Dishonest Apologetics

[tqualey]

Hi, EvilAtheist,

What an interesting theory… and the fact that Spain was scoreless … well… what further proof do you need?!

By the way, in case anyone thinks that discussing soccer is off topic, I think that arguing that there must be a God because the U.S. beat Spain is dishonest apologetics. So if Cinette was trying to prove that God exists using the argument from soccer, I think that she was being dishonest.

I think a bit of levity here is both timely and much appreciated! Thanks Cinette for providing this important news item!

God bless

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Regarding ‘evolutionary advantageous traits’: I don’t see man as having a desire to better understand the world other than from a survival viewpoint. It certainly not for wanting to better himself because history keeps repeating it’s self. Civilizations rise and destroy themselves and the process starts all again. We happen to be in the middle of one of these cycles and it only SEEMS that we have progressed. I DO see man though as having a desire to better understand HIMSELF and where? and WHY? he is here in this world. It’s only natural (instinctual) to survival to better understand the world we live in but that doesn’t explain the desire for “where we come from and why we exist”? "WHO AM I??’ The astronomers pursuit of looking through a telescope to eventually be able to see ‘the big bang’ itself is wonderous. I wonder what else we will see??

Not every action we take makes it more likely that we pass on our genes. There were many benefits to gaining knowledge, so when humans evolved, it makes sense that those who wanted to understand the world would be more likely to pass on our genes. This does not mean that every type of knowledge that we can now seek will make it more likely that we can pass on our genes.

Regarding 10% brain usage:
Notice that I used the word ‘MIND’ not ‘brain’. The articles you refer to apply to the use & function of the brain. The mind is SPIRIT (and of God) and has ALL the power and the brain is just the vessel it uses to communicate to the body & outward. I know science is learning more & more about the brain and it’s functions but none of the data perceives the power of the mind. They know it exists somehow, but without a belief in ‘God’ have no real foundation to work from. We are using our ‘mind’ unconsciously all the time but are unaware of it’s power to create being trapped in a finite body. There was a story on the Australian news the other day about a woman who died of a heart attact through the night. Her husband found her dead in bed and tried to revive her. She told the story of watching his attempts / his calling the ambulance/ of them arriving/ of their attempts/ of them giving up after 30mins (proceedure) / of the sheet pull over her body and being left in a darkened room. She experienced the typical ‘experiences’ of light/love/happiness/etc.etc. (often dismissed as religious or media conditioning). She told of a meeting in ‘heaven’ / of the crowds of spirits she saw and interacted with/ of a heavenly lifestyle. Conversations back & forward, and questions she asked being answered. She was told it wasn’t her time yet & that she had more work to do. She reluctantly returned to her body to the absolute shock of ambulance/police & her husband. She had been declared dead for 45minutes (not counting the actual time of death prior to her husband waking & calling the ambulance). To make things even more creepy, her brother (living in another country) rang on the phone wanting to know how his sister was, because at dawn that morning, she had stood at the end of his bed and waking him up with excited pleas to “come with me, you have to see this…” at which she disappeared. It gave him such a fright he had to ring her to make sure he was dreaming as it was so real. A scientist was asked to comment on what happened and he said he çouldn’t explain it and that the time period negated the theory of ‘brain sparking’ and as for the brother’s experience… he had no comment he could make. This happened only recently & I’m sure you will be able to find something on the net about it. The woman was expected to have brain damage from lack of oxygen but she has totally recovered with no effects other then being relieved to know that there is an after life. (something she had not believed in prior). I have read dozens of such stories from all religious backgrounds. I might be explained as universal energies? but pure CONSCIOUS energy?? Isn’t that another name for God?

I tried searching for the article in a number of different ways, but didn’t find anything. The only place or name you gave me was Australia, so it’s like finding a needle in a haystack. If you ever find the article though, I’ll take a look.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Yes, I have shown that this is impossible. You think in numbers but numbers are not material. We are talking about the material world. Put it this way, in purely mathetical terms we can say 2 minus 3 = negative one. But one cannot really say in the material sense 2 apples minus 3 apples = negative 1 apple.

