# Give A Defense



## Bassquatch328

This section of the GON forum is called, in part, "Apologetics." This word and the Greek word from which is is derived means to give a defense. So does anyone here care to give a defense for their beliefs? I think a great way to give that defense is through what is called a Transcendental Argument. It works on the principle of evaluating beliefs based on logic. Christians, feel free to give constructive criticism and share your arguments("iron sharpens iron"). Non-Christians, if you want to voice your disagreement, all you have to do is present a rational worldview that is not Christian, which should be easy if you are right but incidentally has never happened in the attempts I have seen.
*WARNING* I _will_ point out logical fallacies if I recognize them, and it _will_ probably become annoying. So feel free to do a basic study of logic before posting, but if not, make sure you at least refrain from name-calling and the like. Such behavior is labeled in logic as an ad hominem fallacy and usually indicates an inability to present a logical argument in refutation to another. This seems pretty common in other threads.
Next post coming soon.


----------



## stringmusic

Sweet, somebody new!

Welcome to the forum.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Hey, everyone! I didn't want the opening post to be too lengthy, so I made a separate reply.
Knowledge is philosophically defined as true, justified belief. Can you justify your beliefs? The Bible says that fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge, so if the Bible is true, it would make sense that knowledge would be possible. But there are some worldviews that cannot account for our ability to know anything. In fact, the biblical worldview is the only one that provides such rational justification. (This is in stark contrast to the agnostic worldview in its purest form, since that worldview maintains that we can't know anything, which leads to an infinite loop of the "I know we can't know" contradiction.) So, does that mean you can't know anything if you don't believe the Bible? No. It means you couldn't know anything if the Bible weren't true, and the fact that everyone must rely on biblical principles demonstrates part of the statement in the Book of Romans that God has made His attributes, both visible and invisible, clearly seen so that everyone is without excuse. Let's take uniformity in nature for example. The Bible says that God created the universe, which would include natural laws, and it also says in Genesis 8:22 that the future will be generally like the past. Scientists cannot make any progress if the future is not like the past, because experiments would not yield the same results when repeated. But in an atheistic universe, everything is governed by chance, and the universe goes through constant change over time and in different areas. So an atheistic worldview can't account for natural laws or the future being like the past, and therefore cannot account for the science atheists so often champion. 
I'll let some responses gather before I bring up other examples.
EDIT: Thanks, stringmusic!


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Can we justify them; definitely. 

Can we justify them where you will be any more accepting of our justification than we are of yours; probably not. 

Welcome.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch,

Take some time to review old threads.  If one strikes you as interesting then revive it.  We've covered mostly everything.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Can we justify them; definitely.
> 
> Can we justify them where you will be any more accepting of our justification than we are of yours; probably not.
> 
> Welcome.



Thanks for the welcome StripeRR HunteRR. If you can justify your beliefs, please do so. Start with how you know the future will be generally like the past and why the laws of nature are universal. (Hint: You can't say we know the future is like the past because the future has always been like the past, because that is fallacious circular reasoning). Since you imply you don't accept the justification I mentioned, refute it. This isn't a thread for "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't care what you have to say." This is a thread for discussion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> Thanks for the welcome StripeRR HunteRR. If you can justify your beliefs, please do so. Start with how you know the future will be generally like the past and why the laws of nature are universal. (Hint: You can't say we know the future is like the past because the future has always been like the past, because that is fallacious circular reasoning). Since you imply you don't accept the justification I mentioned, refute it. This isn't a thread for "I'm right and you're wrong and I don't care what you have to say." This is a thread for discussion.



So are the other 10,000 threads with this exact premise, many by the same people talking with you now. 

My point wasn't that either of us are right. I'm ignoring that aspect for right now. 

My point was that justification isn't merely dependent upon facts. Justifications are basically opinions, which are merely things we can convince ourselves of and have little to no bearing on the world at large. 

Religion, theology, morality and the like are all deeply personal matters, and ones that break down the instant they leave the individual. If you speak long enough with someone from your own church you will find a divergence between your belief and theirs where you would have thought they should have been identical. After all, you go to the same church, read the same book and worship the same guy. So what could be the reason why you would disagree with something explained to be universal? Because it depends greatly on the person practicing the faith as to what that faith means and you can't transplant identical faith from one person to the next. 

I notice you keep coming back to a challenge to science and the "answers" it holds. I would like to introduce you to the notion that scientific "truth," amongst true scientists, is as shifting as the sand. Only when something is tried, tested, tried and tested again and ONLY if it's consistent to a certain Sigma level will it then be considered true. Even then, however, truth changes in science all the time. It's well documented as having happened plenty, and each challenger has a legitimate chance at taking the current truth down from the pedestal, replacing it with his/her own, or re-confirming it and setting it back up there. 

Science is not static nor does it have a problem with being challenged and found wrong. 

I can justify my belief system to myself. I am under no obligation to convert you. But you would be interested to know that I started out on the faith side of the fence and the arguments and justifications were found to be wanting in my own experience. That's why I abandoned them. They didn't line up in any way, shape, or form with my observable world. My role in this world is not to challenge your faith, at your demand. It sounds to me like you're looking to pick a fight. 

I don't know where this whole knowing the future from the past thing is coming from.


----------



## 660griz

I don't know how the universe began.
I have a pretty good idea why religion began.
I prefer not knowing than accepting the idea of "just believe".
Faith, in this case, in my opinion, defies logic.

Just about a short of an answer as I can give. 

Of course I can justify my beliefs. I have done so many times on here. Unfortunately, they are only justification for myself.


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So are the other 10,000 threads with this exact premise, many by the same people talking with you now.
> 
> My point wasn't that either of us are right. I'm ignoring that aspect for right now.
> 
> My point was that justification isn't merely dependent upon facts. Justifications are basically opinions, which are merely things we can convince ourselves of and have little to no bearing on the world at large.
> 
> Religion, theology, morality and the like are all deeply personal matters, and ones that break down the instant they leave the individual. If you speak long enough with someone from your own church you will find a divergence between your belief and theirs where you would have thought they should have been identical. After all, you go to the same church, read the same book and worship the same guy. So what could be the reason why you would disagree with something explained to be universal? Because it depends greatly on the person practicing the faith as to what that faith means and you can't transplant identical faith from one person to the next.
> 
> I notice you keep coming back to a challenge to science and the "answers" it holds. I would like to introduce you to the notion that scientific "truth," amongst true scientists, is as shifting as the sand. Only when something is tried, tested, tried and tested again and ONLY if it's consistent to a certain Sigma level will it then be considered true. Even then, however, truth changes in science all the time. It's well documented as having happened plenty, and each challenger has a legitimate chance at taking the current truth down from the pedestal, replacing it with his/her own, or re-confirming it and setting it back up there.
> 
> Science is not static nor does it have a problem with being challenged and found wrong.
> 
> I can justify my belief system to myself. I am under no obligation to convert you. But you would be interested to know that I started out on the faith side of the fence and the arguments and justifications were found to be wanting in my own experience. That's why I abandoned them. They didn't line up in any way, shape, or form with my observable world. My role in this world is not to challenge your faith, at your demand. It sounds to me like you're looking to pick a fight.
> 
> I don't know where this whole knowing the future from the past thing is coming from.



Genesis.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Genesis.



Still don't see how that applies.


----------



## stringmusic

ambush80 said:


> Bassquatch,
> 
> Take some time to review old threads.  If one strikes you as interesting then revive it.  We've covered mostly everything.



I think he's definitely bringing up some new ideas.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> My point was that justification isn't merely dependent upon facts. Justifications are basically opinions, which are merely things we can convince ourselves of and have little to no bearing on the world at large.


Rational justification must be universal, not simply an opinion. For example, I can justify the belief that logic is not a man-made entity because if it were man-made then logic could both exist and not exist at the same time and was both man-made and not man-made at the same time before the law of non-contradiction was invented (even though it would be both invented and not invented if logic were man-made, if you see my point). In other words, logic is universal and eternal because the alternative is absurd. That is a fact, not an opinion, and it is that type of invariant justification that is required.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> If you speak long enough with someone from your own church you will find a divergence between your belief and theirs where you would have thought they should have been identical. After all, you go to the same church, read the same book and worship the same guy. So what could be the reason why you would disagree with something explained to be universal? Because it depends greatly on the person practicing the faith as to what that faith means and you can't transplant identical faith from one person to the next.


I agree that people will have different ideas even though they read the same thing or have the same overarching belief system. But that is not evidence that the whole system is largely opinion. Those opinions must be justified rationally, and differing ideas are helpful for finding which idea is true if people engage in healthy discussion.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I notice you keep coming back to a challenge to science and the "answers" it holds. I would like to introduce you to the notion that scientific "truth," amongst true scientists, is as shifting as the sand. Only when something is tried, tested, tried and tested again and ONLY if it's consistent to a certain Sigma level will it then be considered true. Even then, however, truth changes in science all the time. It's well documented as having happened plenty, and each challenger has a legitimate chance at taking the current truth down from the pedestal, replacing it with his/her own, or re-confirming it and setting it back up there.
> 
> Science is not static nor does it have a problem with being challenged and found wrong.


I don't mean to challenge science. Science, when done properly, is correct and confirms the Bible. And there is a difference between the science we participate in and observe that creates our technology and the science that tries to interpret the past that we have not observed. That is why ideas in the scientific community change so often, because every scientist must ultimately make some assumption about everything even though science is touted as being strictly neutral. But that doesn't mean the truth itself changes.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I can justify my belief system to myself. I am under no obligation to convert you. But you would be interested to know that I started out on the faith side of the fence and the arguments and justifications were found to be wanting in my own experience. That's why I abandoned them. They didn't line up in any way, shape, or form with my observable world. My role in this world is not to challenge your faith, at your demand. It sounds to me like you're looking to pick a fight.


I'm not looking to pick a fight. From what I understand  about your statements, you have no investment in "converting" anyone based on your worldview. Now I cannot convert anyone either, but in the Christian worldview, I should and do take an active concern in the position of others. I'm not trying to come off as instigating or bothersome, but I want others to take the time to consider their beliefs compared to other beliefs. And just because the justification you heard in the past didn't satisfy you didn't mean there is no good justification from the other side. Once upon a time, people thought dinosaurs never existed and Satan put fossils in the ground to deceive people. Popular opinion has changed, and you haven't heard everything.


StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I don't know where this whole knowing the future from the past thing is coming from.


Sorry for any confusion. I don't mean knowing the future like a psychic, but why should things continue like they have in the past. For example, if you stumped your toe in the past, it probably hurt. But unless you can justify the fact that it will hurt again in the future, you don't know that stumping your toe in the future won't be the most pleasurable experience in the world. You can't just say it hurt in the past so it will hurt in the future; you have to justify how you know future experiences will be generally like past experiences.


----------



## Bassquatch328

660griz said:


> I don't know how the universe began.
> I have a pretty good idea why religion began.
> I prefer not knowing than accepting the idea of "just believe".
> Faith, in this case, in my opinion, defies logic.
> 
> Just about a short of an answer as I can give.
> 
> Of course I can justify my beliefs. I have done so many times on here. Unfortunately, they are only justification for myself.


"Faith is the substance of things not seen, the evidence of things hoped for." The Bible's definition of faith is different from the world's. In the biblical definition, I have a pretty good reason to assume the moon still exists even though I can't see it right now. In the world's definition, someone believes it's raining fire in Antarctica for no reason. Unless you have the faith that God exists and logic is a part of His eternal and invariant nature, you can't justify logic's very existence (and believing logic is there without justifying it is blind faith). Don't get me wrong, you would still be able to deduce that logic exists and that it is invariant, but you can't explain why that should be so. Justification isn't contingent on acceptance or personal opinion. If your "justification" is only true for you, it's not true.


----------



## EverGreen1231

Bassquatch328 said:


> This section of the GON forum is called, in part, "Apologetics." This word and the Greek word from which is is derived means to give a defense. So does anyone here care to give a defense for their beliefs? I think a great way to give that defense is through what is called a Transcendental Argument. It works on the principle of evaluating beliefs based on logic. Christians, feel free to give constructive criticism and share your arguments("iron sharpens iron"). Non-Christians, if you want to voice your disagreement, all you have to do is present a rational worldview that is not Christian, which should be easy if you are right but incidentally has never happened in the attempts I have seen.
> *WARNING* I _will_ point out logical fallacies if I recognize them, and it _will_ probably become annoying. So feel free to do a basic study of logic before posting, but if not, make sure you at least refrain from name-calling and the like. Such behavior is labeled in logic as an ad hominem fallacy and usually indicates an inability to present a logical argument in refutation to another. This seems pretty common in other threads.
> Next post coming soon.




It's been a good while since I've posted (I'm a busy guy) so I thought I'd give it a whirl. 

   An argument justifying my beliefs...difficult. I classify myself someone whom believes the bible; as such, I believe the creation account is "The Origin of the Species" (Darwinian pun  ). The very first statement in the Bible is "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth". There is no explanation of this "God" character: no exposition on his existence; no explanation of what he was doing before he decided to "create everything"; no proof outside of "God said he's real, therefore, if God does exist and he cannot lie, then he must be telling the truth, proving his own existence". Science, and logic, cringe at this idea: It's against the very nature of both of them. This being said, any argument trying to verify the existence of God logically or through science will fall short due to the sheer enormity of the task. The best science and logic can do is sharpen our belief. 
   I know a bit of science in the form of mathematics, physics, and some biology; this knowledge only goes to add to my faith. Logically, I can't fathom how someone could look at even one equation from classical electromagnetism and say "There is nothing outside of this" or "This simply came into it's own existence". That's with just one equation in rudimentary physics; not even considering the beautiful complications of Quantum mechanics or Einstein's theories. 
   My main point is, the only position on the subject that leaves me no other option than to think one is severely lacking capable mental capacities is for him or her to say, definitively, "There is no God". Logically, that position makes no sense. Any other, I can consent to a respectable disagreement; but, to hold the argument that, "I can't see, feel, smell, or touch God: I have no scientific evidence of his existence; therefore, he must not exist," is absurd to me. 
   As far as my evidence, well, as I said, I can't prove his existence with science. I could perhaps make a compelling enough argument, logically, to place doubt in the hearts of others, but I would be hard pressed to do so. At the end of the day, for me: God exists. My only evidence is my faith. Not very scientific, or logical.

I hope this doesn't come across as too convoluted. I, admittedly, type with little precision, and my thoughts sometimes run over each other.

It's nice to see old faces again, and welcome to the forum Bassquatch. You'll find good conversations, and maybe even a few friends.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> Rational justification must be universal, not simply an opinion. For example, I can justify the belief that logic is not a man-made entity because if it were man-made then logic could both exist and not exist at the same time and was both man-made and not man-made at the same time before the law of non-contradiction was invented (even though it would be both invented and not invented if logic were man-made, if you see my point). In other words, logic is universal and eternal because the alternative is absurd. That is a fact, not an opinion, and it is that type of invariant justification that is required.
> 
> The existence of logic is universal to the human condition, yes. The application and results of that logic are as varied as the people that practice it. Many people on here have used logic to support faith, and still others have used it to support no faith, all in their daily lives. There's no right or wrong to it, using the same evidence on both sides, with their own logic to color their perceptions.
> 
> I agree that people will have different ideas even though they read the same thing or have the same overarching belief system. But that is not evidence that the whole system is largely opinion. Those opinions must be justified rationally, and differing ideas are helpful for finding which idea is true if people engage in healthy discussion.
> 
> There can be no truth about faith. Or it would be called something else. Like logic, for example. You don't go to church on Sundays to practice logic, you go to practice your faith.
> 
> I like your style, but you're tripping yourself up on a few key words that you're not using correctly.
> 
> I don't mean to challenge science. Science, when done properly, is correct and confirms the Bible. And there is a difference between the science we participate in and observe that creates our technology and the science that tries to interpret the past that we have not observed. That is why ideas in the scientific community change so often, because every scientist must ultimately make some assumption about everything even though science is touted as being strictly neutral. But that doesn't mean the truth itself changes.
> 
> Please back up the claim that science proves the Bible. I can't even read the rest of this with that opener. Moreover, you're saying that science that doesn't come to the conclusion that the Bible is true is done incorrectly? Wow. I've got nothing on this one. Those are some astounding claims that I would love to see you give defense to.
> 
> I'm not looking to pick a fight. From what I understand  about your statements, you have no investment in "converting" anyone based on your worldview. Now I cannot convert anyone either, but in the Christian worldview, I should and do take an active concern in the position of others. I'm not trying to come off as instigating or bothersome, but I want others to take the time to consider their beliefs compared to other beliefs. And just because the justification you heard in the past didn't satisfy you didn't mean there is no good justification from the other side. Once upon a time, people thought dinosaurs never existed and Satan put fossils in the ground to deceive people. Popular opinion has changed, and you haven't heard everything.
> 
> This doesn't line up with your posts. You came in here with a thread title of "Give a Defense" and the desire to have us justify our belief systems to you. That's not possible, and that's because belief is unique to the person no matter the subject being discussed. Just like no two eyewitnesses seeing the exact same situation the exact same way, i.e. colored by their own perceptions in the recanting, so is justification.
> 
> Sorry for any confusion. I don't mean knowing the future like a psychic, but why should things continue like they have in the past. For example, if you stumped your toe in the past, it probably hurt. But unless you can justify the fact that it will hurt again in the future, you don't know that stumping your toe in the future won't be the most pleasurable experience in the world. You can't just say it hurt in the past so it will hurt in the future; you have to justify how you know future experiences will be generally like past experiences.
> 
> See this is one of the areas where you're making a mistake about the "truth" of reality. No one is saying that 100% when you stub your toe it WILL hurt the next time. Rather they're saying that the last time I stubbed my toe it hurt, so I'm going to extrapolate from that experience that it most likely will again. Given that it hurt last time, I'm not particularly excited to test it again. Still, you're confirming my sigma statement in saying that one experience does not constitute a truth. Multiple experiences shared by many people all with the same conclusion point to the possibility of a truth, but then you still have outliers like those with nerve damage that feel nothing. Does one, or even 1000, person/people invalidate the billions of experiences where stubbing your toe hurt, just because theirs didn't?



You're right there at it. You have a pretty firm grip on some aspects, but your terminology is crossed, but that's only my opinion.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> Hey, everyone! I didn't want the opening post to be too lengthy, so I made a separate reply.
> Knowledge is philosophically defined as true, justified belief. Can you justify your beliefs? The Bible says that fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge, so if the Bible is true, it would make sense that knowledge would be possible. But there are some worldviews that cannot account for our ability to know anything. In fact, the biblical worldview is the only one that provides such rational justification. (This is in stark contrast to the agnostic worldview in its purest form, since that worldview maintains that we can't know anything, which leads to an infinite loop of the "I know we can't know" contradiction.) So, does that mean you can't know anything if you don't believe the Bible? No. It means you couldn't know anything if the Bible weren't true, and the fact that everyone must rely on biblical principles demonstrates part of the statement in the Book of Romans that God has made His attributes, both visible and invisible, clearly seen so that everyone is without excuse. Let's take uniformity in nature for example. The Bible says that God created the universe, which would include natural laws, and it also says in Genesis 8:22 that the future will be generally like the past. Scientists cannot make any progress if the future is not like the past, because experiments would not yield the same results when repeated. But in an atheistic universe, everything is governed by chance, and the universe goes through constant change over time and in different areas. So an atheistic worldview can't account for natural laws or the future being like the past, and therefore cannot account for the science atheists so often champion.
> I'll let some responses gather before I bring up other examples.
> EDIT: Thanks, stringmusic!



Can "we" use assumptions too?


----------



## Bassquatch328

EverGreen, StripeRR HunteRR, thanks for the comments. I'm gonna respond to both at once to save a post and because you both talk about logic.
EverGreen, you said


> "There is no explanation of this "God" character: no exposition on his existence; no explanation of what he was doing before he decided to "create everything"; no proof outside of "God said he's real, therefore, if God does exist and he cannot lie, then he must be telling the truth, proving his own existence". Science, and logic, cringes at this idea: It's against the very nature of both of them. This being said, any argument trying to verify the existence of God logically or through science will fall short due to the sheer enormity of the task. The best science and logic can do is sharpen our belief. "


If I may, I think you might have a little misconception about circular reasoning, which is common. Circular reasoning is usually called a fallacy, but that's not always the case. Circular reasoning is always valid, but it can't be arbitrary or self-defeating. But circular reasoning is unavoidable when dealing with ultimate standards, and God and the Bible are the Christian ultimate standard for knowledge. If you could use another standard to justify your ultimate standard then it would be a higher standard than your "ultimate" standard. An ultimate standard justifies all others as well as itself. God used circular reasoning in the Bible when He made His covenant with Abraham. Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. Science in its basic definition is simply knowledge. If God is the beginning of all knowledge, then true science agrees with the Bible. God's wisdom and knowledge also means logic is part of God's nature, so it agrees with the Bible. I prefer to use logic because physical evidence can be interpreted through any worldview and any evidential problems can be thought away with rescuing devices (like the Oort Cloud, for which we have no evidence but scientists say must exist or else comets wouldn't be here). Logic, on the other hand, can't be imagined away.
StripeRR HunteRR, you said


> "You don't go to church on Sundays to practice logic, you go to practice your faith. "


"Come, let us reason together." "Always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you." Logic is an integral part of faith. The two are intertwined.


> Please back up the claim that science proves the Bible. I can't even read the rest of this with that opener. Moreover, you're saying that science that doesn't come to the conclusion that the Bible is true is done incorrectly? Wow. I've got nothing on this one. Those are some astounding claims that I would love to see you give defense to.


Alright, I know I'll sound like a looney tune here, but who cares. The universe being billions of years old is not biblical. Diamonds are found all the time in layers of the earth that most scientists say are millions of years old. Diamonds are of course pure carbon, but carbon cannot last millions of years. Their presence in these layers is to be expected if they were formed under great heat and pressure (in say, a global flood triggered by a tectonic event), but not if the layers in which they are found were laid down gradually over millions of years. Furthermore, if you've ever seen layers of earth's crust, they're very neat. But if every layer took millions of years to form, shouldn't there be some erosion between layers. For other geological topics, look up the RATE project. Other subjects should be pretty easy to find from there.


> This doesn't line up with your posts. You came in here with a thread title of "Give a Defense" and the desire to have us justify our belief systems to you. That's not possible, and that's because belief is unique to the person no matter the subject being discussed. Just like no two eyewitnesses seeing the exact same situation the exact same way, i.e. colored by their own perceptions in the recanting, so is justification.


Belief can vary, but logic does not. The purpose of this thread is for people to share how they attempt to justify their beliefs, and then others may evaluate the logical strength of said justification. That does not mean that just because someone can't find a problem with an argument that there isn't one, and it doesn't mean that someone's objection is itself logically sound. The intent is for people to offer constructive criticism and discuss the matter politely and rationally.


> See this is one of the areas where you're making a mistake about the "truth" of reality. No one is saying that 100% when you stub your toe it WILL hurt the next time. Rather they're saying that the last time I stubbed my toe it hurt, so I'm going to extrapolate from that experience that it most likely will again. Given that it hurt last time, I'm not particularly excited to test it again. Still, you're confirming my sigma statement in saying that one experience does not constitute a truth. Multiple experiences shared by many people all with the same conclusion point to the possibility of a truth, but then you still have outliers like those with nerve damage that feel nothing. Does one, or even 1000, person/people invalidate the billions of experiences where stubbing your toe hurt, just because theirs didn't?


The toe stubbing example applies only to personal experience, not the experience of others. But let's apply the principle to a universal subject. Gases expand evenly. That being the case, in the past, air was everywhere in the room you were in. But you don't consider even for a moment that in the future, all the air in the room will bunch up in a certain corner and you'll be without air unless you go there. Can you give rational justification for the belief that gas will continue to expand evenly in the future as they have in the past?


----------



## WaltL1

First, Welcome Bassquatch328.
Second, I think you are infusing your own beliefs into what is deemed to be logical and rational so Im not convinced you being a self appointed "referee" is a good idea.
For example -


> It means you couldn't know anything if the Bible weren't true,


Now I'll be the first to tell you that Im not the sharpest tool in the shed but that statement sounds an awful lot like "if the Bible weren't true, you wouldn't be here to know anything". That eliminates every other possibility of how life came to be. Until that is a universal fact its just your belief and nothing else.
For example -


> all you have to do is present a rational worldview that is not Christian, which should be easy if you are right but incidentally has never happened in the attempts I have seen.


The definition of worldview is -
1.The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2.A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
Note the use of the words "one sees" and "individuals" and "beliefs".
How are you as the self appointed referee going to determine if ones worldview is rational if you know nothing about them and their experiences? It may be why -


> has never happened in the attempts I have seen


For example -


> You can't just say it hurt in the past so it will hurt in the future; you have to justify how you know future experiences will be generally like past experiences.


