"Evidence" for God

[sarfa]

During debates, I have heard Christians say that there is no evidence to support Atheism and all the evidence to support their religion.

If this were true, then I would be a believer. Atheists normally have a very scientific mindset and only accept something as truth once they have been given enough valid logic and evidence to satisfy their curiosity. The problem we see with conservative Christians is that they purposefully turn down glaring evidence.

The point that a lot of debating Christians ignore is the difference between logic and evidence. Evidence is any sort of data that is directly observed. Logic, on the other hand, is simply a way of thinking that we use to predict outcomes. Physics equations employ logic. Chemistry and biology employ logic. Logic is a good thing. Logic without evidence, however, will never be accepted by the majority of the scientific community.

Allow me to illustrate this point. Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment? Basically all it is was supposed to do was to find out whether light was a wave or a particle. Bits of light were shot out of a light source toward these two slits in a piece of cardboard. If light were a wave, then it would behave like a wave and cause interference patterns. If light were a particle, interference patterns would not be shown. Einstein predicted, using logic, that light was a particle, something that scientists refer to as a photon (not a proton, protons are positively charged particles found in the nuclei of atoms). However, when the experiment was run, interference patters were formed, clear evidence that light was a wave. But Einstein used logic! Logic is a valid source! Not in this case. The light would not have caused interference patterns if Einstein's logic was correct.

Well, logically, if light isn't a particle then it has to be a wave, right? Nope. When scientists tried to observe which slit the light went through in the experiment, the light (get this), started behaving like a particle - it didn't form interference patterns. What?! This isn't possible! Well, the evidence, the data we collected from experiments, says otherwise.

You see, even though physics equations employ logic, there is evidence to back them up. The problem we have with theists, especially those who employ the "uncreated creator" argument, have no valid evidence to back it up. The only thing you use here is logic which, as I have just proved, is worth nothing without evidence.

Another thing that won't work in debates with atheists is trying to fill in gaps in scientific gaps of knowledge with God. I will admit, just as every reasonable scientist will admit, we don't know everything. We may never truly know everything. Filling these gaps with unsubstantiated "proof", however, will not gain you anything in an argument simply because, once again, you don't have any evidence to back up your claims. All you have done is proved that we don't fully know about that aspect of the universe.

Another common argument I have heard is something like "You can't prove that God doesn't exist". Number one: You know what? You're right, we can't. We also can't prove that leprechauns, the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, or the Tooth Fairy don't exist either. You've got us there. Number two: When you say that God exists, we consider that to be quite an extraordinary claim. If you want to make this claim, you, once again, need evidence. Visible, cold, hard evidence. Unfortunately, nothing else will suffice.

Probably the most futile thing you could say to any atheist would be anything that involves threats of burning in Hell, asking us to step out on the highway during rush hour, hoping we get run over by a church bus and die a slow painful death, saying that you want to stab us in the genitals with a dull knife (I have actually heard most of these). The reactions that you will get will be either, laughter, exasperation, or disgust. This will do nothing in an argument.

Well, that's pretty much how you can win in an argument against atheism, or at least gain an upper hand. Just get some hard evidence (not logic), and don't employ any of those arguments. They don't work.

Peace be with us all.

[Nottheworld]

Allow me to illustrate this point. Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment? Basically all it is was supposed to do was to find out whether light was a wave or a particle. Bits of light were shot out of a light source toward these two slits in a piece of cardboard. If light were a wave, then it would behave like a wave and cause interference patterns. If light were a particle, interference patterns would not be shown. Einstein predicted, using logic, that light was a particle, something that scientists refer to as a photon (not a proton, protons are positively charged particles found in the nuclei of atoms). However, when the experiment was run, interference patters were formed, clear evidence that light was a wave. But Einstein used logic! Logic is a valid source! Not in this case. The light would not have caused interference patterns if Einstein's logic was correct.

Christians don't consider this logic. We consider this some faultiness in his logic, obviously, since the logic didn't produce the result he expected.

Well, logically, if light isn't a particle then it has to be a wave, right? Nope. When scientists tried to observe which slit the light went through in the experiment, the light (get this), started behaving like a particle - it didn't form interference patterns. What?! This isn't possible! Well, the evidence, the data we collected from experiments, says otherwise.

Again, you are using faulty logic as evidenced by the result.

You see, even though physics equations employ logic, there is evidence to back them up. The problem we have with theists, especially those who employ the "uncreated creator" argument, have no valid evidence to back it up. The only thing you use here is logic which, as I have just proved, is worth nothing without evidence.

You are assuming in your experiment that you were being logical, but obviously you weren't. Hence, the evidence you had for the logic was incorrect or how you applied that evidence logically. Either way, you had made some mistake.

Now compare this to the evidence for the uncreated Creator. There is nothing in nature that can happen all by itself; hence, the universe can't cause itself. If it can't cause itself, it requires a cause outside of itself that was always existing, for nobody puts forth any other possibility. The evidence and logic are found faultless. We must go with what we know, not with what we don't know, because we might never know things we don't know. That's no way to live.

So the atheist is presented the evidence, can't overturn, but still shuts his mind down anyway. The shutting your mind down process is a form of independency from God. Since you can't disprove the proof, you can still be independent of God by shutting your mind down to the information.

Another common argument I have heard is something like "You can't prove that God doesn't exist". Number one: You know what? You're right, we can't. We also can't prove that leprechauns, the invisible pink unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, or the Tooth Fairy don't exist either. You've got us there. Number two: When you say that God exists, we consider that to be quite an extraordinary claim. If you want to make this claim, you, once again, need evidence. Visible, cold, hard evidence. Unfortunately, nothing else will suffice.

We don't say that. We say you can't disprove the proof given here. Since you have no evidence for these various other things, there is no reason to bring them up. You should at least have something to go on. What is an extraordinary claim is believing that the universe just happened all by itself or that it was always existing, for that violates the evidence of an exponential progression in conscience in which we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Why should the universe have a lesser standard from our immediate experiences?

Understand in order for God to preserve your free-will, He has to make Himself obscure enough for you to reject Him, but also clear enough to accept Him. He does both of these things.

Probably the most futile thing you could say to any atheist would be anything that involves threats of burning in Hell, asking us to step out on the highway during rush hour, hoping we get run over by a church bus and die a slow painful death, saying that you want to stab us in the genitals with a dull knife (I have actually heard most of these). The reactions that you will get will be either, laughter, exasperation, or disgust. This will do nothing in an argument.

I don't know any Christians who talk like this. Perhaps it's just your imagination.

You must agree though if the Bible is true and since you can't disprove the proof for God, then you are going to Hell.

