Science vs. God

[Swampman]

I believe the Bible.  What does it say?

[NIL]

I have not said what I believe, only that I have great difficulty with the idea that a universe that has always existed is illogical whereas a God who has always existed is not.

Maybe I could put it this way: Which is more illogical: a highly organized and complex universe formed by unknown, random, and accidental causes; or a highly organized and complex universe formed by an extremely intelligent super being?

As far as what I see in the world today and the way it operates, the second option is the only logical one. The first is madness. The most intelligent scientists today using their most advanced equipment cannot duplicate the simplest of life forms in their laboratories. They never will be able to (in my opinion). And yet they have no hesitation saying that all of the incredible complexity of life came about on its own by accident!!! That's denial to the extreme. Logically, you have to at least ascribe a reasonable cause for life's complexity. Only a highly intelligent and powerful cause is reasonable. Whether you want to ascribe that to God or not is up to you. Darwinian evolution is no reasonable (or logical) cause.

I believe the Bible.  What does it say?

If you believe the Bible then you probably believe that God is the author of it. That means you have some major presuppositions that others are unwilling to accept. Yet they have many presuppositions themselves.

And just believing the Bible will get you into all kinds of philosophical and theological places. There are plenty of people who are Bible believers yet believe in Darwinian evolution. There are many Bible believers who do not believe in evolution.

Ultimately you have to know what the Bible means. What did it means to its authors (Author) and original audience? If you have faith in the Bible, that is where the answers lie.

[Swampman]

I know what the Bible means, because Jesus Christ lives in me.  I believe in evolution and devolution.  You just have to understand how all this started and then you understand everything about it.

[darkgael]

A stimulating discussion.

Which is more illogical: a highly organized and complex universe formed by unknown, random, and accidental causes; or a highly organized and complex universe formed by an extremely intelligent super being?

Alas.....this is the crux of this type of discussion.
You don't see the error in what you have just asked. It is not the creation of the  highly organized and complex universe that gives me a problem; it is the existence before that of the all powerful being who can make that universe out of a thought. Your faith is so unquestioning that it does not allow you to go back one further step in the process. You have, a number of times, mentioned that belief in a highly complex, etc. universe is illogical, even mad......but never once applied that same focus to the existence of the Deity. I have, a number of times, asked "where is God come from", you have not dealt with an answer to that question.
Respectfully posted,
Pete

[Dee]

If the gentleman had "speculated" on the "origin of God", then he would have been ere. He does not question, what he is not capable of understanding, and that is the key. The one question you may dwell on with certainty, is "when will you die from this world", because rest assured "you will". Now given "that information" to dwell on? What are you going to do with "that information" while you have the chance to make the decision. After the fact is too late.
All of this type of discussion, is an effort to be in control of our destiny, and we are not. How we will walk, while we are here, is all we are in control of, and only then by God's grace. Some crawl, some are wheeled around, and some have no chance at all.
Christ told the twelve, that He would be arrested, convicted and crucified, BUT! Would rise on the 3rd day defeating death. When he was arrested, all twelve fled. Ahh! But on the third day they all returned save the one that turned him in. They all went on to preach and die horrible deaths for what they believed, because Christ did what he said he would do. Historical fact!
Your blood is no longer on my hands, as I have given you the truth. It is now on yours, should you refuse to look outside your own box of beliefs.

[darkgael]

If the gentleman had "speculated" on the "origin of God", then he would have been ere. He does not question, what he is not capable of understanding, and that is the key. The one question you may dwell on with certainty, is "when will you die

Quite out of place in this discussion.

hey all went on to preach and die horrible deaths for what they believed, because Christ did what he said he would do. Historical fact!

Fact, you say. Recorded where, when and by whom. There are at least six of the apostles for whom the record of their death is either missing or unclear. As to the rest.....tell me what factual source I can read.
Pete

[Swampman]

Almost none of the Bible can be proven historically.

[NIL]

You don't see the error in what you have just asked. It is not the creation of the  highly organized and complex universe that gives me a problem; it is the existence before that of the all powerful being who can make that universe out of a thought. Your faith is so unquestioning that it does not allow you to go back one further step in the process. You have, a number of times, mentioned that belief in a highly complex, etc. universe is illogical, even mad......but never once applied that same focus to the existence of the Deity. I have, a number of times, asked "where is God come from", you have not dealt with an answer to that question.

