Scientific proof that God exists?

[BADecker]

God exists. Science proves it with 3 simple science laws.

1. Cause and effect exists within everything. There is no evidence that pure random exists. Newton made it into his 3rd law.

2. There is great complexity in the universe. The brain and mind of man is exceedingly complex. Yet there is no clear evidence of where the complexity comes from.

3. In everything we see entropy - the wearing out, tearing down, eroding, dying. Even the things that we see that are new and fresh, gain their newness at the expense of some other things that lose even more. In fact, if the universe were eternal, it would have worn down to a blah-blah equilibrium long ago.

The only way we can put this universe together in the light of the above three laws is that the universe was set in place by Something that is extremely intelligent beyond the understanding of mankind. Something like that fits the dictionary definition of "God."

----------

Religion is simply the attempt to find out what God and/or this complex universe are all about.

----------

"God" is scientific fact.

"Religion" needs to be taken on faith.

[1714602382]

1714602382

[1714602382]

1714602382

[1714602382]

1714602382

[QuestionAuthority]

relegion is inversly proportional to intelligence ,
people who  dont think or who are very superstitious will surely fall into this trap.

Be that as it may, I am asking atheists to be rational with regards to the evidence; in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
Life after death is not a metaphor--it is backed by 52 salient points of evidence.

Your "evidence" was written by a bunch of kooks on some obscure website. I don't believe them any more than I believe Jim Jones was God and I refuse to drink the kool aid.

[Tstar]

what the hell is this .seriously ??GOD ?
common guys there is seriously no way possible for IT to exist at least these gods with magical powers ..mujhakahah

[1aguar]

relegion is inversly proportional to intelligence ,
people who  dont think or who are very superstitious will surely fall into this trap.

Be that as it may, I am asking atheists to be rational with regards to the evidence; in common parlance this means that one can think clearly and is capable of intelligently assessing new ideas when presented.
Life after death is not a metaphor--it is backed by 52 salient points of evidence.

Your "evidence" was written by a bunch of kooks on some obscure website. I don't believe them any more than I believe Jim Jones was God and I refuse to drink the kool aid.

You reply is... an ad hominem?! But that is totally irrational and prejudiced!
These researchers are not crazy. For example, Dr. Stevenson's research is well-known and highly regarded for its scientific rigor.
You want us to completely ignore the big questions, like whether there is life after death, because it suits your agenda; why else would you behave so irrationally when presented with this new idea? It is not like I am asking you to believe something without evidence.
 

[the joint]

No, I don't believe in God or souls.

OK, I got it; now, kindly shut up until you can address the evidence that has been posted on the previous page.  

I haven't seen any evidence that God exists but I will debate the existence of Spider-Man. lol



"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~ François-Marie Arouet, aka-Voltaire

Spiderman cannot be equated to a monotheistic god.  It's a false analogy.  Phrased another way, it would be unsound reasoning to suggest that you can dismiss God by extension of the same reasoning by which you dismiss Spiderman.

The simplest reason is this:
- Theoretically, there are both logical and empirical ways in which Spiderman can be verified or falsified.
- Theoreticaly, there is a logical way that God could be verified or falsified.  But, it is theoretically impossible for there to be any empirical means by which God can verified or falsified.

In other words, it's unsound to dismiss God in the same way you dismiss Spiderman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russel's Teapot, or any other thing that would be subject to empirical verification/falsification.

But I see them as the same. To me, the Spider-Man series of books and the God series of books are just make believe stories to entertain their intended audiences. Spider-Man appeals to and was written for a contemporary audience. The God stories are a ragtag collection of different writings appealing to Neanderthal cave dwellers. I'm not going to base my life on either one.

The Itsy Bitsy Spider is also a make believe story about a spider's journey up a water spout, made to entertain its intended audience, but spiders actually exist.  This criteria is not enough to exclude the possibility of its existence.  Furthermore, my post illustrates a distinction in the requirements for verification/falsification of God versus a tangible, empirical object.  The only way you can possibly denounce God's existence is on a purely logical basis, either by demonstrating God is unnecessary (disproving the inverse claim that God is necessary), or by demonstrating God is impossible (good luck with that one).  God cannot be verified nor disproved on an empirical basis (i.e. neither by physical evidence or a lack thereof).

