Manual Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue book. Happy reading Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Resurrected?: An Atheist and Theist Dialogue Pocket Guide.

The interchange is marked by mutual respect and exceptional clarity of thought and expression. This is a book that will appeal to a wide audience of believers, seekers, and non-believers. The topic is timely,the participants renowned, and the presentation inviting to both scholar and layperson. Theism Revelation and Jesus Resurrection. Applying Resurrection Research and Closing Loopholes. The Church as Proof of the Resurrection. More Details Original Title.


  • Quotes about Godif you think science leads to atheism..
  • Review of Article on Strategic Evaluation.
  • {dialog-heading}.
  • Featured channels!
  • Divertimento No. 1 Eb Major KV113 - Horn 2.
  • Dawkins' Delusions: faith and evidence.

Other Editions 4. Friend Reviews. To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Resurrected? Lists with This Book. This book is not yet featured on Listopia. Community Reviews. Showing Average rating 3. Rating details. Sort order. This book emerged from the remarkable dialogue between the leading Christian scholar of the Resurrection and the world's best-known philosophical atheist resulted from a three-hour discussion on a popular religious television talk show, moderated by John Ankerberg.

Fl This book emerged from the remarkable dialogue between the leading Christian scholar of the Resurrection and the world's best-known philosophical atheist resulted from a three-hour discussion on a popular religious television talk show, moderated by John Ankerberg. The discussion goes on to examine subjects such as medical details regarding the crucifixion, extra-biblical sources for Jesus, the Jesus Seminar, St. Due to the fact that this book was more a report of a very interesting discussion presenting two sides of one which is theist and another one which are atheist.

I think that the book covers quite well the two points of view but not as much as I would like to see. The weakness in my perspective is the lack enough space to major discussion. The strongest point for me was four facts presented by Habermas related to the historical data regard to Jesus' life: 1 That Jesus died due to rigours os crucifixion.

The discussion presented in this book was good to make my faith in the reality of the resurrection of Jesus a reality, not just based on faith only but on historical facts which cannot be denied. Aug 06, nobody rated it liked it. This book was interesting and thought provoking, although biased towards the apologists. The editor was a theist believing in the resurrection, and even the atheist became a theist shortly after the dialogue took place. Tony Flew, the mentioned atheist, is pretty weak here and speaks much less then Habermas.

The main arguement was mostly every scholar believes the apostles and some others thought they saw Jesus, so he must have been resurrected. Is what some people thought years ago really This book was interesting and thought provoking, although biased towards the apologists. Is what some people thought years ago really proof that the laws of nature were broken? A court metaphor is often brought up in this book but is not at all appropriate. In court you're arguing against or for something that recently happened and is quite plausible.

Mar 28, Chris rated it liked it Shelves: religion-philosophy. Interesting book. Gary Habermas presents the evidential approach to apologetics quite well. Flew does not have any good answers to the evidence. Of course Thomas Paine did not actually disprove Christianity. By the way, I have replied on the evil and suffering page and am most interested to see your reply. No, atheism has never killed anyone. People kill people. And you are probably correct to say that nobody kills in the name of atheism.

As I said before, atheism makes the moral justification of killing much easier. This is the philosophical underpinning to the the communist and nazi atrocities. To disbelieve in one thing necessarily entails believing in something else. For example, to disbelieve that God created life necessarily entails that you believe life originated in some other fashion. Since you disbelieve that God created the universe, you necessarily believe that it must have originated by some other means. Aliens from another universe?

In a very brief summary, I think we only conclude that the universe has to have a beginning because we have a skewed view of causality; we assume that, because everything in the universe has a cause, the universe itself has a cause. Nazi Germany was only debatably atheist- SS uniforms were adorned with Catholic symbols, and Hitler himself may well have been Catholic. I agree though that non-beliefs often entail other beliefs. But one day science will hopefully found out. I really only wanted to make clear that, where religion is an organised system with scriptures, churches, set beliefs etc, atheism has none of this.

Einstein was not an Atheist, but he definitely did not support the ideas in the Bible. No interpretation no matter how subtle can for me change this. No, I am making no such misleading claims. At no point do I make the claim that Einstein believed in a personal God. But he very definitely did believe in God. I discuss what science can tell us about God.

