POLL: Is there a God ??

[LOL_Man]

I am not going address the majority of this post, as most has been debated ad nauseum in this thread. Would like to briefly comment on your description of sex (at least I think that's what you are referencing), which you term a "shameful procedure" that God will "roundly discourage from frivously engaging in"...

Biblically speaking, God has designed sex to be enjoyed in the confines of marriage between husband and wife. This is done for our protection. Generally speaking, if society adhered to God's command to enjoy sex within the confines of marriage, I wonder how much better off society would be in general. Percentage of unplanned pregnancies would drop exponentially, as would abortions. Second, contraction of STDs/HIV would drop exponentially as well. Emotional/psychological despair from engaging sexually with numerous partners, especially in women, would drop markedly as well.

Society, in general, sells the lie to sleep around as much as possible, and you will love a happy satisfied life. If it feels good, do it. Look at how rampant hook up culture is in society. Yet people, especially unmarried women who are now tainted by having numerous sexual partners, are more miserable than they have ever been, according to numerous studies. Society in general, is more miserable than they have ever been.

Just observations on my end.

So in the beginning, when there was nothing, he carefully considered sex so important that while a trillion zillion other stars were being created he thought he'd better have a thing called marriage and that he would need to protect people from the very pleasure he was instilling in it?

God seems like a micromanager? That's really getting down in the weeds to come up with all that at the infancy of creating everything? I wonder if he did it in between photosynthesis and how fish would spawn? I'm sure he would have needed a checklist. Talk about project management skills. No wonder he created all those other planets but didn't put any life on them... he was dead tired after this one. The killing his son part must have been especially taxing. Kind of like his big plot twist. That God, he's quite the jokester.

 

[Lost In FL]

I never said any such thing.

Summarizing what i have taken from your posts ... you do not believe in creation, but rather evolution. Is that a misrepresentation?

If i have misrepresented, then my apologies.

 

[Lost In FL]

"The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be." - Carl Sagan

We know the universe is continuously expanding from an initial Big Bang. The universe expands until it blows up, then it begins all over again. Perpetually mixing and stirring the same basic ingredients that always have been and always will be. There hasn't been one Big Bang. There have been an eternity of them. - me

You have evidence of the repeated explosions? Or do you take that on faith?

BTW, I personally dont care what you believe. We are not converting anyone. I am interested to hear WHY people believe what they believe. Reasons why.

You seem threatened by being challenged with tough questions. You do not have to defend your beliefs. IDC.

 

[LOL_Man]

Here's a picture of a cat.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Summarizing what i have taken from your posts ... you do not believe in creation, but rather evolution. Is that a misrepresentation?

If i have misrepresented, then my apologies.

I think far too many people may jump to that conclusion. It’s a troubling tendency that people seem to assume there are only two camps of thought. You’re either this, or you’re that. Example, if I criticize a Republican, people immediately assume that I’m a liberal democrat, which is untrue.

I do not believe in creation. I do not believe in any of the 4,000+ gods and goddesses that various cultures have dreamed up.

I do think that the Big Bang theory is a compelling one. It makes sense to me. I am left with uncertainty about it though. Put me in the camp of “likely true”.

Same with the theory of evolution…likely true.

 

[mcnicKY91]

So in the beginning, when there was nothing, he carefully considered sex so important that while a trillion zillion other stars were being created he thought he'd better have a thing called marriage and that he would need to protect people from the very pleasure he was instilling in it?

God seems like a micromanager? That's really getting down in the weeds to come up with all that at the infancy of creating everything? I wonder if he did it in between photosynthesis and how fish would spawn? I'm sure he would have needed a checklist. Talk about project management skills. No wonder he created all those other planets but didn't put any life on them... he was dead tired after this one. The killing his son part must have been especially taxing. Kind of like his big plot twist. That God, he's quite the jokester.

So you think society would or wouldn't be better off adhering to God's plan for sex?

 

[LOL_Man]

So you think society would or wouldn't be better off adhering to God's plan for sex?

