Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Bunyip]

You were the one criticizing theistic logic!

Sheesh.

So, I said present a better theory!
You can't! (here's a hint, it's impossible).

Why would I need a better theory than a theory you don't have anyway? You just said that I do not need to have an explanation - so what on earth is the point of asking?

 

[McBell]

I was responding to Robert.Evans. If you think that me agreeing with you, that I might have given a false dichotomy, means that I think you are arguing gods existence, then you must be right. If not, then I don't know what it means exactly.

I make no claim of gods existence either way.

I do make claims on the convincing power of what is presented to show god exists or does not exist.
So far neither side has been the least bit convincing.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why would I need a better theory than a theory you don't have anyway? You just said that I do not need to have an explanation - so what on earth is the point of asking?

What? I do have a good theory. It's called intelligent intent or design. It doesn't matter what your 'theory' is.
But, if you are arguing against my position, then you have to present an argument! Otherwise, it's just opinion Ping-Pong.

 

[savagewind]

There is a human condition that is convinced no one cares what the I does. Not the self or anyone else. It can lead to much damage. But to believe in God makes that condition not possible.

 

[Bunyip]

What? I do have a good theory. It's called intelligent intent or design. It doesn't matter what your 'theory' is.
But, if you are arguing against my position, then you have to present an argument! Otherwise, it's just opinion Ping-Pong.

Intelligent design is not a theory - I told you that a few posts ago. there is no theory of intelligent design, not even a testable hypothesis. There is no theory for me to refute.

Why would I need to refute a theory that does not actually exist - other than as an unsubstantiated claim?

 

[McBell]

What? I do have a good theory. It's called intelligent intent or design. It doesn't matter what your 'theory' is.
But, if you are arguing against my position, then you have to present an argument! Otherwise, it's just opinion Ping-Pong.

Intellignet design/creation is not a theory in the scientific use of the word.
This is where it seems that dishonesty is being used.

Now with the number of times the difference between scientific theory and layman theory has been explained, at what point does repeating the same false information becomes flat out lying?

 

[Bunyip]

Intellignet design/creation is not a theory in the scientific use of the word.
This is where it seems that dishonesty is being used.

Now with the number of times the difference between scientific theory and layman theory has been explained, at what point does repeating the same false information becomes flat out lying?

In terms of apologetics - never.

 

[Desert Snake]

Intelligent design is not a theory - I told you that a few posts ago. there is no theory of intelligent design, not even a testable hypothesis. There is no theory for me to refute.

Why would I need to refute a theory that does not actually exist - other than as an unsubstantiated claim?

That's ridiculous. Of course there is a 'theory of intelligent design'. It's called applying what we observe, to a theory of creation or intent. You haven't presented a logical alternative, you may be fine with a gigantic gap in anything making sense but lots of people aren't.
Aside from that, you still haven't proposed any argument, so why would I 'defend' a position that you can't even refute?

 

[Bunyip]

That's ridiculous. Of course there is a 'theory of intelligent design'. It's called applying what we observe, to a theory of creation or intent. You haven't presented a logical alternative, you may be fine with a gigantic gap in anything making sense but lots of people aren't.
Aside from that, you still haven't proposed any argument, so why would I 'defend' a position that you can't even refute?

No mate, there is no theory of intelligent design. Micheal Behe, one of the principle founders of the ID movement stated in court during the Kitzmiller Dover trial that ID should not be taught in schools, because there is not theory of ID to teach.

Why would I need to refute a non-existent theory?

 

[Desert Snake]

Intellignet design/creation is not a theory in the scientific use of the word.
This is where it seems that dishonesty is being used.

Now with the number of times the difference between scientific theory and layman theory has been explained, at what point does repeating the same false information becomes flat out lying?