The reason why logic, evidence, Hell don't work is because the Bible says two things: 1) you are already condemned (that is, you have already made up your mind); 2) you refuse to come to God with an honest heart.

I also think it is a contradiction for you to be an atheist, for atheism says there is no God, and you admitted you said you couldn't disprove God's existence. You're actually agnostic which says God could exist, but doesn't think he has found evidence for God's existence.

Basically, you are wrong in everything you say. This is the nature of your independency to God which separates you from Him and shall have for eternity in Hell. This doesn't bother you knowing this, so then don't worry about by bringing it up.

[rewq]

Christians don't consider this logic. We consider this some faultiness in his logic, obviously, since the logic didn't produce the result he expected.

Well, logically, if light isn't a particle then it has to be a wave, right? Nope. When scientists tried to observe which slit the light went through in the experiment, the light (get this), started behaving like a particle - it didn't form interference patterns. What?! This isn't possible! Well, the evidence, the data we collected from experiments, says otherwise.

Again, you are using faulty logic as evidenced by the result.

Number one: Einstein's logic was perfectly fine given what he knew at the time. Also, he actually thought these things through, just like he thought out the theory of Special Relativity (of which there is a good amount of evidence to back it up) He didn't just pull these things out of his rear end after being drunk all night.

Number two: You are missing the point. My point is that logic is worth nothing without evidence. This was simply an example.

You are assuming in your experiment that you were being logical, but obviously you weren't. Hence, the evidence you had for the logic was incorrect or how you applied that evidence logically. Either way, you had made some mistake.

Actually, I was being completely logical. Logic by definition is using what one currently knows to predict what will happen next. Science tells us that things usually aren't particles and waves at the same time, and it is baffling that light would behave in such a way.

If logic is a prediction, then it must come before the experiment is done. If it is formulated beforehand, it is not really a prediction. If you are saying what I think you are saying, you are implying that logic comes after the evidence is found.

Now compare this to the evidence for the uncreated Creator. There is nothing in nature that can happen all by itself; hence, the universe can't cause itself. If it can't cause itself, it requires a cause outside of itself that was always existing, for nobody puts forth any other possibility. The evidence and logic are found faultless. We must go with what we know, not with what we don't know, because we might never know things we don't know. That's no way to live.

Uncreated creator notwithstanding, you're logic here is perfect, I will admit that, but what you are doing here is hypothesizing what you think is real. You are predicting what you think will happen when/if an experiment is run. Any scientist will tell you that, in order to prove your hypothesis, you must gather evidence in the form of an experiment, or at the very least do some research in the field. Unless you do that, your claims for God will gain no ground.

So the atheist is presented the evidence, can't overturn, but still shuts his mind down anyway. The shutting your mind down process is a form of independency from God. Since you can't disprove the proof, you can still be independent of God by shutting your mind down to the information.

I think from what I've said here, I prove myself to be very open-minded. Despite the fact that I proclaim no belief in God, I will gladly accept any valid evidence you bring to the table. Do you want to do a double blind study on the effects of prayer to sick people? Do it! Publish your results, let the scientific community know of it, and make sure that the process can be repeated. If you do this and the collected data shows that prayer does, in fact, have a positive effect on hospitalized patients, there will be no doubt in my mind that there is a supreme being, whether that supreme being takes the form of the Christian God or not.

We don't say that. We say you can't disprove the proof given here. Since you have no evidence for these various other things, there is no reason to bring them up. You should at least have something to go on. What is an extraordinary claim is believing that the universe just happened all by itself or that it was always existing, for that violates the evidence of an exponential progression in conscience in which we would not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Why should the universe have a lesser standard from our immediate experiences?

I'm not saying that you say that. I'm saying that I have heard that argument before.

As to this argument "What is an extraordinary claim is believing that the universe just happened all by itself or that it was always existing...", any scientist will admit that we don't know everything and, you're right, it does defy logic. It is impossible to even begin to comprehend an infinite amount of time, given that the human mind can barely even comprehend the accepted age of the universe (about 13 billion years). But as I have said before is, you cannot fill in gaps of scientific evidence with God. It will never be accepted unless you can fin evidence.

Understand in order for God to preserve your free-will, He has to make Himself obscure enough for you to reject Him, but also clear enough to accept Him. He does both of these things.

You may not believe it, but I was once as Christian as they come, and the only thing that I didn't believe in was Sunday mass. ("But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." -Matthew 6:6)

At around age 16, I was beginning to waver in my beliefs. I figured if I searched for arguments for God using an unbiased eye (meaning I came up with arguments that didn't assume God existed beforehand), I thought I would pull out of this difficult time with my faith stronger than ever.

But even when I wanted to believe in God, he was still obscure enough to hide from me. I found no valid evidence for God.

You honestly have no idea how difficult it was for me to give up my faith. Heck, no one wants to give up the idea of an immortal soul, or the belief that, even if no one cares for you, someone is always there, but i knew i couldn't live a lie, which (with all due respect) was all Christianity was to me without God at least giving me a hint. Christianity isn't a lie for you, but it was for me.

If what you say is true, that God reveals himself to anyone who believes, I would still be a believer.

I don't know any Christians who talk like this. Perhaps it's just your imagination.

I know several outspoken atheists who get messages like these in their e-mail inboxes all the time. I'm thankful that most Christians don't talk this way, but the fact that some of them do is a really big problem. No one should talk like that to another human no matter how different they are. It isn't right in any sense.

You must agree though if the Bible is true and since you can't disprove the proof for God, then you are going to Hell.

(see above statements)

The reason why logic, evidence, Hell don't work is because the Bible says two things: 1) you are already condemned (that is, you have already made up your mind); 2) you refuse to come to God with an honest heart.

I had what you would define as an honest heart. I tried to come up with proof for God. I believed that blind faith was an ironic gift to give back to the supposed creator of human intelligence. That's why I cleared my mind of all preconceived bias before coming up with my proofs. If using my supposedly God-given gift of intelligence ends up sending me to hell then, with all due respect, I don't even want to be associated with that religion. I'm sorry for being so brutally honest, but that's the way I see it.

I also think it is a contradiction for you to be an atheist, for atheism says there is no God, and you admitted you said you couldn't disprove God's existence. You're actually agnostic which says God could exist, but doesn't think he has found evidence for God's existence.

If you use that logic, than I am also agnostic for the existence of leprechauns. I will say truthfully that there is no God until valid evidence can be presented to me, just as I will say truthfully that there are no leprechauns until valid evidence can be presented to me.

Basically, you are wrong in everything you say. This is the nature of your independency to God which separates you from Him and shall have for eternity in Hell.