I don't think you're reading me correctly. Let's put all assumptions aside. Let's just look at what exists today. Let's look at how things operate today, what laws govern reality. Then let's make the most logical deductions from this evidence. What I'm saying is that an Intelligent Creator makes the most logical sense. Random accidents in our universe don't bring about complexity of any type, let alone increasing complexity, let alone life. The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates that everything tends toward disorder and decay. It takes an external creative force to make something orderly and complex. For our universe to exist as it does, there would have to have been a creative, powerful force to make it so. That is logical. Complexity from impersonal, uncreative random chaos is not logical. I believe anyone who has put all biases and prejudices aside will make that logical conclusion. Belief in God is far more logical than belief in Darwinian evolution. God is a justifiable and reasonable cause.


I'm not trying to deal with the question of "where did God come from?" I'm considering the question of where our world came from. To me the question of where God came from is a question that an unbeliever asks because he doubts and questions the existence of God. Once you understand that the world could only have come from God, and you turn to Him in faith and belief, the question of where He came from is irrelevant. He just is and that makes perfect sense. But I don't expect you to accept or understand that, and I too say that respectfully. I do not believe that I (or Veral, or anyone else) will be able to convince you by any arguments. It doesn't work that way. God is the One Who draws us to Himself. He is outside our reality, so trying to understand Him or prove Him with our reasoning just doesn't work. He must open up our hearts and minds to His existence. But at least logic and reasoning can prepare the way. It can show the futility and darkness of godless beliefs such as Darwinian evolution.

[NIL]

Almost none of the Bible can proven historically.

Actually many of the historical accounts in the Bible have been proven archaeologically and historically.

But the ultimate purpose of the Bible is to reveal God's kingdom. It's about an inner world of the heart, rather than the outer world of history.

An interesting book is titled The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel. As a non-believer and former Chicago Tribune legal editor he set out with a journalist's tenacity to disprove the historicity of Christ and the Bible. He ended up becoming a believer; the evidence was overwhelmingly in favor of the Bible's veracity.

[Dee]

If the gentleman had "speculated" on the "origin of God", then he would have been ere. He does not question, what he is not capable of understanding, and that is the key. The one question you may dwell on with certainty, is "when will you die

Quite out of place in this discussion.

Actually ANYTIME is a GOOD TIME to put in food for thought. Your topic was, and is UNPROVEABLE, mine is not. It is a point that SHOULD BE CONSIDERED, and my commitment to God's GREAT COMMISSION, is a serious one. After all, half of the topic is about GOD. Is it not?

hey all went on to preach and die horrible deaths for what they believed, because Christ did what he said he would do. Historical fact!

Fact, you say. Recorded where, when and by whom. There are at least six of the apostles for whom the record of their death is either missing or unclear. As to the rest.....tell me what factual source I can read.
Pete

Actually NIL gave you an excellent start on this question with the book "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. What NIL says about the man is documented FACT! That's is what your looking for isn't it? You certainly aren't gonna get any answers from science, or Swampman. He doesn't know either.

[darkgael]

NIL: Gosh, you really do write well. It is a pleasure to read through your responses.....though I disagree with much of what you have said.

Complexity from impersonal, uncreative random chaos is not logical. I believe anyone who has put all biases and prejudices aside will make that logical conclusion. Belief in God is far more logical than belief in Darwinian evolution. God is a justifiable and reasonable cause.

Again, I am not really interested in arguing the Darwinian evolution thing....however, I do not see that belief in that theory is inconsistent with belief in God.


About the "complexity from ....chaos" thing: that's the kind of thing that believers say to people like me. Here's an idea that agrees with you: in a sense, chaos is a myth. What is often meant by use if the term is "complexity". Systems and situations which are frequently described as chaotic can be described by mathematical formulae which by their nature are orderly.
The problem that many/some people of strong and fundamental faith have with "science" is that it renders a God unnecessary - and ego, bolstered by belief, says "NO, we can't have that." The idea most often used is that since "science" cannot explain everything completely and absolutely and belief in God can, therefore beleif in a Deity makes more sense.
Putting assumptions aside, you say, but much of what you write is assumptive....that things "could only have". "there would have to have been" and similar phrases are assumptions. To each of these you attach "creative", thus connecting an intelligence to the processes involved. The ideas work as well without the adjective.
"For our universe to exist as it does there would have to have been a powerful force to make it so." Makes sense to me. Not to you, though.