Utter nonsense. Why? because of your use of the word "know" which I assume was intentional. If you stub your toe 10 times and it hurt 10 times you still cant "know" it will hurt the 11th time because that would remove the possibility that in those 10 times you didn't damage the nerves that sends the pain signals to your brain. You can guess, assume, figure, believe, think it will hurt the 11th time but you cant "know" it. You can "know" 1 + 1 = 2 because nothing is going to change that.

I don't feel the need to go on but Im glad you are participating, I hope you continue to do so and I look forward to discussion and having new things to consider.
But I think your entire premise is flawed on this one.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead,


> Can "we" use assumptions too?
> How in the heck did ANYTHING progress in the world before the Bible was penned? How did people manage to have knowledge, morals and everything you attribute to the Bible...BEFORE the Bible?


Your questions are based on a straw man argument, not the argument I presented. The argument is not that knowledge or anything else for that matter is contingent on knowing what the Bible says. The argument is that knowledge is contingent on the Bible being true. How did things progress before the Bible was completely written down? Because the laws of nature, logic, reliability of the senses, and everything for which the Bible accounts were around just as the Bible now says. How did people have a sense of morality. They had a conscience and a general knowledge of morals written on their hearts, just as the Bible says. My question to you is how any of the things you mentioned would be possible if the Bible were not true.


----------



## drippin' rock

Bassquatch328 said:


> This section of the GON forum is called, in part, "Apologetics." This word and the Greek word from which is is derived means to give a defense. So does anyone here care to give a defense for their beliefs? I think a great way to give that defense is through what is called a Transcendental Argument. It works on the principle of evaluating beliefs based on logic. Christians, feel free to give constructive criticism and share your arguments("iron sharpens iron"). Non-Christians, if you want to voice your disagreement, all you have to do is present a rational worldview that is not Christian, which should be easy if you are right but incidentally has never happened in the attempts I have seen.
> *WARNING* I _will_ point out logical fallacies if I recognize them, and it _will_ probably become annoying. So feel free to do a basic study of logic before posting, but if not, make sure you at least refrain from name-calling and the like. Such behavior is labeled in logic as an ad hominem fallacy and usually indicates an inability to present a logical argument in refutation to another. This seems pretty common in other threads.
> Next post coming soon.



Go get 'em, killer.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1,
The definition of "logical" is to be in accordance with the laws of logic. An idea cannot be contradictory, arbitrary, etc. if it is to be logical.


> that statement sounds an awful lot like "if the Bible weren't true, you wouldn't be here to know anything". That eliminates every other possibility of how life came to be. Until that is a universal fact its just your belief and nothing else.


I didn't have in mind the interpretation you mentioned, but it certainly does follow my statement as worded. What I meant was that the Bible claims to be the inerrant Word of God and that the God of the Bible is the only God. Therefore, if the Bible is true, the biblical worldview is the only one that accounts for knowledge and all other worldviews are logically flawed in some way, shape, or form. Just an example, the Koran says Allah is the greatest deceiver, so there should be no reason to believe the Koran (it also says Jesus is in heaven and - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - at the same time which denying His deity and omnipresence). 


> The definition of worldview is -
> 1.The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
> 2.A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.
> Note the use of the words "one sees" and "individuals" and "beliefs".
> How are you as the self appointed referee going to determine if ones worldview is rational if you know nothing about them and their experiences?


The definitions are correct, but I would say you have misplaced emphasis. How many people hold a particular worldview is irrelevant to its logical strength. Regardless of who or how many hold a certain belief, that belief's merit is judged by how rational it is. If it is arbitrary or contradictory or otherwise logically flawed, it is not true.
I've gotten a little behind, but thanks to everyone for the welcomes!


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> bullethead,
> 
> Your questions are based on a straw man argument, not the argument I presented. The argument is not that knowledge or anything else for that matter is contingent on knowing what the Bible says. The argument is that knowledge is contingent on the Bible being true. How did things progress before the Bible was completely written down? Because the laws of nature, logic, reliability of the senses, and everything for which the Bible accounts were around just as the Bible now says. How did people have a sense of morality. They had a conscience and a general knowledge of morals written on their hearts, just as the Bible says. My question to you is how any of the things you mentioned would be possible if the Bible were not true.



You are asserting that the Bible is true.

The earliest Bible does not predate man's existence.

What I know about the Bible is that it was penned by Man.

The Bible was a conglomeration of anonymous writings that were written individually and put together by Man.

Man had a long time to study the habits of humans, study the world as they knew it and study the Universe as they knew it. They were able to write it down using the best of their knowledge and write it in ways that attributed it to a God.

Unfortunately the historical errors, geographical errors, scientific errors do not equal the work of a God.

See here:
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=790582


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> bullethead,
> 
> Your questions are based on a straw man argument, not the argument I presented. The argument is not that knowledge or anything else for that matter is contingent on knowing what the Bible says. The argument is that knowledge is contingent on the Bible being true. How did things progress before the Bible was completely written down? Because the laws of nature, logic, reliability of the senses, and everything for which the Bible accounts were around just as the Bible now says. How did people have a sense of morality. They had a conscience and a general knowledge of morals written on their hearts, just as the Bible says. My question to you is how any of the things you mentioned would be possible if the Bible were not true.



I offer you this:

http://www.crystalinks.com/nativeamcreation.html


----------



## drippin' rock

Bassquatch328 said:


> WaltL1,
> The definition of "logical" is to be in accordance with the laws of logic. An idea cannot be contradictory, arbitrary, etc. if it is to be logical.
> 
> I didn't have in mind the interpretation you mentioned, but it certainly does follow my statement as worded. What I meant was that the Bible claims to be the inerrant Word of God and that the God of the Bible is the only God. Therefore, if the Bible is true, the biblical worldview is the only one that accounts for knowledge and all other worldviews are logically flawed in some way, shape, or form. Just an example, the Koran says Allah is the greatest deceiver, so there should be no reason to believe the Koran (it also says Jesus is in heaven and - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - at the same time which denying His deity and omnipresence).
> 
> The definitions are correct, but I would say you have misplaced emphasis. *How many people hold a particular worldview is irrelevant to its logical strength. Regardless of who or how many hold a certain belief, that belief's merit is judged by how rational it is.* If it is arbitrary or contradictory or otherwise logically flawed, it is not true.
> I've gotten a little behind, but thanks to everyone for the welcomes!



Exactly.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> WaltL1,
> The definition of "logical" is to be in accordance with the laws of logic. An idea cannot be contradictory, arbitrary, etc. if it is to be logical.
> 
> I didn't have in mind the interpretation you mentioned, but it certainly does follow my statement as worded. What I meant was that the Bible claims to be the inerrant Word of God and that the God of the Bible is the only God. Therefore, if the Bible is true, the biblical worldview is the only one that accounts for knowledge and all other worldviews are logically flawed in some way, shape, or form. Just an example, the Koran says Allah is the greatest deceiver, so there should be no reason to believe the Koran (it also says Jesus is in heaven and - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH - at the same time which denying His deity and omnipresence).
> 
> The definitions are correct, but I would say you have misplaced emphasis. How many people hold a particular worldview is irrelevant to its logical strength. Regardless of who or how many hold a certain belief, that belief's merit is judged by how rational it is. If it is arbitrary or contradictory or otherwise logically flawed, it is not true.
> I've gotten a little behind, but thanks to everyone for the welcomes!





> The definition of "logical" is to be in accordance with the laws of logic. An idea cannot be contradictory, arbitrary, etc. if it is to be logical.


Would all the different beliefs in different gods contradict there being only one? For you only one of them is logical I assume. Wouldn't that be in opposition to your statement unless it was a universal fact that the one you believe in is the only one that exists?


> Therefore, if the Bible is true,


Your use of the word "if" is confirmation that we are talking about beliefs and not universal facts. That's an important thing to keep in mind.


> the biblical worldview is the only one that accounts for knowledge and all other worldviews are logically flawed in some way, shape, or form.


See "if" above.


> If it is arbitrary or contradictory or otherwise logically flawed, it is not true


See my first question above.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead,


> You are asserting that the Bible is true.
> 
> The earliest Bible does not predate man's existence.
> 
> What I know about the Bible is that it was penned by Man.


Have you considered the implications of your line of reasoning (I'm reading this combined with your previous post asking what people did before the Bible was written). Such reasoning would mean "You assert that there are laws of gravity. The laws of gravity were discovered by people, and people predate those discoveries. Therefore, gravity did not exist before it was discovered."


> The Bible was a conglomeration of anonymous writings that were written individually and put together by Man.


This shows a lack of knowledge about the Bible. Much of the Bible is not anonymous, as the writers indicated who they were (try reading the epistles for example). If you are accepting the designation of books in the Bible, much of it was not written individually (try reading Psalms).


> Man had a long time to study the habits of humans, study the world as they knew it and study the Universe as they knew it. They were able to write it down using the best of their knowledge and write it in ways that attributed it to a God.


The Bible claims to be the Word of God, not of men, written down by men. You claim otherwise (and you appear to claim the men who penned it were intellectually inferior to people today). If you are correct, justify your beliefs. Geneticists have found that people are, as a rule, getting dumber, so chronological snobbery is unwarranted. And one would expect a library written by many people over 2,000 years would contain contradictions. Care to list some that aren't simply a misunderstanding of the text (for fair warning, I have a link to thousands of refutations to contradiction claims).


> Unfortunately the historical errors, geographical errors, scientific errors do not equal the work of a God.


Historians and geographers by-and-large recognize the Bible as an incredibly accurate text. In many cases, it is accurate before the event occurred (for example, the earliest copies of Isaiah predict the length of the Jews' captivity, the nation holding them captive, and the nation and king (Cyrus of Persia) to set them free two centuries before the fact, and all of these predictions are verified in history). The Bible also makes scientific claims such as the earth being a sphere in empty space thousands of years before the rest of the world caught on. You might try substantiating your claims in the future.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Walt,


> Would all the different beliefs in different gods contradict there being only one? For you only one of them is logical I assume. Wouldn't that be in opposition to your statement unless it was a universal fact that the one you believe in is the only one that exists?


I'm not sure I understand your question. Out of all the different supposed gods, there is only one God. But with your next question, which of my statements are you referring to?


> Your use of the word "if" is confirmation that we are talking about beliefs and not universal facts. That's an important thing to keep in mind.


Again, this line of reasoning is not entirely sound. "If gravity exists, then skydivers will fall to the earth when they get out of the plane." By your reasoning, the "if" leaves open the possibility that gravity doesn't exist and the skydivers will float away. The words "if" and "then" tend to be necessary to formulate an argument. They do not necessarily indicate personal belief apart from universal fact.
I won't be back for a while (maybe not until tomorrow), so I may have a lot of typing to do when I get back if the comments continue like they are. Why can't I get replies like this on my question in Gear Review?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

Bassquatch328 said:


> This section of the GON forum is called, in part, "Apologetics." This word and the Greek word from which is is derived means to give a defense. So does anyone here care to give a defense for their beliefs? I think a great way to give that defense is through what is called a Transcendental Argument. It works on the principle of evaluating beliefs based on logic. Christians, feel free to give constructive criticism and share your arguments("iron sharpens iron"). Non-Christians, if you want to voice your disagreement, all you have to do is present a rational worldview that is not Christian, which should be easy if you are right but incidentally has never happened in the attempts I have seen.
> *WARNING* I _will_ point out logical fallacies if I recognize them, and it _will_ probably become annoying. So feel free to do a basic study of logic before posting, but if not, make sure you at least refrain from name-calling and the like. Such behavior is labeled in logic as an ad hominem fallacy and usually indicates an inability to present a logical argument in refutation to another. This seems pretty common in other threads.
> Next post coming soon.



Catchy user name.  Welcome.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

ambush80 said:


> Bassquatch,
> 
> Take some time to review old threads.  If one strikes you as interesting then revive it.  We've covered mostly everything.



This is true.  Not much new ground to plow, but I'm always glad when a new plow shows up.  Go ahead and open a topic.  I'm game


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Walt,
> 
> I'm not sure I understand your question. Out of all the different supposed gods, there is only one God. But with your next question, which of my statements are you referring to?
> 
> Again, this line of reasoning is not entirely sound. "If gravity exists, then skydivers will fall to the earth when they get out of the plane." By your reasoning, the "if" leaves open the possibility that gravity doesn't exist and the skydivers will float away. The words "if" and "then" tend to be necessary to formulate an argument. They do not necessarily indicate personal belief apart from universal fact.
> I won't be back for a while (maybe not until tomorrow), so I may have a lot of typing to do when I get back if the comments continue like they are. Why can't I get replies like this on my question in Gear Review?





> Out of all the different supposed gods, there is only one God.


That is contradictory to religions/beliefs that have multiple Gods and/or different Gods.
Your previous statement -


> If it is arbitrary or contradictory or otherwise logically flawed, it is not true.



Im curious, do you find the statement " in the absence of universal facts and proof, if there is one god its also possible that there is more than one god" to be logical or illogical?


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> bullethead,
> 
> Have you considered the implications of your line of reasoning (I'm reading this combined with your previous post asking what people did before the Bible was written). Such reasoning would mean "You assert that there are laws of gravity. The laws of gravity were discovered by people, and people predate those discoveries. Therefore, gravity did not exist before it was discovered."



Man wrote the "Laws" of gravity because gravity could not do it.

I would hope your God was capable of writing.




Bassquatch328 said:


> This shows a lack of knowledge about the Bible. Much of the Bible is not anonymous, as the writers indicated who they were (try reading the epistles for example). If you are accepting the designation of books in the Bible, much of it was not written individually (try reading Psalms).


You are assuming the writers were telling the truth. You are willfully not acknowledging all of the anonymous authors that Biblical and Secular scholars agree were anonymous.[/quote]



Bassquatch328 said:


> The Bible claims to be the Word of God, not of men, written down by men.


I know what it claims. It fails.



Bassquatch328 said:


> You claim otherwise (and you appear to claim the men who penned it were intellectually inferior to people today).


You are putting words in my mouth.
People of 2000-6000 years ago did not have the advances in technology that we have today.
Simply put the Men who penned the Bible, while most likely being educated, did not have the education, equipment and technology at their disposal like the Men and Women do today.




Bassquatch328 said:


> If you are correct, justify your beliefs. Geneticists have found that people are, as a rule, getting dumber, so chronological snobbery is unwarranted.


Being that the population today is much greater than the population of thousands of years ago people, as a whole, may very well be getting dumber.
But, Biblical snobbery aside, the Men who wrote the stories that became the Bible did not have access to our scientific knowledge of today. Some of them that are intelligent may very well likely be able to understand current science, but they went with what they had then.
God should know the difference and he failed to convey his knowledge in THEIR writings.





Bassquatch328 said:


> And one would expect a library written by many people over 2,000 years would contain contradictions.


I would expect such a library written by many people to have such contradictions.
I would not expect a library overseen by a God to have even one.




Bassquatch328 said:


> Care to list some that aren't simply a misunderstanding of the text (for fair warning, I have a link to thousands of refutations to contradiction claims).
> THOUSANDS?
> Oh man, I only have hundreds of links.
> I wonder why such a God would not make sure the text is clear, understandable and without error.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bassquatch328 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Historians and geographers by-and-large recognize the Bible as an incredibly accurate text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like everything else you have stated in this thread you fail to actually give your sources.
> If historians and geographers by-and-large recognize the Bible as an incredibly accurate text then it will be no task to show us who you are talking about and why they are credible.
> 
> 
> 
> Bassquatch328 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In many cases, it is accurate before the event occurred (for example, the earliest copies of Isaiah predict the length of the Jews' captivity, the nation holding them captive, and the nation and king (Cyrus of Persia) to set them free two centuries before the fact, and all of these predictions are verified in history).
> 
> 
> 
> Many cases = more than two
> 
> 
> 
> Bassquatch328 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible also makes scientific claims such as the earth being a sphere in empty space thousands of years before the rest of the world caught on. You might try substantiating your claims in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh the sphere on pillars that rests under the firmament of heaven? THAT Sphere?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Hello Bassquatch, welcome. You have posted several points that I would like to bring into question. You say "the bible claims to be the word of God". The "bible", was once alot of different books, compiled later. I can't see how it as a whole claims this. More like a couple of the books included in the writings we now know as the bible make reference to being "the word of God". Yet even this is up for debate. Paul made a distinction between what he said and what God said recorded in the book called "the word of God". For me that conflicts rational thinking. Another, the bible "making accurate scientific claims". For the ones that seem to be validated, there are others that do not. An example is in Gen, I think, about the two lights, the greater and the lesser light. As if two different sources. But we know that it is one light and the other a reflection. My post is in no way meant to challenge you, more like I enjoy a civil discussion. And I see you have your hands full addressing many other post. Don't take it personal, we have just gotten bored with the same old crowd and now you have come along and brought up many different points of discussion. Again, Welcome to Woodys


----------



## 1gr8bldr

I'll go ahead and ask, Bassquatch, do you believe the bible has errors and contridictions?


----------



## Israel

I find the assumption that thought is real, and from that the ability to reason, of a basic consideration. Long before one (to me) may believe in logic of any sort, (even flawed...but I trust one would see there that for a logic to be flawed, there would have to be a transcendent image of it in perfection against which such might be measured) one would either concede its being as an apriori, or if rejected, have to ask oneself "on what basis can I then judge anything presented...even to myself?"
You do then see perhaps why I no longer consider Job's cry for a "daysman" anything but an absolute cry for "the logic"...(for to myself, I am perfect)
but the conundrum becomes, of course...how could this ever not be so? So my thought of perfection becomes moot.
And I also no longer struggle against, "all of a man's ways seem right in his own eyes"...again...of course! Some, (perhaps) may then see why the logos' appearing was something for which I cried (that would take YOU...believing ME)...long before sights of stained glass, incense, robes, collars and assorted other paraphernalia came into the mix. (and weighed, and found wanting)
For some, again, it may be credible that this perfection of reason was discovered to actually be the one I once reviled.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Walt,


> That is contradictory to religions/beliefs that have multiple Gods and/or different Gods.


You said this in response to my statement that there is only one God. You are using the term "contradictory" improperly. To violate the law of non-contradiction, the claim must be made that something is true and not true at the same sense at the same time. My statement that there is one God even though there are many religions serving many gods is does not violate this law, because the two statements are in two different senses. People worship many of what they call gods but are not real gods. Of everything that is worshiped, only One is the true God. To say my statement was a contradiction would be like saying a declaration that there is only one planet humans inhabit is a contradiction because there are many planets.


> Im curious, do you find the statement " in the absence of universal facts and proof, if there is one god its also possible that there is more than one god" to be logical or illogical?


I'm not sure if "in the absence of universal facts and proof" is to say, "if you couldn't prove either way," or if it is a denial of the existence of truth. I'll just answer the latter part of the statement. To make the statement, "There is only one true God, but there are also many true gods, in the same sense, at the same time," would violate the law of non-contradiction. It is an illogical statement. There cannot be more than one and no more than one of anything at the same time and in the same sense.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> Walt,
> 
> You said this in response to my statement that there is only one God. You are using the term "contradictory" improperly. To violate the law of non-contradiction, the claim must be made that something is true and not true at the same sense at the same time. My statement that there is one God even though there are many religions serving many gods is does not violate this law, because the two statements are in two different senses. People worship many of what they call gods but are not real gods. Of everything that is worshiped, only One is the true God. To say my statement was a contradiction would be like saying a declaration that there is only one planet humans inhabit is a contradiction because there are many planets.



Whoa..whoa...wait a minute.
Unless and until you somehow provide evidence of a God...and then make it evidence that can not be disputed, your claim of a God, let alone One true God is nothing but an assertive claim.



Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm not sure if "in the absence of universal facts and proof" is to say, "if you couldn't prove either way," or if it is a denial of the existence of truth. I'll just answer the latter part of the statement. To make the statement, "There is only one true God, but there are also many true gods, in the same sense, at the same time," would violate the law of non-contradiction. It is an illogical statement. There cannot be more than one and no more than one of anything at the same time and in the same sense.


Asserting there are any Gods is proof of nothing.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Walt,
> 
> You said this in response to my statement that there is only one God. You are using the term "contradictory" improperly. To violate the law of non-contradiction, the claim must be made that something is true and not true at the same sense at the same time. My statement that there is one God even though there are many religions serving many gods is does not violate this law, because the two statements are in two different senses. People worship many of what they call gods but are not real gods. Of everything that is worshiped, only One is the true God. To say my statement was a contradiction would be like saying a declaration that there is only one planet humans inhabit is a contradiction because there are many planets.
> 
> I'm not sure if "in the absence of universal facts and proof" is to say, "if you couldn't prove either way," or if it is a denial of the existence of truth. I'll just answer the latter part of the statement. To make the statement, "There is only one true God, but there are also many true gods, in the same sense, at the same time," would violate the law of non-contradiction. It is an illogical statement. There cannot be more than one and no more than one of anything at the same time and in the same sense.


I am getting concerned that discussions with you may turn into a debate of definitions and usages and not ideas and beliefs.
con·tra·dic·tion noun \ËŒkän-trÉ™-Ëˆdik-shÉ™n\  
: the act of saying something that is opposite or very different in meaning to something else
: a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true


> my statement that there is only one God.





> religions/beliefs that have multiple Gods and/or different Gods.


Those two ideas or beliefs contradict each other ie -


> : a difference or disagreement between two things which means that both cannot be true


belief in only one God vs belief in multiple Gods or a different God than the one.

Your insistence that this is somehow a proven, universal fact -


> People worship many of what they call gods but are not real gods.


Only leaves room for the dreary, mundane but unavoidable response of "prove it". Now go ahead and tell me how the Bible says that the Christian God is the one true God.
yawn


> "There is only one true God, but there are also many true gods, in the same sense, at the same time," would violate the law of non-contradiction. It is an illogical statement.


Or the statement of there only being one true God is false. The rest of your statement is dependent on there being one true God. That's what makes the rest of it illogical.
Im trying to decide if you just believe everything you say to be a universal fact or if you figured you would jump in and stump these silly nonbelievers with word play.


----------



## gemcgrew

From post #19


Bassquatch328 said:


> Because the laws of nature, logic, reliability of the senses, and everything for which the Bible accounts were around just as the Bible now says. How did people have a sense of morality. They had a conscience and a general knowledge of morals written on their hearts, just as the Bible says.


Are you saying that the senses are reliable or unreliable? If reliable, please show it.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead,


> Man wrote the "Laws" of gravity because gravity could not do it.


You know how I said at the beginning it would be helpful to do a basic study of logic? You may want to do that and go back and actually read what I have posted. I don't know if I should take this statement as illogical, irrelevant, or simply a statement that in no way attempts to answer or refute what I have said.


> You are assuming the writers were telling the truth. You are willfully not acknowledging all of the anonymous authors that Biblical and Secular scholars agree were anonymous.


Scholars of the Bible, whether Christian, Jewish, atheist, or whatever, tend to agree on the authorship of the books of the Bible. There are books in the Bible that were written with no indication of who wrote them, but there is general agreement about the authorship of the rest, especially the epistles and prophetic books.


> I know what it claims. It fails.


An unsubstantiated claim does not an argument make. If it does, then George Washington is the ruler of the Ottoman Empire.


> the Men who wrote the stories that became the Bible did not have access to our scientific knowledge of today. Some of them that are intelligent may very well likely be able to understand current science, but they went with what they had then.
> God should know the difference and he failed to convey his knowledge in THEIR writings.


Ancient people had much more technology than you realize. I could mention the ancient computer found in Greece or the batteries in Iraq, and the construction of some ancient structures baffles architects today. You are correct that we have much technology they didn't have, but they did have great technology. Your failure to see how far ahead the Bible is in terms of science compared to every culture of its time tells me you haven't read much of it.


> I would expect such a library written by many people to have such contradictions.
> I would not expect a library overseen by a God to have even one.


And the Bible does not have even one contradiction. Every supposed contradiction has been shown to be a misunderstanding of the text.


> THOUSANDS?
> Oh man, I only have hundreds of links.
> I wonder why such a God would not make sure the text is clear, understandable and without error.


Oh, I don't have thousands of links (and I haven't counted them, I'm just being general). I have one link to many articles. The text of the Bible is clear, understandable, and without error (although some parts are harder to understand than others, and the Bible makes that concession), but people who make claims of contradiction in the Bible typically have not studied it. Thus, they have a misunderstanding of the text and call it a contradiction.


> If historians and geographers by-and-large recognize the Bible as an incredibly accurate text then it will be no task to show us who you are talking about and why they are credible.


Josephus and Tacitus (should need no introduction), Dr. Clifford Wilson (formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology), historical finds such as the Pilate Dedication Stone, the Nabonidus Cylinder, the Meesha Stele, and the Tel Dan Stele (all of which coincide with the Bible), etc. Also, peoples and places mentioned in the Bible such as the Hittites, Jericho, David, and Hazor were thought to be myths, but are now common knowledge in historian circles. I would imagine it would be more impressive to find a credible historian who says the Bible is not valuable for accurate history or confirmed by archaeological finds. Many historians do take some issue with biblical chronology, but findings disagree. 


