Ravi Zacharias Q & A: Did Man Create God and What About Those Who Haven't Heard?

[devildog1346]

Ravi is one of the most gracious, intelligent and easy to listen to men of God. His ability to speak about what he knows of Jesus Christ with gentleness is a blessing to humanity!

[swisscheesepotatochi]

Well, I'm just happy this guy is not a science teacher in any classroom.

[Tobytrim]

"Once you define the word faith in biblical terminology"

But why do that? Or why define the world in Q'uran, Bhagavad vita, or Vestas of Zarathustra terminology??....Or any other other ancient opinions bourne out of a more ignorant time. when people believed on "faith" because they knew nothing else??

Are the believers of these other myths, including the 1000's of long obsolete religions, deluded, and yet your presumptious "terminology" is the only truth? Or are they all?

Stop being silly!

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim Personally, I see nothing wrong with attempting to define terms in ways that make them much more clear. The Bible says that was belief by faith and not sight. That being said, the Bible's definition of faith and Richard Dawkins' definition of faith are two very different things. The Bible does not mean: 'believe in this with absolutely no evidence.' Quite the contrary, we Christians are commanded to be seekers of truth and Paul even tells us to "test everything and hold to the good."

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 " The Bible says that was belief by faith and not sight."

Have you ever asked yourself what kind of "message" would even require faith? - Only liars and con-men actually require you to believe what they tell you on "faith", simply because they cannot verify their lie.

No other endeavour of human enquiry actually requires blind believe in the conclusion, without any other verification.

Even something which begins as speculation, is ultimately verified , or not believed.

[sh3rv]

@Tobytrim God is not hiding, you simply refuse to see.

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim Once you define the word faith in biblical terminology instead of redefining it as Richard Dawkins has attempted to do then the phrase of the aforementioned makes sense.

"The thing about evidence for things unseen and the assurance of things to come is that you don't have evidence of things unseen and the assurance of things to come until you accept it."

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 If you're suggesting Dawkins phrased it that way (and I'm not denying the quote) then I disagree.

You don't even have evidence for the unobserved (you say unseen) untill you have observable evidence. Accepting something as truth without verification gets you. nowhere!!

As for the Bible, much of it is verifiably untrue.......

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim I specifically remember Professor Dawkins, in an interview with Alister McGrath, defining faith as: 'belief in something without evidence any evidence.' What I believe he was trying to do was argue that practicing apologetics as a Christian makes a Christian 'unchristian' because apologetics is a way of providing reasonable evidence for the Christian belief. In Richard Dawkins' definition of faith, this would be true, but this is not the Bible's definition of faith.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "I specifically remember Professor Dawkins, in an interview with Alister McGrath, defining faith as: 'belief in something without evidence any evidence.'" Believing something without evidence is believing something without any other reason to believe it's true, outside of personal need to believe.

The myths in the bible began as an explanation of what otherwise couldn't be explained. Since that time the have been discredited by what we now know. That alone discredits them

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim The argument you present about the Bible being full of discredit myths isn't an argument at all, it's an assertion, one that you have yet to back up.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "The argument you present about the Bible being full of discredit myths isn't an argument at all,"

Of course it's not an argument!! Any more than it is to say that leprechauns and fairies are a myth. It's an observation.

Do I really need to go over all the reasons why 6 day creation, Noah's ark, Jonah and the great fish etc are not things which really happened.?? Which century do you live in????

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim Now you're just mud-flinging. You can say all those things as much as you'd like, but it would have as much effect on me as it would if I were to tell you that Atheism is nothing but a childish, wishful delusion borne from the want to be free from any and all accountability to anything and anyone.

There has been shown more evidence cosmologically, historically, philosophically, and even biologically for the existence of God in the last 50 years than ever. What century do you live in?

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "There has been shown more evidence cosmologically, historically, philosophically, and even biologically for the existence of God in the last 50 years than ever."

Ha ha!! - Whose god???

The god of the bible relies on the universe being a few thousand years old for it's validity , and a global flood, Science has negated this. It also relies on , for example, monotheism being at least 3800 years old. Archeology has dismissed this.

So which "God" are you worshipping now?

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim Adonai.

