₦airaland Forum

Know!

No.

Read!

Up

--

,,.

..,

A recent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) article commented on Ken Ham (founder of Answers in Genesis, the Creation Museum, and the Ark Encounter) being scheduled to speak at next year’s Alberta homeschooling convention.1 This piece was yet another example of the gross misrepresentation made by the mainstream Canadian media when covering the topic of biblical creation.

The article’s headline was “Top U.S. Creationist’s Invitation as Keynote Speaker for Alberta Homeschooling Convention Draws Fire,” and the article stated that the convention was “facing heat” for inviting a leading United States creationist to speak. Yet throughout the piece, only one person was referenced who was vocal in opposition. And who is the dissenter? Paul Ens, a disgruntled father from Calgary who says he used to be a Christian. He runs a YouTube channel against creationists, and he was quoted by the CBC as saying,

As a citizen of Alberta and a father, I’m very concerned that Ken Ham is being brought in on multiple levels — primarily that he is a science denier. He denies evolution, he denies the age of the Earth.

The Same Old Song and Dance

Typical of these hit-piece articles, CBC accuses Ken Ham of being anti-science and a “science denier.” Why? Because he doesn’t believe in the story of evolution and its required millions of years of earth history. One quote from Ens declares,

Unfortunately, Ken’s material is so anti-science, anti-education, his entire ministry is based upon keeping people back and holding back ideas.
In the big picture, we have one atheist who isn’t happy about Ken coming to Alberta, while thousands of Christians are excited about one of the most dynamic Bible-defending speakers (whose speaking schedule is absolutely maxed out) taking the time to fly from the United States to share with us. But whom does the CBC feature? The atheist.

Is It “Science”?

Also typical of Canada’s mainstream media is the article’s complete lack of clarification between operational and historical science. This differentiation between the two is not simply a creationist distinction. Famous evolutionist Ernst Mayr said,

Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science—the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.2
So the accusation that biblical creationists have anything against operational science is a fallacy. What we take issue with is the historical narrative of evolution, the unobserved storytelling about the past that totally contradicts what Scripture plainly teaches and undermines the authority of God’s Word.

Many evolutionists like Ens claim evolution is “science” and creation is “faith.” But when the average person thinks of science, they naturally consider something observable, repeatable, and testable. For example, science has determined water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level on our planet. Anyone can repeat the experiment in their kitchen. But has anyone observed one creature turn into a different kind of creature with novel forms, functions, and features during their own lifetime?

The story of evolution clearly fits into the category of historical science, where a researcher observes facts in the present, attempts to come up with a plausible explanation as to what happened in the past in order to explain how they came to be the way they are today. If the story of evolution were operational/observable science, we would expect that evolutionists should be able to give us numerous examples of having observed evolution “in action.” How many examples do they have? Well, according to arguably the most famous atheist and leading champion of evolution on the planet, Professor Richard Dawkins, none! He said,

We are condemned to live only for a few decades and that’s too slow, too small a time scale to see evolution going on.3
Dawkins has also put it this way:

Evolution has been observed, it’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.4
And in case some might think these were simply gaffes on his part, Dawkins reiterated his conclusion a couple of years later on Britain’s TV Channel 4 that evolution isn’t observable/repeatable science:

Nobody has actually seen evolution take place over a long period but they have seen the after effects, and the after effects are massively supported. It is like a case in a court of law where nobody can actually stand up and say I saw the murder happen and yet you have got millions and millions of pieces of evidence which no reasonable person can possibly dispute.5
But even in a court case, opposing lawyers often come to different conclusions based on the exact same facts. The popular phrase “facts speak for themselves” suggests that the only possible conclusion is patently obvious. However, we should remember that the story of evolution is just one way to interpret the facts we see in the natural world.

Just as with the courtroom scenario Dawkins describes, the facts can and should (in order to promote due process) be allowed to be interpreted according to different viewpoints. That is what being open-minded and scientific is about: allowing yourself to be exposed to new ideas and different ways of looking at things. Unfortunately in the public school system here in Canada, how are young people taught concerning the question of origins and where we all come from ultimately? Just one way: molecules-to-man evolution is fact.

No wonder so many Canadians (including Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, agnostics, atheists, and so on) are beginning to choose to homeschool their children rather than having a specific agenda imposed on their children.

It’s “All About Helping the Poor Children”

The CBC article presents an emotional “plea for the children’s future.” Ens says he “would like to spare both my children and other children from being kind of behind in life because they followed these backwards teachings.”

We need to teach children that they are all created in the image of God and thus have inherent worth, that there are moral absolutes which govern behavior in a civilized society, and that there is true meaning to life which gives us ultimate hope. Instead, evolutionists say we should teach them they are the result of chance, that there is no absolute morality—and thus there is no meaning to life? Is this supposedly good for the kids? Just look at the change in morality and ethics in the Western culture in the last three generations as a metric for gauging this type of progressive agenda.

