*man-made* global warming. We know that the 4 books of the story of Jesus were written by many not 4. But that is a discussion for another post.
There are so many Jesus-like stories, based on heresay as well-that is not evidence. You choose which pieces of information to accept as factual without applying the same level of rigorous standards you demand in science.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

You have faith, not answers. Nothing wrong with that, but it is invalid to assert to a person requiring the scientific method be applied to difficult problems, that you have something they do not.
"Atheist" is an interesting categorization of a non-homogeneous group who simply want evidence that the dogma variously championed by organized religion has value, and this value is adequate for them to vest power (directly or indirectly) in the religion.
Have you read Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus"? It quite powerfully debunks at least a literal interpretation of the bible, most certainly the New Testament.
A less arrogant belief in a greater power is at least plausible, which might turn out to be another door in Physics, or it might turn out to be a very old race of beings, who knows, maybe we are living in a computer program like Tron. I do not understand rational people specifically associating as "Christian", "Muslim", et al.

Separately, many elements of thinking and reason humans long-held as unique are in fact found in animals. Sentience is clearly present in animals. I think you meant a different word, but it is perhaps more arrogant to believe humans are so far above animals (from a capability perspective, not a animal rights/vegetarian perspective) than it is to believe humans and animals were not created by god.

Jesus knew that he was going to die for the sins of humanity. How could he know that beforehand? He made a very interesting prophecy that many "would not believe even if someone should rise from the dead".

Actually the parallel to global warming is a poor one because there is plenty of historical evidence for the Earth having been much warmer and much cooler than it is now.

Actually there is a lot of evidence for the existence of the God of the Bible. The history of the Jewish people is quite remarkable, for instance. There were literally dozens of prophecies that Christians cited as having been fulfilled in the person of Jesus. Jesus performed many acts that were viewed as miracles at the time. Raising someone from the dead and then being raised from the dead himself from a guarded tomb are extremely outlandish claims. The Jews did not want to give Jesus' followers the opportunity to rob the grave and claim his resurrection and went to Pontius Pilate to insist on Roman guards being put at the tomb site. It is somehow fitting that this discussion should come today. In the Catholic Church, the Sunday after Easter is the day on which the story of "Doubting Thomas" occurs. Thomas refuses to believe unless he can probe Jesus' hands and his side - which he then did, before bringing news of Jesus' resurrection to India, where he was martyred.

The apostle Paul writes that Jesus appeared to over 500 people following Jesus' resurrection, and in quite a few different venues.

Consequently, there is actually quite a lot of evidence. It may not be enough to cause everyone to come to the conclusion that there is a god, but it is evidence.

There are but three responses to Jesus' claims. Atheists will almost assuredly say that he was a lunatic, but that cannot explain his miraculous powers. Some may call him a liar. That is a hard stance to take. Who would become a martyr to what amounts to a lie? Finally, some will recognize him as their lord. I do not see a fourth possible response.

Very well said.

The way that many chemical engineering problems involving many simultaneous reactions are simulated is to a) approximate the complex mixture with just a very few model molecules, b) go into the lab and carry out the reactions with the model molecules, c) create a Monte Carlo simulation that includes all of the model molecule reactions going on in parallel, and then d) comparing the results of the simulation with the products from the real feedstock mixture whose products are so numerous that otherwise it would be difficult to elucidate directly.

Each reaction has a probability step.

p = 1 - exp(-ksubi*dt)
dt = differential time step
ksubi is the rate constant, k, for reactant i.

"I have an answer to those questions to which atheists cannot provide a rational answer."
It sounds like your condemning people who admit they don't know those things yet and favoring just making up an answer out of whole cloth.

Would you prefer the term "statistically improbable, albeit unlikely"? Twenty-five years ago, I used to do Monte Carlo simulations to predict the likelihood both to predict the products from liquefaction of hydrocarbon fuel sources and for the structure of amorphous silicon structures generated during microelectronics syntheses.

a 50/50 shot is predictive. For instance, if I have a 50% chance of getting breast cancer, I'm taking preemptive action.
You seem to be making a point about luck vs statistical predictions. Can you expound?

Luck is like the very short discussion I once had with my mom, who kept blaming outcomes on "Destiny..." 'it was destined to be...'

Mom, 'destiny' has NO PREDICTIVE VALUE. It only looks at past events and blames their outcome on 'destiny.' Quite useless in managing your life.

I find that 'luck' is similarly backward-looking, or maybe post hoc, ergo propter hoc... a great explanation for what happened and useless for future decision-making.

my 2c.

"proof for the non-existence of God"

There is no evidence for a God. In fact, that is the only evidence there is or could be for there not being a God.
I have no evidence for the lack of existence of pink flying elephants. Show proof for the non-existence of pink flying elephants.

There is no evidence. Pushing an assertion that God exists and you provide no evidence. The lack of evidence IS evidence.

How is this different than those asserting man made global warming-providing little to no scientific evidence, yet those asking for scientific evidence are called deniers?! The lack of evidence rests firmly in the religious camp not Objectivism.

There is a whole field of mathematics often used in several fields of engineering called Monte Carlo simulations that most people would call "luck" that is highly predictive. See my comment slightly further down in this thread for examples.

I knew that Gary Player said that quote numerous times, but I hadn't heard that it was Hogan's quote originally.

Dear Khalling, While I agree with almost everything you, Robbie, and Herb said, there is the one great difficulty in Ayn Rand's lack of logic in coming to the "conclusion" of the rationality of atheism. On everything else, she must have proof for everything. She has no proof for the non-existence of God. She could have been logically consistent and have been agnostic, but atheism requires a leap of faith. It can be reasonably debated whether the leap of faith is bigger for the existence or non-existence of God, but either way, it is a leap of faith in either circumstance.

your name

A little repentance is good for the soul. (?)

christianegoist
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/TheChris...

I thought you might. He has posts in the Gulch

There are several posts on the site discussing these issues. We love those discussions in here.
Start a new one, Herb!

I gave up on Judeo-Christian type religion when no matter how I looked at the old and new testaments they made no sense to me. After reading philosophy, and A.R., I got interested in quantum physics and its relationship to consciousness.I found the entire idea of the big bang to be almost as silly as a roasted ox being pleasant in the eyes of God. The whole of the quantum world is inadequately dealt with in Objectivism, in my opinion. There is something which we consider mystical today but may be explained in the future. It could be God, the universe itself or as some scientists postulate, us or the machines we create. Perhaps the Gulch is not the right place for this discussion -- or is it? In any case, I have been elucidated once again