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim My friend, you need to do a little bit more research on this matter. There are many Christians who do not hold to the Young Earth Creation theory. Yes, even within Christendom there are different ideas on the age of the universe. Even Saint Augustine said that the world need not be only a few thousand years old for the Bible to be true.

The global flood has been all but confirmed by science and new archeological finds have dug up Jewish Phylactaries at least to the year (Cont.)

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "The global flood has been all but confirmed by science and new archeological finds"

Ha ha!! Ho you really believe that science has cornfirmed the global flood?? That all living things on Earth were destroyed, with the exception of the passengers and cargo of a 450 foot craft with no windows, which restocked the whole planet??

Have you any clue how impossible it is that this even COULD have happened, even allowing for miracles, and with only DNA evidence to go on?

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim Given the total dimensions of the Ark, it would have had the capacity of 570 modern railroad cattle cars and could have easily fit the animals needed to repopulate the earth (only animals that breathed through their nostils) two pairs of every "unclean" animal and 7 pairs of every "clean" animal. Noah and his sons would have likely taken immature animals on the Ark to make room and given that, they would have used up no more than 40% of the space for animals, leaving 60% for supplies.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173" The global flood has been all but confirmed by science and new archeological finds"

Are you serious?? Am I wasting my time here debating an idiot?? Where are you getting your "Scientific" information from? The Hovinds? Grady McMurtry? Answers in Genesis?

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim Geographical features in the earth such as folded mountains and Flattop Mountain in Wyoming could have only been formed if these areas had been submerged in water. The same thing with the Grand Canyon.

And if you want to know my source, it mostly comes from the studies of Dr. Walt Brown and various other geologists.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "Geographical features in the earth such as folded mountains and Flattop Mountain in Wyoming could have only been formed if these areas had been submerged in water"

Ha ha! - "Could have been" ?? But They weren't!! The evidence is unsurmountable that they were formed by subduction - Over millions of years.

. As for the the Grand canyon , there are chalk deposits which had to have taken millenia to form. How long did this global flood last?

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim "Could have ONLY been" .. Learn to read everything before posting something, good sir. :)

By the way, there's no such thing as subduction. National Geographic just posted an article stating that the mantle of the earth was no molten, but that it was water saturated rock. ...Funny... I seem to recall something in Genesis saying "the fountains of the deep were broken up." (cont)

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "By the way, there's no such thing as subduction."

Rubbish!! - Cite the article?? Even though National geographical is not peer review and known for it's cock-ups!

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim Just do a Google such for

"Inner Earth May Hold More Water Than the Seas"

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim The chalk deposits you're refering to did not take millenia to form. It does not take millenia for countless Coccolithophores to shed their plates. It could have taken anywhere from a matter of decades to a matter of seconds (if the Coccolithophores died from something catastrophic).

The Global flood lasted a little over a year. In fact, at one point just prior to when Noah stepped off the Ark, the flood waters had receded but the ground wasn't solid enough for anything to hold up.

[Tobytrim]

@Tobytrim 

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 (CONT) - Where did the water come from, and where is it now?

2.Every living thing in the water, including plantlife, would be extinct by the imbalance of salinity, and PH in the mixture of fresh an salt water. Did "God" bring about "creation" again, whichthe Bible didn't know about?

3 - .8 people would have had to scan the whole world (Not just the known world at that time) for marsupials, polar bears etc, and put them back in the ,as yet, undiscovered lands. Did they?

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim From the sky and from under the ground (see Dr Walt Brown's hydroplate theory which makes MUCH more since now that National Geographic agrees, the mantle of the earth is full of oceans-worth of water saturated rock).

2) There were plants brought on the ark for supplies. Stop being so dramatic.

3) In pre-flood world according to the Bible, all animals eat plants, there were no carnivores until after the flood and animals also did not have different habitats to live in.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "From the sky and from under the ground"

From WHERE in the sky? In what form could 3.5 times the quantity of the seas on Earth could defy the force of gravity till the chosen moment? More to the point, where did it go? If you knew anything about the distribution of mass above Vs below an arc of a sphere, you would realise that it would be impossible for that much water to be down there with that much heat.

Both Walt Brown, and you, are idiots!