You think I want to commit what you call sin? You think I don't want an afterlife? You are mistaken. Despite what Christians think, we actually want to be wrong. We want a God that will love everyone unconditionally. Though I cannot speak for everyone, I can certainly speak for myself when I say that that is what I stand for. It seems like atheists have been dehumanized to the point where we are worth no more than the common rat.

The only reason we think there is not a God is because there is no valid evidence. You may think that you're arguments are valid, but we don't. We have heard all of these arguments over and over, and every time we have the same answer. Run an experiment. Show us the data. That is how you convert an atheist.

[Nottheworld]

Well, logically, if light isn't a particle then it has to be a wave, right?

From different perspectives it can be seen as both. So how does that help you when you call Jesus a liar?

You are missing the point. My point is that logic is worth nothing without evidence. This was simply an example.

You're missing the point. Logic is evidence. The result was not produced because of something missing in the logic. There was some assumption that was inaccurate. An assumption is invalid evidence.

Actually, I was being completely logical. Logic by definition is using what one currently knows to predict what will happen next. Science tells us that things usually aren't particles and waves at the same time, and it is baffling that light would behave in such a way.

If you were being logical, then you would realize the result did not transpire because of some mistaken assumption. To hold to an assumption is illogical. Hence, you were not logical. Something can be a particle and a wave at the same time when viewed from different perspectives for it does exhibit such characteristics.

If logic is a prediction, then it must come before the experiment is done. If it is formulated beforehand, it is not really a prediction. If you are saying what I think you are saying, you are implying that logic comes after the evidence is found.

You can make your best guess based on what you know, but when you enter into new knowledge territory, often times you will later find you had made some mistake in your logic of what you were assuming. So adjust your thinking and accept what your mistaken assumptions were. When you are shown something in your thinking was wrong, accept it. Stop thinking you were still being logical. This takes humility.

Uncreated creator notwithstanding, you're logic here is perfect, I will admit that, but what you are doing here is hypothesizing what you think is real. You are predicting what you think will happen when/if an experiment is run. Any scientist will tell you that, in order to prove your hypothesis, you must gather evidence in the form of an experiment, or at the very least do some research in the field. Unless you do that, your claims for God will gain no ground.

We are not hypothesizing, but the evidence necessarily leads to the conclusion the Uncreated must exist Who created, because no other option exists. Evidence to support this is the resurrection of Jesus who said He always existed. Since man can't resurrect naturally, He must supernaturally be telling the truth.

I think from what I've said here, I prove myself to be very open-minded. Despite the fact that I proclaim no belief in God, I will gladly accept any valid evidence you bring to the table. Do you want to do a double blind study on the effects of prayer to sick people? Do it! Publish your results, let the scientific community know of it, and make sure that the process can be repeated. If you do this and the collected data shows that prayer does, in fact, have a positive effect on hospitalized patients, there will be no doubt in my mind that there is a supreme being, whether that supreme being takes the form of the Christian God or not.

The evidence was already given which you couldn't overturn, but nor do you accept the evidence, showing your mind is shut. Double blind studies have been done proving prayer works. But I am not here to discuss that with you. I am here for you to see you can't disprove the natural proof of the uncreated Creator and the resurrection of Jesus.

I'm not saying that you say that. I'm saying that I have heard that argument before.

Well I am a Christian and I don't know any Christians who say what you said, so the point is irrelevant.

As to this argument "What is an extraordinary claim is believing that the universe just happened all by itself or that it was always existing...", any scientist will admit that we don't know everything and, you're right, it does defy logic. It is impossible to even begin to comprehend an infinite amount of time, given that the human mind can barely even comprehend the accepted age of the universe (about 13 billion years). But as I have said before is, you cannot fill in gaps of scientific evidence with God. It will never be accepted unless you can fin evidence.

God doesn't fill gaps, but He is the necessary conclusion to the evidence logically speaking. The evidence He said is nature, that nature can't cause itself. Hence, one option is left: the Uncreated must exist Who is what we call God. Since no alternative is even challenging this necessity then it is decided.

You may not believe it, but I was once as Christian as they come, and the only thing that I didn't believe in was Sunday mass. ("But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you." -Matthew 6:6)

At around age 16, I was beginning to waver in my beliefs. I figured if I searched for arguments for God using an unbiased eye (meaning I came up with arguments that didn't assume God existed beforehand), I thought I would pull out of this difficult time with my faith stronger than ever.

But even when I wanted to believe in God, he was still obscure enough to hide from me. I found no valid evidence for God.

You honestly have no idea how difficult it was for me to give up my faith. Heck, no one wants to give up the idea of an immortal soul, or the belief that, even if no one cares for you, someone is always there, but i knew i couldn't live a lie, which (with all due respect) was all Christianity was to me without God at least giving me a hint. Christianity isn't a lie for you, but it was for me.

If what you say is true, that God reveals himself to anyone who believes, I would still be a believer.

When you were praying, you were not actually born-again, for the Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved. Appreciate this logic.

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for [us], who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 1.3-5).

You faded, so you were never born-again.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand" (John 10.27-29).

You were plucked. If you were truly a child of God no man is able to pluck you out of the Father's hand.

Accept the logic.

From you response it seems to me that the faith you entered into was done by first assuming God exists rather than letting God exist by the evidence. Christians come by way of evidence, non-assuming.

I never said God reveals Himself to anyone who believes. You believed but apparently God didn't reveal Himself to you. Christians don't believe that by our believing He reveals Himself to us, but rather, by Him revealing Himself to us we believe. Do you see the difference? One is based on evidence, whether personal experience, natural proofs, inability to disprove the resurrection or ontological evidence.

I know several outspoken atheists who get messages like these in their e-mail inboxes all the time. I'm thankful that most Christians don't talk this way, but the fact that some of them do is a really big problem. No one should talk like that to another human no matter how different they are. It isn't right in any sense.

I don't think any think like that. You are just imagining they do. Let it go. Perhaps that is just wishful thinking on your part and projecting some part of yourself onto them. You need evidence for your accusations.

I had what you would define as an honest heart. I tried to come up with proof for God. I believed that blind faith was an ironic gift to give back to the supposed creator of human intelligence. That's why I cleared my mind of all preconceived bias before coming up with my proofs. If using my supposedly God-given gift of intelligence ends up sending me to hell then, with all due respect, I don't even want to be associated with that religion. I'm sorry for being so brutally honest, but that's the way I see it.

