You can not be surprised that people does not take parapsychology as science. It had been proven hoax to many time for people to give credit for.
Thats why people will not treat you seriously - because of early XX century and many charlatains that cheated people blind. By the way, the Bible had forbidden witchcraft of necromancy, of speaking, dealing and invoking spirits. So I am not sure how do you prove God by proving things he forbidden but nevermind.
The point is not to prove GOD but to provide scientific evidence, the kind which speaks for itself because it is empirical. Why not consider the wisdom of GOD could have spoken instructions in other texts? What if you found written content that indicates a divine source, would you discard any such books if they are not in the mainstream? Why not consider
the contents of the Phoenix Journals as divine communication meant to instruct mankind? In my opinion the content of this material explains Bible teaching much better than Bible alone. As for parapsychology I think the papers by Cunningham are very important and the trans-survival hypothesis website has a good view of the parapsychology material.
I just clarified that its not the God of the bible you are talking about. Do not take it personal. It was just a clarification.
How do you know that I am not talking about GOD? Simply because your Bible tells you so? Then you are just following authority and not doing your own thinking.
Since you did not answer my question, I have another one:
Is the Bible fit for worship?The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is filled with numerous stories of animal and human sacrifice. God, we are told, likes the pleasing aroma of burning flesh. Animal sacrifice is much more common than human sacrifice, but both occur and are “pleasing to the Lord”.
Genesis, the first book of the Bible, has Abraham preparing to sacrifice his son to God. “Take your son, your only son – yes, Isaac, whom you love so much – and go to the land of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will point out to you.” (Genesis 22:1-18) Abraham takes his own son up on a mountain and builds an altar upon which to burn him. He even lies to his son and has him help build the altar. Then Abraham ties his son to the altar and puts a knife to his throat. He then hears God tell him this was just a test of his faith. However, God still wanted to smell some burnt flesh so he tells Abraham to burn a ram.
Even though he didn’t kill his son, it is still an incredibly cruel and evil thing to do. If Abraham did that today he would be in jail serving a long sentence as someone’s prison-bitch. It amazes me how Christians see this story as a sign of God’s love. There is no love here, just pure unadulterated evil.
So how is it that the atheist can recognize evil in the Bible but the fundamentalist Christian cannot?
God wanted a faithful servant. He saw how Kanninites are disobetient to him, and they judge by themselves and call evil good.
God wanted to know if Abraham is following his own definition of good, calling good evil, or will he trust God. God is testing his faithful servant all the time. Why do you call that evil? Are you better than God? Or claim you are? Are you not testing your friends or spause loyalties? I doubt you don't. And it was a sign to distinguish child sacrifice in the name of Baal from God. Baal was a pseudo diety that claimed he did the same as Yahwe did. You can't judge something outside of the context. It was a convenant with Abraham and Jacob NOT TO KILL CHILDREN ( a practice that was often done that time).
I would like to remind that Satan is still (probably) not cased out of the heavens that time, so he test the God and accuse him and his angels. So the Abraham was accused by Satan just like Hiob was, to test their faith.
If you take things out of context and claim that God like the Epicureans did - I suggest you watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a0hAPnh8CY&t=550sSure there are frauds and myths about evolution just like creationists have found 100 times noah's ark, I guess that disproves the bible as well, right?
Noah ark? Thats not in the school books. Listen... all you have are frauds. I don't need no stinking ark that for sure is rotten. Only stupid people are searching for its and its an obvious scam.
100% of missing links are frauds, and you say that some creationist are idiots as well. How silly language that is...... You could be at least a bit sincere can you? Thats just stupid. Have I said that that frauds disprove evolution? Other things disprove it. Learn how to read. Until you find out that the ring specie can evolve further making a seperate kind (can no longer have offsprings with more than one of its variety of kind from which it evolved) your theory is piece of crap at best. How to disprove a piece of crap? By saying it does not explain what it says it explain. It explains micro evolution and macro evolution is their holy grail that they will steal, cheat and commit fraud to get, still with no success.
All of that talk instead of just saying, I believe in god because I was indoctrinated that way and I don't really have any reason for it.
Wrong. I was not indoctrinated by anyone. I found God myself on my own accord. I was atheist just like you, until I saw that a complete folly.
There are successful experiments on abiogenesis. Obviously it still needs to be studied quite a lot.
Do not lie. All claims to make a ALL of the amino acids needed out of non organic materia (by making the enviroment how they thought it was) are wrong.
In time, trace amounts of several of the simplest biologically useful amino acids were formed—mostly glycine and alanine.20 The yield of glycine was a mere 1.05%, of alanine only 0.75% and the next most common amino acid produced amounted to only 0.026% of the total—so small as to be largely insignificant. In Miller’s words, ‘The total yield was small for the energy expended.’27 The side group for glycine is a lone hydrogen and for alanine, a simple methyl (–CH3) group. After hundreds of replications and modifications using techniques similar to those employed in the original Miller–Urey experiments, scientists were able to produce only small amounts of less than half of the 20 amino acids required for life. The rest require much more complex synthesis conditions.
