What Do You Make Of This?, Maybe this is the "proof" some of you wanted ... Options

[AirRabbit]

Thats all very good, but you've ignored my earlier post... I'd like you to try and rip that to shreds too Also... what you said last is a double triple oxymoron? Jeez, it's worse than those different types of chocolate ice cream. Logically impossible? Yeah, fair enough... but you are basically saying that whether he could lift a certain rock goes on whether he decides to or not... that's a pretty basic statement... so that doesn't really do much for a case backed by proof.

I don't want what it is thought he can do... I want proof of what he can do...

Well, at least I tried. What you have characterized as a "double triple oxymoron" is the way logical reasoning is presented; but it appears that you may not understand that.

May I ask why it is that you demand something from Christianity without requiring the same from yourself? I presume that you are aware that totally comprehensive answers are not possible for creatures with finite minds. While I fully intend to provide you the answers to at least some of the questions you ask - simply because I said I would try to do so - it would be nice if you were to acknowledge that there are likely to be many things that will remain a mystery to us in this life. Given that eventuality and the fact that an absence of what you call "proof" does not immediately invalidate any premise, I believe that simply having a lack of comprehensive information does not mean one cannot have confidence in the truth of Christianity. Apparently you believe differently. That is certainly your right. What I would like to see of all of us (Christians and non-Christians alike) is to ask ourselves “Why do I think my current belief system is true?”

So far, all I see from you is a continuous, persistent demand that Christians show you "proof" of something. I believe that "intellectual honesty" demands more than casually ignoring the claims of Christianity without really investigating them. All of us, to some degree, harbor certain biases for believing what we do. I and other Christians certainly want the Bible to be authentic in its revelation of God, but that desire, by itself, is not a valid reason for believing the claims of Christianity. What we see characterized in "anti-Christian" beliefs is a good deal of arbitrariness. We see all forms of "anti-Christian" thought to be held together by will power, energy of assertion, and the turning of a blind eye to awkward facts rather than by force of evidence or a logical argument. I believe that anyone with a particular "worldview" should, at least, attempt to show why their view is at least “more true” than other worldviews.

With the searching and researching I have done, I have come to recognize a mounting degree of evidence that suggests the world view in which I believe is truthful. At the same time, that same mounting degree of evidence certainly suggests that the world view you profess is not truthful. And, as I said, I'll be happy to provide you some of that evidence - all I ask is that you not immediately dismiss what I present because you are not immediately satisfied that what I present is "proof," sufficient to your liking, of the claims I'm making. As is true in all demands for "proof," sufficient evidence has to be mounted that compels acceptance by the mind that truth or fact exists. But, if you immediately discount what is presented, you are rejecting evidence and denying a reasonable building of that evidence, before you have a chance to weigh what evidence might exist, which, in turn, disallows reaching a conclusion - even though, again, that remains your right. All I'm asking for is a modicum of intellectual honesty - and surely you wouldn't begrudge me that.

And, as I indicated earlier, I AM fully intending to provide you answers to some of the questions that have been mounted here. Again, criticizing is a lot easier and can be done much more quickly than putting together cogent and reasonable responses in defense of those criticisms.

[charliepapa]

Well, at least I tried. What you have characterized as a "double triple oxymoron" is the way logical reasoning is presented; but it appears that you may not understand that.

May I ask why it is that you demand something from Christianity without requiring the same from yourself? I presume that you are aware that totally comprehensive answers are not possible for creatures with finite minds. While I fully intend to provide you the answers to at least some of the questions you ask - simply because I said I would try to do so - it would be nice if you were to acknowledge that there are likely to be many things that will remain a mystery to us in this life. Given that eventuality and the fact that an absence of what you call "proof" does not immediately invalidate any premise, I believe that simply having a lack of comprehensive information does not mean one cannot have confidence in the truth of Christianity. Apparently you believe differently. That is certainly your right. What I would like to see of all of us (Christians and non-Christians alike) is to ask ourselves “Why do I think my current belief system is true?”

So far, all I see from you is a continuous, persistent demand that Christians show you "proof" of something. I believe that "intellectual honesty" demands more than casually ignoring the claims of Christianity without really investigating them. All of us, to some degree, harbor certain biases for believing what we do. I and other Christians certainly want the Bible to be authentic in its revelation of God, but that desire, by itself, is not a valid reason for believing the claims of Christianity. What we see characterized in "anti-Christian" beliefs is a good deal of arbitrariness. We see all forms of "anti-Christian" thought to be held together by will power, energy of assertion, and the turning of a blind eye to awkward facts rather than by force of evidence or a logical argument. I believe that anyone with a particular "worldview" should, at least, attempt to show why their view is at least “more true” than other worldviews.

With the searching and researching I have done, I have come to recognize a mounting degree of evidence that suggests the world view in which I believe is truthful. At the same time, that same mounting degree of evidence certainly suggests that the world view you profess is not truthful. And, as I said, I'll be happy to provide you some of that evidence - all I ask is that you not immediately dismiss what I present because you are not immediately satisfied that what I present is "proof," sufficient to your liking, of the claims I'm making. As is true in all demands for "proof," sufficient evidence has to be mounted that compels acceptance by the mind that truth or fact exists. But, if you immediately discount what is presented, you are rejecting evidence and denying a reasonable building of that evidence, before you have a chance to weigh what evidence might exist, which, in turn, disallows reaching a conclusion - even though, again, that remains your right. All I'm asking for is a modicum of intellectual honesty - and surely you wouldn't begrudge me that.

And, as I indicated earlier, I AM fully intending to provide you answers to some of the questions that have been mounted here. Again, criticizing is a lot easier and can be done much more quickly than putting together cogent and reasonable responses in defense of those criticisms.

The oximoron thing was an attempt at humour Also... you seem to have failed to read my reply... either you aren't reading it.. or simply not responding...

Also.. the honesty thing... I WANT to believe there is a god.. trust me... if there *was* one I would be the most devout person going, but I just see no evidence. I personally see it as just an oppressive cult that fails to see other people's point of view or just dismisses it while putting on a front of being respectful of them... It appears to me that people who cannot live without religion cannot cope with a world without it as it provides emotional support... It appears to me that religion is deep in the roots of every problem in the world, terrorism, wars, people getting away with crimes... and all for a blind belief. THAT is the reason why I cannot bear to blindly believe anything. I find it an obselete way of kidding yourself in a more scientific world, and one that is allowed to get away with unbelievable things...

You'll probably label me as an extremist, or a fruitcake, but I can see a world functioning much better without it.

Callum

[c150student]

Wow I think charliepapa and I share a mind (in other words I agree).

If there was more evidence of God, such as him being interviewed on the news, and if he was what everyone thinks him to be, I'd believe him, and love him and do everything Christians do already. I would like to be Christian, but I cant, because I lack faith. I dont BELIEVE, deep down that there is a God, so how can I look upon him for emotional support or whatever. I'd be kidding myself the whole time, and I know that for me to overcome problems, I need to think, and act, myself, and not rely on a powerful, although unproved, being to help me out.

As I said, I'd love to believe in God and become Christian, because it all seems so nice, loving and a really nice way of life, it really does. But I need conclusive proof. Some fossilized remains wont help, and neither would some carvings in rock saying 'God woz 'ere' because that could have been anyone. If I actually witnessed God first hand, whilst in a good state of mind i.e. not drunk, then I would believe, and then worship him, as long as thats what he wants (how do we know he isnt sick of people worshipping him?). But even a video of him could be CGI, so most people need 1st hand experience to believe. Why did he speak to people 1000s of years ago but noone today? Some will say 'Because he wants us to have free will on whether to believe in him or not' but if he wants us to believe in him, he should make himself known (I'm addressing him as a he, not sure if this is correct) but still give people the free will to worship him or not.

[dolbinau]

Why did he speak to people 1000s of years ago but noone today? Some will say 'Because he wants us to have free will on whether to believe in him or not' but if he wants us to believe in him, he should make himself known (I'm addressing him as a he, not sure if this is correct) but still give people the free will to worship him or not.

(Coming from a non-believer), Because Jesus was alive thousands of years ago; Now he is dead.


What is the 'faith' in only believing in him if you've seen him?

[bluebird121]

I have almost read the "Da Vinci Code" by Dan Brown, and it has thrown up some very interesting suppositions..I do not know now what to think to be quite honest..with all the innuendos throughout the book.. but what do those of you who have read it make of it ? I do not want to divulge too much and spoil the story for those who have not yet read it or seen the film.

[27driver]

“Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?”

I think a better question would be "Why the h*ll would God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?” I mean, if you're gonna make stuff, make a pizza, or some b*tchen surf. Stones? Dude...no...seriously...no.

Dude...people are either very trusting or very stupid. They have more faith that a chair will support their weight than faith in God. Or, to keep with the "aviation theme" of the website...people will pay hundreds (or thousands) of dollars/quid/marks/pesos/whatever to cram themselves into aluminum tubes (made by the lowest bidder) and go screaming along at 80% of the speed of sound 6 miles in the sky...with GREAT FAITH that the engines, wings, landing gear, hydraulics, pneumatics, pressurization, fuel systems, or any number of very important subsystems (made by the lowest bidder) will all work...that the guys driving the thing aren't having a bad day...that the mechanics all did their very intricate, delicate, and often rushed maitenance correctly...and that the weather won't get them...they don't have a crazed passenger on board thta will try to kill them all...or that any number of things that could go wrong, won't go wrong.

