Tagged: existence of God Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • TFRStaff 4:18 am on 2015-05-05 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , existence of God, Flying Spaghetti Monster, , , , polytheism   

    How Can a Person Know Which God Exists? by Apologetics Press 

    Several decades ago, the United States was overwhelmingly Christian in its religious persuasion. When naturalism and Darwinian evolution picked up speed in the U.S. and challenged the biblical story of man’s origins—the perspective most held by Americans—apologists sprang up in response, dealing a death blow to the naturalistic religion in the minds of many. Once evolutionary theory had been dealt with, both biblically and scientifically, it was natural for many Americans to recognize that they had always been right—Christianity is the true religion.

    Sadly, under the banner of “tolerance,” the “politically correct” police have made significant inroads in compelling the American public, not only to tolerate, but to endorse and encourage pluralism and the proliferation of false religion in America. What was once an understood conclusion—that if evolution is wrong, then biblical Creation must be true—is now heavily challenged in America.

    It has become a popular tactic among atheistic scoffers to mock Bible believers by sarcastically arguing that there’s just as much evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster as there is for any god. Therefore, if intelligent design doctrine deserves time in the classroom, so does the doctrine of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster—the Pastafarians (cf. Langton, 2005; Butt, 2010, p. 12). Read >>

  • John T. Polk II 8:34 am on 2014-10-29 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , existence of God, , , , textbook, ,   

    The Bible IS a “Christian Evidence” Textbook! 

    “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1). Faith is based upon “evidence” and it is a solid conviction of “things not seen.” Since “faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Romans 10:17), then the best “evidence” for faith is “the word of God” and the Creator’s Wisdom to which it points!  If not, why not?

    The Bible makes statements that point to external data, and that makes it a “Christian evidence” textbook. For example:

    1. Every effect must have an adequate cause. “For every house is built by someone, but He who built all things is God” (Hebrews 3:4); “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1);

    “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible” (Hebrews 11:3).    All scientific evidences and facts prove that matter is not eternal and must have had a beginning. The Bible begins with one of the strongest proofs possible that there had to have been The Creator: from nothing came something caused by The Power (“God”) who is the uncaused First Cause!

    1. There is magnificent design and order to life. 

      Jesus pointed to the inherent order in agriculture when He said: “For the earth yields crops by itself: first the blade, then the head, after that the full grain in the head. But when the grain ripens, immediately he puts in the sickle, because the harvest has come.”  (Mark 4:28-29)

    Such order is impossible without the imposition of law from a Higher Power.

    Speaking of the intricacies of human development and birth, David said: “You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, And that my soul knows very well. My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Your eyes saw my substance, being yet unformed. And in Your book they all were written, The days fashioned for me, When as yet there were none of them.”    (Psalm 139:13-16)

    The millions of details involved in each human’s normal birth are mind-boggling, and faith-building, indeed. The birth of one human demands an imposing attention to details totally impossible without completing the plan of God, the Maker.

    Abraham “waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder [Greek, “technician, craftsman”] and maker [Greek, “framer”] is God” (Hebrews 11:10). Truly, the “technology” of life is impossible and nonsensical without the All-powerful, All-intelligent Creator God!

    1. Life cannot/has not/will not come from non-living matter. It is the “God, who made the world and everything in it…gives to all life, breath, and all things” (Acts 17:24-25). There is no construction of material substance that has been brought to life without adding some living components to the experiment. Scientific fact shows that life had to be added to the material earth from an outside source in order for anything living to exist.  It is only prejudiced ignorance that would attack Christian faith without dealing with what the Bible, itself, says!

    Atheism Equals Ignorance

    Speaking of “prejudiced ignorance,” one readily thinks of an “atheist,” a word meaning, “without faith in deity,” hence a person who is without faith in God. No one can be an atheist without denying all the evidence for God’s existence and the scientific conclusion that necessitates it as fact. In other words, atheists are known for what they confess they do not or cannot know. “Ignorance” is defined as “the absence of knowledge.” It is practically impossible, then, for any atheist to ridicule a believer’s “faith” because a Bible-believer has evidence for that faith, but an atheist has reduced his or her intelligence to denial! The evidence for God is so abundant that an atheist can believe there is no God only by closing his/her mind to the factual evidence that would prove otherwise! Atheists have a big void throughout their core intellect, and are as Gentiles, “in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart…” (Ephesians 4:17-18).

