When you need something that man cannot give, you will believe.

............and that time is coming very soon!!!!

donnie:

When you need something that man cannot give, you will believe.

nicetohave:

............and that time is coming very soon!!!!

I pray she realizes before it's too late.

Listen up! Your belief is in not believing and therefore you will end up where your belief ends. Every faith, like yours, has its rewards. I do not know where your belief in not believing will take you to. If I were you, I will take the path of faith or belief that will lead to eternity, if you're not sure of where your eternity will be.

Most of the great philosophers  we have had who did not believe in the Almighty God died searching for truth. They searched the earth, water, sun and other created things. In all thier wisdom and much learning, they did not know God. What a pity.

Buddah died and it was said that on his death bed  he said, "I am still searching for truth". How sad.

Jesus came and said, "I am the truth". For someone to talk that way, he is either mad or he knows fully well that He is God.

Or smart enough to realise that his show of self-confidence will lead others to believe in him.

Not only self confidence my brother. He performed mighty works that made them marvel. He opened blind eyes, unstopped deaf ears, made the lame walk, fed the hungry.

Above all, he laid down his own life and took it up again. He appeared to many after his ressurection. Then he ascended bofere many witnesses to the right hand of God the father. What a mighty God we serve!

Now He is still reigning, bruising the head of that old serpent  through his seed on the earth.

I get so tired of all of this.

Belief in a supreme being is irrational. It may be comforting, it may give you purpose, it may even help you be a better person, but in the end it remains irrational. Having faith is believing without evidence.
I only believe in what is based on solid evidence. If you want me to believe in your God, bring me evidence of his existence that can withstand scientific scrutiny.
Nobody has ever been able to do that.
Using the Bible to prove a point is useless unless it is supported by external evidence, e.g. there is a strong likelyhood that Jesus actually was a real person because several independent sources point at his existence.

Talk about spirit, God, intentions, and what Jesus actually said, does not lead anywhere because it is intangible and cannot be proven. All these things have to be taken by faith and only through faith do they become a personal reality. Utterly meaningless if you do not met the requirement of having faith. The very survival of this worldview is only relying on the fact that those who subscribe to it do not question it ever.

nferyn, you wrote like a scientist. Can you prove to me the existence or evidence of air? Just as you can not see air, the evidence of air abounds. Same as God. C'mon, lets not be to scientific. Just because these is no solid evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist. Science has not been able to prove that man evolve from organism. If the link and evidence is not presented, then science is based on faith or belief, just as religion is.

There is more than enough solid evidence of the existence of God and his sovereignity, he just is refusing to accept it, even while it stares him in the face

There is ample eveidence everywhere. His miracles are so real. You are only too afraid to find out for yourself.

Geez:

nferyn, you wrote like a scientist. Can you prove to me the existence or evidence of air? Just as you can not see air, the evidence of air abounds. Same as God. C'mon, lets not be to scientific. Just because these is no solid evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist. Science has not been able to prove that man evolve from organism. If the link and evidence is not presented, then science is based on faith or belief, just as religion is.

Yes, you can prove the existence of air. If you really want it, I can go and look it up. Science has most definitely been able to prove the evolution of men from simpler organisms. Once more, if you do not believe this, I'll get you the evidence.
Your comparison is pointless as it has no solid ground. Science is an evidence based process.
Btw, proof is for mathematics and logic, the real world does not work with proof, only evidence

donnie & nicetohave,

If there is ample evidence, why don't you present it. All I have seen is backward reasoning from a preimposed conclusion whereby the evidence is chosen to fit the conclusions, while at the same time ignoring contradictory evidence.

evidence___some take time to materialize, pride may not permit you to admit it on this forum but as donnie has rightly said and thats my last word to you on this evidence/proof stuff: the time is coming when you will require something man cannot give you, and the scientists you trust so much and the medical doctors will look you square in the face and tell you....nferyn, only a miracle can save you now. I recommend you read I believe in Miracles, by Kathryn Kuhlman.....the irony of the whole thing is the birden of proof lies on you, not God.

