gastrich" |
| Date: |
29 Dec 2004 01:56:12 AM |
| Object: |
Evidence of God's Existence |
Evidence of God's Existence
Dear Readers,
I hope you're well, today.
Over the past 24 hours, I had several people from alt.atheism ask me to
present an argument for God's existence. This is why I'm posting this
message. I'm happy to give a logical argument for them and for anyone else
who is interested.
The points I'm going to make will be taken from my debate with Dr. Eddie
Tabash. This debate took place on 9-11-2004. We debated for over 2 hours in
San Diego, California. This debate is freely available in video and audio
formats at http://debates.jcsm.org .
There are five major points and several sub-points in the evidence that I'll
be presenting. For brevity's sake, I won't be elaborating too much on them.
If you have follow-up questions, then either ask them or consult the audio
debate. It was a lengthy debate with opening arguments, a cross-examination
section, questions from the audience, and closing remarks.
1. The Inerrant Bible
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true. I've written a full and
complete rebuttal to the exhaustive atheist commentary. The commentary is
called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com) and
my rebuttal is called The Skeptic's Annotated Bible: Corrected and Explained
(http://skepticsannotatedbible.org ).
In my rebuttal, I found reasonable and logical explanations for every
single, alleged error in the Bible. Now, I conclude that the Bible is a book
without error. The unverifiable claims can be counted as true by nothing
more than reason or "informed faith."
Fulfilled, biblical prophecy is another authenticator of the scriptures and
of God's existence. For instance, there are numerous Messianic prophecies
that Jesus Christ fulfilled. These can be seen at http://fmp.jcsm.org .
Daniel 9 is a prophetic chapter of the Bible. Those scriptures give us a
mathematical prophecy regarding the day Jesus would enter Jerusalem. You can
see these here: http://daniel9.jcsm.org .
There is an awesome prophecy in Isaiah 53. It describes things hundreds of
years in advance that would happen to Jesus Christ. You can see about this
here: http://www.jcsm.org/biblelessons/Isaiah53.htm .
For more on prophecy, see our prophecy section at
http://www.jcsm.org/BibleLessons.htm#Pro
I know that people have mixed feelings about pasting large amounts of
information (albeit the links above are my original pages) vs. giving links
to the information. If anyone wants me to paste my research from any of my
links into the newsgroup, just let me know. I'd be happy to do it.
Additionally, the Bible is phenomenally unique. Some say that you cannot use
the Bible to support the Bible. However, the Bible was written by 40 people
over thousands of years, in several continents. If a scripture written
before Christ tells us that something will happen much later and a scripture
after Christ tells us that it did happen, then we have fantastic proof of
fulfilled prophecy, God's existence, and the Bible's authenticity.
Here is a page on the Bible's uniqueness. Link:
http://jcsm.org/biblelessons/BibleisUnique.htm .
2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.
I've been saved for over 23 years. When I was 7, I repented from my sins and
believed, trusted, and accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior.
Over the past 23 years, I have cultivated a relationship with the biblical
God. He leads me and directs me. I seek Him for help and for answers. He
blesses me and I bless Him.
I've done miracles in Jesus' name. These miracles include things such as:
a. When I was 26, I began getting eyestrain headaches. My head hurt all the
time, so I went to an eye doctor and she said I needed glasses. I got
glasses and the pains went away.
A few days later, I prayed to God that the pains would leave me for good and
they did. I removed the glasses and never wore them, again. I'm 30 years old
now and I haven't worn glasses since that prayer. I haven't gotten those
headaches, either.
b. When I was playing worship and praying for my college and career Bible
study group in Oceanside, a girl with throat lesions was present. She had
suffered from bulimia and her throat had been seriously burned from stomach
acids. As she was praying and singing, she was healed.
c. At my gym in Escondido, there was a maintenance guy who suffered from
seizures. One day, I asked him if I could lay hands on him and pray that
they would go away. He obliged and I did and he never got the seizures,
again.
In addition to these miracles, I've been given personal testimony regarding
miracles and supernatural things from people that I trust; from people that
had no reason to deceive me. These people include pastors, friends,
missionaries, etc. These things include healing deafness, casting out
demons, etc.
3. The evidence for creation and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes
in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.
For instance, where did the "stuff" come from in the Big Bang? Where did
matter originate?
The Bible gives us the answer to this question. God created it.
Where are the numerous transitional fossils that should be present? How can
you tell if a transitional fossil is an intermediate species or simply an
extinct, created species? When you dig it up, you can't tell much more than
that it died. You surely can't tell that it had offspring unlike itself. Yet
this would be required for it to be a legitimate transitional species.
The fossil record doesn't support evolutionism. It supports the Genesis
account of creation. There should be far more fossils and transitionals if
Darwin's theory was true. He even said so before his death.
The atheist's mantra is, "Give it enough time and anything can happen."
Whenever you hear that phrase, "billions and billions of years," picture the
evolutionists' magic wand. They don't like to call their world view what it
is, but it's called faith. They are making statements about the distant,
unobservable past and they are little more than faith-filled guesses based
on assumptions like everything has always decayed at a constant rate.
Do you honestly think that secular scientists can be objective? Consider
their indoctrination.
A boy goes to elementary school and learns about ONLY the theory of
evolution. He continues into middle school and learns the same. He graduates
and attends high school and continues to learn ONLY evolutionary theory.
Afterwards, he goes to college and is further indoctrinated with
evolutionism. He also attends graduate school and does post-graduate
studies - all the while - studying evolutionism and being taught that it is
a fact.
These are the kinds of people that some look to for objective truth
regarding our origins and the origin of species. Can these people really be
trusted to think openly and honestly?
The indoctrinated evolutionist gets no raises or accolades for suddenly
proposing creationist theories. In fact, he or she gets laughed at, scorned,
and perhaps even fired for simply thinking openly about these things.
Some same the scientists at creation institutes like Answers in Genesis are
not doing real science because they sign a statement regarding their belief
in a young earth. No matter how much you think that they can't think openly,
the indoctrinated evolutionist that I just described cannot think any more
clearly.
There is all kind of evidence for creation. There are all kinds of
indicators that the Earth is young. If you haven't spent some time at
Answers in Genesis, then I suggest you do. This organization has scientists
with secular degrees that write in peer-reviewed journals. They know
evolutionary theory quite well and they reject it.
AIG's scientists know that God exists and that the Earth is young. I'm not a
scientist, but if you ever gave me a scientific argument, I would research
it with them. Furthermore, their words must be more authoritative than any
pop-scientist at talk.origins or the like. Writing in peer-reviewed journals
is the benchmark for real science and we all know that talk.origins has no
such benchmark.
I host and direct a site called Young Earth Creation Science -
http://yecs.org . If you'd like to see some arguments for creation, please
go there and you'll see hundreds.
4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.
Atheists tend to tell people what is right and wrong. How did they know? How
can they be so automatically certain that certain things are wrong?
God has given all people a conscious and ingrained inside of us certain
truths. It is these objective truths that people can automatically sense.
I attest to you that atheists will use terms like logic and reason, but they
will not be able to tell us where they originated. I will tell you today
where they originated. They came from God.
The very reasoning that tell us certain things are right and certain things
are wrong came from the biblical God. Without Him, these things would not be
universally known and understood.
Without an objective source of morality, you are left with subjective
morality. As you know, subjective morality allows people to change "truth"
and make it whatever they wish based on their feelings and biases. Is this
really truth?