Since this is merely an example of a scientist pointing to the limit of physical reality the boundary separating physics from metaphysics , this does not fall under the category of a scientist embarking in philosophy…which Einstein criticized. When it comes to specific attributes of God personal or non-personal God, etc. Lastly, if people have consciousness and personality, does it not follow that the source from which we originated has consciousness and personality? If ultimate reality is impersonal and blind-mechanical, then why are we not impersonal and blind-mechanical?

What of Einstein then? I had read this page hoping to see some case for the existance of God, in the desire to question my own belief as an athiest. However I was dissapointed to say the least. All I have seen is very sly slight of hand, when questionned your responses are never direct, also you seem to have this obsession with quotes, which are far from panaceas in any arguement, You seem to think that just because you quote famous physicists your arguement is valid, for example your first quote is from Albiert Einstein, seemingly to shock and amaze the reader.

What is Kobo Super Points?

Unfortunately for believers of God, statistics cannot be wrong, only misinterpreted, and everything that can be PROVED by the Bible, can be proven with statistics and by physics for example how humans can into being. Like I said at the beginning of my rant which I apologise for , I am only after the conformation of my belief or if needs be a remodelling, I am not just writing this to insult religious people, in fact I think the for the most part they are very decent people. Please do not tell me life is a miracle, life was inevitable as all it took was the right molecules to come together in the right place and time unlikely I know but far from impossible , so if you could please avoid that arquement for times sake that would be much appreciated.

Go ahead, ask me a question and I will give you a direct answer. Please point it out for me so that I can know your accusation is more substantive than merely a dismissive rationalization for facts that are inconvenient to your ideology. It is one thing to declare that I have failed to respond to something directly, and another thing entirely to point out where I have done so.

No, Einstein was not omniscient. What is the chance our world is the result of chance? Not to throw down the gauntlet or anything, but if you are like most atheist commenters to this site, I will not hear back from you with a logically constructed, fact based, point-by-point rebuttal. Life was inevitable? Please elaborate. And protein folding is only the first step for producing life from lifeless compounds.

Perhaps you should take the route out of this dilemma taken by some prominent atheists. If you agree with your fellow atheists, would you please tell me if you have a view as to what planet the aliens came from? I have decided to start compiling stats on which planet atheists think is the best candidate. Please forgive me for being blunt and at times sarcastic. Rather than trying to insult you, I am just trying to prevent you from making the biggest mistake that any human being could ever make rejecting God.

I certainly cannot criticize because I was an agnostic for many years. But scientific methods and super computers rely on the fact that intelligent experimenters can reject one set of parameters as they fail. The next experiment rules out previous flawed results. But mindless processes and chance could come up with the same errors time after time. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon. You keep using quotes from Einstein as if he were a theist. He makes it very clear here:. It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. Yes, that is correct. Einstein did not believe in a personal God….

What is the chance our universe is the result of chance? If you read what astronomers have been writing about anthropic fine tuning, you will find that they make statements that refer to a personal God. Beyond just establishing that the Creator is a person, the findings about design provided some evidence of what that Person is like.

We see this care in the vastness and quality of the resources devoted to life support. What did he mean by the following? I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts.

I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature. Yes, that is a valid Einstein quote. So a physicist is uniquely qualified to comment on the scientific support for the existence of God. But when it comes to the specific attributes of God such as whether God is personal or impersonal , a physicist has no particular qualification to comment authoritatively.

Scott: So a physicist is uniquely qualified to comment on the scientific support for the existence of God. Terry: When did physicists begin to study the supernatural? I must have missed that event. More importantly how would physicists study the supernatural? Physicists do not study the supernatural. They comment on the extremely likelihood of the existence of the supernatural.

This is an entirely different undertaking than studying specific attributes of the supernatural. Once again, Terry, it works like this: The universe or mulitiverse or oscillating universe, or whatever you want to believe in had a beginning. Everything with a beginning has a cause. This is the law of causation, without which science would be impossible. Because something cannot cause itself, the cause of the natural world cannot be natural….