[darkgael]

I do not believe that I (or Veral, or anyone else) will be able to convince you by any arguments. It doesn't work that way. God is the One Who draws us to Himself. He is outside our reality, so trying to understand Him or prove Him with our reasoning just doesn't work. He must open up our hearts and minds to His existence. But at least logic and

Sorry to make this a second post .....it was intended as the next paragraph in my last posting. (For some reason, my IPad won't let me edit properly today).
In any case, perhaps by accident, we have come to a place of agreement. You are correct about argument (logical discourse included) not "working thast way". "(T)rying to understand Him and prove Him with our reasoning just doesn't work." True. It requires the gift of faith something which is beyond reason. That was my point earlier. Say what you will about belief and logic and what makes sense and the laws of thermodynamics, ultimately "our reasoning doesn't work". Belief is not rational at its core; if "irrational" is has the wrong connotations, perhaps "extrarational"?


Pete

[ironglow]

From Veral;
 
    " I do not believe that I (or Veral, or anyone else) will be able to convince you by any arguments. It doesn't work that way. God is the One Who draws us to Himself. He is outside our reality, so trying to understand Him or prove Him with our reasoning just doesn't work. He must open up our hearts and minds to His existence." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     
  Right on Veral;         
    Haven't we all noticed such examples..  Some hunters can "sense" when game is present in an area..while others may just tromp on through the woods, oblivious to the same sense.  Some folks are great at locating water, some have an uncanny connection with dogs or horses.    Some folks have a great sense of beauty or design...comes natural to them.  Some "sense" impending danger or disaster.     None of these things can be weighed, measured, analyzed or broken down into a "system".           Still, we know They exist, and one who does not have the same "gift" may try all he wants..but cannot master it.    God has already told us that He  is not willing that anyone should perish..but He also says each person must be drawn.    Some "sense" the draw..others may be numb to the it's lure..  Certainly not all will be drawn to the creator, ..remember, He always deals in "remenants'.

[Dee]

From Veral;
 
    " I do not believe that I (or Veral, or anyone else) will be able to convince you by any arguments. It doesn't work that way. God is the One Who draws us to Himself. He is outside our reality, so trying to understand Him or prove Him with our reasoning just doesn't work. He must open up our hearts and minds to His existence." xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx     
  Right on Veral;         
    Haven't we all noticed such examples..  Some hunters can "sense" when game is present in an area..while others may just tromp on through the woods, oblivious to the same sense.  Some folks are great at locating water, some have an uncanny connection with dogs or horses.    Some folks have a great sense of beauty or design...comes natural to them.  Some "sense" impending danger or disaster.     None of these things can be weighed, measured, analyzed or broken down into a "system".           Still, we know They exist, and one who does not have the same "gift" may try all he wants..but cannot master it.    God has already told us that He  is not willing that anyone should perish..but He also says each person must be drawn.    Some "sense" the draw..others may be numb to the it's lure..  Certainly not all will be drawn to the creator, ..remember, He always deals in "remenants'.

All true, however, the key is to realize that one is not really in control of ones' surroundings, but is merely a participant in the evolving history of their own life time. A very old and wise Independent Baptist preacher once told me and others: When your at the pulpit, and the person in the box in front of you is dead, his sermon has already been preached by the life he led. The sermon your preaching is for the attendees of the funeral, hopin to change some of them, and their direction, and literal fate.
When I witness to others, and I fail, I think of Peter when he tried to walk on the water, in his effort to be "Christ like". He failed to walk on the water, BUT! At least he got out of the boat! The Great Commission is our duty, and a "softening of the Gospel Truth accomplishes nothing" but, instead causes more questions"!

[NIL]

Systems and situations which are frequently described as chaotic can be described by mathematical formulae which by their nature are orderly.

I wish I could use that one on my wife. "Despite appearances, my junk is really in a state of order. Let me prove it to you mathematically...."