With God's inerrant Word, we have an objective source of truth that has
stood the test of time. It has been proven to be true. It cannot be changed.
This concludes my argument for God's existence. If you wish to contact me
directly, please use the form at http://jcsm.org/contact.php . I'd be happy
to field questions via email and through the newsgroup.
Now, please don't forget that I was asked to make this post. Several people
told me I should post an argument for God's existence, so I did. I hope I'm
not accused of preaching or belittled. I may be just like you. My criteria
for evidence has simply been met when it comes to the existence of God and I
'm happy to share the above with you.
Space and time don't allow everything God has done for me or through me.
Perhaps I'll be able to write more at a later time.
I'm just a sinner saved by God's grace. I'm not perfect or holier than
everyone. I make mistakes and I need God's forgiveness.
The difference between me and the atheist isn't necessarily my "goodness."
It's my "forgiveness." I've been forgiven by God because I've humbly
approached Him, confessed my sins, and believed in Jesus Christ. If you wish
to know more about the gospel message, we have it in audio and text formats
on our web site. See http://gospel.jcsm.org .
Lastly, I wish I could give everyone that responds a lengthy, personal
response or a point by point message that addresses every single thing said.
I want nothing more for you to have the same hope and joy that I have inside
of me. However, based on the number of responses I receive, I may be unable
to do so. I pray for your understanding and I hope to respond to everyone I
can. Incidentally, those that don't curse and swear at me will get my
respect and cause me to want to hurry and write back.
May God richly bless you.
Sincerely,
Jason Gastrich
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free
indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ
has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
01 Jan 2005 04:34:04 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:24:45 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000 (UTC), "Jason
Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Evidence of God's Existence
[
]
Yep. That's about it: a whole lotta nothing.
There is no evidence of "gawd", Jason. You can't even coherently
define "gawd" for us, so how do you expect us to believe something
exists that makes no sense! A being that exists apart from the
universe? Ludicrous! That same being created the universe? Impossible!
Who said I can't define God?
I said you can't define it coherently.
Who asked for a definition of God?
I did.
God is the unseen Creator
Begged question. You have not shown that god exists for which to
create anything.
who lives in Heaven.
Begged question. You have not established that heaven exists.
He speaks to His people and
sustains all things.
Begged question: you have not established that god exists in
order to speak to people and you have not shown that god is required
to sustain things.
He has no body.
A being with no body? Impossible.
He exists in three persons: God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
One being as 3 persons? Not unless god is schizo.
So, your definition is, as I said, incoherent.
Here's your job, Jason: show that something can exist apart from
the universe and that causality means something apart from the
universe. You cannot say "Well, humans were created, therefore the
universe was." That's the fallacy of composition. You cannot appeal to
anything in the universe. You need an entirely new ontology.
And you don't have one.
Sucks to be you, Jason.
I do not try to scientifically prove God.
Then you have no case.
However, I do prove God's
existence through other means.
No, you don't.
Now show what I asked for, Jason. Give me the ontology of
existence apart from the universe. Show me that causality applies to
the universe itself.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
30 Dec 2004 04:01:52 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:24:45 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000 (UTC), "Jason
Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Evidence of God's Existence
[
]
Yep. That's about it: a whole lotta nothing.
There is no evidence of "gawd", Jason. You can't even coherently
define "gawd" for us, so how do you expect us to believe something
exists that makes no sense! A being that exists apart from the
universe? Ludicrous! That same being created the universe? Impossible!
Who said I can't define God? Who asked for a definition of God?
God is the unseen Creator who lives in Heaven. He speaks to His people and
sustains all things. He has no body. He exists in three persons: God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Can you say; "begging the question?" Didn't think so.
Here's your job, Jason: show that something can exist apart from
the universe and that causality means something apart from the
universe. You cannot say "Well, humans were created, therefore the
universe was." That's the fallacy of composition. You cannot appeal to
anything in the universe. You need an entirely new ontology.
And you don't have one.
Sucks to be you, Jason.
I do not try to scientifically prove God. However, I do prove God's
existence through other means.
Laughing my ***** off at you.
You do demonstrate your total immorality very nicely.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
30 Dec 2004 11:50:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:24:45 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Kresch wrote:
In alt.atheism on Wed, 29 Dec 2004 07:56:12 +0000 (UTC), "Jason
Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Evidence of God's Existence
[
]
Yep. That's about it: a whole lotta nothing.
There is no evidence of "gawd", Jason. You can't even coherently
define "gawd" for us, so how do you expect us to believe something
exists that makes no sense! A being that exists apart from the
universe? Ludicrous! That same being created the universe? Impossible!
Who said I can't define God? Who asked for a definition of God?
Did you finish tertiary education? Well, to make you happy? I do. Now.
Define your gods. Thank you very much.
God is the unseen Creator who lives in Heaven. He speaks to His people and
sustains all things. He has no body. He exists in three persons: God the
Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
Impossible. Try again.
Sucks to be you, Jason.
I do not try to scientifically prove God. However, I do prove God's
existence through other means.
Such as? Assertions?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
29 Dec 2004 05:14:40 AM |
|
|
In article <qItAd.36022$nP1.31119@twister.socal.rr.com>,
usenetspam1@yahoo.com says...
Evidence of God's Existence
Dear Readers,
There are five major points and several sub-points in the evidence that I'll
be presenting.
Okay, FIVE major points.
The FIRST major point:
1. The Inerrant Bible
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.
I don't know why you present this claim. You know it's not true.
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
2. Bats are not birds
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
Additionally, the Bible is phenomenally unique. Some say that you cannot use
the Bible to support the Bible. However, the Bible was written by 40 people
over thousands of years, in several continents. If a scripture written
before Christ tells us that something will happen much later and a scripture
after Christ tells us that it did happen, then we have fantastic proof of
fulfilled prophecy, God's existence, and the Bible's authenticity.
Thus the story of Oedipus must also be true.
The SECOND major point:
2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.
I've been saved for over 23 years. When I was 7, I repented from my sins and
believed, trusted, and accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior.
HK. Muslims have had long relationships with Allah. Jews have had
long relationships with their god. Ancient Romans have had
relationships with Jupiter and Venus. Modern people have been
abducted by aliens. Modern people find Mother Mary in their
grilled cheese sandwiches. IOW, lots of people believe stupid
things. It doesn't make those stupid things true.
(BTW, I'm thinking of coming out with a make it yourself Mother
Mary Grilled Cheese kit. Would you like to buy one? I know if I
were a good christian, I'd give it to you for free, but I'm not.
I'm an evil atheist who thinks that able bodied people should
work for their living rather than sponging off of others.)
I've done miracles in Jesus' name. These miracles include things such as:
a. When I was 26, I began getting eyestrain headaches. My head hurt all the
time, so I went to an eye doctor and she said I needed glasses. I got
glasses and the pains went away.
A few days later, I prayed to God that the pains would leave me for good and
they did. I removed the glasses and never wore them, again. I'm 30 years old
now and I haven't worn glasses since that prayer. I haven't gotten those
headaches, either.
I'm so glad that god is spending his time fixing your minor
maladies, instead of stopping tidal waves and earthquakes. You
are so much more important than the 50,000+ people that just
died, after all.
The THIRD major point:
3. The evidence for creation
Um, there is none. Why would that be convincing?
and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes
in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.