All that and people can't believe that there is a God? Dude...you must have more faith than I do...

Whatever...

[glnflwrs]

bluebird121,
You must remember that the da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, there is no truth to the underlying theme. I saw an interview with Mr. Brown, the author, on TV a month or so ago, and he is baffled at all the uproar over whether it can be true or not. It isn't true although some of the characters in the book were real.


c150student said . . .

"I would like to be Christian, but I cant, because I lack faith. I dont BELIEVE, deep down that there is a God, so how can I look upon him for emotional support or whatever."

That is the crux of why some believe in God and some don't. Faith. The Bible says that all faith comes from God. If you don't have the ability to believe in God because you don't see the evidence He's real, it's because he hasn't provided you with the faith to do so.

Faith is the evidence of things unseen or not perceived. We all have faith in the existence of electricity even though we can't see it or hold it. But, undeniably, we all see its power and the effect it has in our lives. That is enough evidence for anyone to know that electrical power is not a myth.

A child of God sees His power and the effect He has on people's lives, the perfect order in the design of the universe, the testimony of myriads of witnesses to Jesus' life, the teachings of Jesus, and the result of their own intraflection and he knows beyond any doubt that Jesus' tomb is empty and God is on His throne.

[cobzz]

With the searching and researching I have done, I have come to recognize a mounting degree of evidence that suggests the world view in which I believe is truthful. At the same time, that same mounting degree of evidence certainly suggests that the world view you profess is not truthful. And, as I said, I'll be happy to provide you some of that evidence - all I ask is that you not immediately dismiss what I present because you are not immediately satisfied that what I present is "proof," sufficient to your liking, of the claims I'm making. As is true in all demands for "proof," sufficient evidence has to be mounted that compels acceptance by the mind that truth or fact exists. But, if you immediately discount what is presented, you are rejecting evidence and denying a reasonable building of that evidence, before you have a chance to weigh what evidence might exist, which, in turn, disallows reaching a conclusion - even though, again, that remains your right. All I'm asking for is a modicum of intellectual honesty - and surely you wouldn't begrudge me that.

But all the evidence I have seen, hasn't been justified, or hasn't been proven to be true. There is evidence that George Bush is a reptillian, there is evidence that the 767s that hit the world trade centers landed and a missle hit them. Does that evidence make it true? No.

That's why so many people don't beleive in god. I mean, wow, some peice of wood found 13000feet high with shells near it. They need to prove it, and there must be a whole lot of diferant things to prove in this world to get people to beleive in god, just like they need rock solid proof that George Bush is a reptillian.

*I do not beleive that George bush thing, and go to www.abovetopsecret.com and ask for evidence on forum*
*Do not turn this into political debate because I mentioned George Bush, that was example*

[glnflwrs]

AirRabbit said...

So far, all I see from you is a continuous, persistent demand that Christians show you "proof" of something.

Then cobzz said ...

But all the evidence I have seen, hasn't been justified, or hasn't been proven to be true. There is evidence that George Bush is a reptillian, there is evidence that the 767s that hit the world trade centers landed and a missle hit them. Does that evidence make it true? No.

Boy cobzz, you fit right into AirRabbits description. I guess you don't believe in the big bang or evolution or any other unproven theory. How about electricity? The priciples of electrical power are still theories because they can't absolutely prove them. Same with evolution.

It's all in what you want to believe.

[cobzz]

AirRabbit said...
Then cobzz said ...
Boy cobzz, you fit right into AirRabbits description. I guess you don't believe in the big bang or evolution or any other unproven theory. How about electricity? The priciples of electrical power are still theories because they can't absolutely prove them. Same with evolution.

It's all in what you want to believe.

Correct. I don't beleive in the big bang theory, and I don't beleive in god. I do beleive in electricity, because we are constantly using it, and depending on it, if it didn't exist, I wouldn't be here now would I?

Big bang theory is differant, as is god, because they never have been proved. If I see someone ascending to heaven, I will beleive in god and dedicate my life to it. But that hasn't happened, and I won't beleive till something like that happens, because there isn't sufficiant proof to me, that he exists.

As I said, the electricity theory works, and nothing sais it is fake. Unlike the theory of God / Bigbang.

Understand what I mean?

[AirRabbit]

Hey Callum:

I do not think you are an extremist or a fruitcake. And I HAVE read your post, at least I think this is the one to which you are referring…

It would take 4,400,000,000 cubic kilometers of water to cover the earth (including mountains). The oceans contain 1/3 that much water.

For the "heavens" to hold that much water the atmospheric pressure would have to be 840 times higher than it is and be 99.9% water vapor. I'm not even going to get into the thermodynamics of it. Let's just say it would be HOT.

The fossils at high elevations is easy. The logistics behind getting all the animals aboard is a great study in planning and execution (penguins don't travel on the ground very well, for example. And those sloths...).

There is your answer... your therory again proved to be rubbish.. and don't go on about how got put more water on the earth for the flood... sorry... but i'd rather believe the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story to be true...
Why?
Someone wrote about it so long ago we don't know who actually invented the story although there are many "gospels" written by different authors today, so that shows there are witnesses to it happening.... its old.... people have always talked about it so it must be true... Bears sure do like sugary stuff and many Three Bears story tellers have told us (so it must be true) that there was sugar on the porridge to make it sweeter...

Sound like i'm on drugs? Well just replace a few of those words with God Jesus Miricles etc... there's what ya Bible believers tell us .
Also, if you want to provide links too and take them to be the "truth" I will do the same...

However, there are no eyewitness accounts to the supposed life of Jesus. It appears that the four known Gospels were taken from the accounts of Paul. Paul never met Jesus. There is no credible ex-Bible supporting evidence for the miraculous events of this period. It is all very suspicious hearsay, full of inconsistency and inaccuracy mixed with made-up astounding occurrences not recorded elsewhere. The alleged proceedings took place in a time of total superstition when ‘messiah’s’ were a dime a dozen. The people were scientifically ignorant and prone to harsh Roman rule and were in need of reprise from their situation. Imagine for a moment if on the touted death of Jesus, the dead Saints rose from their graves and mixed with the population. The Romans would have their version of the CIA investigate this wonder in an effort to make their armies invincible to death. Why have we not read about this in history? Walking on water and feeding the multitudes etc. would have evoked the same result.

OmFgDoDaBoGaLoO!!!!!!11111ONEONEONETWOTWO --->> Now THAT is a bombshell.

There's my backing for the HearSay theory... remember I had NOT researched this, yet I came up with the same thing that this guy has wrote (which I searched for the purposes of the argument... it is COMMON SENSE... easy.

(taken from here: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/doesgodexist.htm )
If someone in your local pub says that Maggie down the road shovells cats off the road, then eats them.. it will make people laugh... they will tell someone else... and then... so and behold she is known as Maggie the Cat Woman at Number 64. See? Happens today.. no proof, no eyewitnesses... all gossip and stuff..

Remember the logic back then... if you had a mole people thought you were a witch and promptly burned you... everyone now think's it's rubbish and all the "witches" are mad and need a visit from the nice men in white coats...

By the way.. in the last thread someone quoted me saying "Isn't it funny how the non-believers always run out of stuff and then hide and don't reply after making huge claims" but it was locked before I had my chance to answer...

So here is:
Answer: Atheists rarely pretend to know everything on the subject, when we're asked something we do NOT make things up, or enterpret things how we want them to be enterpreted.

In other words... we don't start to lie.
Taken from another artical. And, they are right... you are pushing us CONSTANTLY to provide the proof he doesn't exist, but it should be YOU trying to convince us.. that's what god would want right? Preaching... and some of you had the audacity to call US lazy.... erm yeah... whatever.
Callum,
(Hope this doesn't start a flamefest (no joke intended by the "flame". If anyone wants to know what i'm on about here, PM me ))

So let me take these comments one-by-one…

First, Learguy’s quote regarding the amount of water it would take to flood the earth…
According to Learguy, it would take 4,400,000,000 cubic kilometers of water to cover the earth (including the mountains). Expressed in scientific notation this would be 4.4 x 10^9 km^3 (read, “four point four times ten raised to the ninth power cubic kilometers”). And, let me state up front – this is correct; and while we could always quibble over exact numbers, I assure you, it’s not worth it. However, several factors come into play here. First, I think it important to provide you with the information I’m using from the source I’m using; and it probably comes as no surprise that my source is the Bible. Sorry, but that’s what we’re … ah … discussing. The relevant quotes are from the Book of Genesis, chapter 7, verses 11and 12; and, later, verses 19 and 20 from that same chapter. They read as follows:

Vs 11/12: “…all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”(KJV)

Vs 19/20: “…the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” (KJV)

I think that getting into a discussion of the amount of water that reportedly came from “rain” is not worth the time it would take. I DO believe that quite a lot of water DID come from that source, and I’ll have more to say about that later, but I don’t believe that was the primary source and that is not what I want to focus on right now. What I DO want to focus on is the phrase “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up.”

