Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[icehorse]

There is no comparison in that argument. It shows how little you know. Shame.

The OP "threw down the gauntlet" for us to disprove his unfalsifiable argument. By asking him to disprove Russell's teapot, I have done the same.

 

[Artemis]

Hey, you guys are good, you can even construct mountains out of nothing what-so-ever.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The OP "threw down the gauntlet" for us to disprove his unfalsifiable argument. By asking him to disprove Russell's teapot, I have done the same.

Intelligent energy is not a bad idea. Flying teapots are. There is no comparison except in the mind of a child

 

[Artemis]

I will let you construct the mountains and go somewhere else to where people are " hungry" to hear about the Creator. Remember, someone else created all that is around you, including the mountains. You are all in deep sleep ... one day it will be too late to wake up. I am sorry for all of you, because the day I am talking about is very near. Wake up ! Sincerely said by someone who loves Jesus

 

[icehorse]

Intelligent energy is not a bad idea. Flying teapots are. There is no comparison except in the mind of a child

Arguing unfalsifiable claims is a complete waste of time. Daniel Dennett has introduced me to his friend Lucille. As it turns out, Lucille is never wrong. According to Lucille, arguing unfalsifiable claims is a waste of time.

 

[McBell]

There is nothing wrong with asking what there answer is if they think it is not another.

As par normal you did not address the post you replied to.

 

[McBell]

And if goddidnotdoit, then naturaldidit. Or is it with you, I don't know, but you speak as one who knows..hmmm

You keep clinging desperately to your false dichotomy.
It merely reveals your desperation.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Arguing unfalsifiable claims is a complete waste of time. Daniel Dennett has introduced me to his friend Lucille. As it turns out, Lucille is never wrong. According to Lucille, arguing unfalsifiable claims is a waste of time.

I can only repeat what I said. Some people do understand this argument you know.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You keep clinging desperately to your false dichotomy.
It merely reveals your desperation.

You keep coming up with no arguments, as pernormal, just like some child... haha. You do know you have a bug running round do you. Keep you company does it?

 

[Robert.Evans]

As par normal you did not address the post you replied to.

as per normal you can't read too well...

 

[icehorse]

I can only repeat what I said. Some people do understand this argument you know.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that sometimes it's worth debating unfalsifiable claims?

 

[Desert Snake]

Haha, I thought that was what science did! Everything from nothing... laughable... now comes the definition of ''nothing'' I suppose..

It is more logical than luck and magic bringing everything into being

That depends on what scientist you are listening to and what the subject is. They can be dogmatic also.

time is relative. There is time before what we consider to be time

Many. Infinite. Back to a Monadic Singularity- God.

You will have to start the conversation again, if you wish to discuss it properly. God is visible everywhere. You just don't see him.

That is an assumption from ignorance.

And if goddidnotdoit, then naturaldidit. Or is it with you, I don't know, but you speak as one who knows..hmmm

How do ''you'' know it is dishonest when you keep saying 'I don;'t know'?

That's right, we can't refute you as you never say anything do you,... haha. Safe argument that!

You can't refute what we know as you can not discern what we can. False argument.

he is not... but your arguments are none existent

YOU are the one with NO argument adn a lack of spiritual discernment..

You need to stop calling people dishonest in a subject you know nothing about, and wish to know nothing about.

Hoorahh!!!!

Tell us where everything has come from

haha... he likes it that way

It can, but you will not accept it as you cannot bring it into the physical realm. Hence you are a materialist and therefore limited in your arguments. Tough.

He hasn't got any, This is just therapy for him to calm nagging thoughts. ever wondered why atheist are drawn to a religious site? Strange eh. They come to argue about something they don't belive in. Perhaps I should go and argue on a golf forum.

And you have no answers just complaints.

When are you going to start discussing something you don't understand?

Why don't you just answer it. It is a simple enough qeustion

Who's ''we''? Don't go speaking for me. You're a materialist.

Cop-out. This is you. No discussion, just rhetoric

He is not dihonest. This is a subject out of your league. Why is it you think everybody argues like you. You are the one with personal attacks. Give an argument for a change as to where everything comes from. Stand on your own two feet.

This is another of your useless arguments. If i say there are two sides to the word, you don't need to tell me what the other one is. I already know. Don't you know this? I think you have no arguments. Please answer where everything comes from and stop looking for excuses not to.

Instead of arguing or rather not arguing against positions of ignorance, I am presenting some of the gems that Robert posted, clearly demonstrating that we have the upper hand in this argument. Clearly Robert has the position of knowledge here, not the opposition which literally presents nothing.
What's almost disconcerting is the notion that people feel comfortable criticizing others beliefs and theories, whereas not only not having any good alternative ones, but not even knowing the subject they are disagreeing with.