Society would be better living closely to what the Christian faith describes and there simply is no question about it. I don't know enough about other religions to comment on them, but to be a good human being when you don't have to be, to honor your wife, to love and care for your family, to be charitable, to be neighborly... these are all rock solid foundations for living a good life. Much more rewarding than being a Trump like terrible human being that has everything but in the end has a hole inside them that will never be filled no matter how much they lie and steal.

What I have learned is that the older I get the more you are rewarded for having been a decent human being. I don't need a religion to tell me that. I have found all these things to be absolutely true. It is hard to pass up on good looking women, but what you build with that trust you have with your wife you cannot replace. It's not what she knows, it's what you know about yourself.

I learned in time while I was young these things on my own. I've never needed a religion to tell me what will make me feel much better is that I be a decent human being. So if some need religion before they can learn that then more power to them, but I need no confessions because I confessed to myself a long time ago.

 

[LOL_Man]

Same with the theory of evolution…likely true.

Well you blasted me about my thoughts on the Catholic church and I get it, but boy that is a clunker right there. OK. We're even.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Well you blasted me about my thoughts on the Catholic church and I get it, but boy that is a clunker right there. OK. We're even.

Not sure we’re very close to even at all.

I believe that it is possible and likely, given hundreds of millions of years, that life can evolve. And I see that as a reasonable position.

Your defensive arguments regarding the horrific crimes and subsequent coverups committed by the Catholic Church, all within this lifetime, speaks for itself.

 

[LOL_Man]

Not sure we’re very close to even at all.

I believe that it is possible and likely, given hundreds of millions of years, that life can evolve. And I see that as a reasonable position.

Evolution is merely a "reasonable position" is... cute.

Bedrock Scientific Tenet that serves as the basis of our most important concepts in biology.

 

[SDC888]

Evolution being true and it "explaining" the entirety of the origin of the species from mud are two different things.

And it says nothing about the origins of consciousness, nevermind abiogenesis.

 

[LOL_Man]

Evolution being true and it "explaining" the entirety of the origin of the species from mud are two different things.

And it says nothing about the origins of consciousness, nevermind abiogenesis.

Almost true. It does not explain the first spark of life but it certainly explains everything after that.

Evolution suggests the spark but does not explain it to the degree it does all else.

 

[MidseasonTweak]

We often see "scientists" rule out half of the possibilities before they start, and still call themselves scientists. It seems disingenuous.

Science involves testing, experimenting, observing, is evidence-based, etc. Science can and does improve on itself as evidence tested against theories occur.

Religion is pure faith, not based in evidence no matter how some people in here seem to think it is. You can believe in a god without any sort of observable evidence, and while on the science side, technically we cannot prove for certain the Big Bang happened, the evidence for the idea of it, though, is more reasonable than saying an infallible, omniscient being made everything (in my opinion).

 

[mcnicKY91]

Society would be better living closely to what the Christian faith describes and there simply is no question about it. I don't know enough about other religions to comment on them, but to be a good human being when you don't have to be, to honor your wife, to love and care for your family, to be charitable, to be neighborly... these are all rock solid foundations for living a good life. Much more rewarding than being a Trump like terrible human being that has everything but in the end has a hole inside them that will never be filled no matter how much they lie and steal.

What I have learned is that the older I get the more you are rewarded for having been a decent human being. I don't need a religion to tell me that. I have found all these things to be absolutely true. It is hard to pass up on good looking women, but what you build with that trust you have with your wife you cannot replace. It's not what she knows, it's what you know about yourself.

I learned in time while I was young these things on my own. I've never needed a religion to tell me what will make me feel much better is that I be a decent human being. So if some need religion before they can learn that then more power to them, but I need no confessions because I confessed to myself a long time ago.

Appreciate the response.

Although not sure what Trump has to do with it.. you could have basically listed 99% of DC and Hollywood as well haha.

 

[Lost In FL]

I think far too many people may jump to that conclusion. It’s a troubling tendency that people seem to assume there are only two camps of thought. You’re either this, or you’re that. Example, if I criticize a Republican, people immediately assume that I’m a liberal democrat, which is untrue.

I do not believe in creation. I do not believe in any of the 4,000+ gods and goddesses that various cultures have dreamed up.