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim "you would realise that it would be impossible for that much water to be down there with that much heat."

XD

Tell that to National Geographic. It's not my words, it's their's.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "Tell that to National Geographic. It's not my words, it's their's"

I will...Cite the article? Where did you get this shit from? Despite the non credibity, nor peer review status of N.G magazine., I doubt if even they would publish such rubbish, which can be so easily debunked. I suspect you are repeating hearsay, or quote mine, from a creationist mag or website.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173" Tell that to National Geographic. It's not my words, it's their's."

By the way, have you checked out Walt Brown's ACTUAL geology qualification?

Despite the only claim of ANY Phd , he might possess, comes unsupported by him, from his SELF published book, even that is only as an engineer. He is a self promoting creationist. His Paluxy River fraud has been debunked by REAL geologists for years, yet he STILL uses it!

Why do you trust these con-men for facts instead of experts??

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173" In pre-flood world according to the Bible, all animals eat plants, there were no carnivores until after the flood and animals also did not have different habitats to live in"

Ha! This is interesting . Though only you attach any validity to the bible, I would be curious to read that passage?. Is this massive change of morphology, from herbivore to carnivora, an evolution, or another reassessment of the creation miracle? And what was Able raising meat animals for?

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim 'And what was Able raising meat animals for?" Sheep: For wool, obviously. =D

Humans eat only seed bearing fruits: Genesis 1:29

Animals eat only herbs: Genesis 1:30

Humans eat meat AND animals and some animals eat other animals: Genesis 9:2-3

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 Humans eat meat AND animals and some animals eat other animals: Genesis 9:2-3"

Not very consistant , is it? But you didn't address the point I made,. Did "God", or evolution, effect the drastic evolutionary design to make a carnivore of a herbivore. The chemical composition, and structure of the stomach etc, the conditioning of the animal, the teeth?

Not to mention the paleanological evidence of meateaters long before this date?

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 You also haven't addressed the current OBSERVABLE evidence in the genome , of every species, that such genetic variability could not have evolved in so short a time as 4500-4700 years ago

. In human terms that is less than 900 generations. That's only 900 zygotes at a rate of 1.6 parts per 3-4 billion. It wouldn't be enought for the MHC proteins to form as recognisable "self" genes any immune system, yet we know they exist! Why would science tell us this? Is "God" a deciever?

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 4.Have you any idea how much shit that many animals would produce in one day, to be disposed of by 8 people , through one small opening at the top of the ark? - The methane alone would kill them in days!

5. It is impossible for such a genetic bottleneck , a mere 4500 years ago, to account for the genetic variabilty in every species' DNA today. Notwithstanding the variations in breeds (dogs etc). This is an observable and demonstrable medical fact ! Is "God" a deciever?

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim 4) The Ark was sectioned off. Do you really think that the first humans were that idiotic? If Noah and his sons built a ship mighty enough to withstand all forms of seaborne disasters, I highly doubt they'd be foolish enough to have something like methane gas defeat them.

5) That's assuming there's only one KIND of dog since it was not species that were paired off but KINDS.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "Geographical features in the earth such as folded mountains and Flattop Mountain in Wyoming could have only been formed if these areas had been submerged in water. The same thing with the Grand Canyon"

"submerged in water" is NOT a global flood!! I have cited a handfull of good reasons why the "Genesis" food couldn't and didn't happen. If you can intelligently respond to those (and you won't!!) I have hundreds more.....

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "My friend, you need to do a little bit more research on this matter. There are many Christians who do not hold to the Young Earth Creation theory. Yes"

Ha ha! Yes! So how exactly does this challenge my argument that most Christians have got the facts wrong from reading and interperating the bible!? At least much of what informs. modern Christianity is wrong - more likely all of it!

Then you spout more unsupported declarations with nothing to distinguish them from dogma!

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim I find myself laughing at this statement since all you have done thus far in this discussion is mud-fling in insert assertions without providing any evidence for your own claims.

And you argument here that because Christians disagree as to interpretations as to events that happened, therefore it's all wrong is a complete non-sequitor.

The irreligious disagree as to whether or not objective moral values exist. Should I dismiss your worldview as complete hogwash, then?

