I've already started the debate by correcting your misuse of two terms, one being significant in your defense of the existence of God. Please, feel free to counter. By properly defining your argument as teleological, you're left with nothing but an exercise in metaphysical theorizing as opposed to dealing with observable facts. So your argument that God exists based on empirical evidence is invalid.

As for mormons, Jeannie is absolutely correct. While the core of mormonism is a belief in Christ as the Son of God, there are- quite naturally, a number of mormons who don't actually believe that, or at least don't agree with some core doctrines. It's common across several faiths, if not many. I won't speak for the ones I'm not familiar with.

As for me, I know there is a God. How I've come to know what I know is for me to know for my own benefit and for others to find out for themselves if they want. Pontificating about it on dating forums doesn't help anyone.

The point being, ucheaa, that your implication that I'm a believer of a non-belief is also invalid, since I was exposing weaknesses in your arguments. I'm an advocate for belief in God, but a prosecutor of obviously unsound arguments.

I respect agnostics who admit that they do not know one way or another, and I respect atheists who are really rejecting myth, folklore and religious dogma and accept responsibility for their own lives and who refuse to allow religious zealots to dictate to them how they should live or what they should believe.

What I don't respect are atheists and scientists who attempt to convince others that humans have no "free will" or that consciousness and awareness is a product of evolution from a non-conscious, non-living, substance.

As much as they think, and as much as it appears to be the case, it is just an appearance or an illusion. Reason and logic does not support something from nothing. Reason and logic does not support evolution as long as scientists insist that we evolved from inanimate, unaware, unintelligent substance. That would be a miracle.

I believe we did evolve, but we evolved from intelligent aware substance that is a thinking stuff.

uche9aa,

If the goal of your argument is simply that God exists, then I would ask you to define what you mean by "God."

If you mean that "God" is a human-looking entity that humans were designed in the image of, who created the world and the universe, then I will say NO I do not believe in that picture of God.

Your points have serious factual errors. They have noting to do with a pro or anti God argument, but your argument would generally appear to have a better start if you you at least got your facts right.

70% of the Earth's mass is not water (but much of the surface is covered with it).

Oxygen is a small percentage of the Earth and the free oxygen in the atmosphere came from plants converting carbon dioxide.

Etc.

Algae is responsible for much of the oxygen supply. Highly adaptable to various environments, algae produces more oxygen than land plants.

My believe is what the entire bible says of the nature,description and attributes of God.We were created after his likeness and image,thats the absolute truth.Whats your picture of God?

Metal,yea you seemed to agree that a great being(God)brought those elements into existence,thats my poin.Its fruitless to ague about elementary physics here.

Brought them into existence eh? That'll take some explaining. Since matter can't be created or destroyed. You know it never says once in Genesis anything about God 'creating' matter. It suggests he took something that already existed and gave shape to it.

Let me raise more questions for atheists or para-atheists or their advocates.I start by stating what i believe.If it has a complex design pattern,then there is a designer,not chance.How do atheists explain the existence of complex design found in the universe-different fingerprint,different DNA,different snow flake design? Every zebra has a unique stripe pattern.I really dont understand how i could find a house in a desert plain,well furnished with food,water,protective walls and still conclude everything is as a result of chance and not the work of a being-when Newton's first law states"a body will remain at rest..unless a force is applied to it" what is that force or who apply that force to keep the "bang" rolling?

Again,according to the theory of evolution,now if my memory serves me correctly,man supposedly evolved from ape.If that theory is true,why are apes still here?Aint they supposed to be extinct by now? What is stopping the other apes from evolving into man?Dont they want to be alpha dogs and enjoy the good things of life as well?.Millions of years since the "big bang",man have not evolved into something else,why?If life came from the big bang,which came first-the chicken or the hen? Traditionally,when a question throws an atheist off balance they reply with silly accusations or try to make you look silly or they resort to name calling and insults.I hardly reply such a dude.

I would love to reply, but you limited your questions to atheists, para-atheists (misuse of the root para, by the way), and their advocates. Since I'm none of them, sadly, I don't apply.

Plus, your arguments are all circular. When someone responds to you you seem to react by either getting upset and reciting platitudes, or falling back to your staple statements disguised in the form of questions.