> Many cases = more than two


I listed three.... Neglecting your miscount, tell me, what nation will be on top in 200 years, what is the name of its future ruler, and what nation will take its place?


> Oh the sphere on pillars that rests under the firmament of heaven? THAT Sphere?


"He hangs the earth on nothing."- Job 26:7 Every mention of the earth's "pillars" is in the context of figurative language. Not only that, but it is figurative language to express the steadiness of the earth, and the earth is steadily fixed in an orbit while it hangs on nothing. Some parts of the Bible are literal narrative history, others are prophecy, and others are poetry. Context is key.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I understand you are using Transcendental Argument which implies we must use logic to prove our belief in God or to not believe in God.
Why must one use logic? Isn't faith enough? If it's not then logic won't help.
I have no problem with God creating science, math, and all of the Laws of the Universe. 
So what is more logical, freewill or predestination? Does God operate using free will or predestination?
Am I to presume the OP is using Transcendental Argument to prove the Christian God or the Great Architect/Scientist of the Universe?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> bullethead,
> 
> 
> "He hangs the earth on nothing."- Job 26:7 Every mention of the earth's "pillars" is in the context of figurative language. Not only that, but it is figurative language to express the steadiness of the earth, and the earth is steadily fixed in an orbit while it hangs on nothing. Some parts of the Bible are literal narrative history, others are prophecy, and others are poetry. Context is key.



Do your thoughts on the Bible come from your heart?


----------



## Bassquatch328

1gr8bldr said:


> Hello Bassquatch, welcome. You have posted several points that I would like to bring into question. You say "the bible claims to be the word of God". The "bible", was once alot of different books, compiled later. I can't see how it as a whole claims this. More like a couple of the books included in the writings we now know as the bible make reference to being "the word of God".


Well, the OT canon was settled by Jesus' time, and it was called Scripture. NT writers said that all Scripture is inspired by God. Peter later called Paul's writing Scripture. The rest of the NT was decided as canon as the OT was, and we should expect that God would preserve His Word accurately, not allowing "imposter" books to be grouped with it. (There are several issues with the Apocrypha, and it would be easier for me to give you a link than explain here if you wanted to get all into that). Yet even this is up for debate. 


1gr8bldr said:


> Paul made a distinction between what he said and what God said recorded in the book called "the word of God". For me that conflicts rational thinking.


But Paul explicitly stated when he was giving his own good advice rather than the strict word of God that filled the rest of his epistles, so I'm not sure what the conflict is.


1gr8bldr said:


> Another, the bible "making accurate scientific claims". For the ones that seem to be validated, there are others that do not. An example is in Gen, I think, about the two lights, the greater and the lesser light. As if two different sources. But we know that it is one light and the other a reflection.


 It would be a bit of a stretch to say the Bible even implies the moon makes its own light. It just says we see light from a body called the moon. We see light from objects called light bulbs, but a light bulb does not, by itself, produce light. 
To answer your later question, I believe the Bible is free of any error or contradiction (although translations are not always perfect in their choice of words, such as using the word "species" for the Hebrew word more properly translated "kind").


----------



## WaltL1

> Your failure to see how far ahead the Bible is in terms of science compared to every culture of its time tells me you haven't read much of it.


Just a friendly suggestion -
maybe you might want to ask who here were always Atheists or Agnostics and who were also believers at one time and spent hours and hours and hours with their face buried in the Bible.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Walt,
I think we are dancing around a misunderstanding. Do the two statements ("only one God" and "multiple gods") contradict each other? Yes, they do. That means at least one of the statements is false. What I gathered from your previous posts is that them contradicting each other means my argument violates the law of non-contradiction, but I have not argued that both statements are true, so I have made no contradictory statements in this regard. Is that cleared up now?
For the rest of your newer posts, I have made my argument. If the Bible were not true, knowledge would not be possible. The simplest way to refute that would be to explain how a different worldview is rationally justified standing on its own and makes knowledge possible. I notice I've been posting a lot of rebuttals and others haven't really been giving much of a defense at all, just offense.


> maybe you might want to ask who here were always Atheists or Agnostics and who were also believers at one time and spent hours and hours and hours with their face buried in the Bible.


Point taken and thanks for the correction of my behavior. However, if bullethead has studied (not just read, but studied) the Bible, he has an odd way of showing it. Then again, I realize that some people pick up on things that others do not.
I definitely will not be back until tomorrow, when I will hopefully resume with gemcgrew's post.


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Just a friendly suggestion -
> maybe you might want to ask who here were always Atheists or Agnostics and who were also believers at one time and spent hours and hours and hours with their face buried in the Bible.



Walt.  I know a bunch of Doctors who have spent years with their heads buried in medical books yet I wouldn't trust some of them to PRACTICE on a dying dog.  Familiarity isn't synonymous with practice, much less proficiency.   Each individual is only as good as his character no matter what moniker is placed on him.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Bassquatch328 said:


> Well, the OT canon was settled by Jesus' time, and it was called Scripture. NT writers said that all Scripture is inspired by God. Peter later called Paul's writing Scripture. The rest of the NT was decided as canon as the OT was, and we should expect that God would preserve His Word accurately, not allowing "imposter" books to be grouped with it. (There are several issues with the Apocrypha, and it would be easier for me to give you a link than explain here if you wanted to get all into that). Yet even this is up for debate.
> 
> But Paul explicitly stated when he was giving his own good advice rather than the strict word of God that filled the rest of his epistles, so I'm not sure what the conflict is.
> It would be a bit of a stretch to say the Bible even implies the moon makes its own light. It just says we see light from a body called the moon. We see light from objects called light bulbs, but a light bulb does not, by itself, produce light.
> To answer your later question, I believe the Bible is free of any error or contradiction (although translations are not always perfect in their choice of words, such as using the word "species" for the Hebrew word more properly translated "kind").


Was David the seventh or eight child?


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Walt,
> I think we are dancing around a misunderstanding. Do the two statements ("only one God" and "multiple gods") contradict each other? Yes, they do. That means at least one of the statements is false. What I gathered from your previous posts is that them contradicting each other means my argument violates the law of non-contradiction, but I have not argued that both statements are true, so I have made no contradictory statements in this regard. Is that cleared up now?
> For the rest of your newer posts, I have made my argument. If the Bible were not true, knowledge would not be possible. The simplest way to refute that would be to explain how a different worldview is rationally justified standing on its own and makes knowledge possible. I notice I've been posting a lot of rebuttals and others haven't really been giving much of a defense at all, just offense.
> 
> Point taken and thanks for the correction of my behavior. However, if bullethead has studied (not just read, but studied) the Bible, he has an odd way of showing it. Then again, I realize that some people pick up on things that others do not.
> I definitely will not be back until tomorrow, when I will hopefully resume with gemcgrew's post.





> Do the two statements ("only one God" and "multiple gods") contradict each other? Yes, they do. That means at least one of the statements is false.


Lets stop there. Yes they contradict each other. You have also asserted there is One God.
Please prove with universal facts and proof that there is only one god and the other beliefs in multiple gods or different gods is false. 


> However, if bullethead has studied (not just read, but studied) the Bible, he has an odd way of showing it. Then again, I realize that some people pick up on things that others do not.


Well certainly everybody who studies the Bible absolutely agrees 100% on what it says and means and shows. Everybody knows that.
Spend any time a few floors up? 


> If the Bible were not true, knowledge would not be possible. The simplest way to refute that would be to explain how a different worldview is rationally justified standing on its own and makes knowledge possible.


The Bible, a world view and rational justification do not make knowledge possible. A brain void of knowledge can not have a world view or rationalize or justify anything. The existence of a Bible has no impact on that fact. Without some sort of previous knowledge a person couldn't read it, understand it or even know it exists. If you disagree please show me Im wrong using universal facts and proof and not the Bible.


> I notice I've been posting a lot of rebuttals and others haven't really been giving much of a defense at all, just offense.


There is a reason for that. Your questions are formulated in a way that is akin to asking "do you still beat your wife".


----------



## Day trip

Bassquatch328,  you know the bible, you know that "He blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts".   You know that "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."  You know that faith must "rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God."  So what is your purpose here?  There will be no conversions on account of this thread.  A man convinced against his will is a man of the same opinion still.  You are a breath of fresh air, but are you trying to build people up or break them down?


----------



## drippin' rock

I can feel the feverous zeal burning from his eyes.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> bullethead,
> 
> You know how I said at the beginning it would be helpful to do a basic study of logic? You may want to do that and go back and actually read what I have posted. I don't know if I should take this statement as illogical, irrelevant, or simply a statement that in no way attempts to answer or refute what I have said.


Oh
You should do a basic study in providing examples as proof to back up your assertions.



Bassquatch328 said:


> Scholars of the Bible, whether Christian, Jewish, atheist, or whatever, tend to agree on the authorship of the books of the Bible. There are books in the Bible that were written with no indication of who wrote them, but there is general agreement about the authorship of the rest, especially the epistles and prophetic books.



Maybe some of those scholars agree. I can say with certainty that not all agree.
Is it possible that the anonymous authored texts are even more susceptible to scrutiny than the others?



Bassquatch328 said:


> An unsubstantiated claim does not an argument make. If it does, then George Washington is the ruler of the Ottoman Empire.


You have provided nothing but unsubstantiated claims since post #1.



Bassquatch328 said:


> Ancient people had much more technology than you realize. I could mention the ancient computer found in Greece or the batteries in Iraq, and the construction of some ancient structures baffles architects today.


I am well aware of all of those things. Unless you can show me how the Greek computer, batteries in Iraq, or ancient structures were used to prove the God of the Bible is somehow real....then I see no point of using them in this conversation. You were telling me how intelligent the writers of scripture were and eluded that they had advanced knowledge. Well show me.


Bassquatch328 said:


> You are correct that we have much technology they didn't have, but they did have great technology.


In every instance of mankinds advancement there are examples of smart people using the best tools and equipment available to them at that time. 100 years ago cannot compare to now and neither can 2000-6000 years ago.


Bassquatch328 said:


> Your failure to see how far ahead the Bible is in terms of science compared to every culture of its time tells me you haven't read much of it.


Your assessment of me is as off as your Biblical claims.
Check out what the Chinese were up to during your Biblical era.
That is but one example.



Bassquatch328 said:


> And the Bible does not have even one contradiction. Every supposed contradiction has been shown to be a misunderstanding of the text.


Pure
Utter
Nonsense



Bassquatch328 said:


> Oh, I don't have thousands of links (and I haven't counted them, I'm just being general). I have one link to many articles. The text of the Bible is clear, understandable, and without error (although some parts are harder to understand than others, and the Bible makes that concession), but people who make claims of contradiction in the Bible typically have not studied it. Thus, they have a misunderstanding of the text and call it a contradiction.


I have links ( just lost 990 of them a month ago)that will counter every one of them.

Josephus and Tacitus (should need no introduction), Dr. Clifford Wilson (formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology), historical finds such as the Pilate Dedication Stone, the Nabonidus Cylinder, the Meesha Stele, and the Tel Dan Stele (all of which coincide with the Bible), etc. Also, peoples and places mentioned in the Bible such as the Hittites, Jericho, David, and Hazor were thought to be myths, but are now common knowledge in historian circles. I would imagine it would be more impressive to find a credible historian who says the Bible is not valuable for accurate history or confirmed by archaeological finds. Many historians do take some issue with biblical chronology, but findings disagree. 
[/quote]
Start with the Exodus and the Ark



Bassquatch328 said:


> I listed three.... Neglecting your miscount, tell me, what nation will be on top in 200 years, what is the name of its future ruler, and what nation will take its place?


It has been shown ad nauseum that the works of Josephus and Tacticus have been altered, doctored and forged.
It is not hard to mix REAL places and people with unreal events.

"He hangs the earth on nothing."- Job 26:7 Every mention of the earth's "pillars" is in the context of figurative language. Not only that, but it is figurative language to express the steadiness of the earth, and the earth is steadily fixed in an orbit while it hangs on nothing. Some parts of the Bible are literal narrative history, others are prophecy, and others are poetry. Context is key.[/QUOTE]

God was a prophet and poet too!


----------



## drippin' rock

WaltL1 said:


> Lets stop there. Yes they contradict each other. You have also asserted there is One God.
> Please prove with universal facts and proof that there is only one god and the other beliefs in multiple gods or different gods is false.
> 
> Well certainly everybody who studies the Bible absolutely agrees 100% on what it says and means and shows. Everybody knows that.
> Spend any time a few floors up?
> 
> The Bible, a world view and rational justification do not make knowledge possible. A brain void of knowledge can not have a world view or rationalize or justify anything. The existence of a Bible has no impact on that fact. Without some sort of previous knowledge a person couldn't read it, understand it or even know it exists. If you disagree please show me Im wrong using universal facts and proof and not the Bible.



Or how about, "There are no Gods."  

If there is a creative force, it has long since grown bored and moved on to other worlds.


----------



## WaltL1

drippin' rock said:


> Or how about, "There are no Gods."
> 
> If there is a creative force, it has long since grown bored and moved on to other worlds.


Kind of like a kid with a new toy? In a few days its broken, shoved in the back of a closet and forgotten?


----------



## drippin' rock

Something like that.  Or it/they were here long enough to leave an impression, got what they wanted and left. 

Ever heard of the cargo cults?


http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cargocult.htm


----------



## stringmusic

Good stuff!


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Lets stop there. Yes they contradict each other. You have also asserted there is One God.
> Please prove with universal facts and proof that there is only one god and the other beliefs in multiple gods or different gods is false.



I have done a poor job for a very long time here trying to explain why one God eliminates the possibility of multiples.

If we are discussing multiples, it would be more like guardian angels type thing.  So, the plural part of the equation are not "God."  They could be some form of deity, I recon. Like Ambush's lucky crankbait might be referred to as the god of the local pond, but, if the crankbait has a god, it ain't God, and the title is just to say that crankbait rules that pond. 

But, lets say there are a million which created different parts of the universe simultaneously in independent acts each as significant as the other, wouldn't that be God by committee?  If each is indistinguishable from the other, and act in harmony and unison, isn't that one (kind-a like the trinity concept.......in a weird heretical sort of way).?

I have twisted and turned this one over and over, and just don't see how multiples is a logical possibility, if God exists.

It's the "which god" question......is there more than one option?


----------



## JB0704

BAssquatch, you can address somebody by hitting the quote button at the bottom of their post, and it will automatically identify the person who made the comment.  That way you don't have to continuously identify the target of your reply formally with each post.  I think it may make your interaction a little simpler.

BTW, I did the same thing in my first thread


----------



## WaltL1

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt.  I know a bunch of Doctors who have spent years with their heads buried in medical books yet I wouldn't trust some of them to PRACTICE on a dying dog.  Familiarity isn't synonymous with practice, much less proficiency.   Each individual is only as good as his character no matter what moniker is placed on him.


Sure but the statement was -


> However, if bullethead has studied (not just read, but studied) the Bible,


The assumption is because Bullet has a different opinion he didn't actually study it.
Lots of you guys have studied the Bible and still have differing opinions on certain points.
If I had just read instead of studying the Bible I might still be a believer.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Lots of you guys have studied the Bible and still have differing opinions on certain points.



Yep.  I went to a Christian college for my undergrad, and came out with a different take then most I was in school with.  

We are a very prideful species.  We often look for that which affirms our positions.  The religious are not immune.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Yep.  I went to a Christian college for my undergrad, and came out with a different take then most I was in school with.
> 
> We are a very prideful species.  We often look for that which affirms our positions.  The religious are not immune.



Example:



JB0704 said:


> I have done a poor job for a very long time here trying to explain why one God eliminates the possibility of multiples.
> 
> If we are discussing multiples, it would be more like guardian angels type thing.  So, the plural part of the equation are not "God."  They could be some form of deity, I recon. Like Ambush's lucky crankbait might be referred to as the god of the local pond, but, if the crankbait has a god, it ain't God, and the title is just to say that crankbait rules that pond.
> 
> But, lets say there are a million which created different parts of the universe simultaneously in independent acts each as significant as the other, wouldn't that be God by committee?  If each is indistinguishable from the other, and act in harmony and unison, isn't that one (kind-a like the trinity concept.......in a weird heretical sort of way).?
> 
> I have twisted and turned this one over and over, and just don't see how multiples is a logical possibility, if God exists.
> 
> It's the "which god" question......is there more than one option?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Example:





That does nothing to address the point.  We always default to "which god?"  Then, we fall back on "if God even exists."  But, we never determine how God could create the universe, and another God could create the universe......if they are equals, they are not god individually, because they have an equal, or they are lesser.  God would be the one who ultimately controls or created it all, if he doesn't, then that which does or did is God.

So, if you can figure that one out logically, then I will gladly admit there is a possibility that there are multiple gods. I personally think the only logical conclusions are one God, or no God.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Sure but the statement was -
> 
> The assumption is because Bullet has a different opinion he didn't actually study it.
> Lots of you guys have studied the Bible and still have differing opinions on certain points.
> If I had just read instead of studying the Bible I might still be a believer.



Every newcomer on here thinks that they have it all figured out and without ever conversing with any of us they think they have figured us out too.

Spending a few days on here reading prior posts would really give someone a good feel for what has been discussed and a little bit of history of everyone involved. 

I question anyone that claims to have all the answers in their first post and everyone figured out within 20 posts.
I question their preparation for their initial claims.

Further posts based solely off of assertion just confirms my suspicions.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I have done a poor job for a very long time here trying to explain why one God eliminates the possibility of multiples.
> 
> If we are discussing multiples, it would be more like guardian angels type thing.  So, the plural part of the equation are not "God."  They could be some form of deity, I recon. Like Ambush's lucky crankbait might be referred to as the god of the local pond, but, if the crankbait has a god, it ain't God, and the title is just to say that crankbait rules that pond.
> 
> But, lets say there are a million which created different parts of the universe simultaneously in independent acts each as significant as the other, wouldn't that be God by committee?  If each is indistinguishable from the other, and act in harmony and unison, isn't that one (kind-a like the trinity concept.......in a weird heretical sort of way).?
> 
> I have twisted and turned this one over and over, and just don't see how multiples is a logical possibility, if God exists.
> 
> It's the "which god" question......is there more than one option?





> I have twisted and turned this one over and over, and just don't see how multiples is a logical possibility, if God exists.


I'm guessing here but to me what causes the twisting and turning is the attributes and things done assigned to the Christian God according to the Christian Bible. If He created everything then no other god could have created anything etc. If the story was God created just the earth that would leave room for other gods not from earth and for other gods to create things other than the earth, even people. If a Native American prayed to the sun god but Christianity tells you God created the sun you have no choice but to believe the sun god is false if you believe the Christian God created the sun.
I don't think a Christian can believe both.
A nonbeliever is saying ok prove that and I'll believe it too. But you have faith its true not proof.


> If each is indistinguishable from the other, and act in harmony and unison, isn't that one


If you use "each" I think you automatically have to default to more than one because "each" would mean there was at least two even if they were identical in appearance and action.


> It's the "which god" question......is there more than one option?


There are numerous options. Lots of gods throughout history  and you can pick any of them (or none) that floats your boat and be comfortable in the fact that you have just as much proof as all the other options.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> I'm guessing here but to me what causes the twisting and turning is the attributes and things done assigned to the Christian God according to the Christian Bible. If He created everything then no other god could have created anything etc. If the story was God created just the earth that would leave room for other gods not from earth and for other gods to create things other than the earth, even people. If a Native American prayed to the sun god but Christianity tells you God created the sun you have no choice but to believe the sun god is false if you believe the Christian God created the sun.
> I don't think a Christian can believe both.
> A nonbeliever is saying ok prove that and I'll believe it too. But you have faith its true not proof.



If something created the sun, is the sun god God?



WaltL1 said:


> If you use "each" I think you automatically have to default to more than one because "each" would mean there was at least two even if they were identical in appearance and action.



But, we are back to something similar to the Christian trinity.....which views the 3 parts as one.  I think the greeks even had one which was above all others.





WaltL1 said:


> There are numerous options. Lots of gods throughout history  and you can pick any of them (or none) that floats your boat and be comfortable in the fact that you have just as much proof as all the other options.



But, were there actually lots of gods throughout history?


----------



## JB0704

To me, "which god" assumes no god.  Because if we could choose who gets to be god, then the god we choose would be dependent on us for his god status, and would not be God.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> That does nothing to address the point.  We always default to "which god?"  Then, we fall back on "if God even exists."  But, we never determine how God could create the universe, and another God could create the universe......if they are equals, they are not god individual, because they have an equal, or the are lesser.
> 
> So, if you can figure that one out logically, then I will gladly admit there is a possibility that there are multiple gods. I personally think the only logical conclusions are one God, or no God.



Almost like arguing who is stronger...Mighty Mouse or Superman?

It is possible to apply logic based off of reality in order to talk about phony things. All it accomplishes is that a logical argument can be made for facts that do not exist and in the end after pages and volumes of text with points and counter points jousting back and forth NOTHING is settled because the main object/main subject of the entire conversation is the ONLY thing that is not real. 

In the end enough of a case could be made that either Mighty Mouse or Superman is stronger but neither side can produce either one.

Basically we can argue for God vs Gods. 
When it is all over....neither are around to give validity to the logic used to try to get to the end result.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Day trip said:


> Bassquatch328,  you know the bible, you know that "He blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts".   You know that "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father."  You know that faith must "rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God."  So what is your purpose here?  There will be no conversions on account of this thread.  A man convinced against his will is a man of the same opinion still.  You are a breath of fresh air, but are you trying to build people up or break them down?



I would like Bassquatch to really look into his heart and find  a logical answer for predestination and his purpose here. I hope it's not pride related.  Did I say heart, I meant brain.  Biblical times people thought with their heart. God new better but the inspired writers of the Bible didn't.


----------



## bullethead

If there is a God it would be too complicated for me to even try to understand.
If I could understand a God would it really be a God?


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> To me, "which god" assumes no god.  Because if we could choose who gets to be god, then the god we choose would be dependent on us for his god status, and would not be God.





> To me, "which god" assumes no god.


Its because of what you understand the definition of God to be.


> Because if we could choose who gets to be god, then the god we choose would be dependent on us for his god status, and would not be God


Oh that's a juicy morsel right there.
Its EXACTLY why we keep harping about proof and facts.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Every newcomer on here thinks that they have it all figured out and without ever conversing with any of us they think they have figured us out too.
> 
> Spending a few days on here reading prior posts would really give someone a good feel for what has been discussed and a little bit of history of everyone involved.
> 
> I question anyone that claims to have all the answers in their first post and everyone figured out within 20 posts.
> I question their preparation for their initial claims.
> 
> Further posts based solely off of assertion just confirms my suspicions.


I think its the difference between wanting learn the varying beliefs, thinking processes and personalities of individuals as opposed to just wanting to say God is real because I said so. We get a few A/As that do the same. Neither generally stick around for very long.


----------



## Israel

bullethead said:


> If there is a God it would be too complicated for me to even try to understand.
> If I could understand a God would it really be a God?



That's a question worth considering.
I believe Walt also said something about men being "full of pride".
And StriperrHunterr struck me as well with how a man's testimony begins to kinda fall apart the moment it leaves him (not his words).
In all of these, I hear how "we" men have so much (if not all) in common, how knowing the "unknowable" is an enigma, a common predisposition to (in pride) believe, in a sense "we are the most real among men" because we "know" what we have experienced is real...(a grand supposition)...but our predisposition to view others as suspect in everything (I know "I" exist...but do "they?")

Descarte was pretty sharp I am sure, but he never said "You think, therefore YOU are".
One reason I have come to love Jesus as I do (but, he alone reserves the right to judge that affection, for all I know, I may be as cold as dead fish to him) is that he "allows"...even grants me the place of unknowing.
He said I only do what I see the Father doing...and in regards to one seemingly astounding thing that others celebrated said this  

For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

And of course, most are familiar with Jesus confessed ignorance to the precise "time of his return".

yes, our pride could have us struggle amongst one another to "be the one with all the answers". But Jesus easily admitted he didn't. 
What a relief for a guy just like me.
Now, you can choose not to believe I am the man who is in every case at every time wanting to be the show off, top dog, king of the hill, but...one of us would be mistaken.

I can only tell you I have only met one man more fascinating than myself. But, I couldn't prove that to you, cause all you hear is talking clay.
But, if Neil DeGrasse Tyson is content to believe himself talking and thinking stardust, perhaps you could consider also, this jack a55 speaking, is like you...a miracle of being.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> If something created the sun, is the sun god God?
> 
> 
> 
> But, we are back to something similar to the Christian trinity.....which views the 3 parts as one.  I think the greeks even had one which was above all others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But, were there actually lots of gods throughout history?





> If something created the sun, is the sun god God?


Your question reflects your indoctrination that there can only be one god. 