I do think that the Big Bang theory is a compelling one. It makes sense to me. I am left with uncertainty about it though. Put me in the camp of “likely true”.

Same with the theory of evolution…likely true.

Thx. I think you are trying/tried to respond respectfully and have a normal discussion. My response is trying to come from a respectful discussion as well.

I guess i am too much of a math guy ... "it is or it isnt" on some issues. For the first one ... we are either created or not created. What would be a 3rd option to that? Some issues do not have to be B&W, but this one is. That is why i said earlier, you believe we came from a rock. (You may be undecided on that. My opinion)

[And of course, there is uncertainty. None of us observed the BB. No cameras caught it "breaking news" style. So we have to search for, look at the evidence, and come to our own conclusions. ]

This may shock you, but i believe the big bang too. I just believe something (God IMO) caused it.

Sorry, i wanted to say more, but my response is too long already.

 

[Lost In FL]

Almost true. It does not explain the first spark of life but it certainly explains everything after that.

Evolution suggests the spark but does not explain it to the degree it does all else.

It offers no explanation the first part, how it happened, or why it happened.

while it does explain microevolution, it does not any proof or theory (that i am aware of) to address macroevolution. (IOW, the kitten you posted, eventually mating, will always and only produce cats. That is the only thing science has observed.)

 

[Lost In FL]

Appreciate the response.

Although not sure what Trump has to do with it.. you could have basically listed 99% of DC and Hollywood as well haha.

Exactly, one could replace Biden w Trump and the paragraph wouldnt change. That comment should go to the other thread imo. Lol

 

[Beatle Bum]

This may shock you, but i believe the big bang too. I just believe something (God IMO) caused it.

There is no doubt that something outside of time, space, and matter, as we know those things, caused the Big Bang. Nothing and then, everything.

 

[LOL_Man]

We all have to accept that any kind of "creation" explanation is logically not sufficient. Once you get through all of the "but where did that come from" isms then you eventually arrive at a point where something must be created from nothing and that is a dead end no matter what contortions the Big Bang theory asks us to accept.

So the ultimate beginning never happened. Something preceded a Big Bang. There is a process outside our ability to comprehend it at work. Forces or ingredients that always have been and are endlessly cycled. There is no beginning and there is no end. Eventually it all circles back around again from where it began. An endless churning repeating over and over again. No matter how big anything is in the universe if you travel it far enough you will always arrive back from where you began. There was no ultimate beginning.

 

[SDC888]

Science involves testing, experimenting, observing, is evidence-based, etc. Science can and does improve on itself as evidence tested against theories occur.

Religion is pure faith, not based in evidence no matter how some people in here seem to think it is. You can believe in a god without any sort of observable evidence, and while on the science side, technically we cannot prove for certain the Big Bang happened, the evidence for the idea of it, though, is more reasonable than saying an infallible, omniscient being made everything (in my opinion).

No, this "idea" by atheists that faith requires a suspension of disbelief isn't true.

Almost true. It does not explain the first spark of life but it certainly explains everything after that.

Evolution suggests the spark but does not explain it to the degree it does all else.

The rest of it contains similar suggestions unsubstantiated leaps. But that doesn't necessarily make it untrue.

We all have to accept that any kind of "creation" explanation is logically not sufficient. Once you get through all of the "but where did that come from" isms then you eventually arrive at a point where something must be created from nothing and that is a dead end no matter what contortions the Big Bang theory asks us to accept.

This is an error in logic.

Once you are outside of space and time, which you must be for a first cause, you no longer require a cause for said cause.

So the ultimate beginning never happened. Something preceded a Big Bang. There is a process outside our ability to comprehend it at work. Forces or ingredients that always have been and are endlessly cycled. There is no beginning and there is no end. Eventually it all circles back around again from where it began. An endless churning repeating over and over again. No matter how big anything is in the universe if you travel it far enough you will always arrive back from where you began. There was no ultimate beginning.

