Hopefully the church will provide more lifelong farming and manufacturing opportunities for christians over the next 50 years so its not just giving a man a fish but also teaching a man to fish, thereby creating a more vibrant Christian experience which might change some of the numbers in the article

teaching a man to fish,
progressive pat,
Just don't send them to the Great Barrier Reef !

Unfortunately, metaphorically speaking, too many men have been taught to fish resulting in (almost) complete depletion of the planet`s fish species.

Hey Peter Bowden,

Well I'll slide into Category 3 'I do not know (agnostic)'

"God does not appear to be looking after the welfare of those people who have chosen to support him. Maybe he is not there."

Whether God does or doesn't exist, people still have their own freewill.
This is important, because if entertaining the idea that God exists you will still need to separate 'Man's Will' from that which you may often mistakenly consider as 'God's Will'.

"God does not appear to be looking after the welfare of those people who have chosen to support him."

Is this 'God's Will', or is it 'Man's OWN Will'?
If it is 'Man's Will' alone, then this does not prove, God doesn't exist.

"More than half are willing to come straight out and say they are atheists."

You think that there's 3 categories.
Believers, Agnostics and Atheists.
I could argue that there is in fact only 2:

1. Those who claim to know (Believers and Atheists)
2. Those who admit they don't know (Agnostics)

On the face value of it, the argument could be just as likely that 'Those who claim to know' are suffering mental delusions than they actually know what they claim to know.
'Those who admit they don't know', they may in fact be more well-grounded, are not so easily lead and can better look at things and make judgements for themselves.

It may be that 'those who admit they don't know' may be more mentally stable and well adjusted than 'those who claim to know'.

[Cont.]
"Margaret Court’s church, which was founded by Court in 1995, believes she is safe from Corona virus. Full believers, it would appear, are safe."
What bothers me about all this is Christian's failure to act in a manner that doesn't harm others, or Christians failure to understand ethics:

"Everybody has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't have a negative or detrimental impact on others"

Also their failure to understand the difference between morals and ethics:

'Ethics is knowing the difference between right and wrong, morals is how you act upon this knowledge.'
- Which means that you can't have good morals, if you don't firstly understand ethics.

Christians 'Leave it up to God', making the choice themselves to throw all care to the wind, i.e. 'Man's Will' and then attribute the bad outcome as being 'God's Will' instead of their own, when their choices were the direct cause of the outcome not God's.

The 'Margaret Court' example is the 3rd example I've found this week of Christians acting in a manner that is likely to harm others.

Christian's problem, I believe is that they substituted religion into the empty space that was originally reserved for ethics.
I've tried to lay out my reasons as well as growing evidence for this behavior in a number of comments on a recent thread with Spencer Gear.

As a person concerned with religious matters I think you should take the time to look at what I've outlined there.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20802&page=0#366775

Hey progressive pat,

"Its not just giving a man a fish but also teaching a man to fish"

If it's the woman or mothers job to be the nurturer (feed the fish)
Then what's the man or fathers job?
It's the fathers job to fish for himself to provide for his family;
and to teach (his children) to fish.
- To be independent and support themselves.
(And not be overly nurtured to their detriment by their nurturer mother)

We live in a complicated society.
There are people who have employees and people who are employees.
If the only product and service you have to offer others is a resume, then you are a modern day slave.
You are not fishing, and can't teach anyone else how to fish either.

It is quite ridiculous to me that atheists keep asking, 'is there a God'.

A fool says in his heart their is no god. It is obvious that God has handed over the deniers to their own pervesions just as the Scriptures say. Anyone who can't see their is a Creator is wilfully ignorant. You would think Peter would either shut up or repent at a time like this. Instead he spurns the One who gave him life and the One he will give an account to. I suggest he call on God's mercy than appeal to his self righteousness as displayed by this pathetic rant.

