Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Robert.Evans]

It doesn't matter whose house it is. The OP was over 1100 posts ago, it's been talked to death, now we're talking about other related subjects. That's how forums operate. Surprised you didn't realize that.

Yeah bu t not about real estae eh

 

[Robert.Evans]

I know. That's why I love debating atheists so much. It's like boiling crabs.

ahhhaaahhhaaa..... That is so funny.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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?

It's a simple question, basic English. It does not matter if you do not have a reply. I was not expecting you to have one... just interesting that you say it is not ours Bunny.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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

sure, we can change. But we can also say we have always been the big bang, see?

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.

What exists just ''is''.... that which 'is' develops as it does within its own Self. We might call that natural for the want of a better and longer explanation. What comes after his formed through intelligence as that is what formed from the beginning.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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



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.

But you do claim what it is not... haha

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.

The problem with that sarcastic analogy is that if you are wrong, you are making ''unfounded intellectually dishonest claims''. So if you *don't know* then why not be more open, instead of making out you know, and then when asked saying, I don't know.

Those who are spiritual inclined are one with God in one form or another.

You it seems will have to stick with ''naturaldidit'' or ''Idon'tknowdidit''. Either way, neither have intelligence, so you will have to accept luck and magic bring it all into being. Now consider that with your words above.

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.

There is only one Existence that all other deities are in. Don't suppose too much. Don't forget you don't know..... remember? Or have you forgotten already?

"I Don't Know" implies more work remains to be done and it is an honest answer.

Sure. But it implies that to the one who does not know, not the one that does. Don't make the mistake of putting all into the same barrel.

"God Done It" is nothing more than a cowardly and dishonest cosmological pacifier.

And that is a pile of nonsense. You have already said you don't know... now it seems you do again.... haha
I will stick with intelligence being involved, you stick with your 'naturaldidit' or 'idon'tknowdidit'.... at least with that one you get a free paper bag to put over your head. If you take the delux model, it comes with holes for your eyes. The holes go at the front.

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

I would say that if he walks out of the room with a Rolex, it is incumbent on you to show how someone does it when there was not one in there in the first place..... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

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.

So waht guides it then? Processes? Coming from where? Natural? What then is natural??? I suppose your answer to that is everything haha

 

[Sonofason]

I don't think he actually has arguments as such.... haha
And I agree, the scientist has to witness, and, might add, most of us then accept through faith, as there is no way of us learning everything, and certainly not conducting all their experiments. They are the new priesthood. Perhaps that is why he is so angry... he might want you to bow to his God Natural and his saviour Darwin... who knows.

Exactly. It is incredible to me that he and others like him will not admit that scientists are witnesses. He will then say that his witnesses are better witnesses, if he will ever admit they are witnesses in the first place, because other witnesses confirm and corroborate the first witnesses testimony. I cannot for the life of me corroborate that a monkey is genetically related to a man. It would take learning of the mystical science of genetics for me to come close to confirming such a wild claim.

Yet theologians and even non-theologians who study and search for God, if they conduct their experiment according to the prescribed methods, do obtain results suggesting the existence of God, making them witnesses of the existence of God, and sometimes even God Himself. Their testimonies even confirm one another's testimonies regarding God's existence, which is exactly what I would call science, and the scientific method. Hence we have the science of theology.

What the atheist ought to be doing, rather than rejecting all available evidence, is to conduct their own experiments according to the appropriate procedures that have been collected in the scientific manual for knowing and understanding God. That manual is the Bible. Reading an experimental procedures guide in any science won't get you results. You have to apply each step in order to obtain the repeatable and universally verifiable results, wherein the end result, being a proof for the existence of God, is knowing God

 

[Sonofason]

Serenity, Jesus died. in 1980 a building contractor accidentally stumbled upon a grave on the outskirts of Jerusalem. his find has been studied more than most archeological discoveries relating to the Christian religion. The Christian religion and the country in which these finds are discovered have to confirm authenticity. This find was the grave of Jesus and some close family members. The evidence compiled is more than in most authenticated discoveries, yet neither Israel nor the Christian religion wants to authenticate or even discuss the possibility. If they do it will be the end of Christianity and the honour of the Israelite nation. Your religion is based on the resurrection of the man Jesus, which never happened!

Come on, aren't you willing to share even one piece of evidence to support this claim of yours, not even a citation?

 

[savagewind]

Wal not mart says it never happened, it never happened.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

But you do claim what it is not... haha

You're clearly unable to see that "I don't know" in no way equates to "God didn't do it."

Meanwhile, based on zero evidence, you've concluded that everything was created by a supernatural entity?

You cannot know. You can only pretend to know.

The problem with that sarcastic analogy is that if you are wrong, you are making ''unfounded intellectually dishonest claims''.

Please explain how "I don't know" can be a wrong answer.

So if you *don't know* then why not be more open, instead of making out you know, and then when asked saying, I don't know.

Please provide a more open-minded response to the unknown than "I Don't Know."

Those who are spiritual inclined are one with God in one form or another.

That's an empty assertion.

You it seems will have to stick with ''naturaldidit'' or ''Idon'tknowdidit''.

