Examine the earlier parts of that sentence. The question is rhetorical, but it is based on a definite, historical, extreme expression of His love for us.  The form of Paul's argument is: If God was willing to do THIS, how much more will He also be willing to do this?

Mykid2,

Thanks for your excellent questions.  I would be interested in pursuing the answers together.  However, the polemical blanket statements you have added ("What nonsense" , "Your Bible is a collection of disjointed ambiguous riddles that have dissipated unfathomable human dedication in futile misery", etc) seem to indicate that you are tired of this discussion and would prefer not to pursue this further.  I personally have no desire to participate in a discussion about these things with someone who is irrevocably and closedmindedly convinced that they are "nonsense".  If I've misunderstood you, please let me know.

Otherwise, thanks for your stimulating discussion...  and have a nice day.

Hi Mykid,

I routinely remove my front page content for privacy reasons, to prevent search engines and archivers from linking certain data.  I had thought that the particular discussion you allude to had ended.  I just put it back up temporarily.  If you would like to post more (notice that you had left unanswered a question or two from me), you are welcome to do so.

I do think that the artist is, in general, more important than the artifact.  If the artifact is destroyed, the artist can always make another one.  However, if the artist is destroyed, no more art of that type can be produced.

In the specific case of God, absolutely I think this is the case.  God is the Creator, the most intrinsically important Person in the Universe.  His Creation is special too, yes, but only because He made it.

Nature can tell us a little bit about God - He is big and powerful, He is wise and intelligent and skilful at designing things, etc.   But in order to deeply and personally know God, we must have His personal self-revelation.   The Bible claims to be such a document (unlike many other books, even many other 'scriptures' such as the Vedas, etc).   I.e. the Bible claims to be the written Word of God.  If its claim is valid (and my understanding of the evidence indicates that it is), then you and I need the Bible in order to truly know God. 

Hi Mykid2,

You wrote: "in what way did Christ's death benefit anyone... let alone the "ungodly"?"  and "why were "we" still sinners"

These are definitely questions worth discussing, in my opinion.   It comes down to whether God created us, as Genesis claims, or whether He did not.  If He did not, then all this talk of sin and sacrificial death is nonsense.  But if He did, then we 'belong' to Him... and as Genesis describes, we have a moral obligation to use the bodies/minds He gave us in righteous ways.

So let's investigate the question of origins.  You wrote: "Quite possibly reality manifests as a multiverse..." Many things are 'possible'.  It is 'possible' that the moon is made of blue cheese, or that I am actually an advanced AI computer program replying to you.   But possibility alone is not enough to justify belief.  Warrant, or evidence for the belief in question, is required.  If there is evidence that the reality is a multiverse, etc, then I'll be willing to consider it.

Meanwhile, there is strong evidence that the universe was created a finite time ago and was put together by an Intelligent Designer.  For example, the laws of thermodynamics are summary statements indicating that all of our current experience points us to the fact that energy is always being dissipated into less and less usable forms.  Since there is still usable energy around, the 'spring must have been wound', so to speak, a finite time ago.  The complicated machinery of even the simplest forms of life (e.g. bacteria) demonstrate the reasonableness of believing in a Designer and the unreasonableness of believing in random or deterministic origin.

Hi Mykid2,

1. "blind dead end of self denial",  "debilitating benighted darkness", etc.  These are emotive, polemical, and ad-hominem phrases which do nothing to advance your argument.  I suggest that further use of phrases like these is counterproductive.  See also point 4 below.

2. Multiverse theory... I am well aware of the idea.  Yet as far as I know there is no evidence for it at all (and in fact some scientists suggest that it is impossible to ever see evidence for it in this particular universe - i.e. it is an unfalsifiable theory, which has led other some other scientists to consider it a nonscientific or even pseudoscientific theory).  I agree with you that multiverse theory is not really relevant to the question of whether the Bible or Nature is more reliable in determining what happened at Creation.   You may be surprised to know that I have not found any actual contradictions between the Bible and the 'facts of nature' in any area, including Creation.

3. You wrote: "Advanced physics theory is hardly on a par with the moon being made of blue cheese".   I suggest that you more carefully observe two delineations from philosophy of science.  The first is this: Nomological  science (also sometimes called observational science, which slightly conflates the next delineation with the current one) versus Historical science (also called forensic reconstruction or forensic science).  The second delineation is related but slightly different: scientific theories that are empirically verifiable or falsifiable, versus theories that are not.   On the first, I refer you to http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0228not_science.asp and http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/10/the_failure_of_demarcation_arguments.html , and I'll be happy to discuss this delineation more if you have more questions.  By the way, both the multiverse theory and the blue cheese theory are nomological theories, because they seek to explain "how the universe generally operates at the current time."

