Staunch atheist Richard Dawkins of The New York Times bestseller The God Delusion will square off in a debate with popular Christian apologist John Lennox next month.
The Oct. 3 debate, which takes place at the Alys Stephens Center in Birmingham, Ala., will tackle one of the world’s most critical and age-old questions – Does God exist? – and views expressed in Dawkins' latest book.
Dawkins, labeled by BBC as "Darwin's Rottweiler," is a prominent spokesman for the "New Atheism." The once silent and ignored atheist minority has emerged as a vocal, insistent bunch that doesn’t just want to deny the existence of God, but wipe religion off the map, as prominent evangelical Chuck Colson put it.
In the past two years, five books touting atheism have hit bestseller lists. Dawkins' The God Delusion is just days away from hitting one year on The New York Times bestseller list this week. And membership at Atheist Alliance International (AAI) has doubled in the past year to 5,200.
"People who were ashamed to say there is no God now say, 'Wow, there are others out there who think like me," said AAI president Margaret Downey, according to The Washington Post.
According to The Barna Group, about 5 million American adults claim to be atheists and staunchly reject the existence of God. If adding the agnostics and other Americans who have doubts of God's existence but do not outright reject a Supreme Being, roughly 20 million people in the nation belong to the "no faith" group.
Dawkins rates himself on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is certitude that God exists and 7 is certitude that God does not exist, as 6, arguing that any scientist would leave open the possibility that God exists.
For Dawkins, however, "God is very improbable" and he lives his life "on the assumption that [God] is not there."
The upcoming debate will take place as Christian apologist Lennox releases his forthcoming book God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?. In the anticipated book, Lennox invites readers to re-examine the atheist's position that the nature of science points toward the non-existence of God.
Former atheist Lee Strobel, now a noted Christian apologist, released a documentary last year using science to prove the existence of God.
"Today, science is pointing more powerfully to a creator than any other time," said Strobel in "The Case for a Creator." "The most logical and rational step is to put my faith in the Creator that science tells me exists."
The God Delusion Debate is being sponsored by Fixed Point Foundation, a Christian think tank. Dawkins is a fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. Lennox is a fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science at the Green College of the University of Oxford. Both have dedicated their careers to science but arrived at very different conclusions. The upcoming event will also be one of the few debates in which Dawkins has ever participated.
RSS
As to the comment that God Himself as the Light before the sun was created being unsupported by scripture. In Revelation it says that God HImself will be the Light in the New Jerusalem. It is no a big stretch to believe that when the earth was first created that God was the Light. Obviously, that does not prove that this was the case, but it does at least lend some credence to the idea.
Yaba Daba Du,
Reprove a fool and he will hate you,
Duh!
Actually the evolutionists and atheists are no worse off than the majority of “Christian” preachers who are teaching a false salvation doctrine.
Practically no mainstream religion teaches the true gospel of our salvation, instead teaching a conglomeration of false doctrine in an effort to assure that no person following their “church” doctrine will be saved. In short, the “churches” are vilely corrupt organizations striving for money and power.
The only group of people that I consider to be more vile and corrupt than lawyers are preachers. The lawyers take away the people’s wealth and dignity in the present but the preachers steal their soul for all eternity.
BOC560
Hi CelticPyr8,
I am aware of AiG... AiG is the Young-Earth Creationist site... I do have one thing to say about: "which BTW Tradition Holds that Almighty GOD himself was the Source of the Light before He Created the Sun / Moon / Stars et al...- so as to remind Man that He was to be Worshiped & Not the Star / Ball of Fire - we call the Sun !"
Tradition never said anything about God being the Light... I have heard this as an argument before and it does not hold any water... Since we know that God's Spirit (Holy Spirit) was hovering over the water, I am sure he would have mentioned that He was the Light as well...
Interesting theory, but again, something that is completely unsupported in scripture.
What a great argument.Thanks for that,jar61.I love this site!!!
Well I have one question for Dr. Dawkins... let's assume for the sake of arguement that man evolved from the primordial ooze. Here is my question.. Did the ooze use cellular division as a means of human development and if so.. who cared for the babies? I mean if babies were creatred from the ooze who fed them, who kept them safe from the elements and critters? Who nursed them when they were sick? Or did the swamp also keep them until they were adults? Seems Genesis 1 had it right.. the only way for human beings to survive is if they were created as adults first...... unless of course Dr. Dawkins believes we were spawned from aliens...
