I know many on this site consider the concept of an eternal being (God) to be unworthy of pursuing.

My questions, however, are, I think, completely logical, and are as follows:

Do we want to know truth, or just what suits our pre-conceived ideas? Whether theist or atheist, I would hope we would want truth above all. Next question...

Do any of us know everything there is to know? Do we we know 90% of everything there is to know? How about 1/2, 50%?

Let's be kind and say that the most intelligent among us is able to have a firm grasp on 50% of all there is to know. Is it illogical/irrational to consider the possibility that in the 50% percent of things the most intelligent among us doesn't know about, there could be such an eternal being as the one many in this world call "God"? Is it not possible?

I've been posting and reposting these points for weeks, but Todangst refuses to respond.

Now, some might ask why I don't just let it pass.

Because Todangst is currently bothering me on a daily basis, demanding that I debate him on these issues.

Yet, the reality is that the debate has been here for weeks, and Todangst refuses to even acknowledge it, let alone respond.

I maintain the obvious here: that the reason Todangst doesn't respond is because he can't respond - he's already refuted himself here. There's nothing he can do but fall to more bizarre rationalizations (and have the board point this out to him yet again), or concede that he's conceded that faith is ungrounded assumption.

Here are 2 essays a theist from myspace sent me.  He has asked for our feedback, I hope he's ready!:

Part 1:

Here is the first in a series of papers that deal with some of the evidence for the existence of God and related issues.
THE CREATION

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the Earth" -- Genesis 1:1.
"The Cosmos is all that is or was or ever will be" – Carl Sagan, Cosmos.

The two statements above are both statements of faith. Neither can be experimentally verified and both make assumptions. The two statements also offer a remarkable contrast. The first statement indicates:


1. There was a beginning.
2. The beginning was caused.
3. The cause was "ELOHIM" – God.
The second statement indicates:

1. There was no beginning.
2. The cosmos is self-existing and thus uncaused.
3. The universe was not created and thus is the product of non-intelligence.

Statements like the second statement are frequently offered by those antagonistic to the existence of God. The interesting thing is that we can offer a considerable amount of scientific evidence that we had a beginning, that the beginning was caused, and that the cause was God. Let us examine some of that evidence.

BEGINNING OR NO BEGINNING

Like all stars, the Sun generates its energy by a nuclear process known as thermonuclear fusion. Every second that passes, the Sun compresses 661 million tons of hydrogen into 657 million tons of helium with 4 million tons of matter released as energy. In spite of that tremendous consumption of fuel, the Sun has only used up 2% of the hydrogen it had the day it came into existence. This incredible furnace is not a process confined to the Sun. Every star in the sky generates its energy in the same way. All over the cosmos are 25 quintillion stars, each converting hydrogen into helium, thereby reducing the total amount of hydrogen in the cosmos. Just think about it! If everywhere in the cosmos hydrogen is being consumed and if the process has been going on forever, how much hydrogen should be left?

Suppose I attempt to drive my automobile without putting any more gas (fuel) into it. As I drive and drive and drive, what is eventually going to happen? I'm going to run out of gas!! It the cosmos has been here forever, we would have run out of hydrogen long ago! The fact is, however, that the sun still has 98% of its original hydrogen. The fact is that hydrogen is the most abundant material in the universe! Everywhere we look in space we see the hydrogen 21 cm line in the spectrum - a piece of light only given off by hydrogen. This could not be unless we had a beginning!!

A second piece of evidence that we had a beginning is seen in the movement of galaxies. All galaxies are moving farther away relative to each other. Their movement has a very distinct pattern which causes the distance between the galaxies to get greater with every passing day.

If we had three galaxies located at positions A, B and C in a triangle, tomorrow they will be further apart. The triangle they form will be bigger. The day after tomorrow the triangle will be bigger yet. We live in an expanding universe that gets bigger and bigger and bigger with every passing day.

Now let's suppose that we make time run backwards! If we are located at a certain distance today, then yesterday we were closer together. The day before that we were still closer. Ultimately where must all the galaxies have been? At a point! At a beginning!! At what scientists call a singularity!

There are many other evidences and demonstrations that can be used to show that there was a beginning - such as the second law of thermodynamics. The second law of thermodynamics states that in a closed system, things move towards a state of disorder. This means that the cosmos must have had a beginning because if it had always been here it would now be totaly disordered and freezing cold because heat death would have set in. Therefore thermodynamically, the universe had to have a beginning.

The fact that the universe is not only expanding but accelerating in that expansion rules out the possibility thatwe live in an oscillating universe that is eventually pulled back to a central point from which it expands all over again.

CAUSE/NO CAUSE

Not only can strong evidence be given to prove that we had a beginning as the Bible says, but we can also see a logical problem in maintaining that the cosmos was uncaused. If the universe had a beginning and that beginning was uncaused, then something would have had to come into existence out of nothing. From empty space with no force, no matter, no energy and no intelligence, matter would have to become existent. Even if this could happen by some strange new process unknown to science today, there is a logical problem.

In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter-energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry. All of our laws of conservation of angular momentum would have to be wrong, invalidating all of physics. All of our laws of conservation of electric charge would have to be wrong, invalidating all of electronics. In order to believe matter is uncaused, one has to discard known laws and principles of science. No reasonable person is going to do this simply to maintain a personal atheistic position.

The atheist's assertion that matter is eternal is wrong. The atheist's assertion that the universe is uncaused and self-existing is also wrong. The Bible's assertion that there was a beginning which was caused is supported strongly by the available scientific evidence. The next question is "What was the cause?" Was the cause a personal God who created the cosmos and life with purpose and intelligence? Or was the cause total chance - with no purpose and no intelligence?

CURRENT DEBATE THAT I AM INVOLVED IN.......

Churchboi
how can you say that God isnt real? is it because you cant see him? well you cant see air and its the reason youre breathing! does that mean it isnt there? didnt think so. thats why atheism sounds so stupid! because it has no logic behind it! and you really cant diprove God! so your whole page and your music is a waste of time. God Bless.


Greydon
umm yea, i cant see the wind....but i can feel it when it hits me, its called being available to the five senses, and worshipping the god of slave owners that promote slavery, no thanks africans did no believe in that, so you might want to do your research before hittin me up again....Peace