I don't consider what you had to be an honest heart, because if it was, you would be once-saved-always-saved. Your entrance into what you thought was Christianity was a farce. Don't underestimate Satan's facsimile or counterfeit works. You even admitted it was blind faith. Christians refuse blind faith. You have a mistaken assumption which is not found in Scripture: "blind faith was an ironic gift." This is not gift, but you are testimony it is a curse upon you. Your intelligence tells you if nature can't cause itself, then nature must have a cause and the only available cause can be that which is uncreated Whom we call God. There is your proof a young child can understand. Stop fighting the truth.

If you use that logic, than I am also agnostic for the existence of leprechauns. I will say truthfully that there is no God until valid evidence can be presented to me, just as I will say truthfully that there are no leprechauns until valid evidence can be presented to me.

To repeat, you need some suggested possibility for leprechauns, but you don't have it. But you do have strong evidence for God's existence because nature can't first cause itself, so the uncreated must exist. Where do leprechauns claim to always have existed? Even if they did all you need do is compare them to the uncreated claims of God of the Bible to know God of the Bible easily trumps leprechauns.

Ask yourself why you don't accept the evidence that nature always has a cause; hence, the universe can't cause itself.

You think I want to commit what you call sin? You think I don't want an afterlife? You are mistaken. Despite what Christians think, we actually want to be wrong. We want a God that will love everyone unconditionally. Though I cannot speak for everyone, I can certainly speak for myself when I say that that is what I stand for. It seems like atheists have been dehumanized to the point where we are worth no more than the common rat.

You will have an after life, but it will be in Hell. Christians consider you to be made in God's image. You are highly valued to God. You are intrinsic value to God, not instrumental value to some naturalistic evolutionary chain. In righteousness of God, He will put you in Hell for eternity because that is what you want. The evidence is given which you can't disprove which is the perfect proof for God.

The only reason we think there is not a God is because there is no valid evidence. You may think that you're arguments are valid, but we don't. We have heard all of these arguments over and over, and every time we have the same answer. Run an experiment. Show us the data. That is how you convert an atheist.

The only reason you don't think there is a God despite the evidence is because without a God there are no consequences eternally for you so it really doesn't matter what you do, so you think. To think like this comes from a darkened mind and dead spirit. That's why you need to be regenerated so God can renew your thinking.

Realize I was unsaved just as you are now. Now that I am on the other side of eternity, I look back at you at how you will be saved. You will be saved when you realize if nature can't cause itself, then God caused it, because there is no other explanation, never has been and never will be. It really is that simple. The only think you need is humble acceptance of the evidence, of its logic. If God made it more difficult than that, then only the smart people could get saved. "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10.34).

Get out of your head and come into your inner man. Reading through from chapter 1 to 5, by the 5th chapter you will be born-again. Let's put your honest heart to the test.

[DD2014]

The evidence was already given which you couldn't overturn, but nor do you accept the evidence, showing your mind is shut. Double blind studies have been done proving prayer works. But I am not here to discuss that with you. I am here for you to see you can't disprove the natural proof of the uncreated Creator and the resurrection of Jesus.

Nice try;)

Prayer Does Not Work. Sorry.
Once again, it's all in your mind...

Prayer & Healing

The Verdict is in and the Results are Null

by Michael Shermer
eSkeptic
April 2006

In a long-awaited comprehensive scientific study on the effects of intercessory prayer on the health and recovery of 1,802 patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery in six different hospitals, prayers offered by strangers had no effect. In fact, contrary to common belief, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications such as abnormal heart rhythms, possibly the result of anxiety caused by learning that they were being prayed for and thus their condition was more serious than anticipated.

The study, which cost $2.4 million (most of which came from the John Templeton Foundation), was begun almost a decade ago and was directed by Harvard University Medical School cardiologist Dr. Herbert Benson and published in The American Heart Journal, was by far the most rigorous and comprehensive study on the effects of intercessory prayer on the health and recovery of patients ever conducted. In addition to the numerous methodological flaws in the previous research corrected for in the Benson study, Dr. Richard Sloan, a professor of behavioral medicine at Columbia and author of the forthcoming book, Blind Faith: The Unholy Alliance of Religion and Medicine, explained:

The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion.

The 1,802 patients were divided into three groups, two of which were prayed for by members of three congregations: St. Paul’s Monastery in St. Paul, Minnesota; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Massachusetts; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City. The prayers were allowed to pray in their own manner, but they were instructed to include the following phrase in their prayers: “for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications.” Prayers began the night before the surgery and continued daily for two weeks after. Half the prayer-recipient patients were told that they were being prayed for while the other half were told that they might or might not receive prayers. The researchers monitored the patients for 30 days after the operations.

Results showed no statistically significant differences between the prayed-for and non-prayed-for groups. Although the following findings were not statistically significant, 59% of patients who knew that they were being prayed for suffered complications, compared with 51% of those who were uncertain whether they were being prayed for or not; and 18% in the uninformed prayer group suffered major complications such as heart attack or stroke, compared with 13% in the group that received no prayers.

This study is particularly significant because Herbert Benson has long been sympathetic to the possibility that intercessory prayer can positively influence the health of patients. His team’s rigorous methodologies overcame the numerous flaws that called into question previously published studies. The most commonly cited study in support of the connection between prayer and healing is:

Randolph C. Byrd, “Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population,” Southern Medical Journal 81 (1998): 826–829.

The two best studies on the methodological problems with prayer and healing include the following:

Richard Sloan, E. Bagiella, and T. Powell. 1999. “Religion, Spirituality, and Medicine,” The Lancet. Feb. 20, Vol. 353: 664–667; and,

John T. Chibnall, Joseph M. Jeral, Michael Cerullo. 2001. “Experiments on Distant Intercessory Prayer.” Archives of Internal Medicine, Nov. 26, Vol. 161: 2529–2536. www.archinternmed.com

The most significant flaws in all such studies include the following:

Fraud
In 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine published a study by three Columbia University researchers claiming that prayer for women undergoing in-vitro fertilization resulted in a pregnancy rate of 50%, double that of women who did not receive prayer. Media coverage was extensive. ABC News medical correspondent Dr. Timothy Johnson, for example, reported, “A new study on the power of prayer over pregnancy reports surprising results; but many physicians remain skeptical.” One of those skeptics was a University of California Clinical Professor of Gynecology and Obstetrics named Bruce Flamm, who not only found numerous methodological errors in the experiment, but also discovered that one of the study’s authors, Daniel Wirth (AKA “John Wayne Truelove”), is not an M.D., but an M.S. in parapsychology who has since been indicted on felony charges for mail fraud and theft, for which he pled guilty. The other two authors have refused comment, and after three years of inquires from Flamm the journal removed the study from its website and Columbia University launched an investigation.

