Proof in the existance of God

[Fovezer]

But don't you see?  It wasn't sitting dormant while it was making all those virtual particles.  It was being used...going from usable to unusable.  Order to disorder.  I thought this was what you were saying.  So now, if I understand you correctly, engery is governed by two different laws?  Does that make scientific sense?

Virtual particles don't use energy, so they don't cause the energy to become disorder. Remember though, science doesn't know any of this for sure, so I am pretty much making assumptions here. You also got to understand that since we don't know what was before the Big Bang, we cn't be sure if the Laws we have today can apply to pre-Big Bang space. The Laws already can't be used for Black Holes, because Black Holes are "outside" of the Laws, so you can't say the Laws do apply to the Big Bang.

Strawman?  I am shocked you let that slip, my friend!  This is what I did with my example, tried to give another way to "think of it!" :blink:

Besides, this is slightly flawed, because although CO2 is unusable by human standards, it is a vital thing for plants...which by the way "exhale" oxygen! 

This may be a better analogy...

If you put a cold object next to a hot one, heat energy will flow out of the warmer object and into the cold one. Once the two objects have the same amount of heat energy, the flow stops.

May I ask what I misrepresented? I know other things use the CO2, but that wasn't the point, and I think you know that.

You can also imagine two large empty tanks connected at the bottom by a small pipe. If you fill one of the tanks with water and open the pipe, water will begin to gush through the pipe into the second tank. As long as there is more water in one tank than in the other, you can make the water do work for you. You could make this moving water turn a paddlewheel and generate electricity, for example. As the water levels in the two tanks comes closer together, the water will flow more and more slowly through the pipe. Eventually, when there's the same amount of water in both tanks, the flow will stop and the water can't do any more work.

Again, I know CO2, can be used by something else, but that wasn't the point, so my analogy does work.

An arrow has a start, and an end.  If the universe has an end, then it HAD to have a beginning.  We agree on this.  What I call God, you call energy not being used.  I am trying to show you how logically, it can't be energy.  Now let me see if I have this right;

We have energy sitting around, ordered and not being used.  It is waiting for the Big Bang.  But wait, it needs to first create all the matter to cause the density to cause the expansion.  But while it is creating this matter, it is still not using itself.  It is still just as ordered as it was before it started creating the matter.

So we have energy...not being used by anything while using itself to create virtual particles...which in turn creates enough mass(?) while not being bound by the 2nd Law of thermodynamics but by the principles of quantum physics(?)....for a cosmic expansion commonly refered to as the "Big Bang"....?  This is weak scientific theory.  Even you have to see that.  It sounds like you are picking and choosing.  I just want to get that straight.  Am I not understanding you correctly?

See, I think we aren't on the same page when we say "ordered." Everything starts out with order regardless.

So we have energy... Yes. not being used by anything while using itself to create virtual particles... No, energy doesn't create virtual particles. I posted this before. which in turn creates enough mass(?) while not being bound by the 2nd Law of thermodynamics but by the principles of quantum physics(?).... The mass came during the Big Bang, not before. And yes, the 2nd Law may not apply for a cosmic expansion commonly refered to as the "Big Bang"....? Bingo.

One the other hand, what I am trying to say, is that something immaterial..something outside the confines of the Laws of Thermodynamics, had to introduce material things in order to create what we have today.  I am really not asking you to believe in God from this, it is merely a starting point.  And my use is still justified.  If the 2nd Law can imply the eventual total destruction of the Universe, then it can be used to imply the total creation of the material Universe as well.  We are standing in the middle of the 'arrow of time.'  We see what we have around us, and use that to look to the future.  We can also use it to look to the past.

I know that you are trying to instill that there was "something else", and I know you are respectful enough not to say "So now you hav to believe in God" I see your point with the arrow, but the 2nd Law doesn't deal with the beginning. It is only stating "everything tends toward entropy." It never says anything about why or what things are ordered.

