Hi Yabby and of course you can fill us in with a few examples of their 'dishonesty' right? :)

Thanx..I await.

And of course...'you' are without blemish or spot....right?

wooyeahhh...

"The Big Bang theory doesn't imply ex nihilo creation at all,"

Yes, it does. Stephen Hawking said "Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang".

"God must have been created from nothing or is He/She/It eternal"

According to the bible, God is eternal.

Regarding Darwin, he began to demonstrate that life can develop through the process of natural selection. Darwin said nothing about the origin of life- evolution is a theory on the development, not origin, of life. Obviously he also said nothing about the universe, t's existence or it's fine tuning either. So any attempt to claim that Evolution means there is no god, is utterly futile.

"The jury is still out on fine tuning".

The jury is out on the conclusion you draw from fine tuning, not the evidence itself. Consider all the possible universes that could've been created at the moment of the big bang. Imagine 10 with 124 zeroes after it. Or, more than the total number of particles in the universe.

The one universe that was created was the only one which could sustain our life, and it just happened to be the one which was created. Personally, I think that points strongly towards a supernatural hand being involved. Much easier to believe than believing that it was the result of an incomprehensible accident.

"There is in fact no historical Jesus at all."

Sorry, but thats a completely unsupportable position, based on speculation and selectively choosing evidence while simply ignoring or severely distorting the remaining body of evidence.

I suggest you read some stuff by the top New Testament Scholars and historians of our day- Christians like NT Wright or Darrell Bock, or atheists/agnostics like Bart Ehrman or John Crossan. All of those guys say it is historically certain that Jesus existed. In fact, there are very very few seriously educated (in this field) people who even take your idea seriously.

If you'd like to discuss Jesus resurrection further, head over to the thread for Brett Walker's article on November 26.

Trav,
Hawking's isn't the only opinion, also his comments have absolutely nothing to say in support of the existence of a creator god, it's simply a scientific statement, the Big Bang is not necessarily a point in time, as we understand time.You should refer to some recent books on cosmology, where these concepts are explained by scientists.This does not imply ex nihilo creation at all. Where was God before the creation of the Universe? Who created God? An uncreated God- why not an uncreated Universe?.

You missed my point in regard to Darwin and evolutionary theory, before Darwin people thought that the enormous variety of species on Earth was evidence of God's creation, life was so "fine-tuned" for survival. Darwin demonstrated that this "fine-tuning" could be explained by natural selection, not the work of a god. So we can't jump to the same conclusions as our ancestors in regard to the apparent cosmological "fine tuning".Of course evolution doesn't disprove the existence of God, however, you are following the ancient practice of filling the gaps with God.

Now we turn to Christianity,with its concept of an omnipotent, omniscient, loving Deity for which there is absolutely no evidence. The term "no historical Jesus" refers to the claim that there are no non-Christian references anywhere to the of existence of Jesus, apart from some suspect interpolations, that's what I meant. See the problem.

As far as I understand Jesus was preaching to Jews exclusively anyway, and didn't really approve of gentiles.

MAC>>Where was God before the creation of the Universe?<<....the simple reply is everywhere[omnipresent][as there is no spacetime,pre the big-bang,there was no time;god resides in this timelessness]DEEP

but as you cant concieve the allness of god encompases;is all of his creation[much more than simply a material universe]your still concieving a flesh[embodied god,thus to your next question[when you know your not going to be content[with the reply]

>>Who created God?<<

no-one'created'god,what does allways was[allways will be]
,mean,in relation to eternal and omnipresent]

<<An uncreated God-why not an uncreated Universe?.>>

a thoughtfull question[see that we are dealing with an'unseen'cause]

able to be known only by those in[this]creation seeking to know;only by study of his creation[and the logic and best of that nature of this creation that is the base knowing about him who created it

[the hand of the master is reflected in his master piece]

your saying in affect that the mona-lisa dont egsist because the painter is dead[or can not be proven to be living now][yet we see the'mona-lisa'thus presume to know its creator did/does egsist]as people egsist

[life egsists]but much we have found to egsist as well is'unseen'[electricity,radiation,even light[itself unseen,yet in its light we are'able'to see[the light facilitates the seeing[god facilitates the light allowing us to see[facilitates the life allowing us to live]

[god is that logic[law]that gives predicability to his created reality]but each must[may]chose to'simply'live or'dare'to use the logic to gave us to ask higher questions[and seek higher reply]

either way we have our[own]witness,in life,that life comes only from life[till science makes its own'life'from nothing im sticking with god creation life from life is not only logical but most probable

>>..Darwin demonstrated that this"fine-tuning"could be explained by natural selection,not the work of a god<<

i will ask you to proove that he did say that[cause i know he didnt state ANYWHERE words to the affect;'god didnt create life'
that is where you go that one step too far.