Okay, but that’s because there’s some known minimum number of apples. When measuring time, we do not do it from some minimum point; we see when an event occurred relative to a set date. We measure how many years before or after the (approximate) birth of Christ something happened. This analogy also does not work because time is not something that is counted like apples, but something that is measured like length. It is more like the set of real numbers than the set of integers.

So therefore my argument stands. You cannot have an infinite number of causes that depend on causes which are in turn caused by something else. There has to be a cause that is not caused that is, does not depend on anything for its existence.

In order for an analogy to work, the things have to be similar. I could say that God is like a square circle, and a square circle cannot exist, therefore God cannot exist. However, unless I show that God’s existence is like the existence of a square circle, I cannot use this to conclude that he does not exist.

You may disagree with Kreeft but the thing is you cannot show the flaw in this argument.
As to the version of Kreeft’s argument, if you go to the same website, it is the one called first cause. This St Thomas’s proof which Peter Kreeft tried to make accessible.

I’ll list some of the flaws with his argument. First he says that “everything needs an explanation. Nothing just is without a reason why it is. Everything that is has some adequate or sufficient reason why it is.” Why does God exist? Even if it were proven that it was impossible for the universe to exist unless God existed, it would be a whole other issue to try to prove that it would be absolutely impossible for there to be nothing at all: no God and no universe.

Quantum physics also seriously challenges the Principle of Sufficient Reason, and this principle has few modern defenders (Smith, 1995). So Kreeft starts off by merely assuming that something is true without good evidence. Our intuition which has developed based on our experiences is not necessarily reliable at the atomic scale, or in other settings far outside our experience. It seems intuitively wrong that merely by moving really fast, something can travel forward in time, but that is what Einstein discovered.

Kreeft does not seem to have a valid logical argument which shows that an infinite regress of causes is impossible. Instead he throws out a lot of analogies in an attempt to make it seem illogical. However, like with the square circle and God, the difficult part is in showing that the two are sufficiently similar. Things like a train without an engine can be rejected as impossible without this proving that a temporal regress of causes is impossible. The previous moment does not pull forward the present in the same way a train car pulls forward the car after it.

Also, the universe itself seems as likely a candidate to be a necessary being as God does.

He also does nothing to show that laws such as causation, even if they applied in everyday life, would apply to a situation in which there is no time, space, matter, and energy. We have no basis for making definitive conclusions about what natural laws would hold in a state of absolute nothingness.

He attempts to refute Russell’s criticism by saying that he is only using the argument that “Everything in motion needs a cause, everything dependent needs a cause, everything imperfect needs a cause”. Well if we are to actually believe that the Principle of Sufficient reason is true, as Kreeft asserts but many others would dispute, then all things have reasons for their existence. So it would make as much sense to say that all perfect things have a reason for existence as to say that all imperfect things have a reason for existence. But if all perfect things must have a reason for their existence, and God’s existence is simply a fact (which is the case unless there’s some reason why it would be impossible for there to be no God and no universe), then God does not exist.

When answering the objection that he did not show that it is impossible for there to be an infinite regress of causes, he does not actually show its impossibility. Instead, he just says that one specific metaphor which some people use in an attempt to prove the possibility of an infinite chain of causes is imperfect, and does not prove that an infinite regress of causes can exist. There may be other things which do prove the possibility of an infinite regress, and even if there isn’t, an inability to prove that something could exist doesn’t prove that it can’t. I have not seen any flawless proofs that God is possible, and that something supernatural can influence the natural world, but I do not claim that this is proof that God is impossible.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Change is not causality. What I am saying here is cause. A cause is anything that determines the existence of another. Say your proximate cause of being in existence is your father and mother, and theirs would be their own fathers and mothers and so forth.
What is the proximate cause of a planet being formed? I don’t know. But one thing we do know is that the planet did not cause itself into existence because I think we have agreed that ca. What ever the planet’s cause is irrelevant to the discussion because the point is the planet did not create itself.

