skysaintj

Read this ? Theories abound, but no direct evidence for the beginning of the theoretical evolutionary climb of life up what Richard Dawkins and many evolutionists call “mount improbable” ever has been discovered (Dawkins, 1996). Nor have researchers been able to develop a plausible theory to explain how life could evolve from non-life. Many equally implausible theories now exist, most of which are based primarily on speculation. Nearly all biologists were convinced by the latter half of the nineteenth century that spontaneous generation of all types of living organisms was impossible (Bergman, 1993a). Now that naturalism dominates science, Darwinists reason that at least one spontaneous generation of life event must have occurred in the distant past because no other naturalistic origin-of-life method exists aside from panspermia, which only moves the spontaneous generation of life event elsewhere (Bergman, 1993b). As theism was filtered out of science, spontaneous generation gradually was resurrected in spite of its previous defeat. The solution was to add a large amount of time to the broth.. Read more @ http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Like Viri (Virus) Technically still underdebate as to whether they are alive or not Life / alive : Ok so something had to be created at the start to reproduce or evolve into what we see around us today ...thus without creation even micro evolution could never have taken place... ... science has proven abiogenesis impossible so life was created ....could that be a start ? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Reply to : "I don't see anything wrong with someone believing in something they don't quite understand. "

cool ...thanks Karl ...lookin forward to seeing it Skip If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Another one.. Student was supposed to do static line dummy ripcord pull - out of Pilatus porter - went like this GO , 1 thousand , reach thousand , chop thousand , what da f*ck thousand ? pulled his cutaway handle instaed of dummy > last seen running fast ... - This next one is quite funny though not really student related ... I recently finished my JM course with a few other people we had to brief each other on a hop and pop jump as if one is student and instructor in turn.. So the guy briefed me but left out what you do if you can't find the ripcord as a student doing the jump....so i asked him His response as the "instructor" - He paused for a while "you really need to find the ripcord it is essential to your survival" i replied - ok but just say i just can't find or pull it ? him- " if you really can't find it , all our student gear are equiped with aad's so just try and get stable and wait for it " what he actually should have stuttered " Do your reserve drill " our JMCouse instructor has ressigned to the weekend barman to get to the root of this problem.. - If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

with pleasure

I'm not a scientist or anything close but have read up on both theories .Science has proven itself more wrong than right concerning this evolution theory on the flipside All the Bible prophecies happened exactly as it was written and some is busy being fullfilled right now - we can go into detail on all this and that and use this theory to contradict that theory etc...it's just not worth it...been there done that I believe in microevolution that is fact and evidence is there for all to see but not macro evolution - what a bunch of bullshit ! atheists/evolutionists can still not answer the fundamental question concerning the basis of their theory and never will : Go read up about "abiogenisis" (we evolved from a rock) - this is modern science proving the whole evolution theory false ...oops and splat goes the crap :) - Most Evolutionists/atheists will argue their theory cause they hope they find conclusive proof to give comfort to their inner paranoia ..science will prove your pathetic theory more wrong as time goes on.....Darwin , Bhwahahahaahahahhahahaha !!!!!!!!!he fed the world some bad acid see link : http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/Darwin_Owen.html -

will do

Just intereted in why Mike , Jon & Rook's training and competition jumps at world meets , nationals etc has never been available to the world on dvd or online - just to promote Skydiving etc.. i might be wrong but i can't find anything anywhere ...we really need good coaching in South Africa and just seeing what the top dawgs do would help.... -

I have taken college level biology courses as well as geology, and they teach everything you guys are arguing, but I've never seen or been taught in these classes anything that could answer even one of these questions. However, I have researched the other arguments as well, and I just can't see how evolution can continue to be taught as a legitimate theory or a fact as almost any school or college teaches it. But don't mind me, i'm just a religious nut with no common sense even though nothing I've said had anything to with God, just the faults with the current system. At least I gave the thought of evolution a chance, since that's all i've been taught my whole life, but fortunately I was able to realize what a shitty theory it was. "At least I gave the thought of evolution a chance" >>

