You better be 100% sure about your beliefs because it is a life and death issue. You could spend the rest of eternity regreting your decision to regect Christ.

anonymous, if one is dead, it no longer becomes a life/death issue, that's a 100% guarantee. Perhaps, you should come back to reality. The world isn't that cold, and cruel, especially if you are emotionally strong enough to look past the cancer of humanity, i.e., fundies.

Anon, you'd better be sure Christ is right and not Mohammed... or FSM... gee, Pascal's Wager doesn't work.

Lee’s works are interesting; however, if you want to see evidence for God in a scientific and statistical “sense”, check this out:

1)www.godandscience.org
2)I Don’t have Enough Faith to be an Atheist by Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek.
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/23/231230.php

To Anonymous,

I checked out the links that you supplied. This first is a rather extensive Christian apologetic site with "rebuttals" to so-called atheistic arguments, book reviews (e.g. of "The God Delusion"), etc. When I come across such a site I first spend about fifteen minutes doing the following experiment: I randomly pick a few links/essays and start reading. I see how long it takes to discover a glaring fallacy such as a straw man argument, or begging the questions, or a fanciful interpretation of a quote, etc. If I find more than, say, ten in my fifteen minutes, I deem the site unworthy of further investigation; i.e. a waste of time.

Your first link was quite special. In my fifteen minutes I don't think I spotted a single statement that was not a fallacy of some variety. If you think there is something particularly good at that site, please point it out. I'm not going to wade through dozens of pages of nonsense looking for something worth discussing.

As for your second link, a book review of Geisler's book, it wasn't very informative. It did point out that Geisler attempts to use physical principles to prove his points. If the book review is any indication (also judging from Geisler's debates and other books), I'm confident that the arguments are abysmal. But, as I do not own a copy of the book, I'm wondering if you would be so kind as to tell me whether Geisler mentions the second law of thermodynamics, or appeals to the "fact" that "nothing can come from nothing" (which can be couched in terms of the first law), or mentions the improbability of the physical constants being what they are (i.e. "fine tuning"), or the improbability of life arising from non-life. If so, please provide some quotes as we can discuss them. Alternatively, quote what you think is his *strongest* argument, and we can discuss it.