Part 2 : My response to an Atheist Essay!

“Beresh’it bara elohim et hashamayim vaet haeretz vahaeretz tohu bohu vahoshech al penie tehom veruach elohim merehephet al penie hamayim”
In translation:
“In the beginning God created the land and the sky and land was empty and uninhabitable and darkness was upon the face of the deep and the spirit (or wind) of God was hovering over the face of the waters.”
Thus literally begins one of the most debated passages of the Bible.
No matter if you believe the Earth is YOUNG or OLD as Geology suggests!
The Genesis creation account has been the source of great conflict between Christians and the Scientific Community, BUT that conflick believe it or not has NOT BEEN BECAUSE SCIENCE and the BIBLE DO NOT AGREE!
QUITE THE CONTRARY IS TRUE.
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B003LOCY0Q&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrIt is NOT SCIENCE BUT THE SCIENTISTS THAT ARE AT ODDS WITH THE FACTS OF NATURE and the scientific facts it presents to them because of PRECONCEIVED MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE ORIGINS OF LIFE!
A similar conflict can be seen in church history between Science and the Catholic Church over cosmology. Evangelicals are especially susceptible to this conflict, where many people equate taking the Bible at face value to meaning taking the Bible “literally.”
There are places where the Bible is LITERAL AT FACE VALUE BUT THERE ARE ALSO TIMES WHEN IT IS “COUCHED IN ANALOGY”or “HIDDEN WITHIN A PRECEPT OF DEEPER TRUTH”
Some are intent on preserving the credibility and historicity of scripture, BUT IN THEIR ZEAL THEY have misinterpreted and damaged its credibility substantially. God speaks through two books: scripture and nature. He does not contradict himself.
Unfortunately, the church as the “guardians of Truth” too many times ARE guilty of substituting their own “culturally situated” understandings of Scripture for the inherent word of God and failing to see the difference between the two.

Upholding the Authority of Scripture from the very first Hebrew Word
——————
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B00140W1Y8&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrEven A non-believer knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and related positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, cycles of the years and seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a believer, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means too prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a believer and laugh it to scorn.
Augustine on the “literal” meaning of the Genesis Account. 12th Century A.D.
Simply put, evolution can be defined as the developing of new and complex forms of life, from simpler forms by natural processes rather than specific creation. 
God is thus replaced by Nature; and evolutionists claim that all the amazing diversities of life on the earth do not speak of His wonderful creative Power, but of chance! 
What they do NOT account for is the UNIVERSES PERFECT Fine Tuning?
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0664255310&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrSkeptics like to say that fine tuning cannot be proven by science, since we have only one universe to study. However, the discovery and quantification of dark energy has puzzled a number of scientists, who realize that its extremely small value requires that the initial conditions of the universe must have been extremely fine tuned in order that even matter would exist in our universe.
By chance, our universe would have been expected to consist of merely some thermal radiation.
How does this discovery impact atheists?
Those who favor naturalism had long sought to find the simplest explanation for the universe, hoping to avoid any evidence for design. 
A Big Bang model in which there was just enough matter to equal the critical density to account for a flat universe would have provided that. However, for many years, it has been evident that there is less than half of the amount of matter in the universe to account for a flat universe. 
A cosmological constant would provide an energy density to make up for the missing matter density, but would require an extreme amount of fine tuning.
The supernovae studies demonstrated that there was an energy density to the universe (but did not define the size of this energy density), and the recent Boomerang study demonstrated that this energy density is exactly what one would expect to get a flat universe. 
How finely tuned must this energy density be to get a flat universe? One part in 10120, which is:
1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000

Atheists’ reactions

Here is a quote from a recent article:
“This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with ‘common wisdom’.”
Atheists see a conflict because this level of design is something that one would not expect by chance from a universe that began through a purely naturalistic mechanism or The construction of a machine, engine or instrument, intended to apply power to a useful purpose; the structure of parts, or manner in which the parts of a machine are united to answer its design. “Common wisdom” is common only to those who must exclude a supernatural explanation for the creation of the universe.
Yet another study confirms the polarization of the cosmic microwave background radiation, left over from the Big Bang. The standard inflationary model predicted that the background radiation should be polarized when it interacted with matter, nearly 14 billion years ago. 
John Carlstrom, the S. Chandrasekhar Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, announced the discovery and made the following admission:

“Polarization is predicted. It’s been detected and it’s in line with theoretical predictions. We’re stuck with this preposterous universe.”