My point is that it may not be possible to cleanly break things up into a series of causes, at least not when agents (such as humans, animals, or God) are involved. The first cause argument rests on the assumption that this can be done.

And I never said that it did. But neither does It provide evidence for chance. There are only two options here, Creator or chance. But you seem to have ruled out creator altogether when at the same time you say there is not enough knowledge to go either way.

I’m not sure why you think that saying ‘I don’t know’ rules out a creator. Whether a creator and chance are the only two options depend greatly on how you define chance. As I explained in this post, the definition of chance that is sometimes used would make it so these two are not the only possibilities.

This is a misrepresentation of our discussion. The existence of fairies is not one of the options in a list of possibilities. This not a case of either a zero or a one.
The issue is the origin of the universe and we only have two options: God or chance.
Since there are two options, there is a 50/50 chance it could be either of these two.

The fairies are a separate example. If I were to find a dollar on the street, it was either put there by fairies or not put there by fairies. But this doesn’t mean that the odds are 50/50. If I won the lottery after praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I either won because he answered my prayers, or won without the assistance of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But this would not mean that the chances of him existing and answering my prayer are 50/50.

You are not making any sense here. First you say that you concede the possibility of something supernatural and then you say you do not think that there is something supernatural.

I concede that it’s possible I would draw a flush in the next hand of poker that I play, but I do not think it will happen.

If you concede the possibility of something you must have some idea of what that something is.

I think it is possible that there is a human child being born somewhere in the world during this millisecond, but I have no idea what traits he would have. I know that he would share the traits that all humans share, just as a supernatural being would have the traits that all supernatural beings have (existing outside of the material world for example). Beyond that, I would know nothing about what traits that child, or supernatural being, would have.

Maaan, you keep contradicting yourself. First you say you know I am not arguing for a Catholic God then you say I am I assigning properties to this God and that the likelihood of such a good with such properties is small.

How many times do I have re-iterate that what we are discussing here is Creator God. Full stop.

What I believe God to be I have not brought up as an item for discussion with you. So let’s get one thing clear, what we are discussing here is Creator God period. No other properties. So perhaps we can move on from here.

I understand you perfectly. The only reason I brought up the Catholic God was in response to your comment that “If you are going to accept possiblities, then God as a possibility is equally acceptable. Yet you do not want to consider that possibility.” I disagreed with your statement so I wanted to make clear that while I seriously consider the possibility of some sort of supernatural creator, I think that the possibility of the Catholic God existing is incredibly small. I understand that the arguments you have recently been making are only for a general creator.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Okay how do I simplify that. Let us talk genealogy. Let us say Q fathered P, P fathered O, O father N, and so fort down the line. We know N exists becuase of O which in turn exists because of P who again exists because of Q. So in fact, NOP all exists only becuase Q exists. Without Q there will be no NOP.

But if Q in turns owes it existence to something say R that owes it existence to something again say S and so forth then you see that every single one of them depends on something that depends on something for its existence. Unles there is something that does not depend on another for existence, then nothing will exist because everything is preconditioned by something that is itself preconditiioned by something else. Unless let us say Z was there from the beginning and does not depend on anything else for it’s existence, then there would be nothing at all.

I agree. With genealogy, there has to be a first father at some point. Whether you go back to the first humans, the point at which there began to be different sexes, or the origin of life, there was some beginning.

However, I don’t think that your example has the implications that you want it to. Imagine a simple universe which is always in one of two states. After the first state has been in existence for a certain amount of time, it goes out of existence, which causes the second state to come into existence. After a certain amount of time, the second state goes out of existence, causing the first state to come into existence. Such a series could be eternal.

I guess you could say that I owe my existence to the existence of the universe, but not in the same way a son owes his existence to his father. I am part of the universe, and I only exist because the universe exists, but “the universe” need not be the “first cause” in a series of causes. There is nothing to rule out an infinite series of causes.