Since I was a young atheist and finally became sane, I understand some of the dilemma the good Senator is going through. Of course since he does not know Him it is a bit impossible for him to understand Him. However it is difficult to understand how the good Senator can sue God, who accord to one of his personalities, does not believe He exists. I know...I know, all with an I.Q. over 100 are already answering that question. He might study Aristotle and his logic or Socrates would even be better, then he would pick up on the Major Premise and the Minor Premise Equals the Answer, etc. C.M.E.Joad, the great English philospher who wrote books on atheism and tried to buy them back after he became a Christian could help the Senator, that is if he is willing to be helped. But we understand Grandstanding and showmanship that becomes necessary when one does not know how to do what he was elected to do. But I believe his intent is good and that is worth something.
::begin quote::
Hey DannyPoo, I wanted to let you know that the example citizen was using to question the Bible was Quirinius.Scholars say he was not Governor of Syria at the time of Jesus' birth,as Luke asserts in Luke 2:1-2.I never did answer him,but according to the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary and The Mcarthur Study Bible, a stone was found near Rome indicating that he was Governor twice.I didn't want to forget to tell you both about that discovery.The "Rocks Cry Out".
::end quote::
Thanks for the info Golden!
Hey Guys ! - ZenoDaddy ; DannyPoo & company - & anyone else who is interested ! - If U really want to get your teeth into this issue - esp the issue of the Sun / Day & Night - (which BTW Tradition Holds that Almighty GOD himself was the Source of the Light before He Created the Sun / Moon / Stars et al...- so as to remind Man that He was to be Worshiped & Not the Star / Ball of Fire - we call the Sun !) - then please check out the following sites: http://www.kolbecenter.org/ and Also: http://www.answersingenesis.org/
For the specific topic of Sun / Day & Night – go to:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2005/04/25/day-and-night-but-without-the-sun/
Have Fun !
Hey DannyPoo, I wanted to let you know that the example citizen was using to question the Bible was Quirinius.Scholars say he was not Governor of Syria at the time of Jesus' birth,as Luke asserts in Luke 2:1-2.I never did answer him,but according to the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary and The Mcarthur Study Bible, a stone was found near Rome indicating that he was Governor twice.I didn't want to forget to tell you both about that discovery.The "Rocks Cry Out".
Do Atheists Exist?
http://polemos.net/Do%20Atheists%20Exist.html
"For centuries now men have been debating the existence of God. Just think about that; men who were created by God debating about whether or not that God exists, little men attempting to bring the almighty Creator before the bar of their finite judgment! If it were not such a crime it might be something to laugh at.
But the fact of the matter is that men will not sit in judgment upon God, but God will sit in judgment upon man. And in that great and terrible day of judgment, all delusions will be set aside and all self-deceptions will be swept away. Everything will finally be set right and reality will be clearly seen by all of mankind. And in that day, it will be acknowledged by all that atheists did not exist......"
I agree. If they are going to win this debate they are going to need someone on Hugh Ross's staff or even Hugh to prep him before this debate. When the bible clearing identifies the existence of the Earth, darkness over the face of it, and it was covered by water because the Spirit of God was hovering above it (A flood before Noah's Flood) all found in Genesis 1:2. This tells me that this Earth may actually be old, but our appearence on it is much more recent and instantanous. This Earth shows evidence of about 6-7 seven creation events. We take for granted oil within the earth's crust, but only the God of the Bible can take the credit for His forsight and patience in preparing all the energy resources necessary for our arrival on the earth and the days that we live in. Love is patient. This universe and life itself is much too fine-tuned to be the result of haphazard mistakes. Nature reveals that living organisms show no sign of mutational advance - invalidating darwinism.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com
I have always been fond of Hugh's work. Fuzale Rana is another person you may be interested in as well... he wrote a book called 'Origin of Life' which is a great read! I read that book in a matter of days (no pun intended for those 'in the know')... his PhD is in micro biology if I remember correctly and is also a fellow at RTB.
Glad you liked his site! They have local chapters all over the US.
I like what I've seen so far on Hugh Ross' site.I was reading about the expanding universe as it relates to the Bible.Great stuff!!