Additionally, since you don't want a discussion you'll get none and only encourage the sort of responses you supposedly have such disdain for.

Finally, you don't want to know the answers to these questions you're aksing. It's clear you already have an opinion on them. You're not trying to persuade anyone of anything with reason or logic...so...what's the point?

Well, have fun with it. Everyone needs a hobby I guess.

Evolution is the process of natural selection to help offspring adapt.
Apes and humans share a common ancestor.Mutations occur during both mitosis and gene duplication.These mutations of cells,genes,alleles can be deleterious for one generation and then become beneficial the next.Which is why humans are able to adapt to their environment along with having instincts and intelligence to protect themselves from certain disasters.
Most of evolution is about adaptation.
The reason there are still apes is because humans and modern apes split from a common ancestor.There's not just hominids for ancient humans there's also for ancient apes showing gradual change over time when humans and apes split from their common ancestor.

I am a pantheist.

I am God.

All is God.

I exist. That is my PROOF OF GOD.

Now MY question to you is this: Why do you believe the Bible?

Jeannie,its laughable to even imagine that "all is God" and that "I am God".You cant be God and all cant be God.But lets hold it there for now.Let me respond to your question on why i believe the bible.Thanks for your good question,read on

Why I believe the bible is true.Going by the manuscript evidence,there are way more copies of the bible manuscripts with remarkable consistency between them than there are for any of the classics like Plato,Aristotle and Socrates.There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the new testament.Again and again,archaeological discoveries have verified the accuracy of the historical and cultural references in the bible.The more they dig,the more it confirms the bible.Its important to note that near eastern archaeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the bible in many important areas.

Let me state also that the bible was written by people who witnessed the events it describes.Many were persecuted or martyred but never changed their story.would you die for something you knew was untrue?.its no moderate approbation of scripture that has been sealed by the blood of so many witnesses,especially when we reflect that they died to render testimony to the faith with firm and costant,yet sober,zeal towards God

Permit me more liberty to say that there plenty of references in non-bibilical sources to the events described in the bible.The Jewish historian Josephus born in 37 AD provides indispensable background material for the student of new testament history.In them,we meet many figures well known to us from the new testament.some of his writings provide direct commentary on new testament references

Actually that's false. Not a single Biblical author has been identified by any biblical scholar. All of them are unknowns. The names in titles were not written by the people so-named, but were accredited as authors by later writers who would use these names and writings to angle the Christ story a certain way and towards a specific group usually.

Also- plenty of people have died for things less noble. In fact, martyrdom became a token of sanctimony among christians following the general apostasy that erupted after the death of the apostles. Many of them would incite people to violence in order to procure a 'noble death' in the name of their beliefs.

So you can't make the claim of truth based on either of these points.

Even literary consistency attests to the reliability and truism of the bible.You might know that the bible contains 66 books written over 1500 years by 40 different writers but it tells one "big story" of God's plan of salvation that culminated in Jesus Christ.You cant even pass a secret around a circle of 12 people and get the same message at the end.There is indeed a wide variety of human authors and theme(in the bible)yet behind these lies a single unifying theme.I can go on and on if you need more evidence and reasons why i believe the bible.God bless you

uche9aa,

You are mistaken. You are most likely getting your information from an established apologist group whose goal it is to convince you of these untruths.



Josephus is always the one who is quoted and yet there is no proof that the name "Josephus" was not just a pen name for some other author, which I believe is the truth. What he did write about said very little about Jesus's life and never mentioned the name "Jesus."

The mention of someone being crucified should not be assumed to have been Jesus. They crucified many people in those days. There are also 17 other myths of saviors who were crucified, some born of a virgin, and rose again just like Jesus. All from older scriptures than the Bible.

Authors back then did plagiarize older scriptures and they did write FICTION.

Most people who could write worked for the government. They were creating a religion that encompassed many different pagan beliefs. There is NO Reason to believe or trust in any of it.

There are very few non-biblica sources and the few that exist are very flimsy.




On the contrary. I know for certain that I exist. And even your source,(the Bible) states that God is "omnipresent." (Everywhere) thus ALL IS GOD.

It is not "laughable." I am God.

All is God.