Does God Really Exist???

[Replying to points from two posts]

quote:

---

Let's look at basic bio. We have never observed life being created "ex nihlio," (out of nothing). From a biological stand point it would be impossible. Life can only come from pre-existing life.

---

From which it follows that the diversity of life is better explained by evolution - which has been observed, than by creation - which, as you say, has never been seen.

quote:

---

...ever hear of the law of Conservation of Angular Momentum?

​

This scientific LAW doesn't fit very well with the big bang "Theory."

---

That's the "Big Bang" theory invented by Kent Hovind, which has almost nothing to do with the theory proposed by scientists. If you don't want to be laughed at I strongly suggest that you investigate the real science and don't trust Kent Hovind (even AiG think that Hovind is unreliable)

It's not a question of whether you *like* Hovind - it's a question of whether he is a reliable source. And he isn't. Even Answers in Genesis say that some of his material is questionable. So think before citing his material as factual - it might be something completely daft.Before you say that "macro-evolution" has not been observed can you explain what you mean by "macro evolution" and explain why it is so different from "micro-evoluton" as to say that it has not been observed.

If you don't reference Hovind material then why did you repeat Hovind's claim that conservation of angular momentum was a problem for the Big Bang ?And if it is irrelevant to this thread to discuss what your claim about macroevolution actually means then the claim itself is irrelevant to this thread and should never have been made here.

quote:

---

The Case for Christ - The Prosecutor-Has anybody ever compiled the evidence to determine the case for Christ? As a matter of fact,
Lee Strobel, an atheist at the time he undertook this endeavor, decided that he would prove Jesus Christ to be a fraud by the weight
of the evidence. Strobel was certainly qualified to undertake such a task, compiling the case against Christ. He has a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School and was an award-winning journalist at the Chicago Tribune. Strobel's area of expertise was Courtroom Analyst and he rose to the rank of Legal Editor of the Chicago Tribune. Furthermore, Strobel was not biased towards defending Christ - he was an atheist!

---

Well firstly you must remember that the boook was written 15 years AFTER Strobel became a Christian. Secondly if we look at Strobel's own account we can see that he WAS biased in favour of Christianity.http://www.gegrapha.org/resources/lee1.htmLook at what he says about Thallus on this page. He calls it a very powerful piece of evidence. Yet all we know is what a later Christian writer says - we don't know what Thallus wrote and for all we know he was discussing a genuine eclipse and Julius Africanus jumped to the conclusion that it referred to the miraculous darkness(Indeed Origen did exactly that with Phlegon's account of an eclipse http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen162.html "And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too, I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles.").

Yes I have a good explanation. Hovind is a nutcase. The Big Bang has nothing to do with the formation of the Solar system which happened something like 9 BILLION years AFTER the Big Bang. And conservation of any sort of momentum doesn't apply when forces - like gravity - act on the bodies concerned. Which certainly IS a major factor in the formation of the Solar System.

So the website claims that he wasn't biased in favour of Christianity. Yet one of the strongst evidences he found - one so strong that he specifically rasied it as an example in an interview turns out to be so weak as to be worthless, relying on speculating on the contents of a document that has long been lost to us.This evidence supports the view that Strobel WAS biased in favour of Christianity. If I can immediately see through an argument then Strobel ought to be able to. If his claimed credentials are worth anything.And the book interviews only conservative Christians - and attacking the views of others who are given no opportunity to defend themselves or make a case. Surely a court reporter should know that in a trial BOTH sides are permitted to make a case and that EACH side have a right to cross-examine the witnesses called by the other. So why only give one side and try to present it as a balanced and objective look at the evidence ?It is clear that the website is trying to promote the book and the claims used to do so are misleading at best. Indeed it implies that Strobel was an atheist when he started on the book - but he converted in November 1981 - AS HE EXPLICITLY STATED in the interview. Long before he started on the book.And I click on the first link - the "eyewitness evidence". And he never even mentions the majority view of Bible scholars or the Synoptic Problem. Instead he just insists that the NT authors (including Paul and Luke !) were "eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ".I've seen enough. The claimed lack of bias is a blatant falsehood. I have to admit that I didn't expect to be impressed but I didn't expect such obvious dishonesty.

That really does make no sense. For time to have a cause then that cause must exist before time. However there can be nothing before the beginning of time - the concept is self-contradictory. It follows then that time cannot have a cause.