Spoon

[Guisslapp]

Prime mover argument is only talked about it in the small circles that still believe in 5000 year Earth. The argument has serious logical flaws, which I do not care to go into again, but anyone can easily look up. It is based on faulty assumptions, is refutable by example, and to reach the conclusion that a being had to initiate an act over and beyond existence in and of itself requires the contradictory belief that a consciousness could beget existence. But to be conscious is to be conscious of something, so the prime mover argument - if it weren't flawed - results in a fork in the road of two infinitely regressive options.

[Kiwi Techster]

Not only do I believe, but I KNOW what He has done in my life and for others.

The only answer I can think of to this is that the human mind is very malleable and easy to fool. There are also thousands out there that swear they have been abducted by aliens and I do believe they are sincere in their beliefs (i.e. they don't believe they are lying). I don't doubt for a second you are also sincere. But just as I don't actually believe those others were truly abducted by aliens, I similarly don't believe you are in communication with a creator of the universe.

[MiloBumP]

Thank you for your candor and demeanor.

[Champ967]

I don't believe that Kiwi Techster exists. I mean, I see all these writings that claim to have been authored by him. And I once met this girl who even claimed that he was her father.

But I just don't know. I'm sure that all those people who claim Kiwi Techster exists are sincere in their beliefs, but the human mind is so easily manipulated.

I don't think anyone can ever know for sure if Kiwi Techster is real.

[Kiwi Techster]

I don't believe that Kiwi Techster exists. I mean, I see all these writings that claim to have been authored by him. And I once met this girl who even claimed that he was her father.

But I just don't know. I'm sure that all those people who claim Kiwi Techster exists are sincere in their beliefs, but the human mind is so easily manipulated.

I don't think anyone can ever know for sure if Kiwi Techster is real.

I admit I snickered.

[Cal&Ken]

I'm just saying that if we point to a beginning, and that beginning is when "God created (_)," why be satisfied there? When and where is the actual beginning? What was before God created Earth, and Heaven and Hell? I realize there is no answer to this, I'm just pointing it out. People pick and choose what to use and what to ignore when backing their arguments. This thread is full of it. To some, complexity points to a master orchestrator, but to others it just shows how randomly and perfectly the stars aligned in order for life to exist on Earth. I think there is something bigger than us, but I don't think books written by man thousands of years ago hold the answers. I could be wrong.
For me personally, I just have a hard time believing that humans here on tiny little Earth are the center of the great big universe. Maybe we are, but I have my doubts.
One thing is for certain: no one that is living and breathing knows what happens to us when we die. Faith and beliefs are comforting, but the fact is no one knows...

I would disagree that no one knows. I believe you will find that Christians know very well where they will be when they die. I certainly respect your right not to believe or know, but I absolutely do know.

[hambone29]

I would disagree that no one knows. I believe you will find that Christians know very well where they will be when they die. I certainly respect your right not to believe or know, but I absolutely do know.

Belief is not knowing.

[PawDawg]

Belief is not knowing.

When you are about to sit down in a chair do you know or believe that it will hold you? You have faith it will hold you. Some have stronger faith than others. Pretty simple really.

[DJDAWG]

Belief is not knowing.

You are exactly right.

But, being humans, we don't just say "I don't know." We use all of the tools available, science, math, logic, philosophy, etc., to come up with the best possible explanation/hypothesis. Just cause we don't know, and will probably never know, what caused the Big Bang, the fact remains, something caused it. So, we try to explain it the best we can. And, I would easily put the Intelligent Designer theory up against any other, especially when you mix in the unbelievable complexity of the universe (TWO languages inside of DNA, not one...do you really really think nature's random roll of the dice can do that, seriously?) and the perfection of the cosmological constants.

Prophecy helps as well. Isaiah Chapter 53 as read from the Qumran scrolls, written somewhere between 150 and 200 years ago. http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qa-tran.htm Written before Jesus, it perfectly describes the servant-savior that died for our transgressions. Remember, the Jewish leaders were looking for a warrior-savior to deliver them from their Earthly enemies. So, they pretty much overlooked this prophecy.

