I also felt God in my heart for over 25 yrs (after praying to be born again) and I even overcame every sin 3.5 yrs; which is something few so called Christians could say with straight face.

But what exactly did I feeling? Could it be that the born again experience we feel, is a religious placebo effect for those who emotionally need it at the time? The physiological causes might be in tapping some ancient genes placed long ago when life was very difficult for primitive man.

Life is alway an evaluational challenge and would always seem that it fox-holds us to believe in God Who can save us from doom. This order in the universe that even The Intelligent Designers see is nothing more than what caused by intimate the contact from The Big Bang. The ultimate pattern for the evolution of intelligent life is to be stewards in a Stable Universe that would die out when stars turned to brown dwarfs. It is for the purpose of turn brown dwarfs in yellow dwarfs that the universe has evolved intelligent life (that completes the pattern).

Atoms did not expand; The universe created it self from Nothing because Nothing is in sense highly explosive due to The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (Check it out the conservation laws are being broken within time frame of The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle):

http://hendrix2.uoregon.edu/~imamura/123/lecture-8/lambda.html

This form it is The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which is basis for Stephen Hawking claim that The universe Created itself from Nothing.

Biblically there is no grammatical indicative words that would direct us to take it symbolically. You are out of with both science and with God Who you blindly defend.

I bought up the "2000 year" point to bring into question (or doubt) the points people so easily throw around without throughly taking precause not to be mislead, especial since this would be a time period for which they clearly unaccustomed. BUT THIS WAS AGAINST RELIGIOUS CONCLUSION (I.E. AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS). As far as your other point (that also was about deferent religious groups). So no you don't have to take things out-of-text to show that The Biblical is evil according to how you determine evil. It is abundantly clear that the bible has a different form of morality than modern society therefore from within its own view of what constitutes morality the biblical God may be view as good. If you asked me whether I agree with biblical morality, I would say that it troubles greatly. HOW I AM RELUCTANT TO CRITICIZE THIS BIBLICAL GOD BECAUSE OF AN USUAL STRING OF BAD LUCK AFTER BECOME AN ATHEIST. MY UNDERSTANDING OF SCRIPTURE GIVES AN ARRAY THINGS TO SAY THAT MAKE THESE STATEMENTS SEEM LIKE CHILD'S PLAY BUT I BACK OFF FROM PUT THEM UP AS DEBATE BECAUSE THAT FUNNY STRING OF BAD LUCK.

I disbelieve the new reports simple because with computers you fake almost anything. Those claiming that it's anti-gravity seems laughable. But some of old reports I think might be the real thing. I tried to find out who made airogel and the history of iit seemed a bit strange to me. I would also like know more about gorilla glass. It may be nothing but when you hear stories about crashed UFOs it makes you "think maybe"!

What needs to be done is to threaten to confiscate the oil companies that make major oil spill. If that was done BP you hear more the same this year. It about time play hard ball NO MORE BAILOUTS JUST CUT THEM OUT COMPLETELY. Then stockholder will demand action.

Outsourcing was one those things you hear just before the great crash in the markets. That happen right before Clinton left office. The three engines of economic ruin we see today was: outsource, light sweet crude go from 18 dollars a barrel to 50, and exporting countries manipulating their currency market to complete international trade. During that I remember how that time magazine had whole issue on outsourcing computer jobs. You can't make havoc with colleges jobs expect every just going away. These people went to school for fours years only to find that they can not compete with ten cent a hour. They then are completely dependent Gov't so is free trade unfair trade? We never real recover from those days, the recession just goes on and on with end in sight. You see these guys aren't going to go out and spend another fours years get some new education. What it boils down to is outsourcing put them out of commission for good.

Current thinking is on a Quantum Genesis theory (aka Quantum Cosmology) the issue therefore comes down to the foundations of quantum theory. Its has been said that if you think Quantum Theory is logical then you don't understand it. There many interpretations of Quantum Theory because of difficulty with its foundation. Clearly Quantum Theory needs to be rationalized one way or another. this undoubly will result in deeper understanding of reality itself. The daunting problem is that any mistake along the way complicate further discovery.