> But, we are back to something similar to the Christian trinity.....which views the 3 parts as one.  I think the greeks even had one which was above all others.


Technically we are all made up of parts that equals one. The difference being those parts cant work or cant live on their own.


> But, were there actually lots of gods throughout history?


Maybe? They have different names and attributes. Could it be all one God divided up by different beliefs and attributes? Maybe. 
Of course you also have to consider your version of God could also be just a different name and attributes of "their" God.
Its unanswerable questions like these that make "us" ask how you can say your God is the only God or the true God in the absence of answers to those questions. 
That's where faith comes in. And faith isn't an answer to the questions its just a security blanket that the answers are what you want them to be.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> "Come, let us reason together." "Always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is in you." Logic is an integral part of faith. The two are intertwined.



There's too much wrong with this one statement to even think about talking about anything else. 

Logic is suspended in the practice of faith. If it wasn't you wouldn't need faith. 



> faith
> â€‚ Use Faith in a sentence
> faith
> [feyth] Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
> 2.
> belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
> 3.
> belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
> 4.
> belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
> 5.
> a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.





> log·ic
> [loj-ik] Show IPA
> noun
> 1.
> the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
> 2.
> a particular method of reasoning or argumentation: We were unable to follow his logic.
> 3.
> the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
> 4.
> reason or sound judgment, as in utterances or actions: There wasn't much logic in her move.
> 5.
> convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts.



There's no overlap in the two, considering that the Bible is without hard inarguable evidence. If it were inarguable then we would all be believers. 

Sure you can use logic in the course of study of something, but I'll use an example. I'm a huge Star Wars fan and I read pretty much anything I can get my hands on regarding that universe. You could say I study it. Because I study it, and use logic to understand the characters as they are presented in it, does that mean that Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader are real people that really manipulate things via the Force? No. I know that's a fantasy story, you know that's a fantasy story, but there's no more evidence in support of religion (it only has the one book and your experiences through it) than there is supporting me if I were to claim that Skywalker was real. 

See the disconnect?


----------



## ambush80

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> There's too much wrong with this one statement to even think about talking about anything else.
> 
> Logic is suspended in the practice of faith. If it wasn't you wouldn't need faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no overlap in the two, considering that the Bible is without hard inarguable evidence. If it were inarguable then we would all be believers.
> 
> Sure you can use logic in the course of study of something, but I'll use an example. I'm a huge Star Wars fan and I read pretty much anything I can get my hands on regarding that universe. You could say I study it. Because I study it, and use logic to understand the characters as they are presented in it, does that mean that Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader are real people that really manipulate things via the Force? No. I know that's a fantasy story, you know that's a fantasy story, but there's no more evidence in support of religion (it only has the one book and your experiences through it) than there is supporting me if I were to claim that Skywalker was real.
> 
> See the disconnect?




But what about all the scholars and the prophesies that have come true?


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> Almost like arguing who is stronger...Mighty Mouse or Superman?



No.  That argument comes into play once it is established that there are two deities to consider.  What I am saying......again, is that it is not logical for there to exist multiple gods, the definition excludes the possibility.

You have studied world religions more than myself, the faiths that believe in multiple gods......are they all the creator?  Or, do they only manage certain segments of existence?


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Oh that's a juicy morsel right there.
> Its EXACTLY why we keep harping about proof and facts.



I get that.  My point is:

Person A says God is Billy, blue, has six arms, and lives in the sun.

Person B says God is Bob, golden, has no form, and lives amongst the stars.

In reality, are both concepts God?  Are both concepts candidates to be God? Or, are we discussing variations of the concept?  Each visualization is exclusive to the other, so, they can't both be right, but that does not mean there are two seperate deities competing to be the "on true God...."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> But what about all the scholars and the prophesies that have come true?



Scholars just study things. You can be a scholar of a book. The real world application of that book can be dubious. 

Nostradamus is batting about .300 as well, so prophesies written vaguely enough can be construed differently through the lens of perspective if the intent is to bend them to match situation X. 

Unless you have a prophesy with enough specificity that says on Tuesday, September 11, 2001 that two planes captured by terrorists will slam into two buildings, you don't have much to go on.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I get that.  My point is:
> 
> Person A says God is Billy, blue, has six arms, and lives in the sun.
> 
> Person B says God is Bob, golden, has no form, and lives amongst the stars.
> 
> In reality, are both concepts God?  Are both concepts candidates to be God? Or, are we discussing variations of the concept?  Each visualization is exclusive to the other, so, they can't both be right, but that does not mean there are two seperate deities competing to be the "on true God...."





> but that does not mean there are two seperate deities competing to be the "one true God...."


I agree. Wouldn't that concept fit right in with say the Native American view of multiple gods with individual attributes that don't compete with each other?
I know I keep repeating this but if you could somehow set aside the Christian concept of there CAN ONLY be one god then multiple gods with different attributes wouldn't be so hard to visualize.
Its almost comparable to the Trinity. Heres a question -
If God is 3 "things" do you believe each of those "things" is dependent on the other? Can one of those "things" do anything without the other two ?
And just to be difficult you cant say "but all three are one thing" because that avoids the question.


> In reality, are both concepts God?  Are both concepts candidates to be God? Or, are we discussing variations of the concept?  Each visualization is exclusive to the other, so, they can't both be right


Read your question. Its entirely predicated on your belief/indoctrination that there can only be one. Your use of "candidates to be God" confirms that.
In your mind it is implanted that one of them MUST be bigger faster stronger more powerful than the other.
Heavyweight Champion of the World.
Welterweight Champion of the World.
Are they both equally Champions of the World? 
Or does one have to beat the other to truly be a Champion of the World?


----------



## Bassquatch328

> Are you saying that the senses are reliable or unreliable? If reliable, please show it.


gemcgrew, I am saying that everyone presupposes their senses are reliable, whether in word or in deed. You assume that the computer you see when you type is actually there. You assume that you are actually a human and not a tree. Everyone makes this presupposition, but only the biblical worldview can justify it. One cannot say our senses became reliable naturally, because such would mean they arose from unguided and random interaction of matter and energy. The overwhelming majority of reactions involving matter and/or energy in the universe do not produce reliable senses or a reliable mind to interpret those senses, so why should you be the exception? "But evolution isn't random, it's driven by natural selection. And because of natural selection, humans wouldn't have survived if our senses weren't reliable." Natural selection acts on the whole organism once it has been completed, not on DNA. So according to evolution, your senses still formed randomly. Also, reliable senses don't necessarily equal survival value. Many organisms such as plants and bacteria are practically without senses and are far more numerous than humans.
Simply invoking just any old god doesn't justify our presuppositions of the reliability of the senses or the mind either. For example, Allah, who is the greatest deceiver according to the Koran, would be expected to make unreliable senses. Hinduism (at least some forms of it) asserts that all is illusion, so it cannot justify our presuppositions. However, the Bible says God is not the author of confusion and cannot lie, so we can expect senses created by Him to be reliable. The Bible also accounts for optical illusions and the like, because it makes clear that humans are not infallible or infinite and because of the curse, even though it is still nearly impossible to trick two or more senses at once. Would you care to provide a worldview that justifies the presupposition that our senses are reliable and our brain is reliable to interpret sensory information?


----------



## Bassquatch328

Artfuldodger, the Transcendental Argument is not that we must use logic to prove God’s existence. But it is the argument that logic can be used to confirm the Bible. I mentioned to previous posters how faith and logic are intertwined, which makes sense considering logic stems from God’s nature. For example, say God makes us a promise. God cannot lie and is not the author of confusion, therefore what He says He will do will happen. So I can have faith that His promise will come to pass. The definition of faith in Hebrews is not the world’s definition, but we are called to have good reasons for our faith.


----------



## Bassquatch328

1gr8bldr, Can you present the verse that implies David was the seventh son of Jesse? I can only find eighth.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Walt, 


> “Please prove with universal facts and proof that there is only one god and the other beliefs in multiple gods or different gods is false.”


Logic is universal and invariant. I have used it. I’ve gone through a few examples of other worldviews, showing how they fail, but I cannot possibly for the sake of time or space go through every worldview in the world. Care to present a detailed description of a worldview and show how it can justify knowledge and our presuppositions? Once done, I will evaluate it.


> “Well certainly everybody who studies the Bible absolutely agrees 100% on what it says and means and shows. Everybody knows that.
> Spend any time a few floors up?”


I’m not referring to bullethead’s interpretation, but his knowledge of content.


> “The Bible, a world view and rational justification do not make knowledge possible. A brain void of knowledge can not have a world view or rationalize or justify anything. The existence of a Bible has no impact on that fact. Without some sort of previous knowledge a person couldn't read it, understand it or even know it exists. If you disagree please show me Im wrong using universal facts and proof and not the Bible.”


You have misunderstood the argument. First, I have not argued that the Bible’s existence makes knowledge possible. I have argued that its being true justifies the presupposition that knowledge is possible. When a truth is written down has no bearing on when it became true. Also, it is not that one cannot have knowledge without reading the Bible or knowing of its existence. Everyone makes the presuppositions that certain things are true, things which make knowledge possible. However, one cannot simply hold a belief arbitrarily; presuppositions must be justified. And the chronological order in which we presuppose things and justify our presuppositions is irrelevant as long as logical justification is found (in other words, you can presuppose something and take it for granted before you find out how your presupposition is justified; to discover the justification before making the presupposition is in many cases impossible, such as in the case of the reliability of the senses).


> “There is a reason for that. Your questions are formulated in a way that is akin to asking "do you still beat your wife".”


Would you care to provide a specific example of a fallacy of the complex question on my part (I’m not saying I didn’t make one, but where is it?)? And such a fallacy on my part does not prevent anyone from explaining how any worldview other than the biblical one justifies the presuppositions we take for granted.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Day trip,


> “Bassquatch328, you know the bible, you know that "He blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts". You know that "no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father." You know that faith must "rest not on human wisdom but on the power of God." So what is your purpose here? There will be no conversions on account of this thread. A man convinced against his will is a man of the same opinion still. You are a breath of fresh air, but are you trying to build people up or break them down?”


The thread was posted to share a tool with other Christians (even though I don’t claim to represent it perfectly), which seemed more fitting in the apologetics section. However, I also knew that this section would have non-Christians, so I invited them to take the time to consider positions. I agree completely with the verses you quoted, but (sorry if I misunderstood you) they do not imply that we should just never say anything to others about the Bible or defend its truth. Otherwise, the Great Commission is of no relevance.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead,


> “I am well aware of all of those things. Unless you can show me how the Greek computer, batteries in Iraq, or ancient structures were used to prove the God of the Bible is somehow real....then I see no point of using them in this conversation. You were telling me how intelligent the writers of scripture were and eluded that they had advanced knowledge. Well show me.”


Those examples were not used even in an attempt to prove the Bible, but to counter what I perceived as chronological snobbery on your part. (I might also mention that Israel invented some of the first catapults and ballistae written about.) However, unless the Bible were true and we could have a good reason to expect the laws of nature to continue and our senses to be basically reliable, etc. etc., these ancient developments could not have happened. As far as the knowledge of biblical figures, I already mentioned astronomical knowledge that was millennia ahead of other peoples. 


> “Check out what the Chinese were up to during your Biblical era.”


Did the Chinese know the earth was a sphere? Did they implement the many health guidelines used by Israel? 


> “Pure
> Utter
> Nonsense”


Not
An
Argument


> “Start with the Exodus and the Ark”


Secular disagreement with the Ark of the Bible as well as its flood account stems largely from the idea that the Jews got the story from the Babylonians during their captivity. However, this is refuted by Isaiah’s mention of Noah and the Flood two centuries prior to the captivity. Disagreement on the chronological placement of the Exodus stems from an out of whack Egyptian chronology. Secular historians and scholars recognize that the mainstream Egyptian timeline is wrong, but few have sought to resolve it. When one recognizes the fact that many of the pharaohs reigned at the same time in different parts of Egypt, the timescale is shortened. Some other pharaohs never existed, as Egyptian historians had to rely in part on memory when foreign invaders took historical documents, and it is possible that these historians invented history to make Egypt seem like a greater nation of antiquity. However, when the timescale is resolved, one sees Semite slaves in Egypt (Israelites), a mysterious adopted son who reigned or would have reigned as Pharaoh but mysteriously vanished (Moses, at the biblical time of the Exodus), a description of plagues strikingly similar to the ones in Exodus, a description of the poor men holding power over pharaoh, a pharaoh whose remains have never been found (because he would be at the bottom of the Red Sea), and then the Hyksos taking Egypt “without a battle” (because the Egyptian army had been destroyed). Archaeological evidence then confirms the later conquest of Canaan by Israel led by Joshua. See more specifics at (https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/searching-for-moses/) and (https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/archaeologys-lost-conquest/)


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR,


> “prophesies written vaguely enough can be construed differently through the lens of perspective if the intent is to bend them to match situation X.”


Some biblical prophecies are vague because they were written using language perfectly understood by the reader of the time but not by the persecutors of the time. Others, however, like Isaiah’s and Daniel’s, mention nations and people by name from time to time.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> StripeRR HunteRR,
> 
> Some biblical prophecies are vague because they were written using language perfectly understood by the reader of the time but not by the persecutors of the time. Others, however, like Isaiah’s and Daniel’s, mention nations and people by name from time to time.



One tidbit in an otherwise vague statement does not a prediction make. 

Whatever rationalization you'd like to sell yourself about them being true, or why they are okay to be vague, gets right back to the point about how justification sits squarely with the observer and just because one can justify one thing to one's self means nothing when another is trying to justify it within within their own lives.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Walt,
> 
> Logic is universal and invariant. I have used it. I’ve gone through a few examples of other worldviews, showing how they fail, but I cannot possibly for the sake of time or space go through every worldview in the world. Care to present a detailed description of a worldview and show how it can justify knowledge and our presuppositions? Once done, I will evaluate it.
> 
> I’m not referring to bullethead’s interpretation, but his knowledge of content.
> 
> You have misunderstood the argument. First, I have not argued that the Bible’s existence makes knowledge possible. I have argued that its being true justifies the presupposition that knowledge is possible. When a truth is written down has no bearing on when it became true. Also, it is not that one cannot have knowledge without reading the Bible or knowing of its existence. Everyone makes the presuppositions that certain things are true, things which make knowledge possible. However, one cannot simply hold a belief arbitrarily; presuppositions must be justified. And the chronological order in which we presuppose things and justify our presuppositions is irrelevant as long as logical justification is found (in other words, you can presuppose something and take it for granted before you find out how your presupposition is justified; to discover the justification before making the presupposition is in many cases impossible, such as in the case of the reliability of the senses).
> 
> Would you care to provide a specific example of a fallacy of the complex question on my part (I’m not saying I didn’t make one, but where is it?)? And such a fallacy on my part does not prevent anyone from explaining how any worldview other than the biblical one justifies the presuppositions we take for granted.


Allah is the one true God.
Therefore all other Gods are not.
I just used logic.
However note that I started with something that is not proven to be true. So while the logic works it doesn't make the statement worth a hill of beans.


> Once done, I will evaluate it.


This tells me a lot about your mindset.
Im not interested.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Allah is the one true God.
> Therefore all other Gods are false.
> I just used logic.
> However note that I started with something that is not proven to be true. So while the logic works it doesn't make the statement worth a hill of beans.
> 
> This tells me a lot about your mindset.
> Im not interested.



Correct. You can use logic all you want, but if your premise, or evidence, is faulty then you're going to come to the wrong conclusion. Or you've come to the conclusion to believe in something despite the facts, a.k.a to have faith in it. 

I have noticed how Bassquatch holds himself to be the arbiter of our beliefs. It's very telling.


----------



## Bassquatch328

> I just used logic.
> However note that I started with something that is not proven to be true. So while the logic works it doesn't make the statement worth a hill of beans.





> Correct. You can use logic all you want, but if your premise, or evidence, is faulty then you're going to come to the wrong conclusion.


The example used by Walt had _valid_ logical form, but was not logically _sound_ because it began with a faulty premise. The premise is shown to be false by evaluating the implications of assuming it (unreliable senses for example). The premise that the biblical God exists is not faulty because it justifies the conclusions that follow.
In my comments, I have not meant to come off as thinking my self and arbiter or referee or fount of knowledge, but I can see where you gathered that. What I simply meant to say was that if you post something, I will read it and discuss it. I won't read everything just assuming it's right, but I won't assume it is wrong unless I find something that appears to be wrong in it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> The premise that the biblical God exists is not faulty because it justifies the conclusions that follow.



And so long as this is your position there can be no discussion about the use of logic to support your faith. 

Unless you, and you would be the first, to provide incontrovertible proof that there is a God. So I challenge thee, show your cards, as to the proof you have that there is a God.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> One tidbit in an otherwise vague statement does not a prediction make.
> 
> Whatever rationalization you'd like to sell yourself about them being true, or why they are okay to be vague, gets right back to the point about how justification sits squarely with the observer and just because one can justify one thing to one's self means nothing when another is trying to justify it within within their own lives.


I would consider it a little more than one tidbit. I'll ask you what I asked bullethead. Can you tell me, what nation (by name) will be on top two centuries from now, what will be the name of its ruler, and what nation will succeed it? Isaiah also mentioned specifically how long the Jews would be in captivity, so could you tell me how long any given major future even will last?


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> The example used by Walt had _valid_ logical form, but was not logically _sound_ because it began with a faulty premise. The premise is shown to be false by evaluating the implications of assuming it (unreliable senses for example). The premise that the biblical God exists is not faulty because it justifies the conclusions that follow.
> In my comments, I have not meant to come off as thinking my self and arbiter or referee or fount of knowledge, but I can see where you gathered that. What I simply meant to say was that if you post something, I will read it and discuss it. I won't read everything just assuming it's right, but I won't assume it is wrong unless I find something that appears to be wrong in it.





> The example used by Walt had _valid_ logical form, but was not logically _sound_ because it began with a faulty premise.


Agreed. 
It is a mirror image of what you have been doing from the beginning. Its why I said it. Please note that in response you didn't provide a worldview that justifies blah blah blah...
You simply pointed out its a faulty premise to begin with. Like we are doing.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> *I would consider it* a little more than one tidbit. I'll ask you what I asked bullethead. Can you tell me, what nation (by name) will be on top two centuries from now, what will be the name of its ruler, and what nation will succeed it? Isaiah also mentioned specifically how long the Jews would be in captivity, so could you tell me how long any given major future even will last?



Precisely my point.

Your beliefs are no more a universal truth than mine are.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And so long as this is your position there can be no discussion about the use of logic to support your faith.
> 
> Unless you, and you would be the first, to provide incontrovertible proof that there is a God. So I challenge thee, show your cards, as to the proof you have that there is a God.



This is the one I'm really waiting on a reply to.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And so long as this is your position there can be no discussion about the use of logic to support your faith.
> 
> Unless you, and you would be the first, to provide incontrovertible proof that there is a God. So I challenge thee, show your cards, as to the proof you have that there is a God.


I have given my proof. Everyone takes certain presuppositions for granted, but only the Bible can justify those presuppositions. You take for granted that your computer is there, and I agree. But how do you know your computer is there? Do you hold an epistemological system that justifies that belief? I would hope you believe murder is wrong. That's a very good belief to hold, but it's a Christian belief. Why, if there were no God and we were nothing more than matter, would murder be wrong? We don't throw our dogs in jail for killing cats. We don't throw baking soda in jail for reacting violently with vinegar. Furthermore, a natural worldview cannot justify choice, as "choice" is simply (in that worldview) an electrochemical reaction in the brain over which no one has control. So no one can be ultimately accountable for their actions in that worldview. If a natural worldview could account for anything, it would account for what is, not what should be (which is what people presuppose). Proof is a good thing to ask for, but it is a Christian principle. Why should it be wrong if I deceive you? How do you know your senses and mind are reliable to interpret evidence? And then how do you know logic exists in all parts of the universe, at all points in time, and never changes? The universe is subject to constant change, so why should logic or any other immaterial entity be exempt? So how would you know proof that is true today and here will be proof in New Jersey tomorrow? Furthermore, why should the immaterial exist without a true mind? The biblical worldview accounts for all of this, but no secular worldview can, and other theistic worldviews either cannot make such justification or indulge in inconsistency. All you have to do to refute the argument is provide one worldview that can stand on its own to make justification for all of our presuppositions.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> I have given my proof. Everyone takes certain presuppositions for granted, but only the Bible can justify those presuppositions. You take for granted that your computer is there, and I agree. But how do you know your computer is there? Do you hold an epistemological system that justifies that belief? I would hope you believe murder is wrong. That's a very good belief to hold, but it's a Christian belief. Why, if there were no God and we were nothing more than matter, would murder be wrong? We don't throw our dogs in jail for killing cats. We don't throw baking soda in jail for reacting violently with vinegar. Furthermore, a natural worldview cannot justify choice, as "choice" is simply (in that worldview) an electrochemical reaction in the brain over which no one has control. So no one can be ultimately accountable for their actions in that worldview. If a natural worldview could account for anything, it would account for what is, not what should be (which is what people presuppose). Proof is a good thing to ask for, but it is a Christian principle. Why should it be wrong if I deceive you? How do you know your senses and mind are reliable to interpret evidence? And then how do you know logic exists in all parts of the universe, at all points in time, and never changes? The universe is subject to constant change, so why should logic or any other immaterial entity be exempt? So how would you know proof that is true today and here will be proof in New Jersey tomorrow? Furthermore, why should the immaterial exist without a true mind? The biblical worldview accounts for all of this, but no secular worldview can, and other theistic worldviews either cannot make such justification or indulge in inconsistency. All you have to do to refute the argument is provide one worldview that can stand on its own to make justification for all of our presuppositions.



A) I don't care if my computer is really real or not. I can feel it and interact with it, that's good enough for me. If this is the Matrix how would anyone ever know? 

B) Murder being wrong is not an exclusively Christian ideal, like your post would have us believe. Fault premise. 

C) Do you even know what my worldview is, or are you just lumping me in with every other non-believer you've encountered? It sounds to me like the latter, because your reply would be tailored to my argument, and it is not. 

D) I don't know anything that isn't able to be proved. Logic in other parts of the universe exists in a quantum state of existence and non-existence everywhere but on this planet because there's 0 proof supporting either argument for any location but here. 

E) Proof is a Christian principle??? If you're not going to take this seriously I'm done. You're saying that before Christianity nobody required proof of anything? You're long on claiming that things are Christian property, but short on backing up those claims. 

Lastly, and this is about overall posting, you've been challenged to show down with your proof as to why Christianity is the true one religion, and you've shied away from that. Moreover, you've doubled down on your claims about the property of Christianity being logic, proof, and a whole host of other aspects which, if that were the case, would have precluded the Inquisition, the conviction of Galileo, and innumerable other atrocities that were predicated on blind acceptance of faith in order to refuse what was being proven and demonstrated all around them. 

I want to have an above the board conversation with you but you're making it nigh impossible.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Read your question. Its entirely predicated on your belief/indoctrination that there can only be one. Your use of "candidates to be God" confirms that.
> In your mind it is implanted that one of them MUST be bigger faster stronger more powerful than the other.
> Heavyweight Champion of the World.
> Welterweight Champion of the World.
> Are they both equally Champions of the World?
> Or does one have to beat the other to truly be a Champion of the World?



A polytheistic view would view God more like a superhuman than God as we are discussing.  

1.(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
3.an adored, admired, or influential person.
4.the gallery in a theater.

As a general rule, the term "God," is referring to definition #1, at least, that's the concept I have been discussing.  "Superhuman" would refer back to my comments on angels being the equivalent.  

Under the above definition, the point stands.  There can't be 2 God's with definition 1.  I would think even a polytheistic worldview would accept that logic.

I have no problem believing in angels, btw.  I don't the level of interaction, if any.  If God can create us, he can make all sorts of cool things.


----------



## Bassquatch328

> A)	I don't care if my computer is really real or not. I can feel it and interact with it, that's good enough for me. If this is the Matrix how would anyone ever know?


So you just make an arbitrary assumption, which is not rational.


> B) Murder being wrong is not an exclusively Christian ideal, like your post would have us believe. Fault premise.


In no way do I mean Christianity is the only worldview that asserts the immorality of murder. But no other worldview justifies why it should be wrong, and certainly no secular worldview does. People of other worldviews believe murder is wrong in spite of their worldview, not because of it.


> C) Do you even know what my worldview is, or are you just lumping me in with every other non-believer you've encountered? It sounds to me like the latter, because your reply would be tailored to my argument, and it is not.


I do not know what your worldview is, so I cannot make a reply tailored to it, because you have not made your case for it. Until you make a specific worldview claim, all I can do is make statements about any worldview (especially secular).


> D) I don't know anything that isn't able to be proved. Logic in other parts of the universe exists in a quantum state of existence and non-existence everywhere but on this planet because there's 0 proof supporting either argument for any location but here.


Sorry could you rephrase that? For clarification on my part, anyone can deduce that logic is invariant and constant everywhere, but only the Christian worldview can justify why that is so.


