Exactly, but the interesting thing is that: Believers lived as Disbelievers before conversion, so they are the only ones who have been on both sides, and understand the horrible and hopeless emptiness in the lives of Disbelievers. After meeting God, I can't fathom going back to a meaningless life.

You, Sir, are a pure rationalist. You have chosen to not believe in spiritual things, nor in miracles of any kind unless they can be proven to your specifications. Like the scientists who are Christians (and there are MANY more beyond ICR) whose work and conclusions don't suit you because you are biased towards them because of their belief in God, you will not believe in any type of miracle totally because you don't believe they are possible. You are a rationalist, plain and simple. You strictly operate within the narrow bounds of your five senses. You hide behind the veils of logic and science, so you don't have to disclose the proof criterion for belief in anything, much less the Bible's claims.

You want an Egyptian account of the Red Sea parting, but the Bible is clear that every single Egyptian soldier was wiped out in the massacre. Tell me this, what if Noah's Ark was found atop Mount Ararat? And it measured out at exactly the size of the biblical account - would you then believe in the global flood? Hint - it's where the dinosaurs died - God didn't allow them on the Ark.

Why do you believe in carbon dating when it is a known faulty system?

Oh my, as a Rationalist you have so much to explain. There is no way you can believe human accounts, nor anyway to believe any form of evidence that is presented to you, because that said evidence could have been altered in some way , by someone with ulterior motives. Hey, the two or more "independent reliable sources" that you would accept as "good evidence" could 1) be part of a secret conspiracy, and conjure up similar accounts; 2) offer accounts that don't quite jibe because they viewed, or heard, or smelled, or tasted, or felt the same exact thing, but from a different perspective. Unless you can actually personally witness something, anything, everything, and verify with any or all of your own senses, as a pure Rationalist, you cannot believe it. Period. If you do, you are being untrue to your Rationalist foundational beliefs.

You think incorrectly when you state God doesn't prove himself to people. He does, physically, to many. With me, though, He changed me from the inside out. When he entered my heart, he burnt the hell right out my soul. You think I didn't "feel" that, Mr Rationalist? Sorry to disappoint you, I did, and I will never forget it.

You operate on this theoretical plane for these important parts of life, such as what we're discussing. In theory, the things you say sound reasonable, but you are an incredibly biased person, who chooses to not believe in God and will accept no evidence from any person who does, because you consider them solely faith-based, unscientific, illogical head-in-the-clouds nutjobs, who should stay out of laboratories and all things that have anything to do with intelligence.

Do you believe in the Big Bang? If so, tell us exactly what Big Bang process you have personally witnessed, or any the 2 or more of your independent reliable sources have witnessed.

Do you believe in evolution? If so, tell us exactly what evolutionary process you have personally witnessed, or any the 2 or more of your independent reliable sources have witnessed.

I could extend this line of questioning, but I think I've blown enough holes in your philosophy of "belief."

Sorry for the delay, but didn't notice your response. Your quotes are in quotations since I can't find a bold text option anywhere. I tried moving your quote to Word and bolding it, but it doesn't translate back to the forum.

"It is terrible reasoning because you are claiming that something is true because there is no disproof."

That's not the extent of my claim. My claim is that I believe what I read in the Scriptures based on faith FIRST, but if someone would provide evidence against what the Bible teaches/claims, then I would disbelieve the circumstance in question. You, on the other hand, when it comes to the Bible, but undoubtedly not many other writings, including news reports, etc., feel a need to initially disbelieve it's accounts because there is no way for it to be proven? What is proof to you anyway? Eyewitness? Well, Jesus Christ was an eyewitness, and the writers were eyewitnesses, so that doesn't suffice for you. Fine. But, what does? Tell us what evidence could possibly be presented to you about creation? About the global flood, and Noah's Ark, and the parting of the Red Sea, and such, exactly WHAT evidence would you personally require, since all people have differing requirements on what and how they believe? Would you have to touch God to believe He exists? Just because you haven't experienced God's spirit, does that mean you don't believe Him? Some of us have experienced the Holy Spirit of God in our lives, so we have evidence that He exists, and that His word is true. Your lack of evidence doesn't negate the reality of God. Do you believe that Abraham Lincoln existed? Why? Eyewitness reports, records, pictures, a monument? But, you didn't experience him in the flesh, and touch him, and talk to him, nor did you hear his voice. "Abraham Lincoln" could be a deceptive ploy carried out by some world organization meant to bring down slavery. I'll submit, right now, that "Abraham Lincoln" is totally fabricated. Bohemian, please prove to me that the person Abraham Lincoln was a real human.

Tell me how you believe any news report from around the world? Do tell us, please.

"The Institute for Creation Research (ICR) is not a scientific organization. Setting out to prove what they have stated that they already believe, is in direction opposition to the scientific method. Their doctrine prevents them from finding any evidence that would contradict their 'mission'."