Haven't you said that energy created the matter for the Big Bang?  Wasn't it being used at that time?  This is what I was refering to in my above discourse.

No, it wasn't.

None taken my friend!  Let me answer your question.  I know you are an athiest.  I know that we are discussing the existence of God.  I know you are asking for emperical evidence to prove that existence.  What I am trying to show you though, is the flaw in the principle that governs the way in which you want me to prove His existence.  Empericism has nothing to do with atheism.  In order for me to "prove" God exists, I need more than emperical means.  And if for nothing else, for the sole reason that any evidence I DO happen to bring, (Like the 2nd Law) can be interpreted 1000, different ways.  We interpret evidence (as I said in the beginning) based on how we view the world.  Not (in most cases) based on what that evidence says.  you cannot use emperical means to prove an immaterial question.  If it could be done, then you should be able to prove the verifiability principle.  This is the reason for my post.

I am not neccessarily askings to see proof a god exists, because you can't. What I am asking is to see is evidence that something cannot happen without a god, which I haven't seem any. I do see what you are saying, but I really don't care about classifications like this.

I am not trying to covertly adjust who I think you are.  Neither am I trying to mislable you for the purpose of our talks.  I don't operate like that.  Your position is valid, though I disagree with it.  I am walking with you on this with the intent of showing you the reasons you have to believe that God does in fact exist.  I told you I am a straight-shooter in the beginning.  I intend to stay that way, for your benefit.

I undertsand and am grateful you are not like that, and I hope this will be at least a interesting discussion.

-=Fovezer=-

[Fovezer]

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the King's horses and all the King's men

Couldn't put Humpty together again

it is a shame that most books that have this rhymn in them do not have the entire thing..... what about the rest of it?????

how come they all leave out the part about the KING???

the KING can put Humpty Dumpty back together again, we just have to provide Him with all the pieces.......

did you know that God is the only one that can heal a broken heart? yes, but He has to have all the pieces..... each and every one.....

mike

No, the King can't put Humpty Dumty back together. So, are you saying God isn't all-powerful, and can't do everything?

[sagz4Christ]

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall,

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.

All the King's horses and all the King's men

Couldn't put Humpty together again

it is a shame that most books that have this rhymn in them do not have the entire thing..... what about the rest of it?????

I have been at present, unable to find the whole rhyme. Could you please post the whole thing so I can know what it is? Thanks!

[sagz4Christ]

Virtual particles don't use energy, so they don't cause the energy to become disorder.

It seems to me that we are grasping at straws here, my friend. First, you say that energy "creates" virtual particles. But the very act of creation nesseccitates a use of energy. We cannot have ANYTHING create anything without it using some amount of energy. But even if virtual particles don't use energy, then how do they account for the incredibly high density of matter that caused the Big Bang? It can't be a bunch of non-energy using virtual particles that suddenly appeared and became solid, or gaseous matter that created all there is in the universe. Surely you can't think that.

Remember though, science doesn't know any of this for sure, so I am pretty much making assumptions here. You also got to understand that since we don't know what was before the Big Bang, we can't be sure if the Laws we have today can apply to pre-Big Bang space.

So, since you admit that science doesn't know any of your assumtions for sure, that there is another, just as plausible scenerio for the creation of the universe. And since we don't know what was before the Big Bang (emperically), gives us no reason to throw out the Laws to begin with. We can't throw out the evidence we don't like, and keep other evidence that is just as circumstansial. That is double-mindedness. I know you aren't a double-minded man, so that can't be what you are attempting to do. If that is the case, then what ARE you attempting to accomplish?

The Laws already can't be used for Black Holes, because Black Holes are "outside" of the Laws, so you can't say the Laws do apply to the Big Bang.

While I have never heard this, it really is a non-issue. It is only something to create a distraction of the real issue. Does God exist? I would ask though, that you provide some links so I can look into it myself.

May I ask what I misrepresented? I know other things use the CO2, but that wasn't the point, and I think you know that.

