Wow that's useful. Thanks.

Ed,

How many truly born again believers would use any of these excuses?

I wonder if the culture of teaching moralisms is what causes this?

Thanks Ed. This is so useful to those of us who are senior leaders of churches. Thanks for taking the time. I will use this information well.

Bless,

Tom Rawls

Thomas,

Leaving the CoC does not always mean leaving God. I know of MANY truly born again disciples who have sought more open/loving fellowships.

Makes me wonder what the top 10 reasons are the same group attends church.

Thomas,

I don't think you can simply chalk these statistics up to the data only covering the unregenerate 18-22 year olds.

I've met plenty of very strong brothers and sisters in the Faith who would echo many of the sentiments on the board and who feel no guild for missing "regular fellowship" in an institutional Church.

Granted, it's not always the church's fault, but knee-jerk reactions about those who share these sentiments not being "borne again believers" does nothing but exacerbate the issue.

How many "truly" born again believers? Are you kidding me? That's the very reason I avoided church for years: judgmental comments like that. And thus the results you see above.

"Simply wanted a break from church" sounds like a composite of reasons, some possibly being religious, ethical, or church related. I'd love to further probe those who gave this response.

I have served as a youth pastor for over seven years now, and I agree with the results of this poll. I also feel that the comment by Thomas Clay serves as an example of the spiritual arrogance that we believers sometimes unwittingly display towards others. Rather than addressing their grievances or concerns as legitimate, we simply question their level of commitment.

I echo the above sentiments about "truly borne again christians"

But what is so ironic to me is the second highest reason on the list--church members seemed judgemental or hypocritical.

Way to keep that tradition alive there, Thomas.

It is fascinating that 5 of the top 6 are "Life Change" and only one is "Church or Pastor". That is sort of revealing. That is worth a deeper dive and not what I expected based on other data I have read.

I was surprised actually. I was expecting more "Church or Pastor" related answers. I would love to get more at the heart of some of these responses. Question: Would you agree that underneath a majority of "life change" answers we could see more "church or pastor" responses?
Thoughts?

When I first started going to church, not one person said hello for three months. The woman are very jealous and look at you as competition for the males that attend. Gossiping is very bad inside the church as well-especially when they do not know you? Its been almost three years now and nothing much has changed, so on the days I do not attend, it is because sometimes I am not in the mood for fakeness with members or I do not wish to be treated bad. I do not have to attend every Sunday to be a Christian, but what is required is compassion for others, prayer, and worship. I sing everyday to Jesus! I am not a Sunday Christian, I am an everyday Christian. You know...God blessed me with a Christian man before all those bickering ladies. Getting married was the furthest thing from my mind until the day I was working at the church and I met my future husband. God planned that very well, and God and this man completely swept me off my feet. I knew immediately that this man was sent to me. Woman are not supposed to be searching anyways, as the Bible says that this is the mans job. God is aware of Christians who are acting like fools, because He will be clearing His house out first rest assured.

As a young adult (along with my wife) who is finding it difficult to find and stick with a "church" I feel I can help give insight into some of our perspective in light of these statistics. I actually agree that some of those answers elude to hearts that are not turned to Christ, or at the very most babes in the faith (though I profess to be no greater myself).

But the biggest reason you're seeing these young adults leave the church, from my experience, is that SO FEW churches are willing to speak the TRUTH! My wife and I have searched for over a year for a church that simply desires above all else to glorify the name of the Most High GOD! Don't give me life advice and 10 steps to a healthy relationship and ways to have my best life now! Just preach the gospel! Preach sermons that convict us and turn us back to God. We are a wayward flock and it's so easy to turn away. All I ever hear about youth ministry and preaching to young adults is that they are trying to make it "modern" and "relevant" to this generation. Truth isn't a fad, and it doesn't go out of style. Simply preach on the glory, love and hatred of God. Preach on the Captain of our salvation, the Christ! Teach us how to above all else seek for God's glory and not use prayer as a slot machine!

I think specific ministries, fellowship, gatherings and other things of the like are important, but if the preaching in your church doesn't convict you of your sins, and if they are putting other things in front of their focus on God's glory, the other things are wasteful and vain.

Sorry if I seem like I'm angry at anyone here. Just saw this post and I felt a welling of anger in me. I'm confident that if the church would commit itself back to focusing on the above sentiments, you'd have young people on fire for Christ. Maybe there'd be less of them, but this isn't a numbers game...

Anyway, these are the words of a sinful man. If there be truth of the Spirit here, may God be glorified.

Nice report.

1. The presentation does address why people in this cohort do attend church.

2. About why there are not more 'pastor' related responses. While the author has labeled it 'Church or Pastor', there was not a specific 'Pastor' question. In fact, the number one reason - "Simply wanted a break from the church" might be better coded as 'Church or Pastor' related.

I was glad to see this survey, as we are trying to get young adult stuff going at our church -
one observation from the YAs at my church is we do so much for the youth, and then kind of "drop" them by expecting them to be instantly mainstreamed into the the "adult" church - after all, they are adults, right? but a transition time of building relationships with others in the church beyond the youth group is rather crucial, too.

Wow. Tilly and Chad, are you judging Thomas Clay? Although no one can judge a persons heart with regards to their salvation, only God can, there is something to Thomas Clay's comment. Why would anyone who is born again of the Spirit and professes a relationship with Jesus Christ willfully abandon the Church, which is His Bride regardless of the church's shortcomings? Especially when the Bible says not to forsake the fellowship of believer's? Now granted, the Church is not a perfect institution but I am of the opinion that the reason why people are down on the church is because many within the church have completely abandoned the biblical gospel or have modified it to the point that it no longer resembles the biblical gospel. I am of the opinion that the reason the church often does not look any different than the world sometimes is because we have filled the church with "false converts" by changing the gospel message to fill the pews rather than change the hearts so that people may be born again.

Juliet: I suggest you find another church.

Brandon: Amen! I couldn't have said it better myself. In my opinion, you hit the nail on the head. May God be glorified forever!

@DOC

"Why would anyone who is born again of the Spirit and professes a relationship with Jesus Christ willfully abandon the Church, which is His Bride regardless of the church's shortcomings? "

I have gone to church since I was six weeks old. I know all the bible stories, participated in the quiz bowl teams, went to church camp for 10 years, councelled at church camp for another 6 years, led two different girls devotionals, went to and graduated from a private christian (church of christ) university, am the daughter of a deacon and the sister in law of a preacher.

my life used to be jesus.

Then I began noticing that there are others "out there" whose lives are not jesus, but in fact, some other god. And that got me to thinking- "how do I know I worship the right god?" Short answer, I don't. And that ultimately led me to atheism, of which, I am an atheist.

So me not going to church anymore has nothing to do with the church itself. And no, doc, I don't think I was being judgemental because 1)It was an observation and 2) I do not have a supernatural being in the sky that judges me.

@DOC

Thomas said, quote:

"How many truly born again believers would use any of these excuses?"

The obvious implication is that true, born again believers would NEVER use such flimsy excuses. The statement is blatantly judgmental and arrogant, which several others have also commented on. It is this sort of arrogance that turns so many off to the church (indeed, ironically, this is a perfect example of the judgmentalism that drives so many out of the church, and was the second top reason given in Ed's poll). Thomas' reply shows a willingness to blame those leaving the church, rather than a willingness to ask the painful question as to why so many are leaving. Your attempting to paint myself and Tilly as judging him by making this observation seems either to be an attempt to start some pointless debate (as debates on these threads never go anywhere), or an attempt to once again blame the disenchanted, as you attempt to scold us for acknowledging the problems that everyone sees.

There are too many sinners in church and I am too self righteous to go there.

Brandon, you said exactly what I've been thinking and feeling and saying to others. The "church" today doesn't much resemble how bodies of Christ are depicted in the Bible. Tilly, your comment about a supernatural being in the sky who judges people reveals your true motivation for leaving Christ behind, it has nothing to do with reasoning and everything to do with feeling.

Are these people who left a specific church (for another church, perhaps), or those who left church all together? Or both? That might help clear up if we're talking about false converts or not.

How many of these young adults have "asked Jesus into their hearts"?

That may be the problem...They were never saved to begin with...False converts:(

I blame the Pastors out there that don't teach Repentance of sins:(

True believers in Christ would never use excuses like these.

It's hard to believe that anyone would leave Church...I mean, most churches are seeker sensitive...they offer hip, cool music with coffee and pastries...what else do you need?

Eeek!

I believe this reflects the immaturity of the age group mentioned. As I was coming up, I noticed this within my peer group. There was a lot of inconsistency and misperceived judging.
Today, many of them are back in church. They have come to recognize that fellowship with God and His people involves growing together in an atmosphere of love and forgiveness. This information is helpful for those who pray.

These results are not surprising to me. I left the "church" about 6 years ago. I did NOT leave the Church.

I had been trying to have a conversation, as a Minister and church leader, for about 2 1/2 years prior to leaving. My topic was a very basic one, I thought! It was -- "Who Are We?" By this I meant the following:

As leaders in the "church" do our members (congregants, etc.) see us applying the same principles in the administration of God's house & our daily lives, as we exhort them to apply in their homes & their daily lives? Therefore, when they hear exhortations from the pulpit, Sunday school classes, Bible studies, and or counseling (individual/group)etc., to "walk by faith" - do they see us (the leadership) walking by faith?

The above example is just an overall statement that covers all areas that we give exhortations on. It covers the edifying counsel/sermons on everything. It covers our relationships (personal, professional, & Spiritual,) our finances, our morals, our actions (in public, as well as private). In others words, to the best of our abilities are they seeing us "practice what we preach, teach & counsel?"

In the time period I was attempting to have this dialogue, approx. 2 1/2 years, across denominational lines, the response I received was quite remarkable. I was told in a variety of ways "Jim, you know that's what the Bible says, and I know that's what the Bible says, but what do suppose would happen if we preached and taught that from the pulpit?"

After 2 1/2 years, I clearly understood the inference and the Lord compelled me to do the following:

And He said unto me "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." And I straightway left my net, and followed Him.

Tilly:
Thank you for your response. Sincere question for you: Did you ever know the Lord?

Chad:

My attempt was to point out the hypocrisy in condeming Christians for "judging" others while being perfectly OK with judging Christians yourself. Seems like a double standard. No one is denying the issues within the Church. The very point of this survey was to address just that. Why is it arrogant to say that if someone is truly born again they would not abandon the church. Are you saying someone can be a follower of Jesus Christ and love the Lord but can't stand to be around His other followers? To me that is the height of arrogance. True Christians love the bretheren even with all their shortcomings and failures and love the church and want to help present the Church spotless and blameless for the Bridegroom Jesus Christ? Besides the Church is the body of Christ. Why is it arrogant to say that a true Christian would never abandon the body of Christ, their Lord and Savior? That is like saying I am an American but I can't stand America. Maybe the comment hit too close to home for some and that is why they lash out and criticize Thomas Clay. I do not believe it was Thomas Clay's intention to blame those who leave. Most who reject the Church leave by their own decision, whatever that may be. Jesus said you are either with Him or against Him. You pick which side you want to be on. Don't blame the Church for your decision to leave. No one forced you out. The decision was yours and yours alone.

I have enjoyed reading the information and the comments following. I always think it is good to look at information and evaluate, but one thing that started to disturb me about the comments was the repeated statement, "Just preach Jesus". I think I understand what most are saying with this statement, but I also think we need to talk about issues of the day. When you look at the New Testiment most of it are letters written to address the issues and struggles of the day. I believe you can have a marriage series, how to raise children series, etc. and preach Jesus very powerfully. You can not be the best spouse, parent, co-worker and so forth without Christ but what does that look like in every day living. I think you can take those topics and show them excatly what that looks like with Jesus all though the message.

Just a thought

You know, I see that alot of the people here are viewing judgementalism as a bad thing, and I'm honestly curious to find out what you mean by that.

If you mean the judgement of churchgoing people who condemn homosexuals but engage in pre-marital sex or have been divorced and remarried...or perhaps the member who derides atheists and nonbelievers but has those secret websites he visits when no one is home...if this is the judgementalism that you speak of, then I absolutely agree with you that it is terrible and puts a bad face on Christianity.

However, if you speak of the judgement that leads to repentance, then I must resoundingly disagree. No human can judge the heart of a human, but we judge the tree by the fruit it produces. People love to quote Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, lest ye be judged", but they like to stop there. If you read the rest of the chapter, (among other wonderful points) Christ tells us not to cast our pearls (judgement) before swine (unbelievers). If I'm an unbeliever and someone tells me not to sin because the Bible says so, why should I care?

If I am so blessed to find a body of believers who understand that this judgement is beneficial and is reserved for the called of Christ, then I would be exceedingly greatful to God. To have someone call me out and explain Scripturally why I'm headed down the wrong path, maybe even explain how they too have been there and understand the struggles, how invaluable those brothers and sisters are. I don't like feeling judged, and being convicted in the Spirit is one of the most hurtful experiences a believe feels. But the Father scolds and reprimands His own, and does so to bring them unto Him. This judgement is priceless, and assures us of our faith.

Again, I'm not here to try and teach, because I am in dire need of a teacher myself. And I'm not trying to incite a flame war, because I agree that internet posts are rarely constructive. But I cringe when I hear believers deride judgementalism.

Chad:

My attempt was to point out the hypocrisy in criticizing Christians for "judging" others but feeling perfectly in your right to judge Christians. Seems like a double standard. You still have not explained why it is arrogant to say that a true, born again Christian would not abandon the Church despite the Church's failures and shortcomings. It is like saying you are an American but can't stand America. Why would someone who is a follower of Jesus Christ and loves the Lord reject His Church, which is His Body? A true believer loves the bretheren despite their faults and is committed to helping the Church present itself spotless and blameless before the bridegroom, who is Jesus. No one is denying the problems the Church has. And no one is blaming those who left the Church. On the contrary. Most who leave the Church leave by their own decision and are not forced out. The decision is theirs and theirs alone. Don't blame the Church for their decision to leave. They chose to leave on their own for whatever reason. But if one is a follower of Jesus Christ they will obey His commandments. They will love what He loves and hate what He hates. Jesus loves the Church. He is the head of the Church. The cornerstone. Why reject it? The Bible says that believers should not forsake the fellowship with other believers. Yes, there are many hypocrites within the Church. We just should make sure we are not one of them. Maybe Thomas Clay's comment hit a little too close to home for some and that is why they criticize his comments.

Juliet and those who infrequently attend church, Sabbath or first day...,know what the LORD requires of you: to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with GOD. Micah 6:8
Solomon said it best: of making many books [there is] no end; and much study [is] a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man-[kind]. Eccl.12:12,13

These sound like multiple choice questions to me. 62% of all born again SPIRT FILLED believers do not attend any "church". This is because of the controlling religious spirit, which is a demonic spirit ,that lives and flourishes in almost ALL churches. People are fed up with not being used and not being able to grow in the leadership oriented 'churches' contrary to Jesus commanding leaders to be SERVANTS.

@Jacob Oost

"Tilly, your comment about a supernatural being in the sky who judges people reveals your true motivation for leaving Christ behind, it has nothing to do with reasoning and everything to do with feeling."

First off- sweet last name (assuming that is your last name and not your blog name).
Back to the topic-- It has everything to do with reasoning. It was the hardest process of my life to de-convert. I'm still in the middle of it. Just now am I realizing the emotional side that was attached to it. So I dont think that my statement about not having a supernatural being in the sky reveals anything. My decision to invest time and research into my doubting,was so that I could discover the truth- whatever that may be- and I know I have discovered it. Also, I didn't "leave christ behind" as you stated. I think that in order to actually leave him beind, I would have to recognize his presence and choose NOT to follow him. Which is not what I did. I denied the divinity of the christian jesus and the existence of a god. I don't really think that blaspheming constitutes leaving christ behind.

@Ed

"Sincere question for you: Did you ever know the Lord? "

I really feel I did. As a former christian, I can easily relate to most current christians in the sense that, I have "felt" his presense in my life. I know what it is like to be moved to tears by the "spirit." I truly believed that prayer had power. I loved him so very deeply. He was my comforter, my friend, my councelor, my savior and my lord. So yes, Ed, I sincerely knew your god. Now I just...know.

No one has answered my original question. Not one of the reasons given in the survey are on a biblical basis. Everyone who calls me judgmental and critical are all guilty of the same judgmental hypocritical attitude that you claim the church has.

I pray for each of you....I also hope that you will see the beauty and glory of Christ as expressed through His Bride, His Body--the Church.

Doc, the point Chad, myself and others are making is that the Church contributes to driving people away. Is that the type of bride to whom Christ was referring? I don't think so. Some, like me, have returned to "the Church" but not "the Church" as it has traditionally been done in this country. Others are so jaded that they're unwilling to give it another chance. Did they make that choice? Maybe, but that's not a choice they would have made at one point in their lives -- they grew disillusioned with people claiming to live for Christ but showing through their actions that they did not. Why would you ever defend that kind of posture?

Tilly:

I was the one who asked you the question "Did you ever know the Lord?" not Ed.

With regards to your answer, a Christian is someone who knows the Lord. According to your statement, you say you knew the Lord. You said: "So yes, Ed, I sincerely knew your god." That means you acknowldege that He exists and that He is who He said He was. So how can you be an atheist if you acknowledge that you knew Him and that He truly exists? If you truly knew the Lord then you have willfully turned your back on Him by refusing to worship Him as Lord any longer and I am afraid for you.