> E) Proof is a Christian principle??? If you're not going to take this seriously I'm done. You're saying that before Christianity nobody required proof of anything? You're long on claiming that things are Christian property, but short on backing up those claims.


No I am not saying proof was not required or didn’t exist before Christianity. Again, people’s desire for proof is in spite of their worldview, not because of it. Whether you believe in gravity or not, it is still there. What I am saying is that apart from the biblical worldview, there is no reason to believe proof should either exist or be required. Please explain why it should exist and be required in whatever worldview you hold.


> Lastly, and this is about overall posting, you've been challenged to show down with your proof as to why Christianity is the true one religion, and you've shied away from that. Moreover, you've doubled down on your claims about the property of Christianity being logic, proof, and a whole host of other aspects which, if that were the case, would have precluded the Inquisition, the conviction of Galileo, and innumerable other atrocities that were predicated on blind acceptance of faith in order to refuse what was being proven and demonstrated all around them.


I have made my argument and you have yet to make any attempt to refute it by providing a worldview that justifies our presuppositions and makes knowledge possible. Moreover, what a body of people who falsely called themselves Christian did has no bearing on the Bible, and Galileo was persecuted by the scientists of the day who used influence in the church. Galileo’s teachings were actually quickly adopted by missionaries, and they fit with the Bible. And why, in your worldview, should the atrocities of the past be considered wrong?


> I want to have an above the board conversation with you but you're making it nigh impossible.


A one-sided discussion is always difficult. Care to try explaining why you hold whatever worldview you do and how it is logically justified?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

WaltL1 said:


> Sure but the statement was -
> 
> The assumption is because Bullet has a different opinion he didn't actually study it.
> Lots of you guys have studied the Bible and still have differing opinions on certain points.
> If I had just read instead of studying the Bible I might still be a believer.



He'll learn the folks here soon nuff.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch, are you using Transcendental Argument to prove deity or The Father of Jesus? If just the Father of Jesus, how does it work that way? Couldn't a Muslim also use Transcendental Argument or a Hindu?


----------



## SemperFiDawg

bullethead said:


> Every newcomer on here thinks that they have it all figured out and without ever conversing with any of us they think they have figured us out too.
> 
> Spending a few days on here reading prior posts would really give someone a good feel for what has been discussed and a little bit of history of everyone involved.
> 
> I question anyone that claims to have all the answers in their first post and everyone figured out within 20 posts.
> I question their preparation for their initial claims.
> 
> Further posts based solely off of assertion just confirms my suspicions.



I disagree Bullet.  It takes more than a few days to figure everyone out.  The threads are so fluid and disjointed at times it's hard to get an idea of where everyone stands until you've been around a while.  He's no different than anyone else here in that he has some well reasoned and strong opinions.  We need more like that and less of the ones who hit and run like the former thread starter.  Just my two cents.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> So you just make an arbitrary assumption, which is not rational.
> 
> In no way do I mean Christianity is the only worldview that asserts the immorality of murder. But no other worldview justifies why it should be wrong, and certainly no secular worldview does. People of other worldviews believe murder is wrong in spite of their worldview, not because of it.
> 
> I do not know what your worldview is, so I cannot make a reply tailored to it, because you have not made your case for it. Until you make a specific worldview claim, all I can do is make statements about any worldview (especially secular).
> 
> Sorry could you rephrase that? For clarification on my part, anyone can deduce that logic is invariant and constant everywhere, but only the Christian worldview can justify why that is so.
> 
> No I am not saying proof was not required or didn’t exist before Christianity. Again, people’s desire for proof is in spite of their worldview, not because of it. Whether you believe in gravity or not, it is still there. What I am saying is that apart from the biblical worldview, there is no reason to believe proof should either exist or be required. Please explain why it should exist and be required in whatever worldview you hold.
> 
> I have made my argument and you have yet to make any attempt to refute it by providing a worldview that justifies our presuppositions and makes knowledge possible. Moreover, what a body of people who falsely called themselves Christian did has no bearing on the Bible, and Galileo was persecuted by the scientists of the day who used influence in the church. Galileo’s teachings were actually quickly adopted by missionaries, and they fit with the Bible. And why, in your worldview, should the atrocities of the past be considered wrong?
> 
> A one-sided discussion is always difficult. Care to try explaining why you hold whatever worldview you do and how it is logically justified?



Have fun. You can find my worldview all over this forum. I've explained it multiple times and there's no reason why I should think that you'd even be open to it with statements like this:

"But no other worldview justifies why it should be wrong, and certainly no secular worldview does."

You're trying to use Christianity and yourself as the sole arbiter of what is justifiable, which shows that your understanding of justifiability is flawed. 

Many people have tried to show you where your error lies and you keep doubling down on it. So like I said, have fun, I'll be watching to see if you become more receptive to the faultiness of your own premises over time.


----------



## stringmusic

Bassquatch328 said:


> A one-sided discussion is always difficult. Care to try explaining why you hold whatever worldview you do and how it is logically justified?





StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Have fun. You can find my worldview all over this forum. I've explained it multiple times and there's no reason why I should think that you'd even be open to it with statements like this:
> 
> "But no other worldview justifies why it should be wrong, and certainly no secular worldview does."
> 
> You're trying to use Christianity and yourself as the sole arbiter of what is justifiable, which shows that your understanding of justifiability is flawed.
> 
> Many people have tried to show you where your error lies and you keep doubling down on it. So like I said, have fun, I'll be watching to see if you become more receptive to the faultiness of your own premises over time.



AKA; I'm taking my ball and going home.


----------



## stringmusic

This is some of the best stuff I read on here in a long time, thanks for taking time to type it all out Bassquatch


----------



## StriperrHunterr

stringmusic said:


> AKA; I'm taking my ball and going home.



That's your opinion. I have no interest in bringing my side to the discussion when he can make the unsubstantiated claims he has and get a pass. He can also find my side by reading any one of 1000 other threads if he's truly interested in it.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Artfuldodger said:


> Bassquatch, are you using Transcendental Argument to prove deity or The Father of Jesus? If just the Father of Jesus, how does it work that way? Couldn't a Muslim also use Transcendental Argument or a Hindu?


Artfuldodger, I am using the argument to confirm the Bible and the biblical God. The argument does not work with Islam and Hinduism because, as I demonstrated with these two worldviews, they are inconsistent and cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> You have studied world religions more than myself, the faiths that believe in multiple gods......are they all the creator?  Or, do they only manage certain segments of existence?



It varies. Some believe each God has a separate duty/responsibility. Some (henotheism) believe there is a scale of importance or hierarchy. Some believe all had a hand in creation and together creation happened.

When you account for Satan in Christianity (along with the Trinity) polytheism seems to start getting a little crowded.


----------



## 660griz

Bassquatch328 said:


> but only the Bible can justify those presuppositions.



How did you come to study the bible?
How did you come to believe in the Christian God?

I say it has nothing to do with logic or intelligence. It has to do with the lottery of birth and location. 

Born somewhere else and/or to different parents, you believe in different stuff. 

Realizing this should make you ponder a moment.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Have fun. You can find my worldview all over this forum. I've explained it multiple times and there's no reason why I should think that you'd even be open to it with statements like this:
> 
> "But no other worldview justifies why it should be wrong, and certainly no secular worldview does."
> 
> You're trying to use Christianity and yourself as the sole arbiter of what is justifiable, which shows that your understanding of justifiability is flawed.
> 
> Many people have tried to show you where your error lies and you keep doubling down on it. So like I said, have fun, I'll be watching to see if you become more receptive to the faultiness of your own premises over time.



So rather than suit a simple request to facilitate discussion, you would have me sift through every thread on the forum to decipher your worldview, perhaps incorrectly, from bits and pieces? I have not touted myself as a self-proclaimed authority, but I have stood by the authority of the Bible. All you have to do to refute that is present another worldview and explain how it accounts for the preconditions of intelligibility. That shouldn't be hard if you're right.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> I get that.  My point is:
> 
> Person A says God is Billy, blue, has six arms, and lives in the sun.
> 
> Person B says God is Bob, golden, has no form, and lives amongst the stars.
> 
> In reality, are both concepts God?  Are both concepts candidates to be God? Or, are we discussing variations of the concept?  Each visualization is exclusive to the other, so, they can't both be right, but that does not mean there are two seperate deities competing to be the "on true God...."



Both can't be right but neither may be right.
God or Gods may very well be concepts.
I am convinced that there are as many different versions of a God or Gods as there are believers. Each concept is unique to each individual.


----------



## Bassquatch328

660griz said:


> How did you come to study the bible?
> How did you come to believe in the Christian God?
> 
> I say it has nothing to do with logic or intelligence. It has to do with the lottery of birth and location.
> 
> Born somewhere else and/or to different parents, you believe in different stuff.
> 
> Realizing this should make you ponder a moment.


To be frank, that argument's a little too stale for me not to have thought about it. Would I likely have been raised believing some other worldview if I had been born with different parents or in another location? Probably. But that has no bearing on my argument. Someone who argues against air has to use air to make an argument whether they were raised believing in it or not. The fact that people are often raised into beliefs is why Christians are commanded to spread the gospel, even though no Christian converts people but God brings conviction in the message He sends people to bring. But I would say no one is raised a Christian. Many are raised professing Christians, but one is changed into a Christian; not raised one. To say that belief relies solely on location and rearing would deny the fact that new beliefs come about or that people's beliefs change. The Transcendental Argument is meant to point out, regardless of someone's circumstance and location, the flaw in other worldviews.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> So rather than suit a simple request to facilitate discussion, you would have me sift through every thread on the forum to decipher your worldview, perhaps incorrectly, from bits and pieces? I have not touted myself as a self-proclaimed authority, but I have stood by the authority of the Bible. All you have to do to refute that is present another worldview and explain how it accounts for the preconditions of intelligibility. That shouldn't be hard if you're right.



You're still missing the entire point I've been trying to make. 

What is justifiable to you may not necessarily be justifiable to me, and vice versa. 

Justifiability is not the benchmark of truth, and neither is logic. 

We've been trying to tell you this since the first reply. You're still not getting it, or you're choosing to ignore it in favor of having a discussion based on a flawed set of premises.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You're still missing the entire point I've been trying to make.
> 
> What is justifiable to you may not necessarily be justifiable to me, and vice versa.
> 
> *Justifiability is not the benchmark of truth, and neither is logic. *
> 
> We've been trying to tell you this since the first reply. You're still not getting it, or you're choosing to ignore it in favor of having a discussion based on a flawed set of premises.


And therein lies the flaw. Truth MUST be logical or else it is not true. The very definition of the Law of Non-Contradiction defines an argument that cannot be true. An argument cannot be both true and not true in the same sense at the same time. If it can, give an example? Logic is the standard and formula of correct argumentation, behavior, and thinking. Would you care to show me something that is both true and incorrect? Everything, if it is true, is perfectly justifiable regardless of who believes it or not. But not everything that is true is justifiable in every worldview. I have asserted with examples that no worldview but the biblical one can justify the preconditions of intelligibility, and you have yet to refute that.


----------



## stringmusic

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Justifiability is not the benchmark of truth, and neither is logic.


What is? In your opinion.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> bullethead,
> 
> Those examples were not used even in an attempt to prove the Bible, but to counter what I perceived as chronological snobbery on your part. (I might also mention that Israel invented some of the first catapults and ballistae written about.) However, unless the Bible were true and we could have a good reason to expect the laws of nature to continue and our senses to be basically reliable, etc. etc., these ancient developments could not have happened. As far as the knowledge of biblical figures, I already mentioned astronomical knowledge that was millennia ahead of other peoples.
> 
> Did the Chinese know the earth was a sphere? Did they implement the many health guidelines used by Israel?
> 
> Not
> An
> Argument
> 
> Secular disagreement with the Ark of the Bible as well as its flood account stems largely from the idea that the Jews got the story from the Babylonians during their captivity. However, this is refuted by Isaiah’s mention of Noah and the Flood two centuries prior to the captivity. Disagreement on the chronological placement of the Exodus stems from an out of whack Egyptian chronology. Secular historians and scholars recognize that the mainstream Egyptian timeline is wrong, but few have sought to resolve it. When one recognizes the fact that many of the pharaohs reigned at the same time in different parts of Egypt, the timescale is shortened. Some other pharaohs never existed, as Egyptian historians had to rely in part on memory when foreign invaders took historical documents, and it is possible that these historians invented history to make Egypt seem like a greater nation of antiquity. However, when the timescale is resolved, one sees Semite slaves in Egypt (Israelites), a mysterious adopted son who reigned or would have reigned as Pharaoh but mysteriously vanished (Moses, at the biblical time of the Exodus), a description of plagues strikingly similar to the ones in Exodus, a description of the poor men holding power over pharaoh, a pharaoh whose remains have never been found (because he would be at the bottom of the Red Sea), and then the Hyksos taking Egypt “without a battle” (because the Egyptian army had been destroyed). Archaeological evidence then confirms the later conquest of Canaan by Israel led by Joshua. See more specifics at (https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/searching-for-moses/) and (https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/archaeologys-lost-conquest/)



bassquatch,
I do not have to eat the whole cow to know I am eating beef.
The links you provide and the explanations you give have been proven to be false. There are literally dozens of threads in here that have covered it.
The Flood didn't happen.
Entire cultures worldwide recorded history daily as they were supposed to have been underwater, drowned and dead. The Bible is wrong.
No Exodus of the magnitude which is found in the Bible happened. No historical evidence backs it up. No archeological evidence backs it up.

OF COURSE the website..."answers in genesis" is going to give you the spin you need on it. But because they say it and you believe it only serves as proof that you did not do your homework anywhere else.


----------



## bullethead

SemperFiDawg said:


> I disagree Bullet.  It takes more than a few days to figure everyone out.  The threads are so fluid and disjointed at times it's hard to get an idea of where everyone stands until you've been around a while.  He's no different than anyone else here in that he has some well reasoned and strong opinions.  We need more like that and less of the ones who hit and run like the former thread starter.  Just my two cents.



If it takes a few days but he is telling us who we are, what we believe and what we have studied in less than ten posts then I have what I need in order to make my judgement.

Proof from assertions and faulty sources results in faulty proof.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> bassquatch,
> I do not have to eat the whole cow to know I am eating beef.
> The links you provide and the explanations you give have been proven to be false. There are literally dozens of threads in here that have covered it.
> The Flood didn't happen.
> Entire cultures worldwide recorded history daily as they were supposed to have been underwater, drowned and dead. The Bible is wrong.
> No Exodus of the magnitude which is found in the Bible happened. No historical evidence backs it up. No archeological evidence backs it up.
> 
> OF COURSE the website..."answers in genesis" is going to give you the spin you need on it. But because they say it and you believe it only serves as proof that you did not do your homework anywhere else.


So I have provided a source, with staff which is comprised of people who have a minimum of a Master's, but most have their Doctorate, which you deny just because of the name and/or reputation rather than the merit of the article, and then you make unsubstantiated claims with no sources? Doesn't seem very fair of you. But why should you be fair? You can't, in your worldview, define what fair should be. Dr. John Baumgardner, once called the greatest scientist in geophysical modeling, and who works at the prestigious Los Alamos National Laboratory, would certainly disagree with you that the Flood never happened. Nearly every ancient culture on earth would also disagree, and the ocean floor and dense anomaly in the earth's mantle that probably used to be the seafloor, if they could speak, would disagree. Tell me, why are geological layers so neat, so precise, so minimally-eroded, if they were laid down gradually at the pace of millions of years? Show me the sources you so champion that so clearly disprove the articles I referenced. I invite you and welcome you to do so. But so far you have only made unsubstantiated claims.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> And therein lies the flaw. Truth MUST be logical or else it is not true. The very definition of the Law of Non-Contradiction defines an argument that cannot be true. An argument cannot be both true and not true in the same sense at the same time. If it can, give an example? Logic is the standard and formula of correct argumentation, behavior, and thinking. Would you care to show me something that is both true and incorrect? Everything, if it is true, is perfectly justifiable regardless of who believes it or not. But not everything that is true is justifiable in every worldview. I have asserted with examples that no worldview but the biblical one can justify the preconditions of intelligibility, and you have yet to refute that.



Justifiability and belief are in the eye of the beholder. Some people can justify to themselves that it's ok to murder another human. Did they use logic, with flawed premises, to get there? You betcha. 

Justifiability and belief are subject to the person expressing them and no further. 



stringmusic said:


> What is? In your opinion.



I don't have time for a full list, but there are few universal truths in this universe. 

I don't even hold what science has discovered so far to be universal truth, either, because that can shift as time goes on. 

I could tell you all about how it's a universal truth that killing people is wrong, and then we could get into discussions about things like self-defense, and whatnot. 

I hold that encroaching on someone else's life is wrong, as a universal truth for me, but I pull up way short of expecting you to buy off on it because that's up to you to determine. 

Even something as fundamental as E=mc^2 may be flawed, we may just not see it yet because we haven't advanced enough to do so. Prior to that epiphany we had no idea that matter and energy were intertwined. We now know that E=mc^2 is good enough for best fit cases because we know that atom bombs explode, and they all operate on this equation, but maybe we're missing some inclusion of gravity in that equation that would allow for the grand unified theory to explain it more fully. 

Even then, we could show that E=mc^2 is 100% factual, and you could still choose to not believe it, or that it's not justified enough to you, and that has little to do with the facts and everything to do with you as a person. That's not saying you're wrong, I personally don't care what anyone believes so long as they let me live my life in peace, to believe it's untrue; but holding out that it is untrue because you don't believe it is completely flawed. 

That's why I don't tell you guys that you're wrong to believe in God and why I'm not an atheist. I've seen nothing proving the existence of a God, more than one book of dubious authorship, but I've also seen nothing that incontrovertibly proves that He doesn't exist either. That's why any thoughts on the matter remove themselves from the application of objective logic based solely on evidence, and square themselves, right nicely I might add, with our own belief systems. 

The problem arises that these beliefs often lie at the core of our being, so disagreements get passionate and jumbled very quickly whereby personal truth and universal truth become tangled in our own minds. It's an important distinction to keep track of the difference between truth to yourself and truth to us all. One is subjective, the other requires objective facts that are the same to all.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> So I have provided a source, with staff which is comprised of people who have a minimum of a Master's, but most have their Doctorate, which you deny just because of the name and/or reputation rather than the merit of the article, and then you make unsubstantiated claims with no sources? Doesn't seem very fair of you. But why should you be fair? You can't, in your worldview, define what fair should be. Dr. John Baumgardner, once called the greatest scientist in geophysical modeling, and who works at the prestigious Los Alamos National Laboratory, would certainly disagree with you that the Flood never happened. Nearly every ancient culture on earth would also disagree, and the ocean floor and dense anomaly in the earth's mantle that probably used to be the seafloor, if they could speak, would disagree. Tell me, why are geological layers so neat, so precise, so minimally-eroded, if they were laid down gradually at the pace of millions of years? Show me the sources you so champion that so clearly disprove the articles I referenced. I invite you and welcome you to do so. But so far you have only made unsubstantiated claims.



And if you believe in the flat earth theory and only source your material from the flat earth society you'll come back to the same conclusion. 

If you include other sources you will see that there is inarguable evidence that the earth is most definitely round. 

Sources count.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> Artfuldodger, I am using the argument to confirm the Bible and the biblical God. The argument does not work with Islam and Hinduism because, as I demonstrated with these two worldviews, they are inconsistent and cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility.



http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2012/03/can-worldview-provide-preconditions-of_20.html


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> So I have provided a source, with staff which is comprised of people who have a minimum of a Master's, but most have their Doctorate, which you deny just because of the name and/or reputation rather than the merit of the article, and then you make unsubstantiated claims with no sources? Doesn't seem very fair of you. But why should you be fair? You can't, in your worldview, define what fair should be. Dr. John Baumgardner, once called the greatest scientist in geophysical modeling, and who works at the prestigious Los Alamos National Laboratory, would certainly disagree with you that the Flood never happened. Nearly every ancient culture on earth would also disagree, and the ocean floor and dense anomaly in the earth's mantle that probably used to be the seafloor, if they could speak, would disagree. Tell me, why are geological layers so neat, so precise, so minimally-eroded, if they were laid down gradually at the pace of millions of years? Show me the sources you so champion that so clearly disprove the articles I referenced. I invite you and welcome you to do so. But so far you have only made unsubstantiated claims.



How could any ancient culture disagree if they were all dead?


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> And if you believe in the flat earth theory and only source your material from the flat earth society you'll come back to the same conclusion.
> 
> If you include other sources you will see that there is inarguable evidence that the earth is most definitely round.
> 
> Sources count.


Apples and oranges. We can send either people or the right technology into space and verify empirically that the earth is indeed three-dimensionally round (actually, you can do it from earth, which is how the discovery was made). But we cannot travel into the past and observe it. I know no one or organization such as AiG that believes the earth is flat, and much of the information on AiG is misrepresented elsewhere anyway. While it has a bearing on persuasion because people are sometimes persuaded by bad arguments, a source's reputation has nothing to do with the validity of a particular argument presented in a particular article. Most of AiG's staff members are published in numerous secular peer-review publications, and most got their highest degrees from secular schools. Since the articles I posted make arguments based on texts and archaeological findings, I invite bullethead or anyone else to present authentic archaeological findings that refute those presented in the article.


----------



## hobbs27

Why would anyone want to defend their faith? Is it to prove something to yourself? 

As for Christianity I believe it is better to live it. It spreads when God gives others the eye to see it in you, then the ear to hear, not by beating someone with it. It appears  Some non-belivers faith is stronger than believers.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> How could any ancient culture disagree if they were all dead?


Dead from time or from the Flood? If from time, I meant their writings and artifacts. If from the Flood, I do not mean pre-Flood cultures. Nearly every ancient culture that we know of today (as in Greeks, Aborigines, etc.) has a flood legend very similar to that in the Bible. This is to be expected if there was a Flood, the account of which was passed on to Shem's, Ham's, and Japheth's descendants, and they were subsequently dispersed (after Babel) and the accounts were corrupted with alterations over time. Also, the popularity of the pyramid model (Egyptian pyramids, MesoAmerican pyramids, North American mounds, Middle Eastern Ziggurats, etc.) point to shared knowledge in a structure which the Bible calls the tower of Babel.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> So I have provided a source, with staff which is comprised of people who have a minimum of a Master's, but most have their Doctorate, which you deny just because of the name and/or reputation rather than the merit of the article, and then you make unsubstantiated claims with no sources? Doesn't seem very fair of you. But why should you be fair? You can't, in your worldview, define what fair should be. Dr. John Baumgardner, once called the greatest scientist in geophysical modeling, and who works at the prestigious Los Alamos National Laboratory, would certainly disagree with you that the Flood never happened. Nearly every ancient culture on earth would also disagree, and the ocean floor and dense anomaly in the earth's mantle that probably used to be the seafloor, if they could speak, would disagree. Tell me, why are geological layers so neat, so precise, so minimally-eroded, if they were laid down gradually at the pace of millions of years? Show me the sources you so champion that so clearly disprove the articles I referenced. I invite you and welcome you to do so. But so far you have only made unsubstantiated claims.



Here are some equally adept staff with Masters and Doctorates that explain it much better than I can and they address the theories of the ONCE called greatest scientist in geophysical modeling Dr. Baumgardener.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html


----------



## Bassquatch328

hobbs27 said:


> Why would anyone want to defend their faith? Is it to prove something to yourself?
> 
> As for Christianity I believe it is better to live it. It spreads when God gives others the eye to see it in you, then the ear to hear, not by beating someone with it. It appears  Some non-belivers faith is stronger than believers.


Christians defend the faith because the are called to do so in the Bible (see 1 Peter 3:15). When this is done, it is not to reach others but to refute others when they raise objections. This was posted as a learning tool for other Christians because this is the Apologetics section of the forum. As for others and other reasons, blindly believing things without a reason is arbitrary and irrational.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> Apples and oranges. We can send either people or the right technology into space and verify empirically that the earth is indeed three-dimensionally round (actually, you can do it from earth, which is how the discovery was made). But we cannot travel into the past and observe it. I know no one or organization such as AiG that believes the earth is flat, and much of the information on AiG is misrepresented elsewhere anyway. While it has a bearing on persuasion because people are sometimes persuaded by bad arguments, a source's reputation has nothing to do with the validity of a particular argument presented in a particular article. Most of AiG's staff members are published in numerous secular peer-review publications, and most got their highest degrees from secular schools. Since the articles I posted make arguments based on texts and archaeological findings, I invite bullethead or anyone else to present authentic archaeological findings that refute those presented in the article.



Why do we need to travel to the past?