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173" I find myself laughing at this statement since all you have done thus far in this discussion is mud-fling in insert assertions without providing any evidence for your own claims." I cited Finklestein and Silberman, from the archeology resaerch institute from Tel Aviv university. What have YOU cited? Apart from their own actual hands on research, they gained agreement from every other unbiased working on the subject. They wrote it all down in "The Bible unearthed"

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim Oh goodness. This book again. I dismissed this book when Finklestein and Silberman went after evidence of Hebrew presence within the Sinai peninsula lasting the forty years exile placed upon the Hebrews by Adonai. Of course they wouldn't find evidence of the Hebrews in the Sinai peninsula, the Hebrews were only there no longer than seven days. Sinai is NOT in the "Sinai peninsula," it's in Arabia. Just as Paul tells us in Galatians 4:25. (cont)

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim Ron Wyatt actually took a team of researches out and found not only the site where the Hebrews crossed the Rea Sea (at the Gulf of Aqaba) as well as the remnants of their Egyptian pursuers that were drowned; but he also found the location of where Moses split the rock and water gushed forth, the altar to the golden calf erected by Aaron, and many other sites confirming the Exodus just as it is recorded in the Bible. There was also found a two pillars on either side of the (cont)

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim crossing which had been erected by King Solomon. Not only these things, but Ficklestein and Siberman cited incorrectly that the Pharaoh the Hebrews fled was the nineteenth dynasty Pharaoh Ramses II, when it was actually the eighteenth dynasty Pharaoh Amenhotep III.

It's no wonder they didn't find any evidence! All the information they had was incorrect.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "The irreligious disagree as to whether or not objective moral values exist. Should I dismiss your worldview as complete hogwash, then?"

Irreligious people who believe in an objective morality are as wrong as you religious people who require it to be true to necessitate your imaginary magic man.

That moral reasoning, is a functional human concept, is observable. For example, the biblical "God" sanctioned murder and slavery in the bible, because the bible writers did then.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "The irreligious disagree as to whether or not objective moral values exist. Should I dismiss your worldview as complete hogwash, then?"

Incidentally, you have no idea what my beliefs are, apart from that I reject your "worldview".

All you know about what I believe, is that I don't share your unsupportable ones, which seem to require irrational denial to validate them for you, and whoever you try to justify them to.

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim (cont) 1300 BCE with the inscription of the Shema: "Hear, O Israel, The LORD is our god. The LORD is one."

Not only that, but Moses did not receive his revelation on Mount Sinai until, at the most, 1500 BCE (some sources say the Exodus was around 1300 BCE) -- 300 years AFTER you say that monotheism begin.

Do some research instead of just spouting out dogmas.

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "My friend, you need to do a little bit more research on this matter"

Ha ha! - I do my research more wide rangingly than listening to the sermons you do. Can you actually support your bullllshit claims from academic secular sources from anything BUT dogma?

Finklestein and Silberman from Tel Aviv university was the latest source of my information. They are jewish archeologists - hardly dogmatists.

Their evidence is unrefutable. Your source is flawed and biased.

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim I disagree with you on not being able to have evidence for the unobserved until I have observable evidence. I have never observed New York City in person, but I have seen photography of it, I've heard of it spoken in history and have heard the testimony of people who have been there. Pretty good unobserved evidence for me.

The same holds true with God. I have the testimony of my fellow Christians, the historical attestations in the Bible, as well as prophecies that have been (cont)

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 " I have never observed New York City in person, but I have seen photography of it"

What a bloody silly analogy!!. You can confirm the actual New York you see in the photo , at will. Whenever you like. You can neither demonstrate a god with a photo or that you have experienced it yourself. - That is actually the point.

If you can't show it - You don't know it.! You believe what you have no reason whatsoever to believe....That epitomises your irrationality in believing it!

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim fulfilled in our lifetime. Namely Amos 9:15 and this is just one many prophecies: "'I will gather Israel back to their land and no more shall they be pulled out of the land that I have given them.' says the Lord."

[Tobytrim]

@PheonixRise173 "fulfilled in our lifetime. Namely Amos 9:15 and this is just one many prophecies:"

Ha ha!! i- In much the same way as General McArthur said "I shall return" and lo - he became a prophet when he did! Or more tellingly, when I said I would have a chicken tikka sandwich with my tea tonight, and Lo!....I'm a prophet.