You also mentioned things regarding your "feelings" and how you "felt his presence" and how you were "moved by the Spirit". But Christianity and the truth are not "feelings". One can be deceived by how they feel. The Bible says that eternal life is knowing the Lord. It has nothing to do with feelings and everything to do with belief, faith, and knowledge. It is a belief that leads to knowledge that leads to trusting in the Lord (faith). Although we have feelings that result from that, our feelings are irrelevant when it comes to knowing the truth (i.e- knowing the Lord).

If what you meant is that you "thought you knew the Lord" then that means you really never truly knew the Lord and, therefore, were never truly a Christian because, by definition, a Christian is someone who knows the Lord. It has nothing to do with going to church, knowing all the bible stories, particiapating in church camps, etc.
I am deeply concerned for you, Tilly.

Trace:

The basic point that I have been trying to make is that a true follower of Christ would not blame Christ for the sins of Christians. A true Christian would not abandon Christ and the Church because of the failures of those who profess to be Christians. I agree that there are a lot (too many in fact) of horrible churches in this country that tarnish the name of Christ and are poor witnesses of our Lord. Churches that teach unbiblical doctirne and are filled with wolves in sheep's clothing. But, at the same time, there are many good churches with good leaders and many wonderful people. Sometimes you just have to look for them, if you are willing. If it is important to you. The fellowshiping of believers, the edification of believers, the preaching of the gospel, the teaching of God's word that is. But what everyone needs to keep in mind is that no one will ever find a perfect church. Not on this entire earth. If that is what people expect they will be sadly disappointed Why? Because the church is filled with sinners. They may be forgiven sinners but sinners nonetheless. Should they be Christ-like and behave according to the commandments of God? Yes, as much as possible. But we all fall. We all stumble. Yes, the church is filled with hypocrites. We need to all just make sure we are not one of them.
I recently read the following in an article about church: It said, "Christians are worse than most people think. And our Savior is better than most people think". So to completely turn your back on the Church because of the actions of others makes me question whether someone truly believes in Christ or they are just looking for some sort of "religious experience" that makes them feel good. Even though the Church is not a building or a religious organization but rather a body of believers, we as Christians, should make every effort to align ourselves with other Bible believing people who are bearing fruit for the Lord and serve that local "church" with all our hearts, teaching the truth of God's word to anyone who will listen and to the next generation.

I agree with another person who commented on the statement "would any "truly" born again believers" that is a loaded statement to start. I am more concerned for the reasons behind these statements -especially "I needed a break from church." Most maintstream denomonations are still in the 19th century (if they're fortunate) and we are ttying to reach a generation in the 21st... what is going on?

Lisa:

The problem with "reaching a generation in the 21st century" is that the truth does not change. The truth is as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. The Bible and the gospel are as relevant today as it was 2,000 years ago. So for what purpose does it need to be changed? Trying to change the gospel of Jesus Christ and the scriptures to be more hip and modern is what has resulted in churches doing things like "the gospel according to U2" and "the High School Musical Bible", both of which are true examples of things certain churches in this country have done in an attempt to reach he 21st century generation. The problem is that it makes the gospel and Christianity look stupid and silly. People then don't take it seriously and when they find something more of interest they leave the church. I also feel it is a sad testimony to the lack of confidence we have in the gospel and the word of God that we feel that if we don't make it hip and modern people will leave the church or not come. Unless people come to church to serve, to be edified, to worship God, to fellowship with other beleivers, to learn about the word of God they come in vain. The purpose of the church is not to entertain its members. The word of God does not change but is applicable even to the 21st century. If people of the 21st century do not respond to the power that is in God's word and unless God draws them to Himself they will not come at all. There is no sense in turning the gospel into pop culture. The culture needs to align itself with the truth of God's word not the other way around.

Don't be Doc. But thanks.

As I see it, there are two issues being bandied about here:
1. Arrogance.
2. Hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is easily handled.
First case: Several posters have mentioned that “no true Christian” or “no true follower of Christ” would etc. This is the wonderful “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy. And it is fallacious and convenient. In short, it allows people to disallow any reasoned response to Christian hypocrisy, evil doings in churches, and virtually any undesired behavior as responses from “not true Christians.” So, none of the posters or survey respondents, in this light, should complain or leave their church - no matter what - else they become “not true Christians.”

Second case: How many Christian politicians, ministers, etc. does it take to be shown to be hypocrites on moral behavior before the word “Christian” leaves a bad taste in your mouth? But, of course, they are “Not true Christians.” How many extremely rich televangelists - who, as Hank Williams Junior noted, ‘want you to give your money to the Lord, but they give you their address’ - does it take to make the word “Christian” loathsome? But no matter how they might protest, remember, they are “not true Christians.”

One might go even farther and note that those who use the code words “the Bible says” are really indicating they are followers of Saul/Paul, not Christ. One might say they are “not true Christians.” So are there any true Christians?

Arrogance is a bit different.
The word “truth” (often TRUTH) comes up a lot. In fact, as one imbibes more education, you soon find that there are few things that are dichotomous - right / wrong or true / false. You find, as you travel, that there are different ways to do things, different ways to see the world, and they are as valid as they ways you have grown up with. In some cases, they are better than the ways you know. As you learn more science, you learn that you should be guided by evidence and testing.

However, if one should try to use reason, or look for evidence, s/he is branded by “Christians” as “swine” or “Lost”, etc. The arrogance is overwhelming. How would Christians like to be called the “Deluded”? When one asks that Christians stop pushing their agenda on others, the accusation is that you are trying to push your agenda on them. Again, the arrogance is overwhelming.

I know from many tries, that if you just ask a believer for objective evidence for their beliefs, *none* can ever be provided. All you get as ‘evidence’ is 1. Their sincere beliefs (probably never questioned, just programmed from birth). 2, “The Bible says” - just writings of other believers. (Adolf Hitler said that God sent him to save Germany. Is that evidence one should believe?) 3. ‘Look what belief does for you,’ which is no evidence at all. 4. ‘You have to believe to understand.’ I remember drug users telling me I couldn’t understand what drugs could do for me until I tried. Wasn’t a persuasive argument there either. 5. Just read the Bible. Many unbelievers are quite aware of what the Bible says, and its problems. But of course, being a product of other believers, without objective substantiation, the Bible isn’t ‘evidence’ either.

Further, it is unbelievable that all of scientific knowledge - in many fields - should be overthrown in favor of the myths and beliefs and writings of people who lived several thousand years ago - just because ‘believers’ say so.

So, herein lies the problem. It is extremely arrogant for people who have no objective evidence for their beliefs to tell others: 1. That their beliefs are wrong. 2. They cannot be moral without those beliefs. 3: They should (and must, they hope) live their lives as the Christians want. 4: Anything the non-believers say or do is really work of the devil. 5: Without question and without evidence one must accept that Christians and the Christian way is the only way things should be.

There may be many reasons to stay in a church, but unless the ‘church’ learns to deal with an educated population living in the 21st - not the 16th century, the ‘church’ may become increasingly irrelevant. This survey may only show the tip of a growing problem.

Doc:
What you say is the problem I say is the best solution. The truth IS the the same and Jesus is the same. However, we continue to present Jesus with words and hymns which contain words that no one uses today. THE TRUTH IS LOST IN WORDS THAT HAVE NO MEANING FOR YOUNGER PEOPLE TODAY! All I am saying is use 21st century means to reach the 21st century generation but the truth remains the same.

@C.P. Steinmetz

Very eloquently written. A dear friend and I just had a discussion about being moral without certain beliefs. I wasn't quite the wordsmith you were, but I held my head high afterwards.

By the way, how's the laboratory lightning coming along?

Tilly, thank you so much for the complement. However, I must confess that it was a previous post of yours that jolted me into the realization that the survey did not cover one major reason: 'I don't believe any more.' Thank you for that.

About being moral without certain beliefs: I am certain that you did yourself proud. Obviously, organized society cannot exist without a shared sense of right and wrong. Whether one uses religion, reason or just socialization of children, the results can be comparable. I suspect we - and everyone else - have seen many moral and immoral believers and unbelievers.

Unfortunately, extremely long lived societies such as China, India, Egypt, and the Mesopotamian societies that Judaism used to develop behaviorial codes, had moral behavior long before Judaism or Christianity. To me the argument that demolishes the 'gotta be Christian to be moral' argument.

The laboratory lightning is coming along slowly. Every time I flick a switch, lightning comes out.

C.P. Steinmetz:
What you fail to realize is that biblical Christianity is logical and reasonable and based on factual evidence. Christianity cannot be separated from fact, logic, and reason or else it no longer is biblical Christianity. You seem to think that somehow logic and reason are incompatible with the Bible and Christianity. Not so. 
Regarding your  “No true Scotsman” claim what you fail to understand is that a Christian is someone who knows the Lord and has been "born again" of the Spirit. In other words, that person has repented of their sins and God has sent His Holy Spirit to dwell inside them. This causes many changes within the believer and gives them new desires. He desires to love and please the Lord and follow His commandments. THEREFORE, someone who has been "born again" (i.e.- a true Christian) would not willinglly and reapeatedly behave in a sinful manner. Not after they realize what Jesus did for them to save them from the wrath of God and from hell. Now that doesn't mean a Christian never sins but they are repenting of their sins daily and trying to please God by living in holiness. They do not live in sin. But those who claim to be Christian but do not demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit are not true Christians because they have not been born again. The Bible calls them wolves in sheep's clothing. You may not like that and may say it is "convenient" but it is the truth. It does not matter what you or I say or believe. What matters is if it is true. And because one says "the bible says" does not mean they are following Saul/Paul and not Christ because the writers of the Bible were #1 teaching what Christ taught and #2 the Bible is the word of God written through men, not the words of men written about God. Rather than judging Christianity by focusing on the behavior of "Christians" focus on what Christianity actually teaches and if the way Christians should behave merits any consideration. Focus on your own sins and what Christ said and taught.

You said that the more you are educated the more you realize that there "are few things that are dichotomous - right / wrong or true / false". Really? First, it has nothing to do with how educated a person is.  Because both the educated and uneducated sin. Secondly, those things that ARE right and wrong are the big things in life and are applicable to both the educated and uneducated. You say there are "different ways to do things". We are not talking about cultural traditions such as different ways to prepare and cook foods, different ways to do government, different ways to drive a car. In those things there are different opinions as to the best way to do things and one is not necesarilly better than the other. But funny how in just about every culture on earth it is wrong to murder, lie, cheat, and steal. And those things are punishable by law in the vast majority of cultures.

You mention arrogance. But what is truly arrogant is it to say that God does not exist when you have no evidence of this. That is the arrogance that is overwhelming. You are mistaken when you say there is no evidence for the Christian belief. There is a lot of evidence and it is so vast that you are without excuse. It has nothing to do with "belief". It is not true because people believe it or are sincere in their belief; people believe it because it is true. You mention Hitler (as if Hitler was representative of Christianity). Hitler was acting contradictory to the teachings of the Bible and Christianity even though he may have claimed to believe in Christianity. So apparently, according to your logic, you can be a Christian without following any of the Christian beliefs and doing things that are in complete opposition to Christianity? That makes no sense. 
              

Doc, where to start?

You say: “What you fail to realize is that biblical Christianity is logical and reasonable and based on factual evidence. Christianity cannot be separated from fact, logic, and reason or else it no longer is biblical Christianity. You seem to think that somehow logic and reason are incompatible with the Bible and Christianity. Not so.”

Pardon me, but it is not quite enough for you to just make that claim. I come from a science perspective, where appeal to authority is not sufficient. Please provide something to substantiate your claims - like evidence, perhaps.

“Regarding your “No true Scotsman” claim what you fail to understand is that a Christian is someone who knows the Lord and has been "born again" of the Spirit. ... THEREFORE, someone who has been "born again" (i.e.- a true Christian) would not willinglly and reapeatedly behave in a sinful manner.” Isn’t this called ‘backsliding?” In fact, doesn’t your faith claim that all people sin - even willingly and repeatedly - or it wouldn’t be ‘sin’? In short, as people who think they are ‘true Christians’ can sin, then there are no ‘true Christians.’

You continue, “But those who claim to be Christian but do not demonstrate the fruits of the Spirit are not true Christians because they have not been born again.” So, as all fall short and sin, there are no true Christians.

And because one says "the bible says" does not mean they are following Saul/Paul and not Christ because ... the Bible is the word of God written through men, not the words of men written about God.”

1. Two questions: Do you pray in public? Do you ‘judge’ others? Who do you follow.
2. “Bible is the word of God.” This statement implies several assertions. A. There is a God or Gods. B. There is only one God. C. That God is the one I believe in. C. The Bible is the word of that God. Can you provide objective evidence for any of these assertions? As I noted before, all I ask for is evidence, and none is ever provided.

You say that I ‘sin’. Unless you can provide evidence for the above, I cannot see how I can possibly “sin”.

“You said that the more you are educated the more you realize that there "are few things that are dichotomous - right / wrong or true / false". Really?” Yes.

“First, it has nothing to do with how educated a person is. Because both the educated and uneducated sin.” And ‘sin’ has just what to do with ‘right and wrong?”

You note: “But funny how in just about every culture on earth it is wrong to murder, lie, cheat, and steal. And those things are punishable by law in the vast majority of cultures.” Note what you have just demonstrated. You say “about every culture” and “in the vast majority of cultures.” In short, there is not an absolute standard. From your Sociology classes, you will have learned just that - and that societies determine what is right and wrong.

“You mention arrogance. But what is truly arrogant is it to say that God does not exist when you have no evidence of this. That is the arrogance that is overwhelming.” Come, come. You know that as you are the one proposing a “God” that you have the burden of proof to provide evidence for your beliefs. Your statement is an extreme example of fallacious logical reasoning.

You responded to me with: “You are mistaken when you say there is no evidence for the Christian belief. There is a lot of evidence and it is so vast that you are without excuse. ... people believe it because it is true.” Ah yes, “TRUTH”. As it is so overwhelmingly true, perhaps you can provide some objective evidence. As I noted before, all I ask for is evidence, and none is ever provided.

I mentioned Hitler only to note that we have absolute first hand information (from a Nazi movie) that he claimed God sent him to save Germany. Yet, even that first hand evidence directly from him, and not through his followers, is unconvincing. Consequently, the lesson is that writings of believers are not convincing evidence either.

I write this not to have endless argument or to question your sincerity in any way. Rather, I ask these questions to point out that a developing more educated youthful population will expect answers, and they will not be content to accept a ‘just because it is true’ response. Consequently, the issue remains - given the positive benefits a church may offer youth (and I think there are many), how can churches remain vibrant without being able to answer these questions? Hypocrisy and arrogance will not suffice.

@Doc

"You mention arrogance. But what is truly arrogant is it to say that God does not exist when you have no evidence of this."

No one is mentioning certainity. In fact, C.P. Steinmetz never said "God does not exist." It is impossible to PROVE without a doubt that god does or does not exist. Leave certainity alone. It is a profitless battle.

@C.P.

Keep working at it. One guy I knew had over 200 patents. You'll get there.

Tilly:

You said: "It is impossible to PROVE without a doubt that god does or does not exist. Leave certainity alone."

So then how can you claim to be an atheist? If you believe what you just wrote you are an agnostic, not an atheist.

C.P. Steinmetz:
I come from a science background as well. With regards to evidence for the existence of God it is composed of simple logic and reason. God is Spirit. He does not have a physical body. As a result, you will not find God in a test tube or under a microscope. You will not find "scientific evidence" of God's existence. He is much bigger than that. God created science because He created this universe and the physical laws that govern how this universe works. However, the evidence is more compelling and based on simple logic and reason. 
Consider the following: 
If I were to show you a building what kind of evidence would you need in order to know, as fact, without a doubt, that a builder exists or existed?
Isn't the building itself proof positive that a builder exists? Yes, because buildings don't build themselves. You don't need any other evidence to know this as fact. Same thing for a painting. If I were to show you a painting what kind of evidence would you need in order to know, as fact, without a doubt, that a painter exists or existed?
Isn't the painting itself proof positive that a painter exists? Yes, because paintings don't paint themselves. The same applies to creation and a creator. The fact that this creation exists and that you exist is proof positive that a creator exists because the universe can't create itself.
To believe otherwise is to believe that nothing created everything which is a scientific impossibility.

You said: " Isn’t this called ‘backsliding? In fact, doesn’t your faith claim that all people sin - even willingly and repeatedly - or it wouldn’t be ‘sin’"

Incorrect. There is no such thing as "backsliding". The Bible makes no such claims. Those who are erroneously called "backsliders" are people who never slid forward to begin with. They have never been born again. As for sin, the Bible defines what sin is. Sin is transgression of the Law. And while all people sin, it has nothing to do with the repetitiveness of it or whether it was willful or not. If you transgress God's Law just once you have sinned.   

You said: "So, as all fall short and sin, there are no true Christians"

Once again you are incorrect and fail to understand. A Christian is someone who has been born again of the Spirit not someone who is perfect and without sin. However, a Christian does not live willingly in sin.

"Two questions: Do you pray in public?"

Sometimes.

"Do you ‘judge’ others?"

Not sure what you mean but "judge". If by "judge" you mean judge someone's heart and motives with regard to salvation then my answer is "NO". If you mean if I "judge" people's behavior which the Bible calls "fruit" in regards to what is right and wrong according to God's word then my answer is "YES". It is called discernment.

"Who do you follow?"

Jesus the Christ, my Lord and Savior. 

With regards to the word of God you said: "Can you provide objective evidence for any of these assertions? As I noted before, all I ask for is evidence, and none is ever provided."