The original Hebrew word that is translated to read, “fountain,” is the word ma’yan, which means “fountain, spring, or well,” indicating that the water source being referred to is, or was, below the earth’s surface. Some pertinent facts: There is nothing in the Bible that describes what the topography of the earth’s surface was at that time, and there certainly isn’t any historical documents that we can check in that regard. Today, also, there is still no accurate knowledge of just how much water is currently beneath the earth’s surface. However, because of the tremendous pressure that likely exists deep below the earth’s surface, it is quite possible that huge amounts of water may be presently “stored” in the abundance of crystal lattices of minerals that are known to exist. I should also point out that there are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in what is called “the rock record,” making it quite plausible that these “fountains of the great deep” involved a series of volcanic eruptions with phenomenal amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70% (more in some cases) of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam. But, this still doesn’t get to the point of how all the “high hills” and “mountains” were covered by water to a depth of at least “15 cubits” (about 22 feet).

OK. Let’s get to that specific point. Bear with me as I go through the postulates that science has made regarding this specific event in history. The landmass that existed at that time, and on which Noah and the rest of his civilization lived, was not as rugged or as mountainous as the topography of today’s earth. Mountain ranges were not the 20 to 30 thousand feet “Everests” or “McKinleys” that we know today; they were more in the range of 5 to 7 thousand feet. Also, the continents, as we know them today, were not located where we know them to be today. In fact, there is considerable evidence, with more mounting every year, indicating the landmass that did exist at that time, existed in probably two very large masses or one large and two somewhat smaller masses. These landmasses (making up the lithosphere – the outer part of the solid earth composed of rock essentially like that exposed at the surface, consisting of the crust and outermost layer of the mantle, and usually considered to be about 60 miles, or 100 kilometers, in thickness) were, and to some extent, still are, divided into a small number of plates which “float” on and travel independently over the earth’s mantle. Geologists believe that much of the earth's seismic activity occurs at the boundaries of these plates. These same geologists are currently researching the theory that at some point in history (and the focus is on the period immediately preceding, during, and for approximately 8 to 10 months following, the flood) there was a catastrophic shift in the subterranean plates that had multiple effects on the topography of the earth’s surface. Currently on-going testing of this theory is proving this theory to be more and more likely true. The premise is that the onset of “the flood” was triggered by a catastrophic shift in the subterranean plates, either causing, or caused by, equally catastrophic and massive, wide-spread subterranean volcanic activity. This activity and the associated plate tectonic did several things simultaneously. A massive amount of volcanic hydrothermal discharge was spewed into the air and into the seas. Huge increases in subterranean temperature occurred and the horizontal movement of the plates accelerated, moving portions of these landmasses away from one another. This temperature increase caused large vertical movements in the earth’s crust, including the oceans’ floors, rapidly lifting those floors between 6000 and 8000 feet. The moving of these huge, continent-sized landmasses, generated tidal waves of “Biblical” proportions all over the globe. The volcanic activity and the rising temperature would have resulted in the breaking up of that pre-flood floor, releasing superheated steam from the ocean all along these breaks, much like linear geysers, causing intense global rain.

With 70% of the earth’s surface covered by water, as we know it today, and the topography of the pre-flood landmass, catastrophic, wide spread volcanic and tectonic plate interaction, the ocean floors being elevated the estimated amounts, a combination of the rising seas, the subterranean water being released, tidal waves being generated, and the copious amount of superheated steam being converted into a global rain, it is more than logical that the land mass could easily have been covered by water, and covered by the amounts indicated in the Biblical account. Additionally, lest we forget, at that time (pre-flood), because of the water-vapor canopy that did exist, a greenhouse effect was in place providing a pleasant sub tropical-to-temperate climate all around the globe, even at the poles, where today there is ice. Speculative? Well, if true, this would have caused/allowed the growth of lush vegetation on the land all around the globe. The discovery of coal seams in Antarctica containing vegetation that is not now found growing at the poles, but which obviously grew under warmer conditions, has been documented on repeated occasions. And, without the polar ice caps that exist today, the quantity of liquid water would have been increased by at least 3.3 x10^7 km^3; perhaps not “Biblical” in proportion, but substantial nonetheless. Furthermore, as a major portion of this catastrophic activity continued for a month and a half, heating and cooling, re-heating and re-cooling of various portions of the earth’s mantle, it should be easily recognized that new continental landmasses (containing new mountain chains of folded rock strata – which can be seen today in all major mountain chains around the globe) were uplifted from below the water, while large, deep, ocean basins, and very long, very deep trenches, and similar very long, very high submerged ridgelines were formed.

As the newly formed (or re-formed) ocean floors cooled, they would have become more dense and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and trenches and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land. The movement and ultimate collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, particularly toward the end of the flood.

The “uplift” of the new continental landmasses from under the flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's earth surface. The erosion caused by receding floodwaters surely would have had an effect on the immediately surrounding topography. And, due to the quantity of water under discussion, the water flow that should have carved the river valleys would have to have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in those rivers today. The river valleys seen today are far larger than the rivers that are now flowing in them could have carved, and this is consistent with voluminous flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah's flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins. A prime example of this is the Colorado River, flowing through the Grand Canyon in the western US. That river simply does not have the volume or speed of water flow to have caused the erosion that exists absent such a receding flood water explanation.

Second, Learguy’s comment regarding the “heavens” holding that much water…
Since I’m not making the case for the flood waters coming from the “heavens,” although as I mentioned, the superheated steam rising from the world’s oceans undoubtedly DID cause torrential rains, I’m going to by-pass commenting here.

Third, Learguy’s comment about getting fossils at high elevations being easy…
Because of the explanation I gave regarding the “mountains” being covered with water, I, too, believe that explaining how fossils of sea creatures got to the tops of the mountains we have today is easy.

Fourth, Learguy’s quote regarding getting the animals on the Ark…
Well, let’s start with the size of the ark – again, the Bible says the dimensions were 300 cubits, by 50 cubits, by 30 cubits … that converts to 450 feet (135 meters) long, by 75 feet (22.5 meters) wide, by 45 feet (13.5 meters) high. There are other conversions that would make the ark larger, but these dimensions will certainly do. OK, but what does that mean? Well, given these dimensions, the volume would have been 1,500,000 cubic feet OR the capacity of 570 modern railroad cattle cars.

What kind of animals would have to have been on the ark? According to most scholars, the Genesis account excludes sea creatures and insects from being loaded on the ark. This seems reasonable, since remnants of each of these creatures could have logically survived the cataclysm apart from the ark. That leaves mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and Noah's family. Next, we must consider that God instructed Noah to bring animals on the ark "after their kind." This means we should appreciate the scientific concept of variations within a Kind. For example, most biologists agree that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds could all come from a pair of original "dogs." Although genetic code won't allow for variations from Kind to Kind, we now understand how DNA allows for variations within a Kind. Taking such variations into consideration, there are roughly 16,000 distinct “Kinds” of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians now living or known to have lived in the past.

So, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals (25,000 pairs), far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens. Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the elephant or hippopotamus, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck railroad stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 363 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. Say what you will, but I believe the ark had plenty of space.

We don’t know how long it took Noah to build the ark so we can’t determine how long Noah would have had to collect the necessary animals. The first time Noah is mentioned in the Bible he was 500 years old. He was 600 years old when he entered the ark. So, he had something less than 100 years to both build the ark and gather the animals it would house.

Fifth, your comment about someone writing Biblical accounts that were written “…so long ago we don't know who actually invented the story although there are many "gospels" written by different authors today, so that shows there are witnesses to it happening.... its old.... people have always talked about it so it must be true...”
You are not the only one who believes that because the Bible was written so long ago, it simply cannot be believed. Typically, ancient manuscripts that are considered valuable are judged reliable by a combination of four components: the number of manuscripts that are available; the date when the document was written; the date of the oldest manuscript available; and the number of years between the original and the oldest manuscript available. Here is a list of what is considered to be valuable and authentic ancient manuscripts (you are welcome to check this information through any source you choose):
The Tetralogies by Plato. There are 7 known manuscripts; the document was written in 400BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 900AD; meaning that there was about 1300 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
Gallic Wars by Caesar. There are 10 known manuscripts; the document was written in 60BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 900AD; meaning that there was about 1000 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
The Illiad by Homer. There are 643 known manuscripts; the document was written in 900BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 400BC; meaning that there was about 500 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(history) by Herodotus. There are 8 known manuscripts; the document was written between 480 and 425BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 900AD; meaning that there was about 1300 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(general writings) by Sophocles. There are 103 known manuscripts; the document was written between 496 and 406BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 1000AD; meaning that there was about 1400 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(general writings) by Euripides. There are 9 known manuscripts; the document was written between 480 and 406BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 1100AD; meaning that there was about 1500 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(general writings) by Aristotle. There are 49 known manuscripts of any one work; the document was written between 384 and 322BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 1100AD; meaning that there was about 1400 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
Bible Old Testament There are more than 10,000 known manuscripts; the document was written between 1500 and 400BC; the oldest manuscript originally available was written in 900AD, but with the Dead Sea Scrolls the dates are between 100BC and 100AD; meaning that originally there was about 1300 years between the original and the oldest manuscript, but with the Dead Sea Scrolls the dates are between 1300 and 300 years.
Bible New Testament There are more than 5,664 known Greek manuscripts, between 8000 and 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts; and 8000 Ethopian, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts – that is more than 24,000 manuscripts; the document was written not later than 100AD; the oldest manuscript available was written in 200AD, with a recent fragment written prior to 100 AD; meaning that there was about 100 years between the original and the oldest manuscript with many about 25 years, which is well within the life time of John, an eyewitness and Disciple of Jesus.

