Present Weakness and Resurrection Life

2 Corinthians 4

New International Version (NIV)


Present Weakness and Resurrection Life

4 Therefore, since through God’s mercy we have this ministry, we do not lose heart. 2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of God’s glory displayed in the face of Christ.

7 But we have this treasure in jars of clay to show that this all-surpassing power is from God and not from us. 8 We are hard pressed on every side, but not crushed; perplexed, but not in despair; 9 persecuted, but not abandoned; struck down, but not destroyed. 10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus may also be revealed in our body. 11 For we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that his life may also be revealed in our mortal body. 12 So then, death is at work in us, but life is at work in you.

13 It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken.” Since we have that same spirit of faith, we also believe and therefore speak, 14 because we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you to himself. 15 All this is for your benefit, so that the grace that is reaching more and more people may cause thanksgiving to overflow to the glory of God.

16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. 17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. 18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

reply to post by oktopus

It would be useful if you could explain the passage rather than just quoting it.
You could give people some help in understanding the message.

reply to post by oktopus

we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God.

Since there was no "Gospels" or New Testament" at the time this was written, what was the "Word of God" that "we" don't distort?

reply to post by windword

Since there was no "Gospels" or New Testament" at the time this was written, what was the "Word of God" that "we" don't distort?

The canonical gospels of the New Testament were maybe not in existence at the time this was written, but a foundational part of the NT would have been, at least in the first letter to the Corinthians by Paul.
The context is the gospel according to Paul, which he is indirectly calling the word of God, in that this came to him in some sort of supernatural way through direct conversations between himself and the ascended Jesus.

This is all pretty much pointing twords Jesus having been in fact a male prostitute.

reply to post by oktopus

Present Weakness and Resurrection Life

The weakness would be the fact that Paul has to write a letter to talk to the Christians of Corinth, rather than being able to come to them in person.
That "weakness" is a direct result of his preaching the gospel, where he is being persecuted for it.
The strength is in the gospel itself and shown in its results in the changed lives of those who accepted it, in being morally and ethically upright in how they conduct themselves.

reply to post by jmdewey60


Oh, so the author is calling his own work the "Word of God"? That's exactly what I thought. That makes it legitimate then!

windword
Since there was no "Gospels" or New Testament" at the time this was written, what was the "Word of God" that "we" don't distort?

Old Testament.
An essential element in the preaching of the time (see e.g. the speeches of Peter in Acts) was how Jesus fulfilled what was said in the Old Testament.

reply to post by windword

Oh, so the author is calling his own work the "Word of God"? That's exactly what I thought. That makes it legitimate then!

That wasn't what I said.
What we today might call the word of God as Christians, at least partially existed, which was probably at that time, Revelation, 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians, and Galatians.
But what Paul was talking about is the truth from God that he could put into words, and what he called his gospel, or simply, message.

reply to post by DISRAELI

(see e.g. the speeches of Peter in Acts)

Which actually could have been considered a "distortion", but of course was written much later than 2 Corinthians.
I don't think that Paul engaged in that sort of rhetoric as is described in Acts, which I see as historical revisionism of what the original Apostles were like, and what they did.
Paul stuck with a very vague relationship between the OT story of the Suffering Servant and the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, and throws in the fact that he was somehow of the same lineage of David, something that practically all Jews could also claim.

reply to post by oktopus

10 We always carry around in our body the death of Jesus

So Christians carry around death within them? I thought Jesus came to give life? Kind of a contradiction isn't it?

See, here's the reason. This is exactly why I'm so hard-nosed when it comes to the matter of establishing a firm and objective understanding of what exactly it is we call God. Because when some kook writes a few pages and claims to have been divinely inspired, whether it be here in the modern era or some scrap we unearth in a 1,500 year old archaeological dig, we have something to compare it to. Something we know is trustworthy as more than just a matter of opinion. That fact that the most solid basis for making that determination has fractured into 4,000 subtle shades of the the rainbow is not at all reassuring. And then scriptures come along and its so indeterminate that I am told: "You have to know how to read it." I've never, ever been told that in biology or physics. What was written on that page required nothing more than a functional capacity for comprehending English. What is so special about scripture that you have to be infused or inspired by the "Holy Spirit" to possess a proper understanding of what the hell the words say? That is so indeterminate and flat-out ridiculous that no one here should be surprised they use textbooks and not Bibles in schools.

