Search results

Exactly.:agree:

No, I suggested that that may be a solution to Martin's dilema. Other solutions include that God in His nature cannot even be destroyed since He is supernatural, if you fail to understand that then you don't understand the nature of God. As for your second question, do what ever rows your...

You're joking right?

I, including more than 90% of the world would care. I was answering a question which to me appeared more cynical than honest. Very much like this question below.

But we do know this God through scripture. God's nature is explained in the Bible for example thus we do know God's nature. The premise that God could exist shuts down Dawkins' argument completely.

You can't talk to him because if you did, you would know he exists thus you cannot freely accept Him. You can't destroy him because it would be against the will of nearly everyone else in the world. Oh really? So when the American government give their people freedom and democracy, are...

It's about demonstrating power, it's about giving His people an opportunity to live, learn, and hopefully accept Him freely. It's not some type of experiment, if it were then I would agree it would be pointless. What if I did not want to enter heaven, what if the idea of hell appeals to me...

The two are not logically incompatible. He gave man the free will to choose to either accept or deny him, whether he knows this or not is irrelevant. Even if God knows what I will do next, that does not stop me from having the power of doing it. Thus I still maintain my free will regardless of...

Because if God only allowed us to be good, we would not be able to act freely and pesonally accept God out of our own will. If everyone was good, and no one was bad, then everybody by default would accept God, thus free will would not exist. You don't have to, and that's the whole point. God...

These feelings are understable Andy, but if you wish for God to prohibit all the pain and suffering in the world, wouldn't that take away our freedom? How different are we from sheep, then?

I believe in macroeveolution and microevolution, I believe the universe is 14 billion years old, and the earth about 5 billion years old, I believe that the earliest forms of man can be traced back approximately 100 thousand years. Please explain to me how you even came to that conclusion...

Dawkins' argument contradicts scienc since there would be an infinite regression. Did you even watch the video?

I just stumbled upon this by the way, and I found it to be a very logical and reasonable answer to Dawkins' argument.