Lack of Controls
Many of these studies failed to control for such intervening variables as age, sex, education, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, marital standing, degree of religiosity, and the fact that most religions have sanctions against such insalubrious behaviors as sexual promiscuity, alcohol and drug abuse, and smoking. When such variables are controlled for, the formerly significant results disappear. One study on recovery from hip surgery in elderly women failed to control for age; another study on church attendance and illness recovery did not consider that people in poorer health are less likely to attend church; a related study failed to control for levels of exercise.

Outcome Differences
In one of the most highly publicized studies of cardiac patients prayed for by born-again Christians, 29 outcome variables were measured but on only six did the prayed-for group show improvement. In related studies, different outcome measures were significant. To be meaningful, the same measures need to be significant across studies, because if enough outcomes are measured some will show significant correlations by chance.

File-Drawer Problem
In several studies on the relationship between religiosity and mortality (religious people allegedly live longer), a number of religious variables were used, but only those with significant correlations were reported. Meanwhile, other studies using the same religiosity variables found different correlations and, of course, only reported those. The rest were filed away in the drawer of non-significant findings. When all variables are factored in together, religiosity and mortality show no relationship.

Operational Definitions
When experimenting on the effects of prayer, what, precisely, is being studied? For example, what type of prayer is being employed? (Are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Wiccan, and Shaman prayers equal?) Who or what is being prayed to? (Are God, Jesus, and a universal life force equivalent?) What is the length and frequency of the prayer? (Are two 10-minute prayers equal to one 20-minute prayer?) How many people are praying and does their status in the religion matter? (Is one priestly prayer identical to ten parishioner prayers?) Most prayer studies either lack such operational definitions, or there is no consistency across studies in such definitions.

Theological Implications
The ultimate fallacy of all such studies is theological. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He should not need to be reminded or inveigled that someone needs healing. Scientific prayer makes God a celestial lab rat, leading to bad science and worse religion

[Churchwork]

In a long-awaited comprehensive scientific study on the effects of intercessory prayer on the health and recovery of 1,802 patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery in six different hospitals, prayers offered by strangers had no effect.

That would make sense since a far greater percentage of strangers are unregenerates. That is, they had the evil spirit in their spirits. Praying by the evil spirit is selfish. What is prayer? Praying is praying the will of God.

The problem with studying religion scientifically is that you do violence to the phenomenon by reducing it to basic elements that can be quantified, and that makes for bad science and bad religion.

I disagree. Just as you can do studies showing the unethicalness of atheism, you can prove prayer if genuine is healthy for your spirit, soul and body. Atheism is a belief system like a religion is. Atheism can even be called a religion because it is faith in something that there is no God.

The 1,802 patients were divided into three groups, two of which were prayed for by members of three congregations: St. Paul’s Monastery in St. Paul, Minnesota; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Massachusetts; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City. The prayers were allowed to pray in their own manner, but they were instructed to include the following phrase in their prayers: “for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications.” Prayers began the night before the surgery and continued daily for two weeks after. Half the prayer-recipient patients were told that they were being prayed for while the other half were told that they might or might not receive prayers. The researchers monitored the patients for 30 days after the operations.

This approach seems to have problems in several ways. The above groups are not Christians, but Roman Catholics or Eastern Orthodox which teach a person can lose salvation after being born-again, that a human being such as Mary was sinless, and other false teachings such as amillennialism which claims we are in the 1000 years now even though Jesus hasn't returned yet. They even add books to the 66 books of God's word and worship a pope and deny every Christian is a saint. That is just some of the problems. They are into man-rulership, not God-lead worship. Plus, forced prayer is not genuine prayer. It must come from the heart. You can pray for someone, but if it is not genuine, then it will produce no results or even be detrimental. Selfish prayer is not true prayer. The study was flawed from the outset. What it only proves is if your approach is unethical you will get results that match it.

The way the study should have been done was to find real Christians and determine if their prayers were genuine and not forced to observe their corresponding results whatever it was they prayed for, having recorded it soon after it was given. Spiritual life is spontaneous so if you are going to do a double blind study, it must maintain that genuine characteristic. You can still group various controls, but they must be on an individual basis. Like when someone comes out of a near death experience, you must record what he saw right after he comes out and then ensure there is no way he could have known the things that he said he saw.

His team’s rigorous methodologies overcame the numerous flaws that called into question previously published studies.

The problem was his approach was not genuine and ethical. So it doesn't negatively reflect on previous studies done. You know what they say, two sins don't make a right. Stating appropriate operational definitions are needed yet not abiding in that rule, shows the persons in charge of this study were being duplicitous. The Bible says, be "not doubletongued" (1 Tim. 3.8).

Outcome Differences
In one of the most highly publicized studies of cardiac patients prayed for by born-again Christians, 29 outcome variables were measured but on only six did the prayed-for group show improvement. In related studies, different outcome measures were significant. To be meaningful, the same measures need to be significant across studies, because if enough outcomes are measured some will show significant correlations by chance.

I find this point faulty for several reasons. It is not clear the person doing the study knows what a born-again Christian is. Or that all studies measured true Christian prayer similarly. Nonetheless, it's nice to see there were some areas improved upon through prayer showing the power of prayer.

The ultimate fallacy of all such studies is theological. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He should not need to be reminded or inveigled that someone needs healing. Scientific prayer makes God a celestial lab rat, leading to bad science and worse religion

Don't think the purpose of prayer is to remind God. Rather it is to pray the will of God. So if you are doing God's will, no doubt, there shall be results. If you are thinking along God's thought, you will have results that are beneficial for nothing is better than God's way of doing things. God actually likes these studies, because they prove that prayer is real and effective if done according to His will and in agreement with His mind by the Holy Spirit.

You can do studies comparing different kinds of prayer such as genuine prayer praying the will of God by true born-again believers and prayers that do not conform to His will from people who are unregenerates or false Christians. The results will be obvious.

Praise the Lord for this discernment! Amen.

[Churchwork]

Conclusion: these studies show faulty methodology. What does the Bible say?

"Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (James 5.16).

Notice prayer is ineffectual if man is not righteous and you do not confess your sins to one another. People want healing while they remain basked in their sin and selfishness. I don't see your studies properly reflecting this fact. Quite the contrary.

"Continued all night in prayer to God...continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving" (Luke 6.12; Col. 4.2).

"And he said unto them, This kind can come forth by nothing, but by prayer and fasting" (Mark 9.29).

It looks like the studies you are clinging to are making one or more of several mistakes: 1) selfish, forced and not so genuine prayers; 2) lack of consecration in prayer; 3) from false Christians; 4) grandiose demands which are unrealistic.