Thanks for the heads up on Hugh Ross' site.I'm on my way over there now!!
Actually, we do have this discussion going over at the message board. Sorry about that.
I would have to agree with you. We all tend to squeeze our own biases into the models to help prove if our theory is correct or not. I tend to sway past the Old Earth Creationist stance more then anything else. I do not outright say that a literal interpretation of the creation days is wrong, but there are a lot of problems that tend to go with it.
In the literal approach, light was created after the earth, which blatantly contradicts everything known to science... on the old earth view, the light was created (or came into view) after the mars-sized planet slammed into the earths core and then being expelled back out to create the moon taking most of the thick atmosphere with it.(one of the theories anyway)
I love the creation discussions... but when it comes to debating a person such as Dawkins... he is merely looking for a fight. Lennox may just give him a run for his money... he is after all, a professor at the most prestigious college on the planet.
We have not started a discussion on this topic on my message board... feel free to swing on by and join the discussion.
http://www.u-cubed.org
One thing that does stand out is this.In the book of Revelation, Satan is said to have been cast out of Heaven and onto the Earth.If this is a flash-back to the fall of Satan, when was he cast out? The Earth was already in existence when it happened.Something to think about.
zenodaddy,
Im personally still undecided as to the young-earth/old-earth creation controversy. Although after reading Genesis 1 & 2 lately, I realized that every day has a "morning and evening" yet the seventh day does not. This seems to suggest that we are still in the seventh day. Therefore making it a possibility that each "day" may not be a literal day.
I have listened to Hugh Ross and have been pretty impressed by many of his arguments, at times I feel like he squeezes too hard at getting current scientific data into the Christian Genesis model. Yet I have felt that Young Earth creationists do this as well. This is not limited to the Theistic perspectives. I have caught many non-theistic scientists seemingly "squeezing" the data into their theorys of the origin of the universe, also evolution (ex: Punctuated equilibrium vs. phyletic gradualism), etc.
It is an interesting idea, but nothing in scripture will lend any support to the gap theory. The Hebrew word for 'Day' is 'Yom' and it can mean a 24-hour period, 12-hour period (light/dark) or an epoch (very long period of time)... old earth creationists generally hold to epoch view... another thing to remember is that the 7th day has not ended yet, but is still ongoing.
We find the creation event spelled out in Genesis 1 and 2 relate perfectly with how modern cosmologists believe the universe came into being. Reason's to Believe is a great place to start looking if you are interested.
I agree with you on this.I have been looking at the possibility that there is a gap between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, because the Earth is said to be without form and void.Is this the result of some kind of judgment on the pre-adamite Earth? I don't know, but it is fascinating and would explain the Earth being more than 6,000 years old.
Dawkins generally loves an easy win. For him to debate an old earth Creationist who holds a PhD in Astronomy (Ross), who has shown that with the String Theory with its 11+ dimensions that Jesus is the Christ, miracles, etc... through the supernatural 'fine-tuning' events, etc... Dawkins would not have much room to actually debate on, and he knows this.
Young-Earth Creationists tend to be easier targets (I am not sure if Lennox is or not) because they are easily trapped philosophically, scientifically, theologically.
I suggest going to Hugh's site, http://www.reasons.org and check out his articles. His entire apologetics/science team is made up of experts.
Just a suggestion... stay open minded.
It definitely is a compliment.Anyway, just curious.
::begin quote::
Hey DannyPoo, you remind me of a guy I use to go to church with.His name was Dan Sloan.That wouldn't be you would it? He was a pretty sharp guy,too.
::end quote::
Nope that wouldn't be me. But with your kind description of him, i'll take the case of mistaken identity as a high compliment.
Hey DannyPoo, you remind me of a guy I use to go to church with.His name was Dan Sloan.That wouldn't be you would it? He was a pretty sharp guy,too.
Citizen: My proof to you is myself, I give you testimony that God is quite real, and He didn't make my decision for me. I was not always a believer Citizen; I tried everything in this world to make sense of life and nothing was working. What I found was a cold and apathetic world. I was not biased for Christianity, in fact I hated organized religion. I wasn't sure God existed, and if He did, I hated Him for allowing things that happened in my life. When I got sick of being sick and tired, and I was at the end of myself; I cried out to this Creator and said, if you are real and your love is real, I would like to know that! You do not want to know God Citizen, you just like to argue the same points over and over.