[QuestionAuthority]

No, I don't believe in God or souls.

OK, I got it; now, kindly shut up until you can address the evidence that has been posted on the previous page.  

I haven't seen any evidence that God exists but I will debate the existence of Spider-Man. lol



"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~ François-Marie Arouet, aka-Voltaire

Spiderman cannot be equated to a monotheistic god.  It's a false analogy.  Phrased another way, it would be unsound reasoning to suggest that you can dismiss God by extension of the same reasoning by which you dismiss Spiderman.

The simplest reason is this:
- Theoretically, there are both logical and empirical ways in which Spiderman can be verified or falsified.
- Theoreticaly, there is a logical way that God could be verified or falsified.  But, it is theoretically impossible for there to be any empirical means by which God can verified or falsified.

In other words, it's unsound to dismiss God in the same way you dismiss Spiderman, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russel's Teapot, or any other thing that would be subject to empirical verification/falsification.

But I see them as the same. To me, the Spider-Man series of books and the God series of books are just make believe stories to entertain their intended audiences. Spider-Man appeals to and was written for a contemporary audience. The God stories are a ragtag collection of different writings appealing to Neanderthal cave dwellers. I'm not going to base my life on either one.

The Itsy Bitsy Spider is also a make believe story about a spider's journey up a water spout, made to entertain its intended audience, but spiders actually exist.  This criteria is not enough to exclude the possibility of its existence.  Furthermore, my post illustrates a distinction in the requirements for verification/falsification of God versus a tangible, empirical object.  The only way you can possibly denounce God's existence is on a purely logical basis, either by demonstrating God is unnecessary (disproving the inverse claim that God is necessary), or by demonstrating God is impossible (good luck with that one).  God cannot be verified nor disproved on an empirical basis (i.e. neither by physical evidence or a lack thereof).

Well, I DO believe God is necessary so I can't argue that one. The moral character of the average person is too weak to keep people in line without God. They need an imaginary force looking over their shoulder to make them behave. Police forces are sorely inadequate for stopping crime. Even the most ancient civilizations invented a system of gods to keep people in line.

I never said God was impossible. That requires you to define what "God" is first. To some people God is a force that controls everything and they are a part of that force like a cell in a brain. Taoism is pretty cool in that is doesn't rely on one godlike figurehead. In Taoism we are all God collectively.

When I talk about God I'm mainly talking about my culture. I don't believe that God was some unemployed carpenter turned evangelist that wants you to behave or he will shove hot pokers up your ass in hell. If that's the case then maybe Jim Jones really was God. Christianity is so unbelievable, has killed so many people throughout history and continues to create so many monsters that I believe their God is complete nonsense. The Christian God and religion creates the Josh Duggers of the world that preach hatred toward homosexuals while molesting his sisters and cheating on his wife. 

[OBAViJEST]

God exists. Science proves it with 3 simple science laws.

1. Cause and effect exists within everything. There is no evidence that pure random exists. Newton made it into his 3rd law.

2. There is great complexity in the universe. The brain and mind of man is exceedingly complex. Yet there is no clear evidence of where the complexity comes from.

3. In everything we see entropy - the wearing out, tearing down, eroding, dying. Even the things that we see that are new and fresh, gain their newness at the expense of some other things that lose even more. In fact, if the universe were eternal, it would have worn down to a blah-blah equilibrium long ago.

The only way we can put this universe together in the light of the above three laws is that the universe was set in place by Something that is extremely intelligent beyond the understanding of mankind. Something like that fits the dictionary definition of "God."

----------

Religion is simply the attempt to find out what God and/or this complex universe are all about.

----------

"God" is scientific fact.

"Religion" needs to be taken on faith.

You just took three mysteries of the universe, and made up the cause of it all. None of those three 'laws' (which aren't really) imply any sort of greater power or 'god'

Regardless -  the mere fact we can create worlds in videogames, and 'create' (support really) life in petri dishes - who's to say we aren't the ones being programmed?