LOL. So, what you're saying is that there are perfectly unbiased scientists who study creation/big bang/evolution, etc? LOL. Your science gods who believe in the big bang and evolution are some of the biggest Godhating people on this earth, and they are full of deceptive scientific practices, leading to fabricated conclusions. LOL. Nice try, Bohemian.

"Infallible evidence is neither possible nor necessary, in fact no evidence at all is necessary until the affirmative claim first provides supporting evidence and then and only then can counter-evidence be requested. What is asserted without evidence can be rejected without evidence."

So tell us, what is possible to prove, under your personal system? You're good at using your little personal rule book to doubt "certain" things that you don't believe; but, truly, what is possible to prove? Is there a Natural Law of Evidence that provides humans a guide for believing any and everything? Please guide us into perfect truth, and belief.

"However my intention is not to "wreck" anyone's faith, I am merely making arguments and your argument was particularly fallacious."

Granted. Sorry. Your argument against evidence and ultimate truth and belief is totally fallacious, as well.

Reading the Bible DID NOT make you an atheist. Your decision to not believe in the God of the Bible is what made you an atheist. Your lack of faith in the God who created you is what made you an atheist. Your love of your own personal sin is what made you an atheist. Your choice of debased sin and lies over the forgiveness of Jesus Christ is what made you an atheist. When you meet God on Judgment Day you will no longer be an atheist, but it will be too late at that time, to save you.

Who are you to say that anyone has not met God? How can you rationally make that claim? I've met the God of the Bible. Definitely not a handshake type of introduction, but His Holy Spirit possessed my heart, and He threw open the doors to understanding His Bible. I will meet Him face to face soon enough, but until that time, my relationship is based on personal faith, given to me by Him.

He doesn't hate gays, he hates their immoral, detestable behavior. He loves them, and wants them to repent, but if they don't, his fatherly love will have to punish them. He doesn't like it, but the cold hard hearts have to turn to Him for forgiveness. Deal with it. It's the same for murderers, adulterers, thieves, degenerates, idolaters, etc etc etc. Sin is sin, repentance and faith clears that sin, and puts it on Christ's shoulders on the cross. He gives you his righteousness b/c of the faith you express in Him. Simple, but too complicated for those who love their sinful ways.

Yeh!! Thanks, Joe!! I appreciate the help and this will make the viewing and debating experience much better.

Alright, but does an off-the-chart intelligent human, like Adolph Hitler have a better chance of being saved then someone else who is of a lower IQ level? God will save those who are unable to intelligently enough understand the gospel message, and make a heart's commitment to it. God is perfectly able to save those whom he chose, and his grace covers all matters involved.

I do understand what you're saying, but I've seen mentally retarded people on both ends of the spectrum of faith, some Godlovers, some Godhaters. It's the heart's bent towards God, but, the heart includes one's mind, which is at the center of our brain. Great stuff to discuss.

It's not terrible "reasoning." It may not suffice in your view, but that's only your view. There is a biblical claim that those things, like Sodom & Gomorrah, occurred. One can believe it, or one can choose to disbelieve it.

But, why wouldn't one believe that the accounts happened? Many, many people believe in the literal Genesis account of God's creation, and btw, the intelligent design scientists are offering all kinds of new evidence in support of it (www.icr.org); and if one believes in the Genesis account, what the heck is so hard to believe about God raining fire and brimstone from heaven down upon the immoral towns? That act is way too simple for the God of the Bible. Dang, I mean he created all matter, all immaterial, as well, ex nihilio. Get with it, Bohemian. If you want to wreck people's faith you really need to offer infallible and conclusive evidence against the stated claims of the belief.

Well, not after his birth as the God/Man, but of course, in his preincarnate state he created the world and all things in it, so I guess that constitutes as a miracle. :-)

I'm wracking my mind trying to remember any miracles of his prior to his public ministry, but not coming up with any. Now, come to think of it, the Catholic bible (I'm not Catholic and don't agree with their later added ruling to include the Apocrypha to back their belief in Mary adoration and purgatory, etc), with the latter day added Apocrypha may have some accounts of miracles of Jesus, the boy? Maybe, but not sure, but I wouldn't believe that anyway because the Apocrypha documents aren't proven reliable by the earlier Catholic church councils.

Okay, so this thread we're discussing takes me about 20 minutes to scroll down and find the latest post. Is there ANY way, whatsoever, of "Showing All Replies" without so much scrolling? I'm new to this particular board, and I really like it, so help me out if you will.

You have to have some degree of intelligence, but it takes faith and God opening the heart to fully believing the Bible. "Faith comes from hearing, and hearing from the word of God." Acts 16: 14, "Lydia. . . worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul." So, it's a combination of God working in a person's heart, and that person's faith and intelligence kicking in and leading the person to belief.

You're absolutely correct. My apologies to God, and the viewers. I was trying to relate by speaking in the vernacular, which was wrong. I need to rise above and be salt and light, and purify my tongue with burning coals. I'm feeling like Isaiah, a man of unclean lips (Isaiah 6): "Woe is me." Thanks for the correction.

