Jump to content





* * * - - 1 votes

My prayer experiment.

By Atheist Rob, 15 October 2012 · 2,083 views

I opted to take part in the Atheist Prayer Experiment, organized by the UK based Premier Christian Radio. In this, a number of atheists pray for 40 days, two to three minutes a day, for God to reveal himself to them. In the end I decided not to participate because the setup of the experiment was such that what I would consider a revelation was outside of its scope.

I mentioned this to another user at this site, and he challeged me to do an experiment of our own. In this not only I but he as well would pray for God to reveal himself to me. So I did pray, sincerely, for a week and God did not reveal himself. I posted a blog article about it at http://hamal.nl/mpe for those who want to read more details and/or verify the lack of a revelation. My setup has always been that not only me, but anyone else should be able to verify if a revelation has happened or not.

So if anyone asks me again why I don't ask God to show himself to me, I can honestly say that I did.




Rob,

I appreciate your honesty. I personally would question anyone who demands that God must make a special revelation of Himself to that individual. So the whole concept pushed by the radio station seems to me to be a bit...odd. The people who are looking for a revelation usually come up with something that they say is one. The ones who think it will do no good end up not finding anything. Hebrews 11:6 says that the one who comes to God (which would include prayer) must believe that He is (exists) and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. According to that verse, prayer by someone who doesn't even believe God exists - by definition - will do no good.

If you want a revelation from God, look to the universe, nature, and the design that is abundant around us. If you want a more specific revelation from God, it is found in the pages of His word.

Thanks for your participation in this community. I do hope that nothing stated in this comment comes across in anything other than the friendly way in which I meant it.

Have a great week!

-Brad
Hi Brad, thanks for your reply. It's greatly appreciated.

I appreciate your honesty. I personally would question anyone who demands that God must make a special revelation of Himself to that individual. So the whole concept pushed by the radio station seems to me to be a bit...odd. The people who are looking for a revelation usually come up with something that they say is one. The ones who think it will do no good end up not finding anything. Hebrews 11:6 says that the one who comes to God (which would include prayer) must believe that He is (exists) and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. According to that verse, prayer by someone who doesn't even believe God exists - by definition - will do no good.


I understand your sentiment and there have been people who have reacted similarly in comments to the radio show. Other Christians have a different take on that. It's not up to me to say who's right and who's wrong (and I sure don't want to invoke the no true Scotsman fallacy here). In my "experiment" however, I am not the only one who prayed. One of your fellow believers did as well, so if according to Hebrews my prayer would be fruitless by definition, his prayer would not.

If you want a revelation from God, look to the universe, nature, and the design that is abundant around us. If you want a more specific revelation from God, it is found in the pages of His word.

What design? If I look at nature I see a lack of design. The spine is not well designed system for animals that walk upright, that's why many people, including myself, get lower back problems. Most mammals, including humans, share a common cavity for breathing and ingesting food, guaranteeing a number of deaths by accidental asphyxiation. In all mammals, the lower laryngeal nerve makes a detour from the spinal chord around the aorta and back up the neck to the larynx. In giraffes that means a 5-foot detour. All vertebrates have the light receptors in the eye mounted in reverse which means that some of the light is blocked by veins and blood vessels and these have to exit the eye causing a blind spot. I don't see design here.
Regarding "His word", I read all of it last year, including every word of Numbers 7, and I see no such revelation. I can imagine that if you read the bible, pre-wired to the idea that it is the word of God and therefor must be true, then confirmation bias will enable you to see a revelation. If however you read it without such preconception, it will work contrary to that. As Isaac Asimov once noted, the greatest force for becoming an atheist is actually reading the bible.

Thanks for your participation in this community. I do hope that nothing stated in this comment comes across in anything other than the friendly way in which I meant it.

Thank you, and I hope the reverse is true as well. I enjoy studying the bible and consider this sit a two-way street. I disagree with the vast majority of you on theological grounds but the treatment I have received here has always been pleasant and respectful. I hope my words are not received differently. They most certainly are not meant to be disrespectful or condescending.

Kind regards,
Rob
Hi Rob,
Having read about your experiment, I could see that it was actually doomed to fail even before you would have started, and it was really no surprise to me that God didn't reveal (show) himself to you. I'm quite honest here, and not critical of you in what I said, and also of what I am about to say.