If we had his DNA we should clone him several times. Just6 to what happens. Man must know whether God exists or not. If you had DNA from Jesus that would bring many questions both for God's existence and agaist God's existence; that kind of question is too important to be left unanswered.

I think block-holes are due totally to gravity and not quantum. Quantum Theory only become significant at the very small in accordance with the correspondence principle (wikipedia that). But I difference with meaning the spacial theory relativity (see my debate: "Does Time Really Change?" this would spill over into the general theory of relativity as well. So the that black-holes are really black stars but not because of quantum theory.

I do not thing it is possible because it would clearly violate the conservation of mass. Also at this time relativity has not truly demonstrated that true time is changing. Take this little thought experiment: a train is moving close to the speed of light so that there exists an of hour of time dilation. then is runs over man on the track. Clearly there would be collision (interaction between the man and the train) thats the whole point of thought experiment an obvious conclusion. This believe it or not prove a hell of allot for relativity. Because the train in in a different time (one hour's difference) than the man. For example you are sitting right where someone else was at a different time (i.e. two objects can co-exist at the same place at different times). You also look at it this way those experiment that show differences between atomic clocks. Well if they truly achieve time travel then it would be impossible to show a difference between two atomic clocks. This clear means that the measurement of time is change while time itself is remains fixed. Einstein said that (time is what you measure with a clock, clocks change therefore time change) this statement is not true. Therefore time travel is very questionable. Anyone who disagrees with this variation of relativity will be able to debate the issue soon.

This theory is the only alternative to a purely religious based belief. For example the collision of parallel universes (called branes in M-theory) would not explain the existence of the parallel universes. The collision theory would have the over all effect of reducing the observable universe to mere sub-universe while leaving unexplained the universe as whole. So from a scientific view point there is no real alternative to the big bang. The big bang as a theoretical entity is versatile. For example one can make a distinction between a spatial expansion phase verses a stellar(i.e. matter) expansion phase. One could characterize different theories of the big bang as either a spatial big bang (the classical approach) vs a stellar big bang (non-classical approach which would be incorrect theory but it can be view in that way). Then you could ask exactly at what point did matter form; here you can develop ideas along several paths: e.g. you can say space expanded to its maximum size which caused a shock that then produce a stellar big bang that we see now, or you could say matter formed almost immediately after space popped into existence. Ultimately what form would be correct will be determined by equations. For now this will due some things I will leave for a full debate.

Barring any evolution and based purely from logical point of view the chicken must come first in order to incubate the egg.

From purely as a logical conclusion if you bar any evolution the chicken must come first since any egg would need to be incubated in order to hatch. However this is not considering evolution or even climate change in the past.

You are simply wrong. You are either defending God against Himself and you know it or you are basing your statements on own opinion without consult the bible. If you want to be accurate you must realize that you are 2000 years removed from that period and mankind is totally Dependant on the bible for its knowledge. I think you have fallen into the trap of defending God that so many religious people throw caution to the wind with or are just clueless about references like: Job 42:7-9. LET ME ASK THIS: IF DEFENDING GOD COULDN"T BE A SIN THEN WHY WOULD SACRIFICE BE REQUIRED OF THEM HERE? AS A RELIGIOUS PERSON HAVEN'T YOU READ WHERE GOD TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS WHEN HE SPOKE WITH SATAN "...although you turned Me against him without a cause..." Job 2:3. If you want to defend God and be right! The first thing you would need to do is know what the real meaning of the scripture is. This could become a problem when someone is exposed to things that will influence their thoughts before they have grasped the text properly. That's why I tell people to take their bible and SHUT EVERYTHING ELSE OUT BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER WIN AGAINST 2000 YEARS OF RELIGIOUS CONFUSION, It often takes patience measured in years to understand the meaning the few passage that really need an explanation. Commentaries are a waste of time and tend to confuse. They will write almost everything about things that need no explanation but they will conveniently skip over those things that do. That's why atheist are bring up just some of what they have skipped over because they didn't the guts to tackle the tuff questions in first place. Now that atheist are bring these point up they all of sudden have something to say but are saying it badly (contrary to scripture). BUT WHERE WERE THEY WHEN THEY WERE WRITING THEIR POINTLESS COMMENTARIES AND BOOKS. YOU KNOW THEY WRITE THOSE BOOKS TO REPLACE THE BIBLE WITH OWN NOTHING IN ORDER TO CASH IN ON GOD. IT THEREFORE IS NO WONDER THAT EVERYONE MERELY CONSULTS THEMSELVES RATHER THAT FOOLISH BIBLE, WHO NEEDS THAT ANYWAY!!!