God tells us that HIS Word is Spiritually discerned, it is foolishness to those who are perishing, but it is the power of God for those who believe! You are free to believe what you want to! You are free to stay in your unbelief. As for me this ends my part of this discussion, I am moving on to take the Gospel of Jesus Christ to those who want to know God's love and forgiveness. God bless y'all on this site brethren! My prayer is for those who don't know God, that one day, you might just open your own heart and mind that HE would show you that HE is indeed very real, and that HE loves you even in your denial of Him. He never stops loving you, and waits with open arms for you to turn to Him! One day Citizen, you will remember this conversation and my prayer is that you will have surrendered your life to Jesus Christ! For without Jesus there is no life at all! For Your Glory Lord God!
::CORRECTION::
"I'm not really sure that is a *fair* list on that link with 344 objections to the bible...."
::begin quote::
GoldenEagle: the bible both gets things objectively incorrect ("day and night" before the sun, for example) and is contradictory on many important matters (for an extensive list, see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html). Therefore, there is good reason to refuse the bible the authority you grant it. As for reason and personality, they come from the brain, and the brain evolved. No need to posit supernatural explanations.
::end quote::
I'm not really sure that is a list on that link with 344 objections to the bible. Considering that even our posts are limited to a set number. Maybe you could bring out 1, and we can tackle that 1 objection and so on. As I looked through many of those 344, and being an amateur apologist I saw hundreds that have been adequately answered by biblical scholars.
Looks like you invited me back.Nothing is more untenable than atheism.You have to ignore the evidence for a Creator all around you.Even Scientists are coming to the conclusion that there is Intelligent Design.
I guess "taking the high road" involves fleeing rather than facing up to the fact that your claims are shown to be untenable. Who knew?
anniefourjesus: In other words, if you aren't biased by already believing Christian dogma, and look at the bible reasonably, it will look like a incoherent mess. You could change my mind by offering objective evidence (in other words, that doesn't need Christian assumptions behind it). You say that "Jesus changed your heart." How'd he do that? Does Jesus have mind control powers? Otherwise, how can you say anyone other than yourself changed your mind? What happened to Christian claims of "free will"? What happened to "making a decision for Christ"? Can it really be your decision if someone else somehow does it for you? Your claims are incoherent even by Christian standards. As for the rest of what you say, you simply return to "if you aren't biased in favor of Christianity like me, of course it won't make sense." Its true that just because I don't believe, that doesn't mean god doesn't exist, but the reverse is also true, that just because you believe that proof of god is everywhere, doesn't make that true either. You've already admitted that you are biased. Moreover, you seem to claim that I both do and do not have knowledge of god. Contradiction, incoherence.
Thanks for the discussion.I'm going to take the high road here and move on.Maybe we'll meet again on another post.Peace!!
GoldenEagle: the bible both gets things objectively incorrect ("day and night" before the sun, for example) and is contradictory on many important matters (for an extensive list, see http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_book.html). Therefore, there is good reason to refuse the bible the authority you grant it. As for reason and personality, they come from the brain, and the brain evolved. No need to posit supernatural explanations.
You are exactly right.Thanks for the insight.Maybe one day I'll learn.Well,I'm going to check out some of the other areas.I love this sight!
The Bible is a Spiritual Book, and without The Holy Spirit to reveal the truth, those who have no belief in God are not going to believe God's Word! The Lord God told us this! If Citizen has chosen to deny God's existence, no amount of debating is going to change his mind. No one could change my mind, it was the Lord Jesus Christ, who changed my heart, and I am so thankful for that! Citizen will never convince me that God is not real, and it doesn't seem to matter how much anyone talks with him, he isn't convinced! Faith is not logical, that's why it is called Faith! I pray for you Citizen that the Lord God will show you one day just how real He is!
The Lord God has written the knowledge of Himself on every human heart, and men are without excuse! Mankind chooses to either believe God or walk in rebellion. The knowledge of God is displayed in all of creation, the Heavens and the Earth are full of His glory, it just matters if you seek Him with your whole heart, and Citizen you don't appear to be seeking Him at all! So, of course He is isn't real to you nor is His word! Just because you don't believe, doesn't mean that He doesn't exist. I realized that even while I was denying Him, HE alway has existed, HE is Spirit and cannot be explained in human terms. HE is spiritually discerned, and because you do not have His Holy Spirit, you are unable to discern His Word or Him. My prayer is that HE will unharden your heart to want to know Him. I respect your choice to not believe Him, even while I choose to believe Him! People what does all this debating profit anything, unless people have God's Holy Spirit they cannot understand spiritual things!
