Let me state explicitly what you never got around to in four major hand waving paragraphs. You believe God made the Earth in seven days, taking the poetry from the Bible literally.
You deny science. I do not. Where is God?
My arguments relied on the validity of the big bang, which is 14 billion years ago. Yet you accuse me of believing in a literal 6 days of creation. That's just disrespectful. You write disparagingly about the "Christian mind". This is just anti-christian bigotry. How would you know what the "Christian mind" is like? It sounds like you've had a bad personal experience with individuals who call themselves Christian. You need to set that aside and address the issues.
Go back and actually read my responses. You'll see that I do not deny science. In fact I think there are reliable principles that allow for miracles (the conservation of information - the assertion that faith and intentions carry physical information). Science at present cannot even define consciousness. So it cannot say where it comes from or where it is going or what physical effects it might have.
So do you think that science tells us that consciousness ends at death? Think again. Either there is life after death or there is not. There is no middle ground. And science cannot tell us about what is not observable. You cannot observe that your consciousness has cease to exist. That is a blatant contradiction of terms. The theory that you cease to exist after death is inherently unobservable. And inherent contradictions are automatically ruled out by logic. The only alternative is that there is life after death. That is the ONLY observable (scientific) alternative.
The only question left is what happens after death. How does your life here have consequences to your existence there? If you live your life here as if there are no consequences to face, then you go there being WRONG! Dead wrong! It will only be seen that your faith is inconsistent with your existence there. And you spend eternity suffering the results of being wrong and inconsistent. And visa versa too.
mj: My arguments relied on the validity of the big bang, which is 14 billion years ago. Yet you accuse me of believing in a literal 6 days of creation. That's just disrespectful.
jc: mj was asked to admit it took God 5 billion years to make this planet, but he diverts the subject since his mind cannot confront this truth and its consequence, that God does not intend to obliterate this planet at Judgment and make a new one with a finger snap, as the Christian community believes. He accuses me of being disrespectful simply for relating facts but is unable to demonstrate a mind rational enough to meld the current science with his Christian beliefs. I haven’t seen a person that I could learn to respect.
mj: You write disparagingly about the "Christian mind". This is just anti-christian bigotry. How would you know what the "Christian mind" is like?
jc: mj is totally unable to leave the Christian superstition that God can make worlds in a finger snap. Bigotry requires a crowd, and I’m the only one on Earth who sees this today. On the contrary, mj and his Christian cronies are in a position to persecute against the lone voice no one wants to hear. The Christians cannot be moved from their superstition.
mj: It sounds like you've had a bad personal experience with individuals who call themselves Christian. You need to set that aside and address the issues.
jc: I’m having one right now, confronting a mind that cannot face the truths of science. I have not seen any light in any Christian mind. All are in torrential darkness, following ancient scripture without any facility to appreciate God’s real miracles science is finding.
mj: Go back and actually read my responses. You'll see that I do not deny science.
jc: This appears to be an agreement that science shows God has an immense interest in protecting this planet and preserving it for the future generations. Except mj won’t agree.
mj: In fact I think there are reliable principles that allow for miracles (the conservation of information - the assertion that faith and intentions carry physical information).
jc: Here’s more deep superstition, amounting to belief in occult powers given to humans. I deny the miracles of Jesus, in favor of the real miracles of fine planet and superb bodies.
mj: Science at present cannot even define consciousness.
jc: Nor can religion, mj as its spokesperson in particular. Nor has spirit been defined. Nor does anyone care. Nor would anyone listen if an authority appeared who knew about it.
mj: So it cannot say where it comes from or where it is going or what physical effects it might have.
jc: mj doesn’t know any of these things either, nor does he care, nor would he listen. These are plain facts about this individual. The Christian mind is closed to authorities.
mj: So do you think that science tells us that consciousness ends at death? Think again.
jc: He’s completely changed the subject without noticing! The reason is that his mind has no response if I speak of real planet and real God. He’s imagining a foe here, not seeing me. My point, again, is that science tells us it took God five billion years to bring Earth to its current state. The slowness of evolution disproves Jesus’ miracle of loaves and fishes.
mj: Either there is life after death or there is not. There is no middle ground. And science cannot tell us about what is not observable. You cannot observe that your consciousness has cease to exist. That is a blatant contradiction of terms. The theory that you cease to exist after death is inherently unobservable. And inherent contradictions are automatically ruled out by logic. The only alternative is that there is life after death. That is the ONLY observable (scientific) alternative.
jc: This is completely off track, and is a symptom of minds unable to face the realities of soul and planet, where people are merely pretending to be good. mj does not share God’s concern over the well-being of planet Earth and its future citizens. He demands that God honor Christians who treat this planet as disposable, rather than taking them for enemies.
At the same time as it is off track, this argument has no merits. The secular scientists are not saying they know certainly there is no life after death, only that they see no evidence. From my perspective there are deeper woes, since only shallow souls feel no remorse over such statements. Better and more joyful souls feel keenly the threat of eternal death.
mj: The only question left is what happens after death. How does your life here have consequences to your existence there? If you live your life here as if there are no consequences to face, then you go there being WRONG! Dead wrong! It will only be seen that your faith is inconsistent with your existence there. And you spend eternity suffering the results of being wrong and inconsistent. And visa versa too.
jc: mj appears to have identified me as a potential convert, which is a bit hilarious. He carries no one on his argument, since he hasn’t pointed to an inherent contradiction logic could rule out. This is called discrimination, to pierce more and more deeply into questions, but mj’s mind peters out, unable to sort through a stack of vague notions. This isn’t only a game about being right or wrong, which is another deep fault in Christianity. It’s a matter of the quality of personality, social presence, cooperativeness and the like, none of which made it into that religion since it is not a place human minds can function.