[wicks]

When it comes to the possibility of God's existence, the Bible says that there are people who have seen sufficient evidence, but they have suppressed the truth about God

[BADecker]

God exists. Science proves it with 3 simple science laws.

1. Cause and effect exists within everything. There is no evidence that pure random exists. Newton made it into his 3rd law.

2. There is great complexity in the universe. The brain and mind of man is exceedingly complex. Yet there is no clear evidence of where the complexity comes from.

3. In everything we see entropy - the wearing out, tearing down, eroding, dying. Even the things that we see that are new and fresh, gain their newness at the expense of some other things that lose even more. In fact, if the universe were eternal, it would have worn down to a blah-blah equilibrium long ago.

The only way we can put this universe together in the light of the above three laws is that the universe was set in place by Something that is extremely intelligent beyond the understanding of mankind. Something like that fits the dictionary definition of "God."

----------

Religion is simply the attempt to find out what God and/or this complex universe are all about.

----------

"God" is scientific fact.

"Religion" needs to be taken on faith.

You just took three mysteries of the universe, and made up the cause of it all. None of those three 'laws' (which aren't really) imply any sort of greater power or 'god'

You better check your science. Cause and effect, and entropy are two basic scientifically know fundamentals of universe activity. The fact of great complexity existing in the universe is self evident. It is found all around us, but especially in the human brain and the human mind.

For complexity to exist through the universal operation of cause and effect (we don't see anything other than cause and effect making things work), whatever started cause and effect - started the universe - must have been even more complex than the complexity of the universe.

The universe can't simply have always been. Why not? The fact of entropy would have turned the universe into a state of universal equilibrium throughout, long ago, equilibrium that held little or no complexity whatsoever.

Either you haven't thought about it, or you simply want to ignore it. The thing that started the universe matches our dictionary definition of the word "God."

Regardless -  the mere fact we can create worlds in videogames, and 'create' (support really) life in petri dishes - who's to say we aren't the ones being programmed?

We don't create anything. We don't even have free will. The appearance of both, free will and personal creation are there, but they are fictions. Why? Because of cause and effect. Something caused us to create and to have free will. It may have been the combined actions of bio-chemical and bio-electrical activity in our bodies, activity stimulated by the food we ate, which was grown because of the heat of the sun, etc., etc.

The point is, we create and feel free will because of cause and effect. Scientifically speaking, we have neither creating ability nor free will.



EDIT: We MAY have free will and creative ability. But if we do, it is because God sustains it. Scientifically speaking, there isn't any free will or creative ability.

[1aguar]

Well, I DO believe God is necessary so I can't argue that one. The moral character of the average person is too weak to keep people in line without God.

The LAWS as set forth by GOD have always been present; Man has constantly re-written the Laws to suit his own desires.

And what about your own moral character with regards to recognizing the truth about the evidence for life after death?

To disdainfully dismiss any immaterial phenomenon, as skeptics do, actually betrays the scientific method.

Skeptics defend the necessity to keep science and religion in their own proper place. Why not try to see if the schism can be repaired?

The LAWS of GOD and Creation are logical in that they were set forth to maintain BALANCE within the Creation; you can find the details in Phoenix Journal #27. The details about Jesus are in Phoenix Journal #2 and in the Pleiades Connection volumes. Modern science explains a lot and keeps explaining more. But outside the fence one still perceives a host of inexplicable mysteries. The Phoenix Journals were written to give this planet the truth "from the horse's mouth"; with truth, you can become aware of the Father's will within you, then you can live in wisdom of knowledge, serve the will of God within, and resist the adversary. It's not like you have something to lose by learning the truth about your eternal soul and the Laws of God.

Print the pages of the Journals as paper emits considerably less EMF pollution than your computer!

Your MOST IMPORTANT commitment in service to GOD is to WISELY understand and obey THE LAWS OF GOD AND THE CREATION which we are unfolding for you here. This is THE excellent way for honoring self and GOD within ALL others in service to God and The Creation. Simply, UNDERSTAND AND OBEY THE LAWS OF GOD AND THE CREATION. You ones have made this commitment difficult unto yourselves and it needn't any longer be so. YOU NOW HAVE THE LAWS BEFORE YOU and you need not any longer claim ignorance or misunderstanding. DO YOU SEE?! Claim YOUR DIVINE HOLY GODNESS NOW! WE ARE ALL ONE! THE TIME IS NOW BEFORE YOU TO KNOW AND OWN THE TRUTH!