There is no theory of abiogenesis. We know it happened. Either
that, or life has always existed. Even bible literalists agree
with that, although they don't seem to understand it well enough
to know that they do.
BTW, even if there were "terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes"
in the theory of evolution, how would that be evidence of god? It
seems to me that it wouldn't.
For instance, where did the "stuff" come from in the Big Bang? Where did
matter originate?
Where did god come from? Where did god originate?
You're suggesting a rule that you don't follow yourself. The rule
being "If there are unanswered questions about a
theory/hypothesis/wild guess then reject it." Well, there are
unanswered questions about your god wild guess, so why don't you
reject that belief?
The fossil record doesn't support evolutionism.
Please explain to me, what the difference is, in your mind,
between "evolution" and "evolutionism". The word is "evolution".
Please learn to use it.
And of course, the fossil record does support evolution. Fossils
of less complex creatures are found in older strata, just as you
would expect.
The FOURTH major point:
4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.
Huh?!? This is complete and total nonsense.
Atheists tend to tell people what is right and wrong. How did they know?
We use our brains. You can do that too, if you just try.
Generally, it's wrong to do things that hurt others and it's
right to do things that don't. Is that so hard to understand?
If we had to rely on god to tell us what was right and wrong, we
wouldn't have laws against drunk driving, speeding, mail fraud,
slavery, etc.
The FIFTH major point:
Jason can't count.
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
29 Dec 2004 11:05:02 AM |
|
|
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.
I don't know why you present this claim. You know it's not true.
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
2. Bats are not birds
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
And right there, Gregory, you have skewered Jason's repeated claim that
"every verifiable claim in the bible is true." We can verify that rabbits do
NOT chew cud, that bats are NOT birds, etc., so within two sentences Jason's
claims are PROVEN to be wrong. The question is, will Jason have the
intellectual honesty to admit this, or will he remain a blatant sophist?
And then there are all the unverifiable claims in the bible, of which 99% of
the bible is comprised.
P.S. I also liked the section in which he supports god's existence by
attacking evolution. Jason obviously went to debating classes and learned it
is a good idea to put your opponent on the defensive, even if it is
completelt irrelevant to the point you are supposed to be making. Way to go,
Jason, the important thing is that you win a debate, nevermind being
interested in the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
29 Dec 2004 12:11:30 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:05:02 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Neil Kelsey
("Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.
I don't know why you present this claim. You know it's not true.
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
2. Bats are not birds
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
And right there, Gregory, you have skewered Jason's repeated claim that
"every verifiable claim in the bible is true."
I very much suspect that what Jason actually means by "every
verifiable claim in the bible is true" boils down to ""every true
claim in the bible is true".
We can verify that rabbits do
NOT chew cud, that bats are NOT birds, etc., so within two sentences Jason's
claims are PROVEN to be wrong. The question is, will Jason have the
intellectual honesty to admit this, or will he remain a blatant sophist?
And then there are all the unverifiable claims in the bible, of which 99% of
the bible is comprised.
P.S. I also liked the section in which he supports god's existence by
attacking evolution. Jason obviously went to debating classes and learned it
is a good idea to put your opponent on the defensive, even if it is
completelt irrelevant to the point you are supposed to be making. Way to go,
Jason, the important thing is that you win a debate, nevermind being
interested in the truth.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
29 Dec 2004 02:22:38 PM |
|
|
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:vot5t09cn2nhvettd5eh0g9kqk697570b5@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:05:02 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Neil Kelsey
("Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.
I don't know why you present this claim. You know it's not true.
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
2. Bats are not birds
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
And right there, Gregory, you have skewered Jason's repeated claim that
"every verifiable claim in the bible is true."
I very much suspect that what Jason actually means by "every
verifiable claim in the bible is true" boils down to ""every true
claim in the bible is true".
We can verify that rabbits do
NOT chew cud, that bats are NOT birds, etc., so within two sentences
Jason's
claims are PROVEN to be wrong. The question is, will Jason have the
intellectual honesty to admit this, or will he remain a blatant sophist?
And then there are all the unverifiable claims in the bible, of which 99%
of
the bible is comprised.
P.S. I also liked the section in which he supports god's existence by
attacking evolution. Jason obviously went to debating classes and learned
it
is a good idea to put your opponent on the defensive, even if it is
completelt irrelevant to the point you are supposed to be making. Way to
go,
Jason, the important thing is that you win a debate, nevermind being
interested in the truth.
I doubt Jason will respond, he seems a hit and run poster.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
29 Dec 2004 03:34:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 20:22:38 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, kathryn
("kathryn" <bob@bob.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
"Therion Ware" <autodelete@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:vot5t09cn2nhvettd5eh0g9kqk697570b5@4ax.com...
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:05:02 +0000 (UTC) in alt.atheism, Neil Kelsey
("Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.
I don't know why you present this claim. You know it's not true.
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
2. Bats are not birds
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
And right there, Gregory, you have skewered Jason's repeated claim that
"every verifiable claim in the bible is true."
I very much suspect that what Jason actually means by "every
verifiable claim in the bible is true" boils down to ""every true
claim in the bible is true".
We can verify that rabbits do
NOT chew cud, that bats are NOT birds, etc., so within two sentences
Jason's
claims are PROVEN to be wrong. The question is, will Jason have the
intellectual honesty to admit this, or will he remain a blatant sophist?
And then there are all the unverifiable claims in the bible, of which 99%
of
the bible is comprised.
P.S. I also liked the section in which he supports god's existence by
attacking evolution. Jason obviously went to debating classes and learned
it
is a good idea to put your opponent on the defensive, even if it is
completelt irrelevant to the point you are supposed to be making. Way to
go,
Jason, the important thing is that you win a debate, nevermind being
interested in the truth.
I doubt Jason will respond, he seems a hit and run poster.
In the sense of attempting to increase traffic to his sites, "indeed".
I wonder what his conversion rate, in terms of average donation per
unique hit is.
--
http://www.video2CD.co.uk
Your Video Converted To DVD, QuickTime, Windows Media, or basically anything, quickly and inexpensively.
http://www.instantdvd.tv
Your DVD created, Marketed & Sold To The Whole World, From GBP 75!
Video2CD & InstantDVD.TV
200 Bude Crescent
Stevenage
SG1 2QX
Tel: 01438 220607 Fax: 01438 249885 Mob: 07766 326219
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
29 Dec 2004 02:46:12 PM |
|
|
kathryn wrote:
I doubt Jason will respond, he seems a hit and run poster.
So *that's* why it's suddenly gone quiet in here.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
30 Dec 2004 03:23:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 17:05:02 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Kelsey"
<neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote:
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.
I don't know why you present this claim. You know it's not true.
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
2. Bats are not birds
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
And right there, Gregory, you have skewered Jason's repeated claim that
"every verifiable claim in the bible is true." We can verify that rabbits do
NOT chew cud, that bats are NOT birds, etc., so within two sentences Jason's
claims are PROVEN to be wrong. The question is, will Jason have the
intellectual honesty to admit this, or will he remain a blatant sophist?
<blink> Jason and honesty? Talk about oxymorons!
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
29 Dec 2004 11:35:43 PM |
|
|
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
In article <qItAd.36022$nP1.31119@twister.socal.rr.com>,
usenetspam1@yahoo.com says...