With just a quick glance at this information, you should be able to see that both Old and New Testaments are well situated with regard to the number of years between the original writing and the oldest manuscript – and, according to the scholars who put together this comparison evaluation, “wins” hands down in the category of the number of manuscripts currently available. The Bible should be able to be at least as accepted as the other ancient documents.

OK, so what about the reliability of these documents? How can we be sure that what we have written today is what was originally written? Good question. Let me point out that we have an unprecedented number of individual manuscripts of the Bible that have survived history and are available to us today. Why is this important? The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if these copies come from different geographical areas of the world, the more these manuscripts can be cross-checked to confirm or deny what was originally written.

As an added bit of comfort, we should all be aware that even if all the Greek manuscripts and early translations of the New Testament were lost, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the mountain of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, etc. still in existence, that were written by the early church founders.

Some ask isn’t it true that the original documents were copied, by hand, over and over again? Wouldn’t that present endless opportunities for unintended, yet perhaps devastating, errors to be made? What about distractions on the part of the scribes or poor eyesight or other human-based errors? All good questions as well. However, there are factors that go quite a distance to rectify such problems. The first, and probably one of the strongest is the Greek language itself. Greek, unlike English, is an inflected language. This means that a specific word in a sentence functions as the subject of the sentence – and this is true regardless of where it is placed in the sentence. Therefore, if, in the English language, a scribe had translated “Dog bites Man” as “Man bites Dog” we would have a serious error. However, in the Greek language, the meaning of the sentence would not be distorted because the subject, verb, and object of the sentence are not changed even if the word sequencing does change.

What about non-human errors, like ancient ink flaking away on some words or letters and giving the reader a different challenge for translation? Another good question. Lets suppose you received a series of telegrams from Reader’s Digest Magazine telling you the following:

First telegram, “You have won the Reader’s Digest One Million *ollar Sweepstakes!”
Second telegram, “You have won the #eade#’s Digest One Million Dolla# Sweepstakes!”
Third telegram, “You have won the Reader’s Digest One Million Dollar S^eepstakes!”

These telegrams contain errors. What would your reaction be? Would you throw out the notifications on the basis that they were in error and therefore unreliable? Or, would you believe that despite the errors, the message is clear and undistorted? You decide.

Sixth, your comment about it appearing “that the four known Gospels were taken from the accounts of Paul. Paul never met Jesus.”
In the first place this is the very first time I’ve ever heard the allegation that the Gospels were written from the “accounts of Paul.” To my knowledge there isn’t any evidence anywhere that anything like this could be alleged. Look at the following:

Matthew. While the gospel itself does not say who the author is, it has been known from a very early time that Matthew wrote this gospel. No one disputed it among the early believers and the early church, when certainly there were many who were Matthew’s contemporaries and some who were antagonistic enough to challenge his authorship if there was any doubt. Matthew was one of the original Twelve Apostles and an eyewitness to the entire ministry of Jesus. It is clear that Matthew’s intended readership was the Jewish population and included many quotations from the Jewish Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament). His intent in writing this Gospel (aside from the inspiration from God) was that he intended to earnestly show the Jews that the Jesus they saw, talked with, listened to, or heard about was the Messiah (the Christ).

Mark. Very early tradition states that Mark, the son of Mary of Jerusalem, wrote this Gospel as a comprehensive look at the life of Jesus, and was directed primarily to those who lived outside of the immediate area of Jesus’ ministry. Here too, no challenge was mounted by any of Mark’s contemporaries as to the validity of his authorship of this Gospel. This is the shortest of the Gospels and emphasizes the superhuman power of Jesus. Mark presents Jesus to his intended readership as God’s Son in action – demonstrating His divinity by His miracles; focusing more on what Jesus did than what He said.

Luke. There has never been much doubt at all that Luke, “the beloved physician” as described in Colossians (4:14), was the author of this Gospel. Just like the authors of the previous Gospels, had there been any disbelief regarding Luke’s authorship, certainly there were many who would have made their objections known. Luke pictures Jesus as the Messiah of Jews and the savior of all mankind, and wrote the Gospel with a universal appeal, but directed specifically to the Gentiles. The aim was to the Greek mind and therefore had to be written in a comprehensive, logical, and orderly manner. In reading the context of Colossians 4:14 (referenced above), we see that Luke was “not of the circumcision,” and was, therefore, probably the only Gentile author in the New Testament.

John. The author of this Gospel identifies himself as the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (see John 13:23 and 20:2). The writer was John the Apostle, and he focused on and stressed the deity of Jesus. The purpose is clearly stated in chapter 20, verses 30-31; “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Unfortunately, Christians are still saddled with critics who insist that since these Gospels are written about the same person, there should be no differences in what is said or how it is said. These critics fail to understand (or more likely - they choose not to understand) that although these Gospels were written about the same person they were written by different persons for different reasons to different audiences. While it is not only likely, it must be expected that some “differences” would be present, but the significant factor that must also be recognized is that none of these “differences” are in conflict with one another.

Seventh, your statement that there is no credible ex-Bible supporting evidence for the miraculous events of this period. It is all very suspicious hearsay, full of inconsistency and inaccuracy mixed with made-up astounding occurrences not recorded elsewhere...
Actually, there is very good reason to believe in the biblical miracles. One highly pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus' miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels. There was insufficient time for the development of miracle legends between when the miracle occurred and when it was written about. Many eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles would have still been alive to refute any untrue miracle accounts (see 1 Corinthians 15:6).

One must also recognize the noble character of the men who witnessed these miracles (Peter, James, and John, for example). Such men were not prone to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their beliefs.

There were also hostile witnesses to the miracles of Christ. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, for example, none of the chief priests or Pharisees disputed the miracle (John 11:45-48). If they could have disputed it, they would have. Rather, their goal was simply to stop Jesus (verses 47-48). Because there were so many hostile witnesses who observed and scrutinized Christ, successful "fabrication" of miracle stories in His ministry would have been impossible.

Regarding the issue of hostile witnesses, theologian James Oliver Buswell comments: "In the Biblical events strictly regarded as miracles, the adversaries of faith acknowledged the supernatural character of what took place. After the healing of the man 'lame from his mother's womb,' the rulers and elders and scribes, 'beholding the man that was healed standing with them... could say nothing against it.' But they said, '...that a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it' (Acts 3:1-4:22) In the case of the miracle at Lystra (Acts 14:8-23), the pagans said, 'The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.' With reference to the resurrection of Christ, Paul could ask a Roman court of law to take cognizance of an indisputable, publicly attested fact, for, said he, 'This thing was not done in a corner' (Acts 26:26)."

Further, in Acts 2:22 recall that a bold Peter told the Jewish crowd: "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, AS YOU YOURSELVES KNOW." If Peter were making all this up, the huge crowd surely would have shouted Peter down. But they didn't, for they knew that what he said was true.

Eighth, your statement that the alleged proceedings took place in a time of total superstition when ‘messiah’s’ were a dime a dozen. The people were scientifically ignorant and prone to harsh Roman rule and were in need of reprise from their situation. Imagine for a moment if on the touted death of Jesus, the dead Saints rose from their graves and mixed with the population. The Romans would have their version of the CIA investigate this wonder in an effort to make their armies invincible to death. Why have we not read about this in history?
Well, perhaps you know something that I don’t, but I’ve not yet heard that there were people running around all over the place claiming to be the Messiah. Remember, there were very specific expectations of the predicted Messiah and many considered it to be incredulous that Jesus would have the “moxy” to claim to BE the Messiah. Any other claimant to that title would certainly have suffered similar scrutiny – and we read about no such occurrences.

Also, it was not the “Saints,” as you call them, who died and rose from their graves. It was Jesus who did that. And it was His Disciples who saw the resurrected Jesus and believed. It was they whose lives were changed as a result, and it was each of those Disciples (except for John) who died a horrible death instead of retracting what they had said about Jesus’ resurrection. If it was a lie, all they had to do to live was to reveal the lie, and probably be made a national hero to the Roman Emperor. I know many people who have believed so very strongly in their cause, that they have died for it. But in no case did any of these persons die knowing that their cause was a lie.

Ninth, your statement about “walking on water and feeding the multitudes etc. would have evoked the same result…”
Here, we’re back to the same thing we discussed regarding the accuracy of the Gospel accounts. If there were reasons to discount any of the miraculous deeds performed by Jesus, certainly there were enough “hostile” persons around who could have publicly discounted, not even all of them, but any ONE of them, and that would have been noteworthy – and probably put a damper on the entire ministry Jesus had. The fact is that no one did. Nowhere is there a claim that Jesus performed miracles in secret. He performed them in the open, on the streets of a very busy Jerusalem.

We also have to recognize that Rome was, at that time, the “center” of civilization – and that Jerusalem was a very long way from Rome. What went on in Judea and Samaria was of little concern to the Roman Emperor as long as it was “under control.” Not very many of the Emperor’s “staff” would want to come in and say something like, “excuse me but there is someone else claiming to be God, and says you’re NOT God.” Remember that the saying about “killing the messenger” got started somewhere.