    By willfully omitting God from their consideration, the Atheists have “blacked out” their understanding, “gutted” their rationality, and grope about like blind people who have rejected any assistance they have been offered! Belief in God is a normal conclusion of a natural mind that has been given all the evidence.

    Atheism is, thus, an unnatural response.

    Since God does exist, then His power as Creator justifies His power to: (1) define marriage as one man and one woman united for life (Genesis 2:18-25), and accept no other (Mark 10:2-12); (2) give a day of rest to the Israelites in Moses’ Law (Deuteronomy 5:12-15) and not to anyone else; (3) be remembered in our days of youth (Ecclesiastes 12:1), not just “old age;” (4) come to earth as the Christ with total miraculous power over the Creation (John 1:1-18) unlike everyone else who has ever lived; (5) hand over the scroll of judgment against the Jews into the hand of His Son (Revelation 4:1-5:8) which was carried out in the 1st Century. Since God, as Creator, can do with His Creation as He wishes (“our God is in heaven; He does whatever He pleases,” Psalm 115:3); and, since no human is Creator (God asked: “Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding,” Job 38:4); then all humans who are created beings (“creature,” Mark 16:15-16) will fail to conquer and control the world! There is no policy, people, or plan that God will allow to take His place as Controller of His Creation (Romans 1:19-25). “Therefore let those who suffer according to the will of God commit their souls to Him in doing good, as to a faithful Creator” (1 Peter 4:19).                                —–John T. Polk II

  • TFRStaff 7:26 am on 2014-10-09 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , existence of God   

    7 Reasons to Believe in God from Apologetics Press 

    7 Reasons to Believe in God

    How can you know that God exists? You can’t see, hear, touch, smell, or taste Him. You can’t weigh Him like you can a five-pound bag of potatoes. You can’t put Him under an electron microscope to show your friends what He looks like on an atomic level. You can’t experiment on Him with probes and scalpels. You can’t take a picture of Him to show your neighbor that He’s not just an imaginary friend. You can’t magically make Him appear in the classroom of an atheistic professor who is challenging anyone to prove that God exists. So how can you know that God exists?

  • Eugene Adkins 6:56 am on 2014-04-09 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , existence of God, , theism   

    Watch the Archived Butt/Ehrman Debate 

    If you didn’t get a chance to watch the Butt/Ehrman debate (The Pain and Suffering in the World Indicate that the Christian God does Not Exist) live you can visit the Apologetics Press website to view it in their archives. It will be worth your time. Kyle did an excellent job presenting and defending his side of the debate topic, but don’t take my word for it – watch it for your self.

  • Eugene Adkins 5:55 pm on 2014-04-04 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , existence of God,   

    Apologetics Press Debate Tonight 

    I’ve prayed for the efforts that will be made and I’m excited to watch the debate take place tonight between brother Kyle Butt and Mr. Bart Ehrman. If you would like to watch over the web you can view it at the AP’s website. The debate will begin at 6:00pm (Central Standard time I believe).

  • TFRStaff 7:04 am on 2014-03-12 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , existence of God, , ,   

    Printable Flyer for the upcoming Apologetics Press Debate 

    Here’s a link to a PDF flyer (seen below) that can be printed off for the April 4th debate between Kyle Butt and Bart Ehrman.

  • Eugene Adkins 6:47 am on 2013-07-16 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , existence of God, Straw man,   

    The Challenge of Disproving the Mythological “Straw Man” Argument 

    “Expert” debaters on the WordPress forum, especially when it comes to defending atheistic evolution, love to throw around the “straw man” accusation at Theists.