The worldview which equates the supernatural with superstition is based upon the completely discredited view that the universe is eternal and therefore does not require a cause. I see you still cling to them as if they had any real value. Scott: Once again, Terry, it works like this: The universe or mulitiverse or oscillating universe, or whatever you want to believe in had a beginning.

Terry: Opinion again. There is no observable evidence to support that theory. In fact the universe does exist so existing is the default position. Scott: Everything with a beginning has a cause. Terry: WOW, now you jump from something that has no evidence to calling it a fact. What a leap of faith that one is. See the problem. More likely time, space and energy have always existed. Scott: Yes they are because the law of causation without which science would be impossible requires that everything with a beginning has a cause. It is now completely undeniable that the universe or multiverse or oscillating universe, or whatever you want to believe in had a beginning by the laws of physics and mathematics.

You have failed again and again to respond to this, Terry. If the natural universe had a beginning, it had a cause. And because something cannot cause itself, the natural universe must by necessity have a super natural cause. Scott: Except that there is huge observable evidence to support that theory. Since you seem unable to respond to this evidence, I will copy and paste the entire post below for you:.

A universe with a finite past requires a beginning, which in turn requires a transcendent or supernatural cause. This is why our universe must be eternal for atheism to be valid. Spitzer who was assisted by Dr. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite…is solely that of an idea. Many other contemporary mathematicians such as mathematicians Frankel, Rotman, Kneebone, Zermelo, and Robinson draw the same conclusion. It is known as the BVG theorem. Alexander Vilenkin is very blunt in regard to the implications of this proof:.

With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning. Terry, your argument is very typical of many atheists that I have encountered. Scott: What did I call a fact? Feel free to doubt the law of causation. Please respond to this point by doing something besides reasserting your unsupportable view that the universe is eternal despite the fact that this is not possible.

I will again copy and paste what the physicist Alexander Vilenkin had to say about this matter in regard to his proof that there was a cosmic beginning :. It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. One way to convince yourself that your views are correct is to only accept the arguments of people who agree with you…and to refuse to even respond to the arguments of people who disagree with you.

Because Robert J. Spitzer is a catholic priest, Terry considers his arguments unacceptable. Please note that a refusal to even consider the arguments of a person who disagrees with you because he disagrees with you is a clear manifestation of an ideologically based perceptual filter. Time is something as opposed to nothing. Terry: There you go again. Belief in a deist god is equal to belief in no god as the deist god would not and could not ever be proven one way or the other. He could have used the deist god to avoid the label of atheist.

Clearly though, the only thing his god has in common with your god is that they are both imaginary and man made. Scott: Terry, let me introduce you to a concept known as a categorical statement. Regardless of the context in which you insert this statement, the meaning is the same…. But, once again, virtually nothing can be conclusively proven. You cannot conclusively prove that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, even though you could provide some extremely convincing reasons to suggest that it will.

Every reasonable person would take that extremely convincing evidence and make a very small leap of faith that the sun will in fact rise tomorrow morning. If you are. Scott: You cannot conclusively prove that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, even though you could provide some extremely convincing reasons to suggest that it will. Terry: The sun rising is not in question nor is the sun rising a supernatural event.

Will my furnace come on when it gets cold enough to trigger the thermostat. I do have faith in them. But these are not of an absurd supernatural nature. The theist claim is. Just a little evidence.

Tracing the News

That is all. Terry, you continue to assert that there is no evidence, and yet you have failed to post any response whatsoever to the evidence provided in my essays. Here is what I will do, Terry: I will provide a short list of questions for you to respond to and you can choose to either A continue to ignore them and fail to post a reply OR B do your best to post a logically based reply.

Whenever you assert in the future that there is no evidence, you can bet that I will call attention to the following questions that you have failed to answer:. Please note that these physicists have come to this conclusion as a result of their research …. You have it precisely the worng way round! Atheists have a totalitarian grip on the science chairs in American universities. The hirelings know that their sponsors, the multinationals, will withdraw their funding if they feel their corporations are to be subjected to any kind of moral constraints, not to speak of the personal lives of their principals.