Tenth, your statement about Christians “…pushing (non-Christians) CONSTANTLY to provide the proof he doesn't exist, but it should be YOU trying to convince us.. that's what god would want right? Preaching... and some of you had the audacity to call US lazy.... erm yeah... whatever…
Actually, Callum, you are correct – the only thing I would add (as I did in my earlier post on intellectual honesty) is that both of us should be trying to provide as much information as possible regarding why our respective world view is more correct than the other. My attempt here with this interminably long post is not to “prove you wrong.” If it comes across that way, I apologize – that is NOT my intent. My intent is to merely answer the questions and respond to the statements made. As I said also in another earlier post, it is NOT my goal to convert you, or anyone else, to Christianity. I see my role as one to provide information, answer questions when asked, and once in a while, to prompt discussions. That’s pretty much it. I don’t normally go around flaunting my religious beliefs – but when I’m asked, I’m certainly not shy about explaining not only what I believe, but why I believe it. If you should choose to believe what I say, then that would be great as far as I’m concerned. However, if you choose to not believe what I say – that’s your choice. What you believe is not my fault (whether it is that God exists or does not exist – your beliefs are not my responsibility) and, therefore, I don’t owe anyone a diligent effort to go “capture” you into the fold, as it were. If I’ve answered your questions and responded to your statements, and I have done so honestly and to the best of my ability, that is all I am obligated to do.

Now, having said ALL this – did I do what I set out to do … answer your questions and respond to your statements? Just let me know – and if you’re still reading this, please accept my thanks for allowing me to believe that my tired fingers and my tired brain have been useful to that extent at least.

[c150student]

dude you really need to spend some time away from the computer lol

Faith is the evidence of things unseen or not perceived. We all have faith in the existence of electricity even though we can't see it or hold it. But, undeniably, we all see its power and the effect it has in our lives. That is enough evidence for anyone to know that electrical power is not a myth.

A child of God sees His power and the effect He has on people's lives, the perfect order in the design of the universe, the testimony of myriads of witnesses to Jesus' life, the teachings of Jesus, and the result of their own intraflection and he knows beyond any doubt that Jesus' tomb is empty and God is on His throne.

But I dont see God's power and effect on people's lives. I think that humans have made a great civilisation, and should take full credit for the positive impact on people's lives. And about electricity not actually being visible or whatever, but we know how electricity works, the theory is all there, we make it (the electricity) and then use it, proving it is there. I cant be bothered to back this up with loads of articles.....look in a science textbook or on the internet if you want evidence, but its not because I am ignorant on the subject, its just I have better things to do than to say electricity is easy to believe it exists, without it being hugely comparable to God.

Anyway, I think this topic is too controversial....people will get upset at others and upset that others dont share their views and beliefs. It is now turned into another topic discussing God, with those who dont believe saying there isnt enough evidence, and those who do forcefully putting over their evidence for God, and then often making people seem shallow, stupid or whatever for not believing. I think maybe this topic should follow the similar poll, and be locked. Besides, Airrabbit has given his article, and we have exhausted that and moved on.

[27driver]

Anyway, I think this topic is too controversial....people will get upset at others and upset that others dont share their views and beliefs. It is now turned into another topic discussing God, with those who dont believe saying there isnt enough evidence, and those who do forcefully putting over their evidence for God, and then often making people seem shallow, stupid or whatever for not believing. I think maybe this topic should follow the similar poll, and be locked. Besides, Airrabbit has given his article, and we have exhausted that and moved on.

What the...what is it with people around here and locking topics?! I swear...we get a good one going where people are talking and really getting ideas flying around and...Blammo...topic locked.

I personally like hearing the ideas, thinking about them, responding, and then seeing what comes back. I do not agree with them all, but I sure disagree with not being able to hear them all. If the members are going to take what is said here personally, then maybe they should spend a little less time with the computer, and get out and mingle with the real people...where you can't just lock the topics when you disagree. If the computer is going to be used by the members of this site a tool of socializing, then unless it's becoming an actual problem, let's let it run itself out...the topic will lock itself when it's done.

[bluebird121]

What the...what is it with people around here and locking topics?! I swear...we get a good one going where people are talking and really getting ideas flying around and...Blammo...topic locked.

I personally like hearing the ideas, thinking about them, responding, and then seeing what comes back. I do not agree with them all, but I sure disagree with not being able to hear them all. If the members are going to take what is said here personally, then maybe they should spend a little less time with the computer, and get out and mingle with the real people...where you can't just lock the topics when you disagree. If the computer is going to be used by the members of this site a tool of socializing, then unless it's becoming an actual problem, let's let it run itself out...the topic will lock itself when it's done.

Yes, I so agree with you 27driver.unless the topic becomes a flamefest, or is just going nowhere and has ran out of steam would be the only reason I could see for locking a topic..
I was surprised when I came back to see that the other topic similar to this one had been locked, as it is an extremely interesting debate, and views from all various people, believers and non-believers alike, and this is what a forum is all about .. a debate, without anyone becoming insulting, and being mature enough to read someone else's viewpoint, and having your own say in it too, whether you agree with it or disagree.
I have got to say that I am not sure.. I think that scientists have made us all think about the earth beginning with a BIg Bang.. and that we all evolved from the sea.. but that part I cannot grasp..nor the idea is that we were descendents of monkeys.. why are there still monkeys..?
Air Rabbit has put forward his views very succinctly, and I am most impressed, but there are a lot of "Doubting Thomas's" out there which no amount of explanations of the Bible will change their views.

[c150student]

But dont you think that maybe it may cause tension between members if they have very contrasting views. Charliepapa and Airrabbit are disagreeing, and although they will both say 'Oh yeah, its only over the internet, it doesnt matter, I dont mind' deep down there will probably always be something. And people take what is said on here too personally...Airrabbit's most recent post (not including the quote or anything said before the quote) was 5,346 words. Now, you dont spend as much time as that replying to something unless you feel very strongly about it (although Airrabbit is known for his long posts, which isnt a bad thing). Not strongly as in passionate about something, but defensive, maybe? I dont think people on here should feel the need to start getting defensive.

May I also say this is the first topic I've ever said (at least on FL350.com) should be locked. Also, if it is like the old one, which was locked by a moderator (and we all know how mature and all-knowing the mods are) then shouldnt this take the same course? If you had 2 identical topics why should one be locked but not the other?

Anyway, this isnt a discussion about whether Gid exists or not. Its an argument, at least the way I see it, deep down, this is a way for people to say 'This is what I think. I dont get how others can think any differently'. Its not 'This is what I think' its 'Aha, you were wrong there. Get your facts straight. Heres evidence to prove there is/not a God, beat that.' I'm as keen as anyone for a good debate, but with some things, such as religion, you need to be careful what you say and where you tread. And I think for everyone to stay friendly on this board, we ought to generally try to steer clear of some controversial topics.

Oh, and I bet I'l get flamed from this. Seems to be the way with me recently. Dunno why.

[AirRabbit]

Why did he speak to people 1000s of years ago but noone today? Some will say 'Because he wants us to have free will on whether to believe in him or not' but if he wants us to believe in him, he should make himself known (I'm addressing him as a he, not sure if this is correct) but still give people the free will to worship him or not.

Again, at the risk of deviating from "the topic," I'd like to try to address your point. You suggest that God should "make Himself known" and still give people the free will to worship or not.

Let me ask two questions:
1) What act would it take for you to be satisfied that God DID "make Himself known" to you? ...and
2) IF God did this for you, what would you say to someone who didn't see that act and still didn't believe?
__________

PS: I could say that I use a lot of words to make sure that I get my point across. And I freely admit that I include information to answer questions that may be generated from having heard or read what I’ve said or written. My excuse is that when I was quite young, my family accused me of having been vaccinated with a phonograph needle. Ummm, sorry, I guess some of you may not be terribly familiar with that ancient form of music reproduction. Oh, well, suffice it to say that I’ve never claimed to be at a loss for words. I’ve also never claimed to be shy about expressing what I believe – however, I DO attempt to make those expressions without offending anyone … and if I have offended anyone here, I do, sincerely, offer my deepest apologies – that was not my intent.

[Becky_KSTS]

I don't come to this thread with any scholarly knowledge other than what I was raised to believe. Long day at work today but reading this, I want to add my 2 cents. As a disclaimer, I have not looked up any scriptures as I am responding "off the cuff" but I can find scriptures if asked (where ever the heck I stuck that bible!)

Additionally, I am a "skimmer" when it comes to reading and I may have missed a few good points but I get the drift. Wow Air Rabbit, you must have some kind of knowledge of the scriptures. I was inundated with the scriptures even before I could talk. I am disowned by my grandfather because I "left" the faith. I did not leave the faith, I left the "religion".

However some of the things you brought up regarding biblical history is actually backed up in our history. The bible that I was raised with (so I am told) came from the original Dead Sea Scrolls. I was told other versions of the bible were corrupted by ... how should I put this.. political interests over the years. It is not fair nor it is it correct to point fingers at those religions now, but torture and death were involved. As I said in previous posts along this subject every one (religion, political party, country... etc.) wants, no NEEDS to be right. Why? Why is it so important to be right?

Back to the subject; the bible was supposedly transcribed by only those filled with holy spirit. But my doubts are that they were not. Assuming the bible did get corrupted over time by those who where transcribing it, pretty soon the bible lost its true meaning because the various versions contradicted each other (the trinity being one). I was taught in the religion that I came from that Satan wanted JUST this confusion to occur so that others would leave the faith or create others until just about anything goes (and it does).

