Thursday, September 18, 2008

Why I Don't Believe In God (Continued)

As I mentioned in the beginning of the first "Why I don't believe in God" post, I stated that the idea of Jesus began sounding like a fairy tale. I am going to elaborate on that because it too is a valid reason why I no longer believe.

I vividly remember sitting in Sunday school one day and as we talked about Jesus and the things he did, I couldn't help but feel that it all sounded so silly. Walking on water... it just can't happen. So in this post, I am going to ignore all the evidence and just appeal to your rational brain to use a little common sense.

We know that superheroes aren't real and yet we love to hear stories and watch movies about them. They do great things; use their special powers to fly around, protect the innocent, and fight crime. If you have noticed, lately there have been TONS of superhero movies coming out. Our culture loves them.

But deep inside, we all know that they aren't real. Supernatural beings with hidden identities do not really exist. They don't fly around, they don't protect, and they don't fight crime. There is no such thing as supernatural powers. There just isn't. And yet for some reason, although we know it isn't real, we turn around and give our gods the very same attributes that we give our imaginary superheroes! And for some reason, although they are no different, people think they are. We know that superheroes don't really exist, but our true god does, and the two have very similar attributes. If you really stop and think about it, it makes no sense at all.

But this makes sense: Supernatural beings do not exist. God is supernatural. Therefore, god does not exist.

We are all aware of the saying, "Nothing is certain but death and taxes."

Death, it is inevitable. All things die. Eventually our own sun will run out of fuel and will burn out. That is still millions of years in the future so we don't have to worry about it now. But the fact remains that all things die. Nothing lives forever. And since that is a fact, then god, as he is believed to be, can't exist. There is no such thing as an immortal being.

And just as there is no immortal being, death is final. Once you're dead, you're dead. The Bible tells several stories of the dead being brought back to life, many of them having been dead for several days. That just doesn't happen!

If Jesus (or god) created this world and applied certain laws to it, then why would Jesus come to earth and break his own rules?
  • Jesus supposedly walked on water. Since that is a feat that is known to be impossible, it couldn't have actually happened.
  • Jesus supposedly ascended into heaven. Since no one I know can fly around without the aid of a machine, then I know that story is not true.
  • Jesus supposedly fed 5,000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish. Since that is simply an impossible feat, it can't be true.
  • Jesus supposedly turned water into wine. Since it is scientifically impossible to make wine from just water, I know that "miracle" didn't really happen.
  • Jesus supposedly brought several people back from the dead. Since that is impossible, I know it's not really true.
  • Jesus' mother was supposedly a virgin. But since a virgin can't possibly be pregnant, then I know that story is not true.

As you can hopefully see, all you need is a little common sense and it becomes quite apparent that Jesus was not what the Bible claims he was. The miracles and events described defy everything we understand about our world. Superheroes don't exist and neither do their powers.

On top of that, have you ever stopped to think about God's priorities? He will help you find your missing car keys, but does nothing to help starving children in Africa. Are your keys more important than starving children? Apparently so.

If god only provides miracles for the faithful, then why do so-called miracles happen to everyone? In a previous post, I described how I avoided getting a speeding ticket because I listened to my feelings. A Christian would give god credit for that, so what about me? I'm an atheist so god shouldn't do anything for me, right?

And what about people of all different faiths, both Christian and non? How do you account for nearly all of them claiming that miracles happen in their lives? Why does everyone, including atheists, get equal treatment from god?

The most obvious answer is that god isn't there and each person who experiences a "miracle" is just having a stroke of good luck or a coincidence. Believers and non-believers have the same injury and accidental death rates per-capita. It seems clear that god treats everyone equally, whether they believe in him or not! What this actually means, is that there is no god protecting his faithful believers. I know it's hard for a believer to swallow, but it is the truth.

If a belief in god is supposed to enrich your life, why has my life only gotten better since I kicked out god? God is supposed to reward me for faithful belief and punish me for ignoring him. But it seems that the opposite is actually true. I don't make a whole lot of money, but ever since my apostasy, the finances have been getting better and better.