Maybe you haven't ask the right questions or asked it of the right people. There is plenty of evidence with regard to the accuracy, validity, and claims of the Bible. First, there are more manuscrpits for the Bible than for any other ancient writings of antiquity. Secondly, there have been thousands and thousands of archeological finds that have corroborated the claims of the Bible. The Bible is rooted in history. It speaks of real people from history and speaks of real events and speaks of real places. Much of which has been proven accurate from archeological evidence. In fact, certain ancient people groups mentioned in the Bible have been thought for many years not to exist because they have not been mentioned in other sources until archeologists look in the location of those groups described in the Bible and they have been found just as the Bible described. Also, there has never been any archeological discovery that has disproven anything from the Bible. Third, the Bible mentions scientific facts, such as the number of stars, ocean currents, that the earth is round, health risks to washing hands in stagnant water and importance of running water, etc many hundreds of years before modern science discovered them to be true. Lastly, the Bible describes prophesy written thousands of years before they actually happened. All of the details of these things can be found with just a cursory look through the Internet.

"You say that I ‘sin’. Unless you can provide evidence for the above, I cannot see how I can possibly “sin”."

Have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen anything? (how long ago it took place and the value of what was stolen are irrelevant). Have you ever looked with lust at another person? Have you ever hated someone? Have you ever used God's name in vain? Have you ever dishonored your parents? If you answered "YES" to any of those questions you have sinned.   

"In short, there is not an absolute standard"

Again you are incorrect. The absolute standard are the Laws of God.

"....that societies determine what is right and wrong."

Oh, brother. So, the society in Hitler's Germany said it was right to discriminate against and murder millions of Jewish people. Are you saying that that was right?           
If the U.S. makes a law saying it is OK to rape and murder children, that is right?

"Yet, even that first hand evidence directly from him, and not through his followers, is unconvincing. Consequently, the lesson is that writings of believers are not convincing evidence either."

Yet another erroneous statement. I see a pattern developing. 
I can say all day long that I am a penguin. That doesn't make me one. Just because Hitler claimed Christianity doesn't mean he was a christian. His actions did not match his words.  If a Christan makes a claim but it is contradictory to scripture it is not true even though they are "christian".

"Rather, I ask these questions to point out that a developing more educated youthful population will expect answers, and they will not be content to accept a ‘just because it is true’ response. "

Are you saying that only the "youthful population" is educated? Talk about arrogance. I do not know of anyone in the "older" population that would be content to accept a "just because it is true" response either. I am glad you expect answers because there are answers to your questions. When it comes to death and judgement ignorance of these answers will also not suffice.  

With all due respect to all those who oppose my question and stance (and Doc's), to call Christians and the scriptures "judgmental" or "arrogant" or "egotistical" is missing the point.

Why don't you call Newton "arrogant" and "narrow-minded" for describing the Laws of Inertia? Why don't you call Einstein "narrow-minded" for writing his Theories of Relativity?

These concepts did not originate with man--these men were merely explaining them. In a similar way (although in a much more astounding and greater way), the scriptures did not originate with man. They are the expression of Who God is. The Church merely falls into submission to the scriptures and (should) humbly and lovingly seek to obey them. That doesn't make the Church arrogant or judgmental any more than it would make any of you arrogant for calling water "wet" or the sky "blue".

I appreciate your sincere desire to explain your stances. You have been a great help to me.

Thomas Clay, you asked why we don't call Newton or Einstein arrogant or narrow minded. The answer is very simple, there is objective evidence they were right. In short, it doesn't matter whether or not I believe or do not believe in gravity or relativity, the predictions based upon their work come out the same.
The remainder of your post is, contrarily, based upon your belief, for which you probably can provide no objective evidence. Consequently, it would be 'arrogance' to judge others who disagree with you.

> If I were to show you a building what kind of evidence would you need in order to know, as fact, without a doubt, that a builder exists or existed?

"The same argument was made centuries ago by William Paley, except he referred to the exquisite design of a pocketwatch, and pointed out that such a thing is so complex and delicate that it had to have been designed from the top down by a creator. This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution's bottom-up design mechanism. Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there's nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all. In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it's inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have. - Brian Dunning

C.P. Steinmetz:

You said to Thomas Clay: "In short, it doesn't matter whether or not I believe or do not believe in gravity or relativity, the predictions based upon their work come out the same. "

The same principle applies to God and Christianity. It doesn't matter whether you believe in God and His Laws. The truth about them are the same whether you believe or not. The truth is true even if no one believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. The truth and evidence for the existence of God has been provided. You can accept it or reject it. It doesn't change what is true.

Boris:

You said: "This argument is simply reflective of ignorance of the extraordinary power of evolution's bottom-up design mechanism."

This comment is simply a relection of ignorance of the truth and lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution.

"Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection, and also understand how structures with irreducible complexity evolve, there's nothing unlikely or implausible about evolution at all."

Once you have an understanding of multigenerational mutation and natural selection you quickly find out that evolution is a fairy tale for grown ups made up in the imaginations of people who do not want to yield to the authority of the All Mighty Creator. Because if you understood mutations you would know that mutations are virtually always harmful or negative on its host and does not confer an advantage to that organism. Mutations are a negative not an advantage. You would also know that no matter how much genetic manipulation occurs and different species are developed, either in nature or the lab, a dog is still a dog, a cat is still a cat, an elephant is still an elephant, a monkey is still a monkey, and a human is still human.

"In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with."

So computer softwares are more intelligent than the human beings that actually created them??????

The same failed logic eventually needs to answer the question of where did all this "stuff" (like genetic material, matter, atoms, etc) that we see and are able to manipulate come from to begin with. Did the universe we see create itself? To exclude an All Mighty Creator is to believe nothing created everything which is a scientific impossibility.

Doc, wow.

You state: "With regards to evidence for the existence of God it is composed of simple logic and
reason. God is Spirit. He does not have a physical body. As a result, you will not find God in a
test tube or under a microscope. You will not find "scientific evidence" of God's existence."

Incredible. You have stated that the "evidence for the existence of God" is that there is no
evidence and there cannot be any. Have I missed something here?

While you explain that, please explain then - as there is no evidence - how you know that "God is
Spirit?

I should stop right here, because you have basically admitted that any discussion of evidence is
doomed to failure. However, in fairness to your other questions, I will try to answer them.

"He is much bigger than that. God created science because He created this universe and the
physical laws that govern how this universe works." Mere assertions, with no evidence. In fact,
by your statement above, you cannot provide any evidence. So why should anyone believe it?

"However, the evidence is more compelling and based on simple logic and reason." "The fact
that this creation exists and that you exist is proof positive that a creator exists because the
universe can't create itself. ...
To believe otherwise is to believe that nothing created everything which is a scientific
impossibility."

And, of course, then this begs the question of who created the creator. If your logic holds, then
you must explain who created the creator. Please do not use the "God is different from everything
else, so I don't have to explain" argument.

"Once again you are incorrect and fail to understand [backsliding]. A Christian is someone who
has been born again of the Spirit ..." But I do understand. How do you know that someone who
claims to be a 'born again Christian' yet does horrible sins is not a 'born again Christian?' If you
say that they couldn't have been born again if they do it, then your reasoning is not only circular,
but, once again, then there can be 'no true Christians.'

Praying in public - doesn't Jesus starting in Matthew 6:6 say not to? Doesn't Jesus say starting in
Matthew 7:1 not to judge? And he doesn't limit that 'judgement' to issues of salvation. I was
just curious, as Saul/Paul contradicts Jesus on these issues.

Your evidence: "There is plenty of evidence with regard to the accuracy, validity, and claims of
the Bible." Ok, and they are:

1. "First, there are more manuscrpits for the Bible than for any other ancient writings of
antiquity." Unfortunately, existence of manuscripts does not speak to 'accuracy, validity or
claims.'
2. "... there have been thousands and thousands of archeological finds that have corroborated the
claims of the Bible." And, to be fair, many that do not - many that contradict the Bible.

2a. "The Bible is rooted in history. It speaks of real people from history and speaks of real events
and speaks of real places. ... " So do Homer's epic poems. While the Bible may be a reasonably
detailed history book, the claims of the 'realness' of Adam, Eve, Noah, etc. are nonsensical.
Unfortunately, this does not speak to 'validity or claims.'

2b. "Also, there has never been any archeological discovery that has disproven anything from the
Bible." This is just incorrect. There are many - world-wide flood, Jericho, Exodus, the
importance of David's kingdom, etc.

3."... the Bible mentions scientific facts, such as the number of stars, ocean currents, that the
earth is round, health risks to washing hands in stagnant water and importance of running water,
etc many hundreds of years before modern science discovered them to be true." First, this is
evidence only if you overlook the places where the Bible gives erroneous facts, such as bats
being birds, and others. See Deut 1:10 for a contradictory - and incorrect - numbering of the stars
in the heavens. Also, the Greeks knew the earth was a sphere by 500 BCE - actual evidence.
Second, these are 'scientific facts' only in that they can be interpreted to be consistent with
modern thought. And they involve selective interpretation too, e.g., the Bible says in one place
that the earth is round; then what shall we make of the 28 times in the Bible where it talks of the
"ends of the earth?" Third, the Hindu Vedas (probably older than the Bible) have likewise been
claimed to have such pre-science scientific knowledge. Does that make them true?

" Lastly, the Bible describes prophesy written thousands of years before they actually happened."
Having looked in detail at these so called prophecies, I find they are either of suspect origin or
date, self-fulfilling, interpretations based upon special / unusual word meanings, or predictions
guaranteed to come true, given sufficient time. etc. Then there are ex post facto interpretations.
Almost by magic, things that straight out say one thing can be interpreted to mean something
never intended. For example, many times David mentions in the Psalms that something would
happen to him, and that has been interpreted to be a prophecy of Jesus. (But not all the times,
only those that are congruent with Jesus experiences.) At least one prophecy hasn't happened,
yet believers just claim it has, i.e., "third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the
earth." There has never been a kingdom that ruled over all the earth. Therefore, this one hasn't
come true yet - regardless of believer claims. In fact, I would like someone to give me several of
those 'prophecies' they are sure are actual prophecies giving evidence of foreknowledge.

In sum, your claims are not sufficient evidence - save for those who already believe and are
willing to turn a willfully blind eye to the actual evidence. There are other history books that
show accuracy, validity, longevity, etc. But where is the archeological or other evidence for a
"God?"

As I believe you would define 'sin' as an offense against your God, without belief in your God, a
person cannot sin.

"Again you are incorrect. The absolute standard are the Laws of God." Mere assertion again.
You still haven't shown that there is a God or Gods; there is one God; and that is the one you
worship.

I stated that: "....that societies determine what is right and wrong."

"Oh, brother. So, the society in Hitler's Germany said it was right to discriminate against and
murder millions of Jewish people. Are you saying that that was right?
If the U.S. makes a law saying it is OK to rape and murder children, that is right?"

In terms of that society, yes it is. It is only when other societies have the power to impose their
views on the 'offending' society, that fault is found. The world did not, for example, prosecute
British and American airman for killing hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children -
because we won. (In Tokyo, for example, an estimated 100,000 people were burned to death in a
single night.) The Bible notes slavery, multiple wives, women as chattel, genocide, etc., all were
seen as right in their time. Were the Jews wrong when they followed their God's teachings and
leanings?

I said: " writings of believers are not convincing evidence either." You said: "Yet another
erroneous statement. I see a pattern developing. ... Just because Hitler claimed Christianity
doesn't mean he was a christian." I didn't say Hitler claimed to be a Christian, I noted he said
that God sent him to save Germany. Just because someone claims divine warrant does not make
it so. Just because his followers claim it in sincere belief does not make is so either. And my
statement is that therefore, the writings of believers (such as the Bible) are not evidence.

You react to my statement that: "Rather, I ask these questions to point out that a developing more
educated youthful population will expect answers, and they will not be content to accept a 'just
because it is true' response. " Your response was, "Are you saying that only the "youthful
population" is educated? Talk about arrogance." I fear there is a pattern here also; you seem to be
willfully misreading what I write. I am sorry I do not write more clearly.

"I am glad you expect answers because there are answers to your questions." None forthcoming
yet. "

When it comes to death and judgement ignorance of these answers will also not suffice." Oh yes,
the one argument I forgot to mention - when believers cannot provide evidence, they resort to
threats.

You said in a subsequent post that: "It doesn't matter whether you believe in God and His Laws.
The truth about them are the same whether you believe or not. The truth is true even if no one
believes it and a lie is a lie even if everyone believes it." So, if I may paraphrase, ""It doesn't
matter whether you believe in Thor and His Laws. The truth about them are the same whether
you believe or not. ..." Or, ""It doesn't matter whether you believe in Vishnu and His Laws. The
truth about them are the same whether you believe or not. ... " Or, ""It doesn't matter whether you
believe in Allah and His Laws. The truth about them are the same whether you believe or not. ..."
This is truly a vacuous argument.

You state: "The truth and evidence for the existence of God has been provided. You can accept it
or reject it. It doesn't change what is true." Of course, that is the problem - you have provided no
such "truth and evidence." In fact, as the beginning of this post shows, you have ruled out the
possibility of providing any evidence.

I think this discussion has reached a point of diminishing returns. I repeat that my intention is to
point out that churches have a problem. From memory a Barna poll, I think, noted that 89 percent
of children raised in evangelical households left the church at age 18. I think that the absolutist
stance that you represent is one reason for their leaving, and one that should be, and perhaps must
be, examined.

Mr. Steinmetz,

If I follow your conclusions, then my pocket watch, on its own, should have mutated into a computer and my computer should have developed its own algorithm programs.

Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response. However, if this was an attempt to point out a failing of the scientific view, it misfired. You completely mis-characterize evolution.

Unfortunately, it is quite clear that your understanding of evolution and evolutionary theory has been obtained from religionists masquerading as scientists. This will also be a problem for churches - leading to the results of this poll. People who have scientific understanding will doubt their church's inept mangling of these issues, which can lead to doubt on other issues, which can lead to leaving their church.

C.P. Steinmetz:

Your twisting of logic and scripture is astounding. You appear to be willing to go to absurd lengths in order not to acknowledge simple truths and facts. There is no sense in discussing the truth of scripture with someone who has little, if no, understanding of proper hermaneutics. Especially using this media. The evidence for the validity of scripture exists if you are willing to be honest and study it properly.  
With regards to evidence for God I never said that there was no evidence. I said that since God is Spirit and has no physical body there is no "SCIENTIFIC" evidence as related to tradtional science. But there is LOGICAL evidence based not necessarily in science but in reason and common sense on how this physical universe operates. Science is not the only method of acquiring facts, evidence, and knowledge. If so please provide scientific evidence of your love for your parents, wife, girlfriend, partner, whatever. If you can't provide scientific evidence for this then, according to your logic, it does not exist. How will you ever know when someone loves you? With regards to "Who created God?" the answer is no one. God is eternal. He has always existed. He is supernatural and is not subject to the physical laws of this universe which He created. 
Again, you claim scienctific evidence is needed for everything but you apparently believe that nothing created everything which is scientifically impossible. That is absurd. If that is what you want to believe that is your perogative. But again, it doesn't matter what you or I believe. The only thing that matters is if it is true. You apparently believe something that is impossible is absolutely true. That is insane and denial of reality. 

Mr. Steinmetz,

The only problem the church will have is if it ceases to rely upon the Gospel of Jesus Christ to convert undeserving souls (like mine).

I respectfully submit that your challenge is with the scriptures and not with the church.

Please forgive me if I have contributed to any wrongs that have been done to you in the name of the church. I pray that you will be able to run to Christ and find in Him your life.

Mr. Clay, thank you for your heartfelt words.

We will probably continue to differ on the problems and solutions for the Church. Obviously, I don't have 'the' answer, but I think the Church will have to adapt to modern society, and you do not think that.

In fact, I face no 'challenge' with either the scriptures or the church. You could say I am an outside observer.

I certainly do not hold you responsible for the actions of religious people. I think your prayer would be better focused on the people who have made religion a justification for personal greed, intolerance and acquiring power.

Doc, very interesting.

You say that my "twisting of logic and scripture is astounding. [I] appear to be willing to go to absurd lengths in order not to acknowledge simple truths and facts."

But I do want simplicity. I also want 'facts,' i.e., objective evidence.

"The evidence for the validity of scripture exists if you are willing to be honest and study it properly."

But that is the point, isn't it? You gave "evidence for the validity of scripture" which, as was easily shown, was no evidence at all. And, please note, that just because you disagree with me is not sufficient reason to assume that I haven't studied that 'evidence' honestly and extensively? You will have to give an example of how I did not study it "properly."

"With regards to evidence for God," you are directly saying there is no objective evidence, and there can be none. So, again, how do you know that "God is Spirit?" How do you know that 'God created everything?'

I loved this one. "Science is not the only method of acquiring facts, evidence, and knowledge. If so please provide scientific evidence of your love for your parents, wife, girlfriend, partner, whatever. If you can't provide scientific evidence for this then, according to your logic, it does not exist."

This would twist my meaning somewhat, but, in fact there is "objective" evidence for love. There is observation of the behaviors of people who are 'in love.' There is even objective evidence in brain activity for 'love.' But more generally, there are many things for which objective evidence is lacking, yet, the scientific method - based upon natural causes - can provide tests which will disprove the hypothesis. This is how scientific knowledge advances, by showing what doesn't work. Obviously, you must believe that you cannot provide any such test that would be able to disprove the existence of God. In the absence of such a test, the God hypothesis is just personal belief, not knowledge. But you noted that you have a science background, so you already know this. So, if I am wrong, please provide one such test that, if it doesn't work, will disprove the existence of God.

"With regards to "Who created God?" the answer is no one. God is eternal. He has always existed. He is supernatural and is not subject to the physical laws of this universe which He created."

Oh, oh, you did it. I asked you not to cop out with the 'God is different so I don't have to show he was created' answer.

"Again, you claim scientific evidence is needed for everything but you apparently believe that nothing created everything which is scientifically impossible. That is absurd."