Imagine a world destroyed by nuclear war and the ravage of reoccurring pandemics. and all the usual things like schools, teaching etc., the occasional exception rather than the rule. Imagine fast forward a thousand years from now and the few surviving humans, surviving as the survival of the fittest, as hunter-gathers

. Imagine A few fortress walled communities where there remained a few, home taught, readers able to read and write and somebody finds a buried set of all the Harry Potter series and sequels.

And as each book is read and copied to preserve the books, some of the words, not completely understood, are changed and embellished, to comply with the local mores.

And the read and reread for around a thousand years as we rebuild a civilised society, as gospel according to this or that identity, in an evil versus good collection of, so it is written, written word.

The hero, Harry would become someone able to perform miracles and revered as a virtual God? And presented by believers as absolute truth and Harry, the personification of God, to replace God in our worship? Is this where we are now with the man Jesus? Maybe Perhaps?

As for choosing God? It's not your call! Only God chooses who serves his/her purpose. And that purpose is founded in absolute unconditional love and where we, his creations, are allowed to learn via our mistakes. And given we learn from those mistakes, (sins) go on to become more human, humans.

Take care and stay safe.
Alan B.

Although it has not been updated for 15-20 years this site provides a unique comprehensive Understanding of "God" and human culture.
http://www.realgod.org

AC

The NT teaches that misfortune will more likely stalk a Christian because of his beliefs, not the opposite as some of the overabundance of the Christians superstitious believe.

A true Christian will actually consciously prepare for the onslaughts of misfortune by exercising patience and perseverance in the face of them.
They will ask their God for strength to endure.
There are no special privileges promised to a Christian believer.

So I agree with your conclusio, that a Christian who deliberately puts themselves into danger to test Gods goodness, actually shows an arrogant misunderstanding of his religion, and disregard towards his God, as it is "written".
They are truely deluded, and endowed with an inflated sense of self worth.

Alan B

You should stop reading Harry Potter novels.
If you want to really educate yourself on actually how myths and legends were passed on and why, throw out Harry Potter books and read this one;
"The memory code" Lynne Kelly..

Dan

Dan

I have to agree with the author that “a god who needs evidence” for his existence, (hence is detectable from within natural sience), does not exist. Unfortunately for our atheist friends, this is not God in whom contemporary educated Christians believe (and communicate with).

I have written about Mathematically semiliterate scientists (https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15928)
- appartently productds of poor maths teachers).

Perhaps there are similarly religiosly (and filosophically, theologically) semiliterate ethicist for whose state of mind a similar explanation applies.

As I said above, it's ridiculous for atheists to ask if there is a God when they have already decided that there is not one. If something doesn't exist why talk about?

Do they feel the need to defend their misbelief? A little guilt there, perhaps? Particularly when most people don't give a toss whether about their atheism, which they are perfectly entitled to.

Many of them complain about "Bible bashers", but they are no better, with their evangelising against God and the Bible. It doesn't matter what individuals believe or disbelieve, except to themselves. I'm agnostic myself, but believing of the Christian way of life. I do, however, find people who want to talk about the lack of a God a bigger pain in the arse than those who keep their beliefs private - no matter what they are.

I agree with the writer's confusion that God, as defined in his argument definitely does not exist. However, I have spent almost 20 years arguing that this is no the end of the matter. It tires me to repeat myself again, so just look at some of my posts on OLO for my arguments. Especially

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=20224

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=19410

https://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17910

Peter,

You have given up believing in god: <<probably the major reason was that he had never had any direct evidence that there was a god, nor had he met anybody who had such evidence.>>

What kinds of evidence do you accept?

What you have written in this piece demonstrates you refuse God’s answer. You are against God's revelation of the universe and against the revelation in yourself.

The strength of the Christian worldview is that everything in life fits under the apex of of the infinite personal God who exists, created the universe, and to whom all human beings are accountable.

I have not found any other system that has an apex where everything fits.