Prayer is our communication with God, but how can you have communication with God if you reject the Son of God? Eternal life is not only eternal blessings but an ability to know God and communicate with Him through prayer and Him with you in your spirit and through His word.

I love how God trips you up at every turn when you try to out think Him or try to box Him in. God trumps your god any day which is really just your idol self.

[rewq]

From different perspectives it can be seen as both. So how does that help you when you call Jesus a liar?

You're missing the point. Logic is evidence. The result was not produced because of something missing in the logic. There was some assumption that was inaccurate. An assumption is invalid evidence.

If you were being logical, then you would realize the result did not transpire because of some mistaken assumption. To hold to an assumption is illogical. Hence, you were not logical. Something can be a particle and a wave at the same time when viewed from different perspectives for it does exhibit such characteristics.

You can make your best guess based on what you know, but when you enter into new knowledge territory, often times you will later find you had made some mistake in your logic of what you were assuming. So adjust your thinking and accept what your mistaken assumptions were. When you are shown something in your thinking was wrong, accept it. Stop thinking you were still being logical. This takes humility.

Here are the accepted definitions of logic and evidence, courtesy of dictionary.com:
LOGIC
1. the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference. 2. a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic. 3. the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study. 4. reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move. 5. convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts. 6. Computers. logic circuit.
EVIDENCE

1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever. 3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

In short, logic is simply a form of reasoning, while evidence is irrefutable proof. One's reasoning can be completely flawless yet be completely wrong. If someone submits logic to a debate (including, but not limited to a court case), but the logic turns out to be wrong, it doesn't mean that he/she was being stupid at all. This hypothetical person in question may have been very smart. The conclusion he/she came to just turned out to be incorrect. That is all.

We are not hypothesizing, but the evidence necessarily leads to the conclusion the Uncreated must exist Who created, because no other option exists. Evidence to support this is the resurrection of Jesus who said He always existed. Since man can't resurrect naturally, He must supernaturally be telling the truth.

The evidence was already given which you couldn't overturn, but nor do you accept the evidence, showing your mind is shut. Double blind studies have been done proving prayer works. But I am not here to discuss that with you. I am here for you to see you can't disprove the natural proof of the uncreated Creator and the resurrection of Jesus.

If you can provide me a link, or some sort of source, to this experiment that includes details as to how it was set up, how it was run, and what the results were and allow me to discuss it with my colleagues, that would be ideal. If we find the experiment to be completely unbiased and otherwise up to standard, I will happily accept that as undisputable proof.

Well I am a Christian and I don't know any Christians who say what you said, so the point is irrelevant.

God doesn't fill gaps, but He is the necessary conclusion to the evidence logically speaking. The evidence He said is nature, that nature can't cause itself. Hence, one option is left: the Uncreated must exist Who is what we call God. Since no alternative is even challenging this necessity then it is decided.

Like I said, your logic, your reasoning, here is fine, but other options do exist. How do you know that the universe was created by one god instead of, say, five gods?

And when you say "uncreated creator", doesn't that contradict itself? You say nothing in nature can cause itself, but God Himself existed forever? I mean, what did God do for all those trillions of years before the Earth and all of life was created? Did he sit around and twiddle his thumbs?

I'm not trying to be annoying here, please acknowledge that. I'm simply trying to find out what I'm missing.

When you were praying, you were not actually born-again, for the Bible teaches once-saved-always-saved. Appreciate this logic.

"The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ...according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Christ Jesus from the dead, to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for [us], who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Pet. 1.3-5).

You faded, so you were never born-again.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand" (John 10.27-29).

You were plucked. If you were truly a child of God no man is able to pluck you out of the Father's hand.

Accept the logic.

From you response it seems to me that the faith you entered into was done by first assuming God exists rather than letting God exist by the evidence. Christians come by way of evidence, non-assuming.

I never said God reveals Himself to anyone who believes. You believed but apparently God didn't reveal Himself to you. Christians don't believe that by our believing He reveals Himself to us, but rather, by Him revealing Himself to us we believe. Do you see the difference? One is based on evidence, whether personal experience, natural proofs, inability to disprove the resurrection or ontological evidence.

Yes, I do see the difference. If you are saying what I think you are saying than you mean to say that we first must find evidence before we believe, that God reveals himself before we believe. That is exactly what I tried to do. I tried to find evidence for God by looking at the laws of nature through an unbiased eye. I believe I have already mentioned this. I didn't find any evidence that I found to be valid. That's why I do not believe - lack of evidence.

I don't think any think like that. You are just imagining they do. Let it go. Perhaps that is just wishful thinking on your part and projecting some part of yourself onto them. You need evidence for your accusations.

I'm glad that you do not think like that, I really am. However, if you take some time and watch the following videos, hateful messages like these really do exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Seq2rwKucE - This first one has a picture of Jesus giving the finger. This is not my video and in no way do I find the picture acceptable. I am presenting it for the audio portion only only.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfi4w...eature=related - This video is of Richard Dawkins checking his e-mail.

The atheist opinions of Christians presented in these videos do not reflect my own. I am only presenting them for the e-mails. I do not mean to be rude in any way.

I don't consider what you had to be an honest heart, because if it was, you would be once-saved-always-saved. Your entrance into what you thought was Christianity was a farce. Don't underestimate Satan's facsimile or counterfeit works. You even admitted it was blind faith. Christians refuse blind faith. You have a mistaken assumption which is not found in Scripture: "blind faith was an ironic gift." This is not gift, but you are testimony it is a curse upon you. Your intelligence tells you if nature can't cause itself, then nature must have a cause and the only available cause can be that which is uncreated Whom we call God. There is your proof a young child can understand. Stop fighting the truth.

Lets take this one thing at a time.

Number one: Could you please define "honest heart"? Apparently we have separate definitions.

Number two: Am I to understand that a child's entrance into Christianity is a farce? Because they surely cannot understand the evidence for God that you have presented (when I say "child", I mean under five years old). When a baby is baptized, they, essentially, don't even know who God is. They can barely even understand the world around them, much less a benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent being. What am I missing here?

Number three: Before I cleared my mind of bias, yes, it was blind faith, I admit that. I thought it was my duty as a Christian to find evidence for God. I tried to remedy that situation.

Number four: I didn't say that the phrase "Blind faith is an ironic gift to give back to the creator of human intelligence" was found in scripture. I came up with that by myself (maybe not in those exact words, but the meaning was essentially the same).

Number five: Now you have brought Satan into this mess. You must now prove that Satan exists as Christianity defines him. Yes, there is evil in the world, that much is certain, but you must now prove that it is caused by a malevolent fallen angel who is, in fact, frozen in the ninth circle of hell (if I reference the Divine Comedy).