This is scientifically "proven" as an impossibility. This happened relatively recently I think, maybe some 10-20 years as our "understanding" of dark energy evolved, that it was concluded the universe must die a heat death, cannot undergo a so-called big-crunch. What must happen, according to science, is that the universe endlessly expands until all matter is ripped apart and cooled to near absolute zero.

Thx. I think you are trying/tried to respond respectfully and have a normal discussion. My response is trying to come from a respectful discussion as well.

I guess i am too much of a math guy ... "it is or it isnt" on some issues. For the first one ... we are either created or not created. What would be a 3rd option to that? Some issues do not have to be B&W, but this one is. That is why i said earlier, you believe we came from a rock. (You may be undecided on that. My opinion)

[And of course, there is uncertainty. None of us observed the BB. No cameras caught it "breaking news" style. So we have to search for, look at the evidence, and come to our own conclusions. ]

This may shock you, but i believe the big bang too. I just believe something (God IMO) caused it.

Sorry, i wanted to say more, but my response is too long already.

Big bang evidence is much stronger than evolution, much less guessing unsubstantiated leaps.

 

[Lost In FL]

We all have to accept that any kind of "creation" explanation is logically not sufficient. Once you get through all of the "but where did that come from" isms then you eventually arrive at a point where something must be created from nothing and that is a dead end no matter what contortions the Big Bang theory asks us to accept.

So the ultimate beginning never happened. Something preceded a Big Bang. There is a process outside our ability to comprehend it at work. Forces or ingredients that always have been and are endlessly cycled. There is no beginning and there is no end. Eventually it all circles back around again from where it began. An endless churning repeating over and over again. No matter how big anything is in the universe if you travel it far enough you will always arrive back from where you began. There was no ultimate beginning.

The beginning never happened ...

Then we are not here.

Seriously, from a logic perspective, if the universe was "eternal" (had no beginning, or started an infinite amount of time ago) and given the 2nd law of thermodynamics, then the universe would have ended by now, absent some added cause. IOW, there is no way the universe could have started an infinite time ago and still be in existence today without an intelligent being adding to it.

But it is moot, not even the top atheists argue that the universe had a beginning. Astronomers across the spectrum all agree that the universe is expanding, meaning it "started" at some finite point.

 

[LOL_Man]

It is indeed expanding and that will eventually be its end.

 

[Lost In FL]

Science involves testing, experimenting, observing, is evidence-based, etc. Science can and does improve on itself as evidence tested against theories occur.

Religion is pure faith, not based in evidence no matter how some people in here seem to think it is. You can believe in a god without any sort of observable evidence, and while on the science side, technically we cannot prove for certain the Big Bang happened, the evidence for the idea of it, though, is more reasonable than saying an infallible, omniscient being made everything (in my opinion).

You proved my point with my scientist comment (ruling out half of the possibilities before starting). Instead of searching for the truth, you are pushing an agenda.

Someone can believe in a god without observable evidence, that is true. Many of us, however, believe in God because of observable evidence.

Again, the internet board version: 1. open your eyes 2. reply to any thread. If you truly understand what I am saying there, you will immediately believe in a Creator because there is really no other reasonable explanation (again in my opinion).

 

[MidseasonTweak]

You proved my point with my scientist comment (ruling out half of the possibilities before starting). Instead of searching for the truth, you are pushing an agenda.

Someone can believe in a god without observable evidence, that is true. Many of us, however, believe in God because of observable evidence.

Again, the internet board version: 1. open your eyes 2. reply to any thread. If you truly understand what I am saying there, you will immediately believe in a Creator because there is really no other reasonable explanation (again in my opinion).

You keep saying evidence, but fail to supply any. Scientists seek understanding through what I said earlier. Blind faith is the opposite. If going to church for an hour or two a week makes you feel good, okay then, but that isn't some sort of evidence.

 

[mcnicKY91]

You keep saying evidence, but fail to supply any. Scientists seek understanding through what I said earlier. Blind faith is the opposite. If going to church for an hour or two a week makes you feel good, okay then, but that isn't some sort of evidence.

Since non biblical accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection aren't good enough, since the numerous passages of biblical prophecy that have come to fruition isn't good enough, since the hundreds of archeological digs that have been verified to biblical texts in detail by impartial archeologists isn't good enough, since the fine tuning and perfect placement of the Earth isn't good enough...