::begin quote::
Richard Dawkins will most likely win this debate. The reason why I say this is because Dawkins is a scientist while Lennox is an apologeticist/philosopher. Dawkins has repeatedly denied Hugh Ross who holds a PhD in Astronomy a formal debate. This would be a scientist vs. science debate whereas this will just go down in history as another person trying to sway the scientific mind with age old rhetoric.
::end quote::
Why has Dawkins denied Hugh Ross a debate?
I think you're right zenodaddy.I'm making the same mistake in my conversation with citizen.You can't appeal to the Bible if the other person does not accept it's authority.It is a waste of time.I went to a debate between two scientists, one who was an atheist and one who a believer in Jesus.In this case the believer, the believer did quite well, because he was a scientist as well, and could appeal to the evidence from Science.I certainly am no scientist.
Richard Dawkins will most likely win this debate. The reason why I say this is because Dawkins is a scientist while Lennox is an apologeticist/philosopher. Dawkins has repeatedly denied Hugh Ross who holds a PhD in Astronomy a formal debate. This would be a scientist vs. science debate whereas this will just go down in history as another person trying to sway the scientific mind with age old rhetoric.
If this debate was against Hugh and Richard then the debate would be centered on scientifically reliable data instead of philosophical insight, or biblical theology. Scientists generally know what the apologeticist will throw at them, while the apologeticist will have to dodge the bullets from every angle.
This is a lose/lose situation for us.
Actually, there is such a thing as General Revelation.This means we can conclude certain things about God from the world around us.We know that the universe is not eternal from the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.We know that the universe is not self-created from the 1st law of Thermodynamics.This only leaves the possibility that someone who is eternal and self-existent created it.We generally call this being God.He is eternal and self-existent.What else can we conclude about him? He is very intelligent and powerful to have created the universe.He also must be the source of personality and reason.Otherwise where do these come from? Aside from God there is no explanation.All of this can be known without even considering the Bible.However, the Bible fits what we know to be true about God from the world around us more than any other source.
My point about the Bible is that it gives us the most accurate view of God based on what we know to be true from the world around us and from logic.I do believe the Bible to be the ultimate source of authority, and I understand that if you don't we may not have much ground for discussion.I believe the Bible to be true moreso than the Koran or the Bhagavad Ghita for the reason that I have already given.They do not give an accurate view of God based on the evidence at hand.As far as the reference to Quirinius, it comes from the Wikipedia under Census of Quirinius.There is a possible explanation there,although it is only a possibility.
thescienceofreason: You said: "Ultimately any "debate" is a pointless publicity stunt, because neither side will ever be able to prove their point without question. It just isn't in our power to know."
I agree, which is why atheists/Humanists don't claim to know or believe anything about what happened before the big bang, if anything. Christians claim all sorts of things they don't know. Going along with what you have said, it would be wiser for Christians to stop claiming to know, and instead of having faith, be realistic about the lack of knowledge, and wait for science to come up with the answer someday. They're working on it.
Finally, just to cause a small riot I'm going to explain something that very few of my fellow Christians seem to realize when I tell it to them. If you take the Bible at face value, believing that the universe is just a few thousand years old, you create a wall between yourself and science that can never be reconciled. And when I say science, I don't mean evolutionary science or the science of the big bang. You cut yourself off from ALL scientific and historical knowledge in existence. I am a physicist, and I can tell you with complete certainty that creation theory contradicts physics 100%. Not only that, creation theory contradicts geology, biology, chemistry, archaeology, paleontology, cosmology, and pretty much every subfield within these. It gets to the point that if you try and reconcile the bible to what we can clearly see (which I have tried), the only conclusion you can come to is that God is deliberately trying to deceive the entire human race. If you don’t believe me, look at a book that explains plate tectonics and continental drift. The continents quite literally look like a jigsaw puzzle, with identical rock formations appearing on two different continents separated by huge expanses of ocean. Based on the speed they are moving, either continental drift is right and the earth is very old, or, God purposely made the continents look like they were together, then sent them in motion to create the illusion of continental drift in order to deliberately deceive humans. The same problem arises many places in physics, most notably in light. I don't know about you, but my God doesn't try to deceive me. It just makes more sense that he created the universe using the laws we see now. In fact, creation is much more beautiful when you realize how it was created, and how all things are woven together so perfectly.