    More often than not, especially when an accusation of the mythological “straw man” gets thrown around, people feel misrepresented because they are misrepresenting themselves. They fail to nail down their position to anything except for the ole’ “I don’t believe and I don’t have to prove why I don’t believe” line. Then they bemoan any other attempt to get the conversation beyond the point of “I can’t disprove the existence of God any more than I can disprove a unicorn, a one-eyed purple people eater or a flying spaghetti monster.”

    Well, I can’t disprove that a giant spruce tree didn’t light the fuse to set off the multicolored atomic bomb that created the mother of all black holes which then led to the stretching of alien DNA thus resulting in life on Earth 43.298347 years later, and neither can you! But then again, that’s not my proposition. My proposition is that life was created by the Supernatural Being who can be seen through nature and whose will can be understood through the Bible.

    in modern philosophy the straw man lives

    (Photo credit: Templestream)

    So let’s the put the proverbial shoe on the other foot for a moment.

    There are those who contend for and hold to the proposition that says life is nothing but a chemical process and that we’re nothing but “higher thinking” animals with no soul and no ultimate responsibility, but to that I say, “PROVE IT.” Prove to me that life can come from non-life. Until that can be proven, any atheistic evolutionist debater and “believer” is sidestepping the exact thing that they require from Theists – the burden of proof through scientific testing.

    But then answer of, “I don’t have the answer(s) because we’re still learning” will be given as if that’s a proper permission slip to keep from being “pigeon-holed” into anything.

    So let me get this straight – the only thing that you will say is that you don’t believe in God, but you can’t disprove that He exists, yet you’re still sure that He’s not out there. Talk about circular reasoning!

    Let’s try it like this: You (as an atheistic evolutionist) believe in a-biogenesis, but can’t prove that it exists, yet you’re still sure that it’s out there.

    A belief in one is chosen over the other with the later lacking as much supposed scientific proof as the former yet still receiving the scientific benefit of the doubt! And to say such a thing is a “straw man” argument??? How does that misrepresent the argument?

    The mythological “straw man’s” life didn’t even come from “nothing” but rather something to which people hold on to when they believe in something that can’t be nailed down. So before the next “straw man” accusation gets propped up out in the debate garden, please remember to be equal and rational with the “prove it” challenge.

    Now if I could only disprove that the “straw man” even exists…wait a second, I can’t disprove something that I don’t believe in! Right?

  • Eugene Adkins 6:44 am on 2013-05-22 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , existence of God, ,   

    Future Debate Over Present Day and Past Disasters 

    Before the terrible tornadoes (of this year) took place in Oklahoma I received a news letter from Apologetics Press that announced plans for a future debate between brother Kyle Butt of Apologetics Press and Professor Bart Ehrman who is an author and a self-proclaimed “agnostic” when it comes to the belief of the Christian God. Accordingly, the topic will revolve around the existence of pain and suffering and the existence of God and the compatibility or incompatibility of the two. Please keep brother Kyle and the efforts of Apologetics Press in your prayers.

    Also, as I have said in the past, I would encourage those who have a desire to help with the relief effort in Oklahoma but no good means of doing so to keep The Churches of Christ Disaster Relief in mind. We support this effort at Keltonburg and I know that an untold number of lives have been physically and emotionally affected for the better as well as spiritually due to the many souls brought to Jesus through the help of this program and its efforts.

  • TFRStaff 9:38 am on 2012-12-16 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , existence of God,   

    Atheism: the truth 


    by Rick Kelley

    The truth: An atheist cannot claim any objective standard of good and evil. To him, evil is anything he feels particularly sensitive about. He enjoys the power of moral judgment, and fancies himself the authority.

    The truth: When an atheist claims that something (like the Connecticut tragedy) is evil, he is not saying, “This is my opinion.” No, he is actually saying, “It is wrong for everyone.” See, it’s not that atheists don’t believe in God; they aspire to be God (cf. Ex. 5:2).

    The truth: Atheists get rather irritated when people talk about the love of God. They dare Christians to bring up his love in the face of evil. I dare them to explain why this tragedy in Connecticut was wrong. Or why do 3,000 more children leave this world daily under the banner of women’s rights, with no outrage (cf. Prov. 6:17)? Consistency, thou art a jewel.