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> Dead from time or from the Flood? If from time, I meant their writings and artifacts. If from the Flood, I do not mean pre-Flood cultures. Nearly every ancient culture that we know of today (as in Greeks, Aborigines, etc.) has a flood legend very similar to that in the Bible. This is to be expected if there was a Flood, the account of which was passed on to Shem's, Ham's, and Japheth's descendants, and they were subsequently dispersed (after Babel) and the accounts were corrupted with alterations over time. Also, the popularity of the pyramid model (Egyptian pyramids, MesoAmerican pyramids, North American mounds, Middle Eastern Ziggurats, etc.) point to shared knowledge in a structure which the Bible calls the tower of Babel.



Minoan history is perhaps as old as that of Egypt. Based on the island of Crete, the Minoan civilization entered a high state of cultural advancement about 2500 B.C., with the founding of Cnossos the capital city. The Minoan civilisation is often viewed as the first great civilisation of Europe and the focal point of world history around the middle of the second millennium B.C. It had already produced many artistic works, established cities, had an alphabet, and made use of bronze prior to the date of the Flood. It continued to grow and develop and by 2000 B.C. became established as a centre of trade and culture until 1470 B.C. when it was destroyed by a volcano. The archaeological remains of the Minoan civilization, including hundreds of written records on clay tablets, all show a continuous ongoing culture from 2800 to 1470 B.C. No devastating flood occurred on Crete during this period of time.

The civilization of the Indus Valley also has some very early beginnings. Prof. Waddell, who has done diggings and research in this location, shows by ancient Indian Official King-Lists and Chronicles, that this civilization's recorded history extends back to 3100 B.C.10  A thriving cultural state started around 2500 B.C., notably within its two major cities, Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, that rivalled that of Egypt and Mesopotamia. This ancient civilization, which also contained some 100 smaller cities, towns and villages, continued uninterrupted until 1500 B.C. when it fell for unknown reasons.

We also see the same situation with Phoenicia - a thriving cultural and trade centre existing before, during and after the Flood. These six great civilizations, along with a host of other cultural groups such as the Japanese, the American Indians, and the Negro tribes of Africa, all survived the period of the Flood.

Thus, the evidence provided by history shows that no devastating universal flood could have occurred since the time of recorded history - about 3500 B.C. How could all of these civilizations, cultures, and tribes, along with the tens of millions of people that embodied them, suddenly disappear from history and then suddenly reappear all over the world, carrying on with the same cultural habits, the same style of art, the same writing and language, the same architectural designs, etc., that were often unique to each civilization. History paints a very grim picture for those "fundamental" Christians and creationists who proclaim the Bible tells of a worldwide flood. In fact it proves that no universal flood had ever occurred in the past 6,000 years.

8 Frederick Haberman, Tracing Our Ancestors, (1934) p. 16.

9 See: L.A. Waddell, The Makers of Civilization, (1929).

10 Waddell, The Makers of Civilization, p. 27.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> Dead from time or from the Flood? If from time, I meant their writings and artifacts. If from the Flood, I do not mean pre-Flood cultures. Nearly every ancient culture that we know of today (as in Greeks, Aborigines, etc.) has a flood legend very similar to that in the Bible. This is to be expected if there was a Flood, the account of which was passed on to Shem's, Ham's, and Japheth's descendants, and they were subsequently dispersed (after Babel) and the accounts were corrupted with alterations over time. Also, the popularity of the pyramid model (Egyptian pyramids, MesoAmerican pyramids, North American mounds, Middle Eastern Ziggurats, etc.) point to shared knowledge in a structure which the Bible calls the tower of Babel.



numerous racial types of man that exist upon the earth.

A belief of the "Christian" sect known as creationism is that all the world was populated from the descendants of Noah's three sons. In other words, "all tribes and races came from a common ancestral population.20 Creationists are forced to place this common population, consisting of eight persons, some time after the Flood since they believe in the extinction of all people by a universal Flood.

Noah and his family were obviously of one race. The Bible states that Noah was "perfect in his generations" (Gen. 6:9). The word "generations" here is the Hebrew word "T0LEDAH," and means "descent." Noah was perfect in his descent from Adam meaning his lineage had not mixed with any other races. Creationist try to tell us that this racially pure family developed (or evolved) into the present day races, but never specifically explain how, when or why this transformation occurred.

The concept that all nations and races descended from Noah's sons did not originate with the early Christian writers. When the famous naturalist and zoologist Georges Cuvier devised his classification of races in 1790, he listed three types: Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Soon afterwards many started comparing this classification with Noah's three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth. As racial distinctions became more evident and debated, the churches and literalists picked up on Cuvier's classification and molded it into a new religious doctrine. They taught that the Negroid race descended from Ham, the Mongoloid race from Japheth, and the Caucasian race from Shem. This doctrine insults and contradicts both the word of God and science.

Cuvier's classification of races was just prior to the advent of Egyptology   the studying and discovering of the ruins of ancient Egypt by such men as Jean Francois Champollion in the 1820's. The ancient Egyptian monuments, tombs, and temples reveal a vast storehouse of ethnographical records in the form of paintings, mummies and sculptures displaying different racial types of man. Certain racial types can be distinguished in paintings and sculptures dating as far back as the 4th millennium B.C., as Prof. Coon explains:

"…racial differentiation can be traced back to at least 3,000 B.C., as evidenced in Egyptian records, particularly the artistic representations."21

In the era just after the Flood (2300 to 2000 B.C.) there appear many clear and well marked racial types in the paintings and sculptures from Egypt as well as Mesopotamia. By 1600 B.C., an even greater diversity of distinct racial types can be found. Each of these types are represented as they appear today showing that they were permanent throughout all history and had never undergone any type of transformation.

Creationists would have us believe that eight white people that existed after the Flood, somehow changed into different racial types almost instantaneously. Why is it that this type of drastic evolutionary change has never occurred since? If we can believe that such a racial transformation occurred, then there should be no reason not to believe any manner of evolution occurring over tens of millions of years, for the latter is more believable than the former.

It is important to understand the hypocrisy and inconsistency that "creationism" rests upon. Creationists are allowed to do the impossible because they are on God's side, but evolutionists are not allowed to use the same principles in presenting their ideas.

Evolution is evolution whether used by "creationists" or "evolutionists." Thus if an amphibian could not gradually evolve into a reptile, then a group of white people could not have evolved into Negroes, Indians, Chinese, Polynesians, Pygmies, etc., especially in just a few hundred years time or less.

The racial evidence supplied to us by the ancient paintings and sculptures from Egypt and elsewhere clearly dispels a any foolish notion of a worldwide flood. This evidence of the antiquity and permanence of the races, which is verified by the laws of genetics, proves that all people were not destroyed in a universal Flood.

To overcome this problem, some have suggested Noah brought a representative pair of each race on the Ark.22  Peter, in speaking of the Flood, says that only "eight souls were saved" on the Ark (1 Pet. 3:20 & 2 Pet. 2:5). The only way then to get the other races on the Ark is to say that these other races are not regarded as people, but are inferior "beasts" or “living creatures." The claim that other races were on the Ark is sheer speculation.

The science of ethnology and anthropology have shown that every single racial type that existed prior to the Flood existed after it. This proves that the Flood was confined to a specific geographical area. ALL people on earth were not destroyed by the Flood as creationists claim. In Luke 17:26-29, Christ likens the "days of Noah" with the "days of Lot." In each case the people experienced a catastrophe which "destroyed them all." Yet everyone acknowledges that "in the days of Lot" all the people on earth were not destroyed, only all the people in Sodom were. Likewise, only all the people in the Flood were destroyed, not all the people on earth.

It cannot be supported by any rational or biblical means that all races were destroyed by a flood and then instantaneously reappeared or were formed thereafter. It is infinitely more logical that all races were separately created by God on the planet, and they each survived the Flood, as did numerous other life forms, by being outside its realm and geographical influence.

20 Henry M. Morris. Scientific Creationism, p. 183.

21 Carleton Coon, The Origin of the Races, 1962, p. 3

22 The book, The Genesis Flood, pp. 17-20, stressed the point that all mankind was destroyed by the Flood," and that "Noah and his family were the only ones who escaped the judgment waters."


----------



## StriperrHunterr




----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> Here are some equally adept staff with Masters and Doctorates that explain it much better than I can and they address the theories of the ONCE called greatest scientist in geophysical modeling Dr. Baumgardener.
> 
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html


The most curious thing is, I can't find the Masters and Doctorates you allude to. I can find names, but not credentials. Furthermore, TO is, as far as I know, not reviewed before articles are published. Nevertheless, an article is judged by the merit of its argument, and the article you posted has various false claims. To be fair, I didn't read the whole thing, but just start with the first claim in the article. The first argument is against the seaworthiness of the ark. There are a variety of construction techniques that can allow very large wooden ships to last 15 years or longer, and Noah's ark only had to last one year. #1, they say wood isn't that great for shipbuilding, and they don't know what type of wood was used, nor do they know the structure of the ark. Both factors can lead to varied results. #2 Naval architects at the world-class ship research center KRISO (renamed MOERI in 2005, and led by an evolutionist) in Korea studied Noah’s Ark in 1992 and declared the biblical specifications sound.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Why do we need to travel to the past?


My point is simply that we cannot observe what happened in the past. We can infer what happened and find forensic evidences, but we can't observe George Washington at Yorktown.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> My point is simply that we cannot observe what happened in the past. We can infer what happened and find forensic evidences, but we can't observe George Washington at Yorktown.



True. And just because the dimensions in the Bible for Noah's ark were sound doesn't mean that it was ever built. 

There's no proof either way. You're choosing to believe it was and I'm on the fence until I see something that convinces me it was, like a wrecked hull of quasi petrified wood. 

Believe it or not I do keep my eye out for such things as I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong about my skepticism. I watched a program from an expedition over the course of 30 years looking for it on the mount that it's supposed to be on, and they came up fruitless.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> The most curious thing is, I can't find the Masters and Doctorates you allude to. I can find names, but not credentials. Furthermore, TO is, as far as I know, not reviewed before articles are published. Nevertheless, an article is judged by the merit of its argument, and the article you posted has various false claims. To be fair, I didn't read the whole thing, but just start with the first claim in the article. The first argument is against the seaworthiness of the ark. There are a variety of construction techniques that can allow very large wooden ships to last 15 years or longer, and Noah's ark only had to last one year. #1, they say wood isn't that great for shipbuilding, and they don't know what type of wood was used, nor do they know the structure of the ark. Both factors can lead to varied results. #2 Naval architects at the world-class ship research center KRISO (renamed MOERI in 2005, and led by an evolutionist) in Korea studied Noah’s Ark in 1992 and declared the biblical specifications sound.



What did they feed the polar bears on the ark?  How did they wrangle them?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> What did they feed the polar bears on the ark?



And why weren't dinosaurs on it?


----------



## ambush80

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=760590&highlight=noahs+ark


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> The most curious thing is, I can't find the Masters and Doctorates you allude to. I can find names, but not credentials. Furthermore, TO is, as far as I know, not reviewed before articles are published. Nevertheless, an article is judged by the merit of its argument, and the article you posted has various false claims. To be fair, I didn't read the whole thing, but just start with the first claim in the article. The first argument is against the seaworthiness of the ark. There are a variety of construction techniques that can allow very large wooden ships to last 15 years or longer, and Noah's ark only had to last one year. #1, they say wood isn't that great for shipbuilding, and they don't know what type of wood was used, nor do they know the structure of the ark. Both factors can lead to varied results. #2 Naval architects at the world-class ship research center KRISO (renamed MOERI in 2005, and led by an evolutionist) in Korea studied Noah’s Ark in 1992 and declared the biblical specifications sound.



research the names, I did.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead, I know I sort of aided you in it, but you are off topic. Kindly refrain from cluttering this thread with large walls of pasted material and simply post links, or begin a new thread. I'll try to read the information you posted when I get time (which I don't have right now), and I will comment on it in the thread you should open. But I will not continue to have this thread derailed.
Back on topic, could you logically justify how you know any information you posted exists and that you did not simply hallucinate due to unreliable senses?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=760590&highlight=noahs+ark



Thanks. I needed the line about pastry dishes.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> True. And just because the dimensions in the Bible for Noah's ark were sound doesn't mean that it was ever built.
> 
> There's no proof either way. You're choosing to believe it was and I'm on the fence until I see something that convinces me it was, like a wrecked hull of quasi petrified wood.
> 
> Believe it or not I do keep my eye out for such things as I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong about my skepticism. I watched a program from an expedition over the course of 30 years looking for it on the mount that it's supposed to be on, and they came up fruitless.


Actually, the Bible doesn't say what specific mountain the ark rested on, only the mountains (plural, as in a general area) of Ararat. And it's not out of the question that the ark was disassembled as building material. Just an interesting tidbit. But as I told bullethead, let's try to stay on topic.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> True. And just because the dimensions in the Bible for Noah's ark were sound doesn't mean that it was ever built.
> 
> There's no proof either way. You're choosing to believe it was and I'm on the fence until I see something that convinces me it was, like a wrecked hull of quasi petrified wood.
> 
> Believe it or not I do keep my eye out for such things as I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong about my skepticism. I watched a program from an expedition over the course of 30 years looking for it on the mount that it's supposed to be on, and they came up fruitless.



The ark, had it been built and to the specifications in the Bible, would have been somewhere around 1.2 million cubic feet.

The contents...animals, food, waste, supplies etc etc etc would have taken up about 57 million cubic feet.
Noah needed about 43 more Arks.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> research the names, I did.


I researched a few (not all, but a few), and they simply came up as names with no title in front of them. But back to the topic of the thread.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> bullethead, I know I sort of aided you in it, but you are off topic. Kindly refrain from cluttering this thread with large walls of pasted material and simply post links, or begin a new thread. I'll try to read the information you posted when I get time (which I don't have right now), and I will comment on it in the thread you should open. But I will not continue to have this thread derailed.
> Back on topic, could you logically justify how you know any information you posted exists and that you did not simply hallucinate due to unreliable senses?



Did you just make a not-so veiled threat? 

You will not have it derailed? 

Boy you are new to these boards. 

"Argue against me, but don't quote sources, in fact yours are invalid, but all of mine are accurate, and oh, by the way, here's a deck of rigged cards to play poker with." 

Aaaand, go!

If you're having to tailor our responses so strenuously I would think that would point you back to your own premises, but here we are, a few pages in, and you still can't see the truth of what was said to you in the first 5 responses.


----------



## hobbs27

Bassquatch328 said:


> Christians defend the faith because the are called to do so in the Bible (see 1 Peter 3:15). When this is done, it is not to reach others but to refute others when they raise objections. This was posted as a learning tool for other Christians because this is the Apologetics section of the forum. As for others and other reasons, blindly believing things without a reason is arbitrary and irrational.



1peter3:15 is the way I believe. Wait for someone to ask, not going out seeking, and defending in a forum for atheists ,agnostics, and apologetics is seeking IMO. Thanks for the reply, I'll leave you guys at it while you convert one another.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> bullethead, I know I sort of aided you in it, but you are off topic. Kindly refrain from cluttering this thread with large walls of pasted material and simply post links, or begin a new thread. I'll try to read the information you posted when I get time (which I don't have right now), and I will comment on it in the thread you should open. But I will not continue to have this thread derailed.



You are getting whacked with facts from factual sources and now you don't like it.
I really Hope you are a hallucination because you bring up a topic, beg to have it addressed, and then whine when you cannot deal with facts.



Bassquatch328 said:


> Back on topic, could you logically justify how you know any information you posted exists and that you did not simply hallucinate due to unreliable senses?



WHERE...WHAT.....HOW is THIS back on topic??????????


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> Actually, the Bible doesn't say what specific mountain the ark rested on, only the mountains (plural, as in a general area) of Ararat. And it's not out of the question that the ark was disassembled as building material. Just an interesting tidbit. But as I told bullethead, let's try to stay on topic.



So you can reply to my bit about the Ark, but I can't reply to this. 

Bull feathers. 

Are there mountains of Ararat in Ohio? No, the expedition searched the region around the mountain, too.  You're not the only one to notice the (s) on mountains. 



bullethead said:


> The ark, had it been built and to the specifications in the Bible, would have been somewhere around 1.2 million cubic feet.
> 
> The contents...animals, food, waste, supplies etc etc etc would have taken up about 57 million cubic feet.
> Noah needed about 43 more Arks.



Plus a food/waste/water management system that the USS Ronald Reagan would be envious of.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> I researched a few (not all, but a few), and they simply came up as names with no title in front of them. But back to the topic of the thread.



I see you only read a few books too.

NOW we can get back to the topic of the thread which is "Give a Defense"
I am
I have been
And I will continue to use whatever means necessary to Give a Defense.
Don't try to change the rules because you don't like it.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So you can reply to my bit about the Ark, but I can't reply to this.
> 
> Bull feathers.
> 
> Are there mountains of Ararat in Ohio? No, the expedition searched the region around the mountain, too.  You're not the only one to notice the (s) on mountains.
> 
> 
> 
> Plus a food/waste/water management system that the USS Ronald Reagan would be envious of.



The animals all marched to Ark and I guess so did their food.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Can we justify them; definitely.
> 
> Can we justify them where you will be any more accepting of our justification than we are of yours; probably not.
> 
> Welcome.



Post #4 in this thread.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> The animals all marched to Ark and I guess so did their food.



Maybe there was some "poofing" going on like the few loaves and fishes feeding the masses.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Maybe there was some "poofing" going on like the few loaves and fishes feeding the masses.



The Bible didn't say that so it didn't happen.

I am just trying to figure out how 2 cuddly Koalas each brought 182,500 grams of eucalyptus from Australia to the Middle East.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Okay, one final address to the ark questions, and then it needs to go to a different thread.
1) Noah didn't need polar bears, he needed members of the bear kind. Any bears at all. Bears tend to eat a large amount of vegetation.
2) Dinosaurs would have been on the ark. They didn't have to be of any certain age and were most likely juveniles. The largest dinosaur egg is only the size of a football, and most dinosaur species were only the size of a sheep or small horse when fully-grown. Unless food is found in them, fossils give no indication of what animals did eat, and even then it doesn't tell everything they ate.
3) Based on the biblical "kind", only 2000-3000 animals total were needed, with a generous maximum of 16,000. That still leaves plenty of room for food, supplies, and taking care of waste.
4) StripeRR HunteRR, where is the "threat" I made? Is it too much to ask that people stay on topic. GON even gave us an emoticon for that. I could engage in elephant hurling and red herrings too, but I would like to keep this thread on topic. GON makes its rules clear, "Be polite or be gone." Is it not the polite thing to do to respect the wishes of a thread's originator and stay on topic?
5) bullethead, 





> WHERE...WHAT.....HOW is THIS back on topic??????????


Quote from the opening, "It works on the principle of evaluating beliefs based on logic." That implies that others are asked to explain how their worldview is logical, and I plainly made that request previously in the thread. So tell me how you can logically know anything.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> The Bible didn't say that so it didn't happen.
> 
> I am just trying to figure out how 2 cuddly Koalas each brought 182,500 grams of eucalyptus from Australia to the Middle East.



Forget that. What does it take to feed an elephant for a year? I thought the flood was 40 days and 40 nights but someone said a year, so if we can get that, 40 days and nights is a cinch. 

In all seriousness, I remember a bassquatch from my early days on the boards. Do you think that's a coincidence?


----------



## drippin' rock

SemperFiDawg said:


> I disagree Bullet.  It takes more than a few days to figure everyone out.  The threads are so fluid and disjointed at times it's hard to get an idea of where everyone stands until you've been around a while.  He's no different than anyone else here in that he has some well reasoned and strong opinions.  We need more like that and less of the ones who hit and run like the former thread starter.  Just my two cents.


I've been over all this multiple times before you ever came around.  Expressed my views in length. I am not going to type pages everytime some wide eyed tongue panting type A shows up wanting to explain why they are right and everyone else is mistaken.  It has all been said before exhaustively.   You want to believe in fairy tales and constantly explain how your version is right, go ahead. I'll continue with my hit and run posts. It's fun.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> Okay, one final address to the ark questions, and then it needs to go to a different thread.
> 1) Noah didn't need polar bears, he needed members of the bear kind. Any bears at all. Bears tend to eat a large amount of vegetation.
> 2) Dinosaurs would have been on the ark. They didn't have to be of any certain age and were most likely juveniles. The largest dinosaur egg is only the size of a football, and most dinosaur species were only the size of a sheep or small horse when fully-grown. Unless food is found in them, fossils give no indication of what animals did eat, and even then it doesn't tell everything they ate.
> 3) Based on the biblical "kind", only 2000-3000 animals total were needed, with a generous maximum of 16,000. That still leaves plenty of room for food, supplies, and taking care of waste.
> 4) StripeRR HunteRR, where is the "threat" I made? Is it too much to ask that people stay on topic. GON even gave us an emoticon for that. I could engage in elephant hurling and red herrings too, but I would like to keep this thread on topic. GON makes its rules clear, "Be polite or be gone." Is it not the polite thing to do to respect the wishes of a thread's originator and stay on topic?
> 5) bullethead,
> Quote from the opening, "It works on the principle of evaluating beliefs based on logic." That implies that others are asked to explain how their worldview is logical, and I plainly made that request previously in the thread. So tell me how you can logically know anything.



I am being polite. You're the one saying you won't tolerate it going, what you deem to be, off topic. 

Trust me, you may not know this yet, but the mods do watch and will issue infractions if they think we're not being fair to the topic. 

1) So you're saying all he needed was a pair of bears and that all bears we see now descended from them? 

2) What killed the dinosaurs after the flood? How do you square the difference in age between the Bible and carbon dating? 3000 years to 65 million and more. Human error? 

3) Where did this number come from, and did you wash your hands after getting it? 

4) The threat was implied, that's why I used the word veiled. Inability to tolerate implies an action if not obeyed, so that action is the threat. It could be as innocuous as pleading to a mod, or something else. I dunno. 

5) Tell me how you logically know any of this, without saying that the Bible told you, and we'll go from there. M'kay?


----------



## ambush80

My world view:

I don't know and neither do you (but you get your info from a book with a talking donkey).


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I am being polite. You're the one saying you won't tolerate it going, what you deem to be, off topic.
> 
> Trust me, you may not know this yet, but the mods do watch and will issue infractions if they think we're not being fair to the topic.
> 
> 1) So you're saying all he needed was a pair of bears and that all bears we see now descended from them?
> 
> 2) What killed the dinosaurs after the flood? How do you square the difference in age between the Bible and carbon dating? 3000 years to 65 million and more. Human error?
> 
> 3) Where did this number come from, and did you wash your hands after getting it?
> 
> 4) The threat was implied, that's why I used the word veiled. Inability to tolerate implies an action if not obeyed, so that action is the threat. It could be as innocuous as pleading to a mod, or something else. I dunno.
> 
> 5) Tell me how you logically know any of this, without saying that the Bible told you, and we'll go from there. M'kay?



We are dealing with Nellie Olsen syndrome here.
Play MY way with MY rules and when you get ahead you lose.

I am going to start ANOTHER Ark/Flood discussion and take all of my hallucinations there.
If bassquatch decides to come over and discuss the topic there he is welcome. Then I get to use all of my links.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I am being polite. You're the one saying you won't tolerate it going, what you deem to be, off topic.
> 
> Trust me, you may not know this yet, but the mods do watch and will issue infractions if they think we're not being fair to the topic.
> 
> 1) So you're saying all he needed was a pair of bears and that all bears we see now descended from them?
> 
> 2) What killed the dinosaurs after the flood? How do you square the difference in age between the Bible and carbon dating? 3000 years to 65 million and more. Human error?
> 
> 3) Where did this number come from, and did you wash your hands after getting it?
> 
> 4) The threat was implied, that's why I used the word veiled. Inability to tolerate implies an action if not obeyed, so that action is the threat. It could be as innocuous as pleading to a mod, or something else. I dunno.
> 
> 5) Tell me how you logically know any of this, without saying that the Bible told you, and we'll go from there. M'kay?


I'll be happy to discuss this further if it is posted in another thread. For #4, I had no consequence in mind because I know I have no moderating power. But I will not just go along with it when people are off topic. As for #5, that would be like me asking you to argue against the existence of words without using words. Anyone who puts the Bible down when trying to defend it has already lost.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'll be happy to discuss this further if it is posted in another thread. As for #5, that would be like me asking you to argue against the existence of words without using words. Anyone who puts the Bible down when trying to defend it has already lost.



Your logic is circular then. 

Arguing words without words is precisely what you're asking us to do, so I figured I'd respond in kind.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> We are dealing with Nellie Olsen syndrome here.
> Play MY way with MY rules and when you get ahead you lose.
> 
> I am going to start ANOTHER Ark/Flood discussion and take all of my hallucinations there.
> If bassquatch decides to come over and discuss the topic there he is welcome. Then I get to use all of my links.



I can extrapolate what will happen based on this experience. Kind of like stubbing my toe, actually.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Your logic is circular then.
> 
> Arguing words without words is precisely what you're asking us to do, so I figured I'd respond in kind.