Here's a quote from an article I found this morning that says it better than I can, "Combining cause and effect with the second law of thermodynamics, we reach a fascinating conclusion. Every effect has a cause and, over time, all systems have less usable energy. This means that the effect always has less usable energy than the cause. Said another way, every cause results in a lesser effect. The effect must have less energy, be less complicated, be less advanced than its cause.

The theory of evolution states that a more “evolved” life-form (the effect) stems from a simpler one (the cause)—in violation of both cause and effect and the second law of thermodynamics.

So begins the quandary of evolution…"

The problem that many/some people of strong and fundamental faith have with "science" is that it renders a God unnecessary

I’m not sure who you’re referring to, but true science doesn't even begin to do that. Pseudo-science champions a way of thinking called reductionism. Everything can be reduced down to its molecular parts, and those parts explain the origin of life. “There is a non-random feature, perhaps at the very basis of natural order, which may well have to be taken ultimately into account by biological theorists. Where is the mind? If we dissect the brain, we don't find the mind. The brain is a system and is more than its constituent parts. We have to move from entities to qualities possessed by a system as a whole, which cannot be split up and located. We often think that when we have completed our study of one we know all about two, because two is one and one. We forget that we still have to make a study of ‘and'. At the molecular level, we study ‘and' – that is to say, organization (Beyond Reductionism)”.

The fact is that the spark of life is the miracle of miracles. You can take molecules and whatever stuff you want and mess around with it in a laboratory for the rest of your life. You’ll never impart life into it, or explain how life began. And that doesn’t explain where those building blocks you’re using came from anyway. The massive assumption you’re making is that the universe was just always there, but you can’t see the illogic in that. How convenient to say that life evolved from a primordial ooze that just happened to always be there, and just happened to have all the correct constituents for life in it. That’s a big motivator in the search for extraterrestrial life. What a waste of countless dollars and resources that could be used to improve life on our own planet (that’s obviously my own bias)!

but much of what you write is assumptive

We could sit here and throw that one at each other all day.

To each of these you attach "creative", thus connecting an intelligence to the processes involved. The ideas work as well without the adjective.

In light of what I’ve said about causes and effects, I disagree with you.

I'm just going to throw out a few more quotes for thought.

Pierre-Paul Grassé (world renowned zoologist, author of more than 300 publications, and former president of the Academie des Sciences) stated, “Their success among certain biologists, philosophers, and sociologists notwithstanding, the explanatory doctrines of biological evolution do not stand up to an objective, in-depth criticism. They prove to be either in conflict with reality or else incapable of solving the major problems involved” (The Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977)

Teilhard de Chardin (French philosopher and Jesuit priest who trained as a paleontologist and geologist) wrote: “Evolution is much more than a theory – it is a general postulate to which all theories, all systems henceforth must bow and which they must satisfy in order to be thinkable and true. Evolution is a light which illumines all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow”. (Obviously pro-evolution, but shows how it is much more than just science.)

In 1885 N. Y. Dailevsky (naturalist, economist, ethnologist, philosopher, and historian) wrote that "the theory of evolution is not as much a biological teaching, as it is a philosophical one, a dome on the building of mechanical materialism, by which is it only possible to explain its fantastic success not related to real scientific achievements.

[ironglow]

darkgael;
       I am not a singer..sounds OK to me ..but torture for others.  I have tried for 7 decades now..still can't carry a tune in a bucket.  Some folks just can't understand Einstein's theory of relativity... That doesn't mean a good singing voice is impossible, or that Einstein's theory is false.  In both cases, the problem is that some folks "just don't get it".  The same is true with the spiritual side of existence. If you are genuinely curious, here are a couple links.  You seem to appreciate schlarship and credentials..if so, check out Dr William Lane Craig's bio, at the top;
 
  http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/rediscover2.html   http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/pg79644
 
  If you don't want to believe what Jesus said, observe the miracles the Bible speaks of which have been fulfilled.  Today in our country there are forces working hard to silence the message of Jesus..but it won't work:
 
     King James Bible (Luke 19:40)
And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out !
 