I tend to think that the reason for the failure of your experiment was simply because you took it just as that - an experiment. Moreover, I'm sort of prone to think that your approach to it was one of skepticism as to whether it would work or not, and when looking at this honestly, I believe you weren't all that surprised or disappointed that it didn't work. It fitted in your world view.

Your belief system as an atheist automatically includes that there is no God and precludes the possibility that there is a God. Just on that premise your experiment failed. However, if you entertained the thought or the belief of the possibility there is a God, that would have been a paradigm shift in your world view, and from just that point you could no longer claim to be an atheist but an agnostic.

In order for the possibility of God to reveal himself, there has to be a shift from total unbelief to a at least a begrudging type of belief. In other words there has to be an acceptance of the probability of there being a God.

I don't know you, have never met you, and what I have just said is purely an assumption on my part. That said, I do know that there has to be a measure of belief/faith in order for the experiment to work.

In conclusion, you have a lot of guts (intestinal fortitude) to be a member of this group and make a blog like this. I have to admit, I like your spunk.

Blessings,
Autograph.png
Hi Stephan,

I agree with most of what you have written. Indeed my approach was one of skepticism, an approach that I tend to take for many questions regarding reality and it has served me pretty well. Indeed I was not surprised nor disappointed by the outcome, but I was not happy either. If there is a god, I would want to know that. What I would do with that knowledge is a second question for which I currently have no answer.

The only part that I disagree with is your assumption that I reject the possibility of a god:

Your belief system as an atheist automatically includes that there is no God and precludes the possibility that there is a God. Just on that premise your experiment failed. However, if you entertained the thought or the belief of the possibility there is a God, that would have been a paradigm shift in your world view, and from just that point you could no longer claim to be an atheist but an agnostic.


I think our definitions of atheism and agnostisism differ. My atheism is like what Paul wrote in Eph. 2:12, the lack of a believe in God. I do not believe in any god, so I am an atheist. Gnostosism deals with knowledge, which is a subset of believe. Since I do not claim to know that no gods exist, I am an agnostic as well (based on the greek word γνώση). The following diagram makes it clear:
Posted Image

So with this definition, both theism/atheism and gnostisism/agnostisism are boolean positions. There is no middle ground. In the agnostic atheist quadrant there is one more axis: weak vs strong atheism. Regarding the deist god I am a weak atheist. I just lack a believe in such a god. I don't have a positive believe that such a god does not exist because I know too little of such a god. Regarding God of Christianity, I am a strong atheist. Even though I do not know that God does not exist, I believe he does not. The reason for that is in my opinion the attributes that are assigned to him (omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and omnibenevolence) are conflicting and that makes such a god not possible, just like having a square circle is not possible. So indeed, I didn't consider it likely that the experiment would have a positive outcome, but I was still open to that and if that would happen I would be a theist now and proclaim that theism as well.

In conclusion, you have a lot of guts (intestinal fortitude) to be a member of this group and make a blog like this. I have to admit, I like your spunk.


Thank you for that. My reason for being here is not to debate and most certainly not to try to convince anyone to leave their faith. It is primarily a resource for bible study tools and where I can contribute back to this community I gladly do so. That said, I do not shy away from a civil debate. I greatly appreciate the civility and friendliness with which I am approached on this site and I'll keep trying to leave the same impression.

Kind regards,
Rob
Hi Rob,
My Definition on Atheism and Agnosticism, in using your illustration are:
  • Top Left Right Hand one is an Atheist. The other version is "atheism as an excuse" LOL
  • Bottom Left is my understanding of an Agnostic, and is probably the most common view held.
Blessings,
Autograph.png

Top Left Right Hand one is an Atheist


Oops, that should have been "Top Right Hand..."
Hi Stephen,

Our definitions clearly differ. To me, a theist is someone with a believe in one or more gods and an a-theist is someone without that believe. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like symmetrical is something with the same pattern from two or more sides, and a-symmetrical is something without a similarity of patterns. But of course you are free to use your own definition of the words but if you use that definition to make conclusions of my beliefs because I carry the label, your conclusions will be wrong. Since they are my beliefs you should use my definitions to evaluate them.