The revelation of the universe is clear according to Romans 1:19-20, “For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse”, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A19-20&version=NIVUK

God’s existence comes through exposure of all human beings to conscience according to Romans 2:14-16, “For when Gentiles [non-Jews], who do not have the law [of God], by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus", http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+2%3A14-16&version=NIVUK

If there is no truth about God, we have no hope. If anyone finds the body of Jesus, Christianity will be proved false. We are left with what the apostle Paul asserted, 'If there is no resurrection,... If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die"’ (1 Corinthians 15:29-31), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Cor+15%3A29-31&version=NIVUK

Sells,

Based on your comments in support of Peter Bowden's question, 'Is there a God?' do you want to hear what the Bible says about God's existence and the need for evangelism (Matthew 28:18-20) and seeking those who are lost (Luke 19:10), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+19%3A10&version=NIV

Why don't you take the call of the Scriptures seriously in its assessment of the nature of human beings and their need of a Saviour?

ttbn,

<<It is quite ridiculous to me that atheists keep asking, 'is there a God'.>>

I agree on one level but there are 2 other situations screaming at them about God's existence:

(1) The evidence in creation (Romans 1:19-20).

"The brain is composed of over 10 trillion different cells. These cells work together to send electrical impulses at a rate of 273 miles per hour (393 feet per second). Nerve cells in the body send 2,000 impulses to the brain every second. These impulses come from 130,000 light receptors in the eye, 100,000 hearing receptors in the ears, 3,000 taste buds, and over 500,000 touch spots. As this is happening, the brain does not move, yet it consumes over 25% of the body’s oxygen and receives 20% of all the blood that is pumped from the heart (which is pretty amazing, considering that the brain makes up only about 2% of the body weight of an average man)", http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=877

(2) The evidence from conscience (Romans 2:14-15), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rom+2%3A14-15&version=NIRV

The atheists try to avoid these 2 demonstrations for the existence of God. When they avoid them, they keep coming back to accuse Christian believers when they should submit to the personal, eternal Lord God Almighty and Saviour of the world.

Hey OzSpen,

How and why should:

1/ The existence of the human body's complexities, (as well as the complexities of all livings things) or;
2. The existence of a human conscience

- Serve as evidence for a supernatural creator of all things who watches over us and will judge us upon our death?

Also on the issue of conscience:
Why do Christians do things that harm others and do so in God's name?

Does putting themselves and their friends and family at risk of COVID-19 not go against ones conscience?

How do they bring themselves to do these things if they valued their conscience in they way you're saying that it has such importance to Christians and Christianity?

- I've shown that they fail to take precautions for themselves and their children against COVID-19, and promote an ideology that puts others at risk of infection by claiming God will protect his followers?

If YOU had a conscience, you'd respond to this issue and admit that Christians are putting others at risk of harm.

In a one line answer to the question, simple:-No

Armchair Critic just did a checkmate on OLO’s god authority ol’ OzSpen, well done AC.
Galen

If there is a god, here he is.

The worlds best poet writes and sings another brilliant opus

http://youtu.be/3NbQkyvbw18

How do you measure humidity? Measure tempature? Measure electricity?

If you tried to measure electricity by how hot or cold it is outside, then you would be at a loss of any reliable answers. Same as if you tried to measure the tempature by how humid it is.

Or if you are considering the difference between salt water and fresh water. Water that is hard water (ph levels), water that is unclean, compared to drinkable water, how do you measure these things? If you look at the wrong information that doesn't deal with what you are measuring and looking for, then you won't find anything that answers your search.

Know what your looking for and how to look for it before saying it is there or that it isn't there.
____________________________
The author of the article says he is convinced there is no God because:

1) he had never had any direct evidence that there was a god, nor had he met anybody who had such evidence.
2) the world is a mess
3) that throughout history the church opposes the good changes in the world,
4) the disagreement of social norms (homosexuality) from two Christian athletes.
5) A survey of 30 people, and the rise of people that don't believe in God measured through national polls.

Afterwards though Peter Bowden, gives a final challenge to check if God is real. Claims that Christians are immune from the Covid virus, and if God being annoyed by the article responds to the article Himself by having Peter stricken with the things in Armageddon.