Isn't my life supposed to go to pot? Aren't I supposed to become a scruffy, stinky, loud drunk? If that is the case, why am I pleasant to be around? Why am I helpful and friendly? If you met me in person, you would never guess that I am atheist. In fact, one person actually told me that I am the most Christ-like person they have ever known! How can that possibly be the case?

I read a statistic once, and I can't remember where, that stated that an atheist is more likely to be a good Samaritan than a believer! Now why is that? I believe it is because we aren't carrying around attitudes like "I'm-saved-and-you're-not" and "I'm-better-than-you-because-I-have-god-in-my-life". Because we don't hold ourselves above others, it is easier to love them and help them.

Atheists are down to earth people who take things at their face value. If I find my missing keys, it is because I looked for them; not because god found them for me.

Now why do you believe? It is because if you don't, you will be damned. Why else would you? But now that fear is gone, fear of that angry, vengeful god who can't wait to damn me and yet loves me so much. I don't have to live my life wondering at every turn if god is pleased with me. I don't have to waste my life in fear of some invisible god. Why should I spend my entire life to prove myself to some god, when that god can't even take one split second from his busy schedule and show himself to me? Why is a relationship with god so one-sided?

God is an awful parent. If parents raised their children the way god does, it would go something like this: a child is born and given a letter containing a set of instructions to follow. The parent would NEVER contact the child. The child would have to learn right and wrong from the letter. He'd better interpret it correctly! Now the parent would never contact the child but would watch them through the lens of a high-powered rifle. As soon as the child makes just one mistake, the parent would blow their kids head off with the rifle. Vague instructions (Bible) and no room for error (the child's mistake) equals an extreme punishment (the rifle). Does that sound like a loving parent to you? No. But that's just how god does it!

Believe and obey or fry! That's not a loving father in heaven. That's abuse! It's not how a real father would ever treat children that he loves dearly. Why should I believe in a cruel father especially when there is no evidence at all to prove he is even there. Even if he was real, why would I want to? He is a dictator and a tyrant! Obey or fry! That's your choice. God is a piss-poor example of what a loving father should be.

Now, as far as the belief that I was born into sin: rubbish. I refuse to believe that just because I was born, just because I am alive, that I am evil and deserve to go to hell. Only a father who would want to completely ruin my self esteem would teach me something like that. I refuse to believe that I am evil just because I exist. But if you believe in the Christian god, then you automatically believe that you are scum and deserve to burn in hell forever. I can't and won't believe that. No loving god would send an innocent baby to hell, but the Christian god would! Nope! I refuse to worship a god who tells me right to my face that I am a worthless piece of shit. Sorry. Anyone who tries to tell me that can just kiss my ass!

Prayers and faith have no effect on the outcome of our every day lives. It has been scientifically studied and proven.

And as I stated at the end of my last post, if god created this world, then a scientific study of that world should more clearly reveal the nature of god. But since the opposite is actually true, then the god of the Bible could not have possibly created this earth.

A belief in god just goes against my better judgement...

And that's why I don't believe in god!

7 comments:

Mormon411 said...

After a lengthy argument over who was a better computer user, Jesus and Satan decided to have a contest, which would be judged by god. They would both be given identical assignments and whoever completed them the fastest would be the winner.

Just as both were scrambling to finish, the power cut out causing both computers to instantly shut off. When the power was restored, Jesus was declared the winner. Why?

Because Jesus saves!

After facing what seemed like a TON of technical difficulties, I finally managed to get this posted. First the text kept moving around. Then when I attempted to publish, half of the damn article was just plain gone. After spending several more hours retyping everything, I decided to copy and paste a backup. It's a damn good thing I did because the same thing happened again in the very same place. It kept happening so I finally had to delete the entire damn post and start over! Fortunately I had the backup and I just pasted it in. God must be trying to thwart my work! Looking forward to your comments.

Jessicasheley said...

Hi again!

How's it going? Wow... more thought-provoking material. I don't think I will be able to keep up every night with this level of intensity, but I'll respond again tonight with some thoughts on what you've written here.

