The Rational Road to Becoming a Christian

The Rational Road to Becoming a Christian

1. If I am just the result of mindless forces operating on matter-energy in space-time, then I have no real explanation for why I exist as a person with a mind.

2. But I clearly exist as a person with a mind capable of observing and understanding the material world around me (including my own physical body, which includes my brain), as well as knowing other people who have bodies and minds.

3. Therefore, the first part of point #1 can’t be true.

4. Then how can it be that I exist as a person with a mind that can do what point #2 describes?

5. If there is a reasonable explanation for how this came to be, then I should accept that it’s true.

6. Christianity says that both I as a person with a mind and the universe around me were created by and are continually sustained by an Almighty Personal God. It also says that this God seeks to have a relationship with me. I also have an innate sense that these things are true. But I have been discouraged from considering that these ideas could be true until now.

7. Why shouldn’t I consider that this is true?

8. Having been told by others that I shouldn’t consider this or not wanting to consider it because I may not like the consequences if it’s true are not valid reasons for not considering it. Doing the first means I have given up my freedom to decide for myself. Doing the second makes no sense because, if it’s true that God is real and that He made me, then there are consequences of this, whether I like it or not.

9. So I ought to consider that this is true.

10. If Almighty God exists and if He made me and continually sustains my life and seeks to have a relationship with me, then I should want to have a relationship with Him.

11. If Almighty God could create me and the entire universe, He could certainly reveal Himself to the world in a written form.

12. If the Christian Bible is the only book in which God does this, then it is the most important book of all.

13. Is the Christian Bible the only book that does this?

14. The Christian Bible frequently presents God as revealing Himself, unlike other supposed holy books which don’t claim this.

15. The Christian Bible says that God is both the Almighty King of Kings and that He wants to have a personal relationship with us, unlike Islam’s Qu’ran (which only claims the first is true).

16. This agrees with my innate ideas of who God is (point #6).

17. So it is reasonable to believe that the Bible is God’s Self-revelation or Word and that I should base my life on what it says.

18. The Gospel or “Good News” of the Bible (which was foreshadowed in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament) is that God, our Eternal Father, sent His Eternal Son, Jesus Christ into the world to save us from our sins and that He sent His Eternal Holy Spirit to dwell inside of us in order to transform us to be like His Son so that we will be worthy to dwell with Him forever in Heaven.

 

Bottom-line: That all of this is true won’t make anyone consider and accept it. Each of us must be willing to do so. But everyone should be and is therefore culpable before God for refusing to do so. (New Testament Book of Romans, chapter 1, verses 18-20)

 

Advertisements

24 thoughts on “The Rational Road to Becoming a Christian

  1. “1. If I am just the result of mindless forces operating on matter-energy in space-time, then I have no real explanation for why I exist as a person with a mind.”

    This is already flawed. You’re assuming that we don’t have an explanation for why we exist, when we clearly do, considering our extensive knowledge about evolution, and how we’re working on unravelling the mysteries of our consciousness.

    “2. But I clearly exist as a person with a mind capable of observing and understanding the material world around me (including my own physical body, which includes my brain), as well as knowing other people who have bodies and minds.”

    I don’t understand the “but” at the beginning of this. The “but” would imply that this premise somehow stands in conflict with premise 1, but it doesn’t. Premise 1 talks about whether we have an explanation for WHY we exist, while premise 2 talks about the fact that we clearly do exist. They are dealing with entirely different questions. One is “Do we exist?”, the other is “Why do we exist?”.

    “3. Therefore, the first part of point #1 can’t be true.”

    This cannot be true because there is no logical conflict between premise 1 and 2 that would need to be resolved like this.

    “5. If there is a reasonable explanation for how this came to be, then I should accept that it’s true.”

    No. You don’t just jump onto the first explanation that seems reasonable to you. That’s not how logic works. You need to look at all the possibilities and carefully evaluate which is the most probable, and even then you don’t 100% dedicate your life to this idea, because it might still be wrong. One can entertain an idea without believing it to be true.

    “6. Christianity says that both I as a person with a mind and the universe around me were created by and are continually sustained by an Almighty Personal God. It also says that this God seeks to have a relationship with me. I also have an innate sense that these things are true.”

    I’m especially repelled by that last sentence. It is the sentence that this whole “logical argument” is going to build upon. It is basically the only premise that is required, all the others are just eye-candy. And of course I disagree with it. No, we do not have an innate sense that these things are true. You may feel like you do, but in the end, Christianity is just another concept you learned in childhood, from your parents, in church, wherever. The religion of an individual is greatly dependent on where this person was brought up.

    “But I have been discouraged from considering that these ideas could be true until now.”

    Making baseless assumptions about peoples lifes is pretty rude. Not everyone who is not accepting Christianity has been “discouraged from considering it”.

    “9. So I ought to consider that this is true.”

    Probably the only premise in this entire wreck that I would agree with.

    “12. If the Christian Bible is the only book in which God does this, then it is the most important book of all.”

    No. Just because it is a possibility for God to reveal himself, doesn’t make this necessarily true.

    “16. This agrees with my innate ideas of who God is (point #6).”

    Here we have it. What all these 15 points were building up to was a simple appeal to emotions. It’s kinda disappointing really. There is no logical argument being made, it all just comes down to “Do you feel like God exists? Well, then he exists.”

    I’m not sure who this is supposed to convince, really. Only Christians are the ones who would agree with this “innate feeling that a God exists”. It’s basically preaching to the choir.

    • I’m glad you at least took the time to come here & reply. In doing so you show more courage than most atheists do. But your Big Problem is that you actually think that your replies “shred” my points. Your replies only show how much faith you have in what you have been taught (blind faith at that!) and how much you have embraced the dogmatic methods of those on your side. I know because I was on your side until my Junior year as a Duke undergrad.

      All of your replies are simply beliefs driven by your desire to continue resisting what you actually already know is true: that your Creator is real. I have beliefs, too. But, unlike you, I have plenty of arguments for what I believe. And I can shoot down all of the arguments your side makes. Indeed, this is what I do both in this article and other articles here and in the comments.

      This may seem arrogant, but I can say these things only because, unlike you, God has opened my eyes & mind to Him and His Truth. It is really people like you, who essentially claim to be the ultimate judges of truth, who are the real arrogant ones. And you will also lose in the end unless you change sides. I will repeat my motto: No one can stop what Almighty God wants to do in our lives, not even us. The Only Question is: Will you be with Him or against Him?