This all begs the question, what exactly would be adequate enough for you to believe the God of the Bible exists? This is a genuine question...I mean if God came down from heaven and put you up on His shoulders, would you believe? Or would you immediately say "I was just hallucinating."

Like I said in a previous post, once presented with the above information, atheists automatically, like clockwork, deviate from debating the reality of God, to attacking His character. And this thread is 100% proof of that. Which again, literally makes no sense to attack the character of a God that they don't believe exists...literally makes no logical sense.

 

[Lost In FL]

Since non biblical accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection aren't good enough, since the numerous passages of biblical prophecy that have come to fruition isn't good enough, since the hundreds of archeological digs that have been verified to biblical texts in detail by impartial archeologists isn't good enough, since the fine tuning and perfect placement of the Earth isn't good enough...

This all begs the question, what exactly would be adequate enough for you to believe the God of the Bible exists? This is a genuine question...I mean if God came down from heaven and put you up on His shoulders, would you believe? Or would you immediately say "I was just hallucinating."

Like I said in a previous post, once presented with the above information, atheists automatically, like clockwork, deviate from debating the reality of God, to attacking His character. And this thread is 100% proof of that. Which again, literally makes no sense to attack the character of a God that they don't believe exists...literally makes no logical sense.

All that you said.

Plus, he clearly didnt go through the mental exercise i proposed (eyes & message). A chat board sized explanation: this website, the interface, the medium, the devices (things needed to send a msg) all did not appear randomly. They are all relatively simple, but were designed. The eye, otoh, is infinitely more complicated as it needs light, etc to turn images into signals etc. Infinitely more complicated. They say that happened randomly (without ANY evidence). i say it was designed.

So, to the other side, what is your evidence? (Besides the fact that we do not fully understand God.)

All of the things around us are evidence of a Creator. They are actually IN and PART of the evidence, yet too blind to see it.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

Since non biblical accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection aren't good enough, since the numerous passages of biblical prophecy that have come to fruition isn't good enough, since the hundreds of archeological digs that have been verified to biblical texts in detail by impartial archeologists isn't good enough, since the fine tuning and perfect placement of the Earth isn't good enough...

This all begs the question, what exactly would be adequate enough for you to believe the God of the Bible exists? This is a genuine question...I mean if God came down from heaven and put you up on His shoulders, would you believe? Or would you immediately say "I was just hallucinating."

Like I said in a previous post, once presented with the above information, atheists automatically, like clockwork, deviate from debating the reality of God, to attacking His character. And this thread is 100% proof of that. Which again, literally makes no sense to attack the character of a God that they don't believe exists...literally makes no logical sense.

Perhaps the “perfect placement” (your words) of the earth was not on purpose. But because it is in the habitable zone of our sun, life sprang forth. Btw, it could be 10% closer to 20% further and still be able to support life and maintain liquid water. Any idea how many total planets in the universe lie within the habitable zone of their sun?

And atheists attack the character of your fictional god as a way of expressing how ludicrous it is to worship such a mean, mentally unstable, jealous, not very intelligent, fictional character. Even more ludicrous is the idea that he is a real entity.

 

[Lost In FL]

Perhaps the “perfect placement” (your words) of the earth was not on purpose. But because it is in the habitable zone of our sun, life sprang forth. Btw, it could be 10% closer to 20% further and still be able to support life and maintain liquid water. Any idea how many total planets in the universe lie within the habitable zone of their sun?

And atheists attack the character of your fictional god as a way of expressing how ludicrous it is to worship such a mean, mentally unstable, jealous, not very intelligent, fictional character. Even more ludicrous is the idea that he is a real entity.

Stephen Hawking disagreed w your assertion of 10%to 20%.