There is no biblical record of Jesus performing miracles before his public ministry started at roughly 30 yrs of age. I would doubt that he performed miracles before that, because normally when miracles are performed the Holy Spirit has descended upon the person, and we are only aware of that happening starting at Jesus' baptism. In merciful conclusion, I would say that Jesus wasn't German or English, so he wouldn't have chosen to turn his mommy's breast milk into beer. I think, being Jewish, he would have turned it into pomegranate juice, or goat's milk, or something.

The Bible doesn't give direct indication of Mary's hotness level. However, indirectly, her offspring was Jesus and we do have an account of his appearance, found in Isaiah 53:2, "There was nothing beautiful or majestic about his appearance, nothing to attract us to him." Now, not all hot women have gorgeous kids, nor plain women have all homely kids, so this definitely isn't conclusive evidence. But, factor in that God the Holy Spirit was the biological father of Jesus, and we have to assume he is a stud. Jesus's dad is handsome, Jesus isn't, therefore, Mary must not be a hottie. So, that's probably all we can say about that.

See my post on the other side, because Penn is full of crap himself. He totally fabricated much of what he said about the Bible, like all Godhaters do. True believers in God and His Scriptures shy away from nothing in Scripture because we believe it is the inerrant, infallible written words from God Himself. In answer to your bottom question, you only know you're in the right religion when you have both full faith and full evidence in the original God/Person and His Words. Only Jesus Christ died for your sins, so, if Christ isn't your Lord you'll have to find some other way to deal with your sins after you take your last breath. Good luck. Know that Jesus will hear your repentant prayer and heart's desire if you call on Him.

Well, there is a human account, the Mosaic Genesis account, which states it as fact. And, Jesus Christ, who is eternal, and thus another eye witness, confirms Adam and Eve as the first humans in Mark 10:6 and Matthew 9:4. So, if you're willing to publicly announce that both Christ and Moses are full of lies, then, go right ahead, but I wouldn't advise it. And, there is no biblical account of Eve's knockers, but factoring the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics along with degenerating genetics, I would venture to guess that she was ONE EXTREMELY HOT MOMMA. WOW, wish I could've been there!! :-)

What you're saying is that you don't believe the biblical account of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, but have NO PROOF that it didn't occur. I happen to believe in the biblical account b/c of the human witness account. Do you have evidence it didn't occur? Any human witness accounts that the biblical narrative was fabricated? No, you don't. Do I have evidence it did occur? NO. So, please respect my right and ability to believe in the God of the Bible, and I'll respect your right and ability to disbelieve the God of the Bible. So, I'm glad you appreciate my logic, but it's only your simple disbelief against my simple belief about the rest of the matter.

Fair question, and thanks for asking. God exposes all false prophets, and the Bible texts have gone through the ringer of public trial for thousands of years without being proven wrong, by human witness, science, or anything else. If a supposed prophet ever had as much as one proven erroneous statement he was branded a false prophet. The conglomerate whole of Scripture perfectly tells the history of God and creation which God wanted revealed. Errors would prove the authors as false prophets, which God stated many times he detests (Jeremiah 8:1,2; 2 Peter 2:1 for examples).

It's awfully presumptuous and judgmental of you to tell the poster that he/she doesn't think. Honestly, have you read the Bible in full, Bobbeh? The Bible is not a "wall for past ages' graffiti." First of all, the original source, the Bible itself, claims to be the words of God (i.e. 2 Timothy 3:16; James 1:21-23; Psalm 40:7; Isaiah 34:16, etc etc etc), therefore, it is up to you to prove the Bible fallible and errant with verifiable evidence, as opposed to lies from Godhaters. God did use men to write His Scriptures, because that is how He chose to go about it, but He "inspired" them by breathing into them the words He wanted mankind to read (2 Peter 1:19-21) and believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13).

Penn Jillette, like so many Godhaters fabricates lies from God's word. First of all, God was absolutely NOT okay with Lot's daughters being raped, because they were NOT raped. Lot offered them to the angry mob that wanted to seduce the visiting angels, but that was Lot, NOT God. Anyway, the mob refused Lot's daughters because they were homosexual, and they wanted to have sex with the male angels. The two daughters later seduced Lot because they truly believed all men were destroyed when God rained fire and brimstone down upon the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. You see, God hated the immoral homosexuals so badly that He destroyed their cities after giving them ample opportunity to repent. They refused, and they died for their sins. So, Penn, you're a liar like all the authors you quoted along the way: Bertrand Russell, your rock singers, and the other hyperbiased deuschbag Godhaters. Read for yourself in Genesis 19. Penn has so many lies in this little vignette. I've read through the Bible five times, and many times in various studies, with a keen eye on errors, contradictions, and fairy tales, and truthfully, there are none. The liberal theologians and biased scientists like Dawkins, etc, who the magic wolfman Penn references are hyperbiased and full of vitriol and verbiage against the loving God of the Bible. He misrepresents God throughout his diatribe, too, so many times I can't address them all.