Welcome back pollution :(

[Steve the Pirate]

Errr...

Not for the first time in this debate, I find a degree of conflict. I raise these points Iron Skilletesque, that is to say I'm not debating per se but curious.

Gig, you say:

No amount of rational debate

when rationalism, arguably, can't be applied to your platform, vis:

Rationalism holds that truth should be determined by reason and factual analysis, rather than faith, dogma, tradition or religious teaching.

I should imagine you can understand my confusion.

Not only that, you and the others haven't refuted a single point that has been raised regarding the actions of those who purport to have acted on God's behalf for the terrible acts that they have committed. You present an eloquent, almost mantra-like, argument to back up your faith but do you consider yourselves guilty by implication when it comes to atrocities committed in the name of your Lord? Will God forgive their sins and accept them into Heaven? If he does then, forgive me, he seems to be wanting it both ways.

No debate from me either you understand, just questions looking for honest answers.

STP

[Bob Hawke]

Freight Dog, I'm convinced, if only our other evangelising friends had the capability to demonstrate gods unimaginable design of the banana for the human hand….but I'm confused dear teacher, what about the girls in Patpong, they do things with bananas which I never thought of. Is this part of gods design too?

Come on you other non-believers, you got roll over for this one.

NEW FOR THE END OF WORLD: christian version only, other faiths need not apply:

Just in, from the office of the Reverend Harold Camping, he has said the world is going to end, again, 21 Oct! Yes, really. For sure. Hum diddely doo, bible told him too, No doubt about it. Get your rapture suits on, it ain't going to be pretty.

In the event the event is a non-event, can you all please refer to the following table for other end of time events programmed for a world near you. It seems the christians are very high contributors to these events. Food for thought. No thinking required, belief is enough. Bring your faith, it should be a bloody good show for skygods and slain sinners. Please ensure no christian is operating any machinery at this time, as in the process of rapture he/she will disappear on you. (I had a co-pilot do a lot that).

As professionals, I think we should all ensure no christians, (good ones of course) are operating, as they will jeopardise the two crew policy, with this disappearing act. Check your rosters, check their faith. Be Safe, don't operate illegally.

pick a year

[too hard]

Could someone please explain why Jesus said this?

Luke 19 verse 27

"As for my enemies who don't want me as their king, bring them here and slaughter them before me".

[Bob Hawke]

Probably because he never said it. Mythical figures can't speak for themselves, it was made up.

[cxorcist]

Because it was part of a parable, Too Hard. Did you bother to read the preceding story or just pluck the verse off some website to show how awful Jesus really was? The "king" represents God on the day of judgement. How do you think you will be judged? I'm guessing things are not looking great for you at this point.

[water check]

Evidence for God


General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview?
by Rich Deem
Introduction
Does everything have a natural cause?

Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.

Rich Deem

This is the first part of a three part introduction to the evidence for belief in the God of Christianity. This first part considers what people believe and why. The main point is that we must consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong, in order to realistically examine the evidence that contradicts our beliefs. This principle applies to both believers and skeptics alike. For myself, having grown up as an agnostic atheist (one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists), I have undergone a couple paradigm shifts as an adult. The first occurred as an undergraduate at USC in the early 1970's, when I went from atheism to deism (a belief that a god created the universe), as a result of my perception that science had failed miserably in its explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth. My second, more difficult paradigm shift occurred in the late 1980's, when I determined that Jesus Christ was the God who created the universe and life in it. If you are ready to consider the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong, and look directly at the evidence, feel free to skip ahead to part 2. However, I feel it is important for skeptics to recognize that not all their beliefs are based upon physical evidence, and are even consistent with their own worldview.
Do skeptics have beliefs?

Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth. Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.
The skeptical worldview

Before we can get started, we need to agree on some principles that govern (or should govern) a skeptical worldview. The first and foremost principle is that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must rely completely upon physical evidence. The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. In other words, a skeptic may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by observational evidence. Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. One must ask the question, "Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?" Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God's supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.
Problem with the skeptical worldview

Let me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein's theory of general relativity,1 and early observational evidence,2 it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the "Big Bang" theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist.3 Attempts to get around the idea4 that the universe had a beginning3 have all met with observational difficulties.5 The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang.6 So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting some level of design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

Part 2: Is God Real? The Evidence for God's Existence
Conclusion Top of page

A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Continued in part 2...

[water check]

Is God Real? Does Science Answer "Is There a God?"
by Rich Deem
Introduction
Does God Exist?

The reality of God's existence is the most important question, since it has eternal consequences. The evidence for God's existence comes primarily from the design of the universe. It is virtually impossible that all the physical laws would just happen to be tightly constrained by chance in order for stars and galaxies to exist.