      God & His Truth will haunt people like you unless you decide to stop fighting Him and accept His Love, which is like nothing else in the universe. But if you choose to keep fighting Him He will eventually just exile you for eternity. Yes, I’m talking about Hell.

      Although God is sovereign, it’s still up to you if you want God to judge you and sentence you there or to be your perfectly-loving Father and welcome you to Heaven. This is because God has made it so that both predestination and real choice are true. You may be one of those whom God created for destruction (I truly hope not, though!), but no one can know this until they are actually in Hell. Until then you are called to turn to God and be saved. You can’t possibly know that He won’t save you. And if you ask, you will receive. But if you refuse to ask, it’s on you.

      • You know, I would really like to have a conversation with you about this, but for that to be possible you need to stay on topic, and not start preaching.

        You keep going off topic about how I have been indoctrinated, and how that is shown, when I haven’t even once mentioned any of my beliefs. In fact, they are completely irrelevant to the topic of discussion, just like it is irrelevant whether your God really exists or not. All my reply was about, was your “logical argument”, and how it fails. So please address this, and don’t try to attack my personal life or whatever else.

        God may very well exist. But this 18 point long argument, that is full of fallacies and illogical statements, won’t convince anyone. That is my point. Nothing more, nothing less.

        I can’t even reply to any of what you just said, because they are just baseless assertions anyway. You’re basically just saying “I am right and you are wrong, because that’s what I believe”. Theres nothing of substance there, nothing that in any way makes a good case for the existence of God, or at least a case about how I’m wrong.

        Please, address my argument.

      • Thanks for replying and I certainly welcome real discussions. After writing this reply I took a look at my original reply to you and now realize that it was over-heated and overly “preachy”. Sorry about that. I do hope that we can start again.

        It’s like family relationships: sometimes we get angry with others, but it’s precisely because we care so much. I admit that I am sometimes wrong when I get angry. But I am learning, too.

        But the only reason I do this is because I want others to find the Wonderful Truth that I have found. Christians like me agree with what the Bible says about becoming a believer: that it’s no less than going from being spiritually dead to being alive, even if we thought we were “spiritual” previously.

        Most of the claims of fallacies that you offered are just that: mere claims. The one exception is where you argue that my position comes from what I was taught as a child. But this isn’t correct. I was catechized in Roman Catholicism, but it never took. Instead, I embraced the Humanist perspective I was taught in my public education. I discuss this in my piece “The Question That We All Should Ask”.

        When you claim that something is a fallacy you need to explain what the fallacy is! It’s you who needs to go back and do this on at least a couple of your claims. Then we can have a discussion. Furthermore, something isn’t a fallacy simply because one doesn’t accept the premises. It is only a fallacy if the conclusion doesn’t follow even if the premises are true.

        This piece is just the train-of-thoughts which led me to faith. I hope others will be willing to follow the same path. I give reasons for my points in my “10 Widely-believed Fallacies Today” piece here. Take a look at it if you haven’t already. I suspect that you believe many of these. We need to be able to explain why we believe what we believe and why we don’t believe other things. Sometimes, when we start to explore this it leads us to realize we’re on the wrong side. I found this out as a Junior at Duke in 1982.

        Even though you haven’t told me about yourself, your replies reveal more than you may know. People are similar in many ways and fall into predictable patterns. Indeed, this is the whole basis for the “Social Sciences”, although these are not as strictly-scientific as those which focus on natural phenomena (which we used to call the “Hard Sciences”).

        If we’re going to have a discussion, rather than just a quarrel (which is rare in today’s highly-polarized environment), keep in mind that mutually-beneficial discussions require that both sides truly respect, think about and directly interact with the other’s points, not just derogatorily label and dismiss them. If this advice is unnecessary for you, I apologize. I do this partly for the benefit of other readers. Because, sadly, this is all too rare today, especially on the anti-Christian side.

        I have already shown that if you make a valid point I will freely acknowledge it. I also respect people on your side, mainly because I was on your side until I was 22. My strong disagreement with your views doesn’t mean that I don’t respect you personally. I know it may seem otherwise at times. This is because I am very passionate about the issues and also because I truly care about where you are in life.

        Christians wanting to convince others to join us is a good thing from our point-of-view. It is just wrong for others to ignore that we truly believe this just because you disagree with it.

        Thanks again for your consideration. I don’t have unlimited time to interact here, as I am working on a book. But I will give you as much as I can. Sorry that this has gotten so long. Obviously these discussions can get lengthy.

    • Sure, let’s start again. The first point you made was this:

      “Most of the claims of fallacies that you offered are just that: mere claims. …. When you claim that something is a fallacy you need to explain what the fallacy is!”

      I mean, I feel like I have explained the fallacies I was pointing at well enough, wasn’t I? I even named the biggest one you used at the end: ‘Appeal to emotion’. This is the fallacy that the conclusion of your argument is based on. This “innate sense of feeling that God exists”.

      Also, most of what you did weren’t really fallacies. They were simply illogical and inconsistent statements, and also assertions that I disagreed with. So yeah, I don’t really see what I need to point out there.

      “This piece is just the train-of-thoughts which led me to faith.”

      Well, if you call it a “Rational Road to become a Christian” then I expect it to be rational, and logically consistent. It isn’t though, and I’m trying to point out why. If this is truly the reason how you came to believe, then it is a damn bad one. I can kind of get the “appeal to emotion” part, most christians believe in God because of emotions, and not reason, but even with the emotion part included I still expect everything else to logical.

      “I give reasons for my points in my “10 Widely-believed Fallacies Today” piece here. Take a look at it if you haven’t already. I suspect that you believe many of these.”

      I don’t actually, I only believe number 6. I might make a response to that one.

      “I have already shown that if you make a valid point I will freely acknowledge it. ”

      I’m not sure yet if you have shown that, because from my perspective you haven’t even addressed any of the points I brought up in my first reply, except the one about my assumptions about your childhood, which were wrong.

      Alright, so now that we got that sorted out, I hope we can finally return to the topic of discussion, which was the concerns I raised in my very first reply.

      • What you regard as “fallacies” are just points that you disagree with, but could if you would put aside your prejudices, including your false certainty that Evolution has been proven. The mere possibility of an Intelligence with cosmic-level power (which can’t be ruled out) actually rules out the possibility of knowing that Evolution is true. That is simple logic! This is because just the possibility of this is an unknowable Variable.