Some of the objections that you have raised in this post regarding the nature of God convey a lack of knowledge of the Scriptures which leads me to wonder whether you have actually read the Bible or if you are relying on here-say and common objections that are often raised by skeptics and atheists. For example, I don't know of any Christians who believe God sends innocent babies to hell. There is Scriptural evidence of an "age of accountability" that is derived from an understanding of God's character, revelations, general dealings with mankind, as well as some specific passages which I would share if you considered them authoritative.

As far as miracles for Christians and non-Christians alike, the Bible says God makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust (Matthew 5:45) so Christians do not necessarily weigh subjective elements such as financial stability or physical health as “evidences” that they are walking in the truth or experiencing special blessings (although there are definitely some who claim this in a presumptive and prideful way that I completely disagree with, (i.e. tv preachers who promote a "health & wealth gospel").

The Scriptures are clear that God is just in punishing sin and I think people know they are sinners. You used a lot of rational arguments in this post so I would use the rational argument that everyone has a conscience. Most people know when they are doing something they shouldn’t be and their conscience pricks them. The ten commandments hardly even need to be in a book, they’re written on the hearts of men. Where can you go in the world where you will find a tribe of people that will tell you that torturing innocent children is okay? The peoples of the world universally agree on the basics of right and wrong. If there is no God, where would that sense of right and wrong come from? If we are natural, brute beasts and purely results of some chaotic process of evolution (that has never been proven due to the lack of any scientific evidence, i.e. no one has ever observed macro-evolution) then what motivates us to even want to be kind to one another? Wouldn’t we be concerned with stomping out the lesser evolutionary life forms that are in our way so we can advance to the next stage of evolution?

Some of the issues you raised are considered deep, theological subjects by devoted Christians and Bible scholars and are discussed in reverent, humble tones. Personally, I liked your tone better on some of your other posts where you made comments such as "although I will not deny that the possibility exists" which conveyed a posture of intellectual humility whereas this post feels more like "even if there is a Supreme Being who controls the universe and my eternal destiny, since He's not doing it according to MY terms, he can kiss my *##@!"

Some of your other comments felt the same way. Since you had personally never seen something happen, therefore it was an impossibility.

I have actually had quite a bit of personal experience with supernatural phenomena during my lifetime so I would have a hard time buying the idea that there isn't a supernatural realm. I'm sure many others would tell you the same.

As far as the superhero motif, how come humans (if we are merely "natural" beings) have such a fascination with the supernatural? Rationally speaking, how could we even relate to the supernatural or understand it or be drawn to it if we were composed of merely natural elements? To me, that makes no logical sense.

As far as Jesus sounding like a fairy tale, I can identify with why you might have felt that way growing up in the LDS church. Their pictures of "Jesus" are just plain creepy (in my humble opinion). That is not the Jesus of the Bible that I know and love... That is the figment of Joseph Smith's imagination with help from his seer stone and the supernatural beings who inspired him and motivated him to create a false religion to counterfeit the true (once again, just sharing my personal opinion and perspective).

Finally, I wanted to comment on this statement:

“if god created this world, then a scientific study of that world should more clearly reveal the nature of god. But since the opposite is actually true, then the god of the Bible could not have possibly created this earth.”

Actually, I believe science is creating more evidence for an intelligent designer and revealing more about His nature and is posing real problems for evolutionists (especially since the discovery of DNA). I’m not sure if you have seen some of the more recent intelligent design research, but it is very compelling and I could recommend a couple of excellent videos or articles if you are interested, especially "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" which you can watch on Google Video or You Tube.

A couple of thoughts for now - How do we account for information stored in DNA molecules? Information always assumes an intelligent source. If you are out taking a walk in the forest and you come across an engraving on a tree that says “John loves Susie,” would you immediately assume that it happened to appear on the tree as a result of a random process of selection that occurred over millions of years? No! The fact that it contains information pre-supposes an intelligent source. It’s the same with our universe and especially living organisms. Evolutionists have yet to show us how life evolved from non-life or how matter came into being. Evolution is not science because it starts out with a bias that God does not exist. True science includes consideration of all the possible hypotheses, but evolution excludes some of the possibilities so it cannot really be considered true science. Evolution is a religion for those who are biased against the existence of a supreme being. Evolution was a necessary scheme for them to get rid of God. It hasn’t worked very well as the statistics still show that overwhelmingly the majority of people believe in the existence of God, but it is intellectual salve for some. It doesn’t resolve my truth-seeking questions. Does it resolve all of yours?