Circular reasoning is not always fallacious, though. In fact, it is always valid by definition (the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise), but it is not always sound. It is not sound if it is arbitrary or inconsistent. But when dealing with ultimate standards, which is what we are dealing with here, circular reasoning is unavoidable. One cannot argue for the existence of logic without using logic, for example. If you could use another standard to prove your ultimate standard, your ultimate standard wouldn't be very ultimate. I have not asked anyone to abandon any tool in reasoning, but I have asked that they outline a worldview that can account for the preconditions of ineligibility standing on its own.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch,

I don't know how the Universe began.  It's the most logical answer.


----------



## bullethead

preconditions of ineligibility 
I provided a link that deals with that and you skimmed over it and have not addressed it. Maybe you did and did not like what it said so you choose to ignore it...I don't know. But I am taking this conversation (if you wish to participate) to a new thread I started titled Ark/Flood.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> preconditions of ineligibility
> I provided a link that deals with that and you skimmed over it and have not addressed it. Maybe you did and did not like what it said so you choose to ignore it...I don't know. But I am taking this conversation (if you wish to participate) to a new thread I started titled Ark/Flood.



I read it.  Some heady stuff.  If Bassquatch doesn't respond to it I'll be disappointed.

Honestly, I didn't understand some of it.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> preconditions of ineligibility
> I provided a link that deals with that and you skimmed over it and have not addressed it. Maybe you did and did not like what it said so you choose to ignore it...I don't know. But I am taking this conversation (if you wish to participate) to a new thread I started titled Ark/Flood.


Are you referring to a link that you provided or a copied and pasted wall of text? The only link I saw you give was on the ark and Flood. I will participate in a new thread, but I won't be able to devote much time to it or this thread or anything else on the forum because school starts in a couple of days and I would like to do something more than sit at the computer all day. But thanks for starting a new thread and for the invite.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> Circular reasoning is not always fallacious, though. In fact, it is always valid by definition (the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise), but it is not always sound. It is not sound if it is arbitrary or inconsistent. But when dealing with ultimate standards, which is what we are dealing with here, circular reasoning is unavoidable. One cannot argue for the existence of logic without using logic, for example. If you could use another standard to prove your ultimate standard, your ultimate standard wouldn't be very ultimate. I have not asked anyone to abandon any tool in reasoning, but I have asked that they outline a worldview that can account for the preconditions of ineligibility standing on its own.



Did I say that your logic was invalid? No. There is no proof either way, so the right of the matter is undetermined. 

One can argue using emotion, belief, and a whole host of other tools at their disposal. Logic isn't the only one in the box. 

I'm also sure that a version of a hammer is used to make other hammers. It's an interesting observation that logic can be used to argue for logic, but it proves nothing. 

You keep presupposing that there is an ultimate standard. There is no proof of one. Mayans, Buddhists, Wiccans, Atheists, and Christians all hold their world views to be ultimate standards. It's silly to think that yours is the only one that got it right, especially when examining history of religion and finding out just how derivative Christianity is as a whole. YOU may have an ultimate standard that you hold to be true, but there's nothing saying that it will be the case, even amongst your church mates. 

As to your last part, we've explained in many replies to you that any justification we provide to you may not be suitable to you, even though it is to us, and have tried to show you the folly in asking other people to substantiate your beliefs through a perceived inability to argue their own. Just because we can't convince you of our beliefs, nor can you us of yours, doesn't mean that either is right or wrong. It merely illustrates what I've been saying all along in that justification, and acceptance thereof, is in the eyes of the beholder and no amount of logic, reasoning, or presentation of evidence, can open a closed mind. That's not to say that you're closed minded, just that you have your beliefs and that it's up to you if you wish to change them.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> I read it.  Some heady stuff.  If Bassquatch doesn't respond to it I'll be disappointed.
> 
> Honestly, I didn't understand some of it.



'twas.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> Are you referring to a link that you provided or a copied and pasted wall of text? The only link I saw you give was on the ark and Flood. I will participate in a new thread, but I won't be able to devote much time to it or this thread or anything else on the forum because school starts in a couple of days and I would like to do something more than sit at the computer all day. But thanks for starting a new thread and for the invite.



Post #119
http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2012/03/can-worldview-provide-preconditions-of_20.html


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Did I say that your logic was invalid? No. There is no proof either way, so the right of the matter is undetermined.


But you seemed to dismiss what I typed simply on the basis of it being circular. That was the point. 



StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You keep presupposing that there is an ultimate standard. There is no proof of one.


The reason there must be an ultimate standard is because we cannot know an infinite number of things. That being the case, our chain of reasoning cannot go on infinitely, so it must end with an ultimate standard.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> Are you referring to a link that you provided or a copied and pasted wall of text? The only link I saw you give was on the ark and Flood. I will participate in a new thread, but I won't be able to devote much time to it or this thread or anything else on the forum because school starts in a couple of days and I would like to do something more than sit at the computer all day. But thanks for starting a new thread and for the invite.



Why start this discussion then?
I feel you would devote more time to it as long as it went the way you hoped it would.
But best of luck in school.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> Why start this discussion then?
> I feel you would devote more time to it as long as it went the way you hoped it would.
> But best of luck in school.


Because never in my experience have replies on forums moved so rapidly. Don't y'all have day jobs? lol.
Thanks for the comment about school.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> Because never in my experience have replies on forums moved so rapidly. Don't y'all have day jobs? lol.
> Thanks for the comment about school.



You are in the Big Leagues here!!

Multitaskers

Different shifts

Independently wealthy

Retired

We all make time for what interests us.


You are welcome.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> But you seemed to dismiss what I typed simply on the basis of it being circular. That was the point.
> 
> Typically I do dismiss it, from my own life. It shouldn't bug you at all that I don't subscribe to your worldview.
> 
> I can assert that the sky is pink because I say the sky is pink, and if you have any questions about that see my statement that the sky is pink. You could then logically deduce that the sky is pink, which it obviously isn't because it doesn't match with reality. Validity requires that objective viewpoint in order to be considered universal truth. Then again, maybe the rods and cones in your eyes have a genetic defect and the sky really does appear pink to you, I have no way of knowing which shade it is since I can't see through your eyes.
> 
> 
> The reason there must be an ultimate standard is because we cannot know an infinite number of things. That being the case, our chain of reasoning cannot go on infinitely, so it must end with an ultimate standard.
> 
> Why should the list of knowable things be infinite?
> 
> Why the presumption that you're required to know all of them? As a species, and with diversification of labor, we certainly could know everything about everything that is knowable given long enough time scales. But therein also lies the rub, it is unknowable to humans until they die what the truth of heaven and the afterlife is. So that's unknowable to humans.



Yet another faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> As to your last part, we've explained in many replies to you that any justification we provide to you may not be suitable to you, even though it is to us, and have tried to show you the folly in asking other people to substantiate your beliefs through a perceived inability to argue their own. Just because we can't convince you of our beliefs, nor can you us of yours, doesn't mean that either is right or wrong. It merely illustrates what I've been saying all along in that justification, and acceptance thereof, is in the eyes of the beholder and no amount of logic, reasoning, or presentation of evidence, can open a closed mind. That's not to say that you're closed minded, just that you have your beliefs and that it's up to you if you wish to change them.



I really want to hear your refutation on this, since you deigned to ignore it in your reply.


----------



## bullethead

bassquatch, what school or type of school do you attend?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> bassquatch, what school or type of school do you attend?



If I had to bet he's in courses on theology, and that's not me knocking him. He's well spoken and well studied.


----------



## 660griz

Bassquatch328 said:


> To say that belief relies solely on location and rearing would deny the fact that new beliefs come about or that people's beliefs change.



Doesn't deny anything. We are not managing to exceptions.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> bassquatch, what school or type of school do you attend?


Public high school. And what is on here does not reflect what is taught at that school, although I have been vocal about it in school.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> Public high school. And what is on here does not reflect what is taught at that school, although I have been vocal about it in school.



Impressive.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Bassquatch328 said:


> 1gr8bldr, Can you present the verse that implies David was the seventh son of Jesse? I can only find eighth.


Jesse had eight sons, David the youngest 1 Samuel 16; 12 and 14. 1 Samuel 16; 10 and 11 agree. But 1 Chronicles 2;15 has David as the seventh. I have lots of these. It does not change my faith


----------



## Bassquatch328

1gr8bldr said:


> Jesse had eight sons, David the youngest 1 Samuel 16; 12 and 14. 1 Samuel 16; 10 and 11 agree. But 1 Chronicles 2;15 has David as the seventh. I have lots of these. It does not change my faith


It could be one of Jesse's sons died or was otherwise not counted as a son. It could be for some other reason. I know some of the "lots of these" you refer too, maybe like Kings saying (I think) 3,000 chariots and Chronicles saying 300. I would say there are minor copying errors such as this, and I have read that depending on the age of the copy it may or may not have a discrepancy in some cases and that errors may have come about more easily if numbers were written in numeral form instead of written out. Number issues and possibly genealogies are the only cases I know of in this regard, though. Other issues have been explained as how you understand the text. But I don't deny that minor copying errors can occur, but the original text is free of error.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Bassquatch328 said:


> It could be one of Jesse's sons died or was otherwise not counted as a son. It could be for some other reason. I know some of the "lots of these" you refer too, maybe like Kings saying (I think) 3,000 chariots and Chronicles saying 300. I would say there are minor copying errors such as this, and I have read that depending on the age of the copy it may or may not have a discrepancy in some cases and that errors may have come about more easily if numbers were written in numeral form instead of written out. Number issues and possibly genealogies are the only cases I know of in this regard, though. Other issues have been explained as how you understand the text. But I don't deny that minor copying errors can occur, but the original text is free of error.


One could have died, but no matter if one or all his brothers, he always remains the "seventh". Another that questions inspiration; Matthew goes to much trouble building the case that Jesus must be the messiah because God ordained 14 generations, 14 generations, etc. But he was wrong. He missed a couple. See 2 Chronicles 21-26  Aheziah, Joesh and Amaziah. Jehoram was not the father of Uzziah as Matt 1;8 says.  I find these things like fun bible trivia. But again, it does not cause a crisis of faith for me


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Hey Bassquatch, what kind of school are you going to. Sounds like your in some sort of religion study or theology. This forum is good practice for your apologetics. I have always wanted to understand the terms for debate. I understand circular reasoning, red herring, but that is about all. Would be interesting to learn... but not enough time


----------



## Bassquatch328

1gr8bldr said:


> Hey Bassquatch, what kind of school are you going to. Sounds like your in some sort of religion study or theology. This forum is good practice for your apologetics. I have always wanted to understand the terms for debate. I understand circular reasoning, red herring, but that is about all. Would be interesting to learn... but not enough time


Just a regular old public high school. Not even a magnet or charter school or anything. I learn most of this stuff online. For logical terms, you can read Jason Lisle's _Discerning Truth_ or find his series of articles on logical fallacies.


----------



## Bassquatch328

1gr8bldr said:


> One could have died, but no matter if one or all his brothers, he always remains the "seventh". Another that questions inspiration; Matthew goes to much trouble building the case that Jesus must be the messiah because God ordained 14 generations, 14 generations, etc. But he was wrong. He missed a couple. See 2 Chronicles 21-26  Aheziah, Joesh and Amaziah. Jehoram was not the father of Uzziah as Matt 1;8 says.  I find these things like fun bible trivia. But again, it does not cause a crisis of faith for me


"Father" in Hebrew can sometimes mean ancestor, just as "son" can sometimes mean descendant. Just like Jesus' ancestry in Luke is Mary's family history, so it reads a little more properly that Jesus was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, He was the descendant (through Mary) of [insert name here]. Many genealogy articles can be found on answersingenesis.org and I'm sure on other sites.
To be fair to the other posters, if I said they were off-topic for not talking specifically about logic and worldviews, then this isn't on topic either. But I'd love to continue the conversation whether you want to start a new thread or message me or whatever. It's up to you.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I really want to hear your refutation on this, since you deigned to ignore it in your reply.


The main reason I didn't include it in that reply was more because I had certain things you said that I wanted to address and I didn't really read the parts I deleted completely. Sorry,http://74.55.204.178/images/smilies/smile.gif 
I haven't been convinced by your justification because I haven't seen any yet. If I have seen it, I didn't know it, but I definitely have not seen an attempt to explain the rationality of another worldview. I appreciate the diplomacy in "doesn't mean that either is right or wrong", but when two beliefs are mutually exclusive, at least one is wrong.
I'm still willing to have a civil conversation if anyone else is (and time permitting), but I have to admit that getting 54+ posts today and taunting that I hope was all in friendly fun left me a little flustered. Thanks for what participation you have given.
BTW, you wouldn't know about socks and boot insulators and cold feet in the Gear Review forum, would you? Sorry, off topic!


----------



## Bassquatch328

Anyone know why the smilies don't work when I try to use them?


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch,

I told you that I don't know how we got here.  Now return the favor and tell me why you think you do.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> Anyone know why the smilies don't work when I try to use them?



Click Go Advanced and use the forum smilies.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> The main reason I didn't include it in that reply was more because I had certain things you said that I wanted to address and I didn't really read the parts I deleted completely. Sorry,http://74.55.204.178/images/smilies/smile.gif
> I haven't been convinced by your justification because I haven't seen any yet. If I have seen it, I didn't know it, but I definitely have not seen an attempt to explain the rationality of another worldview. I appreciate the diplomacy in "doesn't mean that either is right or wrong", but when two beliefs are mutually exclusive, at least one is wrong.
> I'm still willing to have a civil conversation if anyone else is (and time permitting), but I have to admit that getting 54+ posts today and taunting that I hope was all in friendly fun left me a little flustered. Thanks for what participation you have given.
> BTW, you wouldn't know about socks and boot insulators and cold feet in the Gear Review forum, would you? Sorry, off topic!



Like Arctic Socks?
Bass Pro has a question and answer page.

wink wink wink


----------



## Israel

I've been convinced the creator is more interested in man believing man is real.


----------



## ambush80

Israel said:


> I've been convinced the creator is more interested in man believing man is real.




I'm really trying.  I'm not stupid but I really don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## 1gr8bldr

Bassquatch328 said:


> "Father" in Hebrew can sometimes mean ancestor, just as "son" can sometimes mean descendant. Just like Jesus' ancestry in Luke is Mary's family history, so it reads a little more properly that Jesus was the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, He was the descendant (through Mary) of [insert name here]. Many genealogy articles can be found on answersingenesis.org and I'm sure on other sites.
> To be fair to the other posters, if I said they were off-topic for not talking specifically about logic and worldviews, then this isn't on topic either. But I'd love to continue the conversation whether you want to start a new thread or message me or whatever. It's up to you.


LOL, you might be the youngest one who post here???? Interesting to see that you have taken this interest at such a young age. What denomination do you most resemble?


----------



## Bassquatch328

1gr8bldr said:


> LOL, you might be the youngest one who post here???? Interesting to see that you have taken this interest at such a young age. What denomination do you most resemble?


I go to Church of God, but I don't know enough about any denomination to really know many of the differences. I care more about the individual church than the denomination.


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> Bassquatch,
> 
> I told you that I don't know how we got here.  Now return the favor and tell me why you think you do.


My position throughout the thread is that the Bible must be true because only the Bible can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. For example, I can justify that logic is universal, immaterial, and invariant because it stems from God's nature and He is not the author of confusion (unlike, say, Allah).
But to say you don't know how we or the universe got here does not form a logically tenable worldview. To say you don't know how the universe came to be is to assume the universe actually exists, but you did not in that statement provide justification for the belief that the universe does exist. Don't misunderstand me, it is perfectly fine to believe and presuppose something before you justify it, but it needs to be justified.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> My position throughout the thread is that the Bible must be true because only the Bible can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. For example, I can justify that logic is universal, immaterial, and invariant because it stems from God's nature and He is not the author of confusion (unlike, say, Allah).
> But to say you don't know how we or the universe got here does not form a logically tenable worldview. To say you don't know how the universe came to be is to assume the universe actually exists, but you did not in that statement provide justification for the belief that the universe does exist. Don't misunderstand me, it is perfectly fine to believe and presuppose something before you justify it, but it needs to be justified.



Isn't Allah the same God of Abraham?


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> My position throughout the thread is that the Bible must be true because only the Bible can account for the preconditions of intelligibility. For example, I can justify that logic is universal, immaterial, and invariant because it stems from God's nature and He is not the author of confusion (unlike, say, Allah).
> But to say you don't know how we or the universe got here does not form a logically tenable worldview. To say you don't know how the universe came to be is to assume the universe actually exists, but you did not in that statement provide justification for the belief that the universe does exist. Don't misunderstand me, it is perfectly fine to believe and presuppose something before you justify it, but it needs to be justified.




This is an Apache creation myth:
_
In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent). These two sat together and thought, and whatever they thought came into being. They thought Earth, and there it was._

Need I continue?  I believe this myth would satisfy your conditions.

As for myself, this explanation is a good as yours.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> Isn't Allah the same God of Abraham?


"Allah" is the word meaning "God" in a different language, and is meant to be the God of Abraham in the Koran. But the Koran attributes a different nature and character to Allah than that of the biblical God, so they are not the same. If I begin making apple pie but then change the recipe to have cherries instead of apples, it's not apple pie anymore no matter how much I want to say it is.


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> This is an Apache creation myth:
> _
> In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent). These two sat together and thought, and whatever they thought came into being. They thought Earth, and there it was._
> 
> Need I continue?  I believe this myth would satisfy your conditions.
> 
> As for myself, this explanation is a good as yours.


It's not that simple. Tepeu and Gucumatz, from what I understand are neither omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient, and would probably be subject to change. Therefore they can in no way account for the immaterial, universal, and invariant nature of the laws of logic, let alone other presuppositions. If I have made a misrepresentation, please give me more information to work with. But justification cannot be just any old belief. It must actually account for presuppositions rationally.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> "Allah" is the word meaning "God" in a different language, and is meant to be the God of Abraham in the Koran. But the Koran attributes a different nature and character to Allah than that of the biblical God, so they are not the same. If I begin making apple pie but then change the recipe to have cherries instead of apples, it's not apple pie anymore no matter how much I want to say it is.


I think the analogy is off.
If you are making two pies, one apple and one cherry...but you only have apples...then they are both still apple pies...you just call the one cherry.
God of Abraham is the God of Abraham...no matter what the Koran says his ingredients are he is still the God of Abraham.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> It's not that simple. Tepeu and Gucumatz, from what I understand are neither omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient, and would probably be subject to change. Therefore they can in no way account for the immaterial, universal, and invariant nature of the laws of logic, let alone other presuppositions. If I have made a misrepresentation, please give me more information to work with. But justification cannot be just any old belief. It must actually account for presuppositions rationally.



Do you acknowledge Tepeu and Gucumatz as being Gods but not THE God?
And omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent bring in a whole new can of worms.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> I think the analogy is off.
> If you are making two pies, one apple and one cherry...but you only have apples...then they are both still apple pies...you just call the one cherry.
> God of Abraham is the God of Abraham...no matter what the Koran says his ingredients are he is still the God of Abraham.


One text says God cannot lie and is not the author of confusion. The other says Allah is the greatest deceiver. One text says God can forgive sin. The other says Allah may let people into Paradise but never actually forgives their sin. There is a real, historical Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States. And there is (in a TV series) a fictional Abraham Lincoln who was king of Mars. In this case as well as the former, the two persons are not the same one.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> Do you acknowledge Tepeu and Gucumatz as being Gods but not THE God?
> And omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent bring in a whole new can of worms.


No they are not gods. I should have preceded my response with "for the sake of argument, if they were gods". 
Don't expect any responses from me until tomorrow.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> It's not that simple. Tepeu and Gucumatz, from what I understand are neither omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient, and would probably be subject to change. Therefore they can in no way account for the immaterial, universal, and invariant nature of the laws of logic, let alone other presuppositions. If I have made a misrepresentation, please give me more information to work with. But justification cannot be just any old belief. It must actually account for presuppositions rationally.



"....From what I understand".   Maybe you should look into it.

"And the Lord God called to Adam, and said unto him, Where are you?"    Strong case for omniscience. 

I'll save you the trouble and admit that I'm unable to interpret the verse correctly because I lack magical discernment abilities.

By the way, my God can beat up your god.  She taught your god everything he knows but not everything that She knows.  Poofing up a Universe, piece of cake for Her.  She does it every time she flatulates.


----------



## drippin' rock

Bassquatch328 said:


> Just a regular old public high school. Not even a magnet or charter school or anything. I learn most of this stuff online. For logical terms, you can read Jason Lisle's _Discerning Truth_ or find his series of articles on logical fallacies.



Are you a teacher or student? How old?


----------



## ambush80

drippin' rock said:


> Are you a teacher or student? How old?




He said he's a student.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> One text says God cannot lie and is not the author of confusion. The other says Allah is the greatest deceiver. One text says God can forgive sin. The other says Allah may let people into Paradise but never actually forgives their sin. There is a real, historical Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States. And there is (in a TV series) a fictional Abraham Lincoln who was king of Mars. In this case as well as the former, the two persons are not the same one.



Which one is the God of Abraham?
Same God,different roles.
Is the Judaism God of Abraham another bit player in a tv skit?


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch, do you believe in prayer? 

Is your God open to change?


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> No they are not gods. I should have preceded my response with "for the sake of argument, if they were gods".
> Don't expect any responses from me until tomorrow.



Can you stay up longer on the weekends?
Sorry I just had to say it...


----------



## gemcgrew

Bassquatch328 said:


> gemcgrew, I am saying that everyone presupposes their senses are reliable, whether in word or in deed.


I presuppose that my senses are unreliable. That is why I trust the God of the Bible to lead, guide and direct me in all that I think, say and do. 



Bassquatch328 said:


> You assume that the computer you see when you type is actually there. You assume that you are actually a human and not a tree.


I assume that? How do you know this? Show it. 


Bassquatch328 said:


> Everyone makes this presupposition, but only the biblical worldview can justify it.


Everyone? Show it. I have just shown you otherwise.


Bassquatch328 said:


> One cannot say our senses became reliable naturally, because such would mean they arose from unguided and random interaction of matter and energy. The overwhelming majority of reactions involving matter and/or energy in the universe do not produce reliable senses or a reliable mind to interpret those senses, so why should you be the exception?


This does not apply to me. 


Bassquatch328 said:


> "But evolution isn't random, it's driven by natural selection. And because of natural selection, humans wouldn't have survived if our senses weren't reliable." Natural selection acts on the whole organism once it has been completed, not on DNA. So according to evolution, your senses still formed randomly. Also, reliable senses don't necessarily equal survival value. Many organisms such as plants and bacteria are practically without senses and are far more numerous than humans.
> Simply invoking just any old god doesn't justify our presuppositions of the reliability of the senses or the mind either. For example, Allah, who is the greatest deceiver according to the Koran, would be expected to make unreliable senses. Hinduism (at least some forms of it) asserts that all is illusion, so it cannot justify our presuppositions. However, the Bible says God is not the author of confusion and cannot lie, so we can expect senses created by Him to be reliable. The Bible also accounts for optical illusions and the like, because it makes clear that humans are not infallible or infinite and because of the curse, even though it is still nearly impossible to trick two or more senses at once. Would you care to provide a worldview that justifies the presupposition that our senses are reliable and our brain is reliable to interpret sensory information?


This does not apply to me. I have a Biblical worldview. How is it "still nearly impossible to trick two or more senses at once"? Show it.


----------



## drippin' rock

gemcgrew said:


> I presuppose that my senses are unreliable. That is why I trust the God of the Bible to lead, guide and direct me in all that I think, say and do.
> 
> 
> I assume that? How do you know this? Show it.
> 
> Everyone? Show it. I have just shown you otherwise.
> 
> This does not apply to me.
> 
> This does not apply to me. I have a Biblical worldview. How is it "still nearly impossible to trick two or more senses at once"? Show it.



Why would god make your senses imperfect?  Why do you feel the need to belittle yourself?  You seem prideful in your self-disgust.  Isn't pride wrong?

I can't believe grown men are typing on a computer and asking others to prove they know it exists.  What in the world does this accomplish, other then watching your post count go up on Woody's???  Ridiculous.

I know things I can touch exist, because I can TOUCH them.  I BELIEVE in my senses.  Why would I not?


----------



## Artfuldodger

drippin' rock said:


> Why would god make your senses imperfect?  Why do you feel the need to belittle yourself?  You seem prideful in your self-disgust.  Isn't pride wrong?
> 
> I can't believe grown men are typing on a computer and asking others to prove they know it exists.  What in the world does this accomplish, other then watching your post count go up on Woody's???  Ridiculous.
> 
> I know things I can touch exist, because I can TOUCH them.  I BELIEVE in my senses.  Why would I not?



Maybe it's beyond the five senses and more to do with other meanings:
3)conscious awareness or rationality
4c)a motivating awareness
6a)capacity for effective application of the powers of the mind
6b)sound mental capacity and understanding typically marked by shrewdness and practicality

mechanism of perception
common sense
ability to reach intelligent conclusions
to be or become conscious of

It could be related to this:
Total Depravity (also known as Total Inability and Original Sin)


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by gemcgrew
> How is it "still nearly impossible to trick two or more senses at once"? Show it.