Don't be ridiculous! - It isn't a prophesy when it is deliberately achieved in order to validate some ancient prophesy. Check the context too - It was late!!.

[PheonixRise173]

@Tobytrim It wasn't deliberately achieved in order to validate it. Besides, the United Nations were the reason for giving the Jews back the land of Israel and giving them the authority of establishing a nation for themselves there once again. ... Unless you're a believer of those "Zionist-conspiracies" ;)

McArthur made his statement as a vow, and he returned 4 years later. Amos lived 500 to 600 years BCE. Who could have possibly predicted that the land would be returned to Israel like that?

[IsaacBG84]

This man is like Apolos or Paul of the NT.....its amazing

[noitnettaattention]

@IsaacBG84 INDEED !!!!

[Oskaz13]

@Tobytrim absence of evidence? I'll give u three strong scientific reasons to believe God exists. 1) first law of thermodynamics 2) second law of thermodynamics 3) the law of biogenesis. lets start comparing evidences.

[Tobytrim]

No wonder I never see Ravi in a debate, or in anything other than these silly sermons, posing as academic lectures. He could never defend this cliched, platitudinous bullshit to any objective and rational mind, or even anyone who hasn't already got a strong, programmed investment, in believing it, and needing it to be true!

[Oskaz13]

@Tobytrim Like you? Like your programmed investment not beleiving in God? And needing it not to be true? How can you be wrong?(is your thought) Or a better question...what if you are wrong? what do you have at stake?

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13 "Or a better question...what if you are wrong? what do you have at stake?"

I risk nothing. If the entity, you believe in, will reward your blind gullibility, and punish my ability to reason (According to your dogma,the highest gift) - then he is not "God".!

[Oskaz13]

@Tobytrim Wow Toby...i used 2 think like you two years ago. I know exactlly where you are in your "reasoning". The problem here Toby is that your trying 2 make sense of something you know nothing of. Your trying to explain God away by your life experiences. It's like my 12 year old trying 2 explain to me the facts of life. What exactlly is your reasonning for not believing in God Toby? I genuinely want 2 know. You do risk something Toby...your purpose in life...it changes...you change.

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13 "Your trying to explain God away by your life experiences"

No....I'm afraid this is why theism fails as a concept, long before the evidence is examined

Every version of "God", ever offered for appraisal, is a anthrop-morphasized version., which could only be the construction of a human mind.

God is "jealous" because the human who imagined him up is. He endorses slavery because his inventors at the time wanted it that way etc. He learns better ONLY as humanity learns better.

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13" What exactlly is your reasonning for not believing in God Toby? "

I think I've already answered that one adaquetly in the last response, but just to nutshell it. The absolute absence of evidence that any of the stories are true. the abundance of evidence that they are not. and the fact that evidence is replaced by emotional appeals, ad hoc explanations based on human desires, for personal comfort, and control of others lives.

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13 "You do risk something Toby...your purpose in life...it changes...you change."

Spoken from an addicts perspective!

Like the junkie , or even the needy smoker, who needs to gauge life from one fix to the next!!- Lol! People who don't need to justify mystic fanasies as though they were reality, have something real to focus their purposefullness in life on.

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13" And needing it not to be true?"

Ha ha! I singled this one out because it is also a commonly used tactic. What concievable reason would I have for not wanting there to be a "God"? Are you offering the old turkey: " because I want to sin".

The definition of "sin" has moved about within theistic dogma over the the years. I could still accept your fairy tale and yet make up my own rules about "obedience and sin". Every other Christian does it! - Tailored morallity! - Lol!

[preach2thestreets]

@Tobytrim It's not that we desire to sin that we don't want God to exist or 'be there', but because we desire an indepenedence from Him. We crave to be morally, and existentially independent from Him. Hidden within that broad desire is the desire to make my own moral decisions, to choose between good and evil. When you examine the Genesis account and our own hearts, it is not that we desire to do evil per se, but that we desire to be captains of our own destiny and reject dependence on God

[Tobytrim]

@preach2thestreets "We crave to be morally, and existentially independent from Him"

We ARE morally independent from any entity. That isn't even contingent on your beliefs being true. We DO make our own moral decisions. That is observably true.