Catch you later ~

Have a good night!

Mormon411 said...

Yes, I know there's a lot of information here and it would take forever to have a discussion about each one. The bottom line, in my opinion, that an immortal being, who knows everything from beginning to end is simply an absurd idea. I agree that this post is extremely opinionated, but that's just how I feel about it.

Just as you stated earlier that you could be caught up in a lie, I also admit that I could be wrong. It's very good that we're both willing to admit that.

Mormon411 said...

At one point, I attempted to read the Bible cover to cover, but didn't get very far as it was extremely monotonous. I have done very little study of what other atheists have to say... most of my arguments are completely my own.

Catholics certainly believe in baby damnation. That is why they hurry to baptize them as quickly as possible. If a Catholic baby dies unbaptized, then it's headed straight to hell. An "age of accountability" makes for a much more logical argument. Mormons believe that age is eight. I don't necessarially believe it is any given age. It simply occurs when the person understands the difference between right and wrong.

That's a good argument for god treating every one equally. But then again, if everyone gets equal treatment as far as health and wealth, then how do you know that god is the one giving the blessings? How do you know it's not just the result of a person working hard and maintaining a healthy lifestyle?

I agree with you that within each person is an on-board sense of right and wrong. You say it comes from god; I say it is just part of our human nature. Yes it is true that we can not scientifically explain where this comes from, at least not yet. Just as animals have instincts, perhaps the knowledge of good and evil is simply a human instinct.

Just because I am atheist does not mean that I automatically believe that it is okay to do anything I want without consequence. I have a set of moral beliefs and I do believe in karma, or the idea that what goes around, comes around. If I am good to other people, then hopefully it will come back to me.

"If there is no God, where would that sense of right and wrong come from?"

Great question. There could be a couple of different possibilities: 1) god, 2) instinct, 3) genetic programming.

"no one has ever observed macro-evolution"

Of course they haven't, at least not directly as evolution is an extremely slow process. It takes thousands, if not millions, of years for species to evolve. The earth is 14 billion years old which is plently of time for it to have occurred.

"He's not doing it according to MY terms, he can kiss my *##@!"

I know this post sounded that way. I don't really have a definition of what god is or how he should be doing things. It just seems to me that "obey or fry" is a bit extreme.

"Since you had personally never seen something happen, therefore it was an impossibility... I have actually had quite a bit of personal experience with supernatural phenomena during my lifetime..."

It's true, I've never seen anything supernatural. I don't doubt that you have, or at least you might have experienced something that you interpreted to be supernatural. I can't say b/c obviously I'm not you and I don't know what you've experienced. I know an ex-Mormon who swears on a stack of Bibles that she had a near-death experience. Even so, she is atheist. It's all a matter of how we intrepret what we experience.

"As far as the superhero motif, how come humans have such a fascination with the supernatural?"

Another great question... I can't answer that.

It's true that even though I am no longer Mormon, I still have a Mormon view on Christianity. It might be warped. But all Christians believe that Jesus walked on water, right? In fact, in my Mormon mind, the Mormon Jesus makes far more sense to me than traditional Christianities definition of Jesus.

"I believe science is creating more evidence for an intelligent designer and revealing more about His nature and is posing real problems for evolutionists"

Not in any science class I have ever taken. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

Now it's true that science currently does not know the origin of DNA. Some speculate that it came to earth on an asteroid from outerspace. But even that hypothesis does not explain where it originally came from.

One experiment, where the believed conditions of the early atmosphere were simulated in a lab, showed that amino acids automatically formed. Amino acids are the building blocks of protein. DNA sequences code for the specific order of amino acids in a protein chain. While this discovery is far from the answer, it is a promising start.