I don't care to go on because I am DONE but you brought back some memories... best left behind for me. However, I did find this thread very educational.

[{DaRk}]

Hey Callum:

I do not think you are an extremist or a fruitcake. And I HAVE read your post, at least I think this is the one to which you are referring…

There is your answer... your therory again proved to be rubbish.. and don't go on about how got put more water on the earth for the flood... sorry... but i'd rather believe the Goldilocks and the Three Bears story to be true...
Why?
Someone wrote about it so long ago we don't know who actually invented the story although there are many "gospels" written by different authors today, so that shows there are witnesses to it happening.... its old.... people have always talked about it so it must be true... Bears sure do like sugary stuff and many Three Bears story tellers have told us (so it must be true) that there was sugar on the porridge to make it sweeter...

Sound like i'm on drugs? Well just replace a few of those words with God Jesus Miricles etc... there's what ya Bible believers tell us .
Also, if you want to provide links too and take them to be the "truth" I will do the same...

OmFgDoDaBoGaLoO!!!!!!11111ONEONEONETWOTWO --->> Now THAT is a bombshell.

There's my backing for the HearSay theory... remember I had NOT researched this, yet I came up with the same thing that this guy has wrote (which I searched for the purposes of the argument... it is COMMON SENSE... easy.

(taken from here: http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/doesgodexist.htm )
If someone in your local pub says that Maggie down the road shovells cats off the road, then eats them.. it will make people laugh... they will tell someone else... and then... so and behold she is known as Maggie the Cat Woman at Number 64. See? Happens today.. no proof, no eyewitnesses... all gossip and stuff..

Remember the logic back then... if you had a mole people thought you were a witch and promptly burned you... everyone now think's it's rubbish and all the "witches" are mad and need a visit from the nice men in white coats...

By the way.. in the last thread someone quoted me saying "Isn't it funny how the non-believers always run out of stuff and then hide and don't reply after making huge claims" but it was locked before I had my chance to answer...

So here is:
Answer: Atheists rarely pretend to know everything on the subject, when we're asked something we do NOT make things up, or enterpret things how we want them to be enterpreted.

In other words... we don't start to lie.
Taken from another artical. And, they are right... you are pushing us CONSTANTLY to provide the proof he doesn't exist, but it should be YOU trying to convince us.. that's what god would want right? Preaching... and some of you had the audacity to call US lazy.... erm yeah... whatever.
Callum,
(Hope this doesn't start a flamefest (no joke intended by the "flame". If anyone wants to know what i'm on about here, PM me ))

So let me take these comments one-by-one…

First, Learguy’s quote regarding the amount of water it would take to flood the earth…
According to Learguy, it would take 4,400,000,000 cubic kilometers of water to cover the earth (including the mountains). Expressed in scientific notation this would be 4.4 x 10^9 km^3 (read, “four point four times ten raised to the ninth power cubic kilometers”). And, let me state up front – this is correct; and while we could always quibble over exact numbers, I assure you, it’s not worth it. However, several factors come into play here. First, I think it important to provide you with the information I’m using from the source I’m using; and it probably comes as no surprise that my source is the Bible. Sorry, but that’s what we’re … ah … discussing. The relevant quotes are from the Book of Genesis, chapter 7, verses 11and 12; and, later, verses 19 and 20 from that same chapter. They read as follows:

Vs 11/12: “…all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.”(KJV)

Vs 19/20: “…the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.” (KJV)

I think that getting into a discussion of the amount of water that reportedly came from “rain” is not worth the time it would take. I DO believe that quite a lot of water DID come from that source, and I’ll have more to say about that later, but I don’t believe that was the primary source and that is not what I want to focus on right now. What I DO want to focus on is the phrase “all the fountains of the great deep were broken up.”

The original Hebrew word that is translated to read, “fountain,” is the word ma’yan, which means “fountain, spring, or well,” indicating that the water source being referred to is, or was, below the earth’s surface. Some pertinent facts: There is nothing in the Bible that describes what the topography of the earth’s surface was at that time, and there certainly isn’t any historical documents that we can check in that regard. Today, also, there is still no accurate knowledge of just how much water is currently beneath the earth’s surface. However, because of the tremendous pressure that likely exists deep below the earth’s surface, it is quite possible that huge amounts of water may be presently “stored” in the abundance of crystal lattices of minerals that are known to exist. I should also point out that there are many volcanic rocks interspersed between the fossil layers in what is called “the rock record,” making it quite plausible that these “fountains of the great deep” involved a series of volcanic eruptions with phenomenal amounts of water bursting up through the ground. It is interesting that up to 70% (more in some cases) of what comes out of volcanoes today is water, often in the form of steam. But, this still doesn’t get to the point of how all the “high hills” and “mountains” were covered by water to a depth of at least “15 cubits” (about 22 feet).

OK. Let’s get to that specific point. Bear with me as I go through the postulates that science has made regarding this specific event in history. The landmass that existed at that time, and on which Noah and the rest of his civilization lived, was not as rugged or as mountainous as the topography of today’s earth. Mountain ranges were not the 20 to 30 thousand feet “Everests” or “McKinleys” that we know today; they were more in the range of 5 to 7 thousand feet. Also, the continents, as we know them today, were not located where we know them to be today. In fact, there is considerable evidence, with more mounting every year, indicating the landmass that did exist at that time, existed in probably two very large masses or one large and two somewhat smaller masses. These landmasses (making up the lithosphere – the outer part of the solid earth composed of rock essentially like that exposed at the surface, consisting of the crust and outermost layer of the mantle, and usually considered to be about 60 miles, or 100 kilometers, in thickness) were, and to some extent, still are, divided into a small number of plates which “float” on and travel independently over the earth’s mantle. Geologists believe that much of the earth's seismic activity occurs at the boundaries of these plates. These same geologists are currently researching the theory that at some point in history (and the focus is on the period immediately preceding, during, and for approximately 8 to 10 months following, the flood) there was a catastrophic shift in the subterranean plates that had multiple effects on the topography of the earth’s surface. Currently on-going testing of this theory is proving this theory to be more and more likely true. The premise is that the onset of “the flood” was triggered by a catastrophic shift in the subterranean plates, either causing, or caused by, equally catastrophic and massive, wide-spread subterranean volcanic activity. This activity and the associated plate tectonic did several things simultaneously. A massive amount of volcanic hydrothermal discharge was spewed into the air and into the seas. Huge increases in subterranean temperature occurred and the horizontal movement of the plates accelerated, moving portions of these landmasses away from one another. This temperature increase caused large vertical movements in the earth’s crust, including the oceans’ floors, rapidly lifting those floors between 6000 and 8000 feet. The moving of these huge, continent-sized landmasses, generated tidal waves of “Biblical” proportions all over the globe. The volcanic activity and the rising temperature would have resulted in the breaking up of that pre-flood floor, releasing superheated steam from the ocean all along these breaks, much like linear geysers, causing intense global rain.

With 70% of the earth’s surface covered by water, as we know it today, and the topography of the pre-flood landmass, catastrophic, wide spread volcanic and tectonic plate interaction, the ocean floors being elevated the estimated amounts, a combination of the rising seas, the subterranean water being released, tidal waves being generated, and the copious amount of superheated steam being converted into a global rain, it is more than logical that the land mass could easily have been covered by water, and covered by the amounts indicated in the Biblical account. Additionally, lest we forget, at that time (pre-flood), because of the water-vapor canopy that did exist, a greenhouse effect was in place providing a pleasant sub tropical-to-temperate climate all around the globe, even at the poles, where today there is ice. Speculative? Well, if true, this would have caused/allowed the growth of lush vegetation on the land all around the globe. The discovery of coal seams in Antarctica containing vegetation that is not now found growing at the poles, but which obviously grew under warmer conditions, has been documented on repeated occasions. And, without the polar ice caps that exist today, the quantity of liquid water would have been increased by at least 3.3 x10^7 km^3; perhaps not “Biblical” in proportion, but substantial nonetheless. Furthermore, as a major portion of this catastrophic activity continued for a month and a half, heating and cooling, re-heating and re-cooling of various portions of the earth’s mantle, it should be easily recognized that new continental landmasses (containing new mountain chains of folded rock strata – which can be seen today in all major mountain chains around the globe) were uplifted from below the water, while large, deep, ocean basins, and very long, very deep trenches, and similar very long, very high submerged ridgelines were formed.

As the newly formed (or re-formed) ocean floors cooled, they would have become more dense and sunk, allowing water to flow off the continents. Movement of the water off the continents and into the oceans would have weighed down the ocean floor and lightened the continents, resulting in the further sinking of the ocean floor, as well as upward movement of the continents. The deepening of the ocean basins and trenches and the rising of the continents would have resulted in more water running off the land. The movement and ultimate collision of the tectonic plates would have pushed up mountain ranges also, particularly toward the end of the flood.

The “uplift” of the new continental landmasses from under the flood waters would have meant that, as the mountains rose and the valleys sank, the waters would have rapidly drained off the newly emerging land surfaces. The collapse of natural dams holding back the floodwaters on the land would also have caused catastrophic flooding. Such rapid movement of large volumes of water would have caused extensive erosion and shaped the basic features of today's earth surface. The erosion caused by receding floodwaters surely would have had an effect on the immediately surrounding topography. And, due to the quantity of water under discussion, the water flow that should have carved the river valleys would have to have been far greater than the volume of water we see flowing in those rivers today. The river valleys seen today are far larger than the rivers that are now flowing in them could have carved, and this is consistent with voluminous flood waters draining off the emerging land surfaces at the close of Noah's flood, and flowing into the rapidly sinking, newly prepared, deep ocean basins. A prime example of this is the Colorado River, flowing through the Grand Canyon in the western US. That river simply does not have the volume or speed of water flow to have caused the erosion that exists absent such a receding flood water explanation.