Once again, every time that you do this, you are advertising the emotional and ideological as opposed to rational basis for your atheist views. Dear religatard, your strawman is noted. My claim was only that YOU have no reason to believe that Jesus ever existed. The burden of proof is with the claim that he does and is historical. Dear religatard, Adolf Hitler makes the claim, what more do I need to believe this?

Nazi racial ideology was creationist. Hitler considered that the different human races had been created separately. The races had been created by God in their current form humans had not evolved from other animals. Once again, I cited historian Richard Weikart, from his book Fr.. Dear stupid ass uneducated lying religatard, what did Hitler say hr was…. Dear stupid ass uneducated lying religatard, Hitler was the Messiah!

How does this support your nonsense? You think Hitler quoting the Catholic Church means what exactly? Hitler saw the Christian churches as having been corrupted by Jews, starting with Paul. He regarded Jesus as an Aryan, and wanted to restore what he saw as the original message of Jesus. No, your stupidity was that they were not Christian.

You really are about as dishonest as you are stupid! Audiatur et altera pars? Most communists are very religous you really should get out more. Dear stupid ass uneducated lying religatard, 56 million during wwII, million murdered in the genocide of the Americas, 36 million murdered in your slave trades…just to mention a few.

This galloping Gish is getting to difficult to discuss by phone posting. I suggest you pick a single topic and quote your sources and cite them where applicable. Every time that you resort to name calling in order to compensate for the weakness of your arguments, you are committing the Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy. I assure you that all intelligent third-party viewers of this comment chain can perceive that you are launching personal attacks against me because you are angry that you cannot provide a logical defense for your stance.

I further assure you that I do not care what you think of me. Just to name a few, this would include such figures as Robert Boyle the founder of modern chemistry , Louis Pasteur the founder of microbiology and immunology , Isaac Newton the founder of classical physics , Max Planck the founder of quantum physics , Charles Darwin the founder of evolutionary biology , Werner Heisenberg the founder of quantum mechanics , Werner Von Braun the founder of space science , James Clerk Maxwell the founder of electromagnetic theory , Sir Joseph Thompson the founder of atomic physics , Allan Sandage one of the founders of modern astronomy , Albert Einstein, etc.

Here are a couple Einstein quotes from the above mentioned post:. We have a wealth of evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical figure. For example, we have many non-Christian sources from the time of Jesus who attest to his existence. As this essay notes, Celsus wrote:.

These references outside the Bible have led historians to a consensus—Jesus was a real person. Even Bart Ehrman, one of the most zealous critics of the Bible alive today, acknowledges Jesus lived. He wrote:.

https://deicusupcige.gq

Read About Truth and Life in John Hansel Jr.' s New Book Amphibian...

Quoted from and citation notes derived from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? In any case the fine-tuning ofthe universe is Game, Set and Match. It is absolute proof of deism, at the very least ; quantum mechanics takes it to the level of theism, and the Holy shroud of Turin effectivly proves Christianity is historically-based, not least the Resurrection of Christ.

For those who are not invincibly ignorant, there are many excellent video-clips on YouTube showing evidence of extraordinary phenomena, such as a Singularity, whereby the laws of physics break down. Terry: Here we have a simple case of cart in front of horse. There is no observable evidence to support the beginning of the universe. In fact it does claim there was the singularity without any explanation of where it came from or what was before it.

The author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:. Plus, as I have pointed out before. In order for the universe to have a beginning there would have had to be a supernatural event. We have no observable evidence to support the supernatural. Plus when we take into the consideration the source of the supernatural concept the church and the probability of the supernatural actually existing slim to none It is easily dismissed as feldercarb. What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Christopher Hitchens. So now what we have here are two claims that have no observable evidence the beginning of the universe and the supernatural being used by Scott as if they have already been proven. They are not even reasonable and fit squarely into the absurd category. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning pg.

The laws of mathematics and physics are inconclusive. You should know that if you know so much about science. Is it a proof of the existence of God? This view would be far too simplistic. Anyone who attempts to understand the origin of the universe should be prepared to address its logical paradoxes. In this regard, the theorem that I proved with my colleagues does not give much of an advantage to the theologian over the scientist.