Precisely. It is then - by your admission - scientifically impossible that 'nothing' created God. But then, who or what did? And then, who or what created the thing that created God? And Ad nauseam.

"... it doesn't matter what you or I believe. The only thing that matters is if it is true."

We agree on that. Unfortunately, the scientific method has means to test if something is true or not. All you have is your belief. Sorry, but I will take testing.

"You apparently believe something that is impossible is absolutely true. That is insane and denial of reality." Thank you the insult, but, isn't there a passage about a log in your own eye?

C.P. Steinmetz:

"But that is the point, isn't it? You gave "evidence for the validity of scripture" which, as was easily shown, was no evidence at all."

Not true. You did not want to accept the evidence provided but clear evidence was provided and it was simple. The manuscrpt evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, archeological evidence, and prophetic evidence is all objective evidence. But apparently that is not good enough for you. You apparently prefer to believe that God does not exist which is something that you have absolutely no proof of. And that somehow makes sense to you. But is a denial of reality.

"And, please note, that just because you disagree with me is not sufficient reason to assume that I haven't studied that 'evidence' honestly and extensively? You will have to give an example of how I did not study it "properly."

You have demonstrated that yourself by showing you have no understanding of what the scriptures actually say and are intended to say and how the Scriptures where written.

"So, again, how do you know that "God is Spirit?" How do you know that 'God created everything?'"

Regarding the first question, because God has revealed this truth through the scriptures. And I believe it because the scriptures are the word of God and have proven to be reliable. How do we know anything about God unless He himself reveals it to us? You can't.
As for the second question, because it is the only logical explanation. Everything cannot be created from nothing. Something or someone must have created it. That entity is what we call God. Everything cannot create itself.

"This would twist my meaning somewhat, but, in fact there is "objective" evidence for love. There is observation of the behaviors of people who are 'in love.'"

You mean just like the objective evidence for God which is observation of behavior of Christians who love God and obey His commandments?

"This is how scientific knowledge advances, by showing what doesn't work."

Precisely. So you would know that science and the scientific method does not actually prove anything. It only disproves things.

"Oh, oh, you did it. I asked you not to cop out with the 'God is different so I don't have to show he was created' answer."

This is not a cop out. Just more logical and reasonable evidence you refuse to accept. God exists outside of time and space. He is supernatural. He created time. And as such is not confined to the laws and properties of this physical world. If this is not so, then please tell me who created matter? Who created the universe?

"Precisely. It is then - by your admission - scientifically impossible that 'nothing' created God."

As I stated before God was not created. He always was in existence.

"But then, who or what did? And then, who or what created the thing that created God? And Ad nauseam."

Exactly. At some point there has to be a first cause for things in the natural world. So please tell me what or who was the first cause of matter?

"We agree on that. Unfortunately, the scientific method has means to test if something is true or not."

No, it only has means to test if something is not true. It cannot test if something is true.

"All you have is your belief. Sorry, but I will take testing."

No, I have truth and you have a fallible method of testing that has been proven in the past to make mistakes in its interpretation of data. I'll take the truth.

"Thank you the insult, but, isn't there a passage about a log in your own eye?"

More misinterpretation of scripture by you. This was not an insult but I was only trying to help you understand that when you fight against what is true you deny what is real. The true definition of insanity is a loss of touch with reality. If you believe nothing created everything then you have lost touch with reality. I am sorry if you find that insulting. That is not my intention. But it is absolutely impossible for nothing to create everything and I have a hard time believing any rational person would believe such a thing.

Doc,

We have wandered greatly from the topic, and I fear everyone else has lost interest. So, let me recap. I said the church is losing young people because of the arrogance of an absolutist stance. You disagree. Fine.

However, I keep providing you specific data, and you reply with hand waving and generalities. For example, I said "You gave "evidence for the validity of scripture" which, as was easily shown, was no evidence at all." You replied: "Not true. You did not want to accept the evidence provided but clear evidence was provided and it was simple. The manuscrpt evidence, historical evidence, scientific evidence, archeological evidence, and prophetic evidence is all objective evidence. But apparently that is not good enough for you."

Ok, let me make it real easy for you to show that I just don't want to accept the 'evidence' you provided, rather than rejecting your 'evidence'. Please respond to the following to test the quality of your 'evidence':
1. Manuscript evidence: Show that the 'fact' that "there are more manuscrpits for the Bible than for any other ancient writings of antiquity" shows anything other than there are more manuscripts.

2. Historical evidence: Show that the Bible is in any way different in speaking of "real people from history and speaks of real events and speaks of real places. ... " than does any other history, such as Homer's epic poems."

2a. Then show the 'realness' of Adam, Eve, Noah, etc.

3. Scientific evidence: Explain why the Bible gives differing answers on the number of stars. Explain why the Bible says bats are birds.

4. Archeological evidence: Show two examples from mainstream scientific literature that show the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Show two examples from mainstream scientific literature that show there was a worldwide flood in the last 7,000 years.

5. Prophetic evidence: Give two example that you think are 'prophecies', and I will show there are simpler and better explanations, i.e., they are not prophecies.

If you will answer these questions, then we can discuss my ignorance and sanity.

C.P. Steinmetz:

You said, "I said the church is losing young people because of the arrogance of an absolutist stance. You disagree. Fine."

The truth is absolute so how can the Church, who is the pillar of truth, not be absolute in its theology? Is truth arrogant? Are you not taking an absolutist stance against the church? Isn't that also arrogant?

You said, "However, I keep providing you specific data, and you reply with hand waving and generalities"

As oppossed to your burying your head in the sand like an ostrich when evidence is provided? However, you have provided no such "specific data" only illogical arguement and distortion of truth.

With regards to your questions why do you answer my questions with your questions? Why don't you answer my questions before requesting me to answer your questions? I asked you who created the universe? And who or what created matter? What is the first cause of matter? These are all similar questions that can basically be answered together. That is provided you have a logical scientific answer for the questions. If you can answer these questions then I will gladly answer your questions because there are answers to those questions. But let's first deal with previously unanswered questions.

Doc,

Somehow I just knew you would come up with some reason not to answer these questions.

And surely, as far as I can see, I answered virtually all your questions.

Please at least try to answer some of them - although I know that you cannot do so satisfactorily.

C.P. Steinmetz:

"Somehow I just knew you would come up with some reason not to answer these questions"

And what are your reasons for not answering my questions ?(which by the way I asked first)

"And surely, as far as I can see, I answered virtually all your questions."

You must not see very far. I have asked you twice to answer a few simple questions and as of yet you have not answered any of them. I asked you who created the universe? And who or what created matter? What is the first cause of matter? Somehow I get the feeling you are avoiding answering these questions because you have no answer to them.

"Please at least try to answer some of them - although I know that you cannot do so satisfactorily."

I will more than gladly provide satisfactory answers to your questions. But please first be kind enough to answer the questions that were asked of you first, if you can. If you have no answer to my questions just say so and I will still provide you the answers to your questions.

"Who created the universe?"
Best evidence is that the Universe - and space and time - were created in the Big Bang.

"Who or what created matter?"
As space and time started with the Big Bang, no one knows. Matter may have existed previous to that.

"What is the first cause of matter?" Again, no one knows. However, matter could have always been.

Note that this is a much simpler - and honest answer than a God.

I look forward to your answers to my questions.

C.P. Steinmetz:

Before I get to your questions some things need to be addressed.

You said: "Best evidence is that the Universe - and space and time -were created in the Big Bang."

So is the Big Bang your God? The Big Bang theory esentially states that the universe exploded into existence at some point in the past when it previously did not exist. But it still begs the question what caused the explosion, this "big bang" to occur? As with everything in this universe as defined by the physical Laws of nature everything must have a cause. Explosions do not happen by themselves.

You said: "As space and time started with the Big Bang, no one knows. Matter may have existed previous to that....Again, no one knows. However, matter could have always been."

First, you state that you "do not know" who or what created matter. So, if you do not know then how do you know it wasn't God? You claim that you only believe something to be true if objective evidence exists for it, yet you contradict yourself by believing in something you have no objective evidence for.
Secondly, you state that matter may have existed prior to the Big Bang. The original proponents of the Big Bang theory did not believe this. They claimed (and many still do today) that there was nothing then the "Big Bang" happened and brought everything into existence. Regardles, to state that it existed prior to the Big Bang does not answer or even address the question who or what created matter. If you claim that matter existed prior to the Big Bang when was it created and by who or what? And if you are suggesting that matter is eternal and always existed then you are intellectually dishonest. You accussed me of giving a "cop-out" answer in saying God is eternal yet use the same arguement when it comes to matter? Why can matter be eternal but God cannot?

You said: "Note that this is a much simpler - and honest answer than a God."

What I note is that your answers are neither simple or honest. Your answers are essentially non-existent and amount to no more than a shoulder shrug. Bottom-line you are stating you do not know who or what created matter you just know it couldn't have been God. That is illogical and intellectually dishonest.

Now regarding your questions:

1. Manuscript evidence: Show that the 'fact' that "there are more manuscrpits for the Bible than for any other ancient writings of antiquity" shows anything other than there are more manuscripts.

Because the Bible is a book, it was initially made up of manuscripts. Consequently a primary means for ascertaining its credibility today are the number of copies from those manuscripts which are currently in one's possession. The more copies we have the better we can compare between them and thus know if the document we now read corresponds with the original. It is much like a witness to an event. If we have only one witness to the event, there is the possibility that the witness's agenda or even an exaggeration of the event has crept in and we would never know the full truth. But if we have many witnesses, the probability that they all got it wrong becomes minute. Because of time and wear many of the historical documents from the ancient world have few manuscripts to which we can refer. This is specially true when we consider the secular historians and philosophers. For instance, we only have eight copies of Herodotus's historical works, whose originals were written in 480-425 BC. Likewise, only 5 copies of Aristotle's writings have found their way to the 20th century, while only 10 copies of the writings of Caesar, along with another 20 copies of the historian Tacitus, and 7 copies from the historian Pliny, who all originally wrote in the first century, are available today These are indeed very few. When you consider the New Testament we have today in our possession 5,300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10,000 Latin Vulgates, and 9,300 other early versions (MSS), giving us more than 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today. Do you question the authenticity or accuracy of other writings of antiquity such as those of Julius Caesar, Aristotle, Plato, Pliny, Tacitus, or Herodotus? I doubt it. You only question the Bible. How convenient.
Also, it is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is. What is significant are the differences in time spans between the original manuscripts and the copies of both biblical and secular manuscripts. Thucydides, who wrote History of the Peloponnesian War, lived from 460 BC to 400 BC. Virtually everything we know about the war comes from his history. Yet, the earliest copy of any manuscripts of Thucydides' work dates around 900 AD, a full 1,300 years later. The Roman historian Suetonius lived between AD 70 to 140 AD. Yet the earliest copy of his book The Twelve Caesars is dated around AD 950, a full 800 years later. With regards to the bible, namely the New Testament, outside of the book of Revelation and the three letters of John considered to have been written later, when we look at the rest of the New Testament books, there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ. Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and perhaps before the fire of Rome (64 AD), and the subsequent persecution of Christians, since none of these events, which would have had an enormous impact on the nascent Christian community are mentioned in any of the New Testament writings. Had the documents been compiled in the second century as many claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events. The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events, and thus likely before 62 AD, or a mere 30 years after the death of Jesus. Yet, I doubt you question the credibility of the writings of Thucydides or Suetonius of where we get most of our historical knowledge of the time and events they wrote about.

2. Historical evidence: Show that the Bible is in any way different in speaking of "real people from history and speaks of real events and speaks of real places. ... " than does any other history, such as Homer's epic poems."

The problem is that Homer's epic poems never claimed to be historical accounts. They were epic poems. They were written as fictional and taken as fictional even though they mentioned actual places. Much of the Bible was written as a historical account of the people, places, and events, of the time and are corroborated by archeological findings. I do not believe there have been any archeological findings that have corroborated the events of Homer's epic poems. However, from a purely logical and evidential point of view just because the Bible claims something occurred does not automatically make it true. However, repeatedly history, science, and archeology overwhelmingly corroborates the contents of the Bible to the point that to claim it is a mythical, erroneous or fictional writings is to overlook and deny an overwhelming amount of evidence. To deny this supporting evidence is to deny reality.

2a. Then show the 'realness' of Adam, Eve, Noah, etc

Scientists now believe, from genetic studies and mapping of the human genome, that humans descended from one common human ancestor somewhere. While this does not specifically prove the existence of Adam and Eve it does suggest the "realness" of a common human from which we descended which suggets there was some "Adam and Eve" event that resulted in all human races we see today.

3. Scientific evidence: Explain why the Bible gives differing answers on the number of stars. Explain why the Bible says bats are birds.

I am not aware of the Bible giving differing answers on the number of stars. You will have to give me specifics on what you are refering to. As far as I know, the bible states in several places that the stars are inumerable like the grains of sand of the sea and that each star is different in splendor. (Jeremiah 33:22, Genesis 22:17, 1 Corinthians 15:41). This was all before the invention of the telescope and at a time when numerous "scientists" like Ptolemy,Tycho Brahe,and Johannes said there were 777-1,056 stars. We now know that there are inummerable amount of stars in the universe and that no two stars are the same. Coincidence? Not likely.
As for the Bible including the bat in a list of "birds" I do not see what the issue is. There were no classifications or scientific nomenclatures relating to animals at hat time. Man had not divided up the animals into species or phyla or class. Linnean classification was not available in the time of the writing of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and the scientific definition of what a "bird" was did not exist either. Classification of animals and things was made by different means: function or form. In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects.

4. Archeological evidence: Show two examples from mainstream scientific literature that show the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Show two examples from mainstream scientific literature that show there was a worldwide flood in the last 7,000 years.

Those two requests have nothing to do with archeology. They are related to geology. If you want to know about how geological findings are explained scientifically with regards to a massive worldwide flood as well as the issues related to the age of the Earth I refer you to www.answersingenesis.org
They have many scientific articles on these issues.

5. Prophetic evidence: Give two example that you think are 'prophecies', and I will show there are simpler and better explanations, i.e., they are not prophecies.

Bible prophecy: Daniel 9:24-26
Prophecy written: About 530 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: 70 AD

Bible prophecy: Zechariah 12:10
Prophecy written: Between 520 and 518 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: About 31 AD

Doc, thanks for your reply.

"So is the Big Bang your God?" No.

"As with everything in this universe as defined by the physical Laws of nature everything must have a cause." Not quite. First, the physical laws of nature were an outcome of the Big Bang. Second, if you look into quantum physics, everything does not have a cause. (More precisely, the effect can precede the 'cause'.)

"First, you state that you "do not know" who or what created matter. So, if you do not know then how do you know it wasn't God?" If it was your God, you could provide objective evidence - which you cannot. So, I have as much right to believe it was Vishnu and Brahma or Ymir and the Ginnungagap. Actually, I just leave that question unanswered.

"You claim that you only believe something to be true if objective evidence exists for it, yet you contradict yourself by believing in something you have no objective evidence for." The answer 'Nobody knows is hardly believing in something for which I have no objective evidence.

"And if you are suggesting that matter is eternal and always existed then you are intellectually dishonest. You accussed me of giving a "cop-out" answer in saying God is eternal yet use the same arguement when it comes to matter? Why can matter be eternal but God cannot?" First, note that I stated, I don't know. Additionally, claiming matter is eternal (which I did not), is different from claiming a God is eternal, as it is a very simple answer (Occam's razor) that does not require matter to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent.

"What I note is that your answers are neither simple or honest." Ouch.
"Bottom-line you are stating you do not know who or what created matter you just know it couldn't have been God. That is illogical and intellectually dishonest." Not at all. See above, to note that if I chose to believe in a creator God, there are many choices. You have (and state you cannot) provide any objective reason I should believe in a God or Gods, and even less to believe it is your God. Who is "illogical and intellectually dishonest?"

Now regarding your questions:

1. Manuscript evidence: First, you show that the more manuscripts available, the better chance to show the manuscripts haven't changed. That still doesn't speak to the validity of the original. Second, you have not noted that one reason few other old manuscripts exist is because of both the active destruction of many of those manuscripts by religious believers, and the neglect during the Dark Ages - when religion ruled. So, believers took pains to preserve religious writings only.

"Do you question the authenticity or accuracy of other writings ... I doubt it. You only question the Bible. How convenient." How convenient that those works were not claiming to be the writings of some God. Also, unfortunately, a number of scholars claim the Old Testament was written and doctored to provide a glorious history for the Jews. So there is room for doubt.

Also, it is well known in historical circles that the closer a document can be found to the event it describes the more credible it is." So how close in time is Genesis, etc. to the events they describe? Heck of a gap there - which you chose to ignore.

"With regards to the bible, namely the New Testament, ...there is no longer any solid basis for dating them later than 80 AD, or 50 years after the death of Jesus Christ." You are going against the prevailing opinion on this.

"Most of the New Testament was likely written before the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, ... Had the documents been compiled in the second century as many claim, then certainly they would have mentioned these very important events. The only explanation can be that they were all written prior to these events." Not necessarily. If one were to write an account later, you might take pains to make sure you didn't include those events - so your account would seem accurate.

"I doubt you question the credibility of the writings of Thucydides or Suetonius ... " And were they claiming the same things? No. Writing of war is hardly the same as claiming divine inspiration.

You show reasons why we should believe the current manuscripts of the Bible are close to an original, but nothing to show the Bible is either the "Word of God" or that its claims are valid.

2. Historical evidence: Show that the Bible is in any way different ... than does any other history, such as Homer's epic poems."