The question from here is are any of these accurate? Are they a good measure of if God exists or not?

(Continued)

(Continued)

To the 1st one, I have great doubts that Peter has never met someone who had evidence that God existed. In a culture that prides it's religous views as private views, you might never know the things God has done in another person's life, or the things they have witnessed.

To the 2nd one for the world being a mess, is that a promise that God would fix the world if He exists, or is the world a mess as a judgement from God on the sin and evil that exists in the world? Either case can be argued without even consulting what God would say in the matter. (To know the answer to what He would say would mean to consider any religion that claims to have heard from God, and judge those answers as potentially being from God).

Reason #3 is just false. There are many great things that have only occurred because Christians have promoted them. To say that the church opposes any good progress is just false.

As for the 4th and 5th, neither are a good measure of God but are more a measure of people. #4 though might be closer, but if the Christians that are outspoken against Homosexuality are correct and that is a good representation of God's views, then all that does is show that God's views are not in line with society's views. Even if they voted on them to show agreement.

I hope this is not too harsh of an answer to you Peter. But God is real. There is evidence of Him being real. Both powerful evidence in some people's lives (I've confident you've met some, but are just unaware of them), as well as logical conclusions based on the world around us. I hope you find Him. He's worth finding. If you don't find God, I still wish you well, and hope your life stays well and you stay safe.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Believe it or not, even if you don't believe in God, He still loves you. Your post may or may not annoy Him, but know that if He can love a guy like me, then He loves you as well. I would not try to test that love by asking God to prove Himself by giving you an ailment in annoyance of your article.

Not_Now.Soon,

<<Reason #3 is just false. There are many great things that have only occurred because Christians have promoted them. To say that the church opposes any good progress is just false.>>

It is preposterous that Peter Bowden claims: <<throughout history the church opposes the good changes in the world>>

Historically, these are a few examples of Christians contributing to the good of society:

+ William Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery. http://www.christianitytoday.com/history/people/activists/william-wilberforce.html

+ Sir Isaac Newton: mathematician, physicist, astronomer and theologian. He is recognised as one of the most influential scientists of the scientific revolution, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

+ Sir Cliff Richard, Christian rock singer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOMr4tGhzoM

+ Mother Teresa ministered among the poor in Calcutta, India: http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/9-things-you-should-know-about-mother-teresa/

+ C S Lewis who journeyed from atheism to Christianity: http://www.cslewis.com/c-s-lewis-as-atheist-turned-apostle/

+ General Eva Burrows of the Salvation Army: http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/about-us/news-and-stories/media-newsroom/passing-of-retired-general-eva-burrows-of-the-salvation-army-the-peoples-general/

+ I sponsor a 5-year-old in Uganda through Compassion International Australia, an aid and development organisation: http://www.compassion.com.au/

What a joke for the author to say the church opposes good changes in our world!

Ac: 'Ethics is knowing the difference between right and wrong, morals is how you act upon this knowledge.'
- Which means that you can't have good morals, if you don't firstly understand ethics.

I believe Ethics & the Morals that accompany Ethics a human construct that is tied to one’s own culture, what ever that may be.

ttbn: I do, however, find people who want to talk about the lack of a God a bigger pain in the arse than those who keep their beliefs private - no matter what they are.

I agree, but I also find those who want to talk about the certainty of God a Pain in the Arse too.

It is said that "God" is everywhere, all at the same time. The only object I know that can do that & does have the ability of forming everything & everything is a Quantum Particle. Therefore, God, for the want of a better word, is a Quantum Particle.

Sorry for the lack of participation lately, Moving into my new house on the 9th. April. Selling & buying a new house is the pits now-a-days. Oh for much simpler times, like 15 years ago. Lawyers & Real Estates people all need to be strung up by the proverbials.

Hey Jayb,
"I believe Ethics & the Morals that accompany Ethics a human construct that is tied to one’s own culture, what ever that may be."