The point Vilenkin is making here is: A beginning of the universe does not necessarily mean that it was a result of the supernatural god. Scott: Terry, I know that these facts have a hard time penetrating your ideologically based perceptual filter. Terry: Terry, I know that these facts have a hard time penetrating your theistically based perceptual filter.

One way to convince yourself that your views are correct is to only accept the arguments of people who agree with you. Spitzer is a catholic priest, Scott considers his arguments acceptable regardless of the absurdities of his claims. Please note that accepting the arguments of a person who agrees with you because he agrees with you is a clear manifestation of a theistical based perceptual filter.

Terry: Regarding Robert J. Spitzer Priest. The fact that this person is clearly a member of a religous cult gives me more than enough reason to dismiss his claims as nothing more than fantasy and conditioning from his cult leaders and members. Dear Scott, all of your petty little essays combined are not evidence of anything. They are opinions. That is just the way it is. Get over it. Scott: Except that we very clearly do have a wealth of evidence supporting this conclusion. Click on this article to see what I mean. Some important excerpts:. Extrapolation of the expansion of the universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past.

Scott: Except that it very clearly does claim this. Click on this article from physicist Stephen Hawking to see what I mean. Key excerpt:. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology. Terry: Once again, we have a theist trying to use a theory as some sort of proof. Scott: The laws of mathematics are not a theory, Terry.

They are fixed and unchangeable.

Atheism - Conservapedia

Two plus two will never equal anything but four, regardless of what future turn science may take. Terry, you failed to respond to what mathematicians say about the concept of the infinite, so I will again copy and paste so that you can have another chance to respond:. Further, Terry, your hope for an infinite universe relies upon an unravelling of the second law of thermodynamics, as Stephen Hawking points out in his lecture to which I have linked you.

But I enjoy debating you so much, Terry, that I am going to play the game on your turf as I said in my other comment. A copy and paste from that comment:.

A Change of Mind for Antony Flew

You want an infinitely old universe? I will start with the assumption that the universe is infinitely old, or if not, that there are an infinite number of universes that predate our universe in a multiverse or oscillating universe, etc. Even with an infinitely old universe or an infinite number of universes , how does this allow for the emergence of a universe finely tuned for the existence of life? What is the chance that our world is the result of chance?

Recall that bare probabilities are causally inert and require a causal mechanism to produce any result. Going to the convenience store on a regular basis to buy lottery tickets is the causal mechanism that enables the bare probability of of a lottery win to result in an actual lottery win. In a universe that is truly devoid of an intelligent and conscious foundation, how is it that these causal mechanisms that enabled the probability a finely tuned universe came to be?

Therefore, the idea that an infinitely old universe or infinite number of universes explains the existence of a finely tuned universe is every bit as absurd as the idea that living long enough will by itself guarantee a person a lottery win. Scott: Good job. All he has done in the statement that you provide is state his religious views without providing any reasoning behind them. Oxford University professor of philosophy Antony Flew writes:. If there is a beginningless series of nonnecessary existent beings, then this is a sufficient cause for the universe as a whole.

The fact that a million computers have been infected by the virus does not in itself explain the existence of the self-replicating virus. What Flew is driving at here, Terry, is the fact that even a universe without a beginning requires a cause. So you can have your universe without a beginning or an infinite number of universes if you want it. I am feeling extremely generous today.

I will again play the game on your turf and assume that you are correct that the universe is eternal and that it does not need a cause. In this uncaused, eternal universe without a conscious and intelligent foundation, how is it that there exist such things as laws of nature? How is it that there is a law of gravity? Laws of thermodynamics? Laws of motion? Scott: The difference between you and I is that I respond to all opposing arguments rather than dismissing some of them a priori because they were made by someone I disagree with.

If you only accept arguments made by other atheists, of course you are going to come to atheistic conclusions. Scott: Oh, is that your opinion? Moreover, you fail to make the distinction between an opinion grounded in a logically sound argument and an opinion that is merely a matter of personal taste. Rather, he is stating a research conclusion. Albert Einstien, on his death bed in Princeton Hospital, asked for two things only, pencil and paper. He began to write what many believe to be his greatest discovery.