Regards,
Rob
looks like you want a quick fix.
God as already answered the prayer.If you want God to reveal himself he already as in His word,its there you need to start.call me if you are really interested in finding Him. i will help

cummings3210@yahoo.com
No Gary, my prayer has not been answered. If it had, I would now be a theist.
Hi Rob,

Do you think that defining theism and atheism on a 100% certainty factor is realistic?

I have a couple examples to suggest:

One: the moon landing. I do not have 100% certainty that they really happened. There are certainly those who firmly believe that it was all a hoax and are suspect of all evidence. But I think it is more likely than not to have actually occurred.

Two: buying a plane ticket. When I buy a ticket I cannot know with 100% certainty that I will arrive safely at my intended destination. I can however, believe with enough* certainty to pack my clothes, tell my relatives I am coming, and actually board the plane. I know that accidents happen, and my faith in the airplane or its crew might be misplaced, but I think that it is more likely than not that I will arrive safely.

So, to apply this to the discussion on being a theist, atheist or agnostic, I think my reasons for believing God exists are more likely than not to be true are well founded. Now, I could be wrong.

What do you think?

Brad
Hi Brad, thanks for the message. It is thought provoking and well phrased and I appreciate your open approach to the question. To all readers a warning up front, the latter part of my reply may be received as blasphemous or offensive. This is not my intention at all, if you receive this reply as such, I apologize up front. The last thing I want to achieve here is to offend anyone (although I take it my very presence here does that for some).

In my opinion, theism and atheism by definition cannot be defined with 100% certainty, that is defined in the gnosticism and agnosticism divide. If you are 100% certain, you claim knowledge on the subject and as such are gnostic in your position. To me, theism is a positive reply to a single question: do you believe in a god, yes or no. Atheism is the negative reply. Apart from the positive or negative reply you can of course ponder the likelihood of your belief being correct.

Regarding your second example, that can be easily justified with statistics. There are many travels daily by airplane so the chance of being involved in an accident can be quantified and compared to other means of traveling (train, car, bike etc).

Your first example is not that clear cut since NASA is the only organization that was ever involved in manned spaceflight to the moon. Still there are a number of ways to critically analyze it and evaluate the claims of the moon-hoax conspiracy proponents. Their arguments have by and large been addressed and are insufficient to falsify the possibility of us going to the moon. Some of them even lend credence to the hypothesis that we actually did go to the moon because it (about) lacks an atmosphere (the missing moon dust on the landing gear and the sound of the motor that was missing from the film audio). My most important argument for dismissing the hoax hypothesis is that the likelihood of a conspiracy of this magnitude actually succeeding looks extremely small.

So let's apply this skepticism to the possibility for a god. If we consider a deistic god who set the universe in motion and stopped intervening after that, there is not that much to analyze but I see no necessity to introduce such a god for explaining the world. You introduce the possibility of an infinite regress since if a god is necessary for explaining the universe, why is there no need to explain that god and its grand-god and its great-grand-god etc. (don't get me started on the Kalam argument, I could go on a while on that one). I don't think there's much to quantify the possibility of such a god, but I take the null hypothesis and assume no such entity until convincing evidence is provided.

Regrading God/YHWH/Elohim/El Shaddai etc, the Judeo-Christian god, there are a number of statements in the book attributed to him that makes it possible to evaluate the likelihood, but these are not always consistent. E.g., God is claimed to be unchanging (Psa 102:27-28, Heb 13:8) but has regrets (Gen 6:6), he is just (Deut 32:4) but forgiving (Dan 9:9). The problem of evil (the existence of evil in the face of a god who is omnipotent [Luke 18:27], omniscient [Psa. 139] and omnibenevolent [John 3:16]) also shows contradictory attributes. Lastly, the bible shows clear signs of being written with the knowledge of the peoples at the time it was written and has been shown incorrect by our current understanding time and again. People go out of their way to reinterpret the bible to paint a picture that is more consistent with our current knowledge, but this is a slow and painstaking process. There are very few people who still believe in a flat earth, but they do exist, there are slightly more, but still very few people who believe in a geocentric universe, there are still many people who think that the earth is only a few thousands of years old, contrary to mountains of evidence and more than enough people still think that stars are small lights on a dome that can be swept and thrown to earth (Rev 12:4). I see no prediction at all of a scientific feat that could not be understood by the people at that time and was later verified by science and I see a lot to the contrary. Given all that I find the likelihood of a god as described in the bible very unlikely.