Rich Deem

Part 1 of the introduction for non-believers showed that strong atheism contradicts its own worldview by believing the universe has a natural cause despite the lack of observational evidence for such a belief. However, since there is no direct observational evidence regarding the origin of the universe, why should one believe the equally unobserved hypothesis that God created the universe? Although there is no direct evidence for the cause of the universe, we now have a fair amount of knowledge about the early history of the universe and the laws that govern it, which provide us with indirect evidence that a super-intelligent Agent designed the universe. In order to keep this essay brief, much of the supporting information will not be included. However, you can click the links to the full-length articles for the details.
Detecting the non-physical

Atheists tend to fall into one of two camps. First, are the atheists who say that science cannot have anything to say about the existence of God. However, recently, the "new atheists" think that they can prove the non-existence of God through science. Although science cannot directly detect God, it can examine His creation. Consider the non-physical concept of love. We all accept that love exists, although it cannot be directly measured by science. However, if we observe those who love each other, we can indirectly measure the affect of love on these individuals' actions. For example, we might notice that they spend a lot of time together, they are constantly helping each other in various ways, and they come to each other's defense when the other is threatened in some way. Although we cannot measure love directly, we can measure the indirect effects of love. Likewise, although we cannot measure God directly, we can examine the universe to detect God's imprint on the physical world.
Evidence for design?

The best evidence for design can be seen in the nature of the universe and how it came to be. The process of discovery continues, since one of the fundamental properties of the universe, dark energy (or the cosmological constant), was discovered late in the last century. New studies continue to add to our knowledge about the universe and its extremely unlikely makeup.
The Big Bang

The Big Bang theory states that the universe arose from a singularity of virtually no size, which gave rise to the dimensions of space and time, in addition to all matter and energy. At the beginning of the Big Bang, the four fundamental forces began to separate from each other. Early in its history (10-36 to 10-32 seconds), the universe underwent a period of short, but dramatic, hyper-inflationary expansion. The cause of this inflation is unknown, but was required for life to be possible in the universe.
Excess quarks

Quarks and antiquarks combined to annihilate each other. Originally, it was expected that the ratio of quarks and antiquarks to be exactly equal to one, since neither would be expected to have been produced in preference to the other. If the ratio were exactly equal to one, the universe would have consisted solely of energy - not very conducive to the existence of life. However, recent research showed that the charge�parity violation could have resulted naturally given the three known masses of quark families.1 However, this just pushes fine tuning a level down to ask why quarks display the masses they have. Those masses must be fine tuned in order to achieve a universe that contains any matter at all.
Large, just right-sized universe

Why the Universe Is the Way It IsEven so, the universe is enormous compared to the size of our Solar System. Isn't the immense size of the universe evidence that humans are really insignificant, contradicting the idea that a God concerned with humanity created the universe? It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen.2 Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 1059 larger,3 the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 1080 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 1021 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.
Early evolution of the universe

Cosmologists assume that the universe could have evolved in any of a number of ways, and that the process is entirely random. Based upon this assumption, nearly all possible universes would consist solely of thermal radiation (no matter). Of the tiny subset of universes that would contain matter, a small subset would be similar to ours. A very small subset of those would have originated through inflationary conditions. Therefore, universes that are conducive to life "are almost always created by fluctuations into the[se] 'miraculous' states," according to atheist cosmologist Dr. L. Dyson.4
Just right laws of physics

The laws of physics must have values very close to those observed or the universe does not work "well enough" to support life. What happens when we vary the constants? The strong nuclear force (which holds atoms together) has a value such that when the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass is converted into energy. If the value were 0.6% then a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. If the value were 0.8%, then fusion would happen so readily that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Other constants must be fine-tuned to an even more stringent degree. The cosmic microwave background varies by one part in 100,000. If this factor were slightly smaller, the universe would exist only as a collection of diffuse gas, since no stars or galaxies could ever form. If this factor were slightly larger, the universe would consist solely of large black holes. Likewise, the ratio of electrons to protons cannot vary by more than 1 part in 1037 or else electromagnetic interactions would prevent chemical reactions. In addition, if the ratio of the electromagnetic force constant to the gravitational constant were greater by more than 1 part in 1040, then electromagnetism would dominate gravity, preventing the formation of stars and galaxies. If the expansion rate of universe were 1 part in 1055 less than what it is, then the universe would have already collapsed. The most recently discovered physical law, the cosmological constant or dark energy, is the closest to zero of all the physical constants. In fact, a change of only 1 part in 10120 would completely negate the effect.
Universal probability bounds

"Unlikely things happen all the time." This is the mantra of the anti-design movement. However, there is an absolute physical limit for improbable events to happen in our universe. The universe contains only 1080 baryons and has only been around for 13.7 billion years (1018 sec). Since the smallest unit of time is Planck time (10-45 sec),5 the lowest probability event that can ever happen in the history of the universe is:

1/1080 x 1/1018 x 1/1045 =1/10143

So, although it would be possible that one or two constants might require unusual fine-tuning by chance, it would be virtually impossible that all of them would require such fine-tuning. Some physicists have indicated that any of a number of different physical laws would be compatible with our present universe. However, it is not just the current state of the universe that must be compatible with the physical laws. Even more stringent are the initial conditions of the universe, since even minor deviations would have completely disrupted the process. For example, adding a grain of sand to the weight of the universe now would have no effect. However, adding even this small amount of weight at the beginning of the universe would have resulted in its collapse early in its history.
What do cosmologists say?

Even though many atheists would like to dismiss such evidence of design, cosmologists know better, and have made statements such as the following, which reveal the depth of the problem for the atheistic worldview:

"This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine-tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'."6
"Polarization is predicted. It's been detected and it's in line with theoretical predictions. We're stuck with this preposterous universe."7
"In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without "miracles," that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely."8

Speculative "solutions" to the design "problem"

The newest "solution" to design in the universe is a belief in the multi-universe theory. This theory requires one to believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Our universe just happened to be one of the few that is able to support life. Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:

"Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger 'multiverse,' each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves."9

What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain any evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Even secular websites admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than unfalsifiable metaphysics:

"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."10

According to Paul Davies:

"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not�.If instead, the other universes are relegated to ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."

Theistic solution - measurable design

There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His MindOn the other hand, the deist or theist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither the multiverse nor the "God hypothesis" is testable. However, the "God hypothesis" is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model. The evidence for design in the universe and biology is so strong that Antony Flew, a long-time proponent of atheism, renounced his atheism in 2004 and now believes that the existence of a Creator is required to explain the universe and life in it. Likewise, Frank Tipler, Professor of the Department of Mathematics at Tulane University, and a former atheist, not only became a theist, but is now a born-again Christian because of the laws of physics.11
Who created God?

A common objection to the "God hypothesis" is the problem of how God came to be. If everything has a cause, why does God get an exception? The problem with such reasoning is that it assumes that time has always existed. In reality, time is a construct of this universe and began at the initiation of the Big Bang.12 A God who exists outside the time constraints of the universe is not subject to cause and effect. So, the idea that God has always existed and is not caused follows logically from the fact that the universe and time itself was created at the Big Bang. The Bible makes these exact claims - that God has always existed13 and that God created time,14 along with the entire universe,15 being described as an expanding universe.16 Why can't the universe be uncaused? Of course, it is possible that the universe is uncaused. However, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that contradicts that idea (see part 1). So, an atheist who claims to live by logic and evidence cannot arbitrarily assign eternity to a universe that is clearly temporal.
Conclusion Top of page

God was here: No, God has not left His name etched onto the surface of planets. However, there is abundant evidence that the universe was designed by super intelligent Agent, who purposed that the universe should exist and be capable of supporting advanced life. The design of the universe is just one line of evidence that tells us that God is real and created the universe. The design of the earth and solar system is also quite impressive. Likewise, chemistry and physics preclude the possibility that life evolved on earth. In addition, human beings are remarkably different from every other animal on earth, suggesting a departure from naturalistic processes. Continue to part 3: Is Christianity True?...

[water check]

Is Christianity True? Evidence for the Truth of the Christian Religion
by Rich Deem
Introduction
Why Christianity?

Many people think that religious truth claims are beyond our ability to test for truthfulness. Although many claims cannot be directly tested (such as claims about morality), nearly all religions make claims about the nature of our world (the creation). Don't throw your hands up in the air in defeat. Test the claims!

Rich Deem

Part 2 of the introduction for non-believers provided a survey of the evidence suggesting that the universe was designed by an intelligent agent. I came to that conclusion in 1973 as a result of my studies as an undergraduate at the University of Southern California (not exactly a bastion of religious fervor). However, it took another 15 years before I identified the Designer. Like many other skeptics, I assumed that one could not determine which god (if any) were correctly described by any of the world's religious traditions. Looking back, the primary reason for my failure to identify the Designer was due to a lack of diligent research on my part. The intent of this page is to get you started on your research.
How does one test religious claims?