You're hung up with your need to personify the universe. Clearly.

Either way, neither have intelligence, so you will have to accept luck and magic bring it all into being. Now consider that with your words above.

Please explain how your belief that a supernatural being created everything differs from luck and magic.

It seems readily apparent that you do believe in luck and magic. Do you believe that God might have opted to not create the universe? If you believe that God might have decided to not create the universe, then aren't we lucky that he decided to create everything? And if you believe that God pulled the universe out of his hat, you'll need to differentiate between that belief in creation ex nihilo and magic.

There is only one Existence that all other deities are in. Don't suppose too much.

You've supposed a lot in that statement alone.

Don't forget you don't know..... remember? Or have you forgotten already?

Don't fret over my memory. You've got bigger fish to fry.

And that is a pile of nonsense. You have already said you don't know... now it seems you do again.... haha

"God dunnit" is a very unsatisfying answer. It's the equivalent of blaming every murder that was ever committed on The Butler.

You've arrived at a crime scene and pinned the murder on the butler. Never mind that you've yet to review the evidence or even establish that there's a butler employed at the residence in question.

I will stick with intelligence being involved, you stick with your 'naturaldidit' or 'idon'tknowdidit'.... at least with that one you get a free paper bag to put over your head.

Resorting to verbiage like that is a clear indicator that you have nothing of substance to bring to the conversation. Why not just wave a white flag instead?

If you take the delux model, it comes with holes for your eyes. The holes go at the front.

Prove that intelligence drove the creation of the universe. Go for it.

 

[Sonofason]

I wonder if someone uses a link to science it is spamming...hmmm

Of course it is sometime spamming. Atheists do sometimes spam this site with scientific dogma. Yet for some reason, unlike them, I don't find their spamming to be overly offensive as she and others do. Usually, when someone spams the site with science, I just do what you have suggested, I skip over it.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

It is still our house.. You are welcome to enter it madam, with your dust on your feet...haha

Please dispense with the holier-than-thou pose and get busy washing our feet.

When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. “Do you understand what I have done for you?” he asked them. “You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord,’ and rightly so, for that is what I am. Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another’s feet. I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. Very truly I tell you, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

There is nothing 'wrong' with ID belief, it makes sense.

Based on what?

 

[Twilight Hue]

So waht guides it then? Processes? Coming from where? Natural? What then is natural??? I suppose your answer to that is everything haha

Of course. Even natural is all that made up ideology that sources from your head. It's called living matter and is easily observed and documented unlike some skydaddy that has no real comparisons as far as what's objective and what's not. There's a huge difference with ideological musings and the natural world that remains indifferent to what's fabricated inside the mind.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

If you want an idea of what God is, look around you.

(((Individual results may vary)))

 

[Midnight Rain]

What exists just ''is''.... that which 'is' develops as it does within its own Self. We might call that natural for the want of a better and longer explanation. What comes after his formed through intelligence as that is what formed from the beginning.

Why do you assume it was intelligence that formed from the beginning?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Exactly. It is incredible to me that he and others like him will not admit that scientists are witnesses. He will then say that his witnesses are better witnesses, if he will ever admit they are witnesses in the first place, because other witnesses confirm and corroborate the first witnesses testimony. I cannot for the life of me corroborate that a monkey is genetically related to a man. It would take learning of the mystical science of genetics for me to come close to confirming such a wild claim.

Quite so

Yet theologians and even non-theologians who study and search for God, if they conduct their experiment according to the prescribed methods, do obtain results suggesting the existence of God, making them witnesses of the existence of God, and sometimes even God Himself. Their testimonies even confirm one another's testimonies regarding God's existence, which is exactly what I would call science, and the scientific method. Hence we have the science of theology......

Great quote... The Science of Theology. According to the Encarta dic, it comes via French from Latin and means to ''know'' or ''discern''. Under that meaning, it would be quite right.

It seems a shame that so many people on this planet are ignored and dismissed by a few just because they have not experienced it. Unfortunately, that is the materialist mind, or as 2Thess2 says, a delusion.... but that might be unduely harsh... then again, may be not.. haha

 

[NulliuSINverba]

For example if 1000 lived in a remote village. 900 of them claimed to know a guy named Larry, 50 claimed to have heard of him, and 50 claimed no Larry existed.

It is no fallacy to claim:

1. Larry probably exists and the evidence suggests that.

Your example appears to have wandered in from the Faith In Larry Is Completely Logical thread.

Meanwhile, "I know a guy named Larry" hardly seems like evidence. Isn't that the claim?

It is a fallacy to suggest that a group being wrong about a thing is evidence they are wrong about another.

Thanks for pointing that out. Doesn't it follow that it is equally fallacious to insist that just because Group A might be correct about Proposition A ("Larry Exists") that Group B is correct about Proposition B ("God exists")?

Again, I'm not sure how a discussion of Larry is relevant to a discussion about God.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

You cannot test the big bang.

Happily, it isn't forbidden to test the Big Bang. The same isn't true for some gods.

...

Face it: Honest Inquiry is not encouraged by religion.