You don't need books to show you the way--but it undoubtedly helps as you come into understanding through the use of KNOWLEDGE.

There is no way to have a corner on TRUTH; we must SHARE if we are to turn this thing around. Only intelligent action will save this nation. Only truth will bring forth wisdom and righteousness.

[Buffer Overflow]

We don't even have free will.

Even the giving of free will to mankind...

We MAY have free will

Talk about cowardly covering all the bases so you're always correct whatever the outcome.  
BADecker has got so many different threads of lies going on, the wet end just can't keep track of them all. Funny.

Remember, you can lie to us BADecker, but you can't lie to God.  

[OBAViJEST]

We don't even have free will.

Even the giving of free will to mankind...

We MAY have free will

Talk about cowardly covering all the bases so you're always correct whatever the outcome.  
BADecker has got so many different threads of lies going on, the wet end just can't keep track of them all. Funny.

Remember, you can lie to us BADecker, but you can't lie to God.  

LOL

Every single time I try debating with someone (on whether or not god exists), it seems to be with someone covering all the bases as you've mentioned.  That, or the other person is simply so full of themselves it causes their mind to shut out any alternatives to their own 'beliefs'.

I literally just said that if we can grow lesser organisms in a petri dish, it's completely possible that our universe is a mere lab experiment in itself...and I'm being argued with the same exact logic 



We simply cannot use 'scientific facts' to understand something beyond our comprehension.  Humanity's understanding of....EVERYTHING....has been attained from our time on Earth.  That's it.  There could be thousands of galaxies out there, each with different 'laws' of physics/biology/etc.  We're carbon-based life forms.....who knows if there are species out there, created from the building blocks of 'elements' we can't even comprehend?

There are just too many variables out there, that it's both pointless and narrow-minded to be this devoted to finding a 'god' 

[the joint]

We don't even have free will.

Even the giving of free will to mankind...

We MAY have free will

Talk about cowardly covering all the bases so you're always correct whatever the outcome.  
BADecker has got so many different threads of lies going on, the wet end just can't keep track of them all. Funny.

Remember, you can lie to us BADecker, but you can't lie to God.  

LOL

Every single time I try debating with someone (on whether or not god exists), it seems to be with someone covering all the bases as you've mentioned.  That, or the other person is simply so full of themselves it causes their mind to shut out any alternatives to their own 'beliefs'.

I literally just said that if we can grow lesser organisms in a petri dish, it's completely possible that our universe is a mere lab experiment in itself...and I'm being argued with the same exact logic 



We simply cannot use 'scientific facts' to understand something beyond our comprehension.  Humanity's understanding of....EVERYTHING....has been attained from our time on Earth.  That's it.  There could be thousands of galaxies out there, each with different 'laws' of physics/biology/etc.  We're carbon-based life forms.....who knows if there are species out there, created from the building blocks of 'elements' we can't even comprehend?

There are just too many variables out there, that it's both pointless and narrow-minded to be this devoted to finding a 'god' 

Have you instead considered focusing on that which is invariant?  For example, the relationship between objective content and perception is invariant, i.e. the existence of objective content is inherently linked to our perception of it. Not only is this self-apparent, but it precludes any unnecessary assumptions, e.g. that objective content can exist independent of perception.

The reason I mention this is to place a different spin on traditional exploration. Instead of trying to "find" anything, why not instead recognize, in the most simple of terms, how we come to understand anything at all (i.e. the process by which we know) and see what that might tell us about reality instead?  Recognizing the self-evident truth that objective content and perception are logically inseparable has vast implications on reality in and of itself, and it can even tell us a hell of a lot about things that we haven't explored or don't know about yet.