As the late atheist William Provine stated,

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear, and I must say that these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposeful forces of any kind, no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be completely dead. That’s just all—that’s gonna be the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.6

Although Ens claims AiG is “anti-education” and the “entire ministry is based upon keeping people back and holding back ideas,” he himself said in a radio interview (posted along with the article) that he feels “all materials that everyone would have to buy would have to be on a list of pre-approved materials and/or that parents would have to put a lesson plan together that would be approved by ‘someone’ . . . so that they have enough science in them that our children won’t be hindered.”7

Again, the science Ens is talking about isn’t the type of science that produces technology like an MRI scanning machine (invented by the brilliant scientist and biblical creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian). He’s arguing that the story of evolution be mandated in schools and taught as fact. So who is actually advocating holding back ideas? Why should parents be forced by the government to teach their children only the humanists’ creation story and not biblical creation? Who exactly would be that “someone” who needs to approve what children are taught? An atheist like him?

Far from AiG telling people not to teach their children about evolution, we actually advocate you teach your children all about it! Show them the massive scientific problems with it and how the facts we see in the world actually support God’s Word.

A Wake-Up Call for Canadian Christians

It was interesting for me to see the responses from many Christians who interacted with the online posts generated from the article, as well as from the folks who responded to AiG–Canada and me personally. Many Christians replied with fear and anxiety, and that’s exactly what the humanists want. And think about it—this was one guy with a bone to pick who got featured on CBC nationwide.

I used to be an atheist, so I have seen both sides of this origins argument firsthand. It was exposure to biblical creation that God used to open my eyes to the truth of Scripture. Our number one goal is getting answers to people (especially our youth) who desperately need them, and Ken Ham’s visit to Alberta, Canada will be an amazing time to get equipped to be able to defend your faith!

Many Christians can readily see the agenda that is being forced upon us here in Canada. But some believers still haven’t realized what is really happening in our society and why our country has changed so much. It is the same agenda our governor general reinforced in her recent speech at an Ottawa policy convention where she questioned how it was still possible in the age of “science” (read “evolution”) that people believed “divine intervention” created life.8 It is an agenda of the religion of secular humanism being increasingly imposed on our culture.

The radicalization of young people as they are being exposed to all sorts of nonsense in public schools isn’t enough for the secularists. They want to control what goes into the minds of all our children, hence this attack on homeschoolers. They want to cause fear and doubt in the average Canadian (seemingly it’s “what are those radical Christians teaching their children!?”) and demonize anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their growing radical agenda.

AiG’s Mission Confirmed

We are happy to see that the launch of AiG–Canada has already gotten the attention of secularists. We should see these attacks as confirmation that the battle of the age—the attack on the authority of Scripture—is just as Ken Ham has been teaching for the last 40 years. It is the attack on Genesis chapters 1–11. But there are answers: Answers in Genesis!

From: https://answersingenesis.org/ministry-news/core-ministry/aig-canada-already-making-waves/

-

Abstract

By embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology.

Keywords: atheism, worldview, Richard Dawkins, materialistic, knowledge, logic, irrational, God, law of non-contradiction, conventions

Atheists are “coming out of the closet” and becoming more vocal about their message that “there is no God.” Professor Richard Dawkins (Britain’s leading atheist) is encouraging those who share his views to express their opinion. Author of The God Delusion, Dawkins says he wants to “free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community.”1 Will Christians be prepared to “give an answer” to the atheists’ claims?2

Materialistic atheism is one of the easiest worldviews to refute. A materialistic atheist believes that nature is all that there is. He believes that there is no transcendent God who oversees and maintains creation. Many atheists believe that their worldview is rational—and scientific. However, by embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology. In other words, if atheism were true, it would be impossible to prove anything!

Here’s Why

Reasoning involves using the laws of logic. These include the law of non-contradiction which says that you can’t have A and not-A at the same time and in the same relationship. For example, the statement “My car is in the parking lot, and it is not the case that my car is in the parking lot” is necessarily false by the law of non-contradiction. Any rational person would accept this law. But why is this law true? Why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? The Christian can answer this question. For the Christian there is an absolute standard for reasoning; we are to pattern our thoughts after God’s. The laws of logic are a reflection of the way God thinks. The law of non-contradiction is not simply one person’s opinion of how we ought to think, rather it stems from God’s self-consistent nature. God cannot deny Himself (2 Timothy 2:13), and so, the way God upholds the universe will necessarily be non-contradictory.

Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent. He is borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. The atheist’s view cannot be rational because he uses things (laws of logic) that cannot exist according to his profession.

