The following clip is a message from John Hagee; I totally agree with him one hundred percent. Many “Christians” who think they are going to heaven (saved) are in fact on their way to Hell (lost).
…
September 30, 2012
March 19, 2012
December 18, 2011
April 12, 2011
PROVEN Prophet John Paul Jackson
This Prophet predicts the USA’s future for the next ten years. A must watch
January 16, 2011
Jesus Lives! Retha McPherson’s Testimony
Do you really KNOW Jesus? This testimony explains this point. Awesome!
December 15, 2010
We Don’t Need ID To Disprove Atheism
This post was written by Mistye Quinn (SheLuvsGod)
-
We Don’t Need ID To Disprove Atheism
-
Unfortunately, Darwinists have been successful in convincing the masses that the only bad science is the kind that doesn’t agree with Darwinism. They say all else is religion masquerading as science. But actually Darwinists are practicing the bad science because their science is built on false philosophy. Their secular religion of naturalism leads them to ignore the empirically detectable scientific evidence for design.
In a debate between a Christian named William Lane Craig and a Darwinist named Peter Atkins, Atkins the Atheist said that God wasn’t necessary because everything could be explained by science alone. However, when Craig the Christian brought up some rational beliefs that could NOT be explained by science, Atkins was put to shame. Craig told Atkins that 1) mathematics and logic could not be explained by science (because science presupposes them), 2) metaphysical truths (like the thought “there are minds that exist other than my own”), 3) ethical judgments (you can’t prove by science that the Nazis were evil because morality is not subject to the scientific method), 4) aesthetic judgments (the beautiful people and good things cannot be scientifically proven), and 5) science itself (the belief that the scientific method discovers truth can’t be proven by the scientific method itself).
You see the scientific method of searching for causes by observation and repetition is only ONE way to find truth. It is not the ONLY way to find truth. NONSCIENTIFIC (philosophical) laws such as the law of logic, help us to discover truth as well. Science uses the NONscientific law of logic in the scientific method! The fact that everyone can agree that Susan Boyle is not as attractive as Angelina Jolie cannot be proven scientifically; but, boy oh boy, is it a fact! And the fact that you can even understand this post is metaphysical. Atoms don’t comprehend things.
Not only is Atkin’s claim that science can explain everything false because of the 5 points listed above. It’s also false because it is self-defeating. In other words, Atkins was saying, “Science is the only objective source of truth.” For him to say that would lead me to ask, “Is THAT true? Is the statement you just made TRUE?” His statement was caused by logic, not science, so IS THAT STATEMENT TRUE ABOUT SCIENCE BEING THE ONLY OBJECTIVE SOURCE OF TRUTH?
If he can’t explain that statement with a scientific method, then that statement is not true (by his own admittance). This is the same reasoning atheists use to disprove Intelligent Design. They say it can’t be scientifically proven, so that means it’s not true. So to that we Christians say, “That statement you just made is not proven by the scientific method, so by what other way do you know it’s true? If you say, “It’s true because logic said so,” we can say, “Well Creationism and Intelligent Design can be true based on the same logic you used to say that statement was true.” So we see that by someone telling us that science is the only way to explain all true things, then that person has single-handedly defeated their point by expecting us to accept that as truth when he can’t explain it through science. A self-defeated statement is a false statement.
A simple example to help it make more sense is this. If I tell you, “There’s no such thing is absolute truth,” you can ask me, “So ISpeakLife, is THAT absolutely true?” If I tell you that it’s a truth that there’s no such thing as truth, I’m being self-defeated by expecting you to RECEIVE and ACCEPT THAT CLAIM as absolute truth after I just now made that belief impossible for you to receive. Perhaps the greatest lesson we can learn from the bad science of the Darwinists is that science is built on philosophy. Bad philosophy results in bad science, and good science requires good philosophy. Here’s why:
1. Because science cannot be done without philosophy. Philosophical assumptions are utilized in the search for causes, and therefore, cannot be the result of them. For example, scientists assume (by faith) that reason and the scientific method allow us to accurately understand the world around us. THAT cannot be proven by science itself. You can’t prove the tools of science – the laws of logic, the Law of Causality, the Principle of Uniformity, or the reliability of observation – by running some kind of experiment. You first have to ASSUME that those things are true for you to even begin the experimentation upon it! So science is built on philosophy. Unfortunately, many so-called scientists are very poor philosophers.