When I was a young adult, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Carl Sagan's Cosmos specials on PBS. Sagan had a way to make cosmology interesting even to biologists. I waited all week to watch his program. Later, in his Gifford lectures, Carl Sagan talked about how to test religious truth claims:

"Now, what happened before that [Big-Bang]? There are two views. One is 'Don't ask that question,' which is very close to saying that God did it. And the other is that we live in an oscillating universe in which there is an infinite number of expansions and contractions. The former of these views happens, by chance, to be close to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic view, the latter, close to the standard Hindu views. And so, if you like, you can think of the varying contentions of these two major religious views being fought out in the field of contemporary satellite astronomy. Because that's where the answer to this question will very likely be decided. This is an experimental question. And it is very likely that in our lifetime we will have the answer to it. And I stress that this is very different from the usual theological approach, where there is never an experiment that can be performed to test out any contentious issue. Here there is one. So we don't have to make judgments now. All we have to do is maintain some tolerance for ambiguity until the data are in, which may happen in a decade or less." (Carl Sagan, 1985 Gifford Lectures).

Multiverse is science?

Multiverse theories aren't theories-they're science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence.

John Horgan, agnostic

Guess what? Sagan was right (although it took a little more than a decade). Sagan's second alternative, the oscillating universe model has been discredited by a lack of sufficient matter to cause a contraction.1 It was further discredited by the discovery of dark energy, which shows that the universe is actually expanding at an ever increasing rate.2 So, Sagan's first alternative is the one that turned out to be true. My guess is that he was betting on the second. Of course, the atheists haven't lined up to become Christians, but instead have invented their own form of metaphysics (i.e., religion). Atheists have invented the multiverse, a kind of super-universe that randomly spews out other universes (with differing physical laws) at will. The multiverse sounds scientific, but it is really philosophical wishful thinking, since there is no evidence supporting the idea. If one really thinks about it, the multiverse is impossible over the entire period of eternity (which is what atheists would propose for the age of the "invisible" part of our universe - if such a thing exists at all). The problem is that our part of the multiverse has managed to make itself completely inaccessible to contraction and future expansion. If it were possible for one part of the multiverse to become thermodynamically dead, it would be expected to be possible for others. Even if entry into such a state is extremely unlikely, eternity is a very, very long time. Certainly by now (over all eternity), the entire multiverse would have entered into one of these thermodynamically dead zones. So, one would expect the entire multiverse to have suffered thermodynamic death by now. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense that the universe is eternal with the characteristics that we observe. We are left with Sagan's first alternative - God did it. Atheists like to say that there is no evidence for God's existence and pretend such evidence doesn't exist. However, Sagan realized that science could judge between religious claims.
More religious claims

The example of distinguishing between Hinduism versus the Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation account is just one of many ways to examine the truth claims of the world's religions. Since most of the world's religions developed hundreds to thousands of years ago, it is a fairly trivial matter to examine their material for scientific and other errors. It would not be expected that ancient peoples would be able to accurately describe all modern scientific principles. Only those individuals who were given divine revelation would be expected to give an accurate account of our world.
Science and the Quran

Farewell Israel: Bush, Iran, and The Revolt of IslamFor example, the Quran3 says that the heavens and the earth were once joined together as one unit before it was split into two parts.4 Obviously, this creation model could never be applied to any kind of Big Bang theory. However, the Bible clearly presents the creation of the universe as an expanding universe model in which God spreads out the stars.5 The Quran says that Allah created seven heavens6 and that the stars are found in the lowest heaven.7 In addition, the Quran says that earth is like a carpet8 that is held in place by the heavy mountains, described as being like tent pegs,9 so that it won't move or shake.10 In contrast, the Bible associates the mountains with shaking11 and says that, instead of placing the mountains on the earth, God caused the mountains to rise up.12 So, the Bible accurately describes the mountains as being associated with tectonic activity and volcanism whereas the Quran says that the mountains were placed on the earth to prevent shaking. The Quran says that the Sun "sets in a spring of murky water."13 In contrast to the Bible14 the Quran presents a flat earth model for the earth and universe, which is clearly at odds with the facts of science.
Science and LDS scriptures

When dealing with more modern religious traditions, tests of scientific accuracy are more difficult to deploy, since those religions have the advantage of scientific revelation since the Enlightenment. Surprisingly, even some of the more modern religious traditions make claims that can be disproved through the discoveries of modern science. A prime example of this principle can be found in the religious writings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons). Although calling themselves "Christians," LDS theology is radically different from historic Christianity15 and contains its own set of religious writings (in addition to the Bible). Even though written in the 19th century, LDS religious writings make numerous scientific errors, including astronomical errors,16 archeological and historical errors,17 and genetic/hereditary errors for people groups.18 Because of these problems, the LDS religion can be safely discarded from accurately representing the true nature of God, having been shown to not be divinely inspired.
Christian truth claims

For the age in which it was written, the Bible makes some rather surprising claims regarding the nature of the universe and how it was created. For example, the Bible says that time was created by God when He created the universe.19 Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, demonstrating that time began at the formation of the universe.20 Of course, the biggest coup of the Bible was to declare that the universe had a beginning21 through an expanding universe model.22 The New Testament even declares that the visible creation was made from what was not visible and that dimensions of length, width and height were created by God.23 In addition, the Bible refuted steady-state theory (saying that the creation of matter and energy has ended)24 long before science made that determination. The Bible also states that the universe is subject to decay and will wear out.25 The existence of the second law of thermodynamics, coupled with recent discoveries indicating that the universe is expanding at an increasing rate, with an insufficient amount of matter to stop that contraction, guarantees that the Bible is correct on this claim, also.