Evidence of God's Existence
Dear Readers,
There are five major points and several sub-points in the evidence
that I'll be presenting.
Okay, FIVE major points.
The FIRST major point:
1. The Inerrant Bible
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.
I don't know why you present this claim. You know it's not true.
Really? Do you really not know why I present this? Why would I present
something that I knew was wrong? Answer: I wouldn't.
I already explained in detail. I found reasonable and logical answers to
EVERY claim by The Skeptic's Annotated Bible. If you could do this, then
wouldn't you consider the Bible inerrant as well?
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
In the 21st century, we consider "chewing the cud" regurgitating partially
digested materials and chewing on it (like cows do). This is called
"rumination." However, this isn't necessarily the same meaning and
definition of this Hebrew word ("gerah") that the ancient Israelites had.
Rabbits practice "refection." They chew on their dung which consists of
partially digested food and partially undigested food. Therefore, there is
a similarity even between our current understanding of "chewing the cud" and
an ancient understanding of it. They both chew undigested food. At any
rate, the Israelites didn't use different words for rumination and
refection, so "gerah" (translated cud) had to suffice.
2. Bats are not birds
As far as eating laws were concerned, the bat was considered an unclean
bird.
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
These three are unverifiable claims. However, if you have the answers to
every alleged Bible error, if you have a long-term relationship with the
biblical God, and if you have numerous, fulfilled prophecies, you can easily
have informed faith and reasonably understand that the unverifiable claims
are true as well.
Additionally, the Bible is phenomenally unique. Some say that you
cannot use the Bible to support the Bible. However, the Bible was
written by 40 people over thousands of years, in several continents.
If a scripture written before Christ tells us that something will
happen much later and a scripture after Christ tells us that it did
happen, then we have fantastic proof of fulfilled prophecy, God's
existence, and the Bible's authenticity.
Thus the story of Oedipus must also be true.
Is this your rebuttal to the Bible's uniqueness?
The SECOND major point:
2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.
I've been saved for over 23 years. When I was 7, I repented from my
sins and believed, trusted, and accepted Jesus Christ as my personal
Savior.
HK. Muslims have had long relationships with Allah. Jews have had
long relationships with their god. Ancient Romans have had
relationships with Jupiter and Venus. Modern people have been
abducted by aliens. Modern people find Mother Mary in their
grilled cheese sandwiches. IOW, lots of people believe stupid
things. It doesn't make those stupid things true.
Do any of these people have an inerrant Bible written by 40 people, in
several continents, over thousands of years, with a prophesied Messiah
fulfilling numerous prophecies? When they do, perhaps their long-term
relationship will be proof of their God's existence (although the Jews do
understand the Old Testament God).
(BTW, I'm thinking of coming out with a make it yourself Mother
Mary Grilled Cheese kit. Would you like to buy one? I know if I
were a good christian, I'd give it to you for free, but I'm not.
I'm an evil atheist who thinks that able bodied people should
work for their living rather than sponging off of others.)
I've done miracles in Jesus' name. These miracles include things
such as:
a. When I was 26, I began getting eyestrain headaches. My head hurt
all the time, so I went to an eye doctor and she said I needed
glasses. I got glasses and the pains went away.
A few days later, I prayed to God that the pains would leave me for
good and they did. I removed the glasses and never wore them, again.
I'm 30 years old now and I haven't worn glasses since that prayer. I
haven't gotten those headaches, either.
I'm so glad that god is spending his time fixing your minor
maladies, instead of stopping tidal waves and earthquakes. You
are so much more important than the 50,000+ people that just
died, after all.
The deaths are an enormous tragedy. I pray for the living victims and hope
they rebuild their lives.
God is the just and rightful giver and taker of life, though. All have
sinned and fallen short of God's glory, so we all deserve the death penalty
for our sins. If He takes lives now or later, it is His rightful option.
He could take my life right now and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on
regarding my holiness and right to life. I'm a sinner like everyone else
and I have sinned against the Creator like everyone else.
All living people live by God's grace and mercy. These things do have
limits, though.
The THIRD major point:
3. The evidence for creation
Um, there is none. Why would that be convincing?
Yikes.
and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes
in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.
There is no theory of abiogenesis. We know it happened. Either
that, or life has always existed. Even bible literalists agree
with that, although they don't seem to understand it well enough
to know that they do.
Of course there is. In fact, there are many abiogenesis theories.
BTW, even if there were "terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes"
in the theory of evolution, how would that be evidence of god? It
seems to me that it wouldn't.
Well, what happens is what atheists are so afraid of. One of two things is
true. Either we were created or life created itself.
For instance, where did the "stuff" come from in the Big Bang? Where
did matter originate?
Where did god come from? Where did god originate?
God always was and always will be.
You're suggesting a rule that you don't follow yourself. The rule
being "If there are unanswered questions about a
theory/hypothesis/wild guess then reject it." Well, there are
unanswered questions about your god wild guess, so why don't you
reject that belief?
I can't reject God because of all the evidence in support of Him.
The fossil record doesn't support evolutionism.
Please explain to me, what the difference is, in your mind,
between "evolution" and "evolutionism". The word is "evolution".
Please learn to use it.
Not a chance. Maybe when every atheist learns to use "God, Bible,
Christians" instead of "god, bible, christians."
If you use the word creationism, then evolutionism is appropriate as well.
And of course, the fossil record does support evolution. Fossils
of less complex creatures are found in older strata, just as you
would expect.
Prove it.
The FOURTH major point:
4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.
Huh?!? This is complete and total nonsense.
This is complete and total hand waving.
Atheists tend to tell people what is right and wrong. How did they
know?
We use our brains. You can do that too, if you just try.
Generally, it's wrong to do things that hurt others and it's
right to do things that don't. Is that so hard to understand?
Where did you get this?
If we had to rely on god to tell us what was right and wrong, we
wouldn't have laws against drunk driving, speeding, mail fraud,
slavery, etc.
All of these things can be traced back to the scriptures.
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
30 Dec 2004 07:26:18 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Thu, 30 Dec 2004 05:35:43 +0000 (UTC), "Jason
Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
In article <qItAd.36022$nP1.31119@twister.socal.rr.com>,
usenetspam1@yahoo.com says...
Evidence of God's Existence
Dear Readers,
There are five major points and several sub-points in the evidence
that I'll be presenting.
Okay, FIVE major points.
The FIRST major point:
1. The Inerrant Bible
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.
I don't know why you present this claim. You know it's not true.
Really? Do you really not know why I present this?
Because you're an idiot.
Why would I present
something that I knew was wrong?
You do all the time, Jason. You know that you're wrong yet you
keep going.
I already explained in detail. I found reasonable and logical answers to
EVERY claim by The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
The SAB isn't the be-all/end-all, Jason.
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
In the 21st century, we consider "chewing the cud" regurgitating partially
digested materials and chewing on it (like cows do). This is called
"rumination." However, this isn't necessarily the same meaning and
definition of this Hebrew word ("gerah") that the ancient Israelites had.
So what? Hares do not chew cud.
Rabbits practice "refection."
Yes, we've heard that apologist ***** before. And it's not
chewing cud.
2. Bats are not birds
As far as eating laws were concerned, the bat was considered an unclean
bird.
Yet it's not a bird. It's a mammal. Big-time error.
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
These three are unverifiable claims.
No, they are absolutely verifiable, you liar.