I beg your pardon, but are you mishmashing evolution and physics? What you're saying seems as ridiculous to me as trying to debunk the English language by asking questions about algebra. >> the moment you put that ? forward you would see evolutionists run for cover or change the subject ....reply] I was pretty honest when i said that.. well there it happened again. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Using logic I learned on SC I feel the need to argue this point. What are you talking about? I exist in the air but notice when it's windy!!! If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Sorry to revive a dead discussion, but your quote caught my eye. The problem I see with "scientifically valid" arguments or theories is that after a few years or decades or centuries there will come someone else to prove the earlier guy wrong. I am not a Bible advocate, but science has proven itself wrong thousands of times. Who or what should we believe? The other confusing concept is evolution itself. In order for things to evolve there had to be at least one atom or molecule... the first atom or molecule ever, which later evolved into everything we know now. Who or what created such first atom or molecule?... Exactly !! why is there something instead of nothing , the moment you put that ? forward you would see evolutionists run for cover or change the subject ....

Do I read it like this then? If so, I would say that the two are identical. My problem is that any (person claiming to be a) scientist who works exclusively to prove one hypothesis over another because the conclusion is seen as a given has abandoned the scientific method. Please stop throwing other people's writings in your posts. A link will do just fine. The text in question to me merely argues that the Bible is an old book. I do not dispute this. It furthermore postulates that it is a better book than other old books. This you have the right to believe. To say it clearly: I have no beef with you being a christian. That is your choice to make I was making the point that ID is trying to read the Bible way too literally I sincerely think that ID proponents are not conducting science You can stop throwing "references for the unbeliever" at me. They won't work. Science will prove alot as we go along and so will the prophecies that still will be fullfilled .. i will never judge you , we can always learn , that's why i paste food for thought only ..not for changing you

The Dead Sea scrolls (representing the oldest of all ancient scrolls even remotely related to Christianity) are dated to AD60. After Christ. were not putting that sentence into context here :The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible. In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900). . The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission. A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran. Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Sorry, but I don't understand that sentence. Words missing? Nope no words missing. I am not arguing that there is no God. That is a matter of faith. I am saying that applying the scientific method to observations of geology/biology/astronomy does not support a literal interpretation of Genesis. If you consider these prophecies to be fulfilled by what is in the Bible then fine, go ahead. I will reserve the right to remark that hindsight is 20-20, and that it is pretty easy to edit a book so that it will make a prophecy and later claim it fulfilled. There is ancient scrolls (dating from before Christ)that have exact same prophecy as in the Bible today. Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability by Ron Rhodes Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now. There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability. The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants." This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind. But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear. Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy. To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever. Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words. Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance-- and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them. For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty. Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life. Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals. By practicing the science of textual criticism-- comparing all the available manuscripts with each other-- we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said. Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies: Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl. Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world. Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world. Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world. Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld. Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could. This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology. By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said. Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way. We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said. If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small. The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled! There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity. Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid." Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact." Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration: No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands. The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books. The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion. The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible. From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text." Support for the New Testament from the Church Fathers As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the early church fathers. There are also New Testament quotations in thousands of early church Lectionaries (worship books). There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ. Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible. In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900). The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes. The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission. A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran. Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling." From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible. Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work. These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work. The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy. God's Preservation of the Bible The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them." The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here. The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture. Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible. By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries. Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given. Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative. The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals. Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively. I'm sorry, but this section is gibberish. I am a physicist and I am acquainted with the "modern science of probability". This makes no sense what so ever. Where did you cut 'n' paste it from? EDIT: Ahh... exponents. I see. Oh well, it does not change my "hindsight" point above. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Cool dude ... fast and on the button !