2. Because philosophical assumptions can dramatically impact scientific conclusions. If a scientist assumes beforehand that only natural causes are possible, then probably no amount of evidence will convince him that intelligence created the first one-celled amoeba or any other designed entity. When Darwinists presuppose that intelligent causes are impossible (because of bias AGAINST Creationism and God), then natural laws are the only game in town. Likewise, if a Creationist rules out natural causes beforehand (and I can’t name a single Creationist who does), then he also risks missing the right answer. But a scientist who is open-minded and who has no biases to both natural and intelligent causes can follow the evidence wherever it leads (as opposed to refusing the truth he doesn’t want).
3. Because science doesn’t really say anything – scientists do. Data is always interpreted by scientists. When those scientists let their unproven philosophical assumptions and personal preferences AGAINST a God dictate their interpretation of the evidence, they do EXACTLY what they ACCUSE Christians of doing. They let their ideology dictate their conclusions. When that is the case – which it almost always is – their conclusions should be questioned because those conclusions are usually nothing more than philosophical presuppositions passed off as scientific facts.
I asked someone this a while ago on Xanga, and they have yet to respond to me about it. I asked them how they can explain their desire and passion for proving the nonexistence of God AND proving themselves right about not believing in God, through their worldview of matter. That worldview is known as materialism. You see, when you claim to believe that you and everyone else and all else is nothing more than mindless matter (atoms, molecules), you have just self-defeated again because that belief cannot be explained with just atoms.
First of all, there is a MESSAGE in life that is technically called “specified complexity”. An example of the concept of message is that you all are getting the message of this post even though it is nothing more than letters and colors. Yet, you all can see and feel exactly what I feel. You get the message; and the matter of atoms can’t explain how you can interpret the message of this post. My message cannot be explained by nonintelligent laws just as the message of the books I read cannot be explained by the nonintelligent laws of ink and paper.
Secondly, human thoughts and theories are not made up of material. Chemicals are involved in the human process, but they cannot explain all human thought. Someone’s thought of love or hate is not made of chemicals. One fact about matter is that it is something that can be weighed. How much does love weigh? What’s the chemical composition of hate? Those questions will not be answered because thoughts, convictions, and emotions are not completely materially based and because they are not completely materially based, materialism is FALSE. Or as one of my favorite Xangans says, “EPIC FAIL.”
Thirdly, if we’re nothing more than materials, then we’d be able to get all the materials of life – which are the same materials found in dirt (as is written in Genesis 2:7 – And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.) – and we’d be able to make a living being. We cannot. Why not if all we’re made of are materials and since we have all these know-it-all scientists around? Clearly there’s more to life than just materials.
What materialists can’t explain to you is why one body can be dead and another body can be alive when they both contain the same chemicals! What makes a body alive one minute and then dead the next? What combination of materials can account for consciousness? Even Adkins the Atheist admitted that explaining consciousness is a great challenge for atheists. The answer can be found in Genesis 2:7 – And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Ezekiel 37:5 – This is what the Sovereign LORD says to these bones: I will make breath enter you, and you will come to life. 6 – I will attach tendons to you and make flesh come upon you and cover you with skin; I will put breath in you, and you will come to life. Then you will know that I am the LORD.’ “
Lastly, if materialism is true, then reason itself is impossible. Because if mental processes are nothing more than chemical reactions in our brains, then there is no reason to believe that anything is true (including the theory of materialism AND the concept of truth). Chemicals cannot evaluate whether or not a theory is true because chemicals don’t think and reason amongst themselves. They only react.
This is SO very ironic to me because Darwinists – who claim to spend all this time writing posts in order to teach their readership truth and reason – have made both truth and reason IMPOSSIBLE by their theory of materialism. So even when Darwinists ARE right about something, their worldview of “everything is made of matter and everything can be explained scientifically” is reason enough for us not to believe a word they say! Because reason itself is impossible in a world governed by only chemicals and physical forces, the concept of Darwinism collapses on itself! I didn’t even have to bring Intelligent Design into the argument because Darwinism defeats itself.