Besides these stunning revelations about the nature of the universe, the Bible describes several properties of the earth that were not confirmed by science until hundreds of years after the Bible first made the claim. Examples include the claim that air has weight,26 the existence of valleys27 and vents28 on the bottom of the sea, ocean currents,29 and the fact that winds blow in circular paths.30 These are remarkable claims that could not have been directly observed by a bunch on nomadic sheep herders. Where did this information come from?
Christian worldview

A worldview is a set of constructs by which we interpret how the world operates. The Christian worldview operates on the basis of the theology presented in the Bible. Below is an example comparison between a purely naturalistic worldview and the Christian worldview.
Christian vs. Naturalistic WorldviewPremise Christianity Naturalistic Materialism31
Purpose of the universe The purpose of the universe is to provide a temporary habitation for human beings to choose to love or reject God.32 The universe has no purpose. It began as some random quantum variation and will likely end in thermodynamic heat death.
Value of the human species Human beings are more valuable than any other species of life, since they were created in the image of God.33 Human beings evolved from other species, so they have no more intrinsic value than any other species of life on earth.
Purpose of human life The purpose of human life is to bring glory to God34 through loving Him35 and our fellow human beings.36 There is no ultimate purpose to human life. We live and we die and it doesn't matter what we do with our life.
Value of individuals All human beings are valuable to God37 and none has any more value than any other.38 Those who contribute more to society are more valuable than those who contribute less.
The work of individuals The most valuable work a person can do are spiritual service to God (worship)39 and to humans (good works).40 "He who dies with the most things wins." Wealth and fame will bring you happiness. Rich celebrities win!
Morality Moral laws are given by God, and like the laws of physics, do not change.41 Immoral behavior is not justified by circumstances.42 Morality is determined by society and can be changed at any time to reflect current practices. Immoral behavior can be justified to bring about a "greater good."

Worldviews can be tested using the following criteria43:

Logical consistency
Balanced (not too simple or complex)
Explanatory power and scope
Correspondence to well-established facts
Verifiable (truth claims can be verified or falsified)
Applicable to real life
Fills existential needs

Using the above criteria, it can be seen that Christianity and naturalism exhibit different strengths.

Although both Christianity and naturalism are logically consistent within their own spheres, they come to radically different conclusions.
Both worldviews are reasonably balanced, although naturalism must resort to extremely complex hypotheses to explain the origin of the universe and the origin of life.
The explanatory power and scope of Christianity and naturalism tend to lie in different areas. Naturalism's strength lies in its explanation of the history of the earth and how living organisms function on a physical basis. It has failed to adequately explain the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the development of human consciousness, altruism and morality. Christianity fails to explain the details involved in much of how the physical world works (although it was never intended to do so). However, much of this information was unavailable to naturalism until the last 50 years. Christianity does address the big questions of origins (the origin of the universe, the origin of life on earth, and the development of human consciousness, altruism and morality), which naturalism inadequately addresses.
As demonstrated above, Christianity provides some surprisingly accurate explanations of our physical world, even though it was written thousands of years before actual proof of those claims could be experimentally verified. In addition, it is historically accurate, and its prophecies go far beyond what would be expected by chance.
Scientific naturalism has always claimed to provide explanations that are verifiable and can be falsified experimentally. However, there has been a recent change in the explanations of those espousing the naturalism-only worldview. As atheists attempt to answer the "big questions," explanations have become more metaphysical and complicated in nature. Explanations such as the multiverse are probably not even falsifiable.
One of naturalism's big failures is in its ability to provide application to real life issues for human beings. Explanations of human romantic love and need for interpersonal relationships, our need to create beautiful works of art and music, and our desire to help others (altruism) seem to defy naturalistic explanation. Attempts to fit these realities into the Darwinian evolutionary box have failed miserably. Even the evil side of our natures seems extreme from an evolutionary standpoint. Christianity provides a far superior explanation for why we behave the way we do.
The largest problem for naturalism is a failure to provide for the existential needs of human beings. People have a need for meaning, a purpose for living, and a hope for the future. Naturalism provides for none of this. In fact, naturalism destroys the idea that humans have a purpose, and leaves individuals only with the prospect of aging, suffering and eventual death and non-existence. In addition, naturalism says that there is no hope for the human species, since we will be eventually destroyed by an asteroid collision, a nearby supernova event, global warming, or solar expansion. Even if we manage to escape from our solar system to another, the eventual collision of our galaxy with the much larger Andromeda galaxy will cause chaos throughout most of the galaxy. After this time, we can expect that the accelerating expansion of the universe will eventually rip apart the entire universe into its elementary particles as the universe suffers permanent heat death - the end of all life. So much for the "hope" from naturalism. The human need for a spiritual connection causes even most naturalists to go into meditation, study Buddhism, etc. to attempt to fulfill this need. When I was an agnostic, the lack of purpose in my life was eventually disturbing, as my life settled from the franticness of college into the complacency of a steady job. Even though the science in my job was exciting, there was something missing - ultimate purpose.