Additionally, the Bible is phenomenally unique. Some say that you
cannot use the Bible to support the Bible. However, the Bible was
written by 40 people over thousands of years, in several continents.
If a scripture written before Christ tells us that something will
happen much later and a scripture after Christ tells us that it did
happen, then we have fantastic proof of fulfilled prophecy, God's
existence, and the Bible's authenticity.
Thus the story of Oedipus must also be true.
Is this your rebuttal to the Bible's uniqueness?
The bible isn't unique.
The SECOND major point:
2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.
I've been saved for over 23 years. When I was 7, I repented from my
sins and believed, trusted, and accepted Jesus Christ as my personal
Savior.
HK. Muslims have had long relationships with Allah. Jews have had
long relationships with their god. Ancient Romans have had
relationships with Jupiter and Venus. Modern people have been
abducted by aliens. Modern people find Mother Mary in their
grilled cheese sandwiches. IOW, lots of people believe stupid
things. It doesn't make those stupid things true.
Do any of these people have an inerrant Bible
No one has that.
written by 40 people,
More than 40 people wrote it.
in
several continents, over thousands of years
800 years is not thousands, Jason.
with a prophesied Messiah
who isn't jesus.
fulfilling numerous prophecies?
There are exactly 0 filled prophecies in the bible.
I've done miracles in Jesus' name. These miracles include things
such as:
a. When I was 26, I began getting eyestrain headaches. My head hurt
all the time, so I went to an eye doctor and she said I needed
glasses. I got glasses and the pains went away.
A few days later, I prayed to God that the pains would leave me for
good and they did. I removed the glasses and never wore them, again.
I'm 30 years old now and I haven't worn glasses since that prayer. I
haven't gotten those headaches, either.
I'm so glad that god is spending his time fixing your minor
maladies, instead of stopping tidal waves and earthquakes. You
are so much more important than the 50,000+ people that just
died, after all.
The deaths are an enormous tragedy. I pray for the living victims and hope
they rebuild their lives.
God is the just and rightful giver and taker of life, though.
IOW: Might Makes Right. How sick!
All have
sinned and fallen short of God's glory,
Speak for yourself, Jason. I have never and cannot sin.
The THIRD major point:
3. The evidence for creation
Um, there is none. Why would that be convincing?
Yikes.
and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes
in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.
There is no theory of abiogenesis. We know it happened. Either
that, or life has always existed. Even bible literalists agree
with that, although they don't seem to understand it well enough
to know that they do.
Of course there is.
What are they?
BTW, even if there were "terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes"
in the theory of evolution, how would that be evidence of god? It
seems to me that it wouldn't.
Well, what happens is what atheists are so afraid of. One of two things is
true. Either we were created or life created itself.
False dilemma. But then, you're too stupid to grasp that.
For instance, where did the "stuff" come from in the Big Bang? Where
did matter originate?
Where did god come from? Where did god originate?
God always was and always will be.
Impossible. Where did god come from? Where did god originate?
You're suggesting a rule that you don't follow yourself. The rule
being "If there are unanswered questions about a
theory/hypothesis/wild guess then reject it." Well, there are
unanswered questions about your god wild guess, so why don't you
reject that belief?
I can't reject God because of all the evidence in support of Him.
Which is ( ) about that.
The fossil record doesn't support evolutionism.
Please explain to me, what the difference is, in your mind,
between "evolution" and "evolutionism". The word is "evolution".
Please learn to use it.
Not a chance. Maybe when every atheist learns to use "God, Bible,
Christians" instead of "god, bible, christians."
IOW: you don't know what evolution is. Thanks for admitting that
you're a fucking idiot.
If you use the word creationism, then evolutionism is appropriate as well.
No, it's not. Not unless you want to start using "gravity-ism".
And of course, the fossil record does support evolution. Fossils
of less complex creatures are found in older strata, just as you
would expect.
Prove it.
Already has been.
The FOURTH major point:
4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.
Huh?!? This is complete and total nonsense.
This is complete and total hand waving.
TAG has been refuted, Jason. Two words: Michael Martin.
Atheists tend to tell people what is right and wrong. How did they
know?
We use our brains. You can do that too, if you just try.
Generally, it's wrong to do things that hurt others and it's
right to do things that don't. Is that so hard to understand?
Where did you get this?
Trial and error throughout history, Jason. Or don't you know how
to look at consequences?
If we had to rely on god to tell us what was right and wrong, we
wouldn't have laws against drunk driving, speeding, mail fraud,
slavery, etc.
All of these things can be traced back to the scriptures.
No, they cannot.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory A Greenman" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
30 Dec 2004 02:24:45 AM |
|
|
In article <SKMAd.36570$nP1.28976@twister.socal.rr.com>,
usenetspam1@yahoo.com says...
Gregory A Greenman wrote:
In article <qItAd.36022$nP1.31119@twister.socal.rr.com>,
usenetspam1@yahoo.com says...
Evidence of God's Existence
Dear Readers,
There are five major points and several sub-points in the evidence
that I'll be presenting.
Okay, FIVE major points.
The FIRST major point:
1. The Inerrant Bible
Every verifiable claim in the Bible is true.
I don't know why you present this claim. You know it's not true.
Really? Do you really not know why I present this? Why would I present
something that I knew was wrong? Answer: I wouldn't.
Yet you just did. I know you really, really want this point to be
true. But I don't think even you believe it. You lie to yourself
about it. You try to believe, but I don't think even you really
believe this. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you do completely and
sincerely believe this. I'm not sure which is worse. Lying to
yourself or being so gullible that you actually believe this.
I already explained in detail. I found reasonable and logical answers to
EVERY claim by The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
No you didn't. You found contrived explanations that sound like a
young child explaining how he really didn't want to eat the
cookies, a bad man broke into the house and forced him to do it.
It's bad enough coming from a five year old. Hearing this from a
grown man is simply pathetic.
If you could do this, then
wouldn't you consider the Bible inerrant as well?
No. I'd consider myself insane.
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
In the 21st century, we consider "chewing the cud" regurgitating partially
digested materials and chewing on it (like cows do). This is called
"rumination." However, this isn't necessarily the same meaning and
definition of this Hebrew word ("gerah") that the ancient Israelites had.
Rabbits practice "refection." They chew on their dung which consists of
partially digested food and partially undigested food. Therefore, there is
a similarity even between our current understanding of "chewing the cud" and
an ancient understanding of it. They both chew undigested food. At any
rate, the Israelites didn't use different words for rumination and
refection, so "gerah" (translated cud) had to suffice.
No. Rabbits do not chew their dung. They swallow it whole. What
they do is something that involves neither cud nor chewing. Thus
the claim that they chew their cud is false. Perhaps there are
some similarities to cud chewing. However, that does not make the
claim that they chew their cud true.
2. Bats are not birds
As far as eating laws were concerned, the bat was considered an unclean
bird.
.....which they aren't. Thus the bible is in error.
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
These three are unverifiable claims.
The lack of a worldwide flood is easily verified in many, many
ways. One is that there is simply not enough water on this
planet. Another is that the polar ice caps date back to before
the flood and the flood would have melted them.
Do you really want to take the position that maybe, snakes and
donkeys can talk?
However, if you have the answers to
every alleged Bible error, if you have a long-term relationship with the
biblical God, and if you have numerous, fulfilled prophecies, you can easily
have informed faith and reasonably understand that the unverifiable claims
are true as well.