Kind regards,
Rob
The conscience of many is in such a state that before it is awakened they can raise
many arguments against the existence of God. But when they are dying or are in a

very difficult circumstance the conscience will tell them that God is very real.
The days of our life pass away so quickly. They seem so unimportant because we tell
ourselves there is “still time”. But on “that day” when we find ourselves heading
for eternity, the conscience will wake up and speak very loudly of the reality of our
Creator. "Today" is a most beautiful day to call upon Jesus. Today is “the day” of
Salvation. For "one day" it will truly be too late.
Hi Chang, thanks for your message.

I think your message can be summarized as a variation on Pascal's Wager. For a number of reasons the wager does not work and I don't think that this particular threat is the one to do a detailed rebuttal on it. I want to address the point of deathbed conversions.

Yes, deathbed conversions do happen but not as often as many Christians tend to believe. An infamous deathbed conversion myth is the one of Charles Darwin and it was in no uncertain terms denied by his daughter. Christianity has no monopoly on these conversions, they happen in most religions so it should be clear that they have no real significance on the truth of the religion. I think that (in Christianity) they are the direct result of the fear mongering through the doctrine of hell. I can testify to this from a personal experience. I was but a "lukewarm" Christian but the fear of hell that I got via my Catholic upbringing caused me a number of sleepless nights during my deconversion when my rational thought came into a clash with my emotional response to Pascal's Wager. I got rid of it by getting rid of the believe in the supernatural altogether (including souls) but even after nearly a decade, the wager still manages to sneak up its ugly head on a few occasions. This doctrine is the reason why Richard Dawkins says that he considers teaching Christianity to children a form of child abuse. I tend to agree with that since I know how it effected me.

Regards,
Rob
dear Rob
blessed be the God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ. Your right to think God wasn't going to reveal Himself to you in some mystical way.He said He wouldn"t.
Mat 12:39


But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." He was speaking of His crucifixion burial and resurrection.

and again He says "
If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.
That sign is clear on the pages of scripture and even the most hard nosed couldn't deny that Jesus lived and the people who were there at His the death burial and resurrection believed that He raised from the dead enough that they were willing to die for these facts. not only this but we can see God is real from exsistance. evolution is a ridiculous notion brought about by sinful man to explain why they were not in subjection to God.

the gospel is the power of God for salvation faith ncom from hearing a word about Christ, not from a sign. faith comes from the knowledge that Jesus died in your place and rose again so you wouldn't have to live your life as a slave to sin.

God is unchanging and He did regret. the word regret has to do with emotion not the mind.gen 6 God repents because the circumstaces from gen 1:31 change not God

He is just and fogiving based on the sacrifice of Christ even in the old testament.all men are saved the same way. they bsee their sin, they mourn their sin because they can't do anything about it , and they turn to God to attone for their sin and for the power to be free from their sin.enter the God-Man.
Hi Tim,

Thanks for your message. Some replies to what you wrote.

blessed be the God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ. Your right to think God wasn't going to reveal Himself to you in some mystical way.He said He wouldn"t.
Mat 12:39


But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign shall be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." He was speaking of His crucifixion burial and resurrection.

and again He says "
If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone rises from the dead.


I understand and respect your sentiment. Not all Christians agree with you though (hardly a surprise given that there are more than 30,000 Christian denominations, most disagreeing with each other and sometimes in key doctrinal issues). In this case I executed the experiment with a fellow Christian of yours on this site who also prayed along for God to show himself to me. Like I wrote in my OP, I am sometimes asked by Christian to ask God to show himself. I did. Sincerely. He didn't.

That sign is clear on the pages of scripture and even the most hard nosed couldn't deny that Jesus lived and the people who were there at His the death burial and resurrection believed that He raised from the dead enough that they were willing to die for these facts. not only this but we can see God is real from exsistance. evolution is a ridiculous notion brought about by sinful man to explain why they were not in subjection to God.


1. There are people (including biblical scholars) who doubt the historicity of Jesus as portrayed in the gospels. Richard Carrier (not a theologian but 1st century historian) and Bob Price (biblical scholar with 2 theological PhD's) come to mind. I am a real fence-sitter in this regard. I have bought Earl Doherty's "The Jesus Puzzle" but haven't started reading it yet. Fact is that there are pretty clear contradictions regarding the life of Jesus in the gospels. Two that come to mind are the date of his birth (he cannot have been born both during the reign of King Herod the Great and during the government of Quirinius in Syria) and the date and time of his crucifixion (was it the day before Passover of the day of Passover and was it in the morning or in the afternoon).