Long story short, an equation only lasts so long when you're just taking half its variables on faith. Math doesn't work like that, and neither does the universe. Substituting unknown values for figures you think should go there, when your own understanding is lacking on account of precisely that same principle, is the worst way to go about solving the mysteries of the universe. If it weren't for heathen scientists who dared to question the infallible inspiration of your precious priests, we'd still think the Earth was the center of the universe.

To hell with your resurrection. I didn't read a thing about it in my physics book, so it isn't real. And that book was written by SCIENCE, which makes it infallible. See how that argument works?

/rant

AfterInfinity
See, here's the reason. This is exactly why I'm so hard-nosed when it comes to the matter of establishing a firm and objective understanding of what exactly it is we call God. Because when some kook writes a few pages and claims to have been divinely inspired, whether it be here in the modern era or some scrap we unearth in a 1,500 year old archaeological dig, we have something to compare it to. Something we know is trustworthy as more than just a matter of opinion. That fact that the most solid basis for making that determination has fractured into 4,000 subtle shades of the the rainbow is not at all reassuring. And then scriptures come along and its so indeterminate that I am told: "You have to know how to read it." I've never, ever been told that in biology or physics. What was written on that page required nothing more than a functional capacity for comprehending English. What is so special about scripture that you have to be infused or inspired by the "Holy Spirit" to possess a proper understanding of what the hell the words say? That is so indeterminate and flat-out ridiculous that no one here should be surprised they use textbooks and not Bibles in schools.

Long story short, an equation only lasts so long when you're just taking half its variables on faith. Math doesn't work like that, and neither does the universe. Substituting unknown values for figures you think should go there, when your own understanding is lacking on account of precisely that same principle, is the worst way to go about solving the mysteries of the universe. If it weren't for heathen scientists who dared to question the infallible inspiration of your precious priests, we'd still think the Earth was the center of the universe.

To hell with your resurrection. I didn't read a thing about it in my physics book, so it isn't real. And that book was written by SCIENCE, which makes it infallible. See how that argument works?

/rant

edit on 17-2-2014 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Science has never proven anything man... read about the scientific method. By definition, science may only DISPROVE a theory. read a philosophy book - specifically about Rene Descartes. (invented Cartiesian Coordinate grid, champion of rational thinking. global skepticism? systematic doubt?)

I think therefore I am.

I felt as you before I found truth in God. NOW the Bible interests me, because I believe. Most epic read ever too - whether you believe or not. I was depressed and afraid before. now I am liberated spiritually.

Descartes went through a period of horrible depression when he "doubted all that could be doubted". He couldn't see how he could prove that the world wasn't the creation of an evil powerful demon bent on leading Descartes erroneously. All he was left with he could be certain was true was "I think, therefore I am." he was sad because all he used to think was certain, was not - in his mind. He couldn't understand why sometimes 2+2 couldn't equal 5.

then he found that "I think, therefore I am", proves the existence of God. look it up, feel out his rational, not mine. He said that only God could make his only truth true, and that God would not deceive him about issues so important.

Then he proved to himself that he actually could trust in what he learned in school because he found the power of believing in the power of God. He went on to define many of the concepts which are essential to your "science", which is really just global doubt....

JamesCookieIII
Science has never proven anything man...

Science has disproven the Noahs Ark myth ... the Adam and Eve creation myth ... and the Exodus folklore.
"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" - Albert Einstein

FlyersFan

JamesCookieIII
Science has never proven anything man...

Science has disproven the Noahs Ark myth ... the Adam and Eve creation myth ... and the Exodus folklore.
"Science without Religion Is Lame, Religion without Science Is Blind" - Albert Einstein

since science is philosophically incapable of proving anything, and a disproof only shoots down one hypothesis, and there are infinite hypothesis' which remain. I would like to see you try to replicate each one of the experiments which you think disprove all of those situations. A procedure would be nice, something replicable in a laboratory or in the feild.

I'm pretty sure if they existed, then you'd be famous for citing them and end the creationist v evolutionist and all the other ethical debates our world is faced with today.

by Einstein ' logic, a faithful scientist would be neither lame nor blind. I agree, and feel that education is the best route.

quantum physics - can science alone explain how they work? The question I'm left with is: does it even matter? I'm content to wait. However - others suffer from lack of faith. no, I feel science and religion go hand and hand - the results you get WILL always require faith to utilize them in an ethical way.

reply to post by JamesCookieIII


It always bewilders me when people speak as though they have no empathy of their own. You do not steal because you can imagine being robbed. You do not murder because you can imagine the pain of being killed. This is where you draw your morals from.

JamesCookieIII
I would like to see you try to replicate each one of the experiments which you think disprove all of those situations. A procedure would be nice, something replicable in a laboratory or in the feild.