My dear u better try working ur mind in2 believing in God.he is d author and finisher of ur life.he loves u and he his desparatly waiting4 dat day uld invite him in2ur life.i dnt only biliv in him.i luv him and he his my best friend.why? Cos i tell him anything.and he listens patiently.and wen iv dun smtn prity bad.he 4gives me,den scolds me.den draws me close2him again.try him o.he his da bomb.bliv in God pls ok.

My dear u better try working ur mind in2 believing in God.he is d author and finisher of ur life.he loves u and he his desparatly waiting4 dat day uld invite him in2ur life.i dnt only biliv in him.i luv him and he his my best friend.why? Cos i tell him anything.and he listens patiently.and wen iv dun smtn prity bad.he 4gives me,den scolds me.den draws me close2him again.try him o.he his da bomb.bliv in God pls ok.

Seems this thread was created by an atheist and has been left for another atheist to drag. Where is the Original Poster??

Can't anyone here present a rational argument for the existence of God?
Apparently not

goodguy:

Seems this thread was created by an atheist and has been left for another atheist to drag. Where is the Original Poster??

I don't think it was created by an atheist, but rather by an agnostic.
Anyway, if God is all he is supposed to be, why can't he give any one of you people the inspiration to come up with a compelling, undeniable argument for his existence?

Goodguy & others, Listen Up

Check out these links for answers to the evidence of existence of God Almighty instead of blindly rejecting what is obvious: 

http://www.probe.org/content/view/638/0/

http://www.godandscience.org/

http://www.doesgodexist.org/

Take your time and read and be wise and educated.

Another one for Goodguy and Others - for the existence of your creator.

Click on the link below:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html


Again, take your time and read the answers with open mind, with curiosity and learning attitude, just as you will do when you register for a program that you are interested in knowing about. Of what good is it for you to register for a program you knew very well? Apply the principle of learnability to your curiosity and you will find the answers convincing and clear.

Let me know if you have any other qeustion.

Mister, why are you emphasizing on my name? Have I said that I don't believe in God? I'll check your link anyway.

Goodguy my bad! I mean to include Nuru and nferyn-the scientist.

This is going to be my last and final reply to this thread (part 1 ).
Geez, I have read you links and found them lacking.
I will take the arguments from the first link (http://www.probe.org/content/view/638/0/) and discuss them.

I cannot possibly discuss everything the links of other Christian Apologists touch on, because it would take me literally days, if not weeks to pick apart the false analogy, misrepresentations, out of context quote mining and blatant falsehoods in defense of the Christian position. I have neither the time, nor the patience to invest for an argumentation that will fall on deaf ears anyway.

For those of you who have a sufficiently open mind to look at arguments that do not sprout from a Christian perspective, have a look at the following url's:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/flood.html
http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/trees.htm
http://www.becominghuman.org/
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Next post: http://www.probe.org/content/view/638/0/ skinned ... the Emperor has got no clothes after all.

nferyn, you have dug in to your position and I am not surprised. The complexity of DNA alone is enough proof that humans did not evolve by chance as stated by some scientists. A noted authority in microbiology from the University of Lehigh, USA recently put forward a convincing case for an intelligent design as evolution couldn't have been responsible for the complexity of human system. Whether you like it or not, there is no fool proof link that humans evolved, hence science is partly based on false faith. From the Smithsonian Institute to any archeological findings, the link is still missing. If you cannot show me the fool proof link, then why maintain a position that lacks solid evidence [your quote]. Contradiction or what?

Geez:

nferyn, you have dug in to your position and I am not surprised.

How so?

Geez:

The complexity of DNA alone is enough proof that humans did not evolve by chance as stated by some scientists.

Nowhere in the theory of evolution is chance a determining factor. The only place where chance has any effect is in the random mutations. Natural selection is anything but chance. An environment where a specific mutation increases the fitness of an organism to survive and reproduce is anything but chance. This is once more a complete misrepresentation of a crucial aspect of the theory of evolution.

An analogy: look at mutation as a chance drive process whereby a pile of rocks is formed, all of different sizes.
Natural selection is one hole of a specific diameter that will only let the rocks of that diameter or less pass. You try to make thousands of rocks fit that hole. Some pass, some don't. the resulting selection of rocks are all of a diameter smaller than or equal to that of the hole. the result is anything but random, but meets specific conditions.

