>I have a couple minutes to respond here. Maybe more later...

Cool

>>If God is all powerful, and perfect (correct me if I'm wrong there), how come he has to step into the affairs of human beings?
>He doesn't have to I suppose.

But he does. According to you, he hold the atoms together. He has to be right in there, and if he wasn't, we would explode. All according to you.0

>essentially asserting that man indeed will destroy himself unless God steps into history again directly. I see nothing in current news that would persuade me that man is on an upward path.

And this is the reason I'm scared to death of people like you. No offense of course :-)

>>If your guess that the force holding atoms together is God himself, admittedly, doesn't that prove that God erred in creating the universe?
>How so? What in the universe (or creation <g>) would you say would cause people to think God erred? Mankind and the way mankind acts perhaps?

I think you're missing my point. Here:

Premise1: If the force holding the atoms together disappears, the universe will implode/explode
Premise2: God holds the atoms together
Conclusion1: If god steps away from the universe to observe it, it will be destroyed

Premise3: If God were omnipotent, he could step away from the universe to observe it
Premise4: God is omnipotent
Conclusion2: God can step away from the universe to observe it

But this contradicts conclusion1! So, logically, either Premise2 or Premise4 is false. I think it would be diplomatic to conclude:

If God exists and is omnipotent he is not holding atoms together.

Agreed?


>Well, here's how I will understand your question. Please correct me if this isn't what you mean, ok?
>"IOW, why a personal god and not an impersonal god?", which I think is a great question!

Hmmm, there are sublte differences, but we can start here.

>OTOH, Christianity teaches that God is personal and is immensely interested in each individual to the point that He knows the number of hairs on their head. Stuff like that. <s>

IOW, the answer to "Why theism over deism" is "because theism teaches theism"? Sorry, thats not quite good enough.

>One of the more intriguiging philosophical issues is to explain how man has a personality is self-aware and also able to communicate with others if there is no observable source these attributes may be derived from.

There is a source, genetics. We've talked about self-awareness before, so thats a non-issue, but for communication
http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/15/coolsc.speech/index.html

It doesn't prove anything besides that supernatural is not the only answer, and we should be open minded towards genetics.

In any case, I fail to see how language and communication can only result from a personal god. Insight?

>>IOW, are your conclusions really predefined conclusions that you have found evidence to support, or are your conclusions derived from finding impartial evidence and logically arriving at rational conclusions (as youy claim above)?
>Well, probably a little of both.

A little of both by defintion disqualifes you from claiming you "have not voilated the rational thinking process". Sorry.

>I've suggested several times that you investigate the writings of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer's writings.

Narrow it down to something, and I'll go get it. Keep in mind, if it doesn't have the logic that I asked for I'm going to be severaly dissappointed in your cop-out answer.

>Additionally, I can cite many examples of cases where someone challenged the claims of Christianity and when they honestly looked at the evidence they became believers.

I can cite many examples of cases where someone challenged the claims of Atheism and when they honestly looked at the evidence they became non-believers.

This isn't a fun game :-)

>please explain to me then the existence of evil.

Intellectually, I've gotten my self past the point where I believe that words we use out of convience are really something that exists.

Evil doesn't exist outside of the dictionary.

>If God created mankind it isn't wrong that He should place man and women in the relationship to each other He deems best is it?

Hmmmm, I'm not going to touch this at all.

>Let me ask you this; did this opinion you just expressed come from another source, your own observations or your own studies?

My own studies. I was very dissappointed to find that sexist passage in the new Testament. The old I coudl have let go, but 1 Timothy 2 is ridiculous.

>In no way do I mind being put on the spot by tough questions.

I'd like to know what you think when you look at the stars. Do those stars have planets? Do those planets have life? Are they capable of life?