Silver Dollars are what, an inch square? Are you seriously suggesting that the State of Texas is only 508.5 square inches? haahahahahahaha There are more electrons than that in my ass. Seriously! Hell there are more electrons than that in a single hair on my ass! hahahahahahahahahaha This guy really is a "Stoner" >> OK ..see link : this text box does nor cater for mathematical figures to the power of whatever .. if you want the figures ...go get'em @ http://www.carm.org/bible/prophecy.htm oops so what's the odds smiley ??? If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Ahh, intelligent designs greatest victory. There is no real scientific controversy, submitted papers in favour of evolution outnumber those against by thousands to one. Yet somehow the ID propaganda machine continues to portray this 'rift' splitting the scientific community and Yip , Darwin said something 140 years ago and boom that's law in a matter of seconds...talking about community lapping up a theory scientifically proven more wrong than right. If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

OK two sides of the coin is what you saying cause we are not making valid points or producing enough evidence to clear where you have set your bar. Then pls tell me what about all the prophecies that have been foretold and happened exactly like it was predicted as history is fact and how do you respond to someone's claim that the Bible is not inspired? Is there a way to prove inspiration or, at least, intelligently present evidence for its inspiration? The answer is "Yes!" One of the best ways to prove inspiration is by examining prophecy. There are many religious books in the world that have many good things to say. But only the Bible has fulfilled prophecies--with more fulfillments to come. The Bible has never been wrong in the past, and it won't be wrong in the future. It claims inspiration from God (2 Tim. 3:16). Since God is the creator of all things (Isaiah 44:24), then He is also the creator of time. It is under His control. Only God, then, would always be right about what is in the future, our future. Fulfilled prophecy is strong evidence that God is the author of the Bible because when you look at the mathematical odds of prophecy being fulfilled, you quickly see a design, a purpose, and a guiding hand behind the Bible. If just one prophecy failed, then we would know that God is not the true God, because the creator of all things, which includes time, would not be wrong about predicting the future. Deut. 18:22 says, "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously" (NIV). Isaiah 46:9-10 says, "Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please." One approach to use with an unbeliever is to turn to Psalm 22 and read verses 12-18. This is a detailed description of the crucifixion--1000 years before Jesus was born. After you read the section ask him what it was about. He'll say, "The crucifixion of Jesus." Then respond with something like, "You're right. This is about the crucifixion. But it was written 1000 years before Jesus was born. And on top of that, crucifixion hadn't even been invented yet. How do you think something like this could happen?" After a brief discussion, you could show him (or her) a few other prophecies like where Jesus' birthplace was prophesied (Micah 5:2), that He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that His side would be pierced (Zech. 12:10), etc. The Mathematical Odds of Jesus Fulfilling Prophecy The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, 'we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 1017." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 1017 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They will cover all of the state two feet deep. "Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man." Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10157, or 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. The estimated number of electrons in the universe is around 1079. It should be quite evident that Jesus did not fulfill the prophecies by accident." If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Reply : > Awesome !! Could not have explained it better... I don't go to church either but i know my creator and the way He works my life to the better. Without Him i'm empty If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

Evolution in the bible, says Vatican I guess that would be you skysaint... I've been in a roman catholic church and will never ever go there again out of free will ... cause that way of religion scares even me. Sounds like they're only catching up with mr darwin now it's gonna be a long trip.. They are cardinals and pope's ...science is as new to them as a dummy ripcord to a whuffo. There are pro's out there that does not care about religion as much as the truth and spend everyday looking for it. - If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

long live discovery cannel and National Geographic !! Cool..this thread could go on forever as i have seen before - always interesting views If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

You comment on the general post/reply instead of giving some valueble input concerning questions asked etc.... ps - easier to copy and paste than to type it all If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it