To some degree yes, for example if you were head-hunting pygmy tribe, your culture may not be as concerned with the welfare of others, in the way that other cultures may be.

I was focusing of Religion, and in this instance Christianity.
- But I don't see how that shouldn't apply to culture as well.

Looking beyond both religion or culture, I still believe that:
"Everybody has the right to live however they choose so long as it doesn't harm others in a negative and detrimental manner."

If you take a look at where it comes from, you'll see that it's not just about 'harm' towards others, it also relates to liberty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

Peter,

<<If the commentators to this On Line Opinion piece state which category they belong to, this writer promises to tally the results in a week, or by the 30th. response, and give the results in the 31st. comment.>>

As a professor and researcher, you know that your small sample size and this call to those who comment on your piece, 'Is there a God', to be added to the statistics, is not the way to do research.

In the sample you presented in the article of 30 people, the results are inconsequential as your sample size was way too small.

As for adding the 'Comments' made to your article to your stats, this is a way of distorting stats because the sample size is small and it is NOT based on a random sample of people.

AC: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

AC: I was focusing of Religion, and in this instance Christianity.

Yes, I see you were concentrating on “Civilized Community.” There are many who claim they are civilized, indeed, more civilized than others because of their Religion & Culture yet fail miserably in that regard.

Some claim the high Moral Ground yet others find their Morals & Culture reprehensible, from both sides of their arguments.

Dear Peter Bowden (the author):

The question you pose, "Is there a God", is logically misconstructed and meaningless. As I shall explain, when this question is followed literally, even the most religious God-loving (or God-fearing) person must answer this question in the negative.

The word 'there', indicates a space.
Could God, presumably the creator of space, be found in space?

The word 'a' (as in "a God") precedes an object.
Could God be an object?
Had God been an object, then who created this object?

The word 'is' assumes a pre-existing division into categories into one of which God presumably falls.
But such categories would then necessarily precede God and be higher than Him: What kind of a limited "God" would it then be?

To seriously talk about God, no limitations can apply - and had we been able to speak of anything being other than God (including space, time, categories, existence and isness), then that would have constituted an unacceptable limitation on (or competition to) God.

Yes, some may like to speak about deities, even such powerful deities which can create, maintain and destroy worlds and communicate with their inhabitants, etc. - fair enough, but that would not be speaking of God. To avoid confusion, such deities should be written with a small-g: "gods".

So had your question been "Is there a god", then I could ask for clarifications and perhaps then come with some answer, but since your question was "Is there a God", my answer must be: "No, but there is nothing but God, including you and me".

'"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."'

tell that to every god denying regime of the past whether it be Stalin, Mao or Planned parenthood.

Runner: tell that to every god denying regime of the past whether it be Stalin, Mao or Planned parenthood.

Tell that to every God supporting regime of the past, whether it be the Catholics, Protestants, Jew, moslims, Greek, Roman, Persian, etc.

You just can't point at Stalin or Mao, etc. They were & are all in it for the money & fame.

funny Jayb that immigrants have always wanted to move to countries where laws and were based on Judea Christian bible. Nowhere have you ever seen any queue's to godless regimes that show no mercy as demonstrated by planned parenthood. Then again with no moral base truth will never matter to you which allows you to misrepresent in order to fit your lying narrative.

Well, runner you brought up the past, all I did was expand on your take.

Do you deny the terrible history of Christianity. The first Order of Business after the Nicene Conference was to eliminate (Murder) any Christian Sect that didn't fall into line with the Pauline Christian Doctrine.

2020 years later we have the JW's, 7DA's, All the multitude of Baptists (Christians) who would have all the other Christian Sects hanging on a Cross, if they could. Wouldn't you?

Hello Peter,
Reading your article I thought you must be a disillusioned Uniting Church or Anglican minister, but not so it appears.