        If the premises of my syllogism are true then the conclusions follow. So it is not a fallacious syllogism. You haven’t shown this at all, only that you disagree with the premises.

        The strong bias of most people on your side is one of the reasons I don’t try to appeal endlessly to those who just think they can shoot down every argument I make. Although I could be wrong, you seem to be such a person.

        One of the reasons Evolution is wrong is because it can’t answer any “Why?” questions. (We also dispute its answers to the “How?” because of the false assumption of no Intelligent influence.) We all believe there are reasons why things happen, not just how. But a universe which is ultimately only mindless forces can’t explain this. To say that our minds are an emergent phenomenon of matter is just a blind supposition. Besides, even if this were true, to describe things as “phenomena” is meaningless without the existence of observers of these.

        The so-called “hard problem” of consciousness is actually an impossible problem unless the dualistic nature of reality is admitted. But most today adamantly refuse to consider obvious facts which show that we are more than just our physical bodies. This is mainly because of the extreme anti-theistic and, especially, anti-Christian bias of most today. But this bias keeps people like you both from seeing fatal flaws in your own approach and the reasonableness of ours.

        I have now spent more than 2 hours answering you and don’t know if it’s worthwhile spending any longer. It just isn’t possible to persuade someone who is biased. However, if you would at least be willing to admit your bias and be willing to re-consider it I would be willing to continue with you. You should definitely think seriously about point #6 of my 10 Fallacies piece. But please try not to approach it with the attitude that this must be false, so I will use any argument I can to show that this is the case. That is not the way fair-minded people deal with other views.

      • Maybe, instead of having an endless debate, where you have to spend hours on each reply, which is obviously very time consuming, we could keep it very short.

        So how about I ask you only one question: How do you know God exists?

        In hope this question wouldn’t take you very long to answer. You seem to be very sure that what you believe in is the right view, is the truth. And I would like to know how you can be so sure, where you got this knowledge.

        I will answer two statements you made about this topic:

        “I admit that I would never reconsider mine in the sense of really considering going back to yours. But this is precisely because I held your position until I was 22.”

        The problem is that there are Atheists in the exact same situation: They have been christian for up to 50 years, until they’ve had the often very long process of losing their faith. And at that point, Atheists are not very prone to reconsidering their position yet again either. They know what it means to be a christian, how it is supposed to feel to have a “relationship with God”. They just feel that it wasn’t ever God, but a placebo effect.

        “The idea that people should always be willing to change their beliefs is based on the false assumption that there can be no single true worldview/philosophy/religion.”

        I don’t think this is the case. I think that the idea that people should always be willing to change their beliefs is actually founded upon the belief that everything could always be wrong. How do you know you are 100% right? Maybe your God is a placebo effect? Maybe the evidence is wrong? Maybe we’re living in a matrix? Maybe you’re having a mental disorder? Anything could happen.

        This particular sense of uncertainty about everything is what should keep people on their toes to always being able to question what they believe in.

      • I perceive that you are trying to claim superiority because I mentioned that I take longer in my replies than you. That’s just arrogance on your part. Besides, I am now able to answer you much more quickly because I have gotten used to responding to you.

        I explain why I am certain that the God described in the Bible exists in my piece “The Question That We All Should Ask”. There is no need for me to repeat it here. And I would actually agree that it’s theoretically possible that we are all being fooled by some higher intelligence (a la “The Matrix”). But God presents Himself to every one of us in our thoughts and also in the Bible. And He promises that He doesn’t lie. We can either trust Him in this or not. But if you don’t trust Him then you have no basis for certainty about anything. And no one actually believes this. And to assert that you know anything at all is to tacitly acknowledge that God exists and is not a Grand Deceiver.

        And while I have met a few atheists who renounced Christianity as adults, most I have met either never considered themselves Christians or say they were raised as Christians. But being raised as a Christian doesn’t mean you actually became a Christian. I was raised Catholic and even confirmed in it. But I never truly believed it. On the other hand, Bible-believing churches around the world are filled with ex-atheists.

        And before you do it, don’t even try to accuse me of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. I don’t claim that no true Christian (or adult Christian) ever renounces the faith. I am just asserting that this is much more rare than atheists becoming believers. I recognize that this doesn’t prove that Christianity is true, but it does suggest that it is. I would love for someone to do a survey on this because my fairly widespread experience tells me that it would show I am right in this.

    • I will start with the last part of your comment, because I think this is the most important.

      “I have now spent more than 2 hours answering you and don’t know if it’s worthwhile spending any longer. It just isn’t possible to persuade someone who is biased. However, if you would at least be willing to admit your bias and be willing to re-consider it I would be willing to continue with you.”

      Yes, I admit that I am biased. Everyone is, that is just unavoidable. But I am trying to be the kind of person that is always open to other ideas, if they are presented in a persuading way, if they’re logical, if they’re presented as evidence and as facts. But, the problem is, I don’t see you do that. I only see you making assertions. If you could back up these assertions, or at least explain what you mean, be more specific, then I would be able to get more out of this.#

      So, onto the statements you make that I have some problems with.

      “What you regard as “fallacies” are just points that you disagree with”

      Well, some of them, yes, and I’ve admitted that myself in my last comment. I don’t know why you are still hung up on this.

      ” but could if you would put aside your prejudices, including your false certainty that Evolution has been proven. ”

      I don’t have any such prejudice.

      “The mere possibility of an Intelligence with cosmic-level power (which can’t be ruled out) actually rules out the possibility of knowing that Evolution is true.”

      Uhm, no. I disagree. This is definitely not a logical statement. There are two problems with this:

      1. The possibility of such an intelligence wouldn’t rule out the possibility of knowing that evolution is true, because who is to say that those two can’t coexist? We could know that evolution is true, and still have the possibility of a cosmic-level intelligence that coexists with evolution. The knowledge of the occurence of evolution, and the possibility of such an intelligence, are not mutually exclusive.

      2. If you are talking about an intelligence that is NOT mutually exclusive with evolution, aka the christian God, as he supposedly created humans, then how do you know we can’t rule this specific intelligence out? We can, by knowing that evolution is true, making this particular deity impossible.

      “If the premises of my syllogism are true then the conclusions follow.”

      Except the premises in your “Rational Road to become a Christian” are not true.

      They are either baseless assertions (e.g. “I also have an innate sense that these things are true.”, “But I have been discouraged from considering that these ideas could be true until now.”)
      or they are simply not logical, for example how you try to rule out the first part of premise 1, by saying that premise 1 and premise 2 are in conflict with each other, when they are clearly not.