*sigh* Noahs Ark. Disproven by science. No need to 'replicate experiments'.


If Noahs Ark happened .. then this 80,000 year old tree colony wouldn't have survived.
PANDO Tree Colony

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[6][7]
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25.[8] in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.

Science Daily
At this time there are 6.5 million land animal species on the planet. There were even more back in what was supposedly Noahs time. Two of each animal would mean at least 13 million animals on that boat. NOT A CHANCE!! Couldn't happen.

Light doesnt penetrate the ocean more than about 500 ft. if the earth were submerged under 29,000 ft. in order to cover mt. everest, no marine plant life would have survived and the oceans would be dead. Obviously that didn't happen.

Could Noahs' Ark Have Actually Happened?

If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC – usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.

(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)

(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.

AND MORE INFORMATION AT THAT SITE.

Adam and his Eves - A lesson on DNA and population distribution for you

Creationism vs Biodiversity

Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.

National Geographic - Human DNA Journey
For Noahs Ark to have happened exactly as the bible claims, we'd expect the highest levels of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East. But the fact is that the highest levels of human genetic diversity occur in Africa where humanity evolved.
Noahs Ark Doesn't Float

Miles of coral reef, hundreds of feet thick, still survive intact at the Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The violent flood would have certainly destroyed these formations, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived for over 100,000 undisturbed years. Similarly, the floodwaters, not to mention the other factors leading to a boiling sea, would have obviously melted the polar ice caps. However, ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica date back at least 40,000 years.

Impact craters from pre-historical asteroid strikes still exist even though the tumultuous floodwaters would have completely eroded them. If these craters were formed concurrently with the flood, as it has been irresponsibly suggested, the magnificent heat from the massive impacts would have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean, as if it wasn’t hot enough already. Like the asteroid craters, global mountain ranges would exhibit uniform erosion as a result of a global flood. Unsurprisingly, we witness just the opposite in neighboring pairs of greatly contrasting examples, such as the Rockies and Appalachians.

Even if we erroneously assume there to be enough water under the earth’s surface in order to satisfy the required flood levels, the size of the openings necessary to permit passage for a sufficient amount of water would be large enough to destroy the cohesive properties of the earth’s crust. However, the outer layer is firmly intact, and there’s no evidence indicating that it ever collapsed. All this hypothetical escaping water would have greatly eroded the sides of the deep ocean fissures as well, but no such observable evidence exists for this phenomenon either.

We can also observe algae deposits within the fossil layers, a phenomenon that could not have formed during the flood because they require sunlight to thrive. It’s quite reasonable to assume that the clouds would have thoroughly obstructed the sunlight during such a tremendous rain indicative of the flood. Setting aside this and all other known fossil inconsistencies with the Bible, archaeologists have found human footprints within the upper layers. Moving water simply could not have deposited these markings. As I alluded to earlier, this seemingly endless list of geological problems was completely unforeseeable to the primitive authors, thus the Bible offers no justifications or explanations for our discoveries.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by JamesCookieIII

 

It always bewilders me when people speak as though they have no empathy of their own. You do not steal because you can imagine being robbed. You do not murder because you can imagine the pain of being killed. This is where you draw your morals from.

I have both killed, been robbed, robbed others.... I draw my morals from virtue ethics. not deontology, not utilitarianism. you seem to want to deny ignorance by using logical fallacies like describing where I derive my morals from. unless I missed something.

oktopus

18 So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.

To fix your eyes on what is unseen. Why did certain people stare into the flame of a candle? For their eyes to become fixed on the unseen perhaps? The unseen must hold a certain structure for our eyes to be able to be fixed on it. Paul definetly claims the unseen to be something.

FlyersFan

JamesCookieIII
I would like to see you try to replicate each one of the experiments which you think disprove all of those situations. A procedure would be nice, something replicable in a laboratory or in the feild.

*sigh* Noahs Ark. Disproven by science. No need to 'replicate experiments'.


If Noahs Ark happened .. then this 80,000 year old tree colony wouldn't have survived.
PANDO Tree Colony

Pando (Latin for "I spread"), also known as The Trembling Giant,[1][2] is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) determined to be a single living organism by identical genetic markers[3] and one massive underground root system. The plant is estimated to weigh collectively 6,000,000 kg (6,600 short tons),[4] making it the heaviest known organism.[5] The root system of Pando, at an estimated 80,000 years old, is among the oldest known living organisms.[6][7]
Pando is located 1 mile southwest of Fish Lake on Utah route 25.[8] in the Fremont River Ranger District of the Fishlake National Forest, at the western edge of the Colorado Plateau in South-central Utah, at N 38.525 W 111.75.