  Dark..the stones ARE crying out !  Have you observed the science of archaeology in recent years ?   Things some "scholars' have long doubted concerning the Bible.. Proof of the life of David, discovery of the City of David, the James ossuary,  Caiphus' tomb, seals of various Biblical authors...and if it proves out..Pahroh's chariot wreckages in the land of Goshen. Even the stones of of the World trade Center and Pentagon cry out.  Add this to the miracle of the rebirth of Israel after 2,000 years of dispersion (no other nation has ever done that)..and the recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls among the 'stones' of caves at about the same time and a light (John 14:6) should go on in your head.
   As Dee said, we have done our part..Jesus said, "he who has an ear, let him hear".. so now it is up to you !
 
  Note my signature line...quote from a man tasting the joys of hell..at this moment..

[NIL]

You seem to appreciate schlarship and credentials..if so, check out Dr William Lane Craig

Dr. Craig is an amazing scholar and thinker. I have one of his books, and it's pretty meaty.

[buffermop]

Look who pick out the deciples to write the new testament. It was Jesus himself. The victim for mans sinfulness to reopen the gates of heaven. He chose its authors himself, who were ordinary people of the times. fisherman, tax collectors.law breakers. His message was forgivness ! They witness him crucified on the cross and saw him return to life 3 days later to eat with them and prove his humanly existance. Yes, he is still human and one God in three persons. It is His choice to hold any more info than man has to know.

[darkgael]

NIL:

The massive assumption you’re making is that the universe was just always there, but you can’t see the illogic in that. How convenient to say that life evolved from a primordial ooze that just happened to always be there, and just happened to have all the correct constituents for life in it.

Well....you are getting close. You say that the assumption that the universe was always just there is illogical and yet you accept the existence of a supernatural being possessed of amazing powers - the assumption that you are making is that this being/God "was just always there". In fact, those amazing powers render your assumption even more massive. Occam's Razor tells us that, all other things being equal, the simpler explanation is usually the correct one.
I understand that you will probably not go with the Occam idea. I do wonder, though, why your very massive assumption is logical and my less massive assumption is not.

The second part of the quoted reference contains an idea that is incorrect - actually, it is a misunderstanding that you made earlier and which I did not correct at the time.
Primordial ooze - I never said that the ooze "was just always there". The "universe" as a whole is far older than the Earth. Given that difference in age, there was evidently enough time for whatever was needed to come together. You believe that the spark came from the finger of God. I was not there and so do not know.
Note: I have never said that there is no God. What I have said is that such belief requires a leap of faith, a leap past logic, a step beyond what can be known. Many folk who are strong believers do not like being told that there is an irrational quality to their belief and attempt to justify the "logic" of it with all sorts of information, some of which is actually true, most of which has little or no bearing on the basic issue.
The other responses to these ideas are fair examples of what I have just written. They are well intended but not what I have been writing about.
The Bible, all those archeological discoveries, the continuing argument about evolution....all beside the point.
About Dr. Craig.... Not surprising that his name should show up. He is far from unbiased and even farther from rigorous in his arguments. In effect, he tells believers what they want to hear. It is feel good writing but far from acceptable argumentation. If you know what a "straw man" is, then you have a sense of how he operates.
A syllogism from Dr. Craig:
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Really? Substitute "God" for "universe".....does it still work for you?
Pete

[Dee]

Here we have a debate that is hundreds of years old. One has found comfort in God, the only one providing a real written comfort and explanation some 6500 to 7000 years old. The other seeks comfort in man's explanation thru invented processes of examination of rocks, soil, ect, and thru all of man's examinations of such items, and processes, he has not been able to duplicate any of these wonders. The human eye, the human embryo, any of these. He can clone a sheep , but has to have a pre-fabbed sheep to do so. MAN CLAIMS TO KNOW THE ANSWERS, BUT HAS NO WORKS FOR PROOF. Only words. He cannot even replicate dirt without the use of already invented "dirt".
He cannot accept something he cannot understand, see, feel, touch, ect, while all along ignoring the miracles all around him, and deeming it happenstance, and all the while striving for an explanation from an unknown man in a lab somewhere, because he cannot come up with it on his own either.
One cannot convince such individuals of God's existence. This is not what their purpose for debate are anyway. Their purpose is to tell the believer what is wrong with THEIR theory. To "shake their faith", make "them" realize "their belief", "their Bible", "is a mere fairy tail", which in turn, "makes their entire faith based, belief system" "a fairy tail". They do not seek knowledge, but instead seek debate. An opportunity to "try out their skills of debate on an unprovable man made theory" on the believer. Not to learn from him, but to discredit his ideology.
God spoke of this type of person, and instructed to "shake the dust from you feet and go to the next" for this one's heart is closed. The debate cannot be won, and a conclusion will not be drawn, as to whom is right.