You are simply wrong. You are either defending God against Himself and you know it or you are basing your statements on own opinion without consult the bible. If you want to be accurate you must realize that you are 2000 years removed from that period and mankind is totally Dependant on the bible for its knowledge. I think you have fallen into the trap of defending God that so many religious people throw caution to the wind with or are just clueless about references like: Job 42:7-9. LET ME ASK THIS: IF DEFENDING GOD COULDN"T BE A SIN THEN WHY WOULD SACRIFICE BE REQUIRED OF THEM HERE? AS A RELIGIOUS PERSON HAVEN'T YOU READ WHERE GOD TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS WHEN HE SPOKE WITH SATAN "...although you turned Me against him without a cause..." Job 2:3. If you want to defend God and be right! The first thing you would need to do is know what the real meaning of the scripture is. This could become a problem when someone is exposed to things that will influence their thoughts before they have grasped the text properly. That's why I tell people to take their bible and SHUT EVERYTHING ELSE OUT BECAUSE YOU WILL NEVER WIN AGAINST 2000 YEARS OF RELIGIOUS CONFUSION, It often takes patience measured in years to understand meaning the few passage that really need an explanation. Commentaries are a waste of time and tend to confuse. They will write almost everything about things that need no explanation but they will conveniently skip over those things that do. That's why atheist are bring up just some what they have skipped over because they didn't the guts to tackle the tuff questions in first place. Now that atheist are bring these point up they all of sudden have something to say but are saying it badly (contrary to scripture). BUT WHERE WERE THEY WHEN THEY WERE WRITING THEIR POINTLESS COMMENTARIES AND BOOKS. YOU KNOW THEY WRITE THOSE BOOKS TO REPLACE THE BIBLE WITH OWN NOTHING IN ORDER TO CASH IN ON GOD. IT THEREFORE IS NO WONDER THAT EVERYONE MERELY CONSULTS THEMSELVES RATHER THAT FOOLISH BIBLE, WHO NEEDS THAT ANYWAY!!!

And you would know this how? John1:2 read in context John 1 shows who Jesus was proclaimed to be! You must remember that you a little under 2000 years removed from that time period. If you approach from that viewpoint it would be enlightening.First it needful to realize that apart from few meager sentences we would absolute nothing Jesus. This means that we virtually dependent on the bible to tell who or what Jesus claimed to be. Reasons for how or why the new testament (NT) was written and who or what Jesus actually is are mainly speculation without authority. This issue has been compromised by thousands of religious group trying give you their interpretation (belief) of the NT. So in order to proceed further you need to SHUT OUT ALL THE NOISE and focus on the Biblical record exclusively. Most of the NT is in form of letters so you will be coming in middle of some one else's conversation on top that since it was written on scrolls the wording is brief and chuck full info making hard to read. Now that laid out the approach you are to take you must watch out that you are misreading what is there (remember there are over a thousand religious groups and growing: SO IS THIS EASY TO DO).

Two precautions to take in order not to read into the Bible your own thoughts are: 1) Use the local context first then limit yourself to the author's context (meaning the same scroll) then the historical context (meaning only the scroll that would be available to the author). 2) Use grammar to decide issues. I have done this for many years and I can tell what found briefly(without going into proof):1) Jesus claims to be God (that is why the Jews e him crucified). Quote from Jesus are limited but they can be found but it does matter any way because you're totally dependent the author anyway. 2) The old testament (OT) does support his claim(in a religious sense i.e. fulfillment, theological agreement...).

My understanding of Jesus and his claims (mainly from the NT authors) has lead me to the conclusion that established religion is contrary to the NT. These differences are significant as far as the NT is concerned. But to go over would require a complete Biblical study to compare it with established religion ( i.e. I would draw you conclusions from the bible then compare with modern religion). These conclusion should not surprise you because people only tried unstained the Bible 400 after it was written; that's like trying piece together history of how live was during the founding fathers of the U.S. after that history was destroyed.