From wikipedia (i know lol, but i do not have a lot of time right now):

"The premise of the fine-tuned universe assertion is that a small change in several of the physical constants would make the universe radically different. As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[5]

If, for example, the strong nuclear force were 2% stronger than it is (i.e. if the coupling constant representing its strength were 2% larger) while the other constants were left unchanged, diprotons would be stable; according to Davies, hydrogen would fuse into them instead of deuterium and helium.[14] This would drastically alter the physics of stars, and presumably preclude the existence of life similar to what we observe on Earth. The diproton's existence would short-circuit the slow fusion of hydrogen into deuterium. Hydrogen would fuse so easily that it is likely that all the universe's hydrogen would be consumed in the first few minutes after the Big Bang.[14] This "diproton argument" is disputed by other physicists, who calculate that as long as the increase in strength is less than 50%, stellar fusion could occur despite the existence of stable diprotons.[15]"

BTW, i do appreciate the discussion.

 

[mcnicKY91]

Perhaps the “perfect placement” (your words) of the earth was not on purpose. But because it is in the habitable zone of our sun, life sprang forth. Btw, it could be 10% closer to 20% further and still be able to support life and maintain liquid water. Any idea how many total planets in the universe lie within the habitable zone of their sun?

And atheists attack the character of your fictional god as a way of expressing how ludicrous it is to worship such a mean, mentally unstable, jealous, not very intelligent, fictional character. Even more ludicrous is the idea that he is a real entity.

That's fine if you don't consider placement of the Earth as good evidence. That still doesn't address all the other factual evidence of the non biblical accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection, biblical prophecy that has come to fruition, the hundreds of archeological digs that impartial archeologists have proven to be consistent and support biblical detail of the structures, or the fine tuning of the Earth...how do you account for all those? Luck?

As for your last paragraph, that just attacks Christians...you are essentially saying Christians are morally inferior beings because we believe in a God that you deem to have abhorrent character. Again, that does nothing to further the conversation about the reality of God. You are just calling us ludicrous because you don't like the character of a God that you deem non existent, which again, and I am just following the logic, makes no sense.

 

[Lost In FL]

That's fine if you don't consider placement of the Earth as good evidence. That still doesn't address all the other factual evidence of the non biblical accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection, biblical prophecy that has come to fruition, the hundreds of archeological digs that impartial archeologists have proven to be consistent and support biblical detail of the structures, or the fine tuning of the Earth...how do you account for all those? Luck?

As for your last paragraph, that just attacks Christians...you are essentially saying Christians are morally inferior beings because we believe in a God that you deem to have abhorrent character. Again, that does nothing to further the conversation about the reality of God. You are just calling us ludicrous because you don't like the character of a God that you deem non existent, which again, and I am just following the logic, makes no sense.

Yep. Attacking religous people is not evidence.

 

[MidseasonTweak]

Since non biblical accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection aren't good enough, since the numerous passages of biblical prophecy that have come to fruition isn't good enough, since the hundreds of archeological digs that have been verified to biblical texts in detail by impartial archeologists isn't good enough, since the fine tuning and perfect placement of the Earth isn't good enough...

This all begs the question, what exactly would be adequate enough for you to believe the God of the Bible exists? This is a genuine question...I mean if God came down from heaven and put you up on His shoulders, would you believe? Or would you immediately say "I was just hallucinating."

Like I said in a previous post, once presented with the above information, atheists automatically, like clockwork, deviate from debating the reality of God, to attacking His character. And this thread is 100% proof of that. Which again, literally makes no sense to attack the character of a God that they don't believe exists...literally makes no logical sense.

Neat anecdotes. I saw Bigfoot, therefore it exists. Get it, yet?

God would have to come down and reveal himself. Point blank.

 

[MidseasonTweak]

All that you said.

Plus, he clearly didnt go through the mental exercise i proposed (eyes & message). A chat board sized explanation: this website, the interface, the medium, the devices (things needed to send a msg) all did not appear randomly. They are all relatively simple, but were designed. The eye, otoh, is infinitely more complicated as it needs light, etc to turn images into signals etc. Infinitely more complicated. They say that happened randomly (without ANY evidence). i say it was designed.

So, to the other side, what is your evidence? (Besides the fact that we do not fully understand God.)

All of the things around us are evidence of a Creator. They are actually IN and PART of the evidence, yet too blind to see it.