As a person who originally followed a naturalistic-only worldview, I have found the Christian worldview to be a far superior explanation for human life. This doesn't mean that I have completely rejected the science behind naturalism. As a fulltime research scientist, I still find the biological sciences fascinating and captivating. However, unlike those who follow a naturalism-only worldview, I have not rejected a priori the possibility of supernatural phenomena. For more information on testing the Christian worldview, please see A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.
Worldviews and moral choices

Three recently published studies show that worldview beliefs influence moral behavior. The first study showed that atheists were less likely to consider certain moral choices as being "very important", especially patience, forgiveness, and generosity. A second study showed that teens who were not exposed to religious teaching were significantly more likely to be involved in negative behaviors than those who attend church. A third study showed that belief in the atheistic concept of determinism is correlated with an increased tendency to cheat. Even a short reading of a passage denying free will produced more cheating behavior among randomly-selected subject groups. These studies show that the promotion and prevalence of atheism in society can be expected to result in negative consequences to societies.
Conclusion Top of page

Yes, many religious truth claims are testable. Those who are truly interested in whether a religion represents truth should test the claims to see how they stand against the evidence. Modern cosmology destroys the Hindu model for the universe, but affirms the Judeo-Christian model. Cosmology and earth sciences destroy the strange assertions of the Quran. Archeology, cosmology and molecular biology destroy the claims of the LDS Book of Mormon., but confirm many claims from the Bible. For an ancient document written thousands of years ago, the Bible makes some remarkable scientific claims - many of which were not verified until this century. However, the Bible was never written to serve as a science textbook, but was given as guide to having a relationship with God and our fellow human beings. The Bible answers the "why" and "what" questions that naturalism says are unanswerable:

Why does the universe exist?
Why do human beings exist?
What is my purpose?
Why do I do things I know I shouldn't do?
Is this all there is?

General Introduction for Non-Believers, Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview? | Part 2: Is God Real? Does Science Answer "Is There a God?"

[Captain Dart]

A bigger load of self-righteous twaddle I have yet to read. Non-specific, ambivalent, written like a newspaper horoscope, devoid of provable facts and all it really says is 'your argument is correct because it was written in a book'.

There is no need for a 'designer', the universe 'just is'. What's the problem? The human is just another vehicle for the DNA chemical spiral to replicate itself, its 'good' and 'bad' behavior self-regulates and perpetuates the species.

You 'Christians' are an arrogant lot, aren't you? But it's funny that 'god' never chooses to reveal him or herself, for example by manifesting a giant can of beer in sky over New York City (not a can-shaped hot air balloon, airship or hologram just in case you or your fellow delusionists are thinking of trying it then claiming it as a 'miracle').

It's all about convincing yourself that there is a 'god'; therefore there will be a 'heaven' and if you're a good boy you'll go there.

[Iron Skillet]

Water check, really? Seriously? It takes one sentence to dismiss and ignore that stuff you pasted. It's NOT an argument, just a bunch of nonsense and untruths and baloney. Don't you see how much you have been fooled if you actually rely upon such crap to support your position? Come on, man, think about it! Think! (Or, pick any paragraph and research it yourself in a real science book or ask a scientist at a university.)

Do you really think anyone with a properly functioning brain will respectfully read one sentence by Rich Deem, a truly pathetic and totally invalid source of non-knowledge, and consider any of it non-junk? Think, man! Think!

Every one of Deem's statements is dismissed by the educated and knowledgeable people who study and practice and teach science with only one motivation: Finding the scientific truth on which to base conclusions, without using a Bronze Age silly story book of god!

Making up fake terms or using fancy words to baffle and/or impress people only works on other fools! These words mean nothing in Christian arguments, though they do demonstrate the level of ignorance and idiocy involved.

And back to why Christians should not/cannot be debated:

False statements about science by inventing junk science are not evidence, and you cannot reason with someone who prefers fake junk scientific arguments over real science, and worse, one who actually considers fake, religiously-motivated, misunderstood, twisted junk science to be true.