Daniel 9:24-27 predicts exactly when Jesus would be crucified. Also, confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls to have been written long before Jesus was born.

Take both together and you can find only one man that fulfills these prophecies.

Now, back to your statment, which is still a correct statement,

Belief is not knowing.

This is why:
John 20:29 says "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
and,
Ephesians 2:8 says "For by grace you have been saved through faith."

In the end, it takes faith, but we can still use all of our tools to present the best theory possible.

Based on that, Joshua 24:15 "as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”"

[hambone29]

The chair example is not worth a response.

I get it. I'm not trying to dispute anyone's faith. I'm just saying where some see obvious signs of God, others see the opposite. To each his own. Ask anyone of any faith and they will tell you they are right. Their beliefs are fact. They know where they are going. So, you have many different religions and beliefs and all believe they are right. Who is wrong? Depends who you ask. Bottom line is, no matter how strongly you believe in God and Heaven and Hell, you don't know any more than anyone else. That is why it is called faith. You have faith that what you believe is true. That is not knowing.

[DJDAWG]

This is just Pascal's Wager and it is very easy to refute. Just google something like "pascal's wager refuted" and you will basically get a million different versions of my answer. Sorry for my laziness, but I really do believe message boards are a terrible and time-consuming medium to carry on conversations like this.

I don't like Pascal's Wager either. Simply because it forces us to choose God. I believe He gave us free-will to choose Him or not. I think this wager argument kinda defeats His purpose. Also, Paul never used an argument like this.

[DJDAWG]

The chair example is not worth a response.

I get it. I'm not trying to dispute anyone's faith. I'm just saying where some see obvious signs of God, others see the opposite. To each his own. Ask anyone of any faith and they will tell you they are right. Their beliefs are fact. They know where they are going. So, you have many different religions and beliefs and all believe they are right. Who is wrong? Depends who you ask. Bottom line is, no matter how strongly you believe in God and Heaven and Hell, you don't know any more than anyone else. That is why it is called faith. You have faith that what you believe is true. That is not knowing.

That's cool and I understand you. To each their own.

[PawDawg]

The chair example is not worth a response.

That is why it is called faith. You have faith that what you believe is true. That is not knowing.

The chair example is the extreme. You won't respond because it disproves what you said... "Belief is not knowing."

[Kiwi Techster]

do you really really think nature's random roll of the dice can do that, seriously?)

Evolution is the opposite of random. *Mutations* are random, but the important part is that the ones that survive to carry their genetic code into the next generation are not.

Take both together and you can find only one man that fulfills these prophecies.

Paul never met Jesus. He was the first person to write about Jesus and he began this task decades after Jesus died after he had some sort of a "vision". The most obvious explanation is that the New Testament was written with these prophecies in mind and just simply fullfilled them to make the story look good.

[MiloBumP]

Evolution is the opposite of random. *Mutations* are random, but the important part is that the ones that survive to carry their genetic code into the next generation are not.



Paul never met Jesus. He was the first person to write about Jesus and he began this task decades after Jesus died after he had some sort of a "vision". The most obvious explanation is that the New Testament was written with these prophecies in mind and just simply fullfilled them to make the story look good.

If you study Paul, you will see that after his vision he set out to meet as many people as he could that had first hand knowledge/encounters with Jesus during His lifetime on Earth. Many were still alive. He collaborated and vetted much of what he heard which substantiated his vision and who Jesus is. He just did not go by blind faith based on a vision. Christ never asks any of us to do that.

The Bible has many different authors from a wide variety of backgrounds written over thousands of years. And yes, archaelogical finds over the past 50-75 years show what was recorded by man as God's inspired word has not changed or been manipulated from the original Greek/Hebrew writings. It is rock solid. Things that were written before they were even scientific facts are found in the Bible. I will find the name of the book that I am referring to when I get home...it has a lot of good information in it.