Additionally, the Bible is phenomenally unique. Some say that you
cannot use the Bible to support the Bible. However, the Bible was
written by 40 people over thousands of years, in several continents.
If a scripture written before Christ tells us that something will
happen much later and a scripture after Christ tells us that it did
happen, then we have fantastic proof of fulfilled prophecy, God's
existence, and the Bible's authenticity.
Thus the story of Oedipus must also be true.
Is this your rebuttal to the Bible's uniqueness?
I'll agree the bible is unique in several ways. However that has
nothing to do with anything.
Oedipus is a story about a prophecy that was ultimately
fulfilled. Do you believe it to be true for that reason?
The SECOND major point:
2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.
I've been saved for over 23 years. When I was 7, I repented from my
sins and believed, trusted, and accepted Jesus Christ as my personal
Savior.
HK. Muslims have had long relationships with Allah. Jews have had
long relationships with their god. Ancient Romans have had
relationships with Jupiter and Venus. Modern people have been
abducted by aliens. Modern people find Mother Mary in their
grilled cheese sandwiches. IOW, lots of people believe stupid
things. It doesn't make those stupid things true.
Do any of these people have an inerrant Bible written by 40 people, in
several continents, over thousands of years, with a prophesied Messiah
fulfilling numerous prophecies?
What difference does that make? Your question has nothing to do
with anything.
When they do, perhaps their long-term
relationship will be proof of their God's existence (although the Jews do
understand the Old Testament God).
Uh, no it won't.
(BTW, I'm thinking of coming out with a make it yourself Mother
Mary Grilled Cheese kit. Would you like to buy one? I know if I
were a good christian, I'd give it to you for free, but I'm not.
I'm an evil atheist who thinks that able bodied people should
work for their living rather than sponging off of others.)
Sadly, someone has already stolen my Mother Mary Grilled Cheese
kit.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=19270
&item=5545611462&rd=1
I've done miracles in Jesus' name. These miracles include things
such as:
a. When I was 26, I began getting eyestrain headaches. My head hurt
all the time, so I went to an eye doctor and she said I needed
glasses. I got glasses and the pains went away.
A few days later, I prayed to God that the pains would leave me for
good and they did. I removed the glasses and never wore them, again.
I'm 30 years old now and I haven't worn glasses since that prayer. I
haven't gotten those headaches, either.
I'm so glad that god is spending his time fixing your minor
maladies, instead of stopping tidal waves and earthquakes. You
are so much more important than the 50,000+ people that just
died, after all.
The deaths are an enormous tragedy. I pray for the living victims and hope
they rebuild their lives.
Your god hasn't answered your prayers for the earthquake/tsunami
victims, yet you think he answered your prayer for your eyes. Why
do you think god would answer one but not the other?
BTW, I'm 41 and I don't wear glasses. My father has worn glasses
since he was about thirty and my mother has worn them since an
even younger age. I've never prayed to have good eyesight. I'm an
accountant who uses computers extensively. Both are factors that
tend to damage eyesight. Maybe it wasn't your prayer that healed
your eyesight, maybe we both just got lucky in this regard.
God is the just and rightful giver and taker of life, though. All have
sinned and fallen short of God's glory,
Of course we both know this is untrue. The death toll is now
supposed to be over 70,000. In a few days, it'll probably be over
100,000. How many of those people do you think were infants?
There must have been several hundred, at the very least. What sin
could they possibly have committed?
so we all deserve the death penalty for our sins.
Nonsense. I've never done anything that comes remotely close to
deserving the death penalty. I'm not even close to unique in this
matter.
If He takes lives now or later, it is His rightful option.
I think David Koresh made the same claim.
He could take my life right now and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on
regarding my holiness and right to life. I'm a sinner like everyone else
and I have sinned against the Creator like everyone else.
Speak for yourself.
All living people live by God's grace and mercy. These things do have
limits, though.
The THIRD major point:
3. The evidence for creation
Um, there is none. Why would that be convincing?
Yikes.
So why did you claim there is evidence for creation when, in
fact, there isn't?
and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes
in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.
There is no theory of abiogenesis. We know it happened. Either
that, or life has always existed. Even bible literalists agree
with that, although they don't seem to understand it well enough
to know that they do.
Of course there is. In fact, there are many abiogenesis theories.
Okay. Then please tell us what they are and who espouses them.
Here are a couple of links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
Note that on this page, the claim that there is no theory of
abiogenesis is conceded.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
Note that on this page, they discuss various hypotheses of
abiogenesis, not various theories of abiogenesis.
Again, there is no theory of abiogenesis.
BTW, even if there were "terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes"
in the theory of evolution, how would that be evidence of god? It
seems to me that it wouldn't.
Well, what happens is what atheists are so afraid of. One of two things is
true. Either we were created or life created itself.
Or, life has always existed. That doesn't seem likely to me, but
it is another possibility.
BTW, it makes no sense to say that life created itself. Perhaps
you mean, life was created through natural processes.
For instance, where did the "stuff" come from in the Big Bang? Where
did matter originate?
Where did god come from? Where did god originate?
God always was and always will be.
If it's possible that something always existed, then why can't it
be the universe?
You're suggesting a rule that you don't follow yourself. The rule
being "If there are unanswered questions about a
theory/hypothesis/wild guess then reject it." Well, there are
unanswered questions about your god wild guess, so why don't you
reject that belief?
I can't reject God because of all the evidence in support of Him.
Yet, try as hard as you might, you can't actually cite any valid
evidence.
The fossil record doesn't support evolutionism.
Please explain to me, what the difference is, in your mind,
between "evolution" and "evolutionism". The word is "evolution".
Please learn to use it.
Not a chance. Maybe when every atheist learns to use "God, Bible,
Christians" instead of "god, bible, christians."
If you use the word creationism, then evolutionism is appropriate as well.
Okay, if you wish to appear uneducated and ignorant I guess
that's your right. I guess this is an issue of truth in
advertising.
And of course, the fossil record does support evolution. Fossils
of less complex creatures are found in older strata, just as you
would expect.
Prove it.
Oh please. If you're such an expert on evolution, you should
already know this is true.
Here are a few relevant web pages:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_4.html
Note that these pages contain cites that will ultimately let you
view the raw data yourself, if you are so inclined. Go visit the
Grand Canyon. You can see the strata for yourself there.
The FOURTH major point:
4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.
Huh?!? This is complete and total nonsense.
This is complete and total hand waving.
Nonsense. You made a ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim.
Atheists tend to tell people what is right and wrong. How did they
know?
We use our brains. You can do that too, if you just try.
Generally, it's wrong to do things that hurt others and it's
right to do things that don't. Is that so hard to understand?
Where did you get this?
Get what? My brain? I was born with it.
If we had to rely on god to tell us what was right and wrong, we
wouldn't have laws against drunk driving, speeding, mail fraud,
slavery, etc.
All of these things can be traced back to the scriptures.
Please cite the scriptures that discuss drunk driving, speeding
and mail fraud. I know there are scriptures that discuss slavery,
but they condone it, not condemn it.
--
Greg
----
greg -at- spencersoft -dot- com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
31 Dec 2004 09:00:56 PM |
|
|
I already explained in detail. I found reasonable and logical
answers to EVERY claim by The Skeptic's Annotated Bible.
