Neuropteron
Active Member
There is no proof that Stonehenge is anything else but a bunch of large rocks arranged in a quite coincidental geometric pattern.
However based on evidence, hardly anyone questions that it's of intelligent design and construction.
If we were to apply the same rule of acceptance to God existence as we do to Stonehenge being man-made.
hardly anyone would question the existence of God.
However despite overwhelming evidence, more and more people require proof, and because of not received it reject their creator.
What's the difference ?
Is it because there is no emotional connection between Stonehenge and us? Gods existence however is an emotionally charged concept.
Is it because Stonehenge's construction does not affect our freedom ? On the other hand accepting a creator is loaded with potential accountability.
Or maybe there are a much deeper reason for not accepting God's existence. We ask for a signs, we are told we won't receive any. We ask for things and don't receive them. We beg, no one listens. We expect God to act according to our expectations, but instead, God expects us to bend according to His will.
That being said, would it surprise you to hear that there is proof of God's existence ?
The secret of finding this proof is found in a Latin expression called "A posteriori".
It means "Something that can be considered true or valid only by means of experience".
What does that mean ?
Only those that consider this proof important enough will receive it, because they search hard for it.
Only then, will they experience it for themselves.
Is it any wonder that Jesus said "few are the one finding the road to life"?
However, once found, this proof is so evident that they are willing to be thrown to the lions before rejecting it.
However based on evidence, hardly anyone questions that it's of intelligent design and construction.
If we were to apply the same rule of acceptance to God existence as we do to Stonehenge being man-made.
hardly anyone would question the existence of God.
However despite overwhelming evidence, more and more people require proof, and because of not received it reject their creator.
What's the difference ?
Is it because there is no emotional connection between Stonehenge and us? Gods existence however is an emotionally charged concept.
Is it because Stonehenge's construction does not affect our freedom ? On the other hand accepting a creator is loaded with potential accountability.
Or maybe there are a much deeper reason for not accepting God's existence. We ask for a signs, we are told we won't receive any. We ask for things and don't receive them. We beg, no one listens. We expect God to act according to our expectations, but instead, God expects us to bend according to His will.
That being said, would it surprise you to hear that there is proof of God's existence ?
The secret of finding this proof is found in a Latin expression called "A posteriori".
It means "Something that can be considered true or valid only by means of experience".
What does that mean ?
Only those that consider this proof important enough will receive it, because they search hard for it.
Only then, will they experience it for themselves.
Is it any wonder that Jesus said "few are the one finding the road to life"?
However, once found, this proof is so evident that they are willing to be thrown to the lions before rejecting it.