    The truth: My faith in God does not enable me to prevent evil, but it does enable me to comprehend both the goodness of God, and determine what true evil is. Further, it provides me assurance concerning God’s vindication of evil at the judgment (cf. Rom. 12:19). Atheism provides none of these.

    The truth: Man’s greatest enemy is not violence from others, it is his own pride and ignorance (cf. Hos. 4:6; Rom. 1:22; Psalm 14:1).

    Prestonsburg KY church bulletin

    • Atomic Mutant 9:54 am on 2012-12-16 Permalink | Reply

      Ironically, adding “The truth:” in front of something doesn’t make it automatically true.

    • Mystic Chicken 12:11 pm on 2012-12-16 Permalink | Reply

      and like lemmings to the cliff the faithful will jump.

    • Allallt 12:34 pm on 2012-12-16 Permalink | Reply

      Firstly, it’d be swell if we could stop using the shooting as a tool to smear the opposition in an unrelated conversation. I know atheists are doing it too, with “where was your God for this?”, but do you not see it as insensitive? You’re using the fact that 26 people were shot dead to make a point against atheists.

      To the point of your post, however. Atheists are perfectly able to call a thing evil. And they tend to base it on the amount of suffering caused and lives lost. And I’m assuming that you agree that suffering and death are evidentially true. Immorality is the on-net cause of suffering. This is the basis of Sam Harris’ ‘The Moral Landscape’, and in that book Harris outlines secular objective morality brilliantly. So evil has been defined (Harris, incidentally, is not the first person to describe morality the way that The Moral Landscape does).

      And before you challenge me as to why I care about the suffering of other people, I can equally extend the same challenge to you. Yes, someone went against God’s authored morality. But why should you care? The difference between what the objective truth is and how you feel about it is a step that religion doesn’t answer.

      • Eugene Adkins 5:38 pm on 2012-12-16 Permalink | Reply

        Just a question or three, please. I don’t think they should take too long to answer.

        1) If one atheist says something is evil, but another atheist says it is not, who is correct and where does the objective standard come from that says such?

        2) Who gave Harris the right to be the objective standard bearer of something to which many claim there is no standard to be borne?

        3) How can anything be objective when all of reality/life (according to atheism) is nothing but chance and subjective decisions to which there will never be an objective accountability? In other words, how can anything that is subjective to an individual (i.e. the morals of an atheist) ever be held to an objective level that calls something evil?


        • Allallt 8:42 am on 2012-12-17 Permalink | Reply

          1) It really depends what you’re two atheists say. Neither is right on their own merit. Evil is the description of an event with intent that lowers wellbeing, on net.

          2) The objectivity of morality is not authoritative, nor is it from Sam Harris. It just so happens that Sam Harris has done a good job, rather recently, or explaining it. This is not dissimilar from the fact that Newton described physics, but physics is not objective based on his authority.

          3) The human psyche is intuitive. We intuit things about physics, and the things we intuit are closely related to Aristotelian physics. Aristotelian physics are wrong, objectively. We also intuit Euclidean geometry, which is wrong. We intuitively reject the implications of relativity (i.e. that there is no such thing as simultaneity and time is not absolute). So a person’s preference for what morality should be is nothing more that an intuition which could be wrong.

          How we may have come to care about morality is a different question. But morality itself is objective.

      • Eugene Adkins 6:31 am on 2012-12-18 Permalink | Reply


        I have to reply again here because there’s not a “reply” available to your last comment. These comments/questions are in response to your “8:42 am on December 17, 2012” reply. Sorry for any confusion, and thanks ahead of time for your time.

        1) What if the well-being (supposedly the atheist’s measure of goodness or at least the diminishing presence/amount of evil) of one individual necessitates the suffering of another?

        How can this dichotomy of “whatever profits the life of the individual” be the standard that supposedly objectively determines what is good or evil when the profit of one causes the suffering of another?

        2) If objective morality is not meant to be authoritative then what good is it?