      “You haven’t shown this at all, only that you disagree with the premises.”

      The mere fact that I can disagree with them already shows that they fail. A rational argument is supposed to take facts, that everyone accepts, and use them come to a logical conclusion. If you take opinions as your premises, then there is no rational argument that could follow. If it’s all about opinions anyway, then why even try to make a rational argument? Why not just present the opinions?

      “One of the reasons Evolution is wrong is because it can’t answer any “Why?” questions.”

      I don’t see how this is relevant. To evolution, the question of “why” is meaningless. And I don’t see how this renders evolution untrue. How can this make it untrue, if it is not evolutions purpose to answer these questions?

      “We all believe there are reasons why things happen, not just how.”

      No. I don’t. And with that this statement is already false. Not everyone believes there are reasons why things happen. In fact, haven’t you wrote an entire article on how humanism is the most widely spread worldview, and how it promotes that there is no deeper purpose to our existence? So why are you still making this assertion?

      “To say that our minds are an emergent phenomenon of matter is just a blind supposition.”

      It’s actually a fact, considering how we can measure which brain areas are responsible for creating consciousness, and that, if we deactivate these brain areas, consciousness disappears. We can deactivate and manipulate our “mind” by interacting with our brain. Our brain is what produces the mind.

      “The so-called “hard problem” of consciousness is actually an impossible problem unless the dualistic nature of reality is admitted. ”

      Can you prove this assertion?

      ” But most today adamantly refuse to consider obvious facts which show that we are more than just our physical bodies. ”

      And these facts are? Can you give me the sources on these facts?

      • OK, I have now spent another couple hours answering you. Please don’t try to claim that I don’t address your assertions and back my own! First, your objections in points 1. and 2. are well-stated and would be valid except for one thing: Evolution is based on the assumption that only natural forces can exist. Not only are they all that we have observed to this point, but they are considered to be all that can exist. Honest people must admit this! So it is exclusive of any explanation in which a Higher Intelligence would have an influence on a cosmic-scale. That is, it is philosophically and methodologically anti-supernatural.

        So even if Jesus was “coming on the clouds with great glory” (as is prophesied in the New Testament) people who are fully committed to evolution would be inclined to dismiss this as an hallucination or to try to explain it in some other way other than what it appears to be. This is because their worldview would rule out the possibility that what they are seeing is what it appears to be.

        And because Evolution is inherently anti-supernatural it is logically impossible that it will ever be known to be true. This is because it makes an unprovable negative universal claim. Many Bible-believing Christians do believe in Theistic Evolution. But it’s because they fail to understand that evolution is inherently anti-Creator (not just anti-Creation). Carl Sagan was expressing consistent evolutionary Naturalism when he declared: “The Cosmos is all there is and all there was and all there ever will be.” This is as much a declaration of faith as any religious creed!

        “A rational argument is supposed to take facts, that everyone accepts, and use them come to a logical conclusion. If you take opinions as your premises, then there is no rational argument that could follow. If it’s all about opinions anyway, then why even try to make a rational argument? Why not just present the opinions?”

        The problem here is that it begs the question. What the facts are is exactly the issue between Evolution and Creation (as well as between Humanism and Christianity overall). We say that many things Evolution-believers consider facts are merely opinions and, indeed, opinions which are extremely unlikely to be true, at best. This includes believing that DNA could be formed without being designed and engineered. Intelligent Design advocates provide countless other examples of this.

        “To evolution, the question of “why” is meaningless. And I don’t see how this renders evolution untrue. How can this make it untrue, if it is not evolutions purpose to answer these questions?”

        If the question of “Why?” is meaningless to Evolution then you are conceding that Evolution fails as a comprehensive explanation for all that exists. And that is what it is presented to be. This is because “Why?” is most certainly not a meaningless question in countless ways. Even clinically-insane people don’t claim that everything is meaningless.

        “. . . we can measure which brain areas are responsible for creating consciousness, and that, if we deactivate these brain areas, consciousness disappears.”

        That we can now see how our brain chemistry corresponds to different aspect of our consciousness doesn’t prove that the first causes the second. First, this shows conclusively that the two aren’t one and the same, otherwise we couldn’t speak of both and discuss cause and effect relationships. So our brains and our minds are clearly two distinct things.

        And the same research also shows that the cause and effect relationships go both ways. We can now see how our thoughts change our brain chemistry so specifically that we can use this for advanced prosthetic devices. So it is absurd to say that when we think something that this is just an out-working of brain chemistry. We initiate changes in our brain chemistry in countless ways. Cognitive behavioral therapy also depends on this being true.

        To say that this isn’t the case would turn us into robots who have no ability to make real choices and, therefore, should not be held accountable for our actions. But no one can seriously argue this. Otherwise we should just release all of the murderers and convicts imprisoned around the world and shut these facilities down. I know that Artificial Intelligence zealots believe that we will eventually be able to re-program sociopaths. But AI thinking is compromised by the same denial of human uniqueness, including our unique freedom to think, say and do things. Unlike machines, which must always be programmed ahead-of-time (even ones with so-called “learning abilities”), we are capable of making up entirely new things. Our ability to be creative is why self-driving vehicles will never be able to anticipate what human drivers may do.

        The Christian view is that Mind came before matter, namely, the Mind of God. And the Christian view that we are minds/souls housed in bodies is completely consistent with what Neuroscience discovers, whereas Materialism/Naturalism actually isn’t. It is only today’s dogmatic resistance to this possibility that causes people to dismiss this possibility

        Finally, it is not true that when areas of the brain are not functional that consciousness disappears. Cognition and other functions may disappear but not consciousness itself. This is even the case with people who are unconscious. Many people report to having consciousness while being in an unconscious condition even though they cannot communicate this to others.

        And, yes, Humanism does promote that there is no deeper purpose for human existence. This is why the value of human life inevitably goes down when Humanism reigns (as in Marxist dictatorships). But the reality is that Humanism, if consistently held, would rule out all human purpose and meaning as illusory. But no one actually believes this. So, again, this show why this view can’t be true.

        I appreciate you prompting me to respond more carefully to you. It helps me understand both my position and yours better. I pray and hope that it will do the same for you, especially so that you will come over to the winning side as I did 35 years ago! Though you haven’t seen it thus far, you really don’t have anything of value to lose in doing so.

        I may want to use this exchange in the book I am currently working on. I ask your permission to do so. I can do so without using your real or user-name unless you would like me to identify you.

