Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Sonofason]

ROTFLMAO

A real legend in your own mind.

Well, if I can't convince you that I'm right, at least I can bring a smile to your face.

[QUOTEwhatever helps you sleep at night.[/QUOTE]

Even if it only lasts for a brief moment.

 

[Sonofason]

LOL

This conversation improved a great deal with judicious blocking. Now it's like a drinking game.

quarters anyone?

 

[Sonofason]

Yet here you are...

Where?

 

[Ingledsva]

That is very weak evidence, hearsay at this point.

I have no doubt that this sometimes happens, but I can imagine that many atheist might view any biblical quote as an attempt of proselytizing, even when such quotes may have indeed been presented as evidence to support an argument.

LOL! Like I am going to save multi-page proselytizing crap! YOU have seen them.

No one said a few Bible quotes, in context to the debate, were proselytizing!

I mean for Crips sake, we all use them to defend our positions.

Proselytizing is different, and obvious.

*

 

[Cephus]

Yet here you are...

That always seems to be the way though. There are always people on debate forums who freely acknowledge they have nothing to debate with, yet insist on continuing to do so.

 

[Sonofason]

LOL! Like I am going to save multi-page proselytizing crap! YOU have seen them.

No one said a few Bible quotes, in context to the debate, were proselytizing!

I mean for Crips sake, we all use them to defend our positions.

Proselytizing is different, and obvious.

*

You're right. When someone is proselytizing, it's usually obvious to everyone.
I only say that because I have been accused of proselytizing, and I'm quite sure I don't do that. I make it a point not to do that.

 

[Sapiens]

That always seems to be the way though. There are always people on debate forums who freely acknowledge they have nothing to debate with, yet insist on continuing to do so.

A man's got to know his limitations. - Harry Callahan

 

[Bunyip]

If we have quite finished gentlemen talking about the property market,
I would like someone who is not a theist to say where everything comes from. Any takers? Why is it so difficult? Surely you have an answer, you must do considering you so confidently affirm your own ideas.... so they must surely lead somewhere... don't they?

You seem to ignore all responses to that question, calim that nobody has responded and then repeat.
Why would everything need to come from anywhere? You are asking a malformed question.

Now that was real simple Robert, what exactly do you find so difficult to understand about that response?

 

[Midnight Rain]

Through luck and magic? I don't have much problem with that. I see God as an Existence that evolves and develops as it does, which to that, is natural, from simple to complex. What comes from that is our understanding of God. Consciousness and understanding develops. We are the result of that. We are that.

But what we are doesn't mean that we have always been "this". We have the ability to change.

I don't think it is designed as such, I think it is evolving consciousness. This is the development of God, and it is infinite and varied. At this point it is physical, and that is us. But the universe also has complete autonomy from the higher consciounsness that it comes from, so it develops as it does based on what it already is.

In short, evolving conscousness in varied forms, varied layers, each having liberty from the one before, but, like a child, following its parentage. Thus he knows the beginning from the end.

This is different than what I thought you were saying earlier. This concedes the point that it wasn't simply luck but it wasn't a designer either.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

So in short, ''you don't know'' .....haha. Okay. Took a long time to say it.

I'm left to marvel at your (mis-)conception of "a long time."

I wonder why you think it is not God then if you don't know!?

I don't know conclusively who killed Jimmy Hoffa, but I'll bet you're not going to suggest that God did it.

...

Unlike many (if not all) theists, I do not pretend to know the origin of the the universe. Nor do I claim to know. Making unfounded, intellectually dishonest claims is something best left to the religiously inclined. Quite simply, anyone traipsing about with "God Done It" on their lips is simply claiming to know.

Allow me to point out that lamely trying to shoehorn the deity of your choice into an unanswered question should never be confused with supplying a substantive answer. You're simply seeking to answer a mystery with an even greater mystery.

...

"I Don't Know" implies more work remains to be done and it is an honest answer.
"God Done It" is nothing more than a cowardly and dishonest cosmological pacifier.

 

[Dr. Strange]

I'm glad you put in that "every man" info. Quite awhile back I put in a translation which shows how differently this can be read.

1 Within the First Estate/Principle exists the (logos)(incantation)/Divine command/Computation/law, and the Divine command/Computation/law exists within the Divinity, and the Divinity exists as the Divine command/Computation/law.

2 The same, exists within the First Estate/Principle (as) within the Divinity.

3 All through It came into being; and separate from its existence not one came to being.

4 Within itself life(spark) existed; and the life(spark) existed to manifest/illuminate the Anthropos/human being.

*

Thanks for your reply. I'm glad that you pulled out "every man" to comment on. That is my point.

 

[Desert Snake]

Have you presented a theory yet? lol

That always seems to be the way though. There are always people on debate forums who freely acknowledge they have nothing to debate with, yet insist on continuing to do so.

 

[Sapiens]

Have you presented a theory yet? lol

He's saying the room in empty. You're saying that since we don't know what is in the room there must be a gold Rolex in there. He's saying the room is empty, you're saying if he can't tell you what is in there then there must be a gold Rolex in there. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon you to show everyone the Rolex.

 

[Desert Snake]

He's saying the room in empty. You're saying that since we don't know what is in the room there must be a gold Rolex in there. He's saying the room is empty, you're saying if he can't tell you what is in there then there must be a gold Rolex in there. It seems to me that it is incumbent upon you to show everyone the Rolex.

Really bad analogy. Our present 'knowledge' does not allow us to honestly think the 'room' is empty. That's why there is a 'blank'. that's your 'blank'. That's your problem. There is nothing 'wrong' with ID belief, it makes sense.

 

[Bunyip]

Really bad analogy. Our present 'knowledge' does not allow us to honestly think the 'room' is empty. That's why there is a 'blank'. that's your 'blank'. That's your problem. There is nothing 'wrong' with ID belief, it makes sense.

What's 'wrong' with belief in ID is essentially that it is redundant. There is no need for intelligent guidance in evolution.

It serves to fill a 'blank' that takes up no space, a 'blank' that fills a gap that does not need to be filled.

 

[Desert Snake]

What's 'wrong' with belief in ID is essentially that it is redundant. There is no need for intelligent guidance in evolution.

It serves to fill a 'blank' that takes up no space, a 'blank' that fills a gap that does not need to be filled.

There isn't a 'need' to fill any gap that is apparently unrelated to a testable theory, but that is pretty much irrelevant.

 

[Bunyip]

There isn't a 'need' to fill any gap that is apparently unrelated to a testable theory, but that is pretty much irrelevant.

Why is the redundancy of ID irrelevant?
Personally I would see such things as significant.

 

[Desert Snake]

Why is the redundancy of ID irrelevant?
Personally I would see such things as significant.

Actually it isn't 'redundant'. I think you are using the incorrect word for the point you're trying to make.
This is not a productive 'discussion', I'm going to leave it here.

 

[Bunyip]

Actually it isn't 'redundant'. I think you are using the incorrect word for the point you're trying to make.
This is not a productive 'discussion', I'm going to leave it here.

In what way is it not redundant? I choose my words carefully.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No that is naught but circular reasoning compounding the area of argument from ignorance. If that is gnosis, you've a whole lot of work to do to separate the wishful foolishness from reality before you can advance a logical case.

That is not ignorance, that is reality. You think as the world.