Science does not exclude god because scientists are anti-god. Science excludes god because god can not be seen or tested. The supernatural is outside the realm of science. I'll look up the videos you recommended.

So you are suggesting that intelligent design necessitates a creator? You believe that god always has been and always will be. Since he is intelligent by his nature, then does that not also require that god himself has a creator?

"Evolutionists have yet to show us how life evolved from non-life or how matter came into being."

True, but just because science can't explain it now, doesn't mean that they never will be able to.

With all due respect, I totally disagree with your notion of evolution not being scientific. As I explained earlier, science excludes the supernatural because the supernatural can not be observed and tested. If science included god, then it would not be science... it would be religion.

Religion and science do have the same goal: the pursuit of truth. However, they have different methods by which they find their truth. Religion goes on faith, and science goes on what can be observed and tested. It is impossible to include god in a scientific study because that defies what science is.

"Evolution is a religion for those who are biased against the existence of a supreme being."

Evolution is not a religion. I don't believe in evolution just because it feels good, or just because Darwin said so. But you, on the other hand do believe in creationism just because the Bible says so. Christians have this idea that science is a conspiracy to eliminate god. Not so. It is merely an objective way to study our world without making any assumptions or judgements based on faith. It is all based upon what can actually be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. It's actually very good because there are no asumptions. Everything is verified by several different people. One of the requirements for a scientific study to be accepted is that it has to be repeatable. In other words, many different scientists must do the experiment and have the same results.

As I argued in my first post, science makes many things possible that would not have even been dreamed of in Biblical times. If science is a scheme to eliminate god, why does it better the lives of people around the world, regardless of their faith, skin color, national origion, sexual preference, marital status, etc.?

Jessicasheley said...

Hey,

It sounds like you have maybe studied evolution more than I have. But if macro-evolution is true, then where are the millions and billions of transitional life forms that we should find in the fossil record? Why can’t they find even one?

“The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.”

I do not know what evidence from evolution is so overwhelming. Please do share your information. You can see this link for info on what is not being taught in the classrooms: http://www.evolutionsecrets.com/

Also, did you see “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” with Ben Stein? I think that movie makes the evolutionists look ridiculous (in my humble opinion…)

“One experiment, where the believed conditions of the early atmosphere were simulated in a lab, showed that amino acids automatically formed.”

From what I have studied about these amino acid experiments, the component of oxygen is conspicuously absent from the mix of supposed early earth conditions and yet we live in an oxygen-rich environment and oxides have been found in rocks that are supposedly 300 million years older than the first living cells.

Further, “Oxygen is produced by all photosynthetic organisms, and is required for metabolism by all life forms except a few microorganisms. A hydrogen-rich reducing atmosphere was used in these experiments only because amino acids and nitrogenous bases simply will not form spontaneously in an oxidizing environment (emphasis mine).

“Another problem arises in relation to the amino acids that were theorized to have generated by chance…The question of how a specifically required combination of "left-handed" amino acids could unite by chance, while excluding "right-handed" amino acids, constitutes an impasse for abiogenesis” (from http://creationwiki.org/Abiogenesis).

I will not cite probability theory here as I’m sure you have seen some of the suggestions for how improbable it is for the amino acids to become assembled in just the right sequence. I think this, along with the oxygen component, are a couple of the biggest obstacles for evolutionists to try to explain and is probably why they are now resorting to extra-terrestrial theories for how life began…


”Science excludes god because god can not be seen or tested. The supernatural is outside the realm of science.”

Then why are aliens being included in the origin-of-life theories, but God is still excluded? According to your reasoning, aliens should also be excluded since they cannot be seen or tested either.

“So you are suggesting that intelligent design necessitates a creator? Since he is intelligent by his nature, then does that not also require that god himself has a creator?”

According to the rules of our universe and the laws of entropy, design and order necessitates a Creator. Since God exists outside of space and time and He created time, I don’t believe He requires a creator.

Here’s a great quote that I agree with:

“By very definition, an eternal Being has always existed—nobody created Him. God is the Self-Existent One—the great “I Am” of the Bible. He is outside time; in fact, He created time. Think about it this way: everything that has a beginning requires a cause. The universe has a beginning and therefore requires a cause. But God has no beginning since He is beyond time. So God does not need a cause. There is nothing illogical about an eternal Being who has always existed even though it might be difficult to fully understand.

