What do you believe and why do you believe it?

I make no threats. If you feel threatened it is because you know you are opposed to what God has declared. It is the goodness of God that places you jeopardy.

All of creation testifies to God. You exist therefore God exists. Romans chapter one deals with the situation ingreat precision.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Yea, but the way I see it now you can not, because I have been reborn in His Spirit, now I see Him more clearly in EVERY SINGLE detail to a degree it's ALL Him, no matter how small down we are able to zoom in on His creation the greater complexity we see, and no matter how far we are able to look out His glory is magnified. You see these things as proof against Him, I see them screaming His glory, because they are.

Seriously though, and this is the biggest point I'm trying to relay, and is the very reason I haven't jumped in to "debate" any of these objections you're bringing up. You can not find God in the creation, because God transcends the creation, I think it all points to God, ALL of it, but in the flesh you reject it with all you can, and that on top of the fact that we are all taught we are insignificant globs of an accidental collection of meaningless cells, flying around on a speck of dust in a universe with no purpose, no real point, other than what we assign to it, and we can assign some "great" things, but what happens when I say that I reject everything you just said, I believe that his "well being", falls right under feeding my dogs, and WAY under my well being and that of my families. I now believe my "well being", is better served by killing you and taking everything that's yours. I could do a lot with your stuff. Who are you to tell me and all my buddies who have a "standard which has been created", which we created, who are you to tell me I'm wrong?

You may say the Bible is not a true account - you have every right to say so - but it is my starting point and I believe it is the basis of truth.

So what is your starting point? It seems to be the scientific method, logic, and reasoned argument. So how do you know that is valid? I think that is a deeply flawed starting point. Where did the scientist or the logic come from? If they came from some sort of random process (evolution) then how is that the basis of reality? You said somewhere that the "good of humanity" can be seen as the basis of morality. How do you know the "good of humanity" is what is right and moral? Who decided that? You cannot use a system of logic for reality that is based on human consciousness and reasoning - because you do not how those things came about.

You say "truth is reality accurately described . . ." amd then reality is the way the Universe works . . . but your way of coming to understand how the universe works comes from the human mind - which is not the starting point of the universe. The human mind could be a completely flawed synapse in the timeline of evolutionary events - but you use it for your starting point to understand reality!????

I will stick with my view of reality - an Almighty loving Creator who was there in the beginning and created all things . . .

I just feel you are brainwashed and parrot-fashion repeating Romans 1, which I got a lot of. "You exist therefore God exists" is not a valid and sound logical argument. Its meaningless.

Read what I wrote properl
Read what I wrote properly Jimbone. I said the wellbeing of myself AND others.

So, "since you possess a human being's limited knowledge", how have you decided that the scientific method and logic have the validity to describe reality?

N
Now we are starting to go down the rabbit hole of presuppositional apologetics. You really don't want to go down that route because the Bible does not solve the problem of inductive reasoning. How do we approach the truth of any claim? Science, logic, reasoning. Science because of self-supporting evidence producing results that work, e.g. technology, medicine. And why logic as a starting point? Let's take the Law of Identity, that x=x and a rock is always a rock. As soon as you make any verbal or written argument against the Law of Identity, you are automatically invoking it the instant you start to make the argument. So your comments would be self-refuting. Logic must be true due to the impossibility of the contrary.

If evolution inevitably leads to a self aware consciousness, then the ultimate consciousness will always
eventually exist, and does exist. The real question is what is he like and do we want to know?

It is suggested morality exists because there is a creator, else morality would just be power struggle for dominance.
Certainly love is embedded in our beings from birth and our reference point.
It would appear that love is the ultimate ethic, our goal and our perfection.
Strange then that God of the bible is this very image. Stranger still that He
declares He has spoken to us and is willing to show us.

Maybe we should open our hearts and walk with Him and find out.
Unless of course one is really looking for an excuse to walk the other way.

Sci
Science does not make absolute truth claims. It makes testable claims using evidence and instrumentation. Those claims are set up in such a way as to be falsifiable. Science works by disproving claims that are wrong and improving our understanding. Its like the truth is a beautiful statue that lurks underneath a slab of granite. Get rid of the extraneous stuff on the surface and you will get greater clarity on the truth and then real features like part of a face or a hand are revealed. Its hard work but is the most reliable method we have for approaching the truth about the natural world.

A thought has just occurred to me. Why would Judas want to buy a field? Was he a farmer or something?

The audacity of man, to defy God and commit evil, and then blame God for the evils of the world.
This thread has only stood to prove that atheism is more a religion than any other; Misrepresenting what science demonstrates and twisting the scripture to mean what they indeed do not.
One straw man after another.
How long will admins allow a person to come in here and ask what a person believes and then argue with them about it. It's an attempt to dissuade others from their faith. An attempt to proselytise folks into the faith of the nihilist. A poorly constructed religion of those who conflate the testing, and observations; bending them to fit a presupposed hypothesis.

He didn’t buy it, the chief priests bought it after he was dead. Which fulfilled the scripture below written about 600 years earlier.

Mat 27:9 (KJV) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

As an unsaved man you will not accept the logic of Gods word. Gods word contradicts most of what you want to believe. True science can only testify to what God has done. Modern science is engaged in proving God did not do what God did.

Same tired old arguments that the Gnostics made over two thousand years ago.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I rather like this analogy.
Just as you can see that I am right 100% of the time in finding the dime, and therefore you recognize that I have some special knowledge or ability to unerringly select the correct cup, so it is with Scripture, and experience knowing God.

You are UNABLE to see the red cup. You cannot understand HOW I can see something that you are SURE is not there, namely color.