        Respectfully,
        Chris

    • You spent HOURS on these replies? How does that work? For me it takes like 30 minutes at most.

      ” Evolution is based on the assumption that only natural forces can exist.”

      Well, It’s not so much based on the assumption, as it is that we simply don’t have any other way of viewing things at the moment. There is no scientific indication that anything supernatural exist. In fact, supernatural is, by definition, things that are beyond the natural, and therefore can’t be detected.

      But I mean, even if the supernatural did exist, that wouldn’t automatically render everything we know wrong. The natural world will still act the same way it did before. Objects still get pulled by gravity, organisms still evolve, and so on. That wouldn’t change.

      “Not only are they all that we have observed to this point, but they are considered to be all that can exist. Honest people must admit this!”

      Sure, I admit this. But you see, the problem is that it really is irrelevant to us whether the supernatural exists or not. Because we will never ever interact with the supernatural in any way. If we did interact with it, then the interaction would be detectable, and then it wouldn’t be supernatural anymore. It would be natural. So… who cares?

      In fact, since you think that God interacts with the natural world, this automatically makes God a natural being, and should be detectable.

      “So it is exclusive of any explanation in which a Higher Intelligence would have an influence on a cosmic-scale. That is, it is philosophically and methodologically anti-supernatural.”

      Why? Just because evolution is built upon natural observations doesn’t mean that, if the supernatural exists, it will automatically be shown to be wrong. These natural observations will still be true.

      This doesn’t change my statement in any way: Supernatural things and evolution are not mutually exclusive. They are able to coexist in this universe.

      “So even if Jesus was “coming on the clouds with great glory” (as is prophesied in the New Testament) people who are fully committed to evolution would be inclined to dismiss this as an hallucination or to try to explain it in some other way other than what it appears to be.”

      Well, if you speak about Jesus and the christian God in particular, the one who created Adam and Eve, then I would agree, that he can’t coexist with evolution. But you see, if evolution is known to be absolutely true, then this means that the christian God can’t exist. This way the idea of the christian God can be falsified.

      “And because Evolution is inherently anti-supernatural”

      I don’t agree with this statement. Evolution is not “inherently anti-supernatural”. The supernatural can indeed exist, and it can be completely irrelevant to evolution. The only way in which those two things can stand in conflict with each other if this supernatural includes the christian God.

      But in that case you would have to rephrase your statement to “Evolution is inherently anti-christian” or “anti-creationistic”.

      “This is because it makes an unprovable negative universal claim.”

      No. It doesn’t make a negative claim. It makes a positive claim, which is that evolution is true, and then it follows logically that everything that stands in contradiction with this claim is untrue. But it doesn’t in itself make a negative claim.

      By this logic, we would never be able to know anything. If we made an experiment testing gravity by letting an apple fall to the ground, which would prove that Gravity exists, would you accept the statement “Gravity can’t be known to be true, because it makes a negative claim about the non-existence of anything that contradicts Gravity”? Of course you wouldn’t.

      Just like Gravity can be known to be true, which automatically rules out all possibilities that contradict it, so can evolution also be known to be true, which automatically rules out all possibilities that stand in contradiction to it, including the christian God.

      “This is as much a declaration of faith as any religious creed!”

      Sure, I agree with this.

      “What the facts are is exactly the issue between Evolution and Creation (as well as between Humanism and Christianity overall).”

      Facts are not decided by people and their ideological standpoints. Facts are merely repeated observations. There can not be any controversy about observations. They either happen, or they don’t. They are either objectively true or not. That’s it.

      “This includes believing that DNA could be formed without being designed and engineered.”

      I have never met anyone who claimed this is a fact. This is merely speculation, with some evidence to back it up, but not enough yet. It is the most probable answer we have at the moment, but it is far from being certain.

      “If the question of “Why?” is meaningless to Evolution then you are conceding that Evolution fails as a comprehensive explanation for all that exists. ”

      Yes. I am conceding that. Evolution never has and never will be a comprehensive explanation for all that exists. And it was never supposed to. All that Evolution is, is the change of the genetic allele frequency in species over generations. All the Theory of Evolution is, is an explanation for the diversity of life. That is it. Nothing more, nothing less.

      “And that is what it is presented to be.”

      By whom?

      “This is because “Why?” is most certainly not a meaningless question in countless ways. Even clinically-insane people don’t claim that everything is meaningless.”

      Didn’t you write an entire article about how the most widely spread modern worldview, humanism, sees the human existence as without a deeper purpose? Because I am a humanist, and I do.

      “We can now see how our thoughts change our brain chemistry so specifically that we can use this for advanced prosthetic devices.”

      I’m pretty sure the point is that our thoughts ARE our brain chemistry. Our thoughts are the little electrical currencies that are shooting through your synapses.

      “To say that this isn’t the case would turn us into robots who have no ability to make real choices and, therefore, should not be held accountable for our actions.”

      This is absurd. How would this make us robots with no real choices? I mean, if you want to get technical, you could say we already ARE robots. Our decisions are based on our personality, past experiences, our current mood etc. All things we can’t influence. But, we’re getting too deep into determinism here.

      Let’s just say, since we can actually measure exactly the brain areas that are at work at certain times in your brain, and that we can control your thoughts and can deactivate your consciousness at will, this there is a strong correlation between the mind and the brain, and that it is the most probable answer that one causes the other. Okay? Good.

      “And the Christian view that we are minds/souls housed in bodies is completely consistent with what Neuroscience discovers, whereas Materialism/Naturalism actually isn’t.”

      Yeah okay, this is just a baseless claim, I could ask you again to cite your sources on this but I’m just gonna guess you won’t.

      “Many people report to having consciousness while being in an unconscious condition even though they cannot communicate this to others.”

      I’m sure you’re talking about coma here, which is different than being unconscious. Have you ever slept? That’s what it’s like to be unconscious. Also, I’m talking about the deep sleep phases, not the ones where you can dream and your consciousness is partially active.

      “So, again, this show why this view can’t be true.”

      Sorry, but just because a worldview is either “bad” in your eyes or not widely believed, doesn’t mean it’s not true. Truth is not dependent on how humans interact with it.

      “I may want to use this exchange in the book I am currently working on. I ask your permission to do so. I can do so without using your real or user-name unless you would like me to identify you.”

      Sure, go ahead, You can either keep me anonymous or use my real name, I don’t really care all too much.