Science Daily
At this time there are 6.5 million land animal species on the planet. There were even more back in what was supposedly Noahs time. Two of each animal would mean at least 13 million animals on that boat. NOT A CHANCE!! Couldn't happen.

Light doesnt penetrate the ocean more than about 500 ft. if the earth were submerged under 29,000 ft. in order to cover mt. everest, no marine plant life would have survived and the oceans would be dead. Obviously that didn't happen.

Could Noahs' Ark Have Actually Happened?

If the 2350 date were correct, then human civilization would’ve had to undergo an extreme population explosion in the millenium following the flood. According to Biblical sources, there would have been millions of Jews leaving Egypt, so assuming a global population of 40 million around that time (~1350 BC), and comparing that to global population estimates later in history (an estimated 200+ million by 0 AD), would require an incredibly high population growth between 2350 BC and 1350 BC (5,000,000 fold increase in 1,000 years), and a much lower population growth after 1350 BC – usually less than 5 fold population growth within any 1,000 year period between 1350 BC and 1800 AD.

(3) The distribution of animals is not what we would expect if there were a global flood killing all life. If all life was limited to the top of a mountain in the Middle East in 2350 B.C., then how to explain the distribution of animals across the world? All the kangaroos on the Ark went to Australia? How did the animals get to the Americas? If they crossed via an ice-bridge in the Bering Strait, then the Americas should be limited to animals that are warm blooded and capable of traveling hundreds of miles across snow. This means no reptiles, no spiders, etc. Yet, the Amazon contains a wide variety of animal biodiversity. And why didn’t American desert animals stay behind in the deserts of the Old World? (See related post: “Creationism versus Animal Biodiversity”)

(4) Genetic evidence shows that human beings are far to genetically diverse to be descended from a single family in 2350 B.C. If Noah’s Ark were true, then all men alive today would’ve gotten their Y-chromosomes from Noah, and all human mitochondrial DNA would come from Noah’s wife and the three daughter-in-laws. Studies of the human Y-Chromosome show that you’d need far more than 4,300 years to accumulate that many mutations. Human beings could not be descended from a single male in 2350 B.C. What the studies show, instead, is that, in order to explain the number of mutations in the human Y-Chromosome, you have to allow for roughly 60,000-90,000 years. Similarly, human mitochondrial DNA requires roughly 160,000 years to accumulate that many mutations — showing that Eve could not have lived 6,000 years ago as the Bible says.

AND MORE INFORMATION AT THAT SITE.

Adam and his Eves - A lesson on DNA and population distribution for you

Creationism vs Biodiversity

Additionally, once the animals left the Ark, there are a lot of nearby regions they could inhabit, but didn’t. For example, all varieties of rattlesnakes are found in the Americas (33 species, and numerous subspecies). There are none in the Old World – despite the fact that there are regions similar to the American deserts – the Sahara, the Middle East, the Gobi Desert, etc. Llamas fit this same pattern – found in the New World, but not in the Old World. The Caucus (where the Ark supposedly landed) and Himalaya mountains have different species than the Rocky Mountains and Andes. Why didn’t some of the Rocky Mountain species stick around in the Caucus Mountains – they were already there the minute they stepped off the Ark. Similarly, the species in the South American tropics aren’t found in Old World tropics (Southeast Asia and Africa), and vice-versa. For example, New World cats and monkeys are different species than Old World cats and monkeys. Theoretically, with the movement of creatures caused by the global flood, one could find the same species living in distant places. Somehow, we don’t.

National Geographic - Human DNA Journey
For Noahs Ark to have happened exactly as the bible claims, we'd expect the highest levels of genetic diversity to be in the Middle East. But the fact is that the highest levels of human genetic diversity occur in Africa where humanity evolved.
Noahs Ark Doesn't Float

Miles of coral reef, hundreds of feet thick, still survive intact at the Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific Ocean. The violent flood would have certainly destroyed these formations, yet the rate of deposit tells us that the reefs have survived for over 100,000 undisturbed years. Similarly, the floodwaters, not to mention the other factors leading to a boiling sea, would have obviously melted the polar ice caps. However, ice layers in Greenland and Antarctica date back at least 40,000 years.