Second, Learguy’s comment regarding the “heavens” holding that much water…
Since I’m not making the case for the flood waters coming from the “heavens,” although as I mentioned, the superheated steam rising from the world’s oceans undoubtedly DID cause torrential rains, I’m going to by-pass commenting here.

Third, Learguy’s comment about getting fossils at high elevations being easy…
Because of the explanation I gave regarding the “mountains” being covered with water, I, too, believe that explaining how fossils of sea creatures got to the tops of the mountains we have today is easy.

Fourth, Learguy’s quote regarding getting the animals on the Ark…
Well, let’s start with the size of the ark – again, the Bible says the dimensions were 300 cubits, by 50 cubits, by 30 cubits … that converts to 450 feet (135 meters) long, by 75 feet (22.5 meters) wide, by 45 feet (13.5 meters) high. There are other conversions that would make the ark larger, but these dimensions will certainly do. OK, but what does that mean? Well, given these dimensions, the volume would have been 1,500,000 cubic feet OR the capacity of 570 modern railroad cattle cars.

What kind of animals would have to have been on the ark? According to most scholars, the Genesis account excludes sea creatures and insects from being loaded on the ark. This seems reasonable, since remnants of each of these creatures could have logically survived the cataclysm apart from the ark. That leaves mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and Noah's family. Next, we must consider that God instructed Noah to bring animals on the ark "after their kind." This means we should appreciate the scientific concept of variations within a Kind. For example, most biologists agree that wolves, coyotes, dingoes, jackals, foxes, and the hundreds of different domestic dog breeds could all come from a pair of original "dogs." Although genetic code won't allow for variations from Kind to Kind, we now understand how DNA allows for variations within a Kind. Taking such variations into consideration, there are roughly 16,000 distinct “Kinds” of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians now living or known to have lived in the past.

So, let's be generous and add on a reasonable number to include extinct animals. Then add on some more to satisfy even the most skeptical. Let's assume 50,000 animals (25,000 pairs), far more animals than required, were on board the ark, and these need not have been the largest or even adult specimens. Remember there are really only a few very large animals, such as the elephant or hippopotamus, and these could be represented by young ones. Assuming the average animal to be about the size of a sheep and using a railroad car for comparison, we note that the average double-deck railroad stock car can accommodate 240 sheep. Thus, three trains hauling 69 cars each would have ample space to carry the 50,000 animals, filling only 37% of the ark. This would leave an additional 363 cars or enough to make 5 trains of 72 cars each to carry all of the food and baggage plus Noah's family of eight people. Say what you will, but I believe the ark had plenty of space.

We don’t know how long it took Noah to build the ark so we can’t determine how long Noah would have had to collect the necessary animals. The first time Noah is mentioned in the Bible he was 500 years old. He was 600 years old when he entered the ark. So, he had something less than 100 years to both build the ark and gather the animals it would house.

Fifth, your comment about someone writing Biblical accounts that were written “…so long ago we don't know who actually invented the story although there are many "gospels" written by different authors today, so that shows there are witnesses to it happening.... its old.... people have always talked about it so it must be true...”
You are not the only one who believes that because the Bible was written so long ago, it simply cannot be believed. Typically, ancient manuscripts that are considered valuable are judged reliable by a combination of four components: the number of manuscripts that are available; the date when the document was written; the date of the oldest manuscript available; and the number of years between the original and the oldest manuscript available. Here is a list of what is considered to be valuable and authentic ancient manuscripts (you are welcome to check this information through any source you choose):
The Tetralogies by Plato. There are 7 known manuscripts; the document was written in 400BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 900AD; meaning that there was about 1300 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
Gallic Wars by Caesar. There are 10 known manuscripts; the document was written in 60BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 900AD; meaning that there was about 1000 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
The Illiad by Homer. There are 643 known manuscripts; the document was written in 900BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 400BC; meaning that there was about 500 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(history) by Herodotus. There are 8 known manuscripts; the document was written between 480 and 425BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 900AD; meaning that there was about 1300 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(general writings) by Sophocles. There are 103 known manuscripts; the document was written between 496 and 406BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 1000AD; meaning that there was about 1400 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(general writings) by Euripides. There are 9 known manuscripts; the document was written between 480 and 406BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 1100AD; meaning that there was about 1500 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
(general writings) by Aristotle. There are 49 known manuscripts of any one work; the document was written between 384 and 322BC; the oldest manuscript available was written in 1100AD; meaning that there was about 1400 years between the original and the oldest manuscript.
Bible Old Testament There are more than 10,000 known manuscripts; the document was written between 1500 and 400BC; the oldest manuscript originally available was written in 900AD, but with the Dead Sea Scrolls the dates are between 100BC and 100AD; meaning that originally there was about 1300 years between the original and the oldest manuscript, but with the Dead Sea Scrolls the dates are between 1300 and 300 years.
Bible New Testament There are more than 5,664 known Greek manuscripts, between 8000 and 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts; and 8000 Ethopian, Slavic and Armenian manuscripts – that is more than 24,000 manuscripts; the document was written not later than 100AD; the oldest manuscript available was written in 200AD, with a recent fragment written prior to 100 AD; meaning that there was about 100 years between the original and the oldest manuscript with many about 25 years, which is well within the life time of John, an eyewitness and Disciple of Jesus.

With just a quick glance at this information, you should be able to see that both Old and New Testaments are well situated with regard to the number of years between the original writing and the oldest manuscript – and, according to the scholars who put together this comparison evaluation, “wins” hands down in the category of the number of manuscripts currently available. The Bible should be able to be at least as accepted as the other ancient documents.

OK, so what about the reliability of these documents? How can we be sure that what we have written today is what was originally written? Good question. Let me point out that we have an unprecedented number of individual manuscripts of the Bible that have survived history and are available to us today. Why is this important? The more often you have copies that agree with each other, especially if these copies come from different geographical areas of the world, the more these manuscripts can be cross-checked to confirm or deny what was originally written.

As an added bit of comfort, we should all be aware that even if all the Greek manuscripts and early translations of the New Testament were lost, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the mountain of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, etc. still in existence, that were written by the early church founders.

Some ask isn’t it true that the original documents were copied, by hand, over and over again? Wouldn’t that present endless opportunities for unintended, yet perhaps devastating, errors to be made? What about distractions on the part of the scribes or poor eyesight or other human-based errors? All good questions as well. However, there are factors that go quite a distance to rectify such problems. The first, and probably one of the strongest is the Greek language itself. Greek, unlike English, is an inflected language. This means that a specific word in a sentence functions as the subject of the sentence – and this is true regardless of where it is placed in the sentence. Therefore, if, in the English language, a scribe had translated “Dog bites Man” as “Man bites Dog” we would have a serious error. However, in the Greek language, the meaning of the sentence would not be distorted because the subject, verb, and object of the sentence are not changed even if the word sequencing does change.

What about non-human errors, like ancient ink flaking away on some words or letters and giving the reader a different challenge for translation? Another good question. Lets suppose you received a series of telegrams from Reader’s Digest Magazine telling you the following:

First telegram, “You have won the Reader’s Digest One Million *ollar Sweepstakes!”
Second telegram, “You have won the #eade#’s Digest One Million Dolla# Sweepstakes!”
Third telegram, “You have won the Reader’s Digest One Million Dollar S^eepstakes!”

These telegrams contain errors. What would your reaction be? Would you throw out the notifications on the basis that they were in error and therefore unreliable? Or, would you believe that despite the errors, the message is clear and undistorted? You decide.

Sixth, your comment about it appearing “that the four known Gospels were taken from the accounts of Paul. Paul never met Jesus.”
In the first place this is the very first time I’ve ever heard the allegation that the Gospels were written from the “accounts of Paul.” To my knowledge there isn’t any evidence anywhere that anything like this could be alleged. Look at the following:

Matthew. While the gospel itself does not say who the author is, it has been known from a very early time that Matthew wrote this gospel. No one disputed it among the early believers and the early church, when certainly there were many who were Matthew’s contemporaries and some who were antagonistic enough to challenge his authorship if there was any doubt. Matthew was one of the original Twelve Apostles and an eyewitness to the entire ministry of Jesus. It is clear that Matthew’s intended readership was the Jewish population and included many quotations from the Jewish Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament). His intent in writing this Gospel (aside from the inspiration from God) was that he intended to earnestly show the Jews that the Jesus they saw, talked with, listened to, or heard about was the Messiah (the Christ).

Mark. Very early tradition states that Mark, the son of Mary of Jerusalem, wrote this Gospel as a comprehensive look at the life of Jesus, and was directed primarily to those who lived outside of the immediate area of Jesus’ ministry. Here too, no challenge was mounted by any of Mark’s contemporaries as to the validity of his authorship of this Gospel. This is the shortest of the Gospels and emphasizes the superhuman power of Jesus. Mark presents Jesus to his intended readership as God’s Son in action – demonstrating His divinity by His miracles; focusing more on what Jesus did than what He said.