2. Nobody knows how, when and in what circumstances the apostles died. The only "follower" or Christ who's death is described is James (written in Acts). In Chapter 20 of Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus writes about "James, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" who was stoned by order of the Sanhedrin (Ant 20.9.1). Many people assume this is about James, the brother of Jesus from the gospels. I have some doubts since the story is too late and as "Christ" is a title, it might well have referred to Jesus, the son of Damneus who was high priest of Israel.
Also, if dying for your faith lends credence to it, Islam has a lot of credence, doesn't it?

3. I didn't talk about evolution, but since you did I can play. First of all I will assume that with the word "evolution" you do not simply mean "change over time in general" but the theory of evolution as set forth by Charles Darwin in "On the origin of species". If that's not correct, please include a definition of the word "evolution" so we can work on that. Let me give a definition of (biological) evolution as I understand it: Evolution is the change of allelic frequencies over time in a population of organisms. Nothing more, nothing less. Now there are facts of evolution, i.e. events that have been witnessed both in the lab as in the wild. Fact: Allelic frequencies change. Organisms that are better adapted to their environment tend to reproduce more and have more offspring in following generations. Fact: speciation happens, both in the lab as well as in the wild. I can give a number of examples. The theory explains these facts. The theory defines random mechanisms to increase diversity in the gene pool, namely mutations (point mutations and indels) and genetic recombination (part of the process of creating gametes) and it defines random and non-random processes that decrease said diversity (random genetic drift and non-random natural and sexual selection). The theory also has the implication that all living organisms (including humans) share a common ancestor. There are enormous amounts of evidence for this, most important of which can be found in molecular biology. The theory is also falsifiable (and this fact makes it scientific). An example of such a falsifying event is this: find the same endogenous retrovirus insertion in the same locus of the genomes of both human and gibbon, that is missing in all other great apes. If you find this, the theory of evolution is falsified. An example of where anti-evolutionists though to falsify evolution was in the number of chromosomes of humans versus the other great apes. All other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23. How can that be if we share a common ancestor with the chimps? Well, it's possible if there was a fusion of chromosomes in the human line after we split of from the chimps. This can be falsified as well. Chromosomes have special regions in the ends (called telomeres) and a special region in the middle (called a centromere), all of which are used in splitting the chromosomes to be copied. If two chromosomes fused, there should be telomeres in the middle and two centomeres instead of one. This is exactly what we find in chromosome 2.
So what exactly was so ridiculous about evolution?

the gospel is the power of God for salvation faith ncom from hearing a word about Christ, not from a sign. faith comes from the knowledge that Jesus died in your place and rose again so you wouldn't have to live your life as a slave to sin.


Our definitions of faith differ. I use the definition of faith as believing in something without evidence of in spite of evidence to the contrary.

God is unchanging and He did regret. the word regret has to do with emotion not the mind.gen 6 God repents because the circumstaces from gen 1:31 change not God


Did God foresee the change of circumstances?

He is just and fogiving based on the sacrifice of Christ even in the old testament.all men are saved the same way. they bsee their sin, they mourn their sin because they can't do anything about it , and they turn to God to attone for their sin and for the power to be free from their sin.enter the God-Man.


Justice requires proportionality in punishment and punishing the perpetrator, not someone else. Forgiving implies not punishing or punishing less than deserved, i.e. not proportional. Justice and mercy are inherently contradictory.

Regards,
Rob
but God did show Himself to you I think that (in Christianity) they are the direct result of the fear mongering through the doctrine of hell. I can testify to this from a personal experience. I was but a "lukewarm" Christian but the fear of hell that I got via my Catholic upbringing caused me a number of sleepless nights during my deconversion when my rational thought came into a clash with my emotional response to Pascal's Wager. thats what the gospel does. it confronts us with our sin.and turns us to God. whats more loving a few sleepless nights or an etternaity in hell.