The problem is that Homer's epic poems never claimed to be historical accounts. They were epic poems. They were written as fictional and taken as fictional even though they mentioned actual places. Much of the Bible was written as a historical account of the people, places, and events, of the time and are corroborated by archeological findings." If you ignore those that have not been, e.g., Exodus, Fall of Jericho, etc.

"I do not believe there have been any archeological findings that have corroborated the events of Homer's epic poems." I assume you have heard of the discovery of ancient Troy?

"However, repeatedly history, science, and archeology overwhelmingly corroborates the contents of the Bible to the point that to claim it is a mythical, erroneous or fictional writings is to overlook and deny an overwhelming amount of evidence. To deny this supporting evidence is to deny reality." Go back to Genesis, and defend that the creation story, the world wide flood, etc. is something more unsupported myth.

2a. Then show the 'realness' of Adam, Eve, Noah, etc

"Scientists now believe, ... one common human ancestor somewhere. ... suggets there was some "Adam and Eve" event that resulted in all human races we see today." Given the vagaries of the evidence, this could be true - although no one claims that Mitochondrial Eve was the first, only the one whose offspring lived. But beyond that, you are just showing a similarity, not existence. So, unproven.

3. Scientific evidence: Explain why the Bible gives differing answers on the number of stars. Explain why the Bible says bats are birds.

"I am not aware of the Bible giving differing answers on the number of stars. You will have to give me specifics on what you are refering to."
Surely. Along with the verses you provided on the innumerable stars, there is Deu 1:10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. Obviously, that is not innumerable.

You note: "Coincidence? Not likely." Right. Taking the contradictory evidence, it is just gleaning passages to suit one's needs.

"As for the Bible including the bat in a list of "birds" I do not see what the issue is. There were no classifications or scientific nomenclatures ..." Right, but God should have known the difference, right?

"In this case, the word we render birds means simply "owner of a wing", the word being 'owph, which comes from a root word which means to cover or to fly. The category of 'owph includes birds, bats, and certain insects." That is correct for Leviticus , but Deuteronomy uses tsippowr:H6833, which does not include bats.

4. Archeological evidence: Show two examples from mainstream scientific literature that show the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. Show two examples from mainstream scientific literature that show there was a worldwide flood in the last 7,000 years.

"Those two requests have nothing to do with archeology. They are related to geology." Nice try, but no cigar. Archeological studies go back over 10,000 years, and show neither creation nor flood.

"If you want to know ... I refer you to www.answersingenesis.org
They have many scientific articles on these issues." Pardon me, but their articles are all garbage - from a strictly scientific point of view.

5. Prophetic evidence: Give two examples.

Bible prophecy: Daniel 9:24-26
Prophecy written: About 530 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: 70 AD

First, the dating of this book is a matter of some contention. Some scholars suggest that the book was written or edited in the second century B.C.E., and many of the 'predictions' had already happened.

Second, and to your example. This fails for two reasons: 1. It was a 'self-fulfilling prophecy.' That is, many people knew a Messiah was supposed to come around that time. I think it is "The Passover Plot" that pointed out that there were numbers of people claiming to be the Messiah at that time. In fact, recent evidence suggests there was a Messiah substantially before Jesus. 2. It is a fulfilled 'prophecy' only because people leave out Dan 9:27 He will confirm a covenant with many for one 'seven.' In the middle of the 'seven' he will put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on a wing of the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him. So, the 'prophecy' has not been fulfilled. And yes, I am aware of the contortions believers have gone to with the "church age" in attempting to make the prophecy valid.

Bible prophecy: Zechariah 12:10
Prophecy written: Between 520 and 518 BC
Prophecy fulfilled: About 31 AD

Fulfilled? Not hardly. 1. You are apparently taken by the "the one they have pierced,". However, take the whole context. Verse 9: On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem." Did that happen? No. Seems as though the Romans not only attacked, but won. Verse 11 and following: "On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great,..." Did that happen? No. Zec 13:2 - "On that day, I will banish the names of the idols from the land, and they will be remembered no more," Has that happened? No. So, only by very selective picking of a phrase out of the total prophecy can you say this was fulfilled.

C. P. Steinmetz:

"First, the physical laws of nature were an outcome of the Big Bang"

So, according to you, then nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, right? If that is what you are saying then you believe nothing created everything which is impossible from a scientific point of view. Or, if something did exist it did not adhere to any physical laws of nature since they did not exist? What laws did it adhere to then? What caused the Big Bang? And what created the something that existed before the Big Bang?

"Second, if you look into quantum physics, everything does not have a cause. (More precisely, the effect can precede the 'cause'.)"

Wow. The effect can precede the cause. Incredible. Something can happen even before something causes it to happen. We are really twisting science and logic now. Anything to not have to acknowledge the existence of God. You can't be serious.

"If it was your God, you could provide objective evidence - which you cannot. So, I have as much right to believe it was Vishnu and Brahma or Ymir and the Ginnungagap."

I can and I have provided objective evidence. I am not, at this point, arguing who that God is
only that an all-powerful, all-knowing God created all things. Who that creator God is (Jehovah, Vishnu, Brahma, etc) is another matter entirely. But the evidence points to a Creator. Otherwise, you are left believing that nothing created everything which is scientifically impossible.

"The answer 'Nobody knows is hardly believing in something for which I have no objective evidence."

Right. But believing that matter is eternal and nothing created everything is something you have no objective evidence for. Yet these are things you consider to be viable explanations. Yet you refuse to consider that something or someone (a creator) created all things. That is intellectually dishonest and tantamount to bury your head in the sand.

"Additionally, claiming matter is eternal (which I did not), is different from claiming a God is eternal, as it is a very simple answer (Occam's razor) that does not require matter to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent."

You brought up the claim of matter being eternal.
You said:
"Matter may have existed previous to that...."

and

"However, matter could have always been."

You may qualify your statement all you want with "may have" and "could have" but you are essentially claiming that it is possible for matter to be eternal. To suggest this is to ignore or not understand scientific data and knowledge. Science has already demonstrated that matter had a begining. Matter is not eternal and cannot be eternal. Yet you will consider yet another scientific impossibility rather than acknowledge that someone or something created everything which all evidence, logic, and reason points to. Once again I say you have lost touch with reality.

"Not at all. See above, to note that if I chose to believe in a creator God, there are many choices."

Yes, but who that creator God is is an entirely different issue. I am not arguing, at this point, about WHO the Creator is. Only that the Creator exists and that we know this because it is the only explanation that logic and reason will allow. The fact that a creator exists is axiomatic. It is self-evident. There is no other logical explanation.

"You have (and state you cannot) provide any objective reason I should believe in a God or Gods, and even less to believe it is your God."

I have provided objective evidence using logic and reason. If you refuse to accept this evidence you are, by definition, being illogical and unreasonable. You essentially ignore logic and reason in order not to have to acknowledge the Creator. You do this because if you acknowledge a Creator then you, by default, also acknowledge His authority over you, His creation. You do not want to do this because then you are held accountable for your sins to the Creator and His Laws.

You said: "Second, you have not noted that one reason few other old manuscripts exist is because of both the active destruction of many of those manuscripts by religious believers, and the neglect during the Dark Ages - when religion ruled. So, believers took pains to preserve religious writings only."

I did not note this because it is not true. What evidence do you have for these claims? If believers of Christianity took pains to preserve their religious writings it is because they thought the truth and preservation of the truth was important. If "believers" of other "religions" did not feel it was important to preserve their religious writings that should tell you something. Maybe it wasn't worth giving up their lives in preservation of things that were not true. Regardless, you have no evidence that believers destroyed manuscripts of Julius Caesar, Aristotle, Plato, Pliny, Tacitus, or Herodotus.

"Also, unfortunately, a number of scholars claim the Old Testament was written and doctored to provide a glorious history for the Jews."

None that are credible.

"You are going against the prevailing opinion on this."

Not true. Many scholars, even secular scholars, agree that much of the New Testament was written within 30-50 years of Jesus' death and resurrection.

"Not necessarily. If one were to write an account later, you might take pains to make sure you didn't include those events - so your account would seem accurate."

Ahhh, so you are a conspiracy theorist, eh? The same could be said for every and all historical writings. Then how do you know if any historical writing is accurate? Do we even know if anything about the past is true.

"You show reasons why we should believe the current manuscripts of the Bible are close to an original, but nothing to show the Bible is either the "Word of God" or that its claims are valid."

The manuscript evidence demonstrates that the scriptures have not changed or been altered throughout history. The proof that it is the word of God and that its claims are valid comes through historical, scientific, and archeological evidence.

"If you ignore those that have not been, e.g., Exodus, Fall of Jericho, etc."

Failure to find archeological evidence does not mean it didn't happen only that the archeological evidence has not been found. Besides, there have been sufficient archeological finds corroborating the claims of the Bible to make it credible beyond a doubt. As for Exodus you are mistaken. There is archeological evidence for the Exodus. Several years ago Egyptian chariots, Egyptian chariot wheels, horse and human bones were found at the bottom of the Red Sea.

"I assume you have heard of the discovery of ancient Troy?"

Read my comment again. I said there is no evidence corroborating the EVENTS of Homer's epic poems. I never said the locations were fictional.

"Go back to Genesis, and defend that the creation story, the world wide flood, etc. is something more unsupported myth."

I do not know about you but I find it funny how we have a 7 day week. I wonder where that came from? The creation story describes the creation of the universe in 6 days with a 7th day to be for rest. Proof? Not necessarily but interesting nonetheless. Also, I find it funny how even non-believers date history around the life and death of Jesus. Ever heard of B.C. and A.D.? Proof? Not necessarily but interesting nonetheless.
Much of geological discoveries do not make sense, even to geologists, unless it is seen in the context of a world-wide, catastophic flood. Go back and defend the Big Bang that says first there was nothing and then due to an explosion everything came into existence from nothing with great order. You will need to explain how nothing can create everything and how an explosion can create order.

"But beyond that, you are just showing a similarity, not existence. So, unproven."

Please show me the "realness" of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents. If you cannot then they never existed.

"Surely. Along with the verses you provided on the innumerable stars, there is Deu 1:10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. Obviously, that is not innumerable."

Ever heard of things like metaphors, personification, contrast, hyperbole in writing? This verse is an example of a hyperbole. It is comparing the population with the multitude of stars to suggest that it is vast and a lot. It is not saying your current population exactly that of the stars.

"Right. Taking the contradictory evidence, it is just gleaning passages to suit one's needs."

Wrong. It is studying the scriptures with the proper hermaneutics. Gleaning passages to suit's one's needs is what you do by focusing on one passage or verse while ignoring the totality of scripture in its proper context.

"As for the Bible including the bat in a list of "birds" I do not see what the issue is. There were no classifications or scientific nomenclatures ..." Right, but God should have known the difference, right?"

The difference between what? An animal that has wings and flies and another animal that has wings and flies? You expect man to tell God, who actually created the bats and the birds, how they should be classified? Talk about arrogance. When you create a bat or a bird out of nothing then you can classify them any way you like. Until then, you have to conform your understanding to God's understanding not the other way around. Did you want God to reveal a future event, the development of Linnean classification, to the people at that time? "Bats and birds are both animals that have wings and fly, but in the future man will organize them and classify them differently according to the appendages on their skin and how they produce their offspring", declares the Lord. Give me a break.

"Archeological studies go back over 10,000 years, and show neither creation nor flood."

Archeology has nothing to do with the age of the Earth or a flood. Those are geological topics. Archeological findings do not go back over 10,000 years (check the accuracy on your dating) and much of geological findings are best explained in the context of a world-wide, catastophic flood. Mountains, canyons, valleys, rock formations, etc are all caused by erosion from water.

"Pardon me, but their articles are all garbage - from a strictly scientific point of view."

Pardon me, but your hand waving dismissal of the articles from the scientists on that website does nothing to disprove the accuracy of their claims. You are merely providing your opinion. It proves nothing.

"Some scholars suggest that the book was written or edited in the second century B.C.E., and many of the 'predictions' had already happened."

Again no credible scholars.

"It was a 'self-fulfilling prophecy.' That is, many people knew a Messiah was supposed to come around that time. I think it is "The Passover Plot" that pointed out that there were numbers of people claiming to be the Messiah at that time. In fact, recent evidence suggests there was a Messiah substantially before Jesus."

What evidence is that? Please provide the evidence. Did that Messiah rise from the dead? Otherwise, you provide only mere speculation.

"Fulfilled? Not hardly. 1. You are apparently taken by the "the one they have pierced,". However, take the whole context. Verse 9: On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem." Did that happen? No. Seems as though the Romans not only attacked, but won."

That verse says that on that day He will "set out" to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. He will "set out". It makes no mention of when He will ultimately destroy them. So I agree this part has not been fullfilled yet. But this does not have to do directly with the prophecy of Jesus being "pierced".

"Verse 11 and following: "On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great,..." Did that happen? No."

No? Were you there? How do you know the weeping was not great? In fact, the apostles record in the gospels that Jesus followers mourned His death and wept. So, yes, prophecy fullfilled.

In Zechariah, it refers to the Messiah as "the one they have pierced". Was Jesus pierced? Yes. Prophecy fullfilled.

There are perfectly good explanations for all your objections. You can fight against the truth all you want but ultimately it will do no good. All your objections are just ways to tie knots and create rabbit trails so that you do not have to face and address the real issues and face the truth.
The truth is that you have sinned and transgressed God's Laws and you will have to give an account for your transgressions to Him on the day of your death. Because He is Holy and Just He will puinish you for eternity in Hell and rightly so. But God is also rich in love and mercy and He has provided a way for you, and everyone, to be forgiven. He sent His Son, Jesus Christ, to suffer and die in your place, for your sins. It was a legal transaction. You broke God's Laws but Jesus paid your fine. If you will repent (acknowledge your sins, ask for forgiveness, and turn from your sins) and place your trust/faith in Jesus Christ, God will forgive all of your sins and grant you everlasting life. You have His promise on this. There is no better news anyone could receive. I pray you will consider it.

Doc

I stated: "First, the physical laws of nature were an outcome of the Big Bang"

"So, according to you, then nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, right? If that is what you are saying then you believe nothing created everything which is impossible from a scientific point of view. ...
Wow. The effect can precede the cause. Incredible. Something can happen even before something causes it to happen. We are really twisting science and logic now. Anything to not have to acknowledge the existence of God. You can't be serious.

Oh, but I am. I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you appropriate scientific understanding. You will either have to accept that such things are not 'impossible from a scientific point of view' or will have to do some research.

"I can and I have provided objective evidence." You seem to think that just by repeating this phrase, it will make it so - contrary to the evidence. Is willful blindness part of being a true believer?

"Otherwise, you are left believing that nothing created everything which is scientifically impossible." Again, you presume to know this with little apparent scientific knowledge. And, I am glad to see that you can at least acknowledge that you believe that maybe your God isn't the only God. That will be the first step in abandoning the 'God hypothesis'.

I said "The answer 'Nobody knows is hardly believing in something for which I have no objective evidence."

"Right. But believing that matter is eternal and nothing created everything is something you have no objective evidence for. Yet these are things you consider to be viable explanations." That is what "nobody knows" would mean.

"Yet you refuse to consider that something or someone (a creator) created all things. That is intellectually dishonest and tantamount to bury your head in the sand." Once again, not at all. I am not proposing a "Creator," you are. So it is your burden to provide objective evidence. You cannot provide any evidence that would stand up in a court of law, or a peer review, or to non-believers. Consequently, there is no reason to believe a creator exists.

"You may qualify your statement all you want with "may have" and "could have" but you are essentially claiming that it is possible for matter to be eternal. ... Once again I say you have lost touch with reality." Two points: 1. I am not the one who claims that "AIG has 'scientific' information. 2. You really have a problem with people who disagree with you.

I stated: "Not at all. See above, to note that if I chose to believe in a creator God, there are many choices."

"Only that the Creator exists and that we know this because it is the only explanation that logic and reason will allow. The fact that a creator exists is axiomatic. It is self-evident. There is no other logical explanation." If it is 'axiomatic' that means you accept it as true without evidence. It is not 'self-evident' and there are other and better 'logical explanations'.

"I have provided objective evidence using logic and reason. If you refuse to accept this evidence you are, by definition, being illogical and unreasonable." Again, claiming you have provided objective evidence, when I have shown it not to be true. And again, does my disagreeing bother you so much you must add the ad hominem attacks?

"You essentially ignore logic and reason in order not to have to acknowledge the Creator. You do this because if you acknowledge a Creator then you, by default, also acknowledge His authority over you, His creation. You do not want to do this because then you are held accountable for your sins to the Creator and His Laws."

That is a hoot.

I said "You are going against the prevailing opinion on this."

You reply "Not true. Many scholars, even secular scholars, agree that much of the New Testament was written within 30-50 years of Jesus' death and resurrection." 'Many scholars' perhaps, but not the prevailing position.

I said "Not necessarily. If one were to write an account later, you might take pains to make sure you didn't include those events - so your account would seem accurate."

"Ahhh, so you are a conspiracy theorist, eh? The same could be said for every and all historical writings. Then how do you know if any historical writing is accurate? Do we even know if anything about the past is true." That is an ongoing question is historical analysis.

I said: "You show reasons why we should believe the current manuscripts of the Bible are close to an original, but nothing to show the Bible is either the "Word of God" or that its claims are valid."

"The manuscript evidence demonstrates that the scriptures have not changed or been altered throughout history." Ok, so you finally acknowledge that this has nothing to do with validity. Thank you.

"The proof that it is the word of God and that its claims are valid comes through historical, scientific, and archeological evidence."

I stated: "If you ignore those that have not been, e.g., Exodus, Fall of Jericho, etc."

