Why Are Christians Always Asking For God's Help In Doing What They're Supposed To Do? (Epistles, women)

[john233]

I recognize the difference between "blind faith" which is what mainstream scientists live by and the most logical conclusion to the evidence.

[john233]

For every scientific theory that attempts to understand the world apart from the existence of God, there are much more plausible and scientific theories which include the existence of God. It is not pseudo science by uneducated men. It is science which has at its foundation, the belief (or at least consider the possibility) that God exists. Both cannot be true. He either exists or He does not.

[Horn of ‘83]

Originally Posted by Albert_The_Crocodile

No, I'm an outsider who's been looking much of his life, and finally given up because there is simply nothing - nothing at all - about the religion that makes even the least bit of sense. I'm just struggling to understand how so many christians are able to get past the obvious inconsistencies and contradictions in their faith.

And for that matter, why they bother - what is it about christianity that makes people so willing (even eager) to ignore the contradictions? What need does it satisfy?





How does drowning babies fit into that narrative? You really don't see the contradictions?

First you said you didn't care to look, and now you say you've been looking all your life. Sounds like you're confused.

Since you feel Christianity is inconsistent, I urge you to study Jesus, His life, death and resurrection. While Christians have flaws, Jesus does not.

[Mr. In-Between]

Originally Posted by john233

I recognize the difference between "blind faith" which is what mainstream scientists live by and the most logical conclusion to the evidence.

So the answer would be, "No, you don't know the difference between an argument and evidence." Got it.

Originally Posted by john233

For every scientific theory that attempts to understand the world apart from the existence of God, there are much more plausible and scientific theories which include the existence of God.

Such as?

[john233]

[quote=Albert_The_Crocodile;38538417]So the answer would be, "No, you don't know the difference between an argument and evidence." Got it.

What answers do these mainstream scientists have for our existence?
Those who boldly and without evidence, declare that the concept of a creator is for the ignorant?

A big bang? Is that the best they can come up with? An endless and infinite series of big bangs with no known cause? What proof do they have that space itself, and all matter in existence has been created out of nothing and for no reason? It violates everything that the physical sciences declare to be true.

They have turned from wisdom, instead choosing "blind faith" as the foundation for their worldview.

They have already decided for themselves that which they will hold to be true, without ever questioning their presuppositions. They have already determined exactly how they will perceive the physical world.
And anyone who strays from that faulty assumption is ridiculed and dismissed as a fraud and a fool by their peers. Never again to find work in the field they enjoy.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[c] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. 27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; 28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, 29 so that no human being[d] might boast in the presence of God. 30 And because of him[e] you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, 31 so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

There are many great scientists who are willing to consider or believe in the existence of a creator.
I can list some if you would like.

[john233]

Psalm 14
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good.
2 The Lord looks down from heaven on the children of man,
to see if there are any who understand,
who seek after God.
3 They have all turned aside; together they have become corrupt;
there is none who does good,
not even one.
4 Have they no knowledge, all the evildoers
who eat up my people as they eat bread
and do not call upon the Lord?

[john233]

When I consider the science produced by those who call themselves atheists, all I see are endless attempts to disprove the existence of God. But when the evidence they present is considered, their theories fall very short of that goal. Always sidestepping the glaringly obvious conclusion which must be drawn.

I myself have believed in the theory of evolution. I even believed that maybe evolution and Christianity could both be true and exist harmoniously. It wasn't until I studied evolution in depth that I realized it is a garbage theory which doesn't even make sense logically.

[john233]

If evolution is a completely unguided process, caused by the random mutations of DNA. Then why would it be advantageous for (take the eye for example) to begin to form and develop? Why would the skull begin to hollow out by its own accord over millions of years? Then what benefit would it serve the species to begin to grow useless blobs (as all the random mutations necessary to make that eye even somewhat usable would take millions of years to occur) in that hollow place?

If it is a random process, than how could every species, regardless of phylum have perfectly developed and working eyes. And two of them, perfectly placed at that. DNA would not stop mutating once "perfection" was reached. It would not even reach perfection.

The random processes of evolution, would naturally produce completely random mutations.
So where are all the genetic abnormalities within the species? Where are all the countless unformed unusable structures that would be in development at this very moment? The structures that will only become useful to a species after many millions of years?

If, you accept the theory that a single celled organism (which is amazingly complex) managed to pop into existence from a soup of amino acids. Then how did it have the genetic code necessary to duplicate itself? And when did that genetic code decide, "Hey, I better program myself to start acting in unison with other single celled organisms to create lifeforms which contain many billions of cells. I should program myself to be a kidney wall cell. I should go tell all my other cellular buddies my plan and maybe we can devise a way to create the more complex multi cellular forms of life."

And then once they accomplished making a fish or whatever by working together with great intelligence, how did they realize that they should also create reproductive organs. Some male and some female, and that some of the cells should be sperm while others eggs?

If fish were among the first to evolve, then the very first fish needed to be able to have fully formed reproductive organs and eggs to continue itself with its offspring. How would that be accomplished over millions of years? It would never work no matter how much time you gave it.

DNA is the most complex intelligent coding known to man. It is a much more sophisticated version of computer code. It is an incomprehensibly complex language, which could not be created by chance any more than your computer could write its own OS by chance. ( a task which would be trivial in comparison)

[john233]

When did the caterpillar (which has no reproductive organs) decide (one day after millions of years of self replication), "I think I'm going to create organs capable of producing silk. Then I am going to put myself into a cocoon, dissolve myself into a cellular soup, and create an entire new version of myself. Retaining none of my previous characteristics or organs. I am going to create wings to fly (because I always wanted to fly) and reproductive organs (because I always wanted to reproduce with other butterflies, who hopefully also choose to do the exact same thing I am going to do) and then I am going to migrate all over the world to meet with my friends (who hopefully choose to do what I am going to do) to reproduce in very specific locations each and every year.

"Then we will all collectively stop self replicating (however they supposedly did that) and enjoy our new existence."

The answer is they couldn't have chosen to do anything, because evolution is completely random and takes "millions of years" to make it supposedly plausible.

[john233]

It is a garbage theory, yet it is proclaimed to be true.

Why? Because they can't come up with anything better. Because their interpretation of the evidence is based on the presupposition that God certainly could never exist. They have strayed far from logic and instead choose to live by "blind faith"