 

[twb1621]

Not every action we take makes it more likely that we pass on our genes. There were many benefits to gaining knowledge, so when humans evolved, it makes sense that those who wanted to understand the world would be more likely to pass on our genes. This does not mean that every type of knowledge that we can now seek will make it more likely that we can pass on our genes.

No offense intended E-A,
Many people including yourself have followed the principle of rationalization. Acquiring proof in wanting to understand through man’s intellectual growth and development as time moves forward.
We have progressed in many areas including science and technology as well as physics and astrology. Many today feel they are much to intelligent to believe in God because we have come such a long way from those “believers” who grasp at eternal salvation.
We actually consider ourselves very intelligent compared to many societies from the past obviously in a progressive way.

Lets compare; man has never been able to explain, let alone understand what falls into the supernatural realm yet we recognize it’s existence.

Man has never been able to understand or explain the accuracy of or even the ability to prophesize future events, which were made hundreds and even thousands of years before the events prophecized had taken place. Only those credited to the revelations given man by God have proven stedfastly to be accurate, which should lead a rational man to the question, “why would the remaining be wrong”, then intensely seek the truth.

Man has never been able to find or discover any proof whatsoever that could realistically refute the teachings of Jesus Christ or the revelations of God in the Old Testament. This includes all the related archeological discoveries made through our history, which have done nothing but prove what has been written true and accurate. Man has only been able to doubt or deny without credibility.

In the History of man and his relationship to faith in God, man has never found through scientific discovery an alter origin of human life to be able to discredit and eliminate the creation of man by God and although we have not yet found the specific evidence of that one maternal origin, we realize it will eventually come down to it based on the path of the discoveries made so far through the genetic sciences.

Man thought he was on the verge of the answer to the beginning of the universe however now an increasing number of physicists along with all the discoveries in their specialized fields are moving back toward the belief in one supernatural intelligent Being as the Creator.

Lets keep it short though.

Lets look at man’s progress over the years since we have accumulated the knowledge and abilities we have mastered.

Man has developed several means of transportation to make life more “convenient” and “time efficient”. Oh, but it turns out we are destroying the atmosphere in the process.

Man has developed means to eliminate unwanted vegetation in farming and increase the grow and volume of consumable products for marketing. Oh, but it turns out we are poisoning the earth and ourselves in the process. It’s funny how we came this far to grow in the appreciation of natural, organic foods.

Man has developed several means to eliminate unwanted wildlife we label pests from all places we inhabit and has successfully eradicated many species. Oh, but it turns out we have caused the uncontrolled mass reproduction of many other species and distorted the balance of nature in the process.

Man has developed the ability to eliminate entire regions of wasted space like swamps, marshes and forests along with there wildlife to develop mass housing developments, shopping centers, golf courses, airports, more shopping centers, new more modern stadiums and arenas in new more convenient locations for the replacement of older ones and so on. Oh, but it turns out we have caused the irreversible destruction of entire ecosystems in the process adding to the deterioration of our climate.

Man has developed the ability to mass produce all foods from grain related products to animal by products. Oh, but it turns out we have produced products that through there processing can cause physical and mental disorders not to mention lethal diseases.

Man has developed the ability to mass produce medications to control or cure many illnesses and diseases of our day. Oh, but it turns out they usually (not frequently or occasionally) can inflict side effects ranging from heart burn to heart attacks and restlessness and shaking to lethal brain tumors. That includes some “antibiotic” and “acid reflux” medications currently on the market.

continued…

 

[twb1621]

continued from previous post;

We have harnessed electricity, fossil fuels, and gases for the operation of our modern conveniences but everything we have made for our conveniences has in some way served to deteriorate or destroy our life sustaining natural environment as it was formed. Of course we entered into the nuclear era of electricity but we know the waste and possible devastation that can result from that. So now again we moved on to solar energy and windmills and such. What would the possibilities or probable odds show that we will learn we caused further environmental damage or destruction as we move on?

