If the answer is none, then aren't you following blindly while suppressing critical inquiry? I ask because during a debate the host asked Bill Nye what he would need to believe in god, he replied evidence. The same question was asked to Ken Ham, and he said there is no evidence in existence that could change his beliefs. I think that Ken is very much a tool, by his own definition. But I could be wrong.

Would you consider him a good man even though you don't believe in his divinity?

Actually science is now just catching up to the Bible and you will see over the years that a lot of declarations about things in the scientific community will be reported that they were wrong. There are tons of scientific discoveries that have proven Biblical records to be accurate. In the Bible it states that the heart remembers, has feelings, etc. People contradicted this because the heart was declared an organ that just pumps blood, the brain is where all thought and emotions were. Recently there has been a proven scientific report that says the heart DOES remember, we do keep emotions in our hearts, etc. proving the Bible correct again. Research was done with heart transplant recipients - they have dreams of people in the donor's life, remember things that the donor experienced, that the recipients could not have possibly experienced, etc. It is the memories of the donors that they are experiencing. Proving that the Bible saying our hearts remember and have emotion is true.

Atheists do not believe in God. Therefore the FIRST thing you should be doing is giving logical arguments addressing THAT point. If they don't accept God obviously they are not going to accept anything the Bible says, so as a result it is a total waste of your energy. It is only after a person has accepted the truth of God's existence that the Bible and Jesus become relevant to help lead them to Christianity. You are putting the cart before the horse.

I've asked this before and no one seems to give me a solid answer. Is it a person or what? The whole trinity thing doesn't make any sense.

Best answer: Yeh,all must meet him upon death

Best answer: Evolution, the belief that things organized by themselves, is an essential tenet of atheism. The first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto II, signed by many prominent evolutionists, are
1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.

2. Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and has emerged as a result of a continuous process.

The Natural Laws pertaining to information hold that information is immaterial and that matter cannot bring forth anything immaterial.

Yet the whole of the material universe contains vast amounts of information. To assert a materialistic explanation, it is necessary to demonstrate information arising from material interactions.. When we include DNA into the mix we are talking not just information but language -

including syntax and grammar and complex algorithms. Not only can science not explain this but the Natural Laws pertaining to Information assert this type of information cannot be produced by matter or material interactions.

This is yet another line of evidence that invalidates systematic materialism.. Delusional to believe otherwise. Matter cannot cause itself.

I was asking because a lot of stuff like hurricanes and earthquakes been happening and killing a lot of people lately is this a sign

I said in an earlier post that CREATIONISM has discovered nothing new since its inception. That it has made no significant contributions to science. I was wrong. I was just told that CREATIONISM has actually made 10 MAJOR DISCOVERIES. I was unaware of this until today. Here they are: https://www.wired.com/2008/03/top-10-cre... Please accept my apologies for my earlier error.