[1aguar]

The reason I mention this is to place a different spin on traditional exploration. Instead of trying to "find" anything, why not instead recognize, in the most simple of terms, how we come to understand anything at all (i.e. the process by which we know) and see what that might tell us about reality instead?  Recognizing the self-evident truth that objective content and perception are logically inseparable has vast implications on reality in and of itself, and it can even tell us a hell of a lot about things that we haven't explored or don't know about yet.

The funny thing about perception is that it occurs in the mind, and from this lofty perch of conscious liberty, Man declares his right to ignore objective content seemingly "at will"...

Mind is the first and most direct thing in our experience (objective content). This makes memories the best, perhaps the only criterion of personal identity.
Source

By virtue of his reason, Man recognizes a thing with his mind; however, thinking is not an automatic function and the act of focusing one's consciousness is volitional; furthermore, No concept Man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge.
Source

"Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils ... [is] the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, ... the refusal to know. It is the act of inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, ... Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality ... By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”"
Source

The problem of how we access our memories is one of the most difficult in psychology. Dr. Stevenson found that some child memories relate to a previous existence. This additional problem can only be solved by postulating the survival of some part of the mind beyond physical death. If there is no death of mind, then what is the source of mind?

"It is strong confirmation of any theory that proofs converging from many and varying classes of phenomena unite in establishing it".--The Hon. Robert Dale Owen

Now, consider the fact is that this Grandmother managed to write a 200-page book EVERY 3 WEEKS FOR YEARS, hundreds of books in total.  How was this prodigious output, covering such a wide range of topics, possible?  Please do not be too quick to reject the truthful answer, that she scribed DIRECTLY for our Heavenly Father, exactly as stated.  There probably has NEVER been a scribe so well connected — including all of the great ones acknowledged in all of the holy books.
Source for Phoenix Journals

[BADecker]

...

Now, consider the fact is that this Grandmother managed to write a 200-page book EVERY 3 WEEKS FOR YEARS, hundreds of books in total.  How was this prodigious output, covering such a wide range of topics, possible?  Please do not be too quick to reject the truthful answer, that she scribed DIRECTLY for our Heavenly Father, exactly as stated.  There probably has NEVER been a scribe so well connected — including all of the great ones acknowledged in all of the holy books.
Source for Phoenix Journals

It is called automatic writing. It happens when people open their minds to demons so that a demon controls the pen and hand.

Throught all history, people have fought off demon spirits one way or another. But the demons were bold because their leader, Satan, was directing them, and was always there to back them up.

Then Jesus came and died on the cross for the sins of mankind, arose again on the third day, all without giving in to Satan and his hordes of demons. Jesus, by his action, threw Satan into the abyss, and locked and sealed it over him. Jesus essentially killed Satan.

So, what about the demons? They never had complete control in the old days before Jesus. At times mere people cast them out. Now with their leader, Satan, gone - in the abyss, the grave - they have to tiptoe ever so quietly, just to keep on existing, and to not be sent into the same abyss their leader was sent into.

One form of gentle pushing into the mind of a human being is through automatic writing. Must not push too hard. Never know for sure what that all-powerful Jesus might do through the Holy Spirit He sent at Pentecost to take His place for a while. But if the human allows and accepts it, the Holy Spirit just might let things slide.

People are turning away from the Bible. People are turning to demons more and more, though they often don't realize what they are doing. They are being convinced. They are being led astray. And as the number of demon-sympathetic people grow (again, without realizing what they are doing, sympathizing with demons), soon they will all be strong enough to actually call Satan up from the abyss; Satan up from the dead, as recorded in the Revelation in the Bible.

Shortly (with relation to all time) after Satan comes back up, Jesus will return for the final judgment of the world.

[OBAViJEST]

We don't even have free will.

Even the giving of free will to mankind...

We MAY have free will

Talk about cowardly covering all the bases so you're always correct whatever the outcome.  
BADecker has got so many different threads of lies going on, the wet end just can't keep track of them all. Funny.

Remember, you can lie to us BADecker, but you can't lie to God.  

LOL

Every single time I try debating with someone (on whether or not god exists), it seems to be with someone covering all the bases as you've mentioned.  That, or the other person is simply so full of themselves it causes their mind to shut out any alternatives to their own 'beliefs'.