No you didn't. You found contrived explanations that sound like a
young child explaining how he really didn't want to eat the
cookies, a bad man broke into the house and forced him to do it.
It's bad enough coming from a five year old. Hearing this from a
grown man is simply pathetic.
Really, Gregory? Do you have a copy?
If you could do this, then
wouldn't you consider the Bible inerrant as well?
No. I'd consider myself insane.
You can lie to yourself that it is all you want, but we know
better.
1. Rabbits do not chew cud
In the 21st century, we consider "chewing the cud" regurgitating
partially digested materials and chewing on it (like cows do). This
is called "rumination." However, this isn't necessarily the same
meaning and definition of this Hebrew word ("gerah") that the
ancient Israelites had.
Rabbits practice "refection." They chew on their dung which
consists of partially digested food and partially undigested food.
Therefore, there is a similarity even between our current
understanding of "chewing the cud" and an ancient understanding of
it. They both chew undigested food. At any rate, the Israelites
didn't use different words for rumination and refection, so "gerah"
(translated cud) had to suffice.
No. Rabbits do not chew their dung. They swallow it whole.
Can you prove this?
What
they do is something that involves neither cud nor chewing. Thus
the claim that they chew their cud is false. Perhaps there are
some similarities to cud chewing. However, that does not make the
claim that they chew their cud true.
2. Bats are not birds
As far as eating laws were concerned, the bat was considered an
unclean bird.
....which they aren't. Thus the bible is in error.
The Hebrew word "oph" that is used in Leviticus to describe the bat simply
means feathered animal that flies. It accurately describes the bat.
3. No worldwide flood ever happened
4. Snakes do not talk
5. Donkeys do not talk
These three are unverifiable claims.
The lack of a worldwide flood is easily verified in many, many
ways. One is that there is simply not enough water on this
planet.
Before the flood, the Earth was relatively dry. The water in the oceans is
the water that fell in the Flood.
Another is that the polar ice caps date back to before
the flood and the flood would have melted them.
Can you prove this?
Do you really want to take the position that maybe, snakes and
donkeys can talk?
I didn't say that "maybe they can talk." I'm agreeing with the Bible that
they did.
However, if you have the answers to
every alleged Bible error, if you have a long-term relationship with
the biblical God, and if you have numerous, fulfilled prophecies,
you can easily have informed faith and reasonably understand that
the unverifiable claims are true as well.
Additionally, the Bible is phenomenally unique. Some say that you
cannot use the Bible to support the Bible. However, the Bible was
written by 40 people over thousands of years, in several
continents. If a scripture written before Christ tells us that
something will happen much later and a scripture after Christ
tells us that it did happen, then we have fantastic proof of
fulfilled prophecy, God's existence, and the Bible's authenticity.
Thus the story of Oedipus must also be true.
Is this your rebuttal to the Bible's uniqueness?
I'll agree the bible is unique in several ways. However that has
nothing to do with anything.
If you could understand how the Bible doesn't have errors AND is extremely
unique, then perhaps it would be more meaningful to you.
Oedipus is a story about a prophecy that was ultimately
fulfilled. Do you believe it to be true for that reason?
The SECOND major point:
2. My long term relationship with the biblical God.
I've been saved for over 23 years. When I was 7, I repented from my
sins and believed, trusted, and accepted Jesus Christ as my
personal Savior.
HK. Muslims have had long relationships with Allah. Jews have had
long relationships with their god. Ancient Romans have had
relationships with Jupiter and Venus. Modern people have been
abducted by aliens. Modern people find Mother Mary in their
grilled cheese sandwiches. IOW, lots of people believe stupid
things. It doesn't make those stupid things true.
Do any of these people have an inerrant Bible written by 40 people,
in several continents, over thousands of years, with a prophesied
Messiah fulfilling numerous prophecies?
What difference does that make? Your question has nothing to do
with anything.
Of course it does. These other religious groups and people are not on the
same footing as Christianity.
When they do, perhaps their long-term
relationship will be proof of their God's existence (although the
Jews do understand the Old Testament God).
Uh, no it won't.
It won't ever happen.
(BTW, I'm thinking of coming out with a make it yourself Mother
Mary Grilled Cheese kit. Would you like to buy one? I know if I
were a good christian, I'd give it to you for free, but I'm not.
I'm an evil atheist who thinks that able bodied people should
work for their living rather than sponging off of others.)
Sadly, someone has already stolen my Mother Mary Grilled Cheese
kit.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=19270
&item=5545611462&rd=1
I've done miracles in Jesus' name. These miracles include things
such as:
a. When I was 26, I began getting eyestrain headaches. My head hurt
all the time, so I went to an eye doctor and she said I needed
glasses. I got glasses and the pains went away.
A few days later, I prayed to God that the pains would leave me for
good and they did. I removed the glasses and never wore them,
again. I'm 30 years old now and I haven't worn glasses since that
prayer. I haven't gotten those headaches, either.
I'm so glad that god is spending his time fixing your minor
maladies, instead of stopping tidal waves and earthquakes. You
are so much more important than the 50,000+ people that just
died, after all.
The deaths are an enormous tragedy. I pray for the living victims
and hope they rebuild their lives.
Your god hasn't answered your prayers for the earthquake/tsunami
victims, yet you think he answered your prayer for your eyes. Why
do you think god would answer one but not the other?
God has His reasons and His ways. I have some ideas regarding the reasons,
but since it is so close to the tragedy, I'll save my comments for another
time.
My prayers are with all of the people who are effected by this.
BTW, I'm 41 and I don't wear glasses. My father has worn glasses
since he was about thirty and my mother has worn them since an
even younger age. I've never prayed to have good eyesight. I'm an
accountant who uses computers extensively. Both are factors that
tend to damage eyesight. Maybe it wasn't your prayer that healed
your eyesight, maybe we both just got lucky in this regard.
Or maybe God has sustained your eyesight and blessed it, so you could
perform your tasks.
God is the just and rightful giver and taker of life, though. All
have sinned and fallen short of God's glory,
Of course we both know this is untrue. The death toll is now
supposed to be over 70,000. In a few days, it'll probably be over
100,000. How many of those people do you think were infants?
There must have been several hundred, at the very least. What sin
could they possibly have committed?
I've quoted the scriptures. I know them to be true.
Regarding the babies, some think that babies go directly to Heaven when they
die.
so we all deserve the death penalty for our sins.
Nonsense. I've never done anything that comes remotely close to
deserving the death penalty. I'm not even close to unique in this
matter.
I don't expect for you to concede this now. However, I concede it. I
understand that I've offended a perfect and holy God with my sins against
Him. I desire to die as a punishment for my sins against the Creator.
When you understand God's existence and His laws and understand your sins, I
imagine you will come to the same conclusion as the Bible.
If He takes lives now or later, it is His rightful option.
I think David Koresh made the same claim.
David Koresh wasn't God. He doesn't have the right to take lives.
He could take my life right now and I wouldn't have a leg to stand on
regarding my holiness and right to life. I'm a sinner like everyone
else and I have sinned against the Creator like everyone else.
Speak for yourself.
My sins are like yours and everyone else's. I'm simply affirming the Bible
because I understand it to be true.
All living people live by God's grace and mercy. These things do
have limits, though.
The THIRD major point:
3. The evidence for creation
Um, there is none. Why would that be convincing?
Yikes.
So why did you claim there is evidence for creation when, in
fact, there isn't?