The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air.3 Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.

How Can the Atheist Respond?

The atheist might say, “Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.” But this is no different than the critic of air saying, “Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.” This isn’t a rational response. Breathing requires air, not a profession of belief in air. Likewise, logical reasoning requires God, not a profession of belief in Him. Of course the atheist can reason; it’s because God has made his mind and given him access to the laws of logic—and that’s the point. It’s because God exists that reasoning is possible. The atheist can reason, but within his own worldview he cannot account for his ability to reason.

The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are conventions made up by man.” But conventions are (by definition) conventional. That is, we all agree to them and so they work—like driving on the right side of the road. But if laws of logic were conventional, then different cultures could adopt different laws of logic (like driving on the left side of the road). So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.

The atheist might respond, “Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.” But then the laws of logic are not universal; they would not extend beyond the brain. In other words, we couldn’t argue that contradictions cannot occur on Mars, since no one’s brain is on Mars. In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain.

Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: “We use the laws of logic because they work.” Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?

As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.

Conclusions

Clearly, atheism is not a rational worldview. It is self-refuting because the atheist must first assume the opposite of what he is trying to prove in order to be able to prove anything. As Dr. Cornelius VanTil put it, “[A]theism presupposes theism.” Laws of logic require the existence of God—and not just any god, but the Christian God. Only the God of the truth and the transcendent can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3). Since the God of Scripture is immaterial, sovereign, and beyond time, it makes sense to have laws of logic that are immaterial, universal, and unchanging. Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic. Since God made the universe and since God made our minds, it makes sense that our minds would have an ability to study and understand the universe. But if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions? If the universe and our minds are simply the results of time and chance, as the atheist contends, why would we expect that the mind could make sense of the universe? How could science and technology be possible?

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God’s image and have access to God’s laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview. Likewise, atheists can be moral, but they have no basis for that morality according to what they claim to believe. An atheist is a walking bundle of contradictions. He reasons and does science, yet he denies the very God that makes reasoning and science possible. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is consistent and makes sense of human reasoning and experience.

Gotten from: https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/

budaatum:
That is precisely what I am saying. It does not make sense to believe a thing just because it is what I think. When a superior thought appears to one one abandons the old belief and adopts a new one.

Born againism is an example of this process.



You do understood what is meant by the two components! You said it above and in the following:



What one believes may sometimes correspond with the facts but it is not a requirement for believing.

One can believe whatever one wants whether it corresponds to reality or not.

Compare that with the following:

To know a thing is to be is a familiar with, have awareness of, or understanding of that thing, such as facts, information, descriptions, or skills, which is acquired through experience or education by perceiving, discovering, or learning.

Don't you wonder why belief hasn't got this definition knowing has? It, I bet, is the sense in which it is meant. I would rather know my God exists than merely believe in its existence.

P.s. I am not advocating that others must have the same relationship I have with my god!

You're trying to make this a face off between the words "believe" and "know", which is not what I'm on about. I'm simply trying to show you that the presence of proof does not jettison the need for "belief", because component 1 of the definition of belief by Wikipedia states that "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty(i.e. with there being proof.)"

I then go on to say that someone can still think something to not be the truth, even when there is proof that something is the case.

Meanwhile you missed a part of my post which I wrote in response to your claim that it is insufficient for you to believe things. I quote again:

DoctorAlien:
Are you saying that it is insufficient for you to have a state of mind in which you think something to be the case (true), with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty(i.e. with there being proof)?

budaatum:
Thank you for checking wiki. The operative word there is "think". I must think something to be true in order to believe it to be true. Unless I am stupid and believe in all sorts with no reason, including my thought, that a thing is true. But I may think a thing is true, and believe it to be true, but it may be false. I have believed things in the past only to find that it was not so and I believed in error. That is why, for me, believing things is insufficient.

Imagine I think there is not a car coming down that busy road. Imagine I step into the road but my thought was in error, and a car is coming down that road. Would anyone in fact ever cross a road on a thought, a belief, or both? Would anyone rather not seek out empirical evidence that the road is certainly clear before they crossed?

Applying this argument to the existence of God is not as straight forward as road crossing however as both sides of the argument cannot agree on what God is for starts, not to talk of agreeing what evidence to accept for proving God's existence.

If we were standing by the roadside waiting to cross and a car was approaching and I insisted on crossing, because I thought and believed, that a car was not approaching. You would ask me to go ahead and cross, and the splattering of my brains on the road would be evidence that a car was coming. We unfortunately can't perform that experiment for the existence of God, so, it makes sense that a believer believes there is a God. In the expression, the believer however is stating that he or she thinks there may be a God at best and is willing to believe there is a God, but they do not exactly know. The convinced believer ought not be a believer. They ought to be knowers and boldly say "I know God exists", and damn anyone who does not accept their evidence for the God that exists for them.