I could go on but using the “mathematical approach”, I think the “statistics” expressing man’s successful domination of his life and environment speak for themselves.

On the other hand, we could thank God for what we were given or we will have our selves to thank for how we finish. YOu have been provided a great deal of resources and I believe you are sincerely wanting to know. Remember one thing…
All the accumulated knowledge in the world absent common sense has no more value than an unused encyclopedia.

 

[jargon631]

continued from previous post;

We have harnessed electricity, fossil fuels, and gases for the operation of our modern conveniences but everything we have made for our conveniences has in some way served to deteriorate or destroy our life sustaining natural environment as it was formed. Of course we entered into the nuclear era of electricity but we know the waste and possible devastation that can result from that. So now again we moved on to solar energy and windmills and such. What would the possibilities or probable odds show that we will learn we caused further environmental damage or destruction as we move on?

I could go on but using the “mathematical approach”, I think the “statistics” expressing man’s successful domination of his life and environment speak for themselves.

On the other hand, we could thank God for what we were given or we will have our selves to thank for how we finish. YOu have been provided a great deal of resources and I believe you are sincerely wanting to know. Remember one thing…
All the accumulated knowledge in the world absent common sense has no more value than an unused encyclopedia.

yes…i agree we have done horrible things to the planet, but how does that prove there is a christian god?..fd…

 

[jargon631]

but pure CONSCIOUS energy?? Isn’t that another name for God?

no…it’s another name for an unknown form of energy…fd

 

[jargon631]

hmmm…can you humor me and actually prove that the christian god exists?..frederick…

 

[jargon631]

QUOTE=Cinette
However, there is one thing. When you have something that is very precious you want to share it. Especially something so important as Faith in God. However, it is important not to force your belief on others ever. The best thing to do is pray for others.

hi cinette…i understand your love for your church and it’s trappings, but i dont beleive in prayer any more than i beleive in the christian god…frederick

 

[anEvilAtheist]

No offense intended E-A,
Many people including yourself have followed the principle of rationalization. Acquiring proof in wanting to understand through man’s intellectual growth and development as time moves forward.
We have progressed in many areas including science and technology as well as physics and astrology. Many today feel they are much to intelligent to believe in God because we have come such a long way from those “believers” who grasp at eternal salvation.
We actually consider ourselves very intelligent compared to many societies from the past obviously in a progressive way.

Lets compare; man has never been able to explain, let alone understand what falls into the supernatural realm yet we recognize it’s existence.

Man has never been able to understand or explain the accuracy of or even the ability to prophesize future events, which were made hundreds and even thousands of years before the events prophecized had taken place. Only those credited to the revelations given man by God have proven stedfastly to be accurate, which should lead a rational man to the question, “why would the remaining be wrong”, then intensely seek the truth.

We’ve already discussed prophecy a little bit. In order for it to be a clear prophecy, it has to have definitely been made before the event that was prophesized, and can’t be so vague that the meaning is extremely ambiguous. I have not seen any prophecies like this that were stunningly accurate (at least no more than you would expect to be right merely by chance).

Man has never been able to find or discover any proof whatsoever that could realistically refute the teachings of Jesus Christ or the revelations of God in the Old Testament. This includes all the related archeological discoveries made through our history, which have done nothing but prove what has been written true and accurate. Man has only been able to doubt or deny without credibility.

This is because it is impossible to prove a negative. Especially when something happened thousands of years ago, it would be hard to show even incredibly far-fetched theories to be false. You couldn’t prove that Islam is false, and yet you don’t believe in it. We don’t have any proof that Russell’s teapot does not exist, but we don’t believe in it. Regarding archeology, there’s certainly some truth to the Bible. The Roman Empire existed, as did Jerusalem. Even if the Bible were to be made up and there was no such person as Jesus (which is not what I believe), it would have been easy to incorporate real locations and events. But what’s surprising is that so much of the Bible does not show up at all in the archeological record. There is not good evidence for the Exodus, despite the huge number of people who were supposedly involved. If you think that the lack of archeological evidence is evidence for the Bible, then I would be interested in whether you could name two things that, if discovered, would prove Christianity to be false.