Making up junk science does not alter or affect real science and its evidence.

Ignorant, nonsensical statements using invalid/fake/pretend science is not evidence. You simply cannot respond to or discuss science with people who display no knowledge of what real science is, and/or by their statements show they have a complete misunderstanding of science.

Feeding nonsense arguments filled with totally false, invalid, and pretend scientific points to gullible, ignorant, uneducated, superstitious believers in nonsense works wonders for gathering more cult members and money, but it does not impress anything upon those who understand science, other than pity toward the foolish writer.

Making up false and invalid arguments for which there is no more scientific debate, then using fake non-scientific arguments using fancy science terms to justify the position is simply laughable and embarrassing. Still, Christians continue this favourite tactic all the time, and it works on each other, but not with those who take the time to research real science, visit real museums, take real science classes and think for themselves.

Have a nice day!

[cxorcist]

Dart,

If you knew anything about Christianity you would know that it is only necessary because we are not righteous, and we never will be. Also, being a "good boy" will not get you to heaven. Hence, the need for Christ(ianity).

Atheists,

Why do you so vigorously oppose Christian believers? Seriously, do you spend this much time confronting all followers of things you don't believe in? When someone holds a different belief from me, I consider it and use it to challenge my own views. If it is hogwash, I don't spend heaps of time opposing the believer(s). You are doing precisely that. Why? I have some ideas, but I suspect you won't like hearing them.

CXorcist

[stillalbatross]

Amazing that after all these threads there isn't one comment from a christian regarding the other religions. There's lots of the "you will feel my gods wrath", nice. If fear of your religion keeps you there and makes you happy, maybe in a sad way good for you.

But I must say I'm starting to feel sorry for you lot as christians when you can't accept that my god is the only god in my world and you feel a need to demean my god to give yours and you an ego boost.

Isn't it written somewhere in your religion book a tolerance to other religions and gods? It is written in mine that some, like yourselves, are lost and confused. I am happy to wait until you find happiness in my god which I believe is far more uplifting than the happiness you will find in christianity. Which isn't really happiness, it's just fear of your god striking you down.

[Bob Hawke]

Cxorist,

You faith is responsible for the death of millions, it has extinguished the cultural heritage of countless communities, it has provided cover for some of the nastiest sexual predators on the planet and still continues to do so. It has shown that its leaders become obsessed with money and power beyond excess.. And you want to be part of this?

WC

An excellent piece of cut and paste there. Your research is outstanding. As Iron Skillet pointed out - it's pseudo science unfortunately. Hardly peer reviewed stuff and ultimately very biased. Now, where the words, Christian, Christ, God appear; they could equally be replaced with Moslem, Islam, Allah for instance. I have read similar arguments from conservative Moslems. So my questions is why haven't you embrassed the other true faith?

[crwjerk]

The only pollution in this thread is all this religious rubbish. Can we get back to the topic or close it down?

[cxorcist]

Is it Christianity that killed and abused millions or was it "Christians" acting in a very un-Christian way? Those actions are/were a gross perversion of Christianity. Such behavior is hardly the sole domain of "Christians".

Do you blame being Germanic for the mass slaughter of European Jews? Do you blame Islam for the 9/11 and other terror attacks? Is atheism to blame for the murder and horrific injustice of Russian gulags?

It seems to me that murderous and abusive atrocities are part of the human condition and not unique to a certain religion, race, or belief system.

To answer your question, not that you answered any of mine, yes I want to be Christian because of who Christ is, not because the Christian church is anywhere near perfect or even what it should be.

[Iron Skillet]

Not debating with irrational people, just answering some questions:

Is it Christianity that killed and abused millions or was it "Christians" acting in a very un-Christian way?
It was Christians rallied under the fever of faith in the name of their god, usually led by the top commanders of the religion (popes, kings, prince-bishops, etc.) who used the religion to control, unite and ignite the people.

Those actions are/were a gross perversion of Christianity.
No, just read your bible, where all these ideas come from, and the leaders who interpret it for their followers.

Such behavior is hardly the sole domain of "Christians".
Correct, it is the same for all religion-based attacks on others, or attacks on other religions.

Do you blame being Germanic for the mass slaughter of European Jews?
Yes. It was the Germans, in the name of a German empire, led by the German leader, who did this, while most of the regular Germans accepted and helped it all along.

Do you blame Islam for the 9/11 and other terror attacks?
Yes, of course, just as the Christians went off on their Crusades in the name of Jesus, Muslims attack others in the name of Islam for Allah (incidentally, that imaginary ghost is the same Abrahamic god that Christians and Jews worship).