        You originally said, “Harris outlines secular objective morality brilliantly” but how can Mr. Harris explain something so brilliantly when it does not exist?

        How can anything be objective but not be authoritative? That my friend is the very meaning of subjective rules at its core, and by that very essence subjective can never objective.

        Perhaps you meant to say that “Harris outlines secular subjective morality brilliantly.”

        3) How can the “human psyche” be intuitive on anything without any absolutes? I.E. if there are no absolute standards for wrong/evil then how can there be any good to which one judges evil.

        I do see how anything in your first statement or in your first reply negates the principle laid out in Rick’s first observation about the truth of atheism: “An atheist cannot claim any objective standard of good and evil. To him, evil is anything he feels particularly sensitive about. He enjoys the power of moral judgment, and fancies himself the authority.

        • Eugene Adkins 6:32 am on 2012-12-18 Permalink | Reply

          It looks like it placed the reply in the correct place after all. Sorry about that.

        • Allallt 9:15 am on 2012-12-18 Permalink | Reply

          If you have to kill the hostage taker to save the hostages then that is probably the moral option.

          Physics is not authoritative. It’s still objective. And you don’t have to care, you can try to get to the moon on a candle if you want…

          I have described nothing subjectively. Your wellbeing can be measured. Therefore changes in your wellbeing can be measured. Therefore we can describe morality objectively. The “subjective” bit is simply where you choose to care about a wellbeing-derived morality. But that is the exact same judgement you have to make in order to care about God’s morality, and it doesn’t affect the objectivity of morality, it’s just that some people prefer to act in their own interest…

      • Eugene Adkins 5:46 pm on 2012-12-18 Permalink | Reply

        So essentiality when you say, “The “subjective” bit is simply where you choose to care about a wellbeing-derived morality. But that is the exact same judgement you have to make in order to care about God’s morality, and it doesn’t affect the objectivity of morality, it’s just that some people prefer to act in their own interest…” you agree with Rick’s first point that says,”The truth: An atheist cannot claim any objective standard of good and evil. To him, evil is anything he feels particularly sensitive about. He enjoys the power of moral judgment, and fancies himself the authority.

        Physics has nothing to do with morality. What good does an “objective” morality do if the entire thing is based upon subjective rules?

        Well-being is a flawed standard that is slanted toward the one who subjectively decides what is best for them. Germany decided that their well-being improved considerably by persecuting the Jews, but according to the sliding standard of atheism’s “well-being” standard how can they be called evil if what they did improved their well-being physiologically speaking?

        Whether an individual cares about objective morality does not change the standard…hence the objectiveness. If evil is only based upon the lack of good then evil is only based upon one’s definition of good.

        I’m trying to get permission from Apologetics Press to post a video on this website. In case I am not able to do this, here is the link: http://apologeticspress.org/MediaPlayer.aspx?media=4156

        It’s the first part of a video series that deals with the moral implications of atheism, including the issue of authority and evil. It also references the Mr. Harris you mentioned.

        • Allallt 4:03 am on 2012-12-19 Permalink | Reply

          Firstly, it’s not the wellbeing of the individual or the actor, it’s net wellbeing–including the wellbeing of any victims and of any one else affected. So it’s not slanted any which way. Trust me, the 6 million dead Jews had a massive drop in their wellbeing, each. And, as it happens, most of the German people had a drop in their wellbeing just knowing it was happening. The Holocaust was objectively immoral!
          Secondly, the rules are not subjective. The rules are objective. The reason I keep mentioning physics is because you said nothing could be objective if it’s not authoritative, and that’s patently false.
          Thirdly, there is a massive difference between not being able to call something evil (what Rick says) and being able to call something evil even though some people won’t care. Those people that don’t care are either amoral or immoral.

          I have a post scheduled to come up on this soon. But the summary is that you can choose to behave according to a religious standard, and most of the time that will appear moral, but occasionally it won’t. You can appear to behave according to hedonism, and that frequently will appear immoral. You can chose to behave according to cultural norms, and that could appear either moral or immoral (depending on the culture). The issue of priority is not the same as the issue of objectivity.

