God Exists

You argue that having "a personal god is a form of mental weakness." There are millions of very mentally stable persons today who believe in God, and there is no proof that they have some kind of mental illness. Is William Lane Craig, Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology a mentally weak person? What is your definition of mental weakness? Believers are no less mentally stable than unbelievers. The same early man who believed the earth was the center of the universe was made of both theists and atheists alike, so non-believers are no better off in this respect. Were atheists of the past mentally weak because they believed in a flat earth before the discovery of gravity? A lack of scientific knowledge in some respects is no evidence of mental weakness. At least ancient theists had a foundation for living moral lives, and were not moral nihilists. In the absence of God, the morality evolved by homo sapiens is just a social adaptation, an aid to survival like our teeth and hands. As animals, there can be no right or wrong, for when a lion eats a zebra he doesn"t kill her; and when a white male shark forcibly copulates with a female he doesn"t rape her. These things go on all the time in the animal kingdom and there is no moral dimension to these things. So for the atheist, there can be no objective morality. I therefore ask you again, is rape wrong? If so, why? Are you afraid to actually answer my arguments? Can you not for once in your life be mature enough to have an intellectual discussion that doesn"t involve you throwing stones in your little glass house? Man has always believed in God. There was no time at which he was first manipulated into believing in him, for this belief is as old as man"s earliest writings. Strange that you should describe early man as illiterate, when the Hebrew language is more complex than most modern ones. The early Egyptians built the pyramids and had Pythagoras theorem before Pythagoras was born. Just because a bunch of "ignorant dirtballs manipulated" some men into believing that the universe popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing, doesn"t make it true. Just because a bunch of "ignorant dirtballs manipulated" you into believing that living things happened to pop into existence out of unliving matter doesn"t make abiogenesis any more likely than Santa Clause, or any other childish belied. Evolution by natural selection is not a well substantiated theory. A 35-year experiment by evolutionists illustrates how things actually work. "Instead of waiting for natural selection, the researchers forced selection on populations of fruit flies over hundreds of generations. "They used variation to breed fruit flies that develop from egg to adult 20% faster than normal. "But, as usual when breeding plants and animals, there was a down side. "In this case the fruit flies weighed less, lived shorter lives, and were less resistant to starvation. "There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the limits of variation. "They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". ""Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." ""The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Dunham, Parvin Shahrestani, Kevin R. Thornton, Michael R. Rose, Anthony D. Long. 30 September 2010. Genome-wide analysis of a long-term evolution experiment with Drosophila. Nature, Vol. 467, pp. 587-590. Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen:"On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection). "That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures. "It might even work if it took just one gene to make and control one part. "But parts of living creatures are constructed of intricate components with connections that all need to be in place for the thing to work, controlled by many genes that have to act in the proper sequence. "Natural selection would not choose parts that did not have all their components existing, in place, connected, and regulated because the parts would not work. "Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. "That is physically impossible. There is no such thing as a beneficial mutation. No scientist has ever seen one, if you have, show it to me. Con, you argue that evolution is so well substantiated but you give no evidence, which is sad to see that you have all bark and no bite. You say the origin of the universe is currently undefined: you fly in the face of the currently accepted theory of the Big Bang among cosmologist and astrophysicists. If you disagree with the Big Bang, please state why, but childishly barking "it"s not true" and throwing insults at ancient people will not help your infantile case. I never chose answers to the origin of the universe from any holy book, but I appealed to logic which you were too afraid to respond to. The majority of the scientific community agrees that the singularity which exploded at the Big Bang represents the origin of all time, space, matter and energy. Thus, the cause of the Big Bang would have to transcend all time and space, and be immaterial. This sounds a lot like God to me. So my claim is a scientific one. It isn"t taken from a holy book. Interestingly, you still haven"t replied to the facts concerning Jesus" resurrection as documented in the Gospels which are indeed just as historical as Josephus and Tacitus writings. Five histones are involved in DNA. The chance of forming even the simplest of these histones is said to be one in 20100"a huge number "larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes." (Evolution From Space, p. 27) But any probability less than 1050 is recognized by Mathematicians as never happening! Con, if you are so intellectually lazy that you cannot deal with my arguments, then why bother debating? Do you enjoy getting thrashed? Maybe your atheistic dogmatism cannot give meaning to your life, and that"s why you attack those who do have meaningful lives. Death is not the end for me. Dr. Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper completed a two-year study into the near-death experiences (NDEs) of the blind. They published their findings in a book entitled "Mindsight" in which they documented the solid evidence of 31 cases in which blind people report visually accurate information obtained during NDEs. Perhaps the best example in his study is that of a forty-five year old blind woman by the name of Vicki Umipeg. Vicki was born blind, her optic nerve having been completely destroyed at birth because of an excess of oxygen she received in the incubator. Yet, she appears to have been able to see during her NDE. (Ring, K., & Cooper, S. (1999) Mindsight: Near-Death and Out-of-Body Experiences in the Blind) Like Vicki, I too have a soul that can leave my body; I will live on for my heavenly reward after this body dies. But in your pessimistic atheist philosophy, there is no ultimate punishment for the wicked, or reward for the righteous. Adolf Hitler got away with it. It makes no difference how you live. No wonder you lash out the way you do at spiritual people. If only you"d accept God in your heart, you"ll be able to let go of the bitterness, and experience the peace of Christ.