I literally just said that if we can grow lesser organisms in a petri dish, it's completely possible that our universe is a mere lab experiment in itself...and I'm being argued with the same exact logic 



We simply cannot use 'scientific facts' to understand something beyond our comprehension.  Humanity's understanding of....EVERYTHING....has been attained from our time on Earth.  That's it.  There could be thousands of galaxies out there, each with different 'laws' of physics/biology/etc.  We're carbon-based life forms.....who knows if there are species out there, created from the building blocks of 'elements' we can't even comprehend?

There are just too many variables out there, that it's both pointless and narrow-minded to be this devoted to finding a 'god' 

Have you instead considered focusing on that which is invariant?  For example, the relationship between objective content and perception is invariant, i.e. the existence of objective content is inherently linked to our perception of it. Not only is this self-apparent, but it precludes any unnecessary assumptions, e.g. that objective content can exist independent of perception.

The reason I mention this is to place a different spin on traditional exploration. Instead of trying to "find" anything, why not instead recognize, in the most simple of terms, how we come to understand anything at all (i.e. the process by which we know) and see what that might tell us about reality instead?  Recognizing the self-evident truth that objective content and perception are logically inseparable has vast implications on reality in and of itself, and it can even tell us a hell of a lot about things that we haven't explored or don't know about yet.

Interesting, I like the way you think (no pun intended).  Have any links or resources on this matter?

[1aguar]

...

Now, consider the fact is that this Grandmother managed to write a 200-page book EVERY 3 WEEKS FOR YEARS, hundreds of books in total.  How was this prodigious output, covering such a wide range of topics, possible?  Please do not be too quick to reject the truthful answer, that she scribed DIRECTLY for our Heavenly Father, exactly as stated.  There probably has NEVER been a scribe so well connected — including all of the great ones acknowledged in all of the holy books.
Source for Phoenix Journals

It is called automatic writing. It happens when people open their minds to demons so that a demon controls the pen and hand.

Throught all history, people have fought off demon spirits one way or another. But the demons were bold because their leader, Satan, was directing them, and was always there to back them up.

Then Jesus came and died on the cross for the sins of mankind, arose again on the third day, all without giving in to Satan and his hordes of demons. Jesus, by his action, threw Satan into the abyss, and locked and sealed it over him. Jesus essentially killed Satan.

So, what about the demons? They never had complete control in the old days before Jesus. At times mere people cast them out. Now with their leader, Satan, gone - in the abyss, the grave - they have to tiptoe ever so quietly, just to keep on existing, and to not be sent into the same abyss their leader was sent into.

One form of gentle pushing into the mind of a human being is through automatic writing. Must not push too hard. Never know for sure what that all-powerful Jesus might do through the Holy Spirit He sent at Pentecost to take His place for a while. But if the human allows and accepts it, the Holy Spirit just might let things slide.

People are turning away from the Bible. People are turning to demons more and more, though they often don't realize what they are doing. They are being convinced. They are being led astray. And as the number of demon-sympathetic people grow (again, without realizing what they are doing, sympathizing with demons), soon they will all be strong enough to actually call Satan up from the abyss; Satan up from the dead, as recorded in the Revelation in the Bible.

Shortly (with relation to all time) after Satan comes back up, Jesus will return for the final judgment of the world.

My book is not evil. It does not, for example, tell the story of a child being sacrificed in order to "test" his father. God would not put a child through that kind of terror where his father is about to sacrifice him... Because he heard some mysterious voices? You cannot find any evil in my book, but I find many problems with yours.

[BADecker]

...

Now, consider the fact is that this Grandmother managed to write a 200-page book EVERY 3 WEEKS FOR YEARS, hundreds of books in total.  How was this prodigious output, covering such a wide range of topics, possible?  Please do not be too quick to reject the truthful answer, that she scribed DIRECTLY for our Heavenly Father, exactly as stated.  There probably has NEVER been a scribe so well connected — including all of the great ones acknowledged in all of the holy books.
Source for Phoenix Journals

It is called automatic writing. It happens when people open their minds to demons so that a demon controls the pen and hand.

