Debate: God Exists

[Drich]

You still haven't provided evidence for God,

My testimony is by the definition of the word 'evidence' for God. You like the OP seek popularly accepted facts. You guys control the market on popularly accepted facts. Maybe if you could tell me what popularly accepted fact you would consider to be 'evidence' then perhaps I could find it for you.

As of now all I can offer is a map for you and God to meet.

miracles, prayers and all the other ridiculous claims postulated by your religion.

You just need to understand how your generation has changed or 'updated' their meaning. Miracles= Unexplained anomalies. google that and you get a huge list of modern medical 'anomalies' that happen generally after the sick or injured have been prayed over. Prayer= religious wishing ceremony. again, the claim we make are simply reclassified in your little word to meet the strict no God policies you have for yourselves.
But, there all still there just hidden away from plain sight as to not to upset people like you too much.

It seems like you wrote your rebuttal as a vain attempt to distract the discussion from the real issue here.

If you think that.. then it only goes to show you do not understand or can not incorporate the simple truth of biblical based Christianity into your world religious view.

In Short God did not make a world He could only move supernaturally though. God is the God of the natural world. As such it is or was our inablity to comprehend who God was and what he was doing that made him appear supernatural. As we mature and understand how the universe works the better we understand the how and who of God. Only a fool takes a 5000 year old understanding of God and demands God stay in the 5000 year old box while the rest of humanity grows and learns.

To say God is supernatural is to be a fool that demands God fit in a 5000 yearold box.

Also, I was using the term "supernatural" to mean anything that exists beyond the physical Universe (i.e. the natural world). Of course I understand that all phenomena that has some kind of manifestation the Universe is indeed natural. It is the theistic claim that some natural phenomena have some sort of supernatural attribution (e.g. prayer) that I reject.

Prayer is not about Changing the world through natural or supernatural means. According to Christ and the one prayer He gave Prayer is an invitation from us to God inviting Him to change us any way shape or form he needs to make us into who He wants us to be.

He shapes and molds us via very natural trials. AIDS for example, or Cancer, money trouble, relationship problem, problem child, any and all of it He can use to seek change.

I think the biblical word you are looking for is petition. To petition God is to Ask God a favor. God has promised to answer all prayer in the affirmative if two or more make that request in His name.. However petitions do not get the same promise. It is not a sin to ask god for anything, just know if that thing is or will lead you into sin or at the very least lukewarmity I'd be willing to bet that thing you want will never see the light of day!

That said there are those who can petition God and get what they seek everytime. However they seldom do, because they know God has taken them out of His protection and they must deal with the full weight of the consequences of what they ask on their own. Rather than do that we most often times "your will be done" even if we face ruin. Because ultimately we know it is far better to be a Job and have God rebuild the life the Devil smashed than try and desperately hang on to what the devil controls.

---

Nope the bible and evolution are 100% in contradiction this was already demonstrated on that very thread so nope

Yes, of course science is in contradiction to bullshit... which is something Drich does not seem to understand...

So then please explain (if you can) how is it that 'science' has wiggled itself out of my reading of Genesis 1 and 2?

Or do you need me to break it down even further.. (also ask why aren't the old deck hands helping you two noobs on something as simple as creation verse evolution argument)

Rather than make you read that whole big long post let me just sum it up for you.

I in a sentence have found an error in the traditional reading of genesis. An error that allows a literal 7 day creation and still yet all the time needed for evolution no matter how much time 'science' deems nessary.

Not only that my simple observation cleans up all of the paradoxes that were supposedly found in the creation account. (who did adam's children marry, where did the city of nod come from cain fled to ect..)

In short I observe there is no time line mention between the end of the seventh day of creation and the fall of man which happended about 6000 (give or take YEC newest number) years ago.

That one sentence whether you fully understand it or not, just ate, assimilated, incorporated anything evolution/the douche bags of science could possible say to the contary, AND This is done without changing one letter of the bible's account of creation. The only thing that need change is the idea on the 8th day eve sinned and A&E were expelled from the garden. (which was never recorded in the bible anyway!) They in fact they could have been expelled the 100 bazillion years after day 7 of creation that 'evolution' says it needs to have happened.

7 days of creation------->100 bazillion years of evolution-------->6000 years ago----genesis 3 happens, out goes A&E into the world of Homosapeians