In the History of man and his relationship to faith in God, man has never found through scientific discovery an alter origin of human life to be able to discredit and eliminate the creation of man by God and although we have not yet found the specific evidence of that one maternal origin, we realize it will eventually come down to it based on the path of the discoveries made so far through the genetic sciences.

Man thought he was on the verge of the answer to the beginning of the universe however now an increasing number of physicists along with all the discoveries in their specialized fields are moving back toward the belief in one supernatural intelligent Being as the Creator.

Actually, in the past decade, people like Roger Penrose have been realizing that the cyclic model is a serious possibility. We don’t currently have data to support the theory that the universe had a beginning, let alone a supernatural one.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Lets look at man’s progress over the years since we have accumulated the knowledge and abilities we have mastered.

Man has developed several means of transportation to make life more “convenient” and “time efficient”. Oh, but it turns out we are destroying the atmosphere in the process.
…
We have harnessed electricity, fossil fuels, and gases for the operation of our modern conveniences but everything we have made for our conveniences has in some way served to deteriorate or destroy our life sustaining natural environment as it was formed. Of course we entered into the nuclear era of electricity but we know the waste and possible devastation that can result from that. So now again we moved on to solar energy and windmills and such. What would the possibilities or probable odds show that we will learn we caused further environmental damage or destruction as we move on?

I could go on but using the “mathematical approach”, I think the “statistics” expressing man’s successful domination of his life and environment speak for themselves.

On the other hand, we could thank God for what we were given or we will have our selves to thank for how we finish. YOu have been provided a great deal of resources and I believe you are sincerely wanting to know. Remember one thing…
All the accumulated knowledge in the world absent common sense has no more value than an unused encyclopedia.

I agree with you that the human understanding of the world is limited, and we often do harm when we want to do good. I didn’t really understand the point you were making about this, the “mathematical approach”, and God’s existence. Would you mind clarifying how you think this is evidence for God (if that’s the point you were trying to make)?

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Try starting with some of this information then.

Apparitions and Prophacies at;

traditioninaction.org/OLGS/A008olgsInterviewLife2.htm

rexresearch.com/mary/maryapps.htm#pillar

ourladyofamerica.org/explanation.php

bibleprobe.com/miracles.htm

christiancadre.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientifically-documented-miracles.html

geocities.com/meta_crock/other/Miracles2.htm?200924

Thanks for the links. I read them and researched some of the purported miracles on my own. The evidence for these miracles appears to be far thinner than how it is presented on these Christian websites. I don’t think it’s good to blindly accept miracle claims from religious websites since there are certainly people who make false claims. I think the actual evidence is far too weak to think there must be something miraculous.

Every day, we are discovering new things about how our bodies work. So I think it would be a little presumptuous to assume that just because we currently don’t know the cause of someone’s recovery, it must have been miraculous. Unless spontaneous remissions were shown to be significantly more common for people who went to Lourdes than in a comparable subset of the general population, I don’t see how this is any evidence of anything miraculous. For me to consider something a miracle, I would have to be confident that it could not have a natural explanation.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Now I’m not saying that science has answered every single question and there’s no more need for scientists, but cosmology, physics, and biology have good explanations for almost every aspect of why things came to be the way they did.

There will always be a need for scientists, and no doubt new discoveries lie on the horizon. True, cosmology, physics, and biology have good explanations for a lot of things, and how they came to be the way they did, but eventually, as they get closer to the source and summit of creation, do you really think that all their discoveries as intelligent creatures, will ultimately lead to an unintelligent source?

Yes, I think that if we are ever able to discover the source, it will probably not be an intelligent entity such as a disembodied mind.