Just thinking logically, something has to be eternal, as others have said. This could be an all powerful God, or prehaps existence is just a given, and the universe we see around us has existed eternally. In all honesty both ideas have the same weight philosophically, although I'm betting on the former. Ultimately any "debate" is a pointless publicity stunt, because neither side will ever be able to prove their point without question. It just isn't in our power to know.
I feel I should butt in on the little argument going on here as well. If anyone looks at the authorship of the gospels without bias (That means without reaserching it specifically to find evidence to re-enfore their pre-existing belief. You know who you are.) there is a very good case for many, if not all, of them being written later and attributed to the apostles. I'm sorry if that bothers some of you, but it is quite possible. That doesn't nessissarily mean that what they say isn't true, it just means it survived as an oral tradition before being written down. The only reason that some Christians are at odds with science and accepted history is because of this odd desire to prove the absolute truth of every last syllable in the Bible, which is absolutly rediculous. Just translating it from Greek can be a nightmare at times, as anyone who has tried to impose English meaning on the word "logos" can attest to. Add that to the fact that the time periods in the Bible rarely signify actual gaps of time (The Jews were fond of using numbers to signify general lengths of time, for example 300 years in the old testament probably just means "a long stretch of time" instead 300 actual years.) and you have a document that, when read literally in English, disagrees with most all archeological and textual evidence from the time. That doesn't mean that God is wrong, it just means we messed up somewhere along the line. It happens, I'm sure he'll forgive us.
SeanS: And if I'm you, I believe in those UFO photos, because you can't distinguish between claims for which documentation and physical artifacts is sufficient (humans had a civil war, which goes on all the time), and those which need more than edited myths with an agenda.
"soldiers diaries, official requisition forms, official presidential documents" Again, you are relying on written documentation that someone might have forged. Pictures? Hundreds of people have claimed to take authentic photos of UFOs (before Photoshop even). I'm not saying that the civil war didn't occur, it did, but if you are willing to go on evidence that did not come from your direct observation, that takes faith. I just know that the bible is historic, contains factual information and is a trustworthy source.
SeanS: Moreover, civil wars are regular enough occurrences. Isn't it convenient that the miracles depicted in the bible have dried up as science has advanced, to the point where apologists explain that a god who used to send forty bears to attack children doesn't heal amputees because that god values "faith."
SeanS: Tangible artifacts, soldiers diaries, official requisition forms, official presidential documents, the first photographs (before photoshop, even!), old weapons... I could see these things in museums, and even get access to them if I needed it for good enough reasons. No faith necessary. That's what real history is. Not "believe the civil war occurred because you'll go to heaven if you do."
Your false equivalence fails.
Citizen I'm assuming sometime in your life you've taken a history class. i'm sure they gave you a texbook and that you took the material it contained as historical fact. Why would you do such a thing? You weren't there to observe the events that the book describes. It is more than likely that the author was not there either! You are taking a serious step of FAITH in believe the words of a MAN. I, for one, find it very improbable that a country would fight against itself due to "the massive inconvenience involved and the existence of alternatives" but it doesn't change the fact that a civil war occurred in this country.
big german: using the scientific method would preclude you from assume that order in the universe means a creator. If you aren't going to use objective evidence, how are you going to decide whether or not unicorns exist, for example, if they are supernatural creatures? Are you committed to believing everything supernatural? What if supernatural claims contradict, how will you decide which is right?
Or, you could realize that faith is not a virtue, despite Christian claims to the contrary, and the words of someone who may well have been a fictional character in a compilation of historical fiction have no value in the absence of evidence to back them up.
GoldenEagle: You conflate my two objections. I would like to see a reference for the idea that Quirinius was governor during census, but even if he was, it doesn't change the fact that a census involving everyone going to their ancestral towns is highly unlikely because of the massive inconvenience involved and the existence of alternatives. They had tax collectors to travel around, rather than having everyone go to their ancestral homes to pay taxes, for example.