I will give you an example of a car battery.

If you have a fully charged car battery, and leave the car doors closed, the lights off, the key out of the ignition, and the car sitting for a time, what do you find after awhile? I will tell you, for I have done it....you will have a car that doesn't start. Energy depletes. Used or not. It doesn't sit around forever waiting to be used....it moves inexorably to disorder, used or not. Don't ask why....I can't tell you, but the 2nd Law if to answer just that. That is how you misrepresented the Law. You can't use oxygen, because that is a cyclical phenomenon(sp) as we break it down to CO2, and tress and plants resupply the oxygen by using CO2. However, the supplies of both gasses are marching onward to disorder as we speak, for the amount of oxygen needed to create CO2 is substantially more than the amount of CO2 created. And vise versa. It takes more CO2 to create oxygen than the amount of oxygen created. That is how to interpret the Law.

See, I think we aren't on the same page when we say "ordered." Everything starts out with order regardless.

I agree that everything starts out with order, but it doesn't order itself. It doesn't start out that way of its own accord. SOMETHING has to PUT everything in order, "in order" for everything to work.

I know that you are trying to instill that there was "something else", and I know you are respectful enough not to say "So now you hav to believe in God" I see your point with the arrow, but the 2nd Law doesn't deal with the beginning. It is only stating "everything tends toward entropy." It never says anything about why or what things are ordered.

We agree then. I am not trying to use the Second Law as a means to show why or what things are ordered. I am using the principle stated in the Law to point in a logical direction to what could have been, and has to be given the confines of the Law itself, the cause of Creation. It points to an immaterial "something" as the introducing force behind matter and energy. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. In fact, it is what you are doing with quantum mechanics, or quantum physics. You are using the priciples in that feild to point to a possible cause of the universe. It can't be one of them. I have shown why I think quantum physics is not the answer we are looking for, because it negates the amount of matter needed to cause the Big Bang. But again, that is beside the issue.

I am not neccessarily askings to see proof a god exists, because you can't. What I am asking is to see is evidence that something cannot happen without a god, which I haven't seem any. I do see what you are saying, but I really don't care about classifications like this.

This is a great lead in to my next subject. The three general ways in which we know things. But what I would like to concider for now, is that you are still asking for emperical "evidence" that something cannot happen without a God. This leaves us in the same predicament we are still in; trying to use the scientific principle of verifiability to prove something about an immaterial Being.

May I suggest, without sounding holier-than-thou, and without sounding like I am coming down hard on you, that you may not see what you are looking for, because you don't know what you are looking for? Let me try to show you in another way. What kind of things are you looking for? what "evidence" will convince you that God exists? Tell me something, friend -- what would God have to do to prove to you that He exists?

I undertsand and am grateful you are not like that, and I hope this will be at least a interesting discussion.

You are more than encouraged to hope, my friend! I will pray!

(It's what I do. After all, I AM a Christian! )

~serving Christ in faith

[Fovezer]

It seems to me that we are grasping at straws here, my friend.  First, you say that energy "creates" virtual particles.  But the very act of creation nesseccitates a use of energy.  We cannot have ANYTHING create anything without it using some amount of energy.  But even if virtual particles don't use energy, then how do they account for the incredibly high density of matter that caused the Big Bang?  It can't be a bunch of non-energy using virtual particles that suddenly appeared and became solid, or gaseous matter that created all there is in the universe.  Surely you can't think that.

This is getting hard to explain. No, energy doesn't "create" virtual particles. They are formed from the absence of energy. How that absence gets there, I don't know. Matter formed after the Big Bang. All the particle in the universe were crammed into a space no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

So, since you admit that science doesn't know any of your assumtions for sure, that there is another, just as plausible scenerio for the creation of the universe.  And since we don't know what was before the Big Bang (emperically), gives us no reason to throw out the Laws to begin with.  We can't throw out the evidence we don't like, and keep other evidence that is just as circumstansial.  That is double-mindedness.  I know you aren't a double-minded man, so that can't be what you are attempting to do.  If that is the case, then what ARE you attempting to accomplish?