You might argue, “But that means I have to accept this by faith because I can’t totally understand it.”

We read in the book of Hebrews: “But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him” (11:6).

What kind of faith is Christianity then? It is not blind faith as some may think. In fact, it is the evolutionists who deny the Creator who have the blind “faith.” They have to believe in something (i.e., that information can arise from disorder by chance) which goes against real science.

But Christ, through the Holy Spirit, actually opens the eyes of Christians so that they can see that their faith is real. The Christian faith is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it very clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse: “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20).” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/
articles/nab/is-there-really-a-god)

”If science included god, then it would not be science... it would be religion.”

Then why are aliens allowed in science? Also, I’m curious what you think about creation scientists. Are they not real scientists since they believe in God and include God in their theory of the origins of life?

”Evolution is not a religion”

The reason I believe it is a religion is because evolutionists are operating on faith that there is no God. Creation scientists, on the other hand, are operating on faith that there is. What makes one more scientific than the other? Evolution is one of many possible theories for the origins of life, but it does not equal science. It has not been proven, there are many problems with the theory, and there is no evidence of transitional life forms in the fossil record. Since the evidence is so weak and inconclusive, it should be appropriately labeled a theory and should be taught in classrooms in equal portions with other possible explanations for the origins of life such as intelligent design and the alien theory.

“I don't believe in evolution just because it feels good, or just because Darwin said so. But you, on the other hand do believe in creationism just because the Bible says so.”

Actually, I believe in a Creator because of the observable evidence – to me, belief in a Creator is a basic, foundational assumption rooted in common sense. All of the evolutionary theories and attempts to explain how our complex, diverse universe with such a variety of life forms came about without a Creator appears to me as extravagant and ineffective attempts to suppress the obvious.

“Christians have this idea that science is a conspiracy to eliminate god. Not so. It is merely an objective way to study our world without making any assumptions or judgements based on faith. It is all based upon what can actually be seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. It's actually very good because there are no assumptions."

I think evolutionists make assumptions and judgments based on faith just as creationists do. They even admit they have a priori adherence to material causes because they “cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” Since they have a priori adherence to the material, they are eliminating the possibility of the immaterial. I thought science was about not making any assumptions or judgments based on faith…

“If science is a scheme to eliminate god, why does it better the lives of people around the world, regardless of their faith, skin color, national origion, sexual preference, marital status, etc.?”

I don’t think science is all a scheme to eliminate God. As I alluded to earlier, I think scientific studies are continuing to prove the existence of God and the supernatural. Did you read the recent Times article “What Happens When We Die?” (http://www.time.com/time/health/
article/0,8599,1842627,00.html)

I think it’s fascinating that science is delving into this topic and I’m curious to see the results of the study.

Mormon411 said...

"Why can’t they find even one? "

Actually they have. I wrote a short post on evolution yesterday and I actually addressed that very issue.

For one thing, the cellular similarities between plants and animals are astounding. They are virtually identical with a few differences. Yes, evolutionists argue that plants and animals have a common ancestor.

If you take a sample of any pond water, you will be able to find a wide variety of single celled organisms. We did this in biology class and I am not joking when I say that I saw with my own eyes single celled organisms that had photosynthetic organelles! I bet you thought that only plants had these. Some single celled organisms can actually utilize energy directly from the sun. Since these creature had found an abundant energy source, there was no need to be mobile. So they evolved into plants. But it's remarkable because you can actually see them today. If plants and animals did not evolve from a common ancestor, how come they are so similar on the cellular level?

"the component of oxygen is conspicuously absent from the mix..."

That's actually correct. The early atmosphere of earth was toxic and poisonous. There was no oxygen. The first life that appeared on earth was able to survive in this harsh environment (perhaps the few microorganisms that you mentioned). As they grew and multiplied, they eventually spread around the world. Slowly, their respiration transformed the atmosphere from what it was to what we know of it today.