You don't know what evidence means. First learn that word.

 

[Lost In FL]

You don't know what evidence means. First learn that word.

uhm. yea. okay man. something that tends to prove or disprove, provide a belief. I've provided literally mountains of evidence and all you offer is petty snipes.

As stated yesterday, if you do not want to engage in adult discussion, then fine. But I am asking for the evidence that makes you believe God does not exist. Unless insults are your evidence, then you have offered nothing.

 

[Lost In FL]

God would have to come down and reveal himself. Point blank.

As luck would have it, He did. His name was Jesus.

 

[WildcatfaninOhio]

That's fine if you don't consider placement of the Earth as good evidence. That still doesn't address all the other factual evidence of the non biblical accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection, biblical prophecy that has come to fruition, the hundreds of archeological digs that impartial archeologists have proven to be consistent and support biblical detail of the structures, or the fine tuning of the Earth...how do you account for all those? Luck?

As for your last paragraph, that just attacks Christians...you are essentially saying Christians are morally inferior beings because we believe in a God that you deem to have abhorrent character. Again, that does nothing to further the conversation about the reality of God. You are just calling us ludicrous because you don't like the character of a God that you deem non existent, which again, and I am just following the logic, makes no sense.

I’ve not heard of the factual evidence of a resurrection. Not sure why you keep stating that. I’d love to read the peer-reviewed research that supports that 2,000 years ago a Jewish carpenter’s apprentice was executed, and 3 days later his ghost went skyward somewhere. Hopefully you didn’t get that info off some previously unknown dude with a YouTube following.

If one were to read the buybull with a skeptical viewpoint, your god is indeed mean, mentally unstable, jealous and not very intelligent. That’s what I get from it. If you choose to overlook those flaws and worship it/him, then I don’t care. I’m simply describing the fictional character from the tales of that book.

 

[Lost In FL]

I’ve not heard of the factual evidence of a resurrection. Not sure why you keep stating that. I’d love to read the peer-reviewed research that supports that 2,000 years ago a Jewish carpenter’s apprentice was executed, and 3 days later his ghost went skyward somewhere. Hopefully you didn’t get that info off some previously unknown dude with a YouTube following.

If one were to read the buybull with a skeptical viewpoint, your god is indeed mean, mentally unstable, jealous and not very intelligent. That’s what I get from it. If you choose to overlook those flaws and worship it/him, then I don’t care. I’m simply describing the fictional character from the tales of that book.

Some ppl have read the Bible very skeptically. Ever heard of Lee Stroebel? His entire start was to disprove.

Regarding not very intelligent: can you create a universe too?

 

[Lost In FL]

So then the New Revised Standard Version which is a re-write of the Revised Standard Version which was a re-write from the American Revised Standard which was based on The King James Version was the final re-write? Good to know. The final FINAL version, if you will.

What they should do is have it written precisely, and word-for-word, from the original texts written by the eye witnesses of the time.

You realize foreign languages translate word-for-word every time, right?

 

[Lost In FL]

Not sure I totally understand all your points, but my thoughts on prayer would be if parents are praying to a loving God for their to child to be saved and it suffers and dies, God’s answer would’ve been no. To me, that is mean, if not evil.
I struggle to understand how a loving God could do that. Throughout my upbringing, I was taught this situation is yet another mystery, but when good things happen, God is great to make (or allow) them to happen. As I moved along in my life, after much thought and reflection, I found that I could not reconcile
these situations, entered a period of spiritual sobriety and eventually lost my faith.

Do you know if that kid could've grown into a Menendez brother? Or a Hitler type?

 

[Lost In FL]

Explored? No.

But I'm well read enough in them, philosophy in general. For example, I know where Sam Harris got his anti-free will argument that left you and others so enamored. It's nothing new and it's not his, llike most anything he states. He's rsimply repackaging for a modern audience the ideas of a man who allegedly lived some 2500 years ago in the Indus river valley.

You definitely have freewill and what you choose matters.

You could call it a "re-write"

 

[cawoodsct]

Yes, I went to Taco Bell tonight and no one was in line.