Plantinga even argues this to explain away the problem of evil. In any case, don't you need an independent moral reasoning to decide that "God" is good?

[Oskaz13]

Where do your moralls come from Toby? What are you comparing it to, that makes it moral? What is your standard? Is your morallity moral today and not not in ten years? If so, was it morall at all?

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13" Where do your moralls come from Toby?"

The same place as yours, of course! - It is demonstrably a well developed sense of cultural and community conformity, informed by our empathy and reason, not to mention self survival instincts.

As I already pointed out, it doesn't come from any supernatural entity, not even if there was a real one. You would STILL need your independent moral judgement to know that "God" was good and not evil!

That's simply abstract logic!

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13" Is your morallity moral today and not not in ten years? If so, was it morall at all?"

I'm not the one claiming morality to be a constant or objective. Nor do I need to! YOU are the one who is relying on that premise! Morallity is demonstrably contingent on cultural foibles, human experience and various other circumstance..... It varies from era to era, from community to community - Do I really need to show you examples?

[preach2thestreets]

@Tobytrim Sorry if my thoughts were a bit jumbled. Tried to put everything together in one post. I was trying to address your point, the 'old turkey' that many Christians wrongfully bring up, that arguement that people don't 'want a god' because they 'want to sin'. What i meant to say is that we 'enjoy' our current state of moral and existential independence from God and we 'crave' the continuance of our current condition.

[preach2thestreets]

@Tobytrim Btw, haha I could be totally off with my theology on this subject. Forgive me if I`ve strayed from 'orthodoxy' and given you a mishmash of random thoughts that I`m stringing together as I`m replying you.

[preach2thestreets]

@Tobytrim As a side note, I wanted to send this to you all these replies as a private message but i have no idea how this new fangled youtube works. In any case, I know you're probably a fairly hardened atheist, but can I please recommend you to read a book? It's called 'Ben Israel: the Odyssey of a Modern Jew' by Art Katz. I'm not done reading it , but I strongly recommend it. I assure you that it is not dogmatic, and it is intellectually satisfying. Non-fiction. Collection of journal entries

[Tobytrim]

@preach2thestreets"In any case, I know you're probably a fairly hardened atheist"

Ha ha! interesting term : "a hardened atheist"!! It seems to be trying to suggest as the default a blind, acceptance of YOUR specific fantasy belief, which can only be supported by insistant , progessive expressions of your personal deluded incredulity that any other state of being is possible. Are "devout" Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Jews etc not more "hardened" in what they believe?

[preach2thestreets]

@Tobytrim Sorry if I offended you by saying 'hardened'... I didn't mean it in the sense that you are hard headed or anything or stubborn. I meant it more in the 'hardened' veteran, experienced in war kind of way. lol

I don't know about other religious folk but yes I'm 'hardened' in what I believe. You may apply the word 'hardened' to me in the sense that I'm stubborn and narrow minded, but I've wrestled with this and have fought myself over faith and doubt. Faith in Christ has prevailed.

[Tobytrim]

@preach2thestreets "Sorry if I offended you by saying 'hardened'... "

I'm really not offended by that so don't worry. In fact, I'm more amused. I was pointing out the irrationality of calling someone "hardened" or having a pre determined attitude not to believe something that demonstrates notruth to our reason or empirical examination.

My mind is open in fact. If you have good evidence, which doesn't require a pre-progammed blind faith to accept it, you have my attention?

[stephjh2006]

@Tobytrim It is simple to calculate the method required to find God. It is the foolishness of man to look for "empirical" proof. Can a child look for "empirical" proof? what about the poor man in India? What about the blind? The un-intelligent? The deaf? The lame? Can we all use science, math, philosophy? If God is God and we are to know him, how does he make it equal? If it would require a Nobel prize winning mind to find God, how cruel a God that would be

[Revansmask17]

@stephjh2006

You dont need to go to Harvard Law School or pokemon school to have God.