Throught all history, people have fought off demon spirits one way or another. But the demons were bold because their leader, Satan, was directing them, and was always there to back them up.

Then Jesus came and died on the cross for the sins of mankind, arose again on the third day, all without giving in to Satan and his hordes of demons. Jesus, by his action, threw Satan into the abyss, and locked and sealed it over him. Jesus essentially killed Satan.

So, what about the demons? They never had complete control in the old days before Jesus. At times mere people cast them out. Now with their leader, Satan, gone - in the abyss, the grave - they have to tiptoe ever so quietly, just to keep on existing, and to not be sent into the same abyss their leader was sent into.

One form of gentle pushing into the mind of a human being is through automatic writing. Must not push too hard. Never know for sure what that all-powerful Jesus might do through the Holy Spirit He sent at Pentecost to take His place for a while. But if the human allows and accepts it, the Holy Spirit just might let things slide.

People are turning away from the Bible. People are turning to demons more and more, though they often don't realize what they are doing. They are being convinced. They are being led astray. And as the number of demon-sympathetic people grow (again, without realizing what they are doing, sympathizing with demons), soon they will all be strong enough to actually call Satan up from the abyss; Satan up from the dead, as recorded in the Revelation in the Bible.

Shortly (with relation to all time) after Satan comes back up, Jesus will return for the final judgment of the world.

My book is not evil. It does not, for example, tell the story of a child being sacrificed in order to "test" his father. God would not put a child through that kind of terror where his father is about to sacrifice him... Because he heard some mysterious voices? You cannot find any evil in my book, but I find many problems with yours.

The Child agreed with the Father. This was the only way to save many children. The evil is YOUR book, and your book is evil. If it were not, you might have an inkling about the depth with which God embedded Himself in people, and people in the universe... so that this was the only way to save all who would believe in God.

Wake up before it is too late for you.

[1aguar]

You really want us to believe that the Bible is the only path to knowledge.
Yours its a false cult designed to enslave and you glorify Christ to make it more credible for the people.
Now I bring to you word of his teachings as they have been preached anew without being falsified, your response is to crucify the messengers upon your book.
Christ will not bear your responsibility and neither will anyone else, but those such as you are determined to deny his true teachings and reject accountability for your own past experiences and karma.

[BADecker]

You really want us to believe that the Bible is the only path to knowledge.
Yours its a false cult designed to enslave and you glorify Christ to make it more credible for the people.
Now I bring to you word of his teachings as they have been preached anew without being falsified, your response is to crucify the messengers upon your book.
Christ will not bear your responsibility and neither will anyone else, but those such as you are determined to deny his true teachings and reject accountability for your own past experiences and karma.

I'd really like you to believe that the Jesus Christ of the Bible is the only way to eternal life.

Why? Because He is. However, I am a bit selfish for wanting you to be with us in joy for eternity. Sure, it would be great for you. But I am selfish a bit. Here's how I am selfish.

Eternity is a long time. And we need all the people we can get just to help pass the time in joy. Even God made people for His pleasure. And in the Proverbs in the Bible, you can find where it expresses this.

Now, God doesn't NEED to have the joy of you around for an eternity. But He would like it. And your presence would give me joy at the same time mine would give you joy. Eternity is a long time to be missing some joy. So, I am a bit selfish in this desiring of mine for you to share in Heaven with us.

But I also don't want to take your freedom from you. I might invite and try to convince you; I might even warn you of the dangers in the way you are going, but I don't want to take your freedom from you.

The border line between where a person has enough faith in the Son of God so that he can be saved, is only something that God can see. That's why we all need to run to find the truth with all our might... to be sure we don't miss it at the same time that we hold all kinds of false teachings.

Your books distract from the truth of the work Jesus Christ did on the cross. They distract from the fact that He arose from the dead, and sits on the Father's throne at the Father's right hand. They distract from the fact of this only way to be saved.

Now, you might be able to overcome the distraction of your books, somewhat. But why tempt yourself away from salvation? Fill yourself on the Bible so that the Holy Spirit has something to work with inside of you to propel you towards salvation.