I'm not a scientist, but if you want evidence for creation, visit
http://answersingenesis.org.
and the terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes
in the evolutionary/abiogenesis theories.
There is no theory of abiogenesis. We know it happened. Either
that, or life has always existed. Even bible literalists agree
with that, although they don't seem to understand it well enough
to know that they do.
Of course there is. In fact, there are many abiogenesis theories.
Okay. Then please tell us what they are and who espouses them.
Here are a couple of links:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB090.html
Note that on this page, the claim that there is no theory of
abiogenesis is conceded.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB050.html
Note that on this page, they discuss various hypotheses of
abiogenesis, not various theories of abiogenesis.
Again, there is no theory of abiogenesis.
Call them hypotheses, then.
BTW, even if there were "terrific weaknesses, flaws, and holes"
in the theory of evolution, how would that be evidence of god? It
seems to me that it wouldn't.
Well, what happens is what atheists are so afraid of. One of two
things is true. Either we were created or life created itself.
Or, life has always existed. That doesn't seem likely to me, but
it is another possibility.
BTW, it makes no sense to say that life created itself. Perhaps
you mean, life was created through natural processes.
Do you really think that non-life turned into life by itself (e.g. without
God's command)? If so, how?
For instance, where did the "stuff" come from in the Big Bang?
Where did matter originate?
Where did god come from? Where did god originate?
God always was and always will be.
If it's possible that something always existed, then why can't it
be the universe?
The universe can't create life or matter.
You're suggesting a rule that you don't follow yourself. The rule
being "If there are unanswered questions about a
theory/hypothesis/wild guess then reject it." Well, there are
unanswered questions about your god wild guess, so why don't you
reject that belief?
I can't reject God because of all the evidence in support of Him.
Yet, try as hard as you might, you can't actually cite any valid
evidence.
I suppose this is your opinion. However, I gave ample support for God's
existence. One of the most compelling pieces (to me) is the inerrant Bible.
The fossil record doesn't support evolutionism.
Please explain to me, what the difference is, in your mind,
between "evolution" and "evolutionism". The word is "evolution".
Please learn to use it.
Not a chance. Maybe when every atheist learns to use "God, Bible,
Christians" instead of "god, bible, christians."
If you use the word creationism, then evolutionism is appropriate as
well.
Okay, if you wish to appear uneducated and ignorant I guess
that's your right. I guess this is an issue of truth in
advertising.
Why should creationism be used, but not evolutionism? Why does using
"evolutionism" make me "appear uneducated and ignorant"?
And of course, the fossil record does support evolution. Fossils
of less complex creatures are found in older strata, just as you
would expect.
Prove it.
Oh please. If you're such an expert on evolution, you should
already know this is true.
The fossil record can only support evolution when evolutionists are trying
like mad to find support for their theory. Otherwise, to someone who isn't
biased, there isn't much to go on.
Here are a few relevant web pages:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_3.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_4.html
Note that these pages contain cites that will ultimately let you
view the raw data yourself, if you are so inclined. Go visit the
Grand Canyon. You can see the strata for yourself there.
I've been to the Grand Canyon many times. I have some pics of it on my
site. See http://pictures.jcsm.org
The strata doesn't prove the theory of evolution or an old earth.
Evolutionists say the GC was carved out over a long time . . . a tiny bit of
water over a long time.
Creationists say the GC was carved quickly. A lot of water in a short
amount of time.
The FOURTH major point:
4. God is a pre-condition of logic, reason, and morality.
Huh?!? This is complete and total nonsense.
This is complete and total hand waving.
Nonsense. You made a ridiculous, unsubstantiated claim.
Atheists tend to tell people what is right and wrong. How did they
know?
We use our brains. You can do that too, if you just try.
Generally, it's wrong to do things that hurt others and it's
right to do things that don't. Is that so hard to understand?
Where did you get this?
Get what? My brain? I was born with it.
You are avoiding the question.
You are making a moral judgment. I say God gave you your brain and
conscious, so that's how you made your moral judgment. What do you say?
If we had to rely on god to tell us what was right and wrong, we
wouldn't have laws against drunk driving, speeding, mail fraud,
slavery, etc.
All of these things can be traced back to the scriptures.
Please cite the scriptures that discuss drunk driving, speeding
and mail fraud.
Romans 13.
I know there are scriptures that discuss slavery,
but they condone it, not condemn it.
Absolutely not.
Regards,
Jason
--
--------
Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 60,000 web pages!
John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."
Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."
ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
31 Dec 2004 09:09:38 PM |
|
|
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9GoBd.36853$nP1.28625@twister.socal.rr.com...
snip
As far as eating laws were concerned, the bat was considered an
unclean bird.
But, bats AREN'T birds!
....which they aren't. Thus the bible is in error.
The Hebrew word "oph" that is used in Leviticus to describe the bat simply
means feathered animal that flies. It accurately describes the bat.
Dude, when you find a bat with FEATHERS, do let us all know. I can't
believe you actually said "It accurately describes the bat" because that's a
complete and utter lie.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Double Felix" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
31 Dec 2004 09:22:41 PM |
|
|
In article <33mjokF3vc3skU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9GoBd.36853$nP1.28625@twister.socal.rr.com...
snip
As far as eating laws were concerned, the bat was considered an
unclean bird.
But, bats AREN'T birds!
"Hey, who's giving this report, you chowderheads or me?!?"
Kudos to everyone who gets the reference. ;)
....which they aren't. Thus the bible is in error.
The Hebrew word "oph" that is used in Leviticus to describe the bat simply
means feathered animal that flies. It accurately describes the bat.
Dude, when you find a bat with FEATHERS, do let us all know. I can't
believe you actually said "It accurately describes the bat" because that's a
complete and utter lie.
No surprise there. Bats are exactly like birds, if you cut off the right bits.
- Felix
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana Tweedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
01 Jan 2005 03:54:12 PM |
|
|
"Double Felix" <nick@SKIPTHESECAPSbackpack.com> wrote in message
news:nick-916AB2.19414831122004@news.west.cox.net...
In article <33mjokF3vc3skU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9GoBd.36853$nP1.28625@twister.socal.rr.com...
snip
As far as eating laws were concerned, the bat was considered an
unclean bird.
But, bats AREN'T birds!
"Hey, who's giving this report, you chowderheads or me?!?"
Kudos to everyone who gets the reference. ;)
Of course in the original, the assertion was bats were bugs.
....which they aren't. Thus the bible is in error.
The Hebrew word "oph" that is used in Leviticus to describe the bat
simply
means feathered animal that flies. It accurately describes the bat.
Dude, when you find a bat with FEATHERS, do let us all know. I can't
believe you actually said "It accurately describes the bat" because
that's a
complete and utter lie.
No surprise there. Bats are exactly like birds, if you cut off the right
bits.
Does that mean that a plucked chicken is not only a human, but a bat too?
DJT
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jason Gastrich" |
|
| Title: Re: Evidence of God's Existence |
01 Jan 2005 05:59:02 PM |
|
|
Dana Tweedy wrote:
"Double Felix" <nick@SKIPTHESECAPSbackpack.com> wrote in message
news:nick-916AB2.19414831122004@news.west.cox.net...
In article <33mjokF3vc3skU1@individual.net>,
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9GoBd.36853$nP1.28625@twister.socal.rr.com...
snip
| | | | | | | | |