When I use to believe these things I've would confronted religious authorities with the evidence leaving completely speechless. But amazingly no one listen to me at all. It is ironic that the Bible predict this very thing; it's one of the few predictions that are fulfillment so post-biblical that they could not be written after the facts. However I now believe that people want to believe something before they find out the facts this colors everything they think about Jesus or the bible in general. I find it passingly strange that those claim to follow the Bible make no effort to learn what says. So as an atheist when people come to me with some religion it looks laughable because I know they don't listen to what it says in the first place. At least I would have respect for them if I know they were trying to understand but I can quickly spot the real thing when I see it. I think religious people can learn allot from the efforts are taken with double blind testing during clinical trials. Something so persuasive on both sides and so filled with a placebo effect on one's emotions when left unchecked produce almost complete inaccuracies. The sum effect of all this is leave one confused that why your only hope understand properly is to SHUT IT OUT to stop the confusion. Once infected with their confusion you may have no hope to understand your target subject; its that difficult.

The best thing you can do is TAKE YOU BIBLE CLOSE THE DOOR AND SHUT IT OUT. & DON'T BET AGAINST 2000 YEARS OF RELIGIOUS CONFUSION YOU WON'T WIN.

Here are few start key verses you shouldn't forget: John 1 but the whole point is John 1:2 John 6:62 compare with John 1:2 same scroll context this shows that title son of man is same as the title son of God.

Galatians 1:1the key phase is "not through a man" right now you don't want to know what this goes against. 1 John4:1-6 key phase "in the flesh" to understand how contemporaries understood the compare it to the same phase in Philippians 1:22-25. Colossians 2:9-10 compare with Col 1:19 the key word & phase here is ""fullness of God' & "dwell" here the point is that this confusing passage is talking about The Holy Spirit remember you have to piece this together. Isaiah 53 key prophecy of Jewish rejection(Isaiah53:1&3;&4;), death (Isaiah53: 8), death with sinners present (Isaiah 53;12), resurrection(Isaiah53;12), and in (Joseph's who was) rich tomb among unbelievers (Isaiah53:9). It is really remarkable that was written 800 years before the NT and word for word confirmed by the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is not everything by no means but it's a start. There is a hell allot could have added here.

The universe started from NOTHING (not even space or time) it started as a QUANTUM entity (from Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle restates the conservation laws as near constants rather than true constants). When start to apply The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle to The Big Bang Singularity it is known as a QUANTUM GENESIS theory or as QUANTUM COSMOLOGY. But what is absolutely critical to a spatial big bang is the passing quote restated here by Carl Sagan that "space is finite yet unbounded". This spatial manifold is the key to a spatially based big bang. Recently Stephen Hawking threw in towel in favor of a quantum genesis theory.

I think "the universe is finite yet unbounded". I think this kind manifold is necessary for a spatially based big bang. If ultimately matter (as either mass or energy) is to be unified as some kind of spatial distortion it would only make sense that the space itself is finite(in a sense conserved). An endless Euclidean manifold would be your only alternative because for any transfinite cardinal number you may pick I can find still a greater transfinite cardinal number so you would end up choosing endlessness instead. But after choosing an Endless Euclidean Manifold you would soon discover that the edge was very fuzzy. It clear that space must be the same everywhere an Endless Euclidean Manifold would seem to violate that rule.

I have written a debate on string theory which can be easily found on this site. I don't believe anyone will ever successful show that the rational this idea is wrong. I am putting it up to test it. But I do thing that the TOE is legitimate because it does not have to be extra-dimensionally based. The reason I think that it is legitimate is because every successful theory has been a unified theory, and unified theory tend to be the most insightful. THAT KIND OF SUCCESS IN SCIENCE WILL NO JUST GO AWAY. String theory is a wrong idea because it has wedded itself to extra-dimensions. Though string theory will surely not survive however pieces or variations of it maybe salvageable in the end. But this idea of TOE goes to the heart of unified theory itself; perhaps it won't be this TOE but another TOE that will success.