:Failure to find archeological evidence does not mean it didn't happen only that the archeological evidence has not been found." And in the case of Jericho, contradictory evidence has been found.

"Besides, there have been sufficient archeological finds corroborating the claims of the Bible to make it credible beyond a doubt." Says you. "As for Exodus you are mistaken. There is archeological evidence for the Exodus. Several years ago Egyptian chariots, Egyptian chariot wheels, horse and human bones were found at the bottom of the Red Sea." And does the scientific community accept these as evidence of the Exodus? What about all the Egyptian evidence that is lacking?

Even so, the Bible could be credible as history; but that says nothing about its religious claims.

I stated: "Go back to Genesis, and defend that the creation story, the world wide flood, etc. is something more unsupported myth."

"I do not know about you but I find it funny how we have a 7 day week. I wonder where that came from? "

Again, you make such statements in ignorance. The Lithuanians had a week of 9 days; the ancient Egyptians had a week of 10 days; the Aztecs & Mayas had weeks of 13 and 20 days.

"The creation story describes the creation of the universe in 6 days with a 7th day to be for rest. Proof? Not necessarily but interesting nonetheless." Not too, given the differences in 'week' in various societies.

"Also, I find it funny how even non-believers date history around the life and death of Jesus. Ever heard of B.C. and A.D.?
Sure, the people who made the calendar we use were Christians. However, science now uses BCE and CE.

"Much of geological discoveries do not make sense, even to geologists, unless it is seen in the context of a world-wide, catastophic flood." Just absolutely not true - only the dream of believers, who ignore evidence from many sciences.

I stated: "But beyond that, you are just showing a similarity, not existence. So, unproven."

"Please show me the "realness" of your great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents. If you cannot then they never existed." Cute.

I noted: "Surely. Along with the verses you provided on the innumerable stars, there is Deu 1:10 The LORD your God has increased your numbers so that today you are as many as the stars in the sky. Obviously, that is not innumerable."

"Ever heard of things like metaphors, personification, contrast, hyperbole in writing? This verse is an example of a hyperbole. It is comparing the population with the multitude of stars to suggest that it is vast and a lot. It is not saying your current population exactly that of the stars." So, if this one verse can be "metaphors, personification, contrast, hyperbole", how do you know the ones you like to think of as 'scientific' are not? You cannot have it both ways.

I noted: "As for the Bible including the bat in a list of "birds" I do not see what the issue is. There were no classifications or scientific nomenclatures ..." Right, but God should have known the difference, right?"

"The difference between what? An animal that has wings and flies and another animal that has wings and flies?" So that is the only difference between bats and birds? Humorous.

I stated: "Archeological studies go back over 10,000 years, and show neither creation nor flood."

"Archeology has nothing to do with the age of the Earth or a flood. Those are geological topics. Archeological findings do not go back over 10,000 years (check the accuracy on your dating) ... " Only if you believe AIG's 'scientific evidence.' Those who believe mainstream science (and many sciences giving the same conclusions using independent methods') show otherwise.

"and much of geological findings are best explained in the context of a world-wide, catastophic flood. Mountains, canyons, valleys, rock formations, etc are all caused by erosion from water." You are just dreaming. Please cite just one study from a mainstream scientific source that supports this statement.

I stated: "Pardon me, but their articles [AIG] are all garbage - from a strictly scientific point of view."

"Pardon me, but your hand waving dismissal of the articles from the scientists on that website does nothing to disprove the accuracy of their claims. You are merely providing your opinion. It proves nothing." No, not just my opinion - their articles speak for themselves - garbage. How many of these 'studies' appeared in mainstream scientific literature?

I noted: "It was a 'self-fulfilling prophecy.' That is, many people knew a Messiah was supposed to come around that time. ... there were numbers of people claiming to be the Messiah at that time. In fact, recent evidence suggests there was a Messiah substantially before Jesus."

"What evidence is that? Please provide the evidence." Google is your friend - as I noted, I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you.

"Did that Messiah rise from the dead? Otherwise, you provide only mere speculation." Of course, the problem is that the only evidence that your Messiah arose from the dead is the writings of believers. No objective collaborating evidence.

I noted: "Fulfilled? Not hardly. 1. You are apparently taken by the "the one they have pierced,". However, take the whole context. Verse 9: On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem." Did that happen? No. Seems as though the Romans not only attacked, but won."

"That verse says that on that day He will "set out" to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem. He will "set out". It makes no mention of when He will ultimately destroy them. So I agree this part has not been fullfilled yet. But this does not have to do directly with the prophecy of Jesus being "pierced"". But weren't you the one that said I shouldn't take verses out of context?

I noted "Verse 11 and following: "On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great,..." Did that happen? No."

No? Were you there? How do you know the weeping was not great? In fact, the apostles record in the gospels that Jesus followers mourned His death and wept. So, yes, prophecy fullfilled." No, apparently no one but believers was there. And, it was not fulfilled, if you would read the remaining verses.

"In Zechariah, it refers to the Messiah as "the one they have pierced". Was Jesus pierced? Yes. Prophecy fullfilled." You continue to pick not only verses out of context, but parts of verses. Is that proper 'hermaneutics'?

"There are perfectly good explanations for all your objections." Possibly, but you apparently cannot provide them.

"You can fight against the truth all you want but ultimately it will do no good. ... I pray you will consider it." Obviously, you must be getting quite desperate that I will not accept your 'evidence' just because you say so - else why the humorous attempt to convert me?

Thanks Ed for what you do on Twitter sending out messages. It's the closest thing to discipleship I've got with people in Twitterland. I have just discovered the concept of Practical Atheism this weekend during a sermon and your tweet this AM and more is helping me realize where I stand in such a realm. Sometimes humble realization that playing the part is not the way to live. Living with Christ and not just for Him is what I desperately need. Thanks brother for all you do!

C.P. -

You did an excellent job of defending yourself for much of this time. But, Doc cornered you. Your pride will not allow you to admit this, but he did. Which is why majority of your last answers were "I don't have the time" (or don't have the answers) and "You're wrong" without really providing any "objective evidence" that you so eagerly ask for.

The fact is, you believe that something came from nothing and this is just NOT scientific. No credible scientist would assert this. Which is precisely why so many Darwinists, Big Bang-ists and the like are mocking all of these assertions. You're merely repeating yourself on the fact that God has no proof but essentially neither does the Big Bang and therefore, both should be theories from your reasoning and yet you consider Big Bang to be a fact.

Brandon Smith, thank you for your reply.

"You did an excellent job of defending yourself for much of this time." Thank you.

"But, Doc cornered you. Your pride will not allow you to admit this, but he did. Which is why majority of your last answers were "I don't have the time" (or don't have the answers) and "You're wrong" without really providing any "objective evidence" that you so eagerly ask for." Cornered? My pride? Have you not noted the rather substantial amount of "objective evidence" I provided in previous posts - which Doc just waived his hands and ignored. So, the last answers were short because I tire of his ignoring - or just dismissing - virtually everything I wrote. Also, you will have noted that he constantly claimed *he* had provided objective evidence when he demonstratively did not.

"The fact is, you believe that something came from nothing and this is just NOT scientific. No credible scientist would assert this." Which is why I said repeatedly that we do not know what happened before the Big Bang, and can only speculate. One such speculation is that the material for the Big Bang was always there. I did not say I believed that, I said, we don't know. Certainly, this is more credible than claiming one does know, and it is your God.

"You're merely repeating yourself on the fact that God has no proof but essentially neither does the Big Bang and therefore, both should be theories from your reasoning and yet you consider Big Bang to be a fact."

You are making two major mistakes here. First, If you claim a "God did it", then you have to provide testable evidence. If you cannot, then there is no reason for others to believe. If you cannot, then the 'God hypothesis' is fatally flawed.

Second, there exists substantial objective evidence for the Big Bang. See this link for example: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

Please do not judge the so-called 'lack of evidence' for scientific statements based upon the pseudo-science lies of creationists and ID'ers.

C. P. Steinmetz:

"Oh, but I am. I have neither the time nor inclination to teach you appropriate scientific understanding. You will either have to accept that such things are not 'impossible from a scientific point of view' or will have to do some research."

You also don't have the qualifications to teach me appropriate scientific understanding. You know, that sentence appeared on my computer screen before I pushed a single key on my keyboard. Not only has that never been proven scientifically it defies logic as we know it. Since you like to do your research on the internet (I will address that in a minute) here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on your propsed "effetcs before casue" expalnation of the universe:

"Retrocausality (also called retro-causation, backward causation and similar terms) is any of several HYPOTHETICAL phenomena or processes that reverse causality, allowing an effect to occur before its cause....While a few legitimate scientific theories have also proposed limited forms of retrocausality, NO EXPERIMENTAL OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN RELIABLY REPORTED THAT VERIFY SUCH HYPOTHESES...Established physics does not generally employ retrocausality.

So, once again you demonstrate your willingness to believe in something you have absolutely no objective evidence for. I see a pattern developing here.

I said: "I can and I have provided objective evidence."

You said: "You seem to think that just by repeating this phrase, it will make it so - contrary to the evidence. Is willful blindness part of being a true believer?"

I am not just repeating a phrase to make it true. There is no contrary evidence. I did provide objective evidence. Only you bury your head in the sand and refuse to accept said evidence. I can't help you there. Ever heard of the phrase "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink"? There is a book out there called "You Can Lead An Atheist To Evidence But You Can't Make Him Think". I think that applies here.

I said: "Otherwise, you are left believing that nothing created everything which is scientifically impossible."

You said: "Again, you presume to know this with little apparent scientific knowledge"

So, you, master of all scientific knowledge, are saying that it is possible for nothing to create everything? Are you saying that 0+0 equals infinity? According to your logic and understanding of the universe 0+0 is equal to infinity. You continue to veer further and further from reality.

"And, I am glad to see that you can at least acknowledge that you believe that maybe your God isn't the only God. That will be the first step in abandoning the 'God hypothesis'."

I acknowledge that there are more gods out there but there is only one true God. The only true God has identified Himself and described who He is in the Holy Bible. You apparently believe, without evidence I may add, that nothing created everything which is scientifically and logically impossible.

"That is what "nobody knows" would mean."

I know. Billions of people around the world know. Billions upon billions of people throughout history have known. You, apparently, do not know and have admitted so. Yet you are able o tell billions of people they are wrong when you yourself have admitted you have no idea. That is the epitome of arrogance.

"Once again, not at all. I am not proposing a "Creator," you are. So it is your burden to provide objective evidence. You cannot provide any evidence that would stand up in a court of law, or a peer review, or to non-believers. Consequently, there is no reason to believe a creator exists."

There is no reason to believe a Creator doesn't exist yet that is what you believe. All the evidence points to a Creator. The evidence has been presented. It involves reason, logic, design, science, information as it relates to DNA, etc. yet you dismiss it all with a hand wave. It reminds me of a Bible verse that states: "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:22,23)

"Two points: 1. I am not the one who claims that "AIG has 'scientific' information. 2. You really have a problem with people who disagree with you."

1. They do 2. No, I do not have a problem with people who disagree with me.

"If it is 'axiomatic' that means you accept it as true without evidence. It is not 'self-evident' and there are other and better 'logical explanations'"

You apparently do not know the definition of axiomatic. The definition is: "Of, relating to, or resembling an axiom; self-evident" or "pertaining to or of the nature of an axiom; self-evident; obvious." Look it up.

It does not mean you accept something as true "without evidence". The existence of a Creator IS self-evident and any other explanation defies logic, reason, and science because you are left explaining things from the standpoint that nothing created everything.

"Again, claiming you have provided objective evidence, when I have shown it not to be true"

You have not shown anything not to be true. Saying so does not make it so. The only thing you have shown is your willingness to ignore logic and reason in order to believe nothing created everything which is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

"And again, does my disagreeing bother you so much you must add the ad hominem attacks?"

I am not providing ad hominem attacks. But if you ignore logic and reason you are, by definition, being illogical and unreasonable.

"That is a hoot."

And it is true.

"Ok, so you finally acknowledge that this has nothing to do with validity. Thank you."

Nice try. I never said it has nothing to do with validity. The more more manuscript evidence you have the more reliable they are. I said the manuscript evidence demonstrates that the scriptures have not changed or been altered throughout history, therefore, they are valid. Taken together with the scientific, historical, and archeological evidence it is part of the evidence that makes the Bible valid with regards to its accuracy.

"And in the case of Jericho, contradictory evidence has been found."

This is untrue. There has never been any archeological discovery that has disproven something in the Bible. Yet, there have been thousands of archeological findings that have corroborated the claims of the Bible. The disparity between the two is such that to ignore it is to lose all sense of objectivity.

I said: ""Besides, there have been sufficient archeological finds corroborating the claims of the Bible to make it credible beyond a doubt."

You said: "Says you"

Yes, me, and plenty of credible archeologists.

"And does the scientific community accept these as evidence of the Exodus?"

There is nothing to accept. The evidence is there. The data is the same for everyone. How you interpret the data is the reason we have conflicting scientific understanding of things. But the data is the same for everyone.

"What about all the Egyptian evidence that is lacking?"

What about it? If it is lacking it does not prove anything. It doesn't even prove it doesn't exist. Maybe only that is has not been found. If I said there is gold inside a public school in California and looked in 99 schools before finding gold in the 100th school I looked in my statement would still be true despite all the evidence that is lacking at the other schools.

"Again, you make such statements in ignorance. The Lithuanians had a week of 9 days; the ancient Egyptians had a week of 10 days; the Aztecs & Mayas had weeks of 13 and 20 days."

Sure, and all those no longer are in existence or in use. All the world currently uses the Genesis 7 day week.

"Sure, the people who made the calendar we use were Christians. However, science now uses BCE and CE."

Yes, which is still in relation to the life of Christ. The time following the birth of Christ was known as the "Vulgar Era" in some circles. The meaning of the word vulgar actually meant 'common' at that time, not distasteful or obscene. So CE is Common Era and BCE is before Common Era. Still its concept is with respect to the life of Christ as its point of reference.
The ignorance is yours.

"Just absolutely not true - only the dream of believers, who ignore evidence from many sciences."

That is your opinion which has nothing to do with the truth, evidence, or science. It is not a dream but part of reality which you choose to ignore.

"So, if this one verse can be "metaphors, personification, contrast, hyperbole", how do you know the ones you like to think of as 'scientific' are not? You cannot have it both ways."

If you study the Bible in the proper context and understand the totality of scripture you have to "interpret" the text with what the writer intended it to mean and what his audience understood the text to mean. Most of the verses are obvious. Some are not as obvious. For example, the Bible reveals that God is Spirit. He does not have a physical body. It also describes, elsewhere, God protecting his children as a chicken protects its chicks under its wings. Does that mean the author of the text is saying God has wings like a chicken? No, beacause that would not make sense in light of the scripture that God is Spirit.

"So that is the only difference between bats and birds? Humorous."

No, but before man created the Lineean classification animals were grouped and described according to form and function. The Linnean classification is not the only way to group the animals and other methods were in existence long before the Linnean method.

"Only if you believe AIG's 'scientific evidence.' Those who believe mainstream science (and many sciences giving the same conclusions using independent methods') show otherwise."

Again, the scientific data/evidence is the same for everyone. The evidence does not change whether "mainstream" science is looking at it or the AiG's scientists are looking at it. Many in mainstream science begin with the presupposition that God does not exist and proceed to interpret the data from a naturalistic point of view. The scientists at AiG begin with the presupposition that God does exist and created the universe and interpret the scientific data from a theistic point of view. And as has already been shown the theistic point of view is the only view compatible with logic, reason, and science.

"No, not just my opinion - their articles speak for themselves - garbage."

More opinion on your part. For someone who claims to want "facts" and "objective evidence" you sure provide plenty of opinion, speculation, and commentary.

"How many of these 'studies' appeared in mainstream scientific literature?"

So unless something appears in mainstream scientific literature it is not true?

"Google is your friend - as I noted, I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you."

So your research and understanding of scientific knowledge and truth consists of a google search? You can't be serious. What a joke. No wonder you have such poor understanding of things and are full of misinformation.

"Of course, the problem is that the only evidence that your Messiah arose from the dead is the writings of believers. No objective collaborating evidence."

No, my friend. They are not just "writings of beleivers". They are not believers since they knew from first hand experience the truth of this event because they were eyewitnesses of this fact and proceeded to record this truth in writing. Funny how all these so called "believers" were going around spreading this story and writing these letters and not one person at that time said anything to dispute their claims and wrote others to dispute their claims. Not one Roman soldier, not one leper, not one Jewish leader. The evidence also consists of an empty tomb and no body.

"You continue to pick not only verses out of context, but parts of verses. Is that proper 'hermaneutics'?"

The verses are not being taken out of context. They were refering to the Messiah. Jesus fullfilled many of them but not necessarily all of them yet. Some are yet to be fullfilled and will be fullfilled at His second coming. In fact, there are over 300 prophesies about the Messiah including things that He could not humanly control such as His birthplace that Jesus fullfilled in His lifetime.

""There are perfectly good explanations for all your objections."

"Possibly, but you apparently cannot provide them."

I have provided them but being the Google scholar you are you dismiss them with a hand wave and a head burial and refuse to acknowledge them as evidendce. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

"Obviously, you must be getting quite desperate that I will not accept your 'evidence' just because you say so - else why the humorous attempt to convert me?"

Not desperate. I having nothing to be desperate for. Just a beggar trying to show another beggar where to find food. Despite what you may think, even though I do not know you, I care about you and what happens to you. Although I may get upset and respond sarcastically to some of your comments know that it is born out of frustration at your unwillingness to see the truth (even simple truths) and not because of a disdain towards you personally. My intention was not to "convert" you but to reveal the truth to you in the hope you would obtain eternal life. It continues to be my prayer.