Impact craters from pre-historical asteroid strikes still exist even though the tumultuous floodwaters would have completely eroded them. If these craters were formed concurrently with the flood, as it has been irresponsibly suggested, the magnificent heat from the massive impacts would have immediately boiled large quantities of the ocean, as if it wasn’t hot enough already. Like the asteroid craters, global mountain ranges would exhibit uniform erosion as a result of a global flood. Unsurprisingly, we witness just the opposite in neighboring pairs of greatly contrasting examples, such as the Rockies and Appalachians.

Even if we erroneously assume there to be enough water under the earth’s surface in order to satisfy the required flood levels, the size of the openings necessary to permit passage for a sufficient amount of water would be large enough to destroy the cohesive properties of the earth’s crust. However, the outer layer is firmly intact, and there’s no evidence indicating that it ever collapsed. All this hypothetical escaping water would have greatly eroded the sides of the deep ocean fissures as well, but no such observable evidence exists for this phenomenon either.

We can also observe algae deposits within the fossil layers, a phenomenon that could not have formed during the flood because they require sunlight to thrive. It’s quite reasonable to assume that the clouds would have thoroughly obstructed the sunlight during such a tremendous rain indicative of the flood. Setting aside this and all other known fossil inconsistencies with the Bible, archaeologists have found human footprints within the upper layers. Moving water simply could not have deposited these markings. As I alluded to earlier, this seemingly endless list of geological problems was completely unforeseeable to the primitive authors, thus the Bible offers no justifications or explanations for our discoveries.

Are you trying to troll or are you genuinely confused about the scientific method? You are content to assume many things, whereas I am only content to assume one thing. GLORY BE TO GOD. However, you change the subject. If you cannot provide a procedure for your scientific assumptions, then you will be shunned by a scientific community (or individual mind) UNLESS THAT MIND CAN FORGIVE YOU.
Thus far I'm willing to forgive you of many things - being rude to the OP (He didn't state his opinion, but merely is trying to analyze literature). You have put words in my mouth, and cited wikipedia in a scientific discussion. You have assumed much, like that its impossible to fit 13.5 million animals on a boat. The thing that got me upset a little was that you go about making your argument like science and the bible are mutually exclusive. I want to teach uneducated Christians the ways of science, and uneducated "scientists" the ways of the Christians, so that we may further the development of many ideas in an ethically pure way... Plants can survive floods, and the trees that you brought up have survived many great floods....
I also am willing to forgive you for treating me like I am a child who needs to be taught the ways of the world - as if you know more than I.
My father is an astrophysicist for the U.S. Air Force - he created the BEST program in the world to model plasma fields upon reentry to the atmosphere. Without it, many astronauts would have died due to gross miscalculations. There is no way to solve a hard problem other than admitting it is hard, and hypothesising accordingly. There is no ideal solution, other than to follow the example of virtuous people before you. My point is that he says without the virtue found in the Bible, he would never have been able to produce such a wonderful computer program (it turns out, modelling plasma upon reentry is actually rather hard to do).
What accomplishments in your life do you attribute to faithlessness? I think that you lack conviction. You have an intellectual mind, but no example from which to derive what you do not know. However, if you read the Bible, there are examples in it which show you which path to choose, no matter where you are going, or are coming from. Science experiments rely on data, but the conclusions from that data rely on FAITH. What I argue, is that the type of faith that you are willing to have is less than ideal. Even if God is not real, it would be necessary to make him up (or suffer in a state of spiritual disunity for the rest of our lives, and considering the epistemological and metaphysical evidence around us - deny that our souls are eternal....) I am not willing to bet in such a manner.
Stop making up timelines in your head, and start thinking logically about existence - GOD IS NOT DEAD, and he will always show you the way. "Ask and you shall receive." That is another way of saying the same thing that science does: phrase the right hypothesises and then you will find the right data which is relevant to your original scientific inquiry....

you neither phrase the right hypothesis nor indeed are looking at the right data. Stop indoctrinating, and start teaching. Through teaching you will learn, and since what I am saying is the truth - there is a God - then you will understand when the time is right. No need to post on topics which apparently enrage you. The secret to a good post is realizing that YOU actually are enraging you. Do not belittle those who seek the same answers as you, for they are like your family. Put yourself into an ethical flowchart, and work your way around the circle, and you will see that Christianity is CLEARLY the winning philosophy - it relates everything to everything else the best way. Under the glory of God.

In conclusion, you betray your true intentions. you are here neither to seek truth nor deny ignorance - but rather to indoctrinate through logical fallacies. You reputation will precede you when it is time to face the music. Best of luck to you on whatever spiritual journey you are on. I, however, have to continue my pursuit of knowledge in hopes of one day being an ETHICAL mechanical engineer.