No, science knows virtual particles exist and how they are formed. I just theorized about the energy being eternal.

Answer this. Is the universe finite or infinite? The LoT anly apply to closed, or finite, systems. If the universe is infinite, or open, the Laws do not appy. Also, using you same idea, since we don't know what was before the Big Bang, how can we apply the LoT?

I am not throwing out evidence. I haven't done that yet. You are right, though, there are other theories for the beginning of the universe. 5 to be exact, and only one is a god.

I will give you an example of a car battery.

If you have a fully charged car battery, and leave the car doors closed, the lights off, the key out of the ignition, and the car sitting for a time, what do you find after awhile?  I will tell you, for I have done it....you will have a car that doesn't start.  Energy depletes.  Used or not.  It doesn't sit around forever waiting to be used....it moves inexorably to disorder, used or not.  Don't ask why....I can't tell you, but the 2nd Law if to answer just that.  That is how you misrepresented the Law.  You can't use oxygen, because that is a cyclical phenomenon(sp) as we break it down to CO2, and tress and plants resupply the oxygen by using CO2.  However, the supplies of both gasses are marching onward to disorder as we speak, for the amount of oxygen needed to create CO2 is substantially more than the amount of CO2 created.  And vise versa.  It takes more CO2 to create oxygen than the amount of oxygen created.  That is how to interpret the Law.

As I said, the engery being eternal was only a guess of mine to further discussion.

I agree that everything starts out with order, but it doesn't order itself.  It doesn't start out that way of its own accord.  SOMETHING has to PUT everything in order, "in order" for everything to work.

Right, it doesn't order itself, but it has to start with order. Any order at all. Nothing needs to create it.

We agree then.  I am not trying to use the Second Law as a means to show why or what things are ordered.  I am using the principle stated in the Law to point in a logical direction to what could have been, and has to be given the confines of the Law itself, the cause of Creation.  It points to an immaterial "something" as the introducing force behind matter and energy.  That is all.  Nothing more, nothing less.  In fact, it is what you are doing with quantum mechanics, or quantum physics.  You are using the priciples in that feild to point to a possible cause of the universe.  It can't be one of them.  I have shown why I think quantum physics is not the answer we are looking for, because it negates the amount of matter needed to cause the Big Bang.  But again, that is beside the issue.

The LoT may not even be applicable to pre-Big Bang because we don't know what was it like before it. The LoT also doesn't point to "something else" because it has no bearing on creation. At all.

This is a great lead in to my next subject.  The three general ways in which we know things.  But what I would like to concider for now, is that you are still asking for emperical "evidence" that something cannot happen without a God.  This leaves us in the same predicament we are still in; trying to use the scientific principle of verifiability to prove something about an immaterial Being.

May I suggest, without sounding holier-than-thou, and without sounding like I am coming down hard on you, that you may not see what you are looking for, because you don't know what you are looking for?  Let me try to show you in another way.  What kind of things are you looking for?  what "evidence" will convince you that God exists?  Tell me something, friend -- what would God have to do to prove to you that He exists?

Well, I see no reason, also to believe in a god. It has no bearing on my life now. To prove he exists, i would like to see him come down and have a cup of coffee, or at least show himself for a minute. Is that to hard to ask? He seemed able to talk and flaunt around with his powers in the past than now. He also knows what it will take for me to believe, so just have him do that, and I'll see no other choice.

You are more than encouraged to hope, my friend!  I will pray!

(It's what I do.  After all, I AM a Christian! )

I know. From anyone else, i would have taken this as an insult!

[sagz4Christ]

This is getting hard to explain. No, energy doesn't "create" virtual particles. They are formed from the absence of energy. How that absence gets there, I don't know. Matter formed after the Big Bang. All the particle in the universe were crammed into a space no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.