"Then why are aliens being included in the origin-of-life theories"

That's a good point. As of now, there is no proof of any intelligent life beyond our earth. The idea that life could have come from outer space is not a scientific theory. But they can't rule out the possibility because it hasn't been disproven either. At this point, science can only speculate at the origin of life. It is possible that we will never know.

"aliens should also be excluded since they cannot be seen or tested either."

Currently, that is true. The difference, however, is that if it is discovered that aliens do exist, they are not supernatural. They are simply organisms living on a different planet.

"Since God exists outside of space and time and He created time, I don’t believe He requires a creator."

Interesting argument. So is there another realm outside of space and time where the rules are completely different? Is god the only being who lives in this place? It seems to me that no matter where god is, the argument of intelligent design should apply everywhere. It almost seems like you're saying that intelligent design applies to everything except god. I find it hard to swallow that.

Maybe you're right. Maybe science is too quick to brush off the idea of a designer. There are many things that science can't answer that religion can. God could be a big "blob" of intelligence floating around in space somewhere. I agree with many of your arguments, especially that science too assumes things. The evidence is there for an intellignet designer. I won't deny that. It could be your god. It could be some other god. It could be a blob of intelligence. It could be random chance.

Perhaps the first cell recognized the need for mobility and built the machine itself. There are a lot of possibilities. One thing is certain, life is incredibly complex and the likely hood of random chance is very low. Even if those amino acids did come together randomly to form the first protein, what gave them life?

I think that we agree on more things than we realize. If there was an intelligent designer, as the evidence seems to suggest, then the real question is, who or what is it?

Jessicasheley said...

Okay, so it appears we both agree the evidence suggests an intelligent designer. You have stated there are many possibilities for this designer, ranging from the God of the Bible to some “blob” of intelligence floating out in space.

I would like to go back to my original argument that fulfilled prophecy is evidence that the God of the Bible is the true God and that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah that some Jews are still waiting for, but many Jews have already embraced as their Messiah.

You mentioned that there was no archaeological evidence linking Jesus’ birth to the town of Bethlehem, but I would ask you what archaeological evidence we might possibly expect to find for a baby born in a manger? While archeology has verified and confirmed many Bible accounts, are we going to find evidence for every single detail buried in the dirt and sand?

What about oral tradition and historical evidence? According to this article, there is only one tradition concerning Jesus’ birthplace and that is the town of Bethlehem which was prophesied about in Micah 5:2 in 710 BC:

(http://www.johnankerberg.org/
Articles/ATRJ/truth/ATRJ1203-
QS-7.htm)

There is a Church of the Nativity built there and a star on the floor marking the spot where it is believed that Jesus was born:

http://www.bibleplaces.com/
bethlehem.htm

One of the most convincing prophecies, perhaps, is the Daniel 9 prophecy concerning the comings of the Messiah because even the most liberal scholars date the book of Daniel at 165 BC (since they do not believe he could have prophesied so many specific details about the Alexandrian empire before these events transpired). There is no question, even from the most liberal scholars, that the prophecy was written prior to Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem on a donkey.

One reason this might be compelling evidence for you is that the NT authors do not appear to recognize the fulfillment of this prophecy because they do not refer to it. Many scholars, however, have undertaken the task of mathematical calculation to arrive at the date that Jesus entered Jerusalem on a donkey. There are various opinions on the mathematical calculations, but strong evidence suggests that Jesus did indeed ride into Jerusalem on a donkey in the very year (if not the exact day) predicted in Daniel chapter 9. One such calculation that calculates to the exact day is provided in this link:

http://www.redmoonrising.com/
daniel.htm

If it is true, as skeptics assert, that the NT authors fabricated the story about Jesus fulfilling OT Messianic prophecies, what was their motive? What did they get out of it? And how did they gain any acceptance among the people? If Jesus did not rise from the dead, wouldn’t it have been fairly simple for unbelievers to produce the dead body and silence the annoying Christians who were claiming that He resurrected?

More evidence and arguments for the resurrection here:

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent
/easter/articles/josh2.html

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! Good, challenging discussion!!