Luke. There has never been much doubt at all that Luke, “the beloved physician” as described in Colossians (4:14), was the author of this Gospel. Just like the authors of the previous Gospels, had there been any disbelief regarding Luke’s authorship, certainly there were many who would have made their objections known. Luke pictures Jesus as the Messiah of Jews and the savior of all mankind, and wrote the Gospel with a universal appeal, but directed specifically to the Gentiles. The aim was to the Greek mind and therefore had to be written in a comprehensive, logical, and orderly manner. In reading the context of Colossians 4:14 (referenced above), we see that Luke was “not of the circumcision,” and was, therefore, probably the only Gentile author in the New Testament.

John. The author of this Gospel identifies himself as the disciple “whom Jesus loved” (see John 13:23 and 20:2). The writer was John the Apostle, and he focused on and stressed the deity of Jesus. The purpose is clearly stated in chapter 20, verses 30-31; “Many other signs therefore Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Unfortunately, Christians are still saddled with critics who insist that since these Gospels are written about the same person, there should be no differences in what is said or how it is said. These critics fail to understand (or more likely - they choose not to understand) that although these Gospels were written about the same person they were written by different persons for different reasons to different audiences. While it is not only likely, it must be expected that some “differences” would be present, but the significant factor that must also be recognized is that none of these “differences” are in conflict with one another.

Seventh, your statement that there is no credible ex-Bible supporting evidence for the miraculous events of this period. It is all very suspicious hearsay, full of inconsistency and inaccuracy mixed with made-up astounding occurrences not recorded elsewhere...
Actually, there is very good reason to believe in the biblical miracles. One highly pertinent factor is the brief time that elapsed between Jesus' miraculous public ministry and the publication of the gospels. There was insufficient time for the development of miracle legends between when the miracle occurred and when it was written about. Many eyewitnesses to Jesus' miracles would have still been alive to refute any untrue miracle accounts (see 1 Corinthians 15:6).

One must also recognize the noble character of the men who witnessed these miracles (Peter, James, and John, for example). Such men were not prone to misrepresentation, and were willing to give up their lives rather than deny their beliefs.

There were also hostile witnesses to the miracles of Christ. When Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, for example, none of the chief priests or Pharisees disputed the miracle (John 11:45-48). If they could have disputed it, they would have. Rather, their goal was simply to stop Jesus (verses 47-48). Because there were so many hostile witnesses who observed and scrutinized Christ, successful "fabrication" of miracle stories in His ministry would have been impossible.

Regarding the issue of hostile witnesses, theologian James Oliver Buswell comments: "In the Biblical events strictly regarded as miracles, the adversaries of faith acknowledged the supernatural character of what took place. After the healing of the man 'lame from his mother's womb,' the rulers and elders and scribes, 'beholding the man that was healed standing with them... could say nothing against it.' But they said, '...that a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem, and we cannot deny it' (Acts 3:1-4:22) In the case of the miracle at Lystra (Acts 14:8-23), the pagans said, 'The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.' With reference to the resurrection of Christ, Paul could ask a Roman court of law to take cognizance of an indisputable, publicly attested fact, for, said he, 'This thing was not done in a corner' (Acts 26:26)."

Further, in Acts 2:22 recall that a bold Peter told the Jewish crowd: "Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, AS YOU YOURSELVES KNOW." If Peter were making all this up, the huge crowd surely would have shouted Peter down. But they didn't, for they knew that what he said was true.

Eighth, your statement that the alleged proceedings took place in a time of total superstition when ‘messiah’s’ were a dime a dozen. The people were scientifically ignorant and prone to harsh Roman rule and were in need of reprise from their situation. Imagine for a moment if on the touted death of Jesus, the dead Saints rose from their graves and mixed with the population. The Romans would have their version of the CIA investigate this wonder in an effort to make their armies invincible to death. Why have we not read about this in history?
Well, perhaps you know something that I don’t, but I’ve not yet heard that there were people running around all over the place claiming to be the Messiah. Remember, there were very specific expectations of the predicted Messiah and many considered it to be incredulous that Jesus would have the “moxy” to claim to BE the Messiah. Any other claimant to that title would certainly have suffered similar scrutiny – and we read about no such occurrences.

Also, it was not the “Saints,” as you call them, who died and rose from their graves. It was Jesus who did that. And it was His Disciples who saw the resurrected Jesus and believed. It was they whose lives were changed as a result, and it was each of those Disciples (except for John) who died a horrible death instead of retracting what they had said about Jesus’ resurrection. If it was a lie, all they had to do to live was to reveal the lie, and probably be made a national hero to the Roman Emperor. I know many people who have believed so very strongly in their cause, that they have died for it. But in no case did any of these persons die knowing that their cause was a lie.

Ninth, your statement about “walking on water and feeding the multitudes etc. would have evoked the same result…”
Here, we’re back to the same thing we discussed regarding the accuracy of the Gospel accounts. If there were reasons to discount any of the miraculous deeds performed by Jesus, certainly there were enough “hostile” persons around who could have publicly discounted, not even all of them, but any ONE of them, and that would have been noteworthy – and probably put a damper on the entire ministry Jesus had. The fact is that no one did. Nowhere is there a claim that Jesus performed miracles in secret. He performed them in the open, on the streets of a very busy Jerusalem.

We also have to recognize that Rome was, at that time, the “center” of civilization – and that Jerusalem was a very long way from Rome. What went on in Judea and Samaria was of little concern to the Roman Emperor as long as it was “under control.” Not very many of the Emperor’s “staff” would want to come in and say something like, “excuse me but there is someone else claiming to be God, and says you’re NOT God.” Remember that the saying about “killing the messenger” got started somewhere.

Tenth, your statement about Christians “…pushing (non-Christians) CONSTANTLY to provide the proof he doesn't exist, but it should be YOU trying to convince us.. that's what god would want right? Preaching... and some of you had the audacity to call US lazy.... erm yeah... whatever…
Actually, Callum, you are correct – the only thing I would add (as I did in my earlier post on intellectual honesty) is that both of us should be trying to provide as much information as possible regarding why our respective world view is more correct than the other. My attempt here with this interminably long post is not to “prove you wrong.” If it comes across that way, I apologize – that is NOT my intent. My intent is to merely answer the questions and respond to the statements made. As I said also in another earlier post, it is NOT my goal to convert you, or anyone else, to Christianity. I see my role as one to provide information, answer questions when asked, and once in a while, to prompt discussions. That’s pretty much it. I don’t normally go around flaunting my religious beliefs – but when I’m asked, I’m certainly not shy about explaining not only what I believe, but why I believe it. If you should choose to believe what I say, then that would be great as far as I’m concerned. However, if you choose to not believe what I say – that’s your choice. What you believe is not my fault (whether it is that God exists or does not exist – your beliefs are not my responsibility) and, therefore, I don’t owe anyone a diligent effort to go “capture” you into the fold, as it were. If I’ve answered your questions and responded to your statements, and I have done so honestly and to the best of my ability, that is all I am obligated to do.

Now, having said ALL this – did I do what I set out to do … answer your questions and respond to your statements? Just let me know – and if you’re still reading this, please accept my thanks for allowing me to believe that my tired fingers and my tired brain have been useful to that extent at least.

Rant Master is bit of an under-statement....

Give me a few days to read the above post.

[niko_future_pilo...]

yeah i know! i dont think ive ever seen a post that long!! did u spend like all night typing it?!?

[c150student]

Again, at the risk of deviating from "the topic," I'd like to try to address your point. You suggest that God should "make Himself known" and still give people the free will to worship or not.

Let me ask two questions:
1) What act would it take for you to be satisfied that God DID "make Himself known" to you? ...and
2) IF God did this for you, what would you say to someone who didn't see that act and still didn't believe?
__________

PS: I could say that I use a lot of words to make sure that I get my point across. And I freely admit that I include information to answer questions that may be generated from having heard or read what I’ve said or written. My excuse is that when I was quite young, my family accused me of having been vaccinated with a phonograph needle. Ummm, sorry, I guess some of you may not be terribly familiar with that ancient form of music reproduction. Oh, well, suffice it to say that I’ve never claimed to be at a loss for words. I’ve also never claimed to be shy about expressing what I believe – however, I DO attempt to make those expressions without offending anyone … and if I have offended anyone here, I do, sincerely, offer my deepest apologies – that was not my intent.

1) What act would it take for me to be satisfied that God DID "make Himself known" to me? Well, if I saw him, or even just heard him. I've never had voices in my head, apart from my own, so if I heard his voice then I'm sure, as long as he said 'I am God' or whatever, then I would believe him. However, I would also make sure that these voices are not some kind of hallucenation (sp?) or a side-effect of a mental disorder. Also, I would have to be awake, consious, and in a suitable frame of mind--not excessively tired, and have no other reason for my mind to be acting strangely (i.e. if I decided to start LSD, I wouldnt believe anything I heard or saw). But if I could be sure that the voices were from him, then that would be sufficient.

2) I would tell everyone about it, but not force them to believe, because I know I wouldnt believe someone who claimed to hear God in their head, or saw God. I dont want to be a preacher, and although I guess I would tell alot of people that he does exist, I wouldnt want to rub it in and go on and on about it if they really didnt care or believe me. That would not, however, change my feelings towards God, and I would still live to his rules as far as possible.

PS: You're excused lol