With this simple analogy, we do not need to invoke the atheist's magical powers of time. Naturally (pun intended), they believe that time is the hero and makes the implausible and even the impossible, not only possible, but inevitable. In a nutshell, atheists must believe (do they really?) that matter simply obeying the laws of nature ultimately results in Beethoven's 9th Symphony, Michaelangelo's statue of king David, cell phones, genetic information, and the space shuttle. When asked in debate why they believe it is rational to believe such a thing, and what observable example of anything known to be of ever-increasing and self-designing complexity, the atheist simply ignores the question and typically turns their sights on the Bible to criticize it. This is understandable, since it is not rational to believe such a thing and no physical evidence supports such an absurdity. Angered by the question, they turn on the Bible. I understand their frustration well.
The assumption that atheists believe that there was a big bang then there was a complete computer, is totally wrong.
ReplyDeleteA misunderstanding directly taken from Kirk Cameron and The Way of the Master.
I suggest you Google atheism.
I am a bit confused. Surely you realize that creationists understand that the evolutionists believe there are billions of years between the "big bang" and computers. My understanding does not come from Kirk Cameron, it comes from personal research. I need not Google atheism. I debate atheists all the time.
DeleteIf so, the image with an explosion followed by a computer is misleading.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the atheists don’t believe that the universe is billions of years. Like any other person, believing in a God or not, the age of the universe is billions of years, whether you like it or not.
Second, I’ve seen you channel and all of your videos and you have a very strange way to address those who follow you.
It’s great you have a blog and a YouTube channel and that you have questions and issues you want to raise. Perhaps I can answer some of them for you. But you cannot claim that atheists hate God or love sin. You cannot block people for no reason. That is a conversation stopper.
I would love to talk to you about the topic of evolution but when you say in your video that if the bible said that there were pink monkeys baking pizza on mars, you would believe it, frankly I don’t see the point.
I want to know what is true, I want to learn. That is the approach everybody in a debate should have but given the statement you gave in that video, you don’t seem that open minded.
I can provide 100 scientific evidences that the earth is not millions of yrs old. I'll be glad to do so in a debate with you in Skype sometime if you like. Atheists do indeed hate God. They hate him because He he is the standard for morality, and they have their own standards, and so they refuse to humble themselves to Him and His law.
DeleteSorry, but I don't hate God. This would like hating Mickey Mouse. I don't hate fictional characters. I choose to follow two precepts:
ReplyDelete1. I support only those concepts that have evidence to back them. The God hypothesis has none.
2. Morality is much better explained by naturalistic causes than by some magic man in the sky and a book.
Regarding your,
Delete1. if you were not a denialist, you would acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that ointelligence is behind the existance of all of creation
2. you are unaware of the fact that morality cannot be produced by evolution, since what is beneficial or not beneficial is not what is morally correct or incorrect. Natural Selection and survival of the fittest have no potential to create morality. In truth, had evolution been true, it would be to an organism's benefit to eat it's offspring, and the fact that all life does not do this is evidence of design and contradictory to the TRUE philosophy of evolution!
Sky Book Daddy created it.
I would welcome debating you in Skype, but like most atheists, I am sure you are an internet Text Sniper, and unwilling to debate where you have to do so "on your feet" and face extended arguments and evidences against you. It seems this is the case with almost all atheists, especially the ones who have a following on social media sites. Even the biggest mouths of atheist laypersons are afraid to debate, having all been challenged repeatedly by many and refusing all challenges. It's easy to feel safe behind text posts. It's another to have the support from science and philosophy that gives someone the confidence to engage in live debate.
DeleteMorals come from the mind. This can be proven by the fact that other thinking animals, mammals in particular, have moral. The chimp is a good example. There are plenty of videos showing that.
ReplyDeleteI cannot hate something I don’t believe in. I don’t hate good.
All morality cannot be subjective, as this would create an unresolvable contradiction if opinion was the basis of all morality. This demonstrates that moral absolutes do exist. Evolution has no potential to produce morality, and ethics are not the same thing as morality. What is beneficial or not beneficial is not the same thing as what is moirally correct or incorrect.
DeleteNeph what is your Skype?
ReplyDeleteMy Skype user name is NephilimFree
DeleteSo what is the point in debating. If you lose an argument with an atheist, you lose, and if you win the argument, you still lose, because an intellectual belief in Jesus Christ is not going to save your soul.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible to lose a debate with an atheist? Christ does not save? A relationship with Christ is merely an "intellectual belief" that he exists?
DeleteWhat strange ideas you have.