I ASK FOR PROOF HE SAID THAT

i look forward to your evidence revealing it as his direct quote

Thanks for your constructive comments.

If I could respond to a few:

Mac and jpw2040, if the burden of proof rests on the person making the assertion, and you assert that the human body, mind and spirit are essentially one chemistry and expire together, do you feel this has been sufficiently substantiated?

Mac, you accuse me of putting forth ‘belief as proof’. This may touch on what I was saying. However, you are muddying the distinction between ‘proof’ and ‘evidence’. I did not offer anything as proof. If any one point of view (religious or opposing religion) could affect a proof then we wouldn’t need these discussion pages.

However, putting forth certain beliefs or opinions as a line of evidence is reasonable, at least in some domains. Judicial systems depend upon it. The testimony, beliefs or opinions of a credible witness or witnesses often form the basis of a case.

In terms of evidence, I would have thought that the New Testament puts at least a few runs on the board for the opposition to chase. For those searching for proof, could I ask what would satisfy you in this situation?

Jpw2040, my purpose in highlighting Steve’s death was not to propose any argument about euthanasia. My aim was to describe a life which gave witness to Christ’s resurrection as well as someone who had entered into the qualities of life spoken by Christ.

What’s in a name? Ho Hum has revealed the true activities of Wycliffe Bible Translators. Yes, they are involved in Bible translation. You’d think if they were trying to hide such operations they would have chosen a different name. (And the Bible’s not a Western book.)

On the subject of names, my nickname below, Merengue, is a dance originating in the Caribbean. It refers to a line taken from my favourite movie, Tin Men, starring Danny DeVito and Richard Dreyfuss. The movie’s plot involves two men who are feuding after having their egos bruised. So I thought a reference to that movie was pretty appropriate for this website.

Michael Viljoen

For[atheists]who'complain'that[we]never provide'any'evidence,

http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/showthread.php?s=f2808dac9151ecf0d31f7af106ae8462&t=15307

Everything that begins to'exist”has a cause.The logic behind this is both obvious and intuitive.It is the principle of'Cause/Effect'.

Things simply do not happen without'a prior'or underlying'cause'[and]we see that this is true throughout the world around us.If you throw a rock up into the air,it falls down[and]there is'specific[and]underlying'cause for why this happens[which]we know as gravity.

It's an'intuitive'concept to us all,but it is also one of the underlying_axioms of'Science'.We must assume this principle of Cause and Effect to assume the truth and validity of Science.Science attempts to explain the'Natural-World'through theories that are tested by experimentation and observation.

The very concept of'experimentation'depends on the'idea'that certain conditions will cause'certain'effects.If you assume that any given Event is'without'Cause then the very basis of'Science'itself is undercut.

This presents[an]interesting predicament for those who wish to challenge my first premise.If you..claim that effects need not have a cause[then]..As a result all scientific claims are rendered unsupported.

If,however,you wish to maintain the validity of scientific claims, then you must also accept the first premise as true..Let us now move onto whether or not God’s'existence'need be caused.....a cause is only necessitated for something that at a'prior'moment was in a different state.[So in the case of existence,that which did not exist prior to some event'necessitates'a cause.]

In contrast,that which has'always'existed does not possess a prior state of non-existence;therefore a cause is unnecessary for its existence is fact.

In fact,it is illogical to suggest that there is a'cause'for something without beginning as the notion of a'cause'inherently implies that there was a state of transition,[in our case]a state of transition from non-existence to existence.This is[of course]inapplicable to that which has always existed.

Furthermore,if we look into the claim that“Something that has always existed is without cause,”another truth becomes evident.No a priori explanation can be given for'why'something that has always existed exists,only a posteriori'explanations'can be given.This is a'much'harder'concept'to grasp.

What I mean by an'a-priori'explanation is a'reason'for why something exists based on its causes....In contrast'a posteriori'explanations work the opposite direction,they explain something based on its effects,not its cause....Since it is without cause,a priori'explanations are impossible.However,[it]can be explained by[its]effects,so'a posteriori'explanations are possible....