Naturalism fails the test

In another article entitled,
“Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant”
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B000RSJ9VQ&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrresearchers from Stanford and MIT examined some of the “problems” associated with a cosmological constant. In their paper, they stated that the implications of a cosmological constant “lead to very deep paradoxes, which seem to require major revisions of our usual assumptions.” 
They admit that “there is no universally accepted explanation of how the universe got into such a special state” and that their study, “Far from providing a solution to the problem, we will be led to a disturbing crisis.” They also admit, “Some unknown agent initially started the inflation high up on its potential, and the rest is history.”
In examining problems with the cosmological constant, the authors are concerned that ultimate fate of the universe is complete entropy with all the matter and energy distributed over maximally expanded spacetime. They cite the ability of the universe to undergo “Poincare recurrences” as a possible “solution” to one of the “problems.” 
There is a certain theoretical possibility that after the universe is maximally expanded that it would come back together again into one point. Think of it like this. Let’s say you are in a room with air molecules randomly moving around in the room. There is a certain probability that the random motion of the molecules could cause all of them to travel to one corner of the room, leaving you in a complete vacuum.
Obviously, this would not be a good thing to happen, but it is possible, with an interval on the order of once every 1060 years. Since we only live 102 years in a universe that has been around for only 1010 years, it is practically impossible.
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004089DXI&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrSo, what is the time it would take for a fully expanded universe to come back into a single point?
The authors calculate the value as e10120 years, which they comment “seems like an absurdly big time between interesting events, which, by comparison, last for a very short time.” Recent evidence suggests that even this estimate is very optimistic. 
Some scientists believe that the universe will be permanently destroyed within 22 billion years, with no possibility of reassembly. Robert Caldwell of Dartmouth College says that the dark energy of the universe is increasing at a rate that will rip the universe apart and even the atoms themselves.
However, it is the nature of inflation and the temperature of the universe that deeply concerns these cosmologists. This is what they have to say about the nature of our current universe, among all other possible universes:
“In all of these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures.
However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1857922832&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrmore of them than those that evolve without “miracles,” that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences. 
We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely.”
Appealing to possible alternative ways that the universe might have evolved do not make fine tuning untenable. In fact, the vast majority of possible universes would contain no matter at all – just energy! Here is what Dyson says about the probability that our universe would be the way it is:
“The vast majority of the space consists of states which are macroscopically “dead de Sitter;” that is, nearly empty de Sitter containing only some thermal radiation. A tiny subset of the states are anthropically acceptable, meaning that they contain complex structures such as stars and galaxies, and a very small subset of those are macroscopically indistinguishable from our universe (labeled MIFOU in the figure). 
Inflationary initial conditions occupy an even smaller fraction of the space. Trajectories which pass through the inflationary patch will almost always lead immediately to the MIFOU region, “mixing” into it in a “porous,” phase-space-area-preserving manner. The vast majority of the points in the MIFOU region did not come from inflation, but rather from unstable trajectories originating in the dead region.
Finally, any trajectory in the dead region will remain there almost all of the time, but will http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1419602535&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifroccasionally enter the anthropically acceptable region, and very much more rarely the MIFOU region, and almost never the inflationary region. Therefore, livable universes are almost always created by fluctuations into the “miraculous” states discussed above.”
THIS ALONE “TOTALLY DISPROVES”EVOLUTIONARY THOUGHT,WHICH SHOULD HAVE THEM ALL WORSHIPING GOD, SO WHY DON’T THEY?
WELL THE PROBLEM THEY HAVE IS “SPIRITUAL IN NATURE NOT MENTAL”, THUS NO MATTER HOW IMPOSSIBLE THE ANSWER IS, THE HARDER THEY FIGHT THE RESULTS!
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0231128479&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrHere’s a great riddle for ya! Who FIRST started Atheism? Was there a Cave-Man or Women, somewhere in the world who first thought ‘There are no gods?’, or was this idea INVENTED by Satan himself?
DID you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source? Not even the most “educated” atheists – particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetrators in different cultures; but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.
The absence of a known author and time of origin of such a highly embraced philosophy is a strange phenomenon. But this phenomenon is highly indicative. It suggests that atheism is not of earthly origin – that it had its birth in another sphere before this state of time.
Atheism is not a man-made doctrine but a doctrine of the demons. Its originator is none other than the old serpent himself, namely, Satan. It had its origin from the very one it deceptively denies exists.
It is a doctrine which denies the authorship and existence of its own author! This accounts for http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1405189630&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrthe absence of information in any literature embraced by atheists that identify both a human author and earthly time of origin for atheism.
SEE, ALL THAT DENIAL HAS A PRICE DOESN’T IT? 
RESEARCH THE “BEGINNINGS OF ATHEISM” and you’ll FIND EVERY ANSWER YOU’VE BEEN LOOKING FOR REVEALED!
 
If Satan is not the author of atheism, I hereby challenge the most educated and capable of them to prove that Satan is not its author and prove that it had an earthly origin.This may be the hardest thing any Atheist will ever do is to solve it’s own origin problem! Are they going to say that it began when the age of reason began?
Were human beings that stupid before that time, millions upon millions of people and not one Atheist? That’s just Unreasonable to think that no Atheism existed before their chosen few made it famous, there must have been a few Atheist cave http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B00175GAIS&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrmen around surely?
Creation 1 Evolution 0 , without a doubt then THIS IS PROOF POSITIVE THAT THERE IS BOTH A GOD and A CREATION HE CREATED, BECAUSE THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT SUPPORT A NATURALISTIC PROCESS ALONE FOR IT’S BEGINNING.
As I stated before all the PROVING IS IN THE COURT OF THE ATHEIST NOT THE CHRISTIAN!

Part 2 -The Doorway to Belief: How FAITH Opens the Proof of God!

In Part 2, I will deal with the previous part as too the Skeptic’s Dictionary definition of FAITH!
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0890513414&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrWhile it makes some good points about Religious ideas and their silliness, at the same time the Author makes similar silly comments and misconceptions available to view. I do not throw out the baby with the bath water as he seems to do on some concepts, concerning faith and the existence of God, so the concept of faith is viewed very differently by two viewpoints. 

This IN NO WAY disproves anything, it simply shows that we have completely different points of contrast concerning the same doctrine!
What I want to do here is to take apart what was said and put in a true biblical light, NOT a religious false light, this where he has bleed the two concepts together. I’m not saying that his points are not valid, they are but ONLY in the concept of man-made religion not real biblical Faith.
Religion as I have PROVED many times before is NOT a true reflection of the truth of biblical http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B001BYLFFS&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrfaith simply because religion has ADOPTED the World’s definitions of Biblical concepts and thus twisted their meanings to be mush too simplistic and powerless from what God himself has defined them as! 

Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond 

Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction, 2nd Edition 

Scientific Creationism 

Creation As Science: A Testable Model Approach to End the Creation/evolution Wars 

 The New Creationism: Building Scientific Theory on a Biblical Foundation 

Old Earth Creationism on Trial: The Verdict Is In 

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0061472794&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrIn the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood (8th Edition) 

Ultimate Proof of Creation 

Science, Evolution, and Creationism 

The Privileged Planet 

Introduction to Scientific Creationism 

Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth 

Michael Girouard, Fascinating Design: Evidence for Creation (VHS) Creationism 

The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design, Expanded Edition 

Unlocking the Mystery of Life



http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1581344678&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrThe true definition of Biblical Faith is found in Hebrews 11:1 as I explained in the first blog on this site HERE!
Please read this first as it will make things clearer as to what true Christian Doctrine is concerning faith and how it applies to our Belief system, any definition of biblical Faith MUST include this wording or it fails to meet God’s requirements for Belief!
Notwithstanding the silly parody of Mark Twain: “Yet it was the school boy who said, Faith is believing what you know ain’t so. which is not to be taken as Gospel in any form, other statements in this Article are just as silly as Twain’s was.
“Faith is a non-rational belief in some proposition. A non-rational belief is one that is contrary to the sum of the evidence for that belief. A belief is contrary to the sum of the evidence if there is overwhelming evidence against the belief, e.g., that the earth is flat, hollow, or is the center of the universe. A belief is also contrary to the sum of the evidence if the evidence seems equal both for and against the belief, yet one commits to one of the two or more equally supported propositions.
 
What makes this silly is that there is absolutely no evidence that Biblical Faith is http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B000CNE0JW&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrNON-RATIONAL, sure…the religion men make these non-rational jumps all the time with its circular reasoning. But true biblical Faith isn’t defined in this way so his conclusions are false based upon a presupposition of guilt! He is doing here just what he accuses us of doing.

Second of all he assumes that “there is overwhelming evidence against the belief ” when there is not, there is nothing out there that would contradict biblical defined Faith. I mean sticking to it strictly speaking and not redefining it to fit your understanding. 
It is only FAIR to use the proper definition of Faith going forward is it not?
From Hebrews 11:1 
THIS IS WHAT FAITH IS, HOW IT WORKS AND WHAT IT CONTAINS:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B002VYHZTC&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrSo we can plainly see that NOW FAITH, present tense Faith is FILLED with SUBSTANCE, of what? THINGS hoped for, in other words the answer to our prayers is CONTAINED in our Faith as well as the PROOF or EVIDENCE needed to believe. This is far from his weak definition of faith from a man-written document, defined by man’s perceptions NOT God’s!

Now let’s see it from the Amplified bible which reveals the Greek Original:

NOW FAITH is the assurance (the confirmation, [a]the title deed) of the things [we] hope for, being the proof of things [we] do not see and the conviction of their reality [faith perceiving as real fact what is not revealed to the senses].”

Faith as defined in scripture contains the Contractual agreement between you and God for the things your praying for, The Title Deed of your ownership to them. It also contains the PROOF of their reality, all the Evidence needed to draw your conclusions as to their reality, all this is contained in a seed the size of a pepper speck!
Faith perceives as real fact what is not revealed to the senses, as yet. Not that it will not be revealed but that it is so-far unseen in the world. All the proof and Evidence that the skeptic needs is there inside “The God Seed of Faith” given when Obedience is fulfilled.
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0310679664&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrGod requires FIRST obedience THEN He’ll reveal the details, just as Life requires you to live it before the details are revealed!
Don’t like that, Mr. Atheist, Agnostic or Skeptic? 
Tough, that’s how it works, and no amount of crying and amassing vast amounts of contrary evidence based upon a false assumption will change it. Life works this way and saying it shouldn’t won’t change the outcome in the least.
What if the evidence seems equal both for and against the belief, this is a loaded request because NO matter how much evidence is given they’ll explain it away and thus a quandary is created, this is like a self fulfilling prophecy for them! Its a trap we as believers fall into, chasing our tails around a straw man principle. 

If you think about it this creates the same issues for the skeptic, they just don’t let you know it, so it seems insurmountable to the believer, if they have just as much counter evidence to my evidence no one wins. BUT the real question all along is HOW good is their evidence, is it circumstantial or based on SOLID SCIENTIFIC FACT! There is a great difference between SOLID facts based in scientific study and “Factual innuendos” used in their “non existence”arguments to defer a response, stating FACTS like a machine gun at you as if those http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0801072603&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrfacts were part of the answer when most of the facts are unrelated to the question.

What about the statement: 
By Richard Spencer, Ph.D., associate professor of electrical and computer engineering at UC Davis and faculty adviser to the Christian Student Union.
“There is no God, and there can’t be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes” cannot be supported by the scientific method and is a statement of faith, not science.”
 What’s wrong with this statement? He says The error or deception here is to imply that anything that is not a scientific statement, i.e., one supported by evidence marshaled forth the way scientists do in support of their scientific claims, is a matter of faith. To use ‘faith’ in such a broad way is to strip it of any theological significance the term might otherwise have.”

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0817014748&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrThat is a total misreading of what he said in the first place, what he is saying is the statements made concerning Evolution and God are not based upon science but the fanciful speculations of those who BELIEVE in the natural explanations vs. the actual data available to prove that. There is NO evidence that PROVES ONCE AND FOR ALL THERE IS NO GOD OR THAT THE WORLD CAME INTO BEING BY PURELY NATURAL OCCURRENCES. 
What he’s saying is THEIR VIEW of faith and ours is different so they take things in “faithful assumption” that one day there will be the evidence to support, RATHER than rejecting it as unproven, that’s what “a statement of Faith” is in regards to science.
No side in this debate can say that, that in itself is dishonest and can easily be disproved simply by seeing the state of the debate as it is today. LOTS of things are taken on faith in this debate, Evolution is the biggest offender as the Missing Links are VAST and getting bigger, anyone who states in the Church that “Some things are just to be taken by Faith!” is being equally dishonest, as this form of “Faith taking” is not in any way biblical, no where in scripture does God require a “Brain Freeze” in regards to belief or for that matter knowledge, HE WANTS PEOPLE TO KNOW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW CONCERNING WHAT THEY ARE TO BELIEVE, IF THEY NEED TO KNOW IT HE REVEALS IT! 
Where? 
In scripture, seek it out, ask the questions He’s a God of answers but according to FAITH not according to DOUBT and SKEPTICISM.
Again, the same bad defining is used here:
“Physicist Bob Park explains this difference in a way even the most devious casuist should understand. 

 “1) complete trust or confidence, and

2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.”

A scientist’s “faith” is built on experimental proof.

The two meanings of the word “faith,” therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.”

 He’s right by defining faith the way he does, they are different because he has assumed that we have complete “Trust and Reliance” upon NOTHING real, its just “Dreams and Mist” as others have stated. BUT that’s NOT TRUE, real faith REQUIRES the opposite to mean anything at all. This meaning is not the FAITH we are talking about here, but…. 

 rather than proof.” where is that found in Hebrews 11:1

http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0521736285&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrThis is what’s called a “Straw-man argument setting up a false idea and defeating it like it was a real issue in the first place, maybe he’s unaware that he’s done it because he’s parroting others who defined Faith the same way or maybe he is dishonest, I don’t know!
All I know is that NO Atheist site defines Faith in the proper way, is it because they fear their ideas can’t hold water under the true definition? Only your friendly Atheist knows for sure! 
Here’s more based on a false premise:
**************************************************************************************************
“an erroneous view of faith
If we examine Dr. Spencer’s claims, the error of his conflation of two senses of ‘faith’ should become obvious. He claims that the statement ‘there is no God and there can’t be a god; everything evolved from purely natural processes’ is a statement of faith. There are three distinct statements here. 
One, ‘there is no God’. 
Two, ‘there can’t be a god’. 
And three, ‘everything evolved from purely natural processes’.
Dr. Spencer implies that each of these claims is on par with such statements as ‘there is a God’, ‘Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior’, ‘Jesus’s mother was a virgin’, http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1419653067&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr‘a piece of bread may have the substance of Jesus Christ’s physical body and blood’, ‘God is one being but three persons’, and the like.
The statement ‘there cannot be a god’ is not an empirical statement. Anyone who would make such a claim would make it by arguing that a particular concept of god contains contradictions and is, therefore, meaningless.
For example, to believe that ‘some squares are circular’ is a logical contradiction. Circles and squares are defined so as to imply that circles can’t be square and squares can’t be circular.
James Rachels, for one, has argued that god is impossible, but at best his argument shows that the concepts of an all-powerful God and one who demands worship from His creations are contradictory. 
The concept of worship, Rachels argues, is inconsistent with the traditional Judeo-Christian God concept.”
 *****************************************************************************************
 This argument is nothing new, and shows a complete ignorance of true Doctrine in the Bible, mixing the facts up with FALSE doctrine doesn’t make his arguments any better. How could we have an erroneous view of Faith when he’s using an erroneous definition to start with?!

How can the concept of Worship be inconsistent with our view of God? It can’t, if http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B001PO650O&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifryou have revealed to you the God of scripture but that CANNOT happen unless your FIRST SAVED, FIRST THE OBEDIENCE THEN THE UNDERSTANDING.

Are we working on Blind Faith? CLICK HERE to find out!


All understanding outside of biblical faith is limited greatly by a darkened mind controlled by the shadow of sin, now, I know; they don’t think their thinking is darkened but that doesn’t change the fact it is! My mind was so polluted by wrong thinking concerning God’s Love I wouldn’t know truth if it stood right in front of me singing Dixie! 

Ephesians 4:18
“Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart:….”
 Romans 1:21
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1566393973&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
What about our Worship and our God? Does how we define our God (The Doctrine) even matter when we worship him?
“The concept of worship, Rachels argues, is inconsistent with the traditional Judeo-Christian God concept.”
Mark 12:33
“And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Sounds to me as if God requires a whole LOT more than religious worship affords, our worship of God is to be ALL OR NOTHING, our whole person is to be involved not a once a week, and Holidays worship. So it would seem that HOW we define our God is as much a part of us as we are to be of him. So the doctrine comes with the package.

“The statement ‘there cannot be a god‘ is not an empirical statement. Anyone who would make such a claim would make it by arguing that a particular concept of god contains contradictions and is, therefore, meaningless.”
Would that same Argument be in force if I found the many contradictions of http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0984489126&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrEvolutionary theory to make Evolution meaningless? Of course not, it only applies to us not them! Good reasoning applies to every argument no matter the side but BAD reasoning knows no bound of dishonest approach. And to often there are bad reasoning’s on both sides, with or without knowledge of it.

The whole idea of their use of the Trinity in arguments offends my knowledge of God greatly, not because it weakens my position but because I know as a former Pagan that it IS NOT a Pagan doctrine at all, pagans worship TRIADS not trinities the concept of ONE God in Three persons distinct from each other yet one in nature is unheard of in Paganism. So the matter of its incompatibility with Christian Worship is a false premise.
CLICK HERE to read my views on the Trinity! 
CLICK HERE to read my views on Religion! 
CLICK HERE to read my views on Intellectual Dishonesty
http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=theope-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1148161716&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifrTransubstantiation or Wafer Worship and the Virgin birth of Mary’s Mom and so on and so on as taught wrongly by religion are false concepts used to excuse bad doctrine.  With man-made lies it is required to make more lies to uphold the original lies. Religion is not the answer to any of man’s questions, let alone a life changer like God is!