The same applies to the atheist by the way. I find it odd that atheists say they do not believe that God exists. An atheist would argue that they base their opinion on facts and evidence. So why is it that most would claim not to believe that God exists if all the evidence they have checked proves to them that God does not exist? They either use the expression involving 'belief' because that is the word they know to use perhaps because they learnt it culturally, or because they are not sure conclusively that there is no god, which makes their position agnostic at best. If they knew God does not exist, I guess we'd call them knowers too, but of the atheist sort, as opposed to the Christian knower, I suppose.

Now, the last part of you argument refers to those who refuse to accept a thing to be true despite evidence proving a thing to be true. (please note that I now use the stronger 'know', in place of what I would call, the weak, 'belief'. My crossing the road describes such a person, I am sure brains splattered on the road would prove such a person wrong. However, that is not the case with the existence of God. The atheist - the knowing type as opposed to a believing one - would have checked all the available evidence before coming to the conclusion that there is indeed no gods. So, they are not refusing to accept the evidence for God's existence. They are saying that evidence, as it is, does not prove God's existence.


You may wish to see my counter position on this thread

Wikipedia(and Oxford dictionaries) tells us that to believe something is to think that such a thing is true(whether or not there is proof that it is true.) So the sentence in red above makes no sense, because what you're saying is "I must think something to be true in order to think it to be true."

Component 1 of the definition of belief by Wikipedia states that "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty." So I don't understand what you mean when you say that belief is insufficient for you. Are you saying that it is insufficient for you to have a state of mind in which you think something to be the case (true), with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty(i.e. with there being proof)?

I have not exactly cared to look at your car and road crossing analogy because I have not exactly seen what it has to do with the argument I put forward, which is that is possible for one to not believe something(think something to be true), even when there is proof that something is true.

budaatum:
Please refer to the definition of belief on wiki. It states the clearly, sense in which I use the word.

I tend to believe things that I have sufficient reason to presume is likely to be so. If I know (as in, if I have sufficient evidence) that those things are exactly as I think they are, I tend not to limit myself to mere belief that it is so since I emphatically know that it is so. I, for instance, tend not to believe it is raining if the clouds darken the sky (baring sun set, or eclipses), thunder roles, and I am getting wet from standing in the rain. I see the clouds have darkened the sky, I hear the thunder, the rain is falling on my head, I am wet and cold. That is sufficient evidence for me to assert that rain is falling. So I would claim so, and not that I believe so. So yes, I [tend] to believe when I am not quite certain but the evidence strongly suggests that it might be so. And yes the presence of conclusive evidence throws the need for belief out of the window, for me. If I were a Christian, I would not claim to believe there is a God, my faith would be such that I will claim to know, and God damn anyone who says otherwise!

With regard to the "spherical shape of the earth and those who, in the face of sufficient proof of the spherical shape of the earth, continue to proclaim that the earth is flat". I would (assuming the earth is truly spherical), conclude that such individuals might have different understanding of the words that denote the things called "earth", "spherical", "is" and so on, such that it is not spherical according to their understanding of the words. Or I might conclude that such individuals have screws loose in their heads, or they are just plain liars. If such an individual took the same attitude regarding crossing a road with fast moving vehicles going by constantly. They would see a car approaching and walk right into its path!

If I were a Christian, it would be because I know, conclusively, that there is God, and that his son is Jesus Christ through whom I am saved and shall live eternally, and I would understand what is meant when it is written that I should shake even the dust off when I, not only depart the from non believer's presence, but depart the city they live in. I would of course take this metaphorically, as I sure would not allow some non believing scum to chase me from my place of abode. But I would also have to temper my abhorrence for such individuals with the love it is written that I should have for my enemy - if enemy is the bigoted position I take - with the love I am supposed to have for that, so called, enemy. Who says turning the other cheek is easy, I would claim, in my lofty state of grace and superiority, though I would hide this under some sort of humility so as not to be seen as a pompous prick.

As a Christian, the words of that non believer can not but sound like that fool who saw a car approaching and walks right into its path!

But as an atheist, the car is most definitely in the mind of the believer, for when the atheist sees no car and walks into the road to cross, the proof of no car coming is whether he or she gets safely to the other side of the road, without any car actually being there.

Wikipedia says that "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty." This definition can be separated into two components viz:

1. "Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."
2. Belief is also "the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

Belief is essentially a state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, just that one can have that state of mind "with or without there being conclusive empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty."

Component 1 above actually proves my argument, which is that belief is something that can be had even "with there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty" i.e. even with there being proof.