Is atheism to blame for the murder and horrific injustice of Russian gulags?
No, none of what was done in the gulags was done in the name of a lack of belief in ****oism, Buddhism, Pastafarianism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, or any other religion.

It seems to me that murderous and abusive atrocities are part of the human condition and not unique to a certain religion, race, or belief system.
Correct. Just like many other animal species that have evolved. However, the point is that religious people are motivated by their faiths/gods/fear of hell/desire to reside in heaven/belief in martyrdom/life after death, not by hunger or self-defence or morality or honour, to carry out their Inquisitions, circumcisions, fatwas, jihads, 9/11, suicide pacts, denial of medical attention, massacres like Srebrenica/Holocaust/Israeli wars/The 100 Years War, etc.

To answer your question, not that you answered any of mine, yes I want to be Christian because of who Christ is, not because the Christian church is anywhere near perfect or even what it should be.
Christ is a fairy tale in a discredited Bronze Age nonsense story book, and he has never done anything anywhere for anyone because he does not exist except in his own story book. Think!!

As for the motivation to bring all this nonsense and irrationality to light and stop letting religious nutcases steamroll the planet with their insanity, it is because all these ridiculous religious beliefs continuously affect MY life:

1. Terrorist attacks
2. Airport security
3. Food/liquor/clothing/business laws
4. Marriage/divorce laws
5. Interference with and denial of women's rights and equality
6. Interference with my rights
7. Judicial systems corrupted
8. Electoral systems hijacked
9. Foreskins cut off boys
10. Relationships destroyed due parental/societal religious pressure
11. Ramadan/Eid el-Fitr insanity
12. Christmas/Easter/etc. insanity
13. Middle East weekends on Thurs/Fri
14. Jewish sabbath
15. HIV and other infections due non-acceptance of condoms
16. Babies raped by the holiest of holy men
17. Predators using religious pressure
18. Organized molestation protected for generation after generation
19. Unimaginable wealth wasted on silly old book stories
20. Massive amounts of taxes not paid
21. Generations of people denied access to proper education about our world
22. Generations of people fooled by superstition
23. Children taught to ignore science
24. Grown ups believing they can believe whatever they want and it's ok
25. Science continuously under attack by ignorant crazy people
26. This list can go on forever.

Have a nice day!

[cxorcist]

Skillet,

I presume you have studied Josephus. Do you dismiss his historical works with the same ease as those of the Bible? If so, how convenient!

CXorcist

[Iron Skillet]

When you have nothing to say, just change the topic?

Yes, I know of Josephus.

Yes, I dismiss all story books, specially really old ones, that have no reliable supporting evidence to authenticate them. The writings of Josephus are controversial and there are many arguments for and against their authenticity.

When a historical document is reliable, it is supported and corroborated by other evidence and accepted as reliable or partially reliable by those who spend their lives examining such things. The quote mining of creationists is irrelevant.

Reliability is not inherent with religious books that mix some historical facts that can be corroborated with reliable evidence together with supernatural mumbo jumbo nonsense and silly stories that are not.

When we don't know something, then we don't know it. Yet. When we know something, like that evolution is a fact just like gravity, the composition of water and the laws of motion, then we know it because of the mountains of evidence for it and the lack of evidence against it, and the law or principle or theory works all the time. When science is wrong, they fix it when new discoveries or knowledge or experimentation require it.

Religions don't do that to the content of their Bronze Age (and Industrial Age, like Mormon) books. Then again, the bible did do one update a couple of thousand years ago (in another language, 1400 years or so before the printing press...accurate!) to include the absurdly bogus story of god inseminating a married virgin (?) without her permission with his own self that is also his son so that he could kill himself and float up to heaven to be with himself and have everyone worship him and himself and his ghost forever or else go burn in hell forever with another god that father/son/holy ghost can't seem to control....all in the name of capitalized Love! Think, man, think!!!

Coo koo!!!

[Apple Tree Yard]

Been reading this thread with interest. There is one overriding characteristic of the posts. The non-christians are incapable of making their argument without resorting to ridicule and vitriol. Usually that's indicative of a weak argument. Not taking sides, just an observation. I do think it says something about the type of people inherent in each group. WC, I thought the essays you posted were very thought provoking. Skillet, you seem more fervent in your 'beliefs' than the Christians....a bit ironic.

[water check]

Iron Skillet. I am glad you keep posting, as you are one of the best examples I have come across as to the type of person an Atheist tends to be. As AP said in an earlier post, I am also not concerned with your rude and close minded opinions. I offer the information I have for the benefit of others who are reading this thread and have a better sense of understanding that there might be more to their existence than the simply physical. I have one question for you: Why so angry and why so determined to discredit the concept of a living God? (...perhaps you simply don't like the idea of being accountable to a higher power...).