      Jonas

      • Thanks for your permission to use this discussion. I will just point out 2 things from your reply. On one hand, you claim that you limit Evolution to biogenesis. But your whole way of arguing shows that you are absolutely committed to anti-supernatural Naturalism/Materialism across-the-board. This means that you are also committed to cosmic Evolution.

        That’s the real issue. People believe in the evolution of life mainly because of their faith in Naturalism and cosmic Evolution, which is inherently anti-supernatural and, thus, fundamentally flawed.

        I have already provided enough so that you should be able to see clear flaws in your perspective. But you just won’t look at your own view critically. I know because I was once the same. Your reply is filled with non-sequiturs. Perhaps the biggest is that you claim there is meaning to human existence even though you hold a worldview which says that this is really only an illusion.

        I truly wish you well, but I just don’t have the time to continue arguing with you. Besides, experience tells me that it won’t move you a bit from your position. And I am quite comfortable in mine, having previously been in yours. Clearly you aren’t yet open to considering that you may have the wrong “Big Picture”, even though you may think that you are open.

        I can tell from Twitter that you are just one of those people who wants to quarrel endlessly with Christians. You really should ask yourself what you hope to gain by doing this. If this changes I would be glad to resume discussion with you.

        I will end by stating how we see people like you: As with most of us originally, you have been deceived that it’s best to deny your Creator and to live as though He doesn’t exist, even though you actually know in your mind that He does. It’s up to you to take an honest look at where you are. I pray and hope that you will and will come over to the Winning Side while you still can.

        Chris

    • I actually agree with you that we should end this debate here, and for a similar reason than you.

      Because you see, I can turn everything you just said around you. And I don’t even need to spy on your twitter for that. All I need is this:

      “As with most of us originally, you have been deceived that it’s best to deny your Creator and to live as though He doesn’t exist, even though you actually know in your mind that He does. It’s up to you to take an honest look at where you are. I pray and hope that you will and will come over to the Winning Side while you still can.”

      If you keep expecting me to look at my own view critically, but won’t even attempt to do the same, referring to your view as “the winning side”, if you can’t hold out in a debate for longer than 3 days, because you expect to have won by then, heck, if you can’t even comprehend the concept of someone simply having a different world view than you, without this meaning that they are being deceived, then I don’t think you should participate in debates like this.

      Imagine it like this. Do you think I have provided you with enough to see flaws in Christianity? No? Well on my side it is the exact same. Putting yourself in my shoes, imagining my side of the discussion might be helpful sometimes.

      Onto the statements you made.

      “But your whole way of arguing shows that you are absolutely committed to anti-supernatural Naturalism/Materialism across-the-board.”

      Oh yeah, I as a person am committed to these ideas. But my, or other peoples views of the world, are irrelevant to evolution. Evolution is a process, a concept. Some people might both accept evolution and be invested in naturalism. But that doesn’t mean one follows from the other. There are enough people who accept evolution and are not naturalists.

      “People believe in the evolution of life mainly because of their faith in Naturalism and cosmic Evolution”

      Thats a pretty strange generalization considering the majority of christians accept evolution.

      “which is inherently anti-supernatural and, thus, fundamentally flawed.”

      How is it fundamentally flawed?

      “Your reply is filled with non-sequiturs.”

      Maybe it would be helpful to, you know, point them out.

      “Perhaps the biggest is that you claim there is meaning to human existence”

      I have looked through all of my replies and I don’t see me making this statement anywhere. In fact, I repeat several times that I believe there is no deeper meaning to human existence.

      “Besides, experience tells me that it won’t move you a bit from your position.”

      It’s not just always about converting people. You don’t immediately have to go all the way. I do these debates to get insights into certain things, how others think the world works etc.

      “And I am quite comfortable in mine, having previously been in yours.”

      Just like how many Atheists are comfortable in theirs, having previously been christian.

      “You really should ask yourself what you hope to gain by doing this.”

      Insight.

      • Congratulations, you have prompted me to give you another response. What I always hope for with these discussions is not a debate in which each side seeks to win, but a respectful dialogue in which both sides seek to learn about what the other side thinks for the benefit of both parties. I have had such discussions with atheists. And I have learned from you. You have actually helped me strengthen and clarify my position and helped me learn how to answer an obviously intelligent atheist. But I don’t get much of an indication that you have learned anything from me (at least not in any positive sense).

        Winning a debate is meaningless from my point-of-view. It certainly should be from yours! Discussions are valuable insofar as they help us grow in understanding. And they should be about finding important truths, unless you don’t believe there really are such things. But, if this is the case then, once again, what is the point of arguing?And my main goal is to get you to consider taking a path similar to what I followed so that you can find the same riches that I have found on the path.

        As I already said, I could keep arguing with you endlessly, but it is not worth the time to me. I don’t want to win a debate. I want to get people like you to reconsider your position. I admit that I would never reconsider mine in the sense of really considering going back to yours. But this is precisely because I held your position until I was 22. The idea that people should always be willing to change their beliefs is based on the false assumption that there can be no single true worldview/philosophy/religion. This is another faulty universal negative claim. But people who become Christians come to see that it is the only view that works and that it is also the only one that explains why all of the other views are wrong. When you get to this point there is no reason to look elsewhere.

        I don’t have to “spy on” your Twitter feed to know that you are a person who likes endless arguments. I have interacted with you previously and have also been getting notifications of your tweets for the past couple weeks. I also know that atheists almost always love to argue endlessly.

        Christians are simply inconsistent when they accept Evolution, mainly because they have been misled to believe that it is the only scientific approach and because they fail to see the inherently anti-theistic nature of cosmic evolution & the Naturalist bias and methodology of pro-evolution scientists.

        Finally, as for the question of meaning, I believe you admitted that you see meaning in life, just not “deep meaning”. But your view can’t explain meaning or knowledge at all. It ultimately reduces all human experience to mindless chemistry. It is only because God exists that there is such a thing as meaning and it is only because He made us to know Him and many other things that we can experience and know anything and have any meaning in our lives.

    • I seem to have managed to somehow fuck up this comment chain, it’s all mixed up now. Oh well.

      Nono, I’m not trying to claim superiority in any way. I simply recognized that your main objection with keeping this debate going is that it costs a lot of time, so I want to cut down on that factor.

      Also all right, seems like I’m gonna write another reply to “The Question That We Should All Ask” then.

      “But if you don’t trust Him then you have no basis for certainty about anything. And no one actually believes this.”