Doc.

You stated: "You also don't have the qualifications to teach me appropriate scientific understanding." And you know that just how?

You said: "I can and I have provided objective evidence." I said: "You seem to think that just by repeating this phrase, it will make it so - contrary to the evidence. Is willful blindness part of being a true believer?"

I am not just repeating a phrase to make it true. There is no contrary evidence." Right, you just pretend all the examples I gave don't exist. Again, I ask, is willful blindness part of being a true believer?

You said: "... are saying that it is possible for nothing to create everything? You apparently believe so. You believe a "God" for which there can be no objective evidence created everything. But, as there is no objective evidence, that "God" is 'nothing.' So, ergo, *your* belief is that "nothing creating everything."

You "acknowledge that there are more gods out there but there is only one true God. The only true God has identified Himself and described who He is in the Holy Bible." Let's see, according to your reasoning, God exists because the Bible says he does. And we know the Bible is true because it is the word of God. A masterful example of circular reasoning.

"I know. Billions of people around the world know. Billions upon billions of people throughout history have known. You, apparently, do not know and have admitted so. Yet you are able o tell billions of people they are wrong when you yourself have admitted you have no idea. That is the epitome of arrogance." First, you confuse 'know' with 'believe'. All those billions know no more than I do, they just believe - without evidence, or contrary to the evidence. Second, you commit another another logical fallacy. Everyone can believe something that is wrong.

I said: "Once again, not at all. I am not proposing a "Creator," you are. So it is your burden to provide objective evidence. You cannot provide any evidence that would stand up in a court of law, or a peer review, or to non-believers. Consequently, there is no reason to believe a creator exists."

Your reply was: "There is no reason to believe a Creator doesn't exist yet that is what you believe." According to you, then, there is no reason to believe that I don't have a pocket full of invisible pink elephants either.

"All the evidence points to a Creator." Nope. "The evidence has been presented. It involves reason, logic, design, science, information as it relates to DNA, etc. yet you dismiss it all with a hand wave." Be honest, I did much more than just a wave of the hand. I totally demolished your so-called evidence.

"It reminds me of a Bible verse that states: "Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." Cute - more "evidence", right?

I may actually know the definition of axiomatic. You say: "The definition is: "Of, relating to, or resembling an axiom; self-evident" or "pertaining to or of the nature of an axiom; self-evident; obvious." Look it up." Hmm, or maybe: "axiom - (logic) a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident." Why isn't that right close to what I said: "If it is 'axiomatic' that means you accept it as true without evidence.

"It does not mean you accept something as true "without evidence"." Oh really?

"The existence of a Creator IS self-evident and any other explanation defies logic, reason, and science because you are left explaining things from the standpoint that nothing created everything." As noted above, that is exactly what you do.

I said: "Again, claiming you have provided objective evidence, when I have shown it not to be true" I think this statement of yours better applies to you. "You have not shown anything not to be true. Saying so does not make it so. The only thing you have shown is your willingness to ignore logic and reason in order to believe nothing created everything which is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE."

You stated: "Nice try. I never said it has nothing to do with validity. The more more manuscript evidence you have the more reliable they are. I said the manuscript evidence demonstrates that the scriptures have not changed or been altered throughout history, therefore, they are valid." Right, so the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' which has been around longer than the Bible hasn't changed, so it is valid.

I said "And in the case of Jericho, contradictory evidence has been found."

You state: "This is untrue. There has never been any archeological discovery that has disproven something in the Bible." Try this - noting he provides journal citations: www.geocities.com/fuzzyquark/archaeology.html

I asked: "And does the scientific community accept these as evidence of the Exodus?"

You stated: "There is nothing to accept. The evidence is there. The data is the same for everyone. How you interpret the data is the reason we have conflicting scientific understanding of things. But the data is the same for everyone." See the reference above.

I stated: "Again, you make such statements in ignorance. The Lithuanians had a week of 9 days; the ancient Egyptians had a week of 10 days; the Aztecs & Mayas had weeks of 13 and 20 days."

"Sure, and all those no longer are in existence or in use. All the world currently uses the Genesis 7 day week." That isn't what you originally claimed/implied.

I asked: "So, if this one verse can be "metaphors, personification, contrast, hyperbole", how do you know the ones you like to think of as 'scientific' are not? You cannot have it both ways."

If you study the Bible in the proper context and understand the totality of scripture you have to "interpret" the text with what the writer intended it to mean and what his audience understood the text to mean." Right, you can't understand unless you believe.

"So that is the only difference between bats and birds? Humorous."

"No, but before man created the Lineean classification animals were grouped and described according to form and function. The Linnean classification is not the only way to group the animals and other methods were in existence long before the Linnean method." Right, your God didn't know the differences - you would think he would, given he supposedly created DNA.

You state: "Again, the scientific data/evidence is the same for everyone. The evidence does not change whether "mainstream" science is looking at it or the AiG's scientists are looking at it." Right, AIG just chooses to pick and choose the evidence that supports their presuppositions, and ignore contrary evidence. Real science does not.

"And as has already been shown the theistic point of view is the only view compatible with logic, reason, and science." Are you not taking this discussion seriously? Please leave out the obvious trolls.

On AIG, "No, not just my opinion - their articles speak for themselves - garbage." And, "How many of these 'studies' appeared in mainstream scientific literature?"

You replied: "So unless something appears in mainstream scientific literature it is not true?" No, if it doesn't appear in mainstream scientific literature it is not science. AIG publishes religious studies in the guise of 'science'. They are not found in mainstream literature because they cannot pass peer review in science.

You state: "So your research and understanding of scientific knowledge and truth consists of a google search? You can't be serious. What a joke. No wonder you have such poor understanding of things and are full of misinformation." Naughty, naughty. Would you like it better if I cited a source you or others have no access to?

I stated: "Of course, the problem is that the only evidence that your Messiah arose from the dead is the writings of believers. No objective collaborating evidence."

"No, my friend. They are not just "writings of beleivers". They are not believers since they knew from first hand experience the truth of this event because they were eyewitnesses of this fact and proceeded to record this truth in writing. Funny how all these so called "believers" were going around spreading this story and writing these letters and not one person at that time said anything to dispute their claims and wrote others to dispute their claims. Not one Roman soldier, not one leper, not one Jewish leader. The evidence also consists of an empty tomb and no body." And you get this from any source other than the writings of believers? And, I think the Jewish leaders have said something about this.

"In fact, there are over 300 prophesies about the Messiah including things that He could not humanly control such as His birthplace that Jesus fullfilled in His lifetime." Unfortunately for believers, they all fail a reasonably rigorous examination.

You said: "There are perfectly good explanations for all your objections." I responded:
"Possibly, but you apparently cannot provide them."

Your nasty and untrue reply was: "I have provided them but being the Google scholar you are you dismiss them with a hand wave and a head burial and refuse to acknowledge them as evidendce. Ignorance is bliss I guess."

"Although I may get upset and respond sarcastically to some of your comments know that it is born out of frustration at your unwillingness to see the truth (even simple truths)." I guess I am a lost cause to you. I won't first believe to accept, or accept things contrary to the objective evidence - or with no objective evidence. It may be nice for you to believe in 'simple truths' or 'the truth', but they are just your beliefs, not actually 'truth'.

Once more, although I know it is doomed to fail; the way you torture evidence and your willful blindness are, I believe, a major contributing factor on why young people will continue to leave the church. Is there no way in which you might rectify science with your beliefs, and leave behind 'the infallible Bible viewpoint?'

You want: "to reveal the truth to you in the hope you would obtain eternal life. It continues to be my prayer." Do as you wish, but the evidence is that prayer doesn't work, and you have no objective evidence for an eternal life.

C.P. Steinmetz:

"Right, you just pretend all the examples I gave don't exist"

I do not pretend they don't exist but I have already refuted your examples and have demonstrated that your examples do not provide any evidence or proof of what you claim and in no way discredit what I have said or the truth of God, Christianity, or the Bible. Your examples have been refuted and your objections have already been answered not ignored.

"Again, I ask, is willful blindness part of being a true believer?"

No, but it is part of being a "non-believer".

"You apparently believe so. You believe a "God" for which there can be no objective evidence created everything. But, as there is no objective evidence, that "God" is 'nothing.' So, ergo, *your* belief is that "nothing creating everything."

Nice twisting of the truth. That appears to be your M.O.; to twist the truth. When you have no valid arguement to make you twist what has been said and twist the truth. God is SOMETHING. God is not NOTHING. I believe God created everything. And as I have already provided, there is overwhelming objective evidence from logic, reason, and sceince for the existence of God. You don't need faith. All you need is eyes to see and a brain that works. These arguments you choose to ignore. That does not make them go away or make them invalid. Your unbelief does not negate reality.

"Let's see, according to your reasoning, God exists because the Bible says he does. And we know the Bible is true because it is the word of God. A masterful example of circular reasoning."

Wrong. More twisting of the truth. God exists because He is real not because the Bible says so. That was not the point that was being made. Even if the Bible did not exist, God would still exist. What was being discussed was WHO that God that we already know exists actually is. The Bible describes who that one true God is. And He is the one true God as described in the Bible not because the Bible says so but because over and over, time after time the claims of the Bible are corroborated with history, archeology, science, and prophecy. You can't do that with any other religious document.

"First, you confuse 'know' with 'believe'. All those billions know no more than I do, they just believe - without evidence, or contrary to the evidence."

No, they KNOW God exists. They BELIEVE God is Allah, or Buddah, or Vishnu, or whoever. There is a difference. But you are right. They don't KNOW more than you do because you know the same thing everyone else does. That God exists. You know that there is a God you just supress that truth in unrighteousness because you love your sins.

"Second, you commit another another logical fallacy. Everyone can believe something that is wrong."

This is true. Such as with evolution. But you missed the point. I was not saying believers in God are right because there are so many of them (80-90% of the world's population believe in a god). The point was that you admitted you DID NOT KNOW yet had the arrogance to say that those who DID ACTUALLY KNOW were wrong. If, by your own admission, you do not know then you cannot state as fact that those who do actually know are wrong since you have essentialy admitted you have no clue.

"According to you, then, there is no reason to believe that I don't have a pocket full of invisible pink elephants either."

Sure there is. First of all I know, as fact, that elephants cannot be invisible. Secondly, I know, as fact, that elephants are too large to fit in a traditionaly sized pocket. And although I have never seen a pink elephant it is possible to paint an elephant pink so I cannot dispute the color of your said elephants. But if A and B are false then C is also likley to be false if it is conditional to A and B. But as for believing nothing created everything there is no evidence for that yet that is what you believe. On the contrary, all the evidence points to the fact of a creator and objective evidence has been provided which you ignore or try to deflect.

"Be honest, I did much more than just a wave of the hand. I totally demolished your so-called evidence"

HaHaHa! You are delusional. The objections you provided of my statements were soundly refuted with evidence and logic. The only thing you demolished was your facade of objectivity and reason.

"a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident." Why isn't that right close to what I said: "If it is 'axiomatic' that means you accept it as true without evidence."

Not close enough. I don't know what dictionary you use but maybe you should get a new one. The definition of "axiom" as found in both the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionsry is as follows:

"A self-evident or universally recognized truth; a maxim; a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit;
a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : postulate 1;
an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

"Right, so the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' which has been around longer than the Bible hasn't changed, so it is valid."

Yes, it is valid...for the writing of a fictional epic poem. It makes no claims of truth or divinity. And although it may have been around longer than the fully constructed Bible it is not older than the Jewish scriptures of the Old Testament contained within the Bible.

"Try this - noting he provides journal citations: www.geocities.com/fuzzyquark/archaeology.html"

Try this- noting there is a valid explanation for every seeming objection you may have:

http://www.theology.edu/conquest.htm

"Right, you can't understand unless you believe."

That is not what I said at all. Nice try.

"Right, your God didn't know the differences - you would think he would, given he supposedly created DNA."

God does know the difference. Classifying animals on the basis of form and function is not erroneous grouping only a different way to group animals as compared to the Linnean Classification method. Is that so hard to understand?

"Right, AIG just chooses to pick and choose the evidence that supports their presuppositions, and ignore contrary evidence. Real science does not."

Are you purposely pretending to lack basic understanding or are you really that poor in reading comprehension? AiG does not pick and choose the evidence that supports their presupposition. The evidence is the same for everyone. AiG BEGINS with the presupposition that God exists and explains the data/evidence gathered from science experiments from a theist point of view while secular scientists BEGIN with the preupposition that God does not exist and explain the data/evidence gathered from science experiments from a naturalistic point of view. The data used by both is the same. The conclusions drawn (i.e.- the interpretation of the data; the results) are the results of their pre-supposition. "Real science" does exactly that. Again, not that hard to understand.

"AIG publishes religious studies in the guise of 'science'. They are not found in mainstream literature because they cannot pass peer review in science"

Because mainstream science begins with the pre-supposition that God does not exist and proceeds to explain the world from that viewpoint even if the data does not fit. As a result, peer reviews do not accept articles that expalin scientific data from a theistic point of view because it does not meet the criteria of their pre-supposition. However, science is essentially the measurement and observation of the natural world around us. Scienific data in this regard is neutral and is what it is.

"And you get this from any source other than the writings of believers?"

As a matter of fact, yes.

"And, I think the Jewish leaders have said something about this."

Not any Jewish leaders that were there at the time who were eyewitnesses to the events happening at that time. Anyone can say something about events 2,000 years ago but their opinions do not hold any weight compared to the words of those who were actually there at the time. As for Jewish leaders at the time, Josephus, a Jewish historian around the time of Jesus, actually mentioned in his wriitngs of a man named Jesus who had many followers called christians. So, yes, Jewish leaders at that time did have something to say and what they said confirmed the claims of the Bible.

"Unfortunately for believers, they all fail a reasonably rigorous examination."

More opinion and speculation from a man that claims only to desire objective evidence.

"I guess I am a lost cause to you."

I do not believe in lost causes.

"I won't first believe to accept, or accept things contrary to the objective evidence - or with no objective evidence."

You do not have to "believe" to accept the fact of a creator. All you need are eyes that see and a brain that works. I am not asking you to accept anything contrary to objective evidence- or with no objective evidence. However, you do just that if you believe nothing created everything which is what you are left with if you deny the existence of a creator.

"It may be nice for you to believe in 'simple truths' or 'the truth', but they are just your beliefs, not actually 'truth'."

What is true is that it is impossible for nothing to create anything let alone everything. That is not a "beleif" that is absolutely true and indisputable. Therefore, I do not "beleive" a creator God exists, I know a creator God exists. That is truth, not beleif. And although it does take some faith to believe in WHO that creator God is, it is not a blind faith but a faith based on evidence. You, meanwhile, have no evidence of any kind that God does not exist yet that is what you beleive.

"Once more, although I know it is doomed to fail; the way you torture evidence and your willful blindness are, I believe, a major contributing factor on why young people will continue to leave the church."

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black. You are the master at torturing evidence and truth and logic and reason and are blinded, willfully or otherwise, to the truth. People leave the church because many churches have, unfortunatly, failed to preach the whole counsel of truth and have compromised the biblical gospel.

"Is there no way in which you might rectify science with your beliefs, and leave behind 'the infallible Bible viewpoint?'"

My "beliefs" are compatible with science and science is compatible with my "beliefs". It is not true because I believe it, I believe it because it's true. If I "leave behind"' the infallible Bible viewpoint I leave behind truth, logic, and reason. You apparently are OK with doing that but I am not.

"Do as you wish, but the evidence is that prayer doesn't work, and you have no objective evidence for an eternal life."

I have a ton of experiential data that refutes your comment that prayer does not work. I have personally experienced prayer work many, many, many times. And I have a resurrected body of a dead man that refutes your comment that there is no objective evidence for eternal life. You, meanwhile, believe the absurd and impossible notion that nothing created everything.

Regardless, as I have said before, if you ignore logic and reason, something you must do in order to deny the existence of a creator and believe nothing created everything then you have, by definition, become illogical and unreasonable and there is no sense continuing a discussion with someone who is unreasonable.

Doc, time for a fact check.

In all the bombast, bluster and accusations of your answers, you have made several statements that require substantiation.

Let me examine your claims.

A -

You have stated: "And as I have already provided, there is overwhelming objective evidence from logic, reason, and sceince for the existence of God. You don't need faith."

Yet you stated earlier that there could be no "objective evidence" for God.

B -

You said: " ... because over and over, time after time the claims of the Bible are corroborated with history, archeology, science, and prophecy."

And: "HaHaHa! You are delusional. The objections you provided of my statements were soundly refuted with evidence and logic. The only thing you demolished was your facade of objectivity and reason."

B1.

I stated: "Right, so the 'Epic of Gilgamesh' which has been around longer than the Bible hasn't changed, so it is valid."

"Yes, it is valid...for the writing of a fictional epic poem. It makes no claims of truth or divinity." It doesn't?

"And although it may have been around longer than the fully constructed Bible it is not older than the Jewish scriptures of the Old Testament contained within the Bible." Bible - oldest book = Job from ~1500 B.C.E., Gilgamesh from ~2000 B.C.E.

Care to retract that statement?

B2.

I stated: "Try this - noting he provides journal citations: www.geocities.com/fuzzyquark/archaeology.html"

Your reply: "Try this- noting there is a valid explanation for every seeming objection you may have:

http://www.theology.edu/conquest.htm"

Sorry, it does not answer "every seeming objection" 1. It does not speak at all to the lack of evidence for the wandering in the wilderness. 2. It tries to rectify the lack of evidence by: "More reasonable is the explanation of Father Hughes Vincint that the inhabitants of Ai had merely a military outpost at Ai of such modest proportions and temporary nature that it left no remains to give a clue of its existence to the archeologists. However, the narrative clearly indicates an inhabited city." I guess so, 12,000 people.