[ironglow]

  From Darkgael;
 
  " You believe that the spark came from the finger of God.  I was not there and so do not know."
**********************************************************************************
  Also from Darkgael
  " Primordial ooze - I never said that the ooze "was just always there". The "universe" as a whole is far older than the Earth. Given that difference in age, there was evidently enough time for whatever was needed to come together."
**************************************************************************************
 
   Truly interesting Dark;
      You were not there when God created..so you do not know if He did so..
 
    In the other statement you say the universe as a whole is "far older" than the earth. 
   
Were you there when the universe came into being...or are you just "putting your faith" in what somebody has told you ?
*******************
 
  Frankly; I've had enough word-play here.  I've done my duty according to the great commission...so I'm ready to dust my feet and go on..

[NIL]

I do wonder, though, why your very massive assumption is logical and my less massive assumption is not.

I've explained myself over and over again as to why I believe my "massive assumption" is so much more logical. I won't bother with that anymore.

You have a good mind, Pete, but are you open to the truth? Most people are not. I've been down multiple paths philosophically and spiritually in my 40 years. I've listened to evolutionists and atheists and seriously considered their theories. Don't the implications of the atheist worldview disturb you? There are no foundations for morals and ethics. That alone is enough to steer me toward belief in a God. People use the lame argument that Christians (and other religions) are responsible for all sorts of violence and wars, but that's just not so. In the last century alone atheists have been responsible for far more violent human deaths than all of history combined. In my experience, I'd take a Christian neighbor over an atheist neighbor anytime. We have both types in my extended family, and there is no comparison in character. I'm not saying Christians are perfect either.

While I don't claim to be an exceptional thinker (and I'm not very impressed with many who are and where that thinking has taken them), I do feel that (like most of us) God has given me a decent mind and the ability to put two and two together. I've tried to share some of my thinking in the posts above, but you seem to avoid grappling with the points I share. I do hope that you find the truth, and never giving up searching for it. Your destiny (and mine) depends on this search.

[Dee]

There are many whom would dig at ones foundation. Not to improve that foundation, but to topple the whole house into the mass of confusion, and doubt that the digger resides in. It is a good decision to turn the backhoe around and order it away, when the foundation is already sound anyway.

[darkgael]

Dee: With all due respect, not one of the statements in your last post has anything to do with what I have written or my motives. If you think that they do, you need to reread the exchanges.
Pete

[darkgael]

NIL: I had to smile when I read your last post. I don't wish to put words in your mouth but I could imagine you saying to yourself "This guy just doesn't get it. No matter how many times and ways that I say it, he misses the point."
Ironically, I found myself thinking that same thought about your last response. "This guy just doesn't get it."
That "seem to avoid grappling with the points I share" is a good example as I had exactly the same thought about you. In support of my central idea that faith is ultimately irrational, I repeatedly asked the question "Where did God come from?" (call it question A). There are only two possible answers to that question. One is "I don't know"; the other is "He has always existed". You never picked either of those answers. Instead, you answered question B, a question that I never asked. You told me why you believed. You told me why such belief made sense, was logical. You told me that the alternatives were illogical, mad even, made no sense. In the course of that, you never defined what "sense" is nor what you meant by logic. I say this last idea because, like the syllogism from Dr. Crane's book, you yourself began with the premise that anything that exists has a cause. It is a false premise, immediately violated by belief in an eternal God. One cannot logically derive truth from a false premise.
Note that I am not saying that your beliefs are wrong just that, based on your idea, your sense of logic needs tuning.
Atheism. Am I an atheist? Maybe I am just someone who wants to have people think a little more deeply about what they believe and why....people, for instance, who think that Dr. Craig is a deep thinker and don't see how often he proceeds from incorrect assumptions and begs the question.
About atheists being responsible for all those deaths, I cannot argue that statistic as I do not know; it may well be accurate - I assume that you are referring to the German atrocities during WWII and the abuses of people like Stalin and Pol Pot. Horrible stuff, at least as horrible as the history of religious wars that span the fifteen hundred years before and which, in our time, brought down the Twin Towers. Athiesm does not have a lock on immoral behavior.