The question of whether God exists or not is not solved by examining how well Christians adhere to the faith which they believe in. Instead it is a question of how did we get to be here? In all the thinking of people, there have only ever been 2 answers arrived at.
1) We were created by an agency outside of what we see about us.
2) We evolved by chance processes and as such you are just a bag of atoms and molecules, held together by magnetic and electrostatic forces, moving around in time and space. If this is what you believe (and I realize you didn't actually state what your position is), then there is nothing for you to say. You are indistinguishable from a lettuce. On day you will die, and the evolved earth around you won't care a bit.

For myself I have come to the realization that there is a God outside of creation because there is no other explanation (no room here to go thru the implausibility/impossibility of macro evolution).

The question then arises, has He revealed anything about Himself to us? Whilst I have not read all the books in the world, I am satisfied that His word for us is revealed in the Christian Bible.

You could find Him for yourself if you can put yourself in a submissive frame of mind. The Bible says you, Peter, will know He is there if you seek Him. Quietly, and without a superior attitude. Open yourself to Him, and ask Him to reveal Himself to you. And you will find Him.

It is a wonderful experience, life changing, and one which I pray you will undertake for yourself. Your future depends on it.

'2020 years later we have the JW's, 7DA's, All the multitude of Baptists (Christians) who would have all the other Christian Sects hanging on a Cross, if they could. Wouldn't you?'

still basing your narrative on complete lies Jayb, meanwhile nodding to the god deniers slaughtering millions of unborn babies in the womb. Oh that's right they aren't people like the Jews were not human. Plenty pseudo science to back your excuses.

Hey runner,
China apparently killed 50 million unborn during the one-child policy.
Going by the COVID-19 stats, that's probably a conservative estimate.
- Maybe they stopped counting when the number got too embarrassing.

'Hey runner,
China apparently killed 50 million unborn during the one-child policy.'

that's right Armchair, what would you expect from a god denying Government. Probably only North Korea another god denying regime would equal their wickedness.

JB: <Do you deny the terrible history of Christianity. The first Order of Business after the Nicene Conference was to eliminate (Murder) any Christian Sect that didn't fall into line with the Pauline Christian Doctrine.>

Do you deny the above happened runner?

Christianity has a history of killing those who don't believe in the present Doctrine of whoever has the power at the time. EG; The Religious Wars of the 13th. to the 15th. Centuries. Caused by Protestants, I believe. The elimination of males in the Americas by the Spanish & Portuguese then married the widows to make them Christian.

Or, is you answer to that? "I don't want to know that."

OzSpen, Saturday, 28 March 2020 8:14:11 PM writes: "...which is pretty amazing, considering that the brain makes up only about 2% of the body weight of an average man)","

Could we extrapolate your estimation to apply to all humankind, thus including the other 50% of the genus Homo on Earth?

Or does the feminine create a statistic that embarrasses and confounds the male statistic?

Please don't hide behind the worthless supposition that "man" is presumed to include "wo-man". That kind of sophistry lost any value with the murder of Hypatia in ancient Alexandria, and probably centuries before even that if the history was available to the enquirer.

To Pogi

Mankind includes women as well as men. Shortening it to say man or men instead for mankind is a common usage of the term.

Why make a fuss about it? Do women need more attention in what we say because no one knows what's being talked about? Do we need to seperate populations and demographics as often as we can and get still say we're fighting steryotypes at the same time? Or is it just because. No other reason then "just because."

When someone makes a fuss out of nothing I have to ask "what's the point?" Followed shortly by asking if the point is worth it or not. Sometimes there's a point, often there's hypocritical reasoning used just to look good or make the other person look bad. Occasionally there is no point at all.

I promised to analyze the comments: In short, they are all over the place, mostly arguing with each other. But the majority are clearly for the existence of a god than are against it. This result is at odds with the general population in Australia where less than a quarter believe that there is a god.

This tells us something about the readers and comment makers of On Line Opinion. I suspect they are older which is consistent with the younger generation being less committed to religion (Pew Research). I suspect that they also tend to vote for the conservative coalition, because religious people are more conservative .

A sample of the comments illustrates supports this conclusion:

• One respondent states: “God is real. There is evidence of Him being real.” (unfortunately, this commentator did not provide the evidence.)

