Evidence for God from Science

Context, context, context. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o Seriously. How is it that only the violent and barbaric commands need "context"? Keep in mind that this is addressed specifically to the people of Israel and refers specifically to family members or those who are the ve...

For his argument to prove God's non-existence, he would have to demonstrate that a perfectly loving God would therefore be sure all people are properly educated, which is obviously much more difficult to prove. God can certainly not force someone to be properly educated, however, how about if we ph...

I am at a loss as to how to answer you. What I said is totally different from what you said. If you cannot see that there is no way for us to communicate. I will have to think much harder about what to say and do.... I'm not sure what you're so confused about. You quoted me, and then basically embe...

Not a straightforward interpretation at all. A straightforward interpretation would be that worship of the infinite Creator, the one true God is a matter of eternal life and death, and that it is such a harmful action to entice someone to worship a false god, that the offender has committed a terri...

-snip- A lot of blabbering but zero substance. Look, instead of screaming "out of context" (a typical Christian excuse to avoid uncomfortable conclusions they don't like), drop the obscurantism and actually tell us what you mean , I'd be delighted to hear it. I am entirely open-minded abo...

Here are the few arguments I have encountered in defense of this Biblical doctrine: - Hell is the result of Free Will. God would be happy to release its inhabitants, but they simply choose not to. - Since God is "infinite" in some way, any transgression against Him must merit infinite puni...

Aha. And yet, Paul tells you that you should keep the OT Law. What? Please demonstrate how the context of Paul's epistles say any such thing. "Do we therefore, make the Law void with faith? No, on the contrary, with establish the Law." Then there's Jesus who says that the Law has not chan...

The interpretation is just what it says. This has no 'Christian' implications. So, it doesn't affect, 'we.' This was for Israel at the time of that covenant. And yes, it was strict. God wasn't messing around with His intentions for Israel. This has ZERO to do with the Christian church. Aha. And yet...

I understand what you're saying. Just because they are punished does not mean they are "guilty". But still, it seems quite difficult to understand why not punish the guilty instead of the innocent (yes I know no one is technically "innocent", but in that case, they should be puni...

I think for the most part that's simply the way things were done back then. You can see children being blamed for "the sins of the father" and looked down upon because of their ancestors today as well. Flawed people do, indeed, do that. But why would an all-loving and all-knowing God blam...

What is the logic behind descendants being punished for their predecessors' sins?

And no, I'm not talking about Adam's "original sin", but all the other various instances in the OT where we see this taking place.

It seems to me Rich is simply commiting a typical No True Faith fallacy.

- I have faith in God.

- Do you love God, go to church, etc?

- No.

- Then you have No True Faith.

If God revealed Himself directly to people, then there would be a psychological constraint preventing us from rejecting Him (i.e. fear of Hell). In other words, it would be the equivalent of the famous example of a thief pointing a gun at you and telling you that you have a "choice" either...

It's interesting to note that atheism is such a wonderful philosophy that these more intelligent, very law-abiding people are also less healthy, have fewer children, less satisfying sex, more divorces, are more likely to commit suicide, more likely to be depressed or addicted, and live shorter lives.

Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFJPtVRl ... r_embedded