Not only is reason impossible to a Darwinian world, but the Darwinist’s assertion that we should rely on reason alone cannot be justified. Because reason requires faith. J. Budziszewski pointed out, “The motto ‘Reason Alone!’ is nonsense anyway. Reason itself presupposes faith. Why? Because a defense of reason BY reason is circular, therefore worthless. Our only guarantee that human reason works is God who made it.”
He said this because our ability to reason can only come from two places. It could have come from preexisting intelligence or from mindless matter. Mindless matter can’t make people that reason. Only a reasonable God can make people who reason. Atheists, Darwinists, and materialists believe, by faith, that our minds arose from mindless matter without intelligent intervention. The reason I say faith is because it contradicts all scientific observation, which demonstrates that an effect cannot be greater than its cause. You can’t give what you don’t have, yet materialists believe that dead, unintelligent matter has produced living and intelligent life. This can be compared to saying that the Library of Congress resulted from an explosion in a printing shop. Or that a Boeing 747 resulted from a tornado whipping through a junkyard full of metal scraps. Dead people without thoughts don’t make living, thinking babies. So dead matter does not a living human make.
It is much more reasonable to say that the human mind is made in the image of the Great Mind who is my Heavenly Daddy a.k.a. God. Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; ” In other words, our minds can apprehend truth and can reason about reality because they were built by the Designer and Creator of truth, reality, and reason itself. Materialism is just not reasonable. I don’t have enough faith to be a materialist.
I wrote this to someone.
The very fact that you as a Darwinist think that u have a reason to be an atheist actually presupposes that God exists because reasons require that this universe be a reasonable one that presupposes that there is order, logic, design, and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchangeable objective source and standard of such things. To say something is unreasonable, you as a Darwinist must know what reasonable is. To say something is not designed, you as a Darwinist must know what designed is. To say something is not true, Darwinists must know what truth is. Like all nontheistic worldviews, Darwinism borrows from the theistic worldview in order to make its own view intelligible.
Why have reasons in a world that just is from randomness? Why have concepts like “not designed” from a universe that just is? Why are these concepts even in your thoughts? If u believe in just materialism, how do u have concepts and theories made up of these materials? The fact that you and I are even having this convo is proof that God exists b/c in ur worldview we’re just molecules but in my worldview, God gives us the mindset to have these convos. So pray tell, how do these molecules without a purpose have a mindset and passion to prove one to the other that the other is wrong? (purpose being made of molecules, passion being made of molecules, and wrongness and rightness being made just of molecules, oh yea, concepts and theories are made of molecules too to you right?)
The way you all borrow unwittingly from the theistic worldview is proof that Darwinism is foolish. Your worldview collapses not only from its lack of evidence but also because you have to borrow from my worldview as you try to make your case. Intellect, free will, objective morality, human rights, logic, reason, design and truth can only exist if God exists. Yet you all assume some or all of these realities when you defend your atheistic worldview. You can’t have it both ways.”
If you disagree with any of the words in this post and want to curse me out and be rude, all I ask is a few favors of you. Before you reply with what you want to say, you must first use the nonscientifically-proven and nonmaterialistic philosophical and metaphysical concepts of TRUTH, REASON, LOGIC, AND MESSAGE to have enough sense to write an intelligence message that pertains to this post. If you are angry with me because of how this post threatens your worldview, you must first explain to me how you got those feelings. According to your worldview, it will be through the scientific method and by telling me which chemicals you utilized to get angry, or else your feelings aren’t valid. Then let me know how you know you’ve been offended by the message of this post (because I couldn’t possibly convey a metaphysical concept such as message that you interpreted in your own way when all I typed are letters and colors).