Now, would you like to really speak to the questions the article I provided raised? And, while you are at it, please provide the corroborating evidence for a young earth, world-wide flood, etc.

B3.

I said: "Right, AIG just chooses to pick and choose the evidence that supports their presuppositions, and ignore contrary evidence. Real science does not."

"Are you purposely pretending to lack basic understanding or are you really that poor in reading comprehension? AiG does not pick and choose the evidence that supports their presupposition."

From AIG's 'Statement of Faith': "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Care to reassess my understanding and reading comprehension?

B4.

I stated: "AIG publishes religious studies in the guise of 'science'. They are not found in mainstream literature because they cannot pass peer review in science"

"Because mainstream science begins with the pre-supposition that God does not exist and proceeds to explain the world from that viewpoint even if the data does not fit."

Please cite a source for this statement. Science starts with the pre-supposition that all explanations must be testable, i.e., not involve supernatural causes.

"As a result, peer reviews do not accept articles that expalin scientific data from a theistic point of view because it does not meet the criteria of their pre-supposition."

Yes, journals require the ability to be testable (implying refutable). Please show otherwise.

"However, science is essentially the measurement and observation of the natural world around us. Scienific data in this regard is neutral and is what it is."

Could you provide a citation from a scientific source that gives this as the definition of 'science'?

Outrageous statements for which you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever:

1. "You know that there is a God you just supress that truth in unrighteousness because you love your sins."

2. "My "beliefs" are compatible with science and science is compatible with my "beliefs". It is not true because I believe it, I believe it because it's true. If I "leave behind"' the infallible Bible viewpoint I leave behind truth, logic, and reason. You apparently are OK with doing that but I am not."

Questions you have not answered to anyone's satisfaction:

1. "According to you, then, there is no reason to believe that I don't have a pocket full of invisible pink elephants either."

"Sure there is. First of all I know, as fact, that elephants cannot be invisible. Secondly, I know, as fact, that elephants are too large to fit in a traditionaly sized pocket."

Oh, but they are magical pink elephants. Refute them now. Obviously, you cannot. In short, once again, it is your burden to provide evidence for your assertion that there is a God.

2. "Not close enough. I don't know what dictionary you use but maybe you should get a new one. The definition of "axiom" as found in both the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage dictionsry ... "

Perhaps you should try a science dictionary, as you are talking about a scientific topic.

3. I said: "Right, your God didn't know the differences - you would think he would, given he supposedly created DNA."

"God does know the difference [bats v birds]. Classifying animals on the basis of form and function is not erroneous grouping only a different way to group animals as compared to the Linnean Classification method. Is that so hard to understand?"

Yes, you continue to maintain that God just brushed aside the difference between mammals and birds.

4. I stated: "Of course, the problem is that the only evidence that your Messiah arose from the dead is the writings of believers. No objective collaborating evidence."

You replied: "No, my friend. They are not just "writings of beleivers".... not one person at that time said anything to dispute their claims and wrote others to dispute their claims. Not one Roman soldier, not one leper, not one Jewish leader."

There are a number of scholars who state that the reason for this is that the Jesus of the Bible was a mythical construct by Christian cults/sects, which would explain why no contemporaneous person refuted those claims.

"Not any Jewish leaders that were there at the time who were eyewitnesses to the events happening at that time ...As for Jewish leaders at the time, Josephus, a Jewish historian around the time of Jesus, actually mentioned in his wriitngs of a man named Jesus who had many followers called christians. So, yes, Jewish leaders at that time did have something to say and what they said confirmed the claims of the Bible."

I saw nothing in reasonably contemporaneous extra-Biblical evidence that your Messiah arose from the dead, which is what you were trying to establish. Can you provide any evidence for "rose from the dead" in any extra-Biblical source?

5. I stated: "I won't first believe to accept, or accept things contrary to the objective evidence - or with no objective evidence."

"You stated: "You do not have to "believe" to accept the fact of a creator. All you need are eyes that see and a brain that works. I am not asking you to accept anything contrary to objective evidence- or with no objective evidence. However, you do just that if you believe nothing created everything which is what you are left with if you deny the existence of a creator."

Whether or not my beliefs are incorrect does not make yours correct. Please provide any evidence that yours are correct. Oops, that's right, you said there cannot be any objective evidence for your God.

6. Me: "It may be nice for you to believe in 'simple truths' or 'the truth', but they are just your beliefs, not actually 'truth'."

" Therefore, I do not "beleive" a creator God exists, I know a creator God exists. That is truth, not beleif."

You 'know' it, but cannot provide any objective evidence. If I claimed airplanes could fly, I can provide substantial objective evidence - yet you can provide none for the existence of your God. As you said there cannot be any objective evidence for your God, you should stop pretending that you can.

Lastly, you stated: "Regardless, as I have said before, if you ignore logic and reason, something you must do in order to deny the existence of a creator and believe nothing created everything then you have, by definition, become illogical and unreasonable and there is no sense continuing a discussion with someone who is unreasonable."

May I take that as your acceptance that you cannot provide evidence and cannot refute my evidence?

C.P. Steinmetz:

Let's actually look at the facts and see what was actually said rather than making things up or ignoring what has been said.

You said: "Yet you stated earlier that there could be no "objective evidence" for God"

This is what I mean when I state you lack reading comprehension. I have said no such thing. This is what I actually said regarding objective evidence for a creator God:

"With regards to evidence for the existence of God it is composed of simple logic and reason. God is Spirit. He does not have a physical body. As a result, you will not find God in a test tube or under a microscope. You will not find "scientific evidence" of God's existence. He is much bigger than that. God created science because He created this universe and the physical laws that govern how this universe works. However, the evidence is more compelling and based on simple logic and reason." (07/21/09 @ 10:12 AM)

Notice I said you cannot find "SCIENTIFIC EVEIDENCE" for the existence of God. At least not directly. I then proceeded to provide how logic,reason, and science demonstrate that a creator (God) exists. I never said there was no "OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE" for the existence of God. Because there is objective evidence, as I have claimed from the begining, and that evidence is what I have been providing to you.

You said: "From AIG's 'Statement of Faith': "By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."

Care to reassess my understanding and reading comprehension?"

Not really. You just further validated my point that you have poor reading comprehension skills (or purposely pretend to) by your citing this because it does not say that the scientists at AiG "pick and choose" scientific data that supports their presuppositions, and ignore contrary evidence as you claim.

What it says is that if scientific evidence appears to contradict God's word (as found in the Bible)it is the scientific evidence that is erroneous not God's word because God is never wrong and scientific evidence has been found to be erroneous many times because it is obtained and interpreted by imperfect, fallible human beings.

"Please cite a source for this statement. Science starts with the pre-supposition that all explanations must be testable, i.e., not involve supernatural causes."

I will provide you with 3 references not just the one you requested.

First reference is from the American Heritage dictionary which states science is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. Such activities restricted to a class of NATURAL phenomena."

If it is restricted to NATURAL phenomena then, by definition, it begins with the exclusion of SUPERNATURAL phenomena which was my point.

Second reference from http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html:

"The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.
How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain NATURAL phenomena."

Again, if science can only explain things NATURALLY then, by definition, it excludes the possibility of a supernatural explanation.

Third reference is YOU. You said above: "Please cite a source for this statement. Science starts with the pre-supposition that all explanations must be testable, i.e., not involve supernatural causes."

Thank you for helping to make my point. If, as you claim, science cannot "involve supernatural causes" then the pre-supposition is that there is no supernatural cause (i.e.- there is no God).

You also said: "Science starts with the pre-supposition that all explanations must be testable"

Please cite a source for this statement.

I said: "However, science is essentially the measurement and observation of the natural world around us. Scienific data in this regard is neutral and is what it is."

You said: "Could you provide a citation from a scientific source that gives this as the definition of 'science'?"

Please see definitions above.

You said: "Oh, but they are magical pink elephants. Refute them now. Obviously, you cannot."

Funny. This may explain why you are ignorant of so many things. You apparently believe in magic. I do not believe in magic. But to play your little game please cite a reference that shows magic is real.

"In short, once again, it is your burden to provide evidence for your assertion that there is a God."

In short, I did that.

"Perhaps you should try a science dictionary, as you are talking about a scientific topic"

You are incorrect. An "axiom" or "axiomatic" does not pertain to science only.

"Yes, you continue to maintain that God just brushed aside the difference between mammals and birds."

Please, give it up. The biological term "mammal" is a man-made term. In that particular instance God was classifying the animals based on wings (form) and the ability to fly (function) so that the people of that time could understand seeing as the term "mammal" had not been coined yet. God can classify His animals anyway He wants. He created them. Remember, reading comprehension is important for proper understanding.

"There are a number of scholars who state that the reason for this is that the Jesus of the Bible was a mythical construct by Christian cults/sects, which would explain why no contemporaneous person refuted those claims."

Please provide evidence for this claim.

"Whether or not my beliefs are incorrect does not make yours correct."

Never said it did. However, your beliefs are based on the impossible premise that nothing creating everything. Mine are based on logic, reasoning, and science all being taken into consideration. That should tell you something.

"Please provide any evidence that yours are correct. Oops, that's right, you said there cannot be any objective evidence for your God."

Oops, you are mistaken yet again. I made no such statement. Again, reading comprehension is important.

"You 'know' it, but cannot provide any objective evidence."

I can and I did. Just becasue you choose to ignore it does not make it go away.

"If I claimed airplanes could fly, I can provide substantial objective evidence - yet you can provide none for the existence of your God. As you said there cannot be any objective evidence for your God, you should stop pretending that you can."

Go back and reread the posts. The evidence was provided previously. I get tired of repeating myself. Stop ignoring logic and reason.

"May I take that as your acceptance that you cannot provide evidence and cannot refute my evidence?"

No, you can take that as you being illogical and unreasonable. Your so-called "evidence" has been shown to be no evidence at all and has already been soundly refuted. Since you are so insistent on asking for evidence of things that are self-evident that even a child knows to be true maybe I should insist you provide evidence of your own. So, please, provide evidence of how nothing can create everything. Please, show me how 0+0=infinity. But I will even make it easier for you. Please provide evidence that proves that nothing can create just one thing let alone all things in existence. I look forward to your response but, please, try to actually stick to the question and provide what is being requested rather than trying to deflect the issue by providing unrelated questions, commentaries, and speculations.

Doc

I have been following this blog for some time now. I feel your concern and your frustrations, but I am reminded of several things.
2 Tim 2:14 tell us not to quarrel about words it does no good and it will ruin the hearers. Our God does not need to be argued. Ephesians 1:17-18a says: that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ will give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him, having the eyes of your heart enlightened.. This verse tells me tht unless God chooses to enlighten someone there will be no knowledge of Him.

C.P.

I have not wanted to respond because you guys intimadate me. I am not very good with words and I am terrible at grammer but, I hope you can look past that and try t hear my heart. From what I have read knowledge is extremely important to you, you need hard, tangible evidence for you to believe. I know the Bible is just another book to you but for me it much more than that. It is Gods living Word, so I wont be going anywhere alse for my information. Hebrews 11:1 say: Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. To believe in God and believe he created everything takes faith. Faith isnt something you can look under a microscope and see. Colossians 2:2-3 to reach all the riches of full assurans of understanding and the knowledge of God's mystery, which is Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. So I say this, to know that God exist you will have to study the life and person of Jesus. I am not saying study it to pick it apart, but study it and ask God to reveal Himself to you through Jesus.

Chrissy, thank you so much for responding. I have feared that everyone else has lost interest.

I think you have conveyed your ideas extremely well. Unfortunately, you ask for things that just won't happen.

As you have noticed, Doc and I can never be 'reasonable'. When faced with at least two issues - is there a 'God' and is there a 'creator', we come from two different worldviews.

I take the stance that:
1. If one is going to assert there is a 'God', then you have the burden to show objective and testable evidence that such 'God' exists. In short, the scientific requirement would be that you can formulate a test such that, if failed, shows that 'God' doesn't exist. If that cannot be done, the best you can say is "I believe" or "I have faith". From the scientific perspective, neither is an acceptable reason to believe.

2. At this point, no one can show with any objective and testable evidence what happened before the Universe existed. There is overwhelming evidence for a 'big bang', but not for what went on before. So, I take the very conservative and scientific stance that 'we do not know' at this point. There are tentative explanations, but at this point, we do not know. Doc has rather dishonestly tried to twist this into "You believe nothing created everything." In fact, I don't know, and it doesn't bother me know to know.

Doc, on the other hand, when faced with these questions, and not knowing, is content to believe his 'God' exists and created everything. I have no problem with his believing that. I have a problem when he asserts that his belief is true, even while noting he can provide no objective and testable evidence for his belief.

It is my hope that you take courses in science, where you will be introduced to the feeling of satisfaction that comes with scientific understanding. If you are interested in testing your faith, you could read "The God Delusion." However, I really don't recommend that, as it can be very disturbing.

Again, thank you for your post.

Chrissy:

Thank you for your response and thank you for admonishing me with scripture. I too have difficulties sometime continuing to engage in discussions with someone who refuses to even acknowledge simple logic and truths that are irrefutable and without dispute. Especially when I come across scripture like Proverbs 26:4 that says:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Lest you also be like him."

C.P. Steinmetz:

"As you have noticed, Doc and I can never be 'reasonable'"

Pardon me for joining in on your "conversation" with Chrissy but I disagree that you and I can "never be reasonable". Although I know I have said you are being unreasonable when you deny the existence of God because it is axiomatic (and I still believe this to be true) but that does not mean you will "never be reasonable".

You stated: "When faced with at least two issues - is there a 'God' and is there a 'creator', we come from two different worldviews."

Those are actually the same issue not two separate issues. However, you seem to suggest that our perspective or "worldview" determines what we believe. I have to disagree to some extent as what you or I believe is irrelevant when it comes to these issues. The question is, more importantly, "Is it true?". It is true whether you or I believe it or not.

You said:
"I take the stance that:
1. If one is going to assert there is a 'God', then you have the burden to show objective and testable evidence that such 'God' exists."

You keep saying this but objective evidence has been shown yet you still deny God's existence. So, objective evidence has nothing to do with why you deny the existence of a creator God.

You said:
"In short, the scientific requirement would be that you can formulate a test such that, if failed, shows that 'God' doesn't exist. If that cannot be done, the best you can say is "I believe" or "I have faith". From the scientific perspective, neither is an acceptable reason to believe."

As much as I love science it is foolish to think that science is the source of all truth. Just from experience alone we know that science sometimes makes mistakes. Science does not always get things right. That is why science has to keep updating itself and re-evaluating itself and change what has found to be erroneous scientific information. What we believe to be true scientifically today will be laughed at 100 years from now. Science is not the source of all truth. You cannot fit God in a scientific box. God is outside of science. God created this physical world and the physical laws that govern this universe and is not subject to them. Just because you cannot design a scientific experiment that reveals physical evidence for God does not, in anyway, mean He does not exist. If that is the case then please design a scientific experiment that reveals physical evidence for your love towards your mother, father, girlfriend, boyfriend, or whatever. If you cannot do this then your love for those people does not exist. I am sure they would be happy to hear that.

You said:
"2. At this point, no one can show with any objective and testable evidence what happened before the Universe existed. There is overwhelming evidence for a 'big bang', but not for what went on before. So, I take the very conservative and scientific stance that 'we do not know' at this point. There are tentative explanations, but at this point, we do not know."

YOU may not know but that does not mean others do not know. It has been proven, from a scientific standpoint, that the universe had a begining, matter had a begining, time had a begining. This means that those things did not exist prior to their begining.

"Doc has rather dishonestly tried to twist this into "You believe nothing created everything." In fact, I don't know, and it doesn't bother me know to know."

You are the one being dishonest. Dishonest with God and with yourself. If you deny the existence of a creator God all you are left with is that nothing created everything which is not possible. You try to spin this around and accuse me of dishonesty to deflect this reality because you don't like that you have been cornered and your foolishness has been exposed. You don't like it because you realize the ridiculousness of that worldview.

The Bible even says so:
"A fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1)

Also, if you now claim that you "just don't know" and it doesn't bother you "not to know" then you are, by definition, agnostic. Which means you acknowledge God may exist but you just don't know. If that is the case then why are you so vehemently arguing against what I say rather than trying to understand what is being discussed because I just may be correct.

That is why the bible says:

"The way of a fool seems right to him, but a wise man listens to advice" (Proverbs 12:15)

"A wise man fears the LORD and shuns evil, but a fool is hotheaded and reckless." (Proverbs 14:16"

"He who trusts in himself is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom is kept safe." (Proverbs 28:26)

You said: "Doc, on the other hand, when faced with these questions, and not knowing, is content to believe his 'God' exists and created everything."

Yes, Doc, when faced with any question, not knowing or knowing, trusts in God because God is all-knowing and merciful. He has spoken and in Him will I trust or else I become a fool. Science cannot solve your dilemna of sin and death. God can. Science has not been able to stop death. Jesus Christ defeated death. In whom will you trust? Science or Jesus Christ?

"I have a problem when he asserts that his belief is true, even while noting he can provide no objective and testable evidence for his belief."

No, no, no, my friend. Who is being dishonest now? I have noted no such thing. I have, from the begining, noted that there is overwhelming objective evidence for a creator God seen in His creation and that it is self-evident. And despite stating this numerous times you continue to repeat the lie that I have said that no objective evidence for God can be provided when I have stated the contrary over and over. Why do you insist on doing this?

The sand is shifting underneath your feet.