I submit then that it is possible(i.e. the probability is not zero) for an atheist to not "have the state of mind in which he thinks it to be the case"(i.e. it is possible for an atheist to not believe) that God exists, even when there is proof that God exists. Ferdinand Magellan achieved a demonstration of the earth's sphericity which Wikipedia called "practical". Yet there are people today who do not have the state of mind in which they think it to be the case(i.e. do not believe) that the earth is spherical.

budaatum:
That is true. If God proves to me that God exists, I will most definitely never insult mine, or God's intelligence, by claiming, "I believe that God exists".

It seems to be a flaw in language with rather ancient origins, I suppose, that makes believers claim they 'believe'. Most, I guess, just take the off the shelf statement, "I believe", without thinking, and see it as a virtue. If only someone had told them that even the devil believes. But I guess we cannot ask that other peoples knowledge be perfect.

In uttering the phrase "I believe that God exists", what I would be confessing would be that I do not exactly know whether God exists or not but that I am willing to hold to the position that God does exist. But if God were to prove to me that God exists, my belief would surely become knowledge so why just believe?

I am an atheist. The most significant characteristic of my atheism is evidence. I am fond of stating that as far as god like things are concerned, I tend not to do 'belief'. If god was rain, I would not claim I believe it were raining if rain were pissing down on my head. I would know it was raining, and I would say so. Same with gods. If God provides me with evidence to prove God's existence, I will not merely believe, I will know that God exists, and I will say, "there is God"!

It seems you think that you only believe things that have not been proven, and that the presence of proof throws the need for belief out of the window, even though the definition of the word "belief" might suggest otherwise. Anyway, what do you have to say in relation to the spherical shape of the earth about those who, in the face of sufficient proof of the spherical shape of the earth, continue to proclaim that the earth is flat?

[s]

dalaman:
Will you shut up and stop lying?

There is enough proof to show that Allah is God and about 1.8 billion muslims accept that..there is also enough proof to show that Brahma is God and cost to 1.2 billion Hindus accept that.

Why do you religiously disbelieve in these God despite the fact that there are so many evidence to show that they exist. The only God who has his signature written in nature is Allah but you religiously refuse to believe in him instead you run around accepting the fake narratives of the ancient Jews as truth.

[/s]

Trash! You failed to address the fact main issue here which you bolded: that Martin Rowson would remain an atheist even if God walked into the restaurant.

dalaman:
I never take you seriously because you are a dishonest fool. Thomas Nagel represents all atheist abi?

Didn't William Craig state that even if he enters a time machine and goes back in time to discover that Jesus never really resurrected from the dead that he'll still remain a christian. Have you seen any body use him as the standard to measure all christains?

Take your shameless and idiotic dishonest ways and move along .

If I can find even one atheist like that (in this case Thomas Nagel and Martin Rowson) I have a good reason to see every atheist that way.

Until they prove they're not like that.

I know you're shocked and pained at the same time to see such a statement coming from an atheist. Let the pain flow through you.

..,

Emmanystone:
They hate the fact that God exist that's why they can't rest about shouting He doesn't exist. They'd He really doesn't. But they know He does. It's a sad state to be in.

So true.

Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel is also revealingly honest:

“I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time”.

jimmyjenseng:
I've argued with many a theist on God's existence, and I'm pretty sure a lot of you have done same both offline and online, and the most frequently said words after silencing their arguments are: even if there's a proof for god you still won't believe. And a few other times, they insert the shitty 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence' argument/statement. Truth is, if god does exists, I wouldn't need to believe it; I'd have knowledge of it. Existence, with proof, doesn't require believe; it requires knowledge.

So, how did you guys combat these defeating statements by the theist?

Kiss the truth. You atheists will refuse to believe that God exists even if He proves Himself. For anyone who's sincerely searching for God, there's enough evidence in the Universe of God's existence. But we know that for you atheists, it is not a matter of evidence, or the lack of it. You simply religiously believe that God does not exist.

lovingJehovah:
I have read many of those dissections and they are ludicrous. As a matter of fact, one of my neighbor runs one of those websites and blasphemous YouTube channels.
The Bible calls Jesus a mighty God in the OT but then Jesus himself tells us about a God greater than him that he calls father and God and the one called him his son. Jesus prayed to him and also states that there is something that that father knows that he doesn't know. The Bible tells us that Jesus sits at the right hand of God and it didn't say that God sits at God's right hand. The Bible acknowledges that there are many gods but to us, there is only one God and one Lord who is Jesus. The statement is very clear. In a relationship, there are many suitors, but to a bride, there is one choice.
Jesus is the way to God and we must know him to get to Jehovah God, John 17:3 and knowing these two mean our salvation.

Asking if the KJV is spurious? Well some verses are! In case you did not know, KJV made some heretic addition to the Bible, You can type "1 John 5:7 controversy" on google and do some thorough research.