          E.g. “sure female genital mutilation lowers girls’ wellbeing, but it’s my culture.” — immoral, but cultural.

      • Eugene Adkins 6:38 am on 2012-12-19 Permalink | Reply

        I appreciate the fact that you’ve responded each time, but to be honest I’m having a hard time following what your points have to do with Rick’s article.

        The truth is that Atheism has no objective standard for morality. The standard is determined by the individual person with no one or nothing to ever hold him/her objectively accountable. Hence my statement to the effect, “No authority, no objectivity.”

        That is not to say some things can’t be objective without being moral. The colors of the rainbow are objective, but that in no way has anything to do with morality. Morality must have an objective higher authority or else morality will be ruled the lower authority – individual people resulting in holocausts that many people refuse to call evil because they refuse to believe in accountability of good or bad.

        You said Harris’ book “outlines secular objective morality brilliantly” but then you said “The objectivity of morality is not authoritative.” So what’s the point of being objective if there is no authoritative power behind the object when it comes to morality…at the end of the day the standard is “I feel” or “I think this or that is or is not right or wrong.”

        The sad reality is that we could probably talk past each other for 50 years because your basis for “objective morality” is “humanism” while mine is “creationism.”

        For example you say, “Physics is not authoritative” but step off a skyscraper and try telling gravity that you won’t fall back towards the earth. Your originator of physics on earth is time, chance, accident and no purpose in life other than to simply exist…hence your conclusion about morality and life and accountability. My Originator of physics is a Being who had authority to create the force behind physics who gives a reason to exist in life…hence my conclusion about morality and life and accountability.

        Again, I appreciate your willingness to reply, but to venture off into other areas while ignoring the main crux of your original reply (The difference between what the objective truth is and how you feel about it is a step that religion doesn’t answer) will end up with us going in circles.

        To answer that question I will simply point out that Bible teaches regardless of whether or not an individual cares about the authority/morality of the law of God, that said individual must still give an account of themselves in light of the standard God has given.

        For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or evil.” (2 Corinthians 5:10)

        So “religion” has answered your question and the conclusion is that morality is objectively authoritative regardless of personal feelings; it’s just that people choose not to care, but again, as you said yourself, “The “subjective” bit is simply where you choose to care about a wellbeing-derived morality. But that is the exact same judgement you have to make in order to care about God’s morality, and it doesn’t affect the objectivity of morality, it’s just that some people prefer to act in their own interest.”

        Out of your own mouth you answered your question. The individual doesn’t effect the standard of objective morality, but unlike atheism, with God the standard will effect the individual’s soul.

        • Allallt 7:07 am on 2012-12-19 Permalink | Reply

          You are misrepresenting my argument to me. I don’t know why you’re doing that. We don’t have an audience.

          The standard is not “I feel” or “I think”, an action actually does affect wellbeing. That is true regardless of whether you think so. It does not boil down to each individual.

          “Objective” is not the same as “enforced”, or “binding”. So to argue that the morality I’m presenting isn’t enforced or binding is a complete misunderstanding of the conversation we are having. Morality is objective; it can be empirically measured.

          I’d also like to point out that atheism is not a thing. I know this is getting to be a cliché, but atheism is a philosophy like not-playing-golf is a hobby. Atheism is not a philosophy, or a world view. Atheism merely describes people that are unconvinced of one premise: God exists. So it is true that atheism doesn’t give us any morality, but that’s true because that’s not what atheism does. I’m simply looking at secular philosophy.

          You may have a worldview that sees no value in human life and experience, except that it is grounded in God, but that’s your worldview and not mine. “Value” is a product of consciousness, and as such consciousness is the most valuable thing in existence. Unless I subscribe to your morality and worldview, where consciousness has no value and everything is grounded in God. I consider that an empty philosophy.

          I understand that you are uncomfortable with people being able to get away with their immorality, on the view I present. But that doesn’t affect the truth of the matter. If you believe there is a God because you want people to be held accountable then that’s irrational, but fine, just admit that you believe in this model of morality for no greater reason than “I want to”.