[stephjh2006]

@Revansmask17 Exactly, God has made it equal. The way to God is not in empirical proof nor deep philosophical thought, that was the point of my comment. All can aproach God, seek Him and find Him. A child can find Him, an adult can find as well as an accademic or a man grown up in the midst of a jungle.

[Revansmask17]

@stephjh2006

And following Christ isnt always religon, I get tired of people saying that. Some follow Christ and obey Gods teachings because God has something they want and gain for all enternity. I follow Christ because I have something to gain and my heart and mind seek the presence of Christ and the father only, and the proof god is real all adds up 100%

[Asterixarcher]

@Tobytrim Every person want's to rebel against God, to wish he didn't exist, and so many go to great lengths to remove him from their minds. You say you are open to good evidence which doesn't required a pre-programmed blind faith to accept. The thing about faith is that you don't have faith until you accept it. So everyone who stands in faith had to make the decision to accept it. The love of Christ for you is more than you could know and overcomes all boundaries. Jesus loves you, he died 4 u.

[Tobytrim]

@Asterixarcher " The thing about faith is that you don't have faith until you accept it."

Ha ha!!!- So you NEED to be willing to blindly believe whatever you're told, in order to have this "gift", of belief in what is presented against greater evidence?!

Has is ever occurred to you, that only lies require this from a reasoning, patternseeking human mind??

Why would the truth need blind faith? Why does "God" hide??

[Tobytrim]

@Asterixarcher "Jesus loves you, he died 4 u."

Ha ha!! No he didn't!! - That is an observable and demonstrable fact!! - Even if you could prove he ever existed in 1st century Judea, I can assure you I didn't exist then for anyone to die for. That statement isn't just irrational, it's bloody silly!!...And yet Christians say it all the time.....That's how we know your beliefs are bollocks!

[Tobytrim]

@preach2thestreets" It's not that we desire to sin that we don't want God to exist or 'be there'"

Just to clarify - you'll find that most peoples lack of belief in a supernatural entity has nothing to do what we want. -

It has all to do with the extreme unlikelihood that one exists...Or the need for one to exist in order to explain anything.

Not to mention, the really poor evidence which believers bring to bear, to jusify their belief in one!

[preach2thestreets]

@Tobytrim Many Christians support this false arguement by pointing to the Fall in Genesis 3. But if you read it, it wasn't that they 'bit into' sin, or desired sin... they desired the knowledge of good and evil independent from God. Therefore, I know you and other atheists aren't rejecting God because you specifically desire to sin, but rather because you enjoy your moral/existential independence from Him. That's why i'm under no illusion that atheists can live and maintain outwardly moral lives

[Tobytrim]

@preach2thestreets "I know you and other atheists aren't rejecting God because you specifically desire to sin,..."

Let's be clear on this - I don't believe in gods, goblins, ghosts, martians, pixies, loch ness monsters etc, because there isn't a single reason to think they exist!

I can't speak for other atheists, but I need no other justification - moral or otherwise.

Your need to think there is a god seems to be confusing your ability to consider the perspective of others.

[preach2thestreets]

@Tobytrim Sorry, I know that this might come off sounding incredibly presumptuous. I know we all have different reasons for rejecting that there is a deity or God or what not. I am not saying that you are conciously struggling against the 'realization' of God. But I am saying that this subconcious desire for independence lurks in the heart of all people. I know it was the root of my unbelief in any god before I became a Christian. It is also hidden under your own reasons for not believing in God

[Tobytrim]

@preach2thestreets" I know it was the root of my unbelief in any god before I became a Christian"

The "root of your unbelief"????!!! Lol!!

And what is the current "root" of your "unbelief" in Leprechauns, Zeus, Thor, the yeti, little green men from outer space, santa claus, the tooth fairy, or any other unsupported entity which people have been expected to believe, in on the mere say-so of other human beings?

Mine is that there is no evidence they exist either!

[preach2thestreets]

@Tobytrim "And what is the current "root" of your "unbelief" in Leprechauns..."

You are refering to roots as the 'evidences' and 'reasoning' of unbelief but I refer to the'attitude' of unbelief.

As for the difference between Leperchauns and my personal God? I have the historical evidence of Christ's resurrection from the dead, and the experiential evidence of the Holy Spirit's work in my life.

