urge to pray - advice/help

[Ziploc Surprise]

As for the intent behind the punch: Finding intent is not that difficult, often little interpretation is needed. You can go straight to the facts in this case. You could wipe the blood off your face, and with your rapidly swelling tongue, ask me if I was angry with you. A tooth might fall out in this process but you could still do it. As you stand there bleeding, with your teeth all screwed up, I could tell you I was angry and you could hear it with your own ears and see me say it with your unswollen eye. Furthermore those watching the events could witness, perhaps even electronically record the events.

Exactly. You have to go to the person themselves to find out if they were angry, just as we would have to go to God to find out if he made the earth. We can't go to him, but that doesn't mean he didn't make it. Say the person is invisible and has no voice. Would you then be unable to conclude their emotion? Not at all. But so that we would know, God sent Jesus to earth as a physical human being. And there were witnesses, just as you say there should be. And they recorded his life in the Bible. What if four of my friends wrote in four separate diaries about this instance when I was punched in the nose-- would someone reading them in 2000 years suppose it was all made up, that I was never actually punched? Then they look at each account and notice Billy writes about the blood dripping off my chin, while Tom does not. Tom added a line of what the assailant said. "They contradict!" the people 2000 years in the future cry. "And they don't make sense! A right hook would not hit that part of the nose at all, but the cheek!" Who's right, you and I who got in the fistfight, or them?

But bleeding and broken teeth are not evidence of the puncher's intent, just that the victim was hurt. In the same way, we look at the earth and see that it came to exist. Isn't it logical to go a step further and discover the intent of its existence?

Your illogic is dizzying.

A real visable and tangable person punching you is different. Invisible people who punch people exist in comic books. If you believed an invisible person punched you the approach to proving this would include a few psychological tests to see if you were crazy because the belief in invisible people follows the pattern of beliefs that insane people have. It is not common for people to get punched by invisible people, in fact I've only seen this in comic books. As for witnesses; if witnesses saw an invisible person punch you a psyche exam for everyone might still be a good idea.

If someone's face was damaged by something they could not see and they were not able to detect any sort of physical presence then that person would not automatically conclude that the cause for the damage was a person punching them. They don't have enough clues in the environment to make this conclusion. All they know is that something hit them. You've been looking at too may comic books. In comic books an invisible person is usually depicted as a faint outline or something like that.

As for the New Testament, this has been debunked. The authors probably were not the disciples that Jesus supposedly had. The gospels have also been edited over the centuries. Anyone in our century who knows this treats the gospels as fanciful stories. There is little evidence to suggest that Jesus ever existed. From what I understand even the "evidence" from Josephus has been highly edited. All of the witnesses have been proven to be unreliable.

As for the "creation" of the earth it is more logical and reasonable to discover it's history through a provable, replicatable and peer reviewed approach -aspects of the scientific method. These things provide proof or at least substantial evidence to support theories. Your method involves more unprovable things. I now have to go to something unproven and unprovable, and then believe, without proof, that this thing is telling the truth. Why should try to get my information from an unreliable source like that when there are more reliable methods available. Furthermore if I believe that an unprovable thing is talking to me what proof do I have that this thing is actually talking to me and not a delusion?

You sound like someone who has been homeschooled. You have no grasp of the scientific method. You also can not carry on a logical point by point argument. furthermore, and more importantly, you have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy.