Is Christianity more logical than atheism........?

[Rainn]

Question: Is there objective purpose to life?

The atheist would answer either say "No" or "I don't know." This essentially says that we as humans are bereft of meaning, purpose, and value. The universe is set to die many eons from now, and if anything we do remains until that time, as it stands even that will come to nothing. A very bleak outlook indeed.

The answer “No” says that we as humans are bereft of objective meaning, purpose and value. Seeing as a valuation requires a valuer, it would seem to be inherently subjective (dependent upon a mind).

However if you notice, we all seem to want some kind of purpose, some reason for being here. We ask, "Is there all there is in this life?" The atheist could say we make our own purpose. Fair enough. We all have goals to accomplish in this life. I want to be a writer and programmer some day. But without a framework of objective purpose, meaning, and morality, all we do comes to naught.

I’m not sure I follow. I recognize the inherent subjective nature of meaning, purpose and value, and yet don’t see it “all for naught”.

The Christian answer is that yes, we do have a purpose. That provides the better, more coherent and logical explanation. Instead of "all is fair play because we're all doomed anyway," it gives us reason to get up in the morning and do something with this life. But objective morals, purpose, and meaning can only be found in God.

Recognizing the subjective nature of these things doesn’t necessitate an “everything is fair play because we’re all doomed anyway” attitude.

Also, if meaning, purpose and value are found in God, then they are also subjective (God being the subject making the valuation). So whatever problems you perceive regarding subjective meaning/purpose/value or morality are not solved by invoking God.

Question: Where do the concepts of good and evil come from?

I think the better wording for my question is, "By what standard do we measure good and evil?" There's basically two options. First we could say that good and evil are things made up by humans. That runs the problem of ultimately being relative. What's good for you is good for you, and what's good for me is good for me. By this atheistic, God-excluding reasoning, good and evil don't actually exist outside of a person's mind or a group's consensus. Torturing babies for fun is only bad if you think it's bad.

I disagree, to an extent.

First of all, are you sure you want to argue for a non-relative, thus absolute, morality? For example, is killing another human being always wrong?

I would argue that good and evil, moral and immoral do not exist outside of a mind (God included). There is no inherent property of “good” or “evil” moral and immoral that objects possess and that we can objectively measure. It’s a valuation (therefore subjective in nature) with regards to the actions and intent of, usually, humans.

However, this doesn’t default to the attitude of “what’s good for me is good for me and what’s good for you is good for you”. Quite the contrary.

As an example: If your goal and desire is the health and happiness of humanity, then you can formulate the premise-

1) The health and happiness of humanity should be preserved/sought
From that, you can take a look at slavery, for example, and determine that the ownership of a group A by group B is so detrimental to group A that it outweighs any gain, perceived or otherwise, that group B realizes as a direct result of this ownership of humans. This detriment of group A is antithesis to preserving the health and happiness of humanity.
1) The health and happiness of humanity should be preserved/sought
2) If X action is detrimental to the health and happiness of humanity, it is immoral
3) Slavery is detrimental to the health and happiness of humanity.
4) The act of slavery is immoral

Now, of course an agreement must be met with regards to premise 1 in the first place, but that’s a problem for theists as much as it is for atheists. If your idea of morality is something entirely opposite of that, then as far as I'm concerned, we're speaking of two entirely different things. The fact that humans are, generally speaking, biologically and psychologically similar as a species means that it should be no surprise we hold much the same goals and desires, and thus agree to much the same premises by which we determine moral and immoral behavior.

I'd also like to add that premise 1 may be jumping slightly ahead. You can boil down very basic goals and desires that most humans share. As an example- living is preferable to not living.

Do you think there are such things as good and evil? Even if you did, then how could you try to force your idea of good and evil on anyone else, since it's all relative? You wouldn't have the right to stop the torturer because even though you think it's evil, that person may say it's alright.

I don’t think enforcing morality is a requirement. But realistically speaking, those who hold the majority, or even just the most power to enforce things, get to decide what is enforced and how it is enforced. I recognize this reality, but that doesn’t mean I believe it is morally good (I am not making a might makes right argument).

However, this is true whether you use God’s morality or not. After all, how does God enforce his morality but through coercion and force?

Question: Where did the universe come from?

There's an age old argument out there called the Kalam cosmological argument which I think fits here. It begins on a couple of factual premises and from there concludes the most likely source of the universe's existence.

Premise 1: Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

Simple enough. I began to exist because my parents reproduced and I was conceived. A computer doesn't exist until somebody puts it together. Things which go from not existing to existing had a cause.

Premise 2: The universe began to exist.
Big Bang theory. We went from not existing to existing.

Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Something made the universe. We didn't just pop into existence out of nowhere. But what made the universe? Whatever it is, it needs to exist outside of space and time. It cannot be made of matter or energy. Since it's not material, it can't be changeable.

What allows you to conclude this (the bold)?

Premise 1 commits the fallacy of equivocation. You compare the beginning of you with the beginning of the universe. These beginnings are not the same thing. In the former, you’re talking about the act of copulation which caused already existing matter to transform into, eventually, the human being that you are. In the latter, you are talking about the formation of matter from non-matter as being “caused” by God. Creation ex nihilo.

Which leads us into another issue. To say that the universe was caused by God is to speak causally. However, you define God as outside of time, and time is often seen as universe dependent. Therefore, it may be inaccurate within physics, and certainly is within this argument, to speak causally with regards to the universe.

Premise 2 is not a known fact. You misrepresent the big bang theory, which does not postulate a universe from nothing or a universe that began to exist. It is a theory that explains the universe as expanding from “an extremely hot and dense state”.

Premise 1 and 2 are flawed. The conclusion does not follow.

Only two things fit this description. Abstract objects such as numbers and mathematical laws,

Abstract “objects” like numbers and mathematical laws are concepts, not actual objects. I think you understand this, but I'm pointing out the distinction because there is a slight equivocation between the two in the rest of that paragraph.

or unembodied minds. Well, I'm sure we'll both agree that abstract objects can't make anything happen; that's their definition. When did the number seven make, say, a flower pop into being? By simple process of elimination we find the best cause for the universe is the mind, which we call God.

You also assume that a mind is not contingent upon the material. All available evidence shows us that the mind, your mind, my mind, any mind is dependent upon physical things we call brains. You seem to be conflating “objects” with “concepts”. Minds think of concepts. How does conceptualizing create actual objects?

Sure there's the idea of the multiverse but it has issues. First of all, where is the evidence???

Where is the evidence with regards to the Kalam Cosmological argument?

We can't peer outside of our own universe. If it's out there then at least for now, we can't know. Second, it's sooo much more likely that if a universe did randomly come into being in the multiverse, it shouldn't be one where we could exist. It's enormously improbable. Third, the multiverse itself must have a beginning. In 2003 three cosmologists created the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem. It states that any universe (or multiverse!) that is, on average, in a state of expansion MUST have a beginning. So if the multiverse is expanding and creating new universes, what is the origin of the multiverse? This shows the multiverse doesn't eliminate God, it just pushes back the chain of creation one step.

My understanding of the GBV theorem is that it is a singularity hypothesis. On top of that, the GBV theorem does not state “any universe that is in a state of expansion”, but instead shows almost all inflationary models do not expand eternally into the past. Our universe may fit into one of these models, but I’m not sure. If so, it seems to suggest that our universe in its current expansionary state has not existed eternally. How long it existed “pre expansion” I don’t think anyone knows. We also don't know what "caused" it to come into existence, either as a incredibly dense point or otherwise. And as Hawking will point out, talking about “before” the universe or "what caused" the universe may be nonsensical because of issues regarding “time”. It may in fact not be a causal relationship at all.

The theorum also does not necessitate a God as you describe it, as the “cause” (if there is one). Instead, Vilenkin himself posits a “quantum nucleation event” as just one explanation. I don’t know enough about physics to explain that efficiently, I’m only attempting to highlight the error in your representation of the theorem as support for the existence of a god.

Atheism does not necessitate proclaiming "there is no god".

What is your definition of atheism? For me it is the belief that there is no God. After all its roots are 'a-' which means without, and 'theos' which means God.

It’s actually “a” and “theism”: Theism being “a belief in a god or gods” and “a” being “without”. The only thing it requires is a non-belief in a god or gods.

I wouldn't mind continuing this discussion in Areopagus if you want.

[Legend]

Much has already been said regarding this subject, and I'm sad to see it have to dissipate.

However, I just wanted to interject just one point. And I want to apologize to Rainn ahead of time for both quoting him singularly and not in whole (thus not addressing all his points, which are very good as a whole; though I do have a couple points of contention I would point out if it weren't for his inability to respond [perhaps I should take the time regardless? Other may stumble upon it and Rainn might as well]).

The one point I want to address is essentially the root issue at hand -- God exists; God does not exist.

Theism obviously states that it believes in a God (or gods, but naturally our flavor is understood as Christian). It posits then that such a God must exist. Making a statement as such requires reason for that belief. Though I think it's beyond the scope of a simple forums post to exhaust, I find that the case presented is sufficient to appeal to my reason.

Atheism states then that it does not believe in a god, God, or gods (however you want to approach this for the sake of context. I hope this adequately encapsulates the position/agreeance Atheists would define it as).

It’s actually “a” and “theism”: Theism being “a belief in a god or gods” and “a” being “without”. The only thing it requires is a non-belief in a god or gods.

I find it interesting that Rainn uses the word "non-belief", whereas Theism uses "belief". the "A-" component, as Rainn has stated is "without", thus literally without belief.
This "without belief" seems then to be a lacking of belief. In order to lack something, that something must be there. We'll call that "something" the source. So, whatever your source is (in this case God), "without belief" is a lacking of belief in God.

Therefore, a lacking in belief does not determine the existence of that source, it only denies or rejects it. Another way to put the point, the recipient does not determine the source. Thus, Atheism is not a "non-belief" (A position that says there is nothing to believe in, thus no belief), but a lacking of belief. This lacking of belief therefore, does not cause the source to hinge on that belief or lack thereof.

The point of saying this is address both the definition at hand, and the heart of the discussion -- the source that all others stem from (God's existence).

Naturally, this argument works both ways. Theism in and of itself cannot assert God's existence, it can only agree. The point then is that we must determine if God exists. Naturally we do this from whichever position we encamp. To put it simply, I believe that Theism (Christianity specifically) has the better argument. To try and nutshell, I think it holds the stronger case to reasonably explain reality.

So to answer the OP; yes, Christianity is superior in logic (reason) than Atheism. Christianity provides a more reasonable case not by mere claim that God exists, but in its demonstration. To support this claim is again, I think beyond the scope of a simple forum post. Volumes have been written for the past 1600+ years.

Rainn, I'm sorry that we cannot continue discussion here. Perhaps in the future when I have more time and need not catch a train in 40 minutes, I can better serve you by answering your post. though you may not be in a position in which you can reply, I hope that should I have the ability in the future (Lord willing) to reply, you find it a satisfactory rebutle, even if you do not agree.

My bets wishes to you. I would love to one day meet you. I don't know the extent of what I can say (this is my first post after all), but I will be praying for you. Thank you for venturing onto these forums and giving those of us who are of the Christian camp opportunity to defend ourselves. You're remarkably civil and very well schooled in this arena. Please take care!

[Youssarian]

I'm sorry Rainn, but I think I will have to withdraw from this. I can't, in my current knowledge, give you any satisfactory answers. The best I could do is pose a few points but they wouldn't fully answer you. I was obviously overconfident in what I thought I knew.

I do thank you for being civil in this, though. That's not something I see very much on the Internet though. I hope that somebody else can take my place and continue this.

[claybevan]

G K Chesterton's reply to an atheist who asked, 'If there's a God then why is there so much suffering and pain in the world? was, 'I'll answer that one if you tell me why there's so much love and laughter'
Hat's off to atheists, it seems to me they have to work much harder than we believers at sustaining their belief and of course if they've got it wrong, well it's a big whoops! If we've got it wrong then what have we lost? I suppose I could of partied more instead of praying but considering the dire consequences of getting it wrong me thinks I'll keep praying, plenty of time for partying in heaven.

[EarlyCall]

Atheism is the refusal to take anything on faith without evidence. Theists believe in God through faith, not by evidence. Blessed are those who have not seen, but who have nevertheless believed.

I think you've nailed it.

[Rainn]

I just wanted to post one last thing to thank Youssarian and Legend for their insights (and kind words).

I also want to address the issue of "non-belief" vs "lacking belief" Legend brought up. While I think it's essentially a semantics issue (although I could be misunderstanding you), I'll skip over that part to basically agree with you.

Atheism, at it's most default "position" (if it can be called that), is essentially a determination that the individual atheist has not been presented sufficient evidence or reason to believe in God. Sometimes this may culminate into a positive assertion that "God does not exist" as opposed to a "neutral" position of "lacking belief", but this is an aside. (that positive assertion that "God does not exist" would also require evidence to substantiate in order to convince other people)

The point is, this lacking of belief or even the assertion that God does not exist, does not mean God actually doesn't exist. The non-belief or belief of the individual does not determine whether God exists or not. It also does not mean that someone else does not have sufficient evidence or reason to believe God exists. The atheist may not have been presented with the arguments and life experiences that the theist has been presented, and those arguments or life experiences may have been sufficient evidence / reason for the theist to believe.

[Robert Callow]

Is Christianity more logical than atheism and if so why do you believe that Christianity is more logical than atheism?

Hello KILLUMINATI, Just thought I ought to mention this.

From what I remember, the pride I was given led me to believe I was of the greater value when I compared myself to certain others. This allowed me and caused me to regard those others with disrespect and contempt. From that mindset it was made easy for me to dismiss the true word of others as being irrelevant, unimportant or untrue whenever their statements were seen to conflict with any of my own proud self-seeking desires and plans. I did also eventually see that whilst my pride was in control it was often made easy for me to cheat on and lie to anyone who I assessed as being less important or inferior to myself. I also saw the half-truths and lies of others had been welcomed by me as absolute truth whenever they had fed and reinforced my feeling of superiority and pleasure. As I lied to others so I often lied to myself and convinced myself how good and right I was.

I was also made to see this vain and self-deceiving way of thinking had worked not only in myself but in those around me also, and for as much as any of our offensive desires became our needs, so also did our cravings for more leave us more vulnerable and subject to the corruption of those most crafty and evil. Their lies would often become more easily accepted by us as truth and would therefore become more easily woven into the memories of our minds that believed in those lies. Thus it was that from lie infested memories such as these, our deductions, decisions and judgements were formed. I eventually had to conclude therefore that whatever is being reasoned and perceived as truth and reality to minds corrupted by pride is all too often an illusion. This state of mind I now see is to some degree the inherited scourge of us all, breeding contempt and hatred for the truth along with paranoia, conflict, killing and destruction, just as the history of man will clearly testify.

In the light of our history it is clear now that we have no other reasonable choice but to believe the truth alone will keep us rational and sane and in touch with reality. But we can only be sure we are living by the truth when we are sure the cause of living by lies and delusion has been completely removed; and this can only be achieved when we know we are living faithfully by these two greatest of all commandments found in Matthew 22:34-40, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all of your mind" (from an atheistic and humanist viewpoint, the nearest equivalent would be this: “Always love and value that which produced you (the human race) above yourself and above all things”) This is the first and greatest commandment, the second is like it: “Love your neighbour as yourself".

Simple logical deduction dictates that only by valuing these two commandments above all other opposing commands, doctrines, forces and influences that would have us place an inferior value to ourselves on others, shall we ever be trusted to seek no reason to deceive and offend anyone. But only by valuing this Jesus who first gave us these greatest of all commandments above all other men and gods, shall we seriously begin to value His commandments above all other opposing commands, doctrines, forces and influences also; and only by living always by His greatest commandments shall any of us find no reason to deceive and offend anyone including ourselves.

To sum up then, true Christianity is our only rational and logical hope of being free from the lies and delusions of an insane world that grows more corrupt by the day and which can now be seen entering into the prophesied hell on earth.

[pilgrim77]

Is Christianity more logical than atheism and if so why do you believe that Christianity is more logical than atheism?

Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, then He was 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth preaching to the spirits who are imprisoned in Hell there. Then He rose from the dead and spent 40 more days on earth appearing to His disciples and teaching them and giving them parting words to prepare them to take over and go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. Then He was taken up to heaven in a cloud and now sits at the right hand of the Father. Because of this, all who believe in Him will also rise from the dead and will be able to live forever in Heaven with Jesus and God the Father.

Does all this sound logical to you? Well, whether or not it sounds logical or illogical to you is irrelavent, because it's the truth. It really happened, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I know this because when I got saved Jesus came into my life and manifested Himself unto me as He does to all His saved, born again children.

Does that sound logical to you? Never mind, because it really happened.

"For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God." (Icorinthians 1:18)

The preaching of the gospel of Life through Jesus is illogical, foolish, idiotic, etc. to those who are going to perish in Hell anyway, but to us who are saved it represents the power of God. If you're looking for natural logic and reason in Christianity before you're willing to believe, you might as well hang it up. It's never going to happen.

Because:

"the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness (illogical) unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man." (I Corinthians 2:14-15)
If a person views the things of the spirit of God as foolish, illogical, etc. that only serves as evidence that he is going to perish in hell. The only way to change from a natural person to a spiritual person is to accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour, believe that He died for your sins and rose from the dead.

"But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.

And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.

8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."Romans 8:9-11)
So, actually, whether or not something is logical or illogical depends on a persons state of mind and what his beliefs are and whether or not he is the Lords sheep or one of the wicked. An athiest believes that Christianity is illogical yet he belives in the fairy tale of evolution, which in my opinion is even more illogical and idiodic.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:"

1:23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God."
Different people have their different reasons for not believing depending on their background and state of mind, but to all those who believe Christ is always the power and wisdom of God, the Prince of peace, the Savior of the world, regardless of the background the believer came out of because he has changed from a natural person to a spiritual person. Because it's a spiritual thing.

[Robert Callow]

Is Christianity more logical than atheism and if so why do you believe that Christianity is more logical than atheism?

I ought to mention this as well.


Only the pure and perfect faithful Spirit, faithful to love unto death will have no reason to deceive and offend any of us. This is the Spirit that was revealed by Jesus Christ and by His true followers. This Jesus could not have lied because in His Spirit there can be seen no reason to lie. The faithful followers who knew Jesus Christ, were in the end also prepared to be persecuted to death rather than live a lie and deny what they had witnessed: the commandments and doctrine, the love and wisdom, the miracles, the crucifixion and the resurrected Jesus Christ. Despite all the efforts of hypocrites, malicious liars and antichrists, the faithful Spirit lives on in all His true followers still, and the meaning of this Spirit continues to be made known to the world. This Spirit is the only proven conveyor of truth, simply because NO ONE can explain an alternative in which we all can trust.

[Robert Callow]

Is Christianity more logical than atheism and if so why do you believe that Christianity is more logical than atheism?

Hello KILLUMINATI, Just thought I ought to mention this.

From what I remember, the pride I was given led me to believe I was of the greater value when I compared myself to certain others. This allowed me and caused me to regard those others with disrespect and contempt. From that mindset it was made easy for me to dismiss the true word of others as being irrelevant, unimportant or untrue whenever their statements were seen to conflict with any of my own proud self-seeking desires and plans. I did also eventually see that whilst my pride was in control it was often made easy for me to cheat on and lie to anyone who I assessed as being less important or inferior to myself. I also saw the half-truths and lies of others had been welcomed by me as absolute truth whenever they had fed and reinforced my feeling of superiority and pleasure. As I lied to others so I often lied to myself and convinced myself how good and right I was.

I was also made to see this vain and self-deceiving way of thinking had worked not only in myself but in those around me also, and for as much as any of our offensive desires became our needs, so also did our cravings for more leave us more vulnerable and subject to the corruption of those most crafty and evil. Their lies would often become more easily accepted by us as truth and would therefore become more easily woven into the memories of our minds that believed in those lies. Thus it was that from lie infested memories such as these, our deductions, decisions and judgements were formed. I eventually had to conclude therefore that whatever is being reasoned and perceived as truth and reality to minds corrupted by pride is all too often an illusion. This state of mind I now see is to some degree the inherited scourge of us all, breeding contempt and hatred for the truth along with paranoia, conflict, killing and destruction, just as the history of man will clearly testify.

In the light of our history it is clear now that we have no other reasonable choice but to believe the truth alone will keep us rational and sane and in touch with reality. But we can only be sure we are living by the truth when we are sure the cause of living by lies and delusion has been completely removed; and this can only be achieved when we know we are living faithfully by these two greatest of all commandments found in Matthew 22:34-40, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all of your mind" (from an atheistic and humanist viewpoint, the nearest equivalent would be this: “Always love and value that which produced you (the human race) above yourself and above all things”) This is the first and greatest commandment, the second is like it: “Love your neighbour as yourself".