Unfortunatly he did not get to finish these papers, because he had passed away. From what his last memoirs told us, was that he was feeling guilty and fearfull, because all his discoveries and theories, and beliefs, did not include or coinside with Gods work. Now, this was a brilliant man who had made many break throughs in facts and science. Not to mention the awards he had accumulated.

Including Nobel. I dont know about you…. On his death bed he made his peace with God, and himself, for according to his last writtings he did, all his life have the Lord in his heart and mind. I guess because he had no proof of God, and being a scientist as we know is based on fact and proof. He could not commit to himself and his peers, what he really believed.

If he did it would have been a major contradiction of almost all his accomplishments, but on his death bed he revealed to him self and others what he trully felt. Thats the power of the Lord. Steve perhaps this might be relevant. London: Hodder and Stoughton, , p. Well put. There must be an open heart before there can be an open mind.

Some more quotes to consider: Dr. Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than one in ten to the 40 thousand. Neither Sr. Fred Hoyle nor Professor Wickramasinghe accept the Genesis account of creation, but each maintains that wherever life occurs in this universe, it had to be created.

They further reject Darwinian evolution itself. If anything is ten to the 50th power or less chance, it will never happen, even cosmically, in the whole universe. DNA determines the arrangement for bones, muscles, 10, auditory nerve fibers, two million optic nerve fibers, billion nerve cells, billion feet of blood vessels and capillaries and so on. Such extraordinary sophistication can only reflect intelligent design. He also lectures on college campuses. He holds the following degrees: B. Noted astronomer Fred Hoyle uses the Rubik cube to illustrate the odds of getting a single molecule, in this case a biopolymer.

Biopolymers are biological polymers, i. At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form.

You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order. The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness.

Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle. Thanks for this. I am in the process of writing an essay on the origin of life and I may utilize some of this info that you have provided.

An Atheist and Theist Dialogue

People who ridicule religion are like immature children who want to disown the parents that lovingly sacrificed everything for them. Exactly… and that is much of the reason that I launched this website. I am trying to help close the divide between what the science actually says about God, and what atheist ideologues in academia and the media want us to believe the science says about God.

Specifically, it says that atheist ideologues in the media and academia have been very successful in hoodwinking the public. To discount an infinite God in an infinite universe, you, yourself, have to have infinite knowledge of the entire universe. What you are denying exists is an omniscient being. In order to truly deny that, you, yourself, have to be omniscient.

The Bible is a book of fiction with no proof at all. In my essay Is there a God? The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment of time, in a flash of light and energy. God and the Astronomers by Robert Jastrow who is cited above. It must be emphasized that Jastrow became convinced of the similarity between the Bible and science even though he approached the subject as a self-described agnostic…rather than a Christian or Jew who could be accused of approaching the subject with an agenda.

Rather, it is about preponderance of evidence. Thus doing away with the need for a creator. There was once nothing and now there is something. In , physicists Borde, Vilenkin and Guth corroborated to formulate a proof that demonstrates that an eternal universe is not possible. You need to read this carefully. It is easier to lie when the event that took place was some 2, years ago. Anyway, please read this below:. Apart from the most rabid fundamentalists among us, nearly everyone admits that the Bible might contain errors — a faulty creation story here, a historical mistake there, a contradiction or two in some other place.

But is it possible that the problem is worse than that — that the Bible actually contains lies? But good Christian scholars of the Bible, including the top Protestant and Catholic scholars of America, will tell you that the Bible is full of lies, even if they refuse to use the term. And here is the truth: Many of the books of the New Testament were written by people who lied about their identity, claiming to be a famous apostle — Peter, Paul or James — knowing full well they were someone else.

In modern parlance, that is a lie, and a book written by someone who lies about his identity is a forgery. Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies?

Harmonic resonance indoctrinates Buddhist - ROA - WY - Talk Heathen 03.28

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. Whoever wrote the New Testament book of 2 Peter claimed to be Peter. Someone else wrote it claiming to be Peter. Scholars may also tell you that it was an acceptable practice in the ancient world for someone to write a book in the name of someone else. But that is where they are wrong. Someone else did. And that someone else lied about his identity. The same is true of many of the letters allegedly written by Paul.

Their authors merely claimed to be Paul. In the ancient world, books like that were labeled as pseudoi — lies.