I think you know me well enough now that I am going to assume you know what I am going to bring up about this section! LOL!! So...in your theory, energy is eternal....but if it is eternal...then...who is there ever an absence of it?

One more question about this...and we shall move on......

Are we living in a virtual universe? What exactly IS a virtual particle? My understanding is that it is a particle that is only around for a VERY small amount of time. Like nanoseconds. How then, do we get "real" matter from virtual? Especially if it only lasts a miniscule amount of time?

And if all the particles in the universe were crammed inside a space no bigger than this, " . " , would it really matter since they are virtual anyway? Where would the pressure come from to cause the "Big Bang?"

No, science knows virtual particles exist and how they are formed. I just theorized about the energy being eternal.

I am not questioning virtual particles, I am trying to reason out the theory that energy is eternal. It doesn't make any sense to me. Especially when we both agree that the universe isn't eternal. How could something that makes up the core of the physical universe be?

Answer this. Is the universe finite or infinite? The LoT anly apply to closed, or finite, systems. If the universe is infinite, or open, the Laws do not appy. Also, using you same idea, since we don't know what was before the Big Bang, how can we apply the LoT?

It is most emphatically closed/finite. There is a beginning and an end. Astronomy has shown this time and again. The universe is slowly grinding to a halt. That must mean it had a starting point some time in the past. I believe we CAN know something about what was before the BB. But it is going to take other means than emperical to learn.

I am not throwing out evidence. I haven't done that yet. You are right, though, there are other theories for the beginning of the universe. 5 to be exact, and only one is a god.

Ok. I just wanted to be sure. I didn't know there were that many theories out there about this subject! Wow. It just goes to show what kind of imagination we humans have, eh?

Anyway, just as in Christianity, there are at least three theories about the end time events (the catching up in the sky of all the saints; armageddon; etc.), only one can be the correct view. Just because someone quotes Scripture does not mean they use it correctly either. And in a trial, the lawyers try to get the judge or jury to believe their "version" of the truth. Does that mean the truth has changed? No! It just means it gets "lost in the mud."

Five theories, eh? I know where I am casting MY vote!

As I said, the engery being eternal was only a guess of mine to further discussion.

I see.

Right, it doesn't order itself, but it has to start with order. Any order at all. Nothing needs to create it.

Can energy produce itself? Of course something has to create it. Whether by the absence of energy giving way to virtual particles or by way of the Creation of God, it has to come from somewhere. If energy could produce, or even REproduce itself, then there would be no need for a 2nd LoT to begin with. It has an end. THat means it HAS to have a start. What or Who started it?

The LoT may not even be applicable to pre-Big Bang because we don't know what was it like before it. The LoT also doesn't point to "something else" because it has no bearing on creation. At all.

I said before, I believe we CAN know something about what it was like before. We can know something about the immaterial thing that was before the BB because to say we can't, is to fall back and rely solely on emperical means to prove something outside of the principles boundaries. I have discussed this earlier. I didn't get too far into depth though, as it seemed we agreed empericisim (verifiability principle) was only reliable within its boundaries. For our own benefit and that of others that may happen to be reading, let me restate what I said earlier....

There was a question put to you (not in these words, but with the same idea conveyed) that went like this:

"Why do scientists believe that emperical evidence is worth anything?"

You stated something that sounded like this:

"Because they've tested it over and over and found it reliable."

I would say this.....Reliable within it's boundaries, yes. But they can't give emperical evidence for their belief in the reliability of emperical evidence. If they did, they would be arguing in circles.

I took the rest from a post of mine farther above in this topic.

It's a statement (verifiability principle) about ultimate reality and ultimate truth, and it isn't open to any kind of empirical testing. But since it says only statements open to emperical testing are sensible, and it isn't open to emperical testing, it's nonsence. It's self-defeating.

So my question to you, I suppose would have to be, "Can you actually know anything about immaterial things?