Simple logical deduction dictates that only by valuing these two commandments above all other opposing commands, doctrines, forces and influences that would have us place an inferior value to ourselves on others, shall we ever be trusted to seek no reason to deceive and offend anyone. But only by valuing this Jesus who first gave us these greatest of all commandments above all other men and gods, shall we seriously begin to value His commandments above all other opposing commands, doctrines, forces and influences also; and only by living always by His greatest commandments shall any of us find no reason to deceive and offend anyone including ourselves.

To sum up then, true Christianity is our only rational and logical hope of being free from the lies and delusions of an insane world that grows more corrupt by the day and which can now be seen entering into the prophesied hell on earth.

I ought to mention this as well.


Only the pure and perfect faithful Spirit, faithful to love unto death will have no reason to deceive and offend any of us. This is the Spirit that was revealed by Jesus Christ and by His true followers. This Jesus could not have lied because in His Spirit there can be seen no reason to lie. The faithful followers who knew Jesus Christ, were in the end also prepared to be persecuted to death rather than live a lie and deny what they had witnessed: the commandments and doctrine, the love and wisdom, the miracles, the crucifixion and the resurrected Jesus Christ. Despite all the efforts of hypocrites, malicious liars and antichrists, the faithful Spirit lives on in all His true followers still, and the meaning of this Spirit continues to be made known to the world. This Spirit is the only proven conveyor of truth, simply because NO ONE can explain an alternative in which we all can trust.

…and also this,

John 1:3, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.


The written Word and the Spirit speak of the Son coming from His Father somewhere at the beginning of eternity, which no finite mind will ever fully comprehend. This happened before anything was made, (“without him nothing was made that has been made”). From the Father and the Son came their perfect and eternal love for each other. Their love is their endless joy in their pure and perfect caring, sharing and giving to each other. The Son came from the Father and He naturally looks up to His Father, but without the Father's first child there would be no possibility for an eternal God known as "love", "God is Love", as Scripture clearly proclaims, and this love cannot exist with one person alone. This love, this God called love, needs at least two free thinking reasoning minds. Through the eternal Son the Father became the eternal giver of joy in perfect caring and sharing, and through the eternal Father His Son became the eternal receiver and giver of this same Spirit. Without the eternal Son there would be no such Spirit of pure and perfect eternal love; and it is this eternal Spirit that comes through the Father and the Son, and with the Father and the Son, all creation is governed. This Spirit naturally embraces all wisdom, knowledge and understanding, and would mean nothing without being the heart or the innermost ruling character of a person. It is this Spirit who will live and rule in all who will value Him above all others. All three then are dependent upon each other in perfect union, all three are as one and are of equal value.

[Robert Callow]

Is Christianity more logical than atheism and if so why do you believe that Christianity is more logical than atheism?

...one other thing

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ reveals the meaning of His Spirit to fallen man: The love of the Father is the heart of His personality and this love given to and revealed through His first child is His righteousness. This perfect Spirit that embraces all wisdom and understanding was given first to the Son and then to the angels who came after. He alone is truth and will live and rule in all who will have faith in Him. All who have faith in this Spirit will have faith in the Son. All who are of God have faith in this Spirit. Whoever will not have faith in this Spirit will remain a liar. Those who know this Spirit, revealed in part for too short a time in many little children, (Matthew 18:1-5, Mark 9:33-37, Luke 9:46-48...“the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”) and continue to revile and abuse this Spirit will never be saved for there is nothing left to save them, they condemn themselves: "And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" Matthew 12:31-32.
"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!" Matthew 18:6-7.

Being the Father and the Son's righteousness, the Holy Spirit given to God's chosen will ultimately rule in their hearts and make their unique personalities perfect, just as the Father and the Son are perfect. Thus God will be in everyone of His children and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit given by the Father will never be broken again.

why do you believe that Christianity is more logical than atheism?

because true Christianity adds up beautifully...

When the corrupting power of evil has been seen by all to be destroyed forever, and paradise has been restored to redeemed man, then his glory will be his endless joy in free and endless creation. The free and infinite imagination of the Spirit of truth will forever be the infinite realm of everything.


On the other hand, the theory that man evolved on this planet by way of survival of the fittest and natural selection, which atheism clings to like it was a proven fact, does absolutely nothing to rid us of the cause of living by lies and delusion and much to encourage it. The truth is, the only hope Darwin gives is more delusion and death.