To repeat, you need some suggested possibility for leprechauns, but you don't have it. But you do have strong evidence for God's existence because nature can't first cause itself, so the uncreated must exist. Where do leprechauns claim to always have existed? Even if they did all you need do is compare them to the uncreated claims of God of the Bible to know God of the Bible easily trumps leprechauns.

Ask yourself why you don't accept the evidence that nature always has a cause; hence, the universe can't cause itself.

(I answered this already so I won't go into it again)

You will have an after life, but it will be in Hell. Christians consider you to be made in God's image. You are highly valued to God. You are intrinsic value to God, not instrumental value to some naturalistic evolutionary chain. In righteousness of God, He will put you in Hell for eternity because that is what you want. The evidence is given which you can't disprove which is the perfect proof for God.

Number one: I don't consider it to be the perfect proof for God. I have explained that.

Number two: If there is a Hell, and I do end up going there, I won't get past the first circle (if I may refer to the Divine Comedy again). Basically, I'll be there with Socrates, Plato, George Carlin, and many others. I honestly can't imagine that that is a bad place :).

The only reason you don't think there is a God despite the evidence is because without a God there are no consequences eternally for you so it really doesn't matter what you do, so you think. To think like this comes from a darkened mind and dead spirit. That's why you need to be regenerated so God can renew your thinking.

Do you think it better to assume who I am, what my characteristics are, or is it better to actually get to know me and know for certain? I can say with full honesty that I am a relatively moral person. I'm not perfect, I do make mistakes, but I am, at the very least, presentable.

Realize I was unsaved just as you are now. Now that I am on the other side of eternity, I look back at you at how you will be saved. You will be saved when you realize if nature can't cause itself, then God caused it, because there is no other explanation, never has been and never will be. It really is that simple. The only think you need is humble acceptance of the evidence, of its logic. If God made it more difficult than that, then only the smart people could get saved. "I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10.34).

I have already explained my viewpoint on that argument.

Get out of your head and come into your inner man. Reading through from chapter 1 to 5, by the 5th chapter you will be born-again. Let's put your honest heart to the test.

In the first chapter of this, it says that men and women are tripartite. How do we know for certain that the spirit (described what I can only perceive as the life force that God supposedly gave us) and the soul (the immortal part of us) actually exist? We know beyond reasonable doubt that the body exists. Why? We can perceive it and take measurements. I can see you, I can hear you, I can touch you, and just in case I'm still not absolutely certain, I can smell you and taste you (this is silly, I know, but I'm trying to prove a point. We can discuss the morality of smelling and tasting people in a different argument). I can also take measurements of the body. I can see how tall you are, how much you weigh, and what your BMI is. I can do CT scans of your brain to see if it is working properly (again, I am just trying to prove a point, I do not mean to hint that you are psycologically unsound), I can take your body teperature, and your blood pressure. The list goes on and on.

The spirit and soul, as far as I can tell, could never be measured in such an accurate way. If you find a way, or if there is anything that I am missing, let me know.

I will admit that I have only gotten as far as the first chapter, I have been busy as of late, and will continue to read more as time permits. in the meantime I would like to watch the videos I have presented to you. They will take up very little of your time.

[Nottheworld]

In short, logic is simply a form of reasoning, while evidence is irrefutable proof. One's reasoning can be completely flawless yet be completely wrong.

That's illogical. Flawless reasoning can't be wrong. That's just doubletalk. Satan is the author of confusion. You are confusing absolutes with probabilities. We are dealing with probabilities when it comes to evidence, not absolutes. You go with the preponderance of evidence which is you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection of Jesus nor find something in nature that happens all by itself.

Like I said, your logic, your reasoning, here is fine, but other options do exist. How do you know that the universe was created by one god instead of, say, five gods?

Then accept it if the reasoning is good. If there is more than one god, you have to reasonably ask the question where do these other gods come from, since all we have proof for is one uncreated Creator, not multiple uncreated creators. How silly. You need evidence for your speculation.

And when you say "uncreated creator", doesn't that contradict itself? You say nothing in nature can cause itself, but God Himself existed forever? I mean, what did God do for all those trillions of years before the Earth and all of life was created? Did he sit around and twiddle his thumbs?

There was no time before He created time, so the question is a false one about how long He was sitting around.

I'm not trying to be annoying here, please acknowledge that. I'm simply trying to find out what I'm missing.

I am telling you what you are missing. Heed it.

Yes, I do see the difference. If you are saying what I think you are saying than you mean to say that we first must find evidence before we believe, that God reveals himself before we believe. That is exactly what I tried to do. I tried to find evidence for God by looking at the laws of nature through an unbiased eye. I believe I have already mentioned this. I didn't find any evidence that I found to be valid. That's why I do not believe - lack of evidence.

I don't mean to say evidence is needed, but I said "Christians come by way of evidence, non-assuming." I actually meant what I said. Period! You said you once believed, but it was not based on evidence. I am telling you that that was false faith, because it had no evidence. Furthermore, you should be in Christ, because you can't overturn the evidence, both for the resurrection data and what God says, nature proves His existence, for nature can't cause itself. It's like you are playing the worst lottery game ever known to man in which there are trillions of things with causes, but you can't find one thing without a cause still hoping you will land on that lucky number so you don't have to go to Hell because you think if you find it, it disproves God. How mindless! You're killing my brain cells.

I'm glad that you do not think like that, I really am. However, if you take some time and watch the following videos, hateful messages like these really do exist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Seq2rwKucE - This first one has a picture of Jesus giving the finger. This is not my video and in no way do I find the picture acceptable. I am presenting it for the audio portion only only.

So some non-Christian creates a picture of Jesus giving the finger and whether or not these emails are real, would Jesus act like that? No, of course not! Moreover, you seem to be ok when your atheist brethren act like that. Why the doublestandard? You see nothing you say adds up. It's all false.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfi4w...eature=related - This video is of Richard Dawkins checking his e-mail.

The atheist opinions of Christians presented in these videos do not reflect my own. I am only presenting them for the e-mails. I do not mean to be rude in any way.

Hold on a second. You are the one who initially claimed Christians act like this when you said, "I know several outspoken atheists who get messages like these in their e-mail inboxes all the time. I'm thankful that most Christians don't talk this way, but the fact that some of them do is a really big problem. No one should talk like that to another human no matter how different they are. It isn't right in any sense."

I don't know any Christians who speak like this, so you are just sinning bearing false witness. Moreover, since you don't know what a Christian is, how can you even accurately assess who is a Christian? Again, do you see how you are wrong? Don't be a dullard!