You wrote :DNA does change, from generation to generation, although its basic structure - its language, if you will - stays the same. And you're comparing the alphabet that we created with DNA that created itself ? it's very difficult to come to terms with that idea...but i'm trying. I agree - dna will change your cat into a cat wityh more hair , less hair , bigger eyes , smaller eyes etc etc but never into a bird - science has tried these test i refer again see abiogenisis is not possible....root : we evolved from a soup cause lighting hit the earth ? The question we must ask is: Is it more logical, rational, and scientific to believe in evolution, or it it more logical, rational, and scientific to believe that , "In the beginning God created?" Lets look at the evidence. Does life arise spontaneously by chance, as evolution teaches? No! The basic axiom of all biology is biogenesis: Life only arises from life; it does not come from nonliving matter. Does this more logically fit evolution or creation. What about the teaching of evolution that everything is evolving ever upward to greater and greater complexity, all by chance? The evidence is the second law of thermo-dynamics. The laws of physics show that everything goes from organization to chaos. This is known as entropy. Does this more logically fit evolution or the biblical account of creation and the fall? What about the fossil record? Darwin said that if evolution were to be true we would find the evidence in the fossil records by finding millions of transitional forms or, "missing links." What we find, in fact, is everything appearing fully formed after its own kind in the fossil record with no evidence of transitions! Does this more logically fit evolution or the biblical creation? In Genesis Chapter 1 doesn't God say He created everything, "after their own kind?" It never ceases to amaze us that when we were in kindergarten they taught us that a frog turning into a prince was a nursery fairy tale, but when we got to college they told us that a frog turning into a prince was science! The Bible says that only a fool says in his heart, "There is no God". By following evolution we have literally become a nation of fools following false, unscientific data. where did all the rules come from that govern nature ... how do you know wrong from right ? Why is there anything instead of nothing ? I would rather believe that i was created by the living and loving God than believe i evolved from a soup. Time is the atheists god..... Science can now say that they believe our universe was created for us to live in. Also see link : http://theroadtoemmaus.org/RdLb/21PbAr/Apl/FlewTheist.htm Prof. Antony Flew, 81 years old, is a legendary British philosopher and atheist and has been an icon and champion for unbelievers for decades. His change of mind is significant news, not only about his personal journey, but also about the persuasive power of the arguments modern theists have been using to challenge atheistic naturalism and also : Fulfilled Prophecy In The Bible Of Jesus Christ The Messiah Fulfilled prophecy is one of the incontrovertible evidences of our faith. Get familiar with these verses in the Old Testament and their corresponding verses in the New Testament. They will not only be a great witness tool for you, they will help strengthen your faith. A person might ask, "what about Nostradamus?" Well, the criterion for a prophet of God is 100% accuracy! The Bibles prophecies are specific and fulfilled 100% of the time. Read [Deuteronomy 13:1-11, 18:20-22] for God's requirement for a prophet. Nostradamus for one, used forbidden methods for his prophecies, [Deuteronomy 18:9-14]. His prophecies were also vague, and ambiguous, and could fit into almost any time frame or event. So, one thing that we know for a fact is that his prophecies did not come from God! If a prophecy is not 100% accurate, 100% of the time, this false prophet is speaking his own words and not the words from God. Another thing to keep in mind is the Bibles uniqueness concerning prophecies; no other religion has prophecies written hundreds of years before the actual event! Only Christianity has prophecies such as the ones that predicted Jesus' birthplace and manner of death. Of the thousands of prophecies in the Bible, not one has ever failed to come to pass. Listen to what Dr. Norman Geisler says about Bible prophecy: "The Bible is the only book which challenges unbelief by foretelling the future, staking its authority on the ultimate, certain, and complete fulfillment of its detailed predictions. It has been said that there were some 109 Old Testament predictions literally fulfilled at Christ's first coming, and that, of the 845 quotations from the Old Testament in the New Testament, 333 refer to Christ. There are some 25 prophecies concerning the betrayal, trial, death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus uttered by various prophets over a period of some five hundred years. These were literally fulfilled although the chances against such fulfillment have been shown to be one chance in 33,554,438. If the law of Compound Probabilities is applied similarly to all 109 predictions fulfilled at Christ's first coming, the chances that they could accidentally be fulfilled in the history of one person is one in billions." Anyway i don't wanna judge anybody , but would like to try and put truth forward...it's everybody's own free choice what they wanna believe. God gave us free will to make a CHOICE (real love is chosen, not forced). By providing us life on earth and revealing his nature while giving us a choice to show we really love him. I think people think if they gonna start giving God a chance it's gonna take the fun outa life...it does not for me. - If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it