I am happy that you brought the book of Revelation up. But before you took that dive to verse 8; 11; 17-18 I was wondering if you read the first verse at all. Revelation 1:1 "A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place...".
That can at least give you an idea of where the message written down in the following verses that you quoted came from.
Now, rolling back to your question, "who was speaking?
Let me take you back again to the same verse. Revelation 1:1 "...And he sent his angel and presented it in signs through him to his slave John.
So apostle John was writing down the vision given to him by an angel. The angel was sent by Jesus Christ and the message was from Jehovah God.
Does it appear the same in your Bible? Or was it part of the verses that your link dissected?

on your question about Micah 5:2?
I will advise you to do some research using a range of other Bible translations.
Micah 5:2 'And you, O Bethʹle·hem Ephʹra·thah,
The one too little to be among the thousands of Judah,
From you will come out for me the one to be ruler in Israel,
Whose origin is from ancient times, from the days of long ago'.
Micah spoke about time it might be beyond human longevity but there was a time frame "from long ago". Jehovah is the only one without a beginning in the Bible. He is the creator and every other are creations even Jesus himself. Colossians 1:15 'The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation'.
1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible, the only God (in corroboration to 1 Timothy 2:5), be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen
Jude 25 to the only God (JEHOVAH) our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might, and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity. Amen
Can you see the adjectival phrase used to qualify Jehovah God (ALL PAST ETERNITY)? Other translations might say 'before all time'. Notice the difference in the adjectival phrases between Micah 5:2 and Jude 25.
Do your research and you will see the effervescence of the coherence and lucidity in the Bible's message.
If it matters? Yes! Exodus 20:5 "...for I, Jehovah your God, am a God who requires exclusive devotion..."

Do excuse me, if my assumption of defending the trinity hurts. That verse is a regular quote from Trinitarians when they defend their beliefs

First off, don't quote NWT for me please. NWT is JW literature, not the Bible. It is downright comical to base your arguments on the NWT. LOL.

You just claim that the assertions made in the post are ludicrous? Where are your rebuttals to the points made in the article?

Don't try to correct me! Simply answer my questions:

1. Who was speaking here? "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." Rev. 1:11

2. Who was speaking here? "And he said unto me, It is done. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely." Rev. 21:6

3. Who was speaking here? "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death." Rev. 1:17-18

And if you're going to appeal to the majority of translations to brush KJV off on this one, then the majority of the translations render the clause in John 1:1 as "and the Word was God".

Moreover, 1 John 4:12(even your NWT) says that no man has seen God at any time. Yet Exodus 24:10 (even your NWT) says that the God of Israel was seen by men. Who was that God seen in Exod. 24:10?

Ubenedictus:
.

Stop playingaround with the word "catholic". You are not deceiving anybody.

The word catholic literally means "universal," as in "the universal church." It originally was applied to all Christians because we are all part of the universal church in the way that we are all members of the Body of Christ. The Latin word is catholicus, and in Greek it is katholikos, from the Greek phrase meaning "on the whole, according to the whole or in general." The word in English can mean "including a wide variety of things; all-embracing," or "of the Roman Catholic faith," or "relating to the historic doctrine and practice of the Western Church.”

Catholic was first used to describe the Christian Church in the early 2nd century to emphasize its universal scope. The term has been incorporated into the name of the largest Christian communion, the Roman Catholic Church, which consists of 23 churches sui iuris, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome. The largest of these, the Latin Rite consists of nearly 95 percent of the population of the Catholic Church. The remaining 5 percent consist of the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches. Some Protestant churches use the term "catholic Church" to refer broadly to all believers in Jesus Christ across the world and the ages, regardless of denominational affiliation. Generally, to avoid confusion between this concept and the Roman Catholic Church, theologians will refer to the “universal church” as the “church catholic,” utilizing the lower case, instead of “Catholic Church.”

The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican, and Lutheran, and some Methodists declare that their churches are catholic in the sense that they are in continuity with the original universal church founded by the apostles. The Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox churches all believe that their church is the only original and universal church. Catholicity is considered one of Four Marks of the Church, the others being unity, sanctity, and apostolicity according to the Nicene Creed of 381: "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church." It is crucially important to remember, though, that when the early Christians used the term “catholic,” they were not referring to any particular church, denomination, rite, or communion. They were simply referring to all true believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-meaning-definition.html

lovingJehovah:
Thanks for that comment.