Could you please define "honest heart"? Apparently we have separate definitions.

Truly and sincerely seeking the truth with all that you have been given to be able to do so.

Am I to understand that a child's entrance into Christianity is a farce? Because they surely cannot understand the evidence for God that you have presented (when I say "child", I mean under five years old). When a baby is baptized, they, essentially, don't even know who God is. They can barely even understand the world around them, much less a benevolent, omnipotent, omnipresent being. What am I missing here?

A child's entrance into new birth is a face, for he must first attain the age of accountability. Hence, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox are wrong, among many others who falsely teach infant baptismal regeneration. God does not judge a soul who has not had a choice yet. What you are missing is a child will not be condemned to Hell, for he has not reached the age of accountability; or if he is, it would only be because God could foresee his whole life that he would never come to Christ. I don't discount the latter possibility for God's infinite foreknowledge.

Before I cleared my mind of bias, yes, it was blind faith, I admit that. I thought it was my duty as a Christian to find evidence for God. I tried to remedy that situation.

I am glad you admit you were never born-again, because you came without evidence. That's a good first step.

I didn't say that the phrase "Blind faith is an ironic gift to give back to the creator of human intelligence" was found in scripture. I came up with that by myself (maybe not in those exact words, but the meaning was essentially the same).

Yes, so therefore, that is just one more reason for you to see what you were entering into was something from self, not from God's Word.

Now you have brought Satan into this mess. You must now prove that Satan exists as Christianity defines him. Yes, there is evil in the world, that much is certain, but you must now prove that it is caused by a malevolent fallen angel who is, in fact, frozen in the ninth circle of hell (if I reference the Divine Comedy).

You mean your mess you created for yourself. Since Jesus is proven to be God and He spoke on Satan and Hell more than anyone, that's your proof. Furthermore, the temptation in the Garden was not from man but from a spirit being, from Satan by the entrance of a demon into the serpent to manifest that temptation. Just as Satan tried to tempt Jesus. Was Jesus tempting Himself? Of course not.

The Bible is not a Divine Comedy. It is the explanation of all things. No circles of Hell. Do you see how Satan always in all things tries to make a mockery of God?

Remember: All things are summed up in Christ. He is the first and the last, the Alpha and Omega, and nothing was made was made without Him. He existed before the foundations of the world, before all creation in the Trinity as the 2nd Person of the Godhead with God the Father and God the Spirit.

(I answered this already so I won't go into it again)

And I responded to your point about Leprechauns already to show your idea is false, so do respond in kind if you want to be sincerely honest with yourself.

I don't consider it to be the perfect proof for God. I have explained that.

What matters is you can't disprove it, so it remains a perfect proof for God. Shutting your mind down doesn't count.

If there is a Hell, and I do end up going there, I won't get past the first circle (if I may refer to the Divine Comedy again). Basically, I'll be there with Socrates, Plato, George Carlin, and many others. I honestly can't imagine that that is a bad place.

Since the Divine Comedy is not true, you are living in a fantasy. Nothing is worse than Hell. It is an eternal separation from God with Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Dalmer, rapists, criminals and murderers, etc. You'll be in good company.

Do you think it better to assume who I am, what my characteristics are, or is it better to actually get to know me and know for certain? I can say with full honesty that I am a relatively moral person. I'm not perfect, I do make mistakes, but I am, at the very least, presentable.

Getting to know you is not going to change the fact you are going to Hell for rejecting the only means of salvation through Christ. Salvation is not by works, lest any many should boast. Since no man is an exception, neither are you. You're a sinner in need of salvation, but your mind is so darkened it doesn't appreciate that and frankly, doesn't care. You're a bad guy. One little sin eternally separates you from God. Only the perfect ransom can bring you back to God. But you are too afraid to let go of self and place your trust in Jesus. What a disturbing space for you to be in. I was once unsaved like you so I know what you are going through. It can be very scary to give up the control of yourself you have had for so long, but once you give it up, WOW! I only wish you could have the joy and peace that I have in the Lord.

I have already explained my viewpoint on that argument.

I already responded to your viewpoint. Do respond in kind if you want to be honest with yourself.

In the first chapter of this, it says that men and women are tripartite. How do we know for certain that the spirit (described what I can only perceive as the life force that God supposedly gave us) and the soul (the immortal part of us) actually exist? We know beyond reasonable doubt that the body exists. Why? We can perceive it and take measurements. I can see you, I can hear you, I can touch you, and just in case I'm still not absolutely certain, I can smell you and taste you (this is silly, I know, but I'm trying to prove a point. We can discuss the morality of smelling and tasting people in a different argument). I can also take measurements of the body. I can see how tall you are, how much you weigh, and what your BMI is. I can do CT scans of your brain to see if it is working properly (again, I am just trying to prove a point, I do not mean to hint that you are psycologically unsound), I can take your body teperature, and your blood pressure. The list goes on and on.

The spirit is the immortal part too, not just the soul; you will receive a resurrected body when you go to Hell. You know you have this inner sense in you of your spirit which is God-consciousness. It is given to everyone to know, for we are all made in God's image. Through the millennia almost every nation has worshipped what they deem to be God. This inner sense is backed with the logical and evidential proofs of nature given and proof of Jesus' resurrection. Likewise, your body is known because it is tactility perceived. Your soul is known by the functions of your mind, will and emotion. Your spirit is sensed by its intuition, communion and conscience. Your soul has self-consciousness.

The spirit and soul, as far as I can tell, could never be measured in such an accurate way. If you find a way, or if there is anything that I am missing, let me know.

You don't need to measure your spirit and soul bodily, for your body is measured by its senses, while your spirit is measured spiritually and your soul is measured soulically. Each part of your being require different measurements. It is enough for you to know you have an innerman of your spirit with your outerman of soul and body. Hence, the Bible calls your body a "soulical body", for your soul exists because of the coming together of your spirit and body. You are a soulical being with a spirit and body. You are not spirit being like the angels. You are not a spirit. You are soul who should live and walk by the spirit and carry it out through the body. These are very precise words I am using.

I will admit that I have only gotten as far as the first chapter, I have been busy as of late, and will continue to read more as time permits. in the meantime I would like to watch the videos I have presented to you. They will take up very little of your time.

Try not to read too fast. Make sure you understand each paragraph before moving onto the next. Let it all sink in, and you will be born-again after you read the first 5 chapters.

[rewq]

That's illogical. Flawless reasoning can't be wrong. That's just doubletalk.

Reasoning, not matter how flawless it seems, needs evidence to back it up. If there was any confusion there, I apologize. That was the message I meant to convey.