Furthermore, you don't address the disconnect between Quirinius as governor, and Herod as King at all.
Finally, your basic message is "the bible tells us that god must exist, and the bible is the most accurate source of info because...the bible says so?" Seriously? That qualifies as evidence for you? If I wrote a book saying that the nation called Germany never existed because god told me so, and this was necessary because god told me so, would you believe that too? "The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" may be your mantra, but its utterly arbitrary for you to grant that level of authority to that text (or any text! Why not the Koran or the Bhagavad Ghita?)
Citizen,if everything could be proven,that by its very nature would negate it from being supernatural.And as for rejecting the scientific theory look at the second sentance of my first post.I state that I believe in science precisely because it can be proven,and that I believe that using scientific theory is evidence that God has set everything in the universe in its order.And as for having faith Jesus himself told His desciples that although they were being blessed for being in His presence,we are going to be even more blessed for believing in Him even without seeing Him.So after all of this back and forth it still comes down to whether or not you choose to believe that Jesus is who He said He is or not.
Actually, recent archaeological findings show that Quirinius was Governor during the time of the Census.Also, the Bible gives the most reliable information available about the God who has to exist.Not only must He be in order for the universe to exist, but He must be self-sufficient and eternal, as well as powerful and intelligent.The Bible tells us all of this and more.
Joe12234 and Big German
Beautifully said and I couldn't agree more. God bless you both!
I believe in God the Creator of all and Jesus the Son of God and the Holy Spirit!
All around me I see evidence of God! The trees, the grass, the Sun, the moon, the stars, animals, people, and the very fact that I live and breathe!
I thank God for His existence and I thank God for people who chose not to believe in Him! It is befuddling to those who chose not to believe that something so good and wonderful could exist and He loves them even in their rejection of Him! By the worlds standards I am delusional and I am so grateful for this label. I am overjoyed to be rejected by this world and accepted by God!
I live with irrepressible hope to Love and Serve my LORD and Savior in eternity rather than an eternity of nothingness!!
To those that chose not to belive in God, I hope you come to find the truth and love of God before it is too late, for you only have this moment, you are not promised tomorrow, nor am I!
Peace to you!
Big German, cont'd: All you have to do is provide evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Without evidence, how do you know what to believe? Why do you believe in scripture as "god's word" instead of, say, Bigfoot? Or that Star Wars depicts actual events? Calling "god" supernatural, and claiming that puts the existence of god above evidence amounts to special pleading for ideas that cannot survive the standards that other ideas must measure up to to be accepted.
Big German: how can you "believe" in science while rejecting the scientific method as a reliable guide to the most objective knowledge possible? And you do have to reject it or at least refuse to apply it to certain ideas in order to have faith. Faith is a presumption unsupported by evidence, and that has no place in science. And yes, Newton was religious, but he also lived hundreds of years ago, and believed in alchemy, among other strange things. That's what happens when you have faith, you can't reject any idea on a rational basis. To be a scientist and religious is to engage in double think by ignoring your faith while doing science, and ignoring your science while engaging in faith, and refusing to recognize the inconsistency as meaningful.
ProfessorX: Really, backed up by historical events? Then explain how there could be a Roman census in which everyone went to their home town. Doesn't that sound a little...inconvenient? How about the fact that the reigns of Quirinius as governor and King Herod did not overlap, when the bible claims that they do? If the bible writers can't get those details right, then why should their more fantastic claims be taken seriously solely on the bible's say-so?
Any purpose in the universe is a projection of your own mind. Secular Humanists recognize this and admit it. You mistake your imagination for reality. The physical universe isn't an illusion, as far as we know, but your religious ideas are illusory. The fact is, we don't know, and can't know, given the current state of science, what happened before the Big Bang (which contradicts your claim to "know" that something has always existed"). Any attempts to say what came before spring wholly from your imagination.
You can invent all the fantastic details you want, but until you give actual evidence for them, they fall into the realm of fiction. WIthout evidence to the contrary, my doubts are wholly justified.
Citizen,the failure of your argument is the same as so called "theologians"who fail to realize the supernatural nature of God.You can not use the same standards when comparing God and man.You try to pin earthly influence to Godly matters,just as false theologians try to say that Jesus was influenced by His world instead of Jesus being the influence of everything.You don't accept the truth of scripture ( Godly communication)because you can't find earthly verification.And as long as you keep using the earthly to judge the Godly you will never find your place among either.