[darkgael]

Sorry for the split post - my IPad will not let me edit properly.
About the age of the universe:

      You were not there when God created..so you do not know if He did so..
    In the other statement you say the universe as a whole is "far older" than the earth. 

Do I take all that on faith? The age of the Earth....yes, I trust the geology.
The age of the Universe......I did not take the observations myself but the data involving redshifts is readily available as is the formula for computing the age of objects involved (derived from their speed of recession). The data changes over time as equipment and techniques change. Yes, I have run that data for myself. So, no, I did not take the idea on faith.
About me being open to the truth:

For a solid treatment of why God exists, Google Quinque Viae and Thomas Aquinas.
Pete

[NIL]

In support of my central idea that faith is ultimately irrational, I repeatedly asked the question "Where did God come from?" (call it question A). There are only two possible answers to that question. One is "I don't know"; the other is "He has always existed". You never picked either of those answers. Instead, you answered question B, a question that I never asked. You told me why you believed. You told me why such belief made sense, was logical. You told me that the alternatives were illogical, mad even, made no sense. In the course of that, you never defined what "sense" is nor what you meant by logic. I say this last idea because, like the syllogism from Dr. Crane's book, you yourself began with the premise that anything that exists has a cause. It is a false premise, immediately violated by belief in an eternal God. One cannot logically derive truth from a false premise.
Note that I am not saying that your beliefs are wrong just that, based on your idea, your sense of logic needs tuning.

Well, maybe I just don’t have a clue, Pete; however, it seems logical to me that we live in a highly organized and complex world. It seems logical to me that the laws governing this earth dictate that such organization and complexity must have a reasonable cause. That seems logical to me, but I guess it doesn't to you. As I’ve said over and over again, the only logical explanation that I’ve come across is that God made it all (apart from the question of where He came from....you seem to be insisting that I work from one direction: cause toward effect....I'm working from the evidence, the effect, back toward a justifiable cause....if the origin of this universe follows the logical laws of cause and effect, then the cause has to be ineffable because the cause has to be outside and greater than the effect....so I'm fine not understanding where God came from). I think you agree with me that the world is highly organized and complex. Yet you can’t state any reasonable cause for this (it’s like you don’t have the answer but you’re sure not going to accept my answer). You say that the universe was just always there (and you think this is logical???). You don’t claim that there was any kind of intelligent designer behind all of this design. I have to assume you agree with Darwinian evolutionists, who give as the supreme cause, random accidental forces of nature. However, as I stated several times, the random accidental forces of nature tend toward disorder and decay. “They” work very hard and successfully to keep species within their genetic boundaries. Order is not just happening from disorder. So then you state that disorder is really order because mathematicians have proved it so. But that doesn’t prove anything, or begin to explain how life could come about in primordial ooze.

Atheism. Am I an atheist? Maybe I am just someone who wants to have people think a little more deeply about what they believe and why....people, for instance, who think that Dr. Craig is a deep thinker and don't see how often he proceeds from incorrect assumptions and begs the question.

Let’s drop Dr. Craig (though I don’t think you’re being fair toward him). Maybe the rest of us too are just guys who want people to "think a little more deeply about what they believe and why." Do you have a monopoly on this? Are you the only one on this forum who is thinking deeply?

[darkgael]

NIL: Great response. Thank you.

...you seem to be insisting that I work from one direction: cause toward effect....I'm working from the evidence, the effect, back toward a justifiable cause....if the origin of this universe follows the logical laws of cause and effect, then the cause has to be ineffable because the cause has to be outside and greater than the effect....so I'm fine not understanding where God came from).

Yeah, I was kinda insisting on that, wasn't I.
And...you are, of course, correct about my not having a monopoly regarding deep thinking. I apologize if I have given that impression.
Pete