Hebrews 1:8 is a frequently quoted verse to support the trinity. But, if you would have the patience to read the next verse you will understand more clearly that you are probably using a spurious translation. Now remember that this is a requote from Psalms 45:6-7 Let us go over it Hebrews 1:8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the scepter of your Kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.”
Now verse 8 makes it clearer that a position was conferred on Jesus. If he were God Almighty, he would be the supreme being/authority without the need for someone to anoint him.
Would you agree that your God was anointed? By who? And take a very good note that it referred to the angels as Jesus' COMPANIONS. So, how do you affiliate the conflicting senses propounded by your translation? To this very end, I am sure even though you quoted Hebrews 1:8 with confidence you will not be willing to quote the proceeding verse because it is contradictory. Not that the Bible is contradictory but your translation is contaminated.
If you are willing to do a little more research it will be more beneficial to you.

First off, you don't assume that I am arguing in favour of the doctrine of Trinity.

You call KJV spurious and contaminated? So your NWT is actually accurate and clean? LOL. Follow this link to see a thorough dissection of your clean NWT(note that I don't endorse their trinitarian teachings. I just provided the link so you can see how "uncontaminated" your NWT is): https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/jesus-is-god/is-jesus-the-creator-god/

That Jesus was anointed by God, His Father, does not take away anything from His Deity. If Jesus is not God, why did Micah 5:2 state that Jesus's "goings forth have been from everlasting"? Who has existed from everlasting if not God?

Who was speaking in Rev. 1:11?
Who was speaking in Rev. 21:6?
Who was speaking in Rev. 1:17-18?

lovingJehovah:
John 20:17 New International Version
Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
How could Jesus be equal with his own God? God is not a mystery.

Riko2:
op dere is only one God which is Jehovah God,and Jesus is not dat person, even he Jesus made it very clear when he was teaching d fada (God) is greater Dan d son (Jesus) john 14:28. only the father is good mark 10:17-22, d son obey d will of d father john 6:38.d son has a beginning Colossians I:15.d father (God) has no beginning, Rather he is d beginning and d ending. d father all knowing Mark 13:32. my dear Jesus is not d xame as God,yes he maybe d son of God so dat make's him a god not God.

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom." Hebrews 1:8

.

I have heard many Christians say that evolution doesn’t concern them because, after all, it’s “only a theory.” Presumably they think that the word “theory” means about the same thing as a “pipe dream.” But the term theory, at least as it applies to experimental science, has a much nobler meaning than that. A scientific theory is a careful attempt to explain certain observable facts of nature by means of experiments. Since many Christians have concluded that evolution is incompatible with the Biblical account of creation, we would do well to investigate if evolution is a fact or a theory—or perhaps neither.

There is a widespread misconception that good theories grow up to be facts and that the really good ones finally become laws. But these three categories of scientific description are neither directly related nor mutually exclusive. It often occurs that a single natural phenomenon can be described in terms of a theory, a fact, and a law—all at the same time!

Consider the well-known phenomenon of gravity. First, there is a fact of gravity. While we cannot actually see gravitational force itself, we do observe the effects of this force every time we drop something. There is also a theory of gravity that addresses the question of how this force we call gravity really works. While we don’t know how gravity works, there are theories that attempt to explain it. Finally there is the well-known law of gravity. This law, first formulated by Isaac Newton, a believing Christian and creationist, is a mathematical equation that shows a relationship between mass, distance, and gravitational force. So, in summary, a scientific fact is an observable natural occurrence; a scientific theory is an attempt to explain how a natural occurrence works; and a scientific law is a mathematical description of a natural occurrence.

Science itself is the whole process of making careful observations of certain facts of nature and then constructing and testing theories that seek to explain those facts. Scientists call these attempts to test their theories experiments. Experimental science, better known as empirical science, is the kind of science that is responsible for the marvelous technological achievements that make our life easier. One has only to consider what it would be like to endure surgery without anesthesia to appreciate the contributions of empirical science to our lives.

The most important requirement of empirical science is that any object or phenomenon we wish to study must first be observable. While we may assume the existence of events not witnessed by human observers, such events are not suited to study by empirical science. Second, the event we wish to study should be repeatable. Unique and unrepeatable events, such as the Babylonian Empire, are the subject of history, not empirical science. Finally, any theory we might propose as an explanation for an observable and repeatable event must be testable: we must be able to conceive of an experiment that could refute our theory if it were wrong. If one were to propose an explanation for an event in such a way that no one could conceive of any way to test or refute it, it wouldn’t be a theory at all, but rather a belief. Beliefs, of course, are not necessarily wrong; they just aren’t well suited to study by empirical science.

What then shall we say of evolution? First, evolutionists tell us that major evolutionary changes happen far too slowly, or too rarely, to be observable in the lifetime of human observers. The offspring of most living organisms, for example, are said to remain largely unchanged for tens of thousands or even millions of years. Second, even when evolutionary changes do occur, evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky tells us they are by nature “unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.” Dobzhansky concludes that the “applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted.” Finally, evolutionist Paul Ehrlich concedes that the theory of evolution “cannot be refuted by any possible observations” and thus is “outside of empirical science.”