The complexity of DNA is perfectly understandable when you take into account:
* the non-random, non-chance driven process of natural selection
* a geological timescale
* gene duplication
* a cumulative increase in complexity in some organisms where complexity increases the fitness.

Geez:

A noted authority in microbiology from the University of Lehigh, USA recently put forward a convincing case for an intelligent design as evolution couldn't have been responsible for the complexity of human system.

You probably mean Prof. Michael Behe, who's positions are not even recognised by his own university?
See: http://www.lehigh.edu/~inbios/news/evolution.htm
Anyway, his arguments for irreducible complexity are thoroughly refuted here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Geez:

Whether you like it or not, there is no fool proof link that humans evolved, hence science is partly based on false faith.

Proof is for mathematics and logic, not for the real world. If you are talking about convincing evidence, this is blatantly false. See:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Geez:

From the Smithsonian Institute to any archeological findings, the link is still missing. If you cannot show me the fool proof link, then why maintain a position that lacks solid evidence [your quote]. Contradiction or what?

Again, if specific fossils would be the only line of evidence for human evolution (and the lack thereof a refutation), you might have had a case, but this is most definitely not the only line of evidence, on the contrary.
By the way, what evidence is there available that all humans evolved from Adam and Eve and what counterevidence is there for that claim. If you look at it with an open mind, you might come out quite surprised.

Why do you people continuously repeat the same empty talking points?

and your many erroneous words are full of proof?

nicetohave:

and your many erroneous words are full of proof?

Show me where my word are erronous. Assertion is neither evidence, nor proof.

nferyn,, evidence that all humans have the same ancestor is not new, however, to say that we evolve from organism that originated by chance without scientific proof other than some similarities is a fraud in science. A simple example is cell, plant and animal cells are closely similar but not perfectly similar. If you maintain that you [not me] evolve from apes, or organism, who come scientists are divided on this claim.  Checkout the work of Micheal Behe, a well known biochemist http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=31&isFellow=true. Why are scientists refuting Darwin Theory if it is valid. By the way, a theory is a theory, unlike scientific laws.

I encourage you to see the other side. I understand that refuting the claim that we are created will mean a lot to many because their life's work hinge on this falsehood.

@ Geez,

Have you even read my reply?
1. Organisms do not originate from other organisms by chance. I explicitly said that your misrepresented the theory of evolution.
2. What similarities do you talk about?
3. Similarities in living organisms are an indicator for evolution and common descent, especially when better mechanisms would be available to an 'Intelligent Designer'
4. We share a common ancestor with apes, as we do with all mammals, all therapods, with all living organisms, including bacteria. The Biological clock (determined by the rate of mutation on non-coding or junk [/i]DNA) shows when exactly we share an common ancestor with what organism, which happens to be perfectly in tune with the geometric dating of the relevant fossils.
5. Some scientists are divided on the claim is an intellectually vacuous claim. There are immensely more working scientists called Steve than the total number of scientist supporting Intelligent Design Creationism or any other form of Creationism (see: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/ or http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18 ) Moreover most of these [i]scientists [/i]make claims on a scientific field that falls outside of their specific field of expertise. What is the value of a mathematician (e.g. Dembski) making claims about biology, without actually having studied the field?
6. Find me one living, working biologist who has contributed anything of value to his field that refutes the Theory of Evolution (which is greatly enhanced after Darwin, by the way) and we'll something to start talking.
7. Please get your facts straight when you're talking about scientific laws and theories:
from http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/oct99/940942724.Sh.r.html

[i]1. Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
2. Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.

You're turning the argument against the wrong person. It is [i]you [/i]that is unwilling to see the other side. I have seen the other side and it is not convincing.

nferyn, I'm not a scientist by profession or career but I can tell you that evolutionists are beginning to see evidence that contracdicts their theory, hence biologist like Micheal Behe and others are finally coming out of the closet of having to accept falsehoods in science. I am not against science but against claims that are wrong. According to Dr. Michael Behe of University of Lehigh, the complexity of protein structure alone does not support the theory of evolution. I will read your reference but I will not be surprised to read the same old arguments that are now being disproved.

I am a trained engineer and I have worked closely with scientists in the medical field for many years. Many have reservations on the theory of evolution.