You have to be given NEW eyes to see the color. Just as you have to be given a NEW heart to understand the Scriptures, and experience God.

But God HAS given you enough knowledge to know He exists and that you must seek Him. He has written history in advance. He has shown you the indescribably complex DESIGN in ALL of matter and nature. He has put people like those here, and elsewhere in your life that have had their lives COMPLETELY changed by His indwelling Holy Spirit.

Every time you are given THE Gospel unto Salvation, it is like electric shock paddles jolted into your dead heart, to bring a NEW heart to life. We do NOT want to hear those awful words "ok, that's enough, time of death...." Please respond ;

CLEAR!!!!!! Here comes the shock:

THE Gospel unto Salvation:
God wrapped Himself in human flesh in the form of His Son, Jesus the Messiah. Conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin. He suffered, was crucified, and died to pay OUR sin debt. He was raised to life from the grave to prove He had defeated death. If you confess Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that His Father resurrected Him to Life on the 3rd day, you WILL be saved. You will be filled, and sealed with the Holy Spirit, who will empower ALL to turn from their sins. The sin of adultery, lying, stealing, homosexuality, gossip, slander, drunkenness, covetousness, etc... And most importantly the sin of DEAD works, or a moral life in an attempt to EARN Salvation. He will also equip you to love like He did and do good works for HIS Glory.

Ok, but my point is what seems wrong looking back with todays judgement is not the same. People put themselves into slavery to pay a debt (OT). And those slaves were to be treated as family and freed after the debt was paid. It wasn't a lifelong ownership. As far as the verse you pointed out,yes, that was a law on the book but if you killed a slave, you were killed, so I'm certain that did not happen (beaten to or near death). We wouldn't crucify people today, we wouldn't stone people. We wouldn't set people on fire at the stake like the Catholic church did and Protestants in periods of history. We wouldn't flog people. All of that we see as barbaric behavior today. But that's judging by todays standards. We don't hang people anymore. Perhaps we'll look back one day and realize abortion for the barbaric practice it is. And someone will say "how did you ever let that happen"?!

The Bible says there was light before the sun was created. I'm guessing it was enough to make plants grow. And I believe it was an actual 7 days,not a long period of time.

Yea but I see no reason to include others at all. Why are they important to me? What if I not only don't care for you I actually hate you and want what you have, after all if that's how I feel and what I know to be true, then it's not too far fetched for me to assume you got all of your stuff by taking it too, that's how we do it.

See if man is on the top rung of the moral latter, then the morality just depends on the person your talking to. All this "natural law", and even the notion of an objective moral at all, if there is no God, is honestly absurd. If there is no "mind" outside of the human mind, that creates and defines what that morality is, then there can be no "objective" morality. Inanimate matter can not and does not create "law" in this way. It does not give rise to morality. This idea that because you think getting along is a good thing in a Godless universe with no purpose, "only blind and pitiless indifference" -Dawkins, that's a nice notion, it's a nice soft idea, but it's nothing more than your opinion in ultimate reality, and you can say "we can only thrive that way", and "we wouldn't like it", all you want, but when your whole argument can be pushed over by "so what?", then it might be time for a paradigm shift, and Jesus is calling you. Jesus is the TRUTH of all reality, and I know that seems so dumb to you, but it's true man. I understand how you see this "unseen" realm, the realm of the spirit. I get it we are born cut off from it. That is why you "don't see enough evidence to believe it", yet can't even define your own belief system for someone else to pick apart. You stand on nothing, for nothing, just a glob of mushy "whatever".

The point I'm trying to make here is not about your lack of ability to present a well thought out framework for your own worldview yet want to critique mine. Seems a bit empty, juvenile, and honestly very sad. You just can't see the shinning KING right in front of you calling you to "COME".

I am also sorry if I come off a bit harsh, but this is everything here man and you should think about it deeper than these surface level arguments suggest you are. Anyway have a great day man.

You may use logic and the scientific method if you want to explain reality - that is your choice -

but if I were you I would come up with better presuppositions - I challenged you and you just backed up the presuppositions - now you are saying science and logic come from the self-supporting evidence of technology and medicine

Technology: The A-bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the internet (that allows widespread mass pornography) or do you mean the the X-ray, the MRI, etc. --- How do you know which one is "good" or "evil"?

Medicine - Do you mean the cures for cancer being found or do you mean the Chinese mass-harvesting organs from prisoners and minorities (for profit) - Which is for the good of humanity? (It depends on your opinion - which comes from human reasoning - which came from random processes . . .)

Furthermore your first technique was just simply making an emotional statement with no substance - "starting to go down the rabbit hole of presuppositional apologetics - You really don't want to go down . . ."

You are evidently using this argument all over the place: that there is some standard of truth or reality or goodness that you have: Here you say - "Maximum wellbeing for yourself and others (emotional and physical) which by definition means mimimum harm for yourself and others" - and then it is far more "moral" --

In your system, why should anyone care about morality, or goodness, or maximum well-being? (You have to borrow that concept from Christianity!) And if you do try to adapt a concept of "maximum well-being" - what is your basis for saying what it is?

If I say maximum well-being is for all mankind to be miserable and sad - how can you objectively say your premise is better than mine?

What is good? What is truth? What is reality? Your model has only contrived answers based on human reasoning - which came about by random chance

My model is based on someone who was there at the beginning and was before the beginning - of course you can argue it - but then you must let your model be questioned as well.

OK, if I take your analogy for a minute - what if you are trying to uncover the wrong "beautiful statue"? Prove to me you have the right statue and I have the wrong one? Everything you see of science and logic may be so flawed and wrong that every bit of it will be shown to be skewed in a million years from now! Prove to me that you are right and I am wrong!