Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Paris, too. The US is practically swimming in them. Team Jacob!
Yeah, especially on Halloween night, when there's a full moon out. Lol
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creation vs evolution
- Thread starter Faithofchristian
- Start date
Yeah, especially on Halloween night, when there's a full moon out. Lol
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
Weird thing about all the werewolves in Paris and London though - they're all American, for some reason!Paris, too. The US is practically swimming in them. Team Jacob!
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Nope, not at first, the werewolves had their start in London, then later a person of America got bitten, then started the American werewolves.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I never said he didn't exist. I said you have not demonstrated that it does exist. I do not have to prove the non-existence of your god. But I tell you what, you prove that all the other gods do not exist, and I will use your method to disprove yours.
But before you do that. myself and others have refuted your initial post and you have not responded to those refutations. I have requested you do so numerous times, but you either ignore the requests, or deflect. Are you accepting the refutations of your original post? If so, then this thread is complete, as your original post is without merit.
Last edited:
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Let's see, you go to evolution to prove your case. right.
And I go to the bible as a Christian should go, to prove their case.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
No, I go to the evidence which supports evolution.
Can you provide evidence that what your book says on the subject is correct?
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Sure there's many places in the Bible that supports what I said.
There's the Celestial man and there's the Terrestrial man. Now Who's, who ?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I have no idea what you mean by that. It doesn't matter if the Bible supports your beliefs if there is nothing to demonstrate that the Bible is factual in any way.
Can you counter my refutation of your original post????????????????????
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
As a Christian the bible is factual. Just because you don't see it that way, is no fault of mine.
Faithofchristian is starting from the assumption that Bible is a superior and independent source of infallible truth as when compared to experiences and observations one makes through senses and reason, and that he has infallible understanding of the infallible truths of the Bible. Since the Bible is infallible and his understanding of it is infallible, for him it's the lower grade fallible truths based on sense experiences that needs justification in light of the truths of the Bible than the other way rounds. He is prepared to reject all worldly experiences as a source of truth if they all contradict the Bible.
That's where he is at. On the other hand we consider our observations from sense experiences and reasoning from it based on scientific method as the prime source of truth about the world. For us, Bible is just another book, and it's claims need to be justified against the world just like any other book.
The objects to Faith's position was well articulated here, The problem with 'revelation' as authority
Last edited:
Justify your belief that it is factual.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Facts aren't true for one person and false for another. They remain facts whether you acknowledge them or not. If you have evidence that your Bible is factual in it's claims and you are unwilling to lay out the evidence, then, in a way, it is your fault if others don't accept the claims. Being a Christian does not make the Bible or any other book factual. It may make you believe it is factual, but it does not make it factual.
But I am not particularly concerned about that, rather I would like you to either accept or counter my points made concerning your original post.
CAN YOU PLEASE ADDRESS MY REFUTATION OF YOUR ORIGINAL POST??????? I CAN CUT AND PAST IT INTO THE THREAD ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU ARE HAVING TROUBLE FINDING IT.
Do you accept my refutation, and if not, please provide suitable counters. I have asked this numerous times and you are ignoring the requests.
Thanks
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
I don't have to justify what i know is factual.
You may have to justify yourself, but that doesn't mean I have to.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link. I understand that he is bogged down in blind faith. I just want him to acknowledge the fallacies in his original post, or counter with something, even if it is illogical. If his original post is riddled with logical fallacies and unfounded premises, then there is no reason to continue the thread. I don't know why it is so difficult for him to do either one or the other. He can even continue to argue his original point, but not with those premises.
So your beliefs have no justification? You have no reason or evidence that you can point to that buttresses your belief that Bible is true and factual? Your beliefs are then mere beliefs and not knowledge.
The Analysis of Knowledge (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
For any person, there are some things they know, and some things they don’t. What exactly is the difference? What does it take to know something? It’s not enough just to believe it—we don’t know the things we’re wrong about. Knowledge seems to be more like a way of getting at the truth. The analysis of knowledge concerns the attempt to articulate in what exactly this kind of “getting at the truth” consists.
More particularly, the project of analysing knowledge is to state conditions that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for propositional knowledge, thoroughly answering the question, what does it take to know something? By “propositional knowledge”, we mean knowledge of a proposition—for example, if Susan knows that Alyssa is a musician, she has knowledge of the proposition that Alyssa is a musician.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
You are correct, you can believe anything, no matter how devoid of factual evidence it is. But if you place those beliefs on a public board and make very specific statements concerning those beliefs, you must expect others to question the basis for your beliefs. If you want the beliefs to go unquestioned, then you must air those beliefs on a DIR that only allows others with the same beliefs. Sort of an echo chamber, if you will.
Can you please provide counters to my refutations of your original post or accept the refutations??? I would appreciate it. Many are waiting......
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Oh but it does to a Christian. Just because you can't accept the bible as factual, that's no fault of mine.
To go on about the bible, that you find to be not factual would be useless.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I can accept the Bible as factual very easily..all you have to do is provide the evidence that demonstrates it to be so. I will not blindly accept it to be factual either on your word or on the word of the book itself. What it says has to mirror reality.
Can you please accept or counter my refutation of your original post?
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
My beliefs don't need justification by you or anyone else.
My beliefs is my beliefs, and what is that to you,
You seem to think like alot of people that Christians are to justify themselves to people like yourself.
Unto which Christians do not have to justify themselves to no one, but their God.