Facepalm.
Scientists having theories does not make them more credible necessarily than other people having theories. Science has theories for anything unknown, it doesn't mean they are loaded with 'evidence' or whatnot/
Your statement is so ridiculous I really had to think about even responding to it.
'Scientific theories' come in all manner, and if evidence arises to change them, they do. So, various theories are totally incorrect in science, and that's o.k. it's part of the process.

 

[Ingledsva]

Sounds like you just have a problem with men not God..

*
Patriarchy - not men. I like my men just fine.


*

 

[McBell]

That's ridiculous. Of course there is a 'theory of intelligent design'. It's called applying what we observe, to a theory of creation or intent. You haven't presented a logical alternative, you may be fine with a gigantic gap in anything making sense but lots of people aren't.
Aside from that, you still haven't proposed any argument, so why would I 'defend' a position that you can't even refute?

Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.
It does not even cut it as a hypothesis.
You have not observed creation, at all, ever.
Alternative?
You mean like Abiogenesis?
You are also fine with a giant gap.
In fact, you love giant gaps simply because it gives you a place to stuff your god.
Until such time as you present something to refute...
I understand you think your ID "theory" is something grand, but it is nothing but you saying "goddidit".

 

[Desert Snake]

Lots of things are created without intent, the Grand Canyon, the Mississippi River, the Island of Hawaii, the moon, just to mention a few.

Btw you never answered my question to you, whether you subscribe to the 'big bang' theory.

 

[McBell]

Facepalm.
Scientists having theories does not make them more credible necessarily than other people having theories. Science has theories for anything unknown, it doesn't mean they are loaded with 'evidence' or whatnot/
Your statement is so ridiculous I really had to think about even responding to it.
'Scientific theories' come in all manner, and if evidence arises to change them, they do. So, various theories are totally incorrect in science, and that's o.k. it's part of the process.

Are you simply refusing to understand the difference or are you honestly that ignorant of the subject?
Either way, I fail to see how there can be an honest or productive discussion with you on this topic.

 

[Desert Snake]

Are you simply refusing to understand the difference or are you honestly that ignorant of the subject?
Either way, I fail to see how there can be an honest or productive discussion with you on this topic.

Ditto.

Though I don't think it's dishonesty on your part.

 

[McBell]

Ditto.

Though I don't think it's dishonesty on your part.

I understand the difference between scientific theory (evolution) and laymans theory (ID).
Your refusal to accept said difference makes you look like a dishonest liar.

 

[Desert Snake]

I understand the difference between scientific theory (evolution) and laymans theory (ID).
Your refusal to accept said difference makes you look like a dishonest liar.

Nope. What I find funny is that you admit you have no theories which explain the 'gaps' and other problems (it's complicated) with your premise, but you criticize others.

 

[McBell]

Nope. What I find funny is that you admit you have no theories which explain the 'gaps' and other problems (it's complicated) with you premise, but you criticize others.

What I find funny is that you cannot accept that you do not know something and so stuff god in the gaps of your knowledge claiming it is not dishonest to do so.

 

[Bunyip]

Nope. What I find funny is that you admit you have no theories which explain the 'gaps' and other problems (it's complicated) with your premise, but you criticize others.

Why would we need theories to explain 'gaps' how is that relevant to faith? That is just an argument from personal ignorance.

 

[Sonofason]

All that is said above is still man's perception. Not your God's. Christianity is man's perception. Jesus was a revolutionary. He was Jewish. Jesus was not Christian and if one attempts to understand the Early Church one sees that what we call Christianity is just man's perception and, not Jesus' perception. What we call the NT was written long after any of Jesus' disciples. What did Jesus teach? The OT and what they did not understand then. Man made Jesus, Christ.

I'm not sure how to respond. To me, this all sounds like nonsense. Of course Jesus wasn't a Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ. Of course this is all man's perception. No man has God's perception. To say that everything that mankind perceives is man's perception is nothing less than nonsense. It's saying nothing at all. It has no meaning whatsoever. Of course everything that every man could ever possibly perceive can never be anything more than a man's perception.

Did you have a point?