• Another refers the reader to this real god website: http://www.realgod.org/ , which is supposed to show that god is real.

• “What you have written in this piece demonstrates you refuse God’s answer”.

• “Why don't you take the call of the Scriptures seriously in its assessment of the nature of human beings and their need of a Saviour?”

• “In a one line answer to the question, simple: -No”

• “It is a question of how did we get to be here? In all the thinking of people, there have only ever been 2 answers arrived at:

• We were created by an agency outside of what we see about us.
• We evolved by chance processes.”

This response appears to reflect the belief that we had to have a creator to make the world. Alternately that we evolved the way most scientists believe, by the big bang and evolution. I believe the argument for evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is unanswerable.

So there we are: most comments support a belief in Go

PeterBo,

<<I believe the argument for evolution, as proposed by Darwin, is unanswerable. >>

Yet you supplied not a skerrick of evidence to support your assertion.

However, Australian molecular biologist, Dr Michael Denton, refuted your view with his landmark 1985 book, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, in which this reviewer summarised the evidence presented by Denton, http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho18.htm.

Thirty years later in 2016 he published a follow-up book, Evolution, Still a Theory in Crisis, http://www.discovery.org/b/still-a-theory-in-crisis/. One reviewer of this book stated:

"Based on a great variety of indisputable facts from biology and paleontology, Michael Denton presents in his new book a highly competent and very thoughtful critique of the neo-Darwinian paradigm. His arguments convincingly suggest that modern biology prematurely dispensed with the notions of typology, essentialism, structuralism, and laws of biological form as promising alternative approaches to the origin of biological complexity and diversity. His affirmation of common descent with modification also demonstrates that well-founded doubts concerning the capabilities of the neo-Darwinian mechanism cannot be easily dismissed as anti-evolution propaganda, but should rather be welcomed even by neo-Darwinists as heuristically fruitful.
Günter Bechly, PhD, Paleontologist", http://www.discovery.org/b/still-a-theory-in-crisis/.

Of the books that have been critical of Darwinian evolution in recent years, Michael Denton’s 'Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis' stands out. A review of this book is on the Discovery website. Discovery is described on Google as a “politically conservative non-profit think tank based in Seattle, Washington, that advocates the pseudo scientific concept of intelligent design.”

A dictionary definition of intelligent design will tell you that it is “the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.” In other words , it is an argument for the existence of god. I am prepared to accept the great bang as god. Along with evolutionary theory, but I am afraid that I cannot love them, nor can I pray to them.

To PeterBo,

Less then a quarter of Australia believes in a God? I doubt that piece of data is reliable or trustworthy. It seems that people keep pushing a statistic that Christianity is going away only to repeat themselves later on when nothing seems to have changed. Because of that I think the narrative that less then a quarter even believe in a god, is just a suspect and only says what people who don't believe in a God want to be true.

Nonetheless. Even if the majority of people don't believe in a god in some way (Christian or otherwise), that doesn't justify whether God exists or not. Search for Him yourself instead of relying on the polls to descide. He's real and He's worth finding.

Runner's post (end of p.5) consists of: "'"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."'

tell that to every god denying regime of the past whether it be Stalin, Mao or Planned parenthood."

Never lose an opportunity to present that worthless canard of history do you? Why not parade out a bit of real history, you know, the stuff that real historians write about.

Sometimes, why not write something that reflects historical truth? There are heaps and heaps of it out there. Wikipedia does a creditable but not perfect job. But then, of course, truth in situations like this is not on your agendum, is it? Your religion has vast resources of anything from infantile apologetics to Goebbelsian verbal diarrhea. It's positively catechetical in its comprehensive coverage of historical perversions.

The diligent seeking of truth is not encouraged by religious organisations generally. At your age you should repudiate being a victim any longer and independently research some conflicting opinions. Surely you've completed your sentence by now? Haven't you outgrown the fear, the subservient dependence, the Stockholm Syndrome?