      My point was that God isn’t a basis for certainty either. You can have trust in him, sure, but that doesn’t mean you can be 100% sure about his existence.

      “And to assert that you know anything at all is to tacitly acknowledge that God exists and is not a Grand Deceiver.”

      How so? I can definitely know things to a specific degree of certainty without God, for example if I hold up a pen, and let it fall, then I have the knowledge that I just dropped a pen. Theres no God required for this.

      ” I don’t claim that no true Christian (or adult Christian) ever renounces the faith. I am just asserting that this is much more rare than atheists becoming believers. I recognize that this doesn’t prove that Christianity is true, but it does suggest that it is.”

      No. That’s an ‘argument from popularity’ fallacy. Just because an idea is easy to believe, doesn’t make it more likely to be true.

      • Hi Jonas. Actually, if we are all victims of a Grand Deceiver (a la “The Matrix”) then you would even be deceived about what happened when you dropped your pen! The movie makes this clear.

        And I didn’t claim that the fact that more adult atheists become Christians than adult Christians becoming atheists is proof that Christianity is true. It would be a fallacy if I did this. It is just evidence supporting Christianity being the reasonable choice. I offer other arguments which show that denial of the God of the Bible is illogical (and psychologically wrong), so belief in Him is logical.

        Besides, it is never necessary to prove the existence of Someone we already know, even if we don’t want to know Him. The latter is always the real issue. I believe that every human being who has ever lived has known his or her Creator exists because of my own pre-Christian experience and the testimony of other Christians, as well as what the Bible says (in Romans 1:18-20 and other places).

        And, yes, it ultimately does boil down to faith. But faith in God works day-by-day for millions of Christians, many of whom previously tried to live without faith in Him (like me). And it’s not a matter of whether or not one will have faith. All of us live by faith in one way or another. The Big Question is: Is our faith justified? Does it account for everything and is it internally coherent? I have looked at most of the options out there and found that only Christianity (rightly understood, that is) passes this test.

        You are the type of person who could benefit from Jason Lisle’s book “The Ultimate Proof of Creation” and also from the video documentary “Evolution’s Achilles Heels” (put together by 15 scientists who became ID-believers). I was wondering if you had ever come across these.

        Chris

    • “Actually, if we are all victims of a Grand Deceiver (a la “The Matrix”) then you would even be deceived about what happened when you dropped your pen!”

      Yeah, that’s why I said “to a specific degree of certainty”, making clear that I meant that one can never be 100% sure we’re not in a matrix.

      “Besides, it is never necessary to prove the existence of Someone we already know, even if we don’t want to know Him.”

      You’re asserting this “innate sense of the existence of God” again. I obviously don’t agree with this, so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.

      “I believe that every human being who has ever lived has known his or her Creator exists because of my own pre-Christian experience and the testimony of other Christians, as well as what the Bible says”

      Yes, and this is a dangerous pithole. This makes it way too easy to simply dismiss the opinions of others. After all, they agree with you anyway right, they just deny it. This just invokes ignorance.

      “And, yes, it ultimately does boil down to faith.”

      Is there anything one cannot have faith in? Could I have faith in the existence of Allah? Or Buddha? Or Zeus?

      “But faith in God works day-by-day for millions of Christians, many of whom previously tried to live without faith in Him (like me).”

      But this is not about what works for people, this is about what’s true.

      “All of us live by faith in one way or another.”

      I don’t.

      • You may not agree with my claim that you have an innate sense of God’s existence. But I would say that you are just resistant to this sense because you don’t like its implications, as I did until God helped me see that I was wrong about Him.

        And the Christian claim of exclusivity does not promote dismissing of other views or ignorance. It does promote comparing them and trying to persuade others. But that is just what everyone does! We all think that our views are correct and other views are wrong. But this doesn’t mean that everyone is equally right.

        And you absolutely do live by faith that your Naturalist assumptions are correct and that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist. You cannot prove this, so you cannot know that you are right. Atheists sometimes try to argue that they don’t have a belief about God & other things. But this is just dishonest. Believing God doesn’t exist is a belief, along with many other unprovable beliefs that non-religious people have. (Actually, Humanism was admitted to be the functional equivalent of a supernatural religion in the first Humanist Manifesto. You could look it up.)

        Another thing atheists tend to assume is that religious claims cannot be rationally-compared. But that is obviously wrong. It’s actually quite easy to compare various religions and philosophies, including comparing the previously-dominant philosophy of the developed world: Christianity and the one which supplanted it: Humanism (which is based on metaphysical Materialism/Naturalism and the epistemology of Empiricism).

        BTW, this reply took only about 15 minutes.

        Chris

    • “You may not agree with my claim that you have an innate sense of God’s existence. But I would say that you are just resistant to this sense because you don’t like its implications, as I did until God helped me see that I was wrong about Him.”

      Of course you believe this. But please don’t bring it into this debate.
      This debate is about whether or not God exists. So using an argument that is dependent on God’s existence doesn’t really make sense.

      “And you absolutely do live by faith that your Naturalist assumptions are correct and that the God of the Bible doesn’t exist.”

      No. You see, I don’t claim that God, or the supernatural doesn’t exist. I am in the position where I listen to your claim that these things exist, and then reject that claim, because we have never detected these things. I am fairly neutral on the subject. I just look at the evidence of our surrounding world, and then apply occam’s razor, making naturalism the most probable answer. I don’t infer that it is the absolute correct answer. I work with probabilities, not absolute certainty.

      Another point to be made would be that we can’t differentiate between the supernatural and non-existence. Since it seems to be that the supernatural is by definition non-detectable through natural means, then that means it possesses the same properties as non-existence: None at all. There is no way to know whether something doesn’t exist, or is supernatural. So to me, something supernatural might as well not exist, until we can prove that there is a difference between the supernatural and non-existence.

      Also, it depends on the kind of God. Any vague God could definitely exist. But the God of the bible stands in direct contradiction with the Theory of Evolution.
      So in that particular case, I don’t believe that he exists. I could even say I know that he doesn’t exist, to some degree of certainty, based on my knowledge about evolution.

      “You cannot prove this, so you cannot know that you are right.”

      Well I’m not saying that I am 100% right. But I think that my answer is the answer most likely to be true.

      • I am only going to address one point from your last post. I feel that I have given you plenty which should get you to question your position, if you become willing to do so, as you should. I said at the outset that I don’t do endless debates. They end up going over the same ground over and over.