After you do that, let me know how you came to the nonscientific conclusion of how you feel you had the right and reason to respond intelligibly (and please do this through the scientific method or else it is not a valid right or valid reason. Also, tell me what matter comprises this right and this reason and how much these matters weight because as we ALL know, all matter has weight). AND make sure you can convey to me your thoughts and words sans the concept of message (which cannot be explained through matter). Also, tell me how you expect me to comprehend your MESSAGE (and this of course MUST be scientifically proven in order for me to accept it as truth because I was told several times that Intelligent Design is not true ONLY because it is not scientifically proven, so this must be the case for all other things that are accepted as truth.
But, of course, truth isn’t worth a hill of beans in a materialist world of mindless, random-occurring matter. So you need not bother explaining yourself in the first place.
People who fight against Intelligent Design are not doing it because ID makes no sense to them. It actually makes perfect sense to them save for the part about an eternal God who requires holiness that is doing the designing and creating. They know that the universe is too orderly to be random. (ex. perfectly set orbits, anthropic principle/balance on Earth, predictable and consistent 4 seasons a year, predictable and consistent 365 days a year, predictable and consistent moon phases just to name a few). They know that it makes no sense that they are having to defend and support their beliefs in a materialistic world. The reason they run from ID is because they don’t want to admit that an Intelligent Designer is the cause of all this. This is because they know that if we Christians are right about this Designer and Creator, it means that they have to comply with His rules or else it’s hell to pay. So instead of worshipping the Almighty God who gave them even the mind to rebel in a universe of “matter” only, they deny, deny, deny until it’s too late. They believe in ID; they just don’t like the concept of a Holy God that requires obedience. Neither did Lucifer, and you see where he ended up. Neither did Adam and Eve and they paid the consequences of disobedience and pride. REFUSAL AND DENIAL OF THE TRUTH DOES NOT AT ALL NEGATE THE FACT THAT TRUTH IS STARING YOU DEAD IN THE FACE.
“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” – Gilbert K. Chesteron
There’s actually no such thing as atheism as people claim it nowadays. The term originally meant someone who decided to cut all ties with a god or with God. But in 1577, people started trying to change the term to mean something to the effect of “people who know that God doesn’t exist”. I know Wikipedia isn’t the 100% most reliable reference website, but here’s some interesting things it said about atheism:
In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (ἄθεος, from the privative ἀ- + θεός “god”) meant “godless”. The word began to indicate more-intentional, active godlessness in the 5th century BCE, acquiring definitions of “severing relations with the gods” or “denying the gods, ungodly” instead of the earlier meaning of ἀσεβής (asebēs) or “impious”. Modern translations of classical texts sometimes render atheos as “atheistic”. As an abstract noun, there was also ἀθεότης (atheotēs), “atheism”. Cicero transliterated the Greek word into the Latin atheos. The term found frequent use in the debate between early Christians and Hellenists, with each side attributing it, in the pejorative sense, to the other.
In English, the term atheism was derived from the French athéisme in about 1587. The term atheist (from Fr. athée), in the sense of “one who denies or disbelieves the existence of God”,predates atheism in English, being first attested in about 1571. Atheist as a label of practical godlessness was used at least as early as 1577. Related words emerged later: deist in 1621,theist in 1662; theism in 1678; and deism in 1682. Deism and theism changed meanings slightly around 1700, due to the influence of atheism; deism was originally used as a synonym for today’s theism, but came to denote a separate philosophical doctrine.
Karen Armstrong writes that “During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the word ‘atheist’ was still reserved exclusively for polemic … The term ‘atheist’ was an insult. Nobody would have dreamed of calling himself an atheist.”
These facts and ideas that I didn’t get from Wikipedia regarding atheism all came from I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. Great book and great authors!
December 4, 2010
The Irony of Evolution
I agree with this video (5 minutes) You can also check this link out after watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqm0jCIMSgY
Comments Off on The Irony of Evolution
October 22, 2010
She Saw Hell ! An eye opening interview
Hell is real!
Comments Off on She Saw Hell ! An eye opening interview
September 14, 2010
August 31, 2010
Redux -Is Sunday Worship A Violation Of the Sabbath?
This video presents the truth. Please watch.
Comments Off on Redux -Is Sunday Worship A Violation Of the Sabbath?
Jasmine71's Weblog 