Well, I see no reason, also to believe in a god. It has no bearing on my life now. To prove he exists, i would like to see him come down and have a cup of coffee, or at least show himself for a minute. Is that to hard to ask? He seemed able to talk and flaunt around with his powers in the past than now. He also knows what it will take for me to believe, so just have him do that, and I'll see no other choice.

This is an AWSOME response!! I wonder if you would be willing to read something for me. There is something that speaks directly to this, but it is found in Scripture. I will post a link to the passage and you can decide to tell me if you read it or not. It would be good for someone else maybe, if you decide not to read (which I fully understand, given your view on the Book).

I know. From anyone else, i would have taken this as an insult!

*Awww shucks!*

Then, by your own permission, I will pray that God will do what He needs to do to help you see the reality of His existence! Don't get upset, dear friend, you said that very thing just a few seconds ago!

Here is the link I promised:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3 (may require the Book of Jonah to be read)

Ok, OK! I gave more than one link! I couldn't resist. There are others, but these jumped out at me. Again, please, no offense is intended by these links. There are merely for your curiosity as to what Scripture has to say about what you are asking for as it pertains to "evidence," or "signs."

~serving Christ in faith

[Fovezer]

I think you know me well enough now that I am going to assume you know what I am going to bring up about this section!  LOL!!  So...in your theory, energy is eternal....but if it is eternal...then...who is there ever an absence of it? 

One more question about this...and we shall move on......

Are we living in a virtual universe?  What exactly IS a virtual particle?  My understanding is that it is a particle that is only around for a VERY small amount of time.  Like nanoseconds.  How then, do we get "real" matter from virtual?  Especially if it only lasts a miniscule amount of time?

And if all the particles in the universe were crammed inside a space no bigger than this, " . " , would it really matter since they are virtual anyway?  Where would the pressure come from to cause the "Big Bang?"

It is very difficult to know. You have to remember, all this is pure speculation on my part. I admit, this may not be how the Big Bang occured. Does it mean the Big bang never happened? No. It just means it could have happened a different way. You have (unintentionally) asked near impossible to answer question, because we don't know what was before the beginning of the universe.

I am not questioning virtual particles, I am trying to reason out the theory that energy is eternal.  It doesn't make any sense to me.  Especially when we both agree that the universe isn't eternal.  How could something that makes up the core of the physical universe be?

You know, it may not be eternal. I don't know. Science doesn't know. We just know how the Big Bang could have happened, but we do not know what was before that.

It is most emphatically closed/finite.  There is a beginning and an end.  Astronomy has shown this time and again.  The universe is slowly grinding to a halt.  That must mean it had a starting point some time in the past.  I believe we CAN know something about what was before the BB.  But it is going to take other means than emperical to learn.

Yes, we may possibly know about what was before the Big Bang in the future, but since we don't know know, it is pure speculation.

Ok.  I just wanted to be sure.  I didn't know there were that many theories out there about this subject!  Wow.  It just goes to show what kind of imagination we humans have, eh?

Anyway, just as in Christianity, there are at least three theories about the end time events (the catching up in the sky of all the saints; armageddon; etc.), only one can be the correct view.  Just because someone quotes Scripture does not mean they use it correctly either.  And in a trial, the lawyers try to get the judge or jury to believe their "version" of the truth.  Does that mean the truth has changed?  No!  It just means it gets "lost in the mud."

Five theories, eh?  I know where I am casting MY vote!  

Yep, 5 theories. I will find them for you later.

I know you believe their is a god, and I am not trying to get you to stop believing. If you want to believe there is a god, then that is fine. But there are just so many YEC's, for example, who are so ignorant of science and will reject all the evidence for evolution/old earth/Big Bang, ect. I just want you to see the "truth" too, and it is not a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Can energy produce itself?  Of course something has to create it.  Whether by the absence of energy giving way to virtual particles or by way of the Creation of God, it has to come from somewhere.  If energy could produce, or even REproduce itself, then there would be no need for a 2nd LoT to begin with.  It has an end.  THat means it HAS to have a start.  What or Who started it?