        The claim atheists often make that their position is supported by Occam’s Razor is completely ridiculous! With the evolutionary view it takes billions of years of accrued accidental events to supposedly “create” the amazing complexity that we observe, especially in living things. It really is akin to believing that if a wind blows through a junkyard filled with aircraft parts long enough, it will assemble a Boeing 747. IT’S NOT UNLIKELY IT’S F’ING ABSURD!!!

        Occam’s Razor points to the far simpler explanation: that we and the world were created by an Intelligent Designer, the same God Who reveals Himself in our minds, in the world around us and uniquely in the Bible.

        You really need to ask yourself why you want to keep arguing with Christians endlessly. What do you hope to gain? I could be wrong, but I think it’s mainly because you want to feel better about what you believe. If so, that’s your choice. I can’t make you do otherwise. But you really don’t know what you’re missing. And it’s both liberating like nothing else and life-altering!

        We are not in equivalent positions. I was educated in your view and embraced it into my college years. But then I began to question it and soon found it to be fundamentally-flawed, eventually finding the one that works. It seems clear that you are still committed to today’s dominant worldview. If this changes then we can have a different conversation, in which we seek to help each other, not argue with each other. I can only pray that God will do what I can’t: help you to re-think your position. You need Him to open your mind and eyes, but are culpable if you aren’t willing to let Him. Until then, Adios! (which is literally “To God”)

    • “I feel that I have given you plenty which should get you to question your position, if you become willing to do so, as you should.”

      Oh no, not this again. How have you given me enough to question my position, especially since I have disputed every single one of your points so far? If I don’t agree with any of what you say, since we’re mostly talking about opinions and philosophy anyway, how is there anything of substance that would make me question my position?
      Heck, I thought this wasn’t about making each other question their position, I thought this was about things like gaining insight?

      ” I said at the outset that I don’t do endless debates. They end up going over the same ground over and over.”

      Sure, you can end this debate whenever you want. But don’t expect me to just question my position if you haven’t given me evidence, or a good logical argument that I can’t refute.

      “The claim atheists often make that their position is supported by Occam’s Razor is completely ridiculous! With the evolutionary view it takes billions of years of accrued accidental events to supposedly “create” the amazing complexity that we observe, especially in living things.”

      I was talking about naturalism when I talked about occam’s razor, not about evolution. I don’t accept the theory of evolution because of occam’s razor but because of the mountains of evidence supporting it.

      “It really is akin to believing that if a wind blows through a junkyard filled with aircraft parts long enough, it will assemble a Boeing 747.”

      This analogy is flawed because of two reasons:

      1. Because an aircraft assembling by wind is impossible, because wind cannot manipulate the parts in a way that would make them stick together. Wind cannot screw in screws. But we know that evolution occurs.

      2. Because it’s only variable is randomness. Evolution is not completely random.

      We KNOW that the process of evolution occurs, we have observed and demonstrated this many times, in a lab environment like in the e.coli long term experiment, or using examples of nature, like Darwin’s finches, and other ring species. We know that evolution occurs, and that it can change populations of organisms a lot. Now the only difference between these examples and macroevolution is literally just time.

      “IT’S NOT UNLIKELY IT’S F’ING ABSURD!!!”

      Yeah exactly, that’s why it’s a bad analogy.

      “Occam’s Razor points to the far simpler explanation: that we and the world were created by an Intelligent Designer”

      How is an all-knowing, all-powerful, invisible, supernatural being, the most complex thing that has ever and will ever exist, simple? It isn’t.
      It’s the most complicated way to describe anything ever. If you were to compare two ideas using Occam’s razor, one of them including God, then the one with God will always fail.

      ” in the world around us”

      How does he reveal himself in the world around us?

      “You really need to ask yourself why you want to keep arguing with Christians endlessly. What do you hope to gain? ”

      Sigh. Insight. I also hope to clear up some misconceptions about concepts like the theory of evolution. I guess in a way I want to educate too. And insight helps me do this better.

      “I could be wrong, but I think it’s mainly because you want to feel better about what you believe.”

      Oh sure, why not. That’s always a bonus.

      “But you really don’t know what you’re missing. And it’s both liberating like nothing else and life-altering!”

      This just makes a good argument for why people find it so easy to believe in this. Sometimes Christianity really feels like wishful thinking to me. You know, that we’re special, that we have someone who is always by our side and always loves us, that we don’t have to fear death and instead go into a fantasyland where we live forever. It feels incredibly dishonest.

      “We are not in equivalent positions. I was educated in your view and embraced it into my college years. But then I began to question it and soon found it to be fundamentally-flawed, eventually finding the one that works.”

      How do you know I haven’t made the same progression, but in the opposite direction? Many Atheists, especially in the USA, have done so. Why do you assume we’re not in equivalent positions?

      “You need Him to open your mind and eyes, but are culpable if you aren’t willing to let Him”

      This sounds a lot like the placebo effect to me.

      • I am ending this discussion, as it is going nowhere. You seem to enjoy going round and round in circles, both here and on Twitter. But I don’t.

        The efforts of atheists like you are likened to the vanity of chasing after the wind in the second chapter of Ecclesiastes (a book that applies every bit as well to the futility of unbelief in the 21st century as it did to the generation in which it was written). Or to put it in an even stronger way (as I did today on Twitter): Atheists who constantly resist their Creator (Whom they know is there) are like someone who thinks he can withstand a tornado with a windbreaker!

        If you reply, I may give you the privilege of having the last word, depending on what you write. But I will not respond further. As I said previously, if in the future you want to have a discussion rather than a debate I will welcome this.

        Chris

    • I was willing to give you the last word, but your ridiculous charge at the end of your last post ends leads me to exercise my prerogative to have the last word with you. You do argue in circles, in which you simply dismiss my challenges repeatedly and then try to change the subject. Again, you really need to ask yourself what you hope to gain by endlessly arguing with Christians.

      The Main Reason Christians like me have no interest in going back to what we believed previously is because no sane person would throw away the Most Valuable Gift anyone could get – being welcomed into God’s Family as a beloved adopted child. Of course, you assume that Christians are deluded to believe this. But we who were on your side know that it is you and those on your side who have been deceived to suppress your knowledge of your Creator and to embrace the false assumption that we can’t possibly be right.

      God offers the same Gift to you and everyone else. You would actually lose nothing that is truly of value by accepting His offer and would gain immeasurable riches. And while I am going to have the last word here, it is your Creator Who will have the real last word to you if you refuse His offer to the end.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s