Personally, I don't feel as though it would benefit either of us. You do not believe in prayer and I respect your position. If that is the view you hold then so be it. No matter what I say will change that view, and vice versa. If you feel though as a debate may be beneficial to you, then I will go ahead with it. I will say that we have fundamental differences of opinion on this topic, and I do not believe we can come to the same conclusion no matter what each of us says.

I think it also has to do with the perceived notion that they (conservative commentators) never use facts or anything to back up what they say; they just ramble on about topics in which they have no clue on. I disagree with some of Beck's views from time to time, but its a waste of my time to dispute them. What good what that do for me? It would make me feel better about myself to a certain degree, but other than that its useless. If you disagree with his views, there is something called a remote control, and when you push a certain button, you don't have to hear from him anymore. ;)

The Holy Spirit needs a medium through which to perform the miracles, namely human beings. Why he can't just do it himself I do not really know. I have not put in the research to figure it out. I speak in tongues. Does that therefore make me unnatural? No, not at all. I am not perfect; I am just like everyone else. Of course, I have a lot more responsibility, but I am still treated the same as everyone else in God's eyes. So by your logic, miracles and speaking in tongues does not exist, or if they did than the people who have the gifts are not human or are not of this world? I've never had a discussion with a person who held this view before, so I am just intrigued as to your reasons why you have that certain view.

In order to show that a book is factual, I have to show that it has facts in it. How can I prove a book is factual if you deny my evidence that there are any facts in it? I am not going to continue putting up with your pathetic ad hominems either. Unless you tone it down, i'm not continuing this discussion. Go bug someone else.

Here are a few. I like the one about the elephants the best. ;)

http://www.rock107.ca/morningshow/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/elephants.jpg

http://www.jacanaent.com/Photos/DemotivPost/School.jpg

http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/DemotivationalPoster.jpg

http://fliiby.com/images/_original/50jq917euz.jpg

http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0808/chuck-norris-demotivational-poster-1219689874.jpg

Well, I mean, we are all born without any knowledge of anything, so in this sense yes. However, I disagree with your view on Bush so I am saying no. :p

I agree as well. I do not believe the founders intended for the US government to become as influential as it has become today. I think a lot of people are against the health care reform proposed, because they feel that government is getting too involved in the lives of private citizens. But I also feel that the government should do something about the high health care costs and to put some form of regulation on it so it doesn't spiral out of control. After all, we have followed the Keynesian model now for 80 years, what is going to stop us now? :) I find it odd how my economic college textbooks discuss only the Keynesian model, while dismissing Hayak, the Chicago school, and the Austrian school of thought. I think the government has something to do with it... :)

---

Concerning the plutocracy, I see it more and more nowadays. Whether its Congressmen accepting money from lobbying groups to vote a particular way to the presidency being determined on who can trash talk the other candidate in more commercials so that Americans will vote against him or her, everything in our government revolves around money. The more money you have, the more power and influence you have. Look at the Kennedy's for instance. Look at where money got them. I can see the argument that you cannot win solely by having more money, in that you need to have other characteristics as well. However, money has a great influence not only in how influential a person can be, but also how they can change the views of Americans on a particular candidate all at the snap of a Benjamin. It is getting worse and worse, and I hope that someone can someday convey this to Americans.

I believe that he thinks about what to put into the teleprompter before he speaks from it every show. A lot of people have views of Glenn Beck solely by what they see on Youtube, which is unfair to the man. Yes, he does say wacky things at times, but a lot of the time he brings up important ideas and information about the United States and its government. I mean, I am a republican and I hardly watch his show. But, for instance, there was one show I watched where he and an economist (forgot the name, think it was Payne) were showing how the treasury and the federal reserve were creating a circular movement of money in which the treasury sold bonds or something similar and the federal reserve was buying it all up. So basically, the government is just dealing with itself. :/ If anyone is interested about the fed reserve, I recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. Although its 600 pages, its worth it in the end; it really opens your eyes.

Okay, yes I get what you are saying now. That was actually exactly what I was thinking before you posted. How can you prove that the universe specifically began at the big bang? You cannot. Therefore, it is not a good argument to use. Thanks for clearing it all up now. I thought there was a problem with that Apologetic line of thinking, but I couldn't grasp exactly what it was.

Okay, i'll try not to look at it with offense. Your bold has me all screwed up. :/ I can't tell whether I am talking or you are. Can you just like put mine in italics or something?

---

That is false, for it is written:

Like I have stated previously, God existed before the universe was even made. Yes, he was originally the God of the Israelites in the Old Testament, but you are forgetting about Paul's ministry. Now Christianity is available to both Jew and Gentile (non-Jew).

---

cognizant of God’s existence by natural means

So what are miracles then? We are aware of the supernatural qualities he possesses, because he gives some to us in 1 Corinthians 12. Do you believe in tongues and miracles? Do you believe that Jesus is God, according to the trinity?

---

lies outside the scope of this debate

Yes, I agree that it does. Maybe during a future time we could debate this.

---

I'm not really understanding your point of view. What exactly are you trying to say? That the Bible contains no evidence of God? The Bible discusses topics that can be used to prove the existence of God. There are some topics that require faith, such as the verse you mentioned. Can I provide rigorous proof that God created the heavens and the earth? No, I cannot. I have faith in the Bible that what it is saying is true. Therefore, I am using the Bible as an argument for the existence of God. I have to believe that what the Bible is saying is true before I can believe that God created the heavens and the earth. If you never looked at the Bible before, what would be your view on the universe? You would believe that some natural process created it. Yet, when you read the Bible and believe what it says, you instead come to the conclusion that no, God created the heavens and the earth, not natural processes. Does this make sense?