[Tobytrim]

@preach2thestreets "You are refering to roots as the 'evidences' and 'reasoning' of unbelief but I refer to the'attitude' of unbelief"

Yes but , as I've already tried to explain many times, the most obvious reason not to believe something, with no reasoning or evidence behind it, is a respect for the truth.

No othjer attitude is necessary. The only reason to believe such superstition, is an emotional need for it

There is no "attitude" required NOT to believe it

[preach2thestreets]

@Tobytrim We claim moral and existential independence from God, but we were not created to be independent from Him. God created us for Himself. So since we choose to be independent of God, we are 'free' from Him. But we also choose then to be vulnerable to evil. We are vulnerable to its effects, and we are vulnerable to its power. Jesus taught that anyone who commits sin is a slave to sin. You and I are slaves to sin, not because we love comitting evil, but because we reject the Lordship of God.

[Tobytrim]

@preach2thestreets "You and I are slaves to sin, not because we love comitting evil, but because we reject the Lordship of God"

Once again - I do not reject your god, I simply do not believe he, or any other one, exists!

On that basis, neither do I accept the concept as "sin" as a lack of obedience to any entity. Particularly one which has nothing to distinquish it from human fantasy!

How can I be a slave to what isn't there?

Besides, it seems you DO accept "God's Lordship"?

[Oskaz13]

@Tobytrim you got it backwards Toby, the unbeliefe in God allows you to make up your own rules and tailor your own morality. God's word never changes, hasn't changed, will never change Toby. Are there hypocritical christians out there? Of course. Have people misused God's word for thier own personal agenda? Without a thought. But the condition of the heart NO ONE deals with it better than God.

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13 "God's word never changes, hasn't changed"

Really?? - So you believe that slavery is morally justified, as the "God" of the Old Testament did? Not to mention stoning people to death for not observing the "Sabbath", genocide , sexism, racism, etc ? "God" was that way then, because the people who made him up were that way then. Even today, there are believers in the same alleged god who disagree with what he calls right or wrong..... What exactly is unchanging about his "word"?

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13" Are there hypocritical christians out there? Of course."

Oh?? And who, or what, decides which are the faithful and obedient to "god's will" and which are the hypocrites?

Isn't that ALSO down to human arbitrary decision too?

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13 "But the condition of the heart NO ONE deals with it better than God."

Ha ha! The heart is a muscle which pumps blood around the body. The average coronary surgeon,, exercise, and healthy eating have all improved the condition of human hearts in any week , than every single mystic entity the human mind has ever invented, since it evolved the imagination to do so.

[Oskaz13]

@Tobytrim Why are you angry Toby? talk to me.

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13"Why are you angry Toby? talk to me." Ha ha!! -Why do Christians always call someone, who doesn't blindly accept what they themselves are gullible enough to believe, "angry"?

You're the second one to use this cop-out in as many threads - I'm no more angry than you are, and very likely less. It's the standard ad hominim attack in the absence of any rational argument.

[Oskaz13]

People ask for a sign of GOD's exsistence. The fact that they are here makes them a walking miracle. Believing in GOD is not an assasination of mind, it removes the shackles and takes the mind to new hieghts. "...what may be known of GOD is manifested in them, for GOD has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made..." Romans 1:19-18

[Tobytrim]

@Oskaz13" Believing in GOD is not an assasination of mind, it removes the shackles and takes the mind to new hieghts"

Belief in which god does this?? Man was believing in in all manners of supernatural entities, wizards, goblins, and various other superstitions, long before he came up with any current evolution of "God".......

[Megapolable]

@Tobytrim Jesus mate Jesus. WHy? Bec He is WOrthy, pure and simple.

[Oskaz13]

@Tobytrim The problem with that Toby is that no kind of supernatural entities, wizards, goblins, and various superstitions do not deal with the condition of the human heart, pain, suffering, etc...When people are in trouble or in desperate need they dont cry out to a goblin, a wizard or any other disneyland characters. No wizard, no goblin has ever soothed anyones pain and suffering.

[Oskaz13]

@Tobytrim "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible ZGod into an image like corruptible man-and birds and four footed animals and creepy things." Romans 1:21-23