 

[Desert Snake]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that sometimes it's worth debating unfalsifiable claims?

Are you going to present anything of substance? Any theory at all? Just a heads up, ,'everything came from nothing', and 'whatever the experts in that field are currently saying' are not arguments, or even theories.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

I don't get it. I have already told you that I do not believe in God incarnate or the trinity.

Right. So Jesus wasn't God Incarnate. He isn't God and therefore isn't to be worshiped, correct?

I have told you that neither are mentioned in scripture. The bible talks of the Godhead. God the eternal Father and his only begotten son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Three seperate and distinct individuals act as one.

And that's "monotheism," is it?

I get the feeling that you have never heard of the Godhead.

The problem here is that Christians are free to make up any old nonsense that they want based on their interpretation of scripture. You would agree that some Christians do believe in the Trinity, yes?

I said that God cannot know what decisions I am going to make - predestination. I have said that God is Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end.

So God knows the future ... but he is powerless to discern our future decisions?

So he couldn't tell what I'll buy at the grocery store tomorrow or how much gas I'll put in the car?

When one stops and considered that practically all future events are based on temporal decisions, it seems like the only thing God might be able to predict is the weather.

Again (just to be clear): You are asserting that your god is powerless to know any future event that involves the outcome of a human decision, correct?

Do you still hold that this somehow counts as "omnipotence?"

The whole sermon on the mount was about the introduction of the Abrahamic Covenant - free agency.

Can you see why it might strike one as ... odd... to assert that The Abrahamic Covenant (from the Old Testament) was "introduced" in the New Testament?

Care to cite the specific verses and parse them out?

There is no need for me to do that. God introduced the plan of redemption. A fundamental part of that plan is free agency. If God knew what you were going to do before you did it then free agency is compromised and predestination is introduced nullifying free agency. It is a simplistic concept.

That Christians have assigned attributes to their deity that are logically irreconcilable isn't really my concern. I'll leave the apologetics to the people making the ridiculous claims.

Ah, there you go again with your need to be rude. Funny though In my view, there is only one sort of atheist: closed minded.

Fact: "Delusional" and "deluded" aren't epithets or slurs. And neither is "closed-minded." It isn't the least bit rude to assert that people who believe contradictory things based on zero evidence are delusional. And you are well within your rights to assert that anyone who doesn't buy your fantastical claims is "close-minded." It's no skin off my nose.

I don't know what a good Christian is. You used the term so you define it.

Actually, all we needed to establish is that you don't know what a good Christian is. Thank you.

 

[Desert Snake]

Jesus said that God was in Him, and He in God. He 'proves' this with His miracles etc. The burden of 'proving' Jeshua wrong was on the temple priests etc., who didn't have a clue as to the spiritual aspects that Jeshua spoke of.
Jeshua presented the 'reality', then proves it, simple as that.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

So your claim is that nothing is "created"?

How can one create nothing?

 

[Shad]

Theoretical as in a a theory perhaps?

Theories are practical or theoretical. A theoretical theory is one in which it's prediction have not been tested, fully or partial. So in the case of the Big Crunch this can not be tested outside of a computer simulation. Theoretical theories can be discarded or modified as new date or tests are done. A practical theory is one which has been tested fully. Many theories in physics are theoretical since we can only use mathematical models in computer simulations to test the idea. At time this is due to time limited depending on the theory. For example our theories on star formation and star evolution are restricted by the time it takes for stars to go through this process. We can not observe a star for 5 billion years to prove the theory's predication. So instead the mathematically model is inputted into a computer system and ran. If the math is correct the model will produce a result. If the math is wrong the result will fail. Theoretical theories still have evidence is support just the prediction can not be tested is the same manner as in person real-time experiments.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Instead of arguing or rather not arguing against positions of ignorance, I am presenting some of the gems that Robert posted, clearly demonstrating that we have the upper hand in this argument. Clearly Robert has the position of knowledge here, not the opposition which literally presents nothing.
What's almost disconcerting is the notion that people feel comfortable criticizing others beliefs and theories, whereas not only not having any good alternative ones, but not even knowing the subject they are disagreeing with.

Haha..... I feel a whooosh of air just blew over a few heads

 

[Bunyip]

Haha..... I feel a whooosh of air just blew over a few heads

Hot air

 

[Robert.Evans]

Fact: "Delusional" and "deluded" aren't epithets or slurs. And neither is "closed-minded." It isn't the least bit rude to assert that people who believe contradictory things based on zero evidence are delusional. And you are well within your rights to assert that anyone who doesn't buy your fantastical claims is "close-minded." It's no skin off my nose.
.

God is only proved to those with open eyes. The proof is within, it is the ''evidence of things not seen'' which is demonstrated through a theist as faith, their conviction. Either you accept that or not. But don't mistake something not existing just because you have not experienced what we have.