 

[joe370]

hmmm…can you humor me and actually prove that the christian god exists?..frederick…

Nope…Hmmm…can you humor me and actually prove that God does NOTexists? Joe

 

[slyOne]

I would argue that in some cases using bad arguments is justified. Not outright lies, but ones like “why would God create so much useless matter”. One fundamental part of finding the truth is the truth. The other fundamental part is actually finding it. Lets say you attempt to dialogue with a less theologically advanced believer and argue Thomas Hobbes atomic theory to persuade him out of his religious convictions. The believer may not be learned enough in his own religion to mount arguments to counter Hobbes, and so you win not because you are right but because you are smarter. Say you use the lots-of-useless-matter-in-the-universe, it stimulates the believer to interact with you in a true dialogue. As the believer is slowly forced to work his way up to more advanced and logically nuanced views of metaphysics, morality, or whatever is at stake and then a truly investigative debate is waged.

I still use the disingenuous argument of 2nd thermal law against evolution from time to time first to measure what I am up against and secondly to make them pause and do their homework before coming back to the dialogue. Granted, this can easily degenerate into intellectual laziness, which is to be avoided.

 

[twb1621]

I agree with you that the human understanding of the world is limited, and we often do harm when we want to do good. I didn’t really understand the point you were making about this, the “mathematical approach”, and God’s existence. Would you mind clarifying how you think this is evidence for God (if that’s the point you were trying to make)?

In regard to the “mathematical Approach” I referred to, my point was merely that statistically speaking, all the progress man has made since getting away from living amongst nature and in unison with the environment in his quest to improve and make convenient modern life (especially over the last 200 years for example) has shown man to fall flat on his face so-to-speak. Sure there are some benefits but there are always newly recognized draw-backs even to those. We now recognize that substantially increased populations can create situations of mass catastrophic plagues for instance. Our cocky attitude toward our “superior intelligence” in combination with our greed and laziness has led to a civilization dependant on the very “conveniences” that are destroying the ecosystem. Automobiles for example, initially had been intended to offer a more convenient mode of transportation and efficiency of time. In the relatively short time we have introduced them into our life style, they have become a necessity for most people to survive in modern day civilization. In fact, the ability to travel from one place to the next in shorter time has opened the door for society and industry to demand more of one’s time then ever before. The average person must be able to get from point ‘a’ to point ‘b’ to point ‘c’ and so on daily to complete his or her responsibilities. Now considering how our society is governed by the greed of industry and rule of commercialism, who is going to stop the destruction being cause by the powers that rule? My final point in this regard is a person should take serious notice to the distance we have been placing between ourselves and God as we continue.
There is a newly released book titled “**The Secrets, Chastisement, and Triumph of the Two Hearts of Jesus and Mary”, authored by ****Kelly Bowring. **Since we are trying to clear the cloud of prophecy for you a bit, it would be an interesting book for you to check out. It will show you more specifics in the relationship between religious prophecies and events that have already occurred. And where we stand in time.
If you can disregard such historically recorded prophecies as those of “Our Lady Of Success” 400 years ago in relation to the events of the 20th century, it may be you do not want to see the possibilities of the existence of God.
Oh, by the way, I wanted to raise a point in regard to your need for proof regarding God. I noticed you refer to the “theories” (a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena without proof) of man in many matters but find the most difficulty in historically recorded events additionally supported by the very adversaries to the Christians 2000 years ago and beyond in many cases. You do realize your selectively choosing without basis and our track record should show our reliability or lack of it.

You see, you can have reassurance of the existance of God but not without having a relationship with Him. He wont come to you, you have to seek Him.

 

[joe370]

Yes, I think that if we are ever able to discover the source, it will probably not be an intelligent entity such as a disembodied mind.

Phew! So, if science, which is based on intelligent, intellectual analysis, is ever able to discover the source of intelligent life, you believe that that source will be an unintelligent, unintellectual entity? How in the world would that be possible? That’s like saying, that a rock can eventually give rise to intelligent life.

 

[jargon631]

Nope…Hmmm…can you humor me and actually prove that God does NOTexists? Joe

nope…too funny…and here we sit…what a moment of zen…:extrahappy:…frederick