          I’m uncomfortable with a God that sets the standard unreachably high, in contradiction to the very way we are made, but has given us a loophole so long as we accept the quasi-sacrifice–by murder–of an innocent human.

          Incidentally, religious morality is not objective; it is subjective. It is objectively true that you either are obeying or disobeying God’s moral preferences, but they are, at core, preferences. God may hold you accountable for doing things He doesn’t like, but again, it’s His preferences.

          • Eugene Adkins 7:24 am on 2012-12-19 Permalink | Reply

            And with that my friend, you have proven every word that Rick wrote to indeed be the truth of atheism.

            • Allallt 8:11 am on 2012-12-19 Permalink

              I can see you plan on being obtuse about this. So thank you, but goodbye.

  • John T. Polk II 4:35 am on 2012-10-10 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , existence of God,   


    Vs. 1-6 show the awesome power of God’s Creative Word;

    Vs. 7-10 point to the awesome qualities of God’s Word;

    Vs. 11-14 praise the awesome effect of God’s Word in a human heart.

    A “Christian Evidence Textbook” simply makes observations that prove God’s existence  by pointing to unanswerable facts. The Bible is, therefore, a “Christian Evidence Textbook.” Verses 1-6 demonstrate this, pointing to “outer space” with its vastness, set stars, and searching sun. Certainly, no interior explosion (“big bang”) but the superior Power (“God”) could have perfectly placed it all. God spoke it into existence (Psalm 33:9; Hebrews 11:3; Genesis 1:16). It has taken America’s Voyager 35 years to reach what is believed to be the outer edge of our “Solar System.”

      “Launched on Sept. 5, 1977, Voyager 1 is the most distant human-made object, at about
    11billion miles (18 billion kilometers) away from our sun. Launched Aug. 20, 1977, Voyager 2 is the
    longest operating spacecraft, past or present. It is 9 billion miles (15 billion kilometers) away from
    our sun” 10/4/12, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.                                                                  

    Science is proving what the Bible has been telling us all the time: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1). The message is that everyone is without excuse who denies God’s existence.

    “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
    unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known
    of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world
    His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
    His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20).

    Psalm 19:4 is quoted in Romans 10:18 where it points to preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ to all people, both Jews and Gentiles (Romans 10:12-21). The Gospel should be preached wherever the evidence for God exists!

    “The heavens” speak of God, without words, by their vastness, the “stars” by their precise place, “the sun” by its function of providing heat, none of which is to be worshiped of itself, but all of which point to their Creator. Most navigation still depends upon the fixed position of some stars, and the sun’s heat is essential to life on earth. Some ridicule, but continue to use, the description of the sun’s “rising,” but rather than pointing to movement of the sun, it describes the rotation of the earth! The sun’s “circuit,” however, has been shown to be its own “orbit” through space! These remarks were made thousands of years before “technology” could prove them! Inspired words precede “scientific fact!”

    Verses 7-10 give qualities of God’s Word: 1) perfect “law” converts; 2) “testimony” educates; 3) “statutes” stabilize; 4) “commandment” clarifies; 5) “fear” motivates; 6) “judgments” secure a receptive soul. Properly understood, God’s Word is more valuable than gold and sweeter than honey! No one can do better in life than to incorporate Bible teaching into one’s heart.

    Verses 11-14 show the understanding God’s Word gives: 1) ample warning of dangers in life; 2) knowledge of sin; 3) humility of heart; 4) purity in praising the awesome God!

    Truly, “The fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

  • J. Randal Matheny 9:48 am on 2010-09-30 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: existence of God,   

    We got invited to do a seminar in the public school system here in Ireland!! The principal has been attending the seminar, and he invited us to come do a lesson on Thursday to all the students! How cool is it that we can discuss the existence of God in a public school in Ireland (and how uncool is it that I can’t do it in my own country!)

    Brad Harrub, on FB
compose new post
next post/next comment
previous post/previous comment
show/hide comments
go to top
go to login
show/hide help
shift + esc