I don't know what started it, if it was started. I have no problem saying that, because science has not gotten that far yet.

I said before, I believe we CAN know something about what it was like before.  We can know something about the immaterial thing that was before the BB because to say we can't, is to fall back and rely solely on emperical means to prove something outside of the principles boundaries.  I have discussed this earlier.  I didn't get too far into depth though, as it seemed we agreed empericisim (verifiability principle) was only reliable within its boundaries.  For our own benefit and that of others that may happen to be reading, let me restate what I said earlier....

Can, but we don't. We may be able to show empirically how the Big Bang happened in the future.

There was a question put to you (not in these words, but with the same idea conveyed) that went like this:

"Why do scientists believe that emperical evidence is worth anything?"

You stated something that sounded like this:

"Because they've tested it over and over and found it reliable."

I would say this.....Reliable within it's boundaries, yes.  But they can't give emperical evidence for their belief in the reliability of emperical evidence.  If they did, they would be arguing in circles.

Now I think you are dragging this out a little, don't you?

So my question to you, I suppose would have to be, "Can you actually know anything about immaterial things?

Yes. We know a lot about energy.

This is an AWSOME response!!  I wonder if you would be willing to read something for me.  There is something that speaks directly to this, but it is found in Scripture.  I will post a link to the passage and you can decide to tell me if you read it or not.  It would be good for someone else maybe, if you decide not to read (which I fully understand, given your view on the Book).

Wow! i didn't expect a reply like that. Normally I get something completely opposite. Yes, I've read it the story. But see, God should know what it takes to convince, and believe me, seeing someone come back from after actually being dead, it may make me rethink my beliefs, but, like I said, he knows what it will take for me to believe, so that is what he should do. Plain and simple.

*Awww shucks!*  

Then, by your own permission, I will pray that God will do what He needs to do to help you see the reality of His existence!  Don't get upset, dear friend, you said that very thing just a few seconds ago!

You do what you have to.

Ok, OK!  I gave more than one link!  I couldn't resist.  There are others, but these jumped out at me.  Again, please, no offense is intended by these links.  There are merely for your curiosity as to what Scripture has to say about what you are asking for as it pertains to "evidence," or "signs."

No offense taken.

[sagz4Christ]

Fovezer,

I am terribly sorry about not being here the past few weeks.

I don't remember if I told you or not, but I got married on the 20th of December and have been trying to get situated at my new home ever since. I am getting a computer built for me as a wedding gift, so as soon as I get that, and get hooked up with internet, I will be beack in full force to continue our discussions. I hope you are still interested in seeing this through because I am.

I hope you haven't been beaten up too bad while I have been away!

I am very happy to see you still posting, that's for sure!

Anyway, I may have some time in a few days to get back with you, but feel free to email me anytime you like for any reason at all.

~serving Christ in faith

[Fovezer]

Fovezer,

I am terribly sorry about not being here the past few weeks.

I don't remember if I told you or not, but I got married on the 20th of December and have been trying to get situated at my new home ever since.  I am getting a computer built for me as a wedding gift, so as soon as I get that, and get hooked up with internet, I will be beack in full force to continue our discussions.  I hope you are still interested in seeing this through because I am.

No, you never mention that you were getting married. Congratulations!! I hope you and you wife have a long, happy life together!!

I am still interested and am still willing to see it through. I had thought that you had just ran away!! I should've known better, though.

I hope you haven't been beaten up too bad while I have been away!

Not too bad. There are no other Christians here actually willing to listen and learn.

I am very happy to see you still posting, that's for sure!

I'm happy to see you return, too. All I can say is -- It's about time!

Anyway, I may have some time in a few days to get back with you, but feel free to email me anytime you like for any reason at all.

~serving Christ in faith

No problem, take your time. No need to rush.

[Khristeeanos]

*bump* for our friend be_real