It is possible to believe in both God and science.If you believe that God created everything,then you must believe that He created science as well.I believe that science is provable because after many attempts the results are always the same,and that they are the same because everything in this universe has been set in place by God.Everything in its intended order,place,and time.Its time for christians to stop being anti intellectual and accept the fact that God does not want just a bunch of mindless sheep.God Himself ask in Isaiah that He and we reason together.I don't believe in Darwinistic survival of the fittest,but I do believe that every one of us on earth today is descended from the eight people who were saved on the arc,and just using the evidence in front of me I would be hard pressed to deny some sort of evolving in all of the races today,and I would have to believe that is Gods plan.As for Mr.Dawkins,how can any person with any cognitive reason believe that humans,with freedom of choice,and the most superior intellect on the planet be equal with every other animal on the planet?Even if there were no God,and i certainly believe there is Mr.Dawkins conclusions would leave us in a precarious world indeed.
Well Citizen there IS good reason to accept the New Testament manuscripts as they are. They are backed up by detailed historical events, the writing style is consistent within each book as if distinct writers had a hand in writing them, they all show no evidence of Gnostic manipulation as you'll see in the apocryphal books written well over 400 years after the fact, etc. The student under the Apostle John when he was alive, Policarp, confirmed in his own writings that the early Christians believed in triune nature of God.
Face the facts citizen, the real reason you and a few others attempt to contradict scripture is because it (God's word) contradicts the way that you want to live. I realize that no matter how much evidence information and proof you receive about God and the reliability of the Bible you can still doubt. After awhile the doubting game wears real thin as you begin to doubt the existence of your own mind. Why not take Atheism and Secular Humanism all the way to see where it leads? If you take the evolutionary viewpoint, your thoughts are merely random biochemical little accidents without purpose or meaning - invalidating your very existence and reducing yourself to an illusion with the rest of your universe. I happen to know that the fact the universe and all life exists now means that something has always existed, and therefore, that something must be self-existent (possessing the power of being within itself) and thus is responsible for the space - time - matter. Only that One and only Being, which by necessity is uncreated, can fill the shoes as Creator of the universe and all life. Laws were set to govern the natural world to provide the apex of His creation (humanity) with evidence that He is a Lawgiver and therefore exhibits volition. All living things exist designed possessing a preprogrammed extremely complex molecule called DNA and simultaneously possess symbiotic relationships between different life-forms with the clues which leads us to the conclusion that this Creator is mighty intelligent, therefore, must have a mind (intellect or thoughts of His own.) The only God whoever demonstrated His love toward us is the God of the bible in the person of Christ Jesus the Lord. He loved us enough to speak to us and establish not only our relationships among ourselves, but also our relationship with Him. As Lord, HE IS the Owner and holds everyone accountable to Him for his or her actions. As Lord, he will never allow us to approach Him of our own terms nor do you ever see Him in scripture condoning man-made gods and idols as the pagans even today do. The real reason the pagan deities appear the same is because the people are ultimately serving the same god of "self.” No wonder God calls them false gods. Only Jesus tells people to "deny themselves," take up ones cross, and follow Him. So just doubt your doubts and live in Christ Jesus as Lord.
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/
I'm reading Lee Strobel's "Case for Christ," and I am not impressed with what I've seen. In the very first interview, Strobel accepts the word of the early Church fathers that the gospels actually were written by the apostles without question, ignoring that these were not disinterested men living at a time when they could verify the authorship. He presents no good reason to believe them. That mistake colors everything I've read subsequent, because the further interviews rely on the presumption that the gospels were written by the actual apostles. In other words, no matter how challenging Strobel attempts to be, he's building his efforts on a rotten foundation.
Did you read the fine text? Lee Strobel was an Atheist before he undertook this study and now look.....he`s completely changed to absolute belief.....I challenge anyone to read "God,..the evidence" by Patrick Glynn and come back and say that one doesnt change an Atheist or Agnostic point of view....Lee Strobel probably spent an exorbinant amount of money to travel all over the Country and chat with all these experts, I`m sure alot of effort went into doing what he did.......