Still, the occurrence of evolution is widely believed by the scientific community to be a “fact” and those who dare to doubt it are not endured gladly. The Encyclopedia Britannica confidently assures us that “we are not in the least doubt as to the fact of evolution.” In his textbook Evolution, Joe Savage says, “We do not need a listing of the evidences to demonstrate the fact of evolution any more than we need to demonstrate the existence of mountain ranges.” In another textbook, Outlines of General Zoology, H. Newman arrogantly declares that evolution has no rival as an explanation for the origin of everything “except the outworn and completely refuted one of special creation, now retained only by the ignorant, the dogmatic, and the prejudicial.”

What exactly is the “observable fact” of evolution? First you should be aware that evolutionists recognize two types of biological “evolution”—microevolution, which is observable, and macroevolution, which isn’t. So-called “microevolution” is a process of limited variation among the individuals of a given species that produces the sort of variety we observe among dogs. Macroevolution, on the other hand, is a hypothetical process of unlimited variation that evolutionists believe transforms one kind of living organism into a fundamentally different kind such as the transformation of reptiles into birds or apes into people. Obviously, no one has ever observed anything remotely like this transformation.

The very name “microevolution” is intended to imply that it is this kind of variation that accumulates to produce macroevolution, though a growing number of evolutionists admit there is no evidence to support this. Thus, an observable phenomenon is extrapolated into an unobservable phenomenon for which there is no evidence, and then the latter is declared to be a “fact” on the strength of the former. It is this kind of limitless extrapolation that comprises much of the argument for evolution.

In conclusion, macroevolution is not observable, repeatable, or refutable and thus does not qualify as either a scientific fact or theory. Evolution must be accepted with faith by its believers, many of whom deny the existence, or at least the power, of the Creator. Similarly, the Biblical account of creation is not observable, repeatable or refutable by man. Special creation is accepted with faith by those who believe that the Bible is the revelation of an omnipotent and omniscient Creator whose Word is more reliable than the speculations of men. Both evolution and creation, however, can be compared for their compatibility with what we do observe of the facts of nature. In future essays we will see that creation by intelligent design is a vastly more reasonable explanation for the origin of the integrated complexity we see in living things than is evolution by mere chance and the intrinsic properties of matter.

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/theory-of-evolution/evolution-theory-fact-or-law/

In the 1930s, paleontologist Otto Schindewolf concluded that the missing links in the fossil record were not really missing at all, but rather were never there in the first place! Schindewolf proposed that all the major evolutionary transformations must have occurred in single large steps. He proposed, for example, that at some point in evolutionary history, a reptile laid an egg from which a bird was hatched! ( ) This bizarre notion was championed in 1940 by geneticist Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California at Berkeley. Like Schindewolf, Goldschmidt resigned himself to the fact that true transitional forms were not found despite over a hundred years of searching for them, and that evolutionary theory would simply have to accommodate this fact.

Goldschmidt sought to advance Schindewolf’s notion of evolution through single large steps by trying to imagine a plausible mechanism for it. He suggested that the answer might lie in what are known as embryological monsters, such as the occasional birth of a two-legged sheep or a two-headed turtle. Goldschmidt conceded that such monsters rarely survived very long in nature, but he hoped that over a long period of time some monsters might actually be better suited to survive and reproduce than their normal siblings. ( ) Goldschmidt named this monstrously hopeless speculation the “hopeful monster theory.” Since there was not even the slightest shred of evidence to support the hopeful monster theory, it was dismissed with derision by almost all evolutionists of his time. But Goldschmidt was quick to point out to his critics that there wasn’t the slightest evidence for their gradual evolution either!

The hopeful monster theory would have joined the “recapitulation theory” in the scrap heap of abandoned evolutionary speculations were it not for Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge. In 1972, these influential evolutionists resurrected the long-discredited hopeful monster theory and gave it a more respectable name: “punctuated equilibrium.” This theory speculates that the intermediate stages in the evolution of organisms do not appear in the fossil record because these transitional organisms were short-lived, extremely unstable species which, as luck would have it, quickly evolved into stable species. Thus, the evolution of any organism is characterized by long periods of equilibrium (no evolutionary change) during which time many offspring, and thus many fossils, are produced—punctuated by relatively rapid bursts of evolution that left no fossil record. In the May 1981 issue of Discover magazine, Gould explained that “two outstanding facts of the fossil record— geologically sudden origin of new species and failure to change thereafter”—actually “predicted” this new evolutionary theory!

Source: https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/hopeful-monsters-of-evolution/

Interesting

Truth

Bump

Up