"Blessed are those who mourn, for they shall be comforted.
Hi Tim,

I think and I hope that not all Christians share your idea of how God shows himself. If your god actually shows himself through the fear of hell, the idea that I get about your god I will not express here since it would get me banned.

There's one question that I want to ask you. Since you brought up evolution, I would like to direct you to a video on YouTube that was created by an evolutionary biologist. The video just lists 5 simple premises that are at the basis of the theory of evolution. If you accept all of these premises, the only logical conclusion to draw is that the theory of evolution is correct. The premises are:
1. DNA is the basis of heredity
2. DNA changes over generations
3. DNA is responsible for the differences between organisms
4. The environment acts on the frequency of the changes
5. There is no physical limit to the amount of changes that can occur in DNA.

The video elaborates on each point. Since you disagree with the theory of evolution being correct, you should disagree with one or more of these premises. Could you point out which one and why?
almost every historical schooler would say that Jesus exsited. to the peson. the only reason that a person could write that Jesus never exsited today is from the amount of time that has elapsed . i suspect someone is trying to sell a book. the secular writings at that time were trying to prove that jesus wasn't devine not that He didn't exsist.

Mans sin and refusal to come to God condenms a man to hell. God is saving you from that. comon Rob you know that. man is responsible for his sin.

let me see how many videos on youtube refute evolution. sorry about that. the naturalist and the creationalist will use the same evidence to make their claim. perspective. the creationalist ussally isnt given credibility because he is a creationalist. I guess I should have qualified my statement. evolution is ridiculous from my perspective. a billion billion to one chances happening in any amount of time. the lack of a fossil record.if small change nhapenn over a number oif years we should be tripping over missing links souldnt we and not just for humans but every specis?. Opps , that was a monkey. a man studies fruit flys for fifty years .150000 generations of the fruit fly and at the end of the of it he come up with a fruit fly with red eyes or what ever.mans been around for how long? we are not evolving. techknowlogy? is evolving man isnt. well maybe the other way which is what you (I) would expect. micro evolution is happening . but flu becoming more resistant to anti biotic is still the flu.disorder brings about order? these are my pitful observation that you can probably explain away without thinking about but then I have to do some work and find someone smarter than you (if thats possible) to refute your claims so can we say there are big problems with sides of the arguement and let it rest cause im kinda lazy. answersingenesis.org scienceagainstevolution.org John Macarthur Battle for the beginning @ gty.org John Lennox Alister McGrath ,reasons.org, www.programmed-aging.org/theories/evolution_issues.html ,.......

your defintion of justice I find lacking seeing how the One who is offended is the One defining the term. God says it just that Jesus take on our sin and we take his righteousness. He defines the term and He dies to prepares the way.

the apostles deaths were reported by oral tradition by people who saw them die. if the message had changed those people would have said that is not right. the next generation would have gotten it right .(that is not what john said) this wasnt a game of telephone. they cared about oral tradition and getting it right particularly the Jews.

Islam purpose is that the follower die. the apostles didnt want to die but were prepared to for the sake of following Christ and his way that leads to a relationship with Him.not a religion that would demand their follower kill themselves. i would use your argument against islam though, their god is unrighteous because he let his follower off the hook without paying for their sin. our sins been paid for.

God forsaw the changes and mourned them. John 11:35 Jesus wept. knew He would raise lazarus from the dead and still wept.
I asked you a simple question but you beat around the bush. Which of these premises do you disagree with and why:
1. DNA is the basis of heredity
2. DNA changes over generations
3. DNA is responsible for the differences between organisms
4. The environment acts on the frequency of the changes
5. There is no physical limit to the amount of changes that can occur in DNA.
my original argument still up. it is your sin and refusal to let it go that is keeping you from God. this whole test was to put God to the test . you never expected God to answer. you pray for God to reveal Himself to you out of one side of your mouth and thumb your nose at Him with the other. how did that prayer go? reval yourself to me you peice of nothing?

Rom 10:13<WHOEVER WILL CALL UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED
Paul quotes that on the basis of Rom 10:9
that if you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; your not seeking God your seeking to disprove God.I would think that God has the right to ask His creation to come to Him on His terms and not their own.because people would disagree with me on this point doesnt make scripture less true.
The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; A broken and a contrite heart, O God, Thou wilt not despise.

September 2017

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
171819 20 212223
24252627282930

Recent Entries

Recent Comments