On the second, we must look more carefully at what you mean by "advanced physics theory."  Your use of the term is rather equivocal.  Here's why: some "advanced physics theories" make testable predictions.  For example, Einstein's theory of general relativity made specific predictions about bent light rays.  Before these predictions were fulfilled, most people thought Einstein was a crackpot.  After they were fulfilled, they began to think of him as a genius.  The transformation came about because there existed observations from the empirical world that both had the capability to confirm or deny the theory (verifiability/falsifiability), and also did in fact confirm his theory.

Other "advanced physics theories" do NOT make testable predictions.  To my knowledge, the multiverse theory is one of these.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.   So SOME (but not all) "advanced physics theories" provide no connection with the empirical world - no way to test them to see if they're true.   And, I might add, similarly with the "eternal"/"cyclical" universe theories.

4. You wrote: "Does not the Bible claim to be the ONLY true word of God, so it precludes that you believe your own eyes"   The Bible does claim to be the Word of God.  What specific "with-my-own-eyes" evidence are you referring to that you think contradicts the Bible?  Please feel free to share the most important such contradictions, and we can discuss them.

5. I earlier mentioned the laws of thermodynamics, which provide very strong confirmation from the natural world that the Biblical account is correct - Someone created the universe a finite time ago.   The laws of thermodynamics are among the very strongest and best confirmed scientific theories of all time.  For example, if someone claimed to have created a true perpetual motion machine or a device that generates usable energy out of nothing, I would not invest in it... because the laws of thermodynamics predict that this is impossible and because they have been so thoroughly tested over the years.   This same facet of science demands that the world could not be eternal and could not have created itself.   Thus, because we are here, we must have been created by God.   Do you believe the laws of thermodynamics?

6. I assume that the Genesis creation account is the primary passage we're arguing about.  I'll post it below for convenience as we continue this discussion.

Genesis 1

 1In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters.

 3Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

 4God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness.

 5God called the light day, and the darkness He called night And there was evening and there was morning, one day.

 6Then God said, "Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters."

 7God made the expanse, and separated the waters which were below the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so.

 8God called the expanse heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day.

 9Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

 10God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

 11Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

 12The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

 13There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

 14Then God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years;

 15and let them be for lights in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth"; and it was so.

 16God made the two great lights, the greater light to govern the day, and the lesser light to govern the night; He made the stars also.

 17God placed them in the expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth,

 18and to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good.

 19There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

 20Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the heavens."

 21God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

 22God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth."

 23There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

 24Then God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"; and it was so.

 25God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good.

 26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

 28God blessed them; and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth."

 29Then God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you;

 30and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food"; and it was so.

 31God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

Genesis 2

 1Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts.
 2By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done.

 3Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made.

 4This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven.

 5Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground.

 6But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground.

 7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

 9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 10Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.

 11The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

 12The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

 13The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush.

 14The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

 16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;

 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

 18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

 20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

 23The man said,
         "This is now bone of my bones,
         And flesh of my flesh;
         She shall be called Woman,
         Because she was taken out of Man."

 24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

 25And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.

Mykid2,

Thanks for your thoughts in reply.

On point 5, your rejection of the laws of thermodynamics and the law of causality (via a postulated timeless moment before the big bang's planck threshold) is illustrative of the contortions that accompany rejection of the Creator.  If one's desire to reject belief in God is strong enough, one simply postulates that whatever physical laws demonstrate the Creator's existence were not in effect at some point in the past.  Evidence becomes irrelevant, and pure speculation remains.

On point 4, I have no problem believing in dinosaurs.  In fact, they are mentioned in the Bible.  The fossil evidence shows dinosaurs.  I see no contradiction.  Also, your question about man and woman would be interesting to discuss if you could expand that a little (i.e. which scriptures are you referring to, etc).

Your point 1 is very important.   It seems that your main thrust has been to suggest that I (and other Christians) are somehow believing in the Bible on 'blind faith'.  You allege that I believe the Bible 'in spite of' what I see with my own eyes... that I believe the Bible 'in contradiction to the evidence.' 

Moreover, even if the evidence DIDN'T contradict the Bible (which you allege it does, though you provided only two actual examples from what I could tell: dinosaurs, and the first woman created from man), you are suggesting that it is irrational to believe in a 'holy book' at all, even in principle, because IF some new piece of evidence arose that was contradictory, it would have to be discarded through blind allegiance to the 'holy book.'

Is this a correct synopsis of your main argument?

Ok.   Your choice.

Mykid2,

The point in your imagined dialog where you jump from "Infidel: How do you know? Christian: Christ died to save us all!" is false.  For example, I have argued quite differently (I know Jesus is God's Son based on the historical evidence about Jesus, and subsequently, I come to adopt Jesus' own view of the Scriptures, after which I am finally able to cite Scripture as evidence, etc).  Thus, you are using a straw man.   You may continue using straw men if you wish, but I will not engage you further in dialog if you do.