He must not deer hunt. I cant count how many times Ive heard movement in the leaves and said that sounds exactly like a deer walking, then saw movement to go along with the walking sounds and said "oh yeah that's a deer".
Nope just another darn squirrel.


----------



## 660griz

Bassquatch328 said:


> To be frank, that argument's a little too stale for me not to have thought about it. Would I likely have been raised believing some other worldview if I had been born with different parents or in another location? Probably. But that has no bearing on my argument.



What exactly is your argument? I re-read the opening thread. Seems wide open. 
What exactly would you like to discuss?

'Too stale'?
Is that code for you don't want to talk about it?

It has tremendous bearing if you step back and look at the big picture. You are discussing one God, and one book, in a sea of Gods and books.  
You basically are proposing there is 'your' God. 
I offered a reason why you picked your God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> The main reason I didn't include it in that reply was more because I had certain things you said that I wanted to address and I didn't really read the parts I deleted completely. Sorry,http://74.55.204.178/images/smilies/smile.gif
> I haven't been convinced by your justification because I haven't seen any yet. If I have seen it, I didn't know it, but I definitely have not seen an attempt to explain the rationality of another worldview. I appreciate the diplomacy in "doesn't mean that either is right or wrong", but when two beliefs are mutually exclusive, at least one is wrong.
> I'm still willing to have a civil conversation if anyone else is (and time permitting), but I have to admit that getting 54+ posts today and taunting that I hope was all in friendly fun left me a little flustered. Thanks for what participation you have given.
> BTW, you wouldn't know about socks and boot insulators and cold feet in the Gear Review forum, would you? Sorry, off topic!



I know dry feet are happy, warm feet. 

I wasn't being diplomatic in my statement about there being no right and wrong when it comes to who is right about their view regarding deities or lack thereof. It's a simple matter of fact. There is no evidence, objective hard evidence, that supports either side so it is left up to a matter of belief and faith. Belief and faith are removed from the realm of right/wrong on their own, and only subjected to it once again when one tries to apply it to the real world. 

For example, the movie Liar, Liar. The kid has faith and believes that Jim Carrey will be there for him, and that faith and belief can remain so long as there is no event with which to test that faith present. So, until that point, there is no right and there is no wrong. There is only belief. History has shown him that he is likely to be let down, but he chooses to believe in his father anyway. 

Likewise, there is no evidence, hard objective evidence, that there IS one God, and that God is the one described in the Bible, and there is no hard, objective evidence to say that there is NO God, or gods.

So the faith and belief that springs from your studies is neither right, nor wrong, until that is tested objectively. That can only, so we're told, be done upon our death and there's no way to communicate that back to the living people. 

Still, you'd have stories like that one kid, who died and experienced heaven. There's no way to prove that, just like there is no way for me to demonstrate for you that, when I died after a cancer surgery a few years back (the doctors say I was gone for a few moments), I experienced nothing. I didn't know I was dead until I was brought back. Maybe there's a veil there that wouldn't allow me to retain my memories upon return, I honestly don't know. 

The key point is that those kinds of experiences are too personal and too lacking in hard evidence of anything to be of any use to support either side of the argument. 

That's all that I was saying with "there is no right or wrong" about it.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> What exactly is your argument? I re-read the opening thread. Seems wide open.
> What exactly would you like to discuss?
> 
> 'Too stale'?
> Is that code for you don't want to talk about it?
> 
> It has tremendous bearing if you step back and look at the big picture. You are discussing one God, and one book, in a sea of Gods and books.
> You basically are proposing there is 'your' God.
> I offered a reason why you picked your God.




Seems to me he posits that his god is the one and only possible explanation for preconditions of intelligibility.  From Debate.Org (an apologetic website):

_What are the preconditions of intelligibility? Preconditions of intelligibility are things that we take for granted without thinking why we take them for granted, in that we perceive them to be absolutely true. So in other words we must see preconditions of intelligibility as true before we can know anything about the universe. The list follows:

.The basic reliability of memory and senses.
.Laws of logic.
.Uniformity of nature.
.Morality.
.Personal dignity.
.Freedom._

He infers that the god of the Bible is the one true god because the Bible states that god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent and furthermore "God is not the author of confusion". And where is all of this information taken from?  The Bible.  The Bible is true because it says so in the Bible.

Never mind that many other people claim that their gods are All Powerful as well.


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> "....From what I understand".   Maybe you should look into it.


I did look into it, but I want to be sure I'm not misrepresenting your position. You didn't really give me much info, and how am I to know you are not of some sect of that religion that others of that religion would consider heretical?



ambush80 said:


> "And the Lord God called to Adam, and said unto him, Where are you?"    Strong case for omniscience.


So your mom never caught you stealing a cookie and asked you what you were doing? God knew perfectly well what had happened and where Adam and Eve were, but He was going to at least give them the chance to own up to it. Instead Adam blamed Eve and (indirectly) God for everything!

Why don't you explain how your worldview accounts just for logic, save all the other presuppositions it must account for logically.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> I did look into it, but I want to be sure I'm not misrepresenting your position. You didn't really give me much info, and how am I to know you are not of some sect of that religion that others of that religion would consider heretical?
> 
> 
> So your mom never caught you stealing a cookie and asked you what you were doing? God knew perfectly well what had happened and where Adam and Eve were, but He was going to at least give them the chance to own up to it. Instead Adam blamed Eve and (indirectly) God for everything!
> 
> Why don't you explain how your worldview accounts just for logic, save all the other presuppositions it must account for logically.



So God set up both Adam and Eve to fail.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> I did look into it, but I want to be sure I'm not misrepresenting your position. You didn't really give me much info, and how am I to know you are not of some sect of that religion that others of that religion would consider heretical?
> 
> 
> So your mom never caught you stealing a cookie and asked you what you were doing? God knew perfectly well what had happened and where Adam and Eve were, but He was going to at least give them the chance to own up to it. Instead Adam blamed Eve and (indirectly) God for everything!
> 
> Why don't you explain how your worldview accounts just for logic, save all the other presuppositions it must account for logically.



You have future Press Secretary written all over you.

Wouldn't God have known what Adam and Eve and the Snake were going to do....millenniums before he even created them?
Was it all just an exercise?

5 years before you are born (heck..5 minutes before it happens)your Mom knows you are going to steal a cookie. She also knows that when confronted you will knock the cookie jar off of the counter, smash it, fall off of the chair you are standing on and slice yourself on the broken shards leaving a permanent scar on your cheek for life.
Would your mom change anything to help you or let it play out?


----------



## bullethead

It seems that the writers of scripture borrowed these worldviews that already existed in other cultures and adapted them to fit.
Since the Sumerian culture and writings predate the Biblical stories and the Biblical stories are eerily similar except the names and places changed, it is logical to assume that the Biblical stories got their worldviews from an earlier culture.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So God set up both Adam and Eve to fail.


No, He gave them a choice. He still knew what their choice would be, but He wanted them to make the choice instead of Him making it for them. He didn't want just a wind-up toy to play with, but a relationship in which He was actually loved as much as He loved His creation.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> I did look into it, but I want to be sure I'm not misrepresenting your position. You didn't really give me much info, and how am I to know you are not of some sect of that religion that others of that religion would consider heretical?



My point was that any religion that posits a prime mover will satisfy all your requirements for preconditions of intelligibility (P of I).  They also claim to be All Powerful and like the Bible use only their claims as the basis for their veracity.




Bassquatch328 said:


> So your mom never caught you stealing a cookie and asked you what you were doing? God knew perfectly well what had happened and where Adam and Eve were, but He was going to at least give them the chance to own up to it. Instead Adam blamed Eve and (indirectly) God for everything!
> 
> Why don't you explain how your worldview accounts just for logic, save all the other presuppositions it must account for logically.



Ah.  God is asking a rhetorical question.  Do you see how you have to come to this conclusion? The Bible says that God is omniscient yet he asks where Adam is. It doesn't make sense on it's own so you have to modify the narrative.  Is Jesus omniscient too? Why doesn't he know why God (Himself) won't "take the cup from Him/Himself?

I can rationalize how logic can spring from a naturalistic model.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> You have future Press Secretary written all over you.
> 
> Wouldn't God have known what Adam and Eve and the Snake were going to do....millenniums before he even created them?
> Was it all just an exercise?
> 
> 5 years before you are born (heck..5 minutes before it happens)your Mom knows you are going to steal a cookie. She also knows that when confronted you will knock the cookie jar off of the counter, smash it, fall off of the chair you are standing on and slice yourself on the broken shards leaving a permanent scar on your cheek for life.
> Would your mom change anything to help you or let it play out?


See my reply to StripeRR HunteRR. However, since Adam and Eve did sin, everyone now has to make an explicit choice to either accept God or deny Him, and God is perfectly willing to give both groups what they want for eternity.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> No, He gave them a choice. He still knew what their choice would be, but He wanted them to make the choice instead of Him making it for them. He didn't want just a wind-up toy to play with, but a relationship in which He was actually loved as much as He loved His creation.



This is a good one.  He gave them a choice but he knew what they would choose.  Could they have done something other than what he had foreseen (designed)? Is that REALLY a choice?


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> See my reply to StripeRR HunteRR. However, since Adam and Eve did sin, everyone now has to make an explicit choice to either accept God or deny Him, and God is perfectly willing to give both groups what they want for eternity.



But he knows what we'll do and whether or not we go to Heaven or He11, from before the beginning of time.  Chew on that.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> See my reply to StripeRR HunteRR. However, since Adam and Eve did sin, everyone now has to make an explicit choice to either accept God or deny Him, and God is perfectly willing to give both groups what they want for eternity.



I thought Jesus took care of that?


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> See my reply to StripeRR HunteRR. However, since Adam and Eve did sin, everyone now has to make an explicit choice to either accept God or deny Him, and God is perfectly willing to give both groups what they want for eternity.



Would your Mother do the same thing? You forget to answer all the questions sometimes.
Does she punish you for what the neighborhood kids did 30 years ago?


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> My point was that any religion that posits a prime mover will satisfy all your requirements for preconditions of intelligibility (P of I).  They also claim to be All Powerful and like the Bible use only their claims as the basis for their veracity.


Not any religion, and certainly not the one you used. Are there other religions where their  god is omni-etc.? Yes. Are they consistent? No. Is the Bible? Yes. Hinduism can't work because it asserts that all is illusion, so no logic, senses, etc. and the search for knowledge has failed. Islam can't do it because the Koran says you can't trust Allah, so no good senses or logic, and puts Jesus in two places at once while denying His deity (no law of non-contradiction), and Allah is unjust because he says he can't tolerate sin but lets people into Paradise without getting rid of it. 



ambush80 said:


> Ah.  God is asking a rhetorical question.  Do you see how you have to come to this conclusion?  You the Bible says that God is omniscient yet he asks where Adam is.  Is Jesus omniscient too? Why doesn't he know why God (Himself) won't "take the cup from Him/Himself?


Jesus as God is omniscient, but as the humbled Son limits His access to that knowledge. It's like having a million dollars in the bank but living off of one hundred because you won't allow  yourself to use the rest of your money. The Holy Spirit has to limit Himself too, because if He did not limit Himself in His mercy He would consume everything in righteous judgment.



ambush80 said:


> I can rationalize how logic can spring from a naturalistic model.


As in logic not being eternal? You try that and tell me how you resolve contradictions being true and not true at the same time in the same sense before the law of non-contradiction appears.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> It seems that the writers of scripture borrowed these worldviews that already existed in other cultures and adapted them to fit.
> Since the Sumerian culture and writings predate the Biblical stories and the Biblical stories are eerily similar except the names and places changed, it is logical to assume that the Biblical stories got their worldviews from an earlier culture.


I suppose Native American culture didn't exist until Europeans got here and taught them how to write. It is logical to assume that the similar stories point to an original story that was changed, but the Hebrews copying the Sumerians doesn't explain how the Greeks and American Peoples and Chinese and Hawaiians got the stories. All of those people once being one people and dispersing does account for all of that.


----------



## gemcgrew

Bassquatch328 said:


> God knew perfectly well what had happened and where Adam and Eve were, but He was going to at least give them the chance to own up to it. Instead Adam blamed Eve and (indirectly) God for everything!


This is where God introduced "chance" into creation? Did you not say this about the Atheistic worldview in post #3? "But in an atheistic universe, everything is governed by chance".

How am I to differentiate between the Atheistic worldview and yours? Please remember ("iron sharpens iron").


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> No, He gave them a choice. He still knew what their choice would be, but He wanted them to make the choice instead of Him making it for them. He didn't want just a wind-up toy to play with, but a relationship in which He was actually loved as much as He loved His creation.



But wind up toys are exactly what he created, if he knows the decisions we're going to make before we're going to make them. 

You can't be omniscient and still be surprised by your creations. 

That's what we like to call a pair o ducks.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> So your mom never caught you stealing a cookie and asked you what you were doing? God knew perfectly well what had happened and where Adam and Eve were, but He was going to at least give them the chance to own up to it. Instead Adam blamed Eve and (indirectly) God for everything!
> QUOTE]
> 
> What kind of logic are you using that Adam & Eve had a choice to own up to what they did? If God knew beforehand, how could he give them a choice? That's not very logical.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Artfuldodger said:


> What kind of logic are you using that Adam & Eve had a choice to own up to what they did? If God knew beforehand, how could he give them a choice? That's not very logical.


That's like saying because the weather man knew rain was coming before it came he caused it to come. And that's not very logical...


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> No, He gave them a choice. He still knew what their choice would be, but He wanted them to make the choice instead of Him making it for them. He didn't want just a wind-up toy to play with, but a relationship in which He was actually loved as much as He loved His creation.



Did god give Jesus a chance to not die for our sins? Why would God leave something as important as a messiah and then leave it up to chance? I guess if Jesus could have failed, he could send another.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> No, He gave them a choice. He still knew what their choice would be, but He wanted them to make the choice instead of Him making it for them. He didn't want just a wind-up toy to play with, but a relationship in which He was actually loved as much as He loved His creation.





> He didn't want just a wind-up toy to play with, but a relationship in which He was actually loved as much as He loved His creation.


The threat of he11 creates wind up toys.
A common theme in abusive relationships is "love me or I will punish you".


----------



## Bassquatch328

gemcgrew said:


> This is where God introduced "chance" into creation? Did you not say this about the Atheistic worldview in post #3? "But in an atheistic universe, everything is governed by chance".
> 
> How am I to differentiate between the Atheistic worldview and yours? Please remember ("iron sharpens iron").


In an atheistic worldview, the universe itself is governed by chance. In the biblical worldview, God upholds the universe in an orderly way. The universe is not a conscious entity and cannot make a choice. Humans can make choices. Furthermore, God does influence people's choices from time to time, but usually in the form of making they decision they already made more stubborn so He can demonstrate the error of their choice.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> That's like saying because the weather man knew rain was coming before it came he caused it to come. And that's not very logical...



The logic is the weatherman isn't a prophet and could be wrong. The rain might not have a choice. The weatherman is just anticipating and not prognosticating.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> I thought Jesus took care of that?


Jesus is the choice that people have to accept or deny. If they accept Him and want to be with Him, then there will be a day when they will be with Him forever and there will be no more pain, tears, disease, death, etc. But if they deny Him, God will let them be without Him for eternity, but they won't like it.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> That's like saying because the weather man knew rain was coming before it came he caused it to come. And that's not very logical...



He doesn't KNOW it's going to rain just as your mom doesn't KNOW that you're gonna choose ice cream over broccoli, or whatever illustration fits apologetic argument.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> Jesus is the choice that people have to accept or deny. If they accept Him and want to be with Him, then there will be a day when they will be with Him forever and there will be no more pain, tears, disease, death, etc. But if they deny Him, God will let them be without Him for eternity, but they won't like it.



Because he loves them sooo much... I love my daughter but if I see her about to gravely endanger herself I'm not going let her do it because I want her to have a choice.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> That's like saying because the weather man knew rain was coming before it came he caused it to come. And that's not very logical...



It would be, if the weatherman created the weather as well as forecast it. Seeing as how he doesn't, your argument holds no water. 

God built a very complex Rube Goldberg machine in humans, he knows what they're going to do, it seems unfair to punish someone for doing something that you created them to do, knowing the whole time that they were going to do it. 

A pair of pair of ducks?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> Jesus is the choice that people have to accept or deny. If they accept Him and want to be with Him, then there will be a day when they will be with Him forever and there will be no more pain, tears, disease, death, etc. But if they deny Him, God will let them be without Him for eternity, but they won't like it.



So God doesn't leave anything up to chance, choice, or randomness in universal laws, creation, etc. but does leave human action up to chance, choice, and randomness?
What about the action of other  animals, plants, natural disasters?
Where is the logic in thinking God controls who gets Ebola but the person controls placing himself in an area to get Ebola?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> Jesus as God is omniscient, but as the humbled Son limits His access to that knowledge. It's like having a million dollars in the bank but living off of one hundred because you won't allow  yourself to use the rest of your money. The Holy Spirit has to limit Himself too, because if He did not limit Himself in His mercy He would consume everything in righteous judgment.
> 
> As in logic not being eternal? You try that and tell me how you resolve contradictions being true and not true at the same time in the same sense before the law of non-contradiction appears.



My answer is to use faith and not logic. Being left handed it's even harder as we like to use logic.

How did Jesus as the humbled Son prophesy or heal? He turned off his own  omniscience and used Gods? Perhaps Jesus wasn't God and did everything through the power of his Father. Wouldn't that be more logical? Especially since that's what he said he did.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> In an atheistic worldview, the universe itself is governed by chance. In the biblical worldview, God upholds the universe in an orderly way. The universe is not a conscious entity and cannot make a choice. Humans can make choices. Furthermore, God does influence people's choices from time to time, but usually in the form of making they decision they already made more stubborn so He can demonstrate the error of their choice.





> Furthermore, God does influence people's choices from time to time, but usually in the form of making they decision they already made more stubborn so He can demonstrate the error of their choice


Give us some examples OUTSIDE OF THE BIBLE of people who don't believe in the Christian God or believe in a different God(s) that had the Christian God influence their choices.
You stated it as a universal fact so surely you have some examples right?
And before you start with your answer, remember that "can" does not equal "does".


----------



## Bassquatch328

Artfuldodger said:


> My answer is to use faith and not logic. Being left handed it's even harder as we like to use logic.
> 
> How did Jesus as the humbled Son prophesy or heal? He turned off his own  omniscience and used Gods? Perhaps Jesus wasn't God and did everything through the power of his Father. Wouldn't that be more logical? Especially since that's what he said he did.


Jesus did use the Father's power, but He is still God. Have you not read where He said, "I and the Father are one." Or what about Hebrews 1?


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> Because he loves them sooo much... I love my daughter but if I see her about to gravely endanger herself I'm not going let her do it because I want her to have a choice.


I assume your daughter's danger is so grave that you have no power to save her after the fact, whereas God does have such power (I'm speaking in regard to original sin).


----------



## Bassquatch328

gemcgrew said:


> I presuppose that my senses are unreliable.


If that were the case then there would be no point in even typing anything on the computer you are not sure exists. If you presupposed your senses were unreliable, you probably wouldn't do anything, especially considering you wouldn't know you were even an animate object. 


gemcgrew said:


> I assume that? How do you know this? Show it.


Because your behavior in inconsistent with the alternative. 


gemcgrew said:


> This does not apply to me.


I wasn't saying it did, but I was simply addressing a different view. 



> This does not apply to me. I have a Biblical worldview.


Evidently your worldview is not consistent with the Bible. Because the Bible being true would give us reason to assume our senses are reliable, and your worldview is apparently not to trust your senses (even though you presuppose their reliability in behavior). 


> How is it "still nearly impossible to trick two or more senses at once"? Show it.


Take a mirage for example. Your eyes tell you something is there, but the mirage does not trick your sense of touch, taste, or hearing. Or a trick cake. Your eyes say it is cake, but you know after feeling it or tasting it that it is cardboard.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

I'd still like to hear your take on omniscience in the face of free will. Either A) God knows what we're going to do the whole time, so we can't make any other choice, or B) God isn't omniscient. 

I'm sure you see an option C, so please, if you will...


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Jesus did use the Father's power, but He is still God. Have you not read where He said, "I and the Father are one." Or what about Hebrews 1?


Apply logic to that statement and tell us what you come up with.


----------



## Bassquatch328

drippin' rock said:


> Why would god make your senses imperfect?


 God did not make them "imperfect", but "very good." However, it does not negate the fact that humans, as finite beings, are not perfect in the sense that they cannot be mistaken. Furthermore, sensory damage has taken place since the fall. Yet, again, it is still nearly impossible to trick two or more senses at once. How do you account for the reliability of the senses in your worldview?


> I know things I can touch exist, because I can TOUCH them.


Arbitrary circular reasoning. You know your sense of touch is reliable because you can touch things? Circular reasoning here is unavoidable, but your conclusion following the premise does not rationally justify the premise.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'd still like to hear your take on omniscience in the face of free will. Either A) God knows what we're going to do the whole time, so we can't make any other choice, or B) God isn't omniscient.
> 
> I'm sure you see an option C, so please, if you will...


It would be closer to option A. God knows what we will do before it happens, and also what we would do in a different situation. So, yes, it is inevitable that the choices we make are made. But that does not mean that anyone but ourselves makes the choice.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> Jesus did use the Father's power, but He is still God. Have you not read where He said, "I and the Father are one." Or what about Hebrews 1?



I and my biological human father are one. If you have seen my father you have seen me. 

Hebrews 1:1
In these last days he has spoken to us through his Son. God made his Son responsible for everything. His Son is the one through whom God made the universe.

I don't really think that is saying Jesus created the universe. God created the universe for Jesus.

Colossians 1:16 might explain it better:

For in Him was created the universe of things in heaven and on earth, things seen and things unseen, thrones, dominions, princedoms, powers--all were created, and exist through and for Him.

Now the bigger question as it pertains to choice & chance is;
if everything was created for Jesus either by God or himself to include unseen things and powers,
where is the logic of choice?


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> He must not deer hunt. I cant count how many times Ive heard movement in the leaves and said that sounds exactly like a deer walking, then saw movement to go along with the walking sounds and said "oh yeah that's a deer".
> Nope just another darn squirrel.


But you never saw the deer. You just made an incorrect guess. To fit the case I am referring to, you would have to actually see, smell, hear, physically touch, and taste the deer and it not be a deer for your senses to be tricked.


----------



## 660griz

RED Say the color of the text.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> It would be closer to option A. God knows what we will do before it happens, and also what we would do in a different situation. So, yes, it is inevitable that the choices we make are made. But that does not mean that anyone but ourselves makes the choice.



Is it really a choice if all options are already played out and you can only make those that God allows you to make? 

Say you have a choice when confronted with a fire. 

You can only do:
A) Run
B) Fight the fire with a tablecloth and die in it. 
C) Call 911. 

There are tons of other options that you _could_ do, universally speaking; but God only allows those 3 options. Is it really a choice?


----------



## 660griz

> But that does not mean that anyone but ourselves makes the choice.


So, God gives us the choice of heaven or he(double hockey sticks)
 Kind of like an ultimatum, which is not REALLY a choice. 
What about? C) None of the above.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> I assume your daughter's danger is so grave that you have no power to save her after the fact, whereas God does have such power (I'm speaking in regard to original sin).




I would do everything in my power to protect her.  You more so make my point for me.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> But you never saw the deer. You just made an incorrect guess. To fit the case I am referring to, you would have to actually see, smell, hear, physically touch, and taste the deer and it not be a deer for your senses to be tricked.


You are getting closer to my point. 
And what was my guess based on? My senses of hearing and sight. Senses don't hear and see on their own. If you sense a deer and it was a squirrel your sense was wrong. My senses didn't tell me it was a squirrel and I just decided to think it was a deer. Your senses don't exist without your brain. Your brain determines what you are sensing. If your brain got tricked so did your senses.
Your example guarantees only one outcome. Convenient for your argument, yes. Reality, no.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> Not any religion, and certainly not the one you used. Are there other religions where their  god is omni-etc.? Yes. Are they consistent? No. Is the Bible? Yes.



Now there's a pretty big assertion.  Lets deal with that one for a while.



Bassquatch328 said:


> Hinduism can't work because it asserts that all is illusion, so no logic, senses, etc. and the search for knowledge has failed. Islam can't do it because the Koran says you can't trust Allah, so no good senses or logic, and puts Jesus in two places at once while denying His deity (no law of non-contradiction), and Allah is unjust because he says he can't tolerate sin but lets people into Paradise without getting rid of it.



I can make up my own idea of a god.  I don't have to use any of the ready made historical ones.  You can too and as it turns out you do.  You make the things he does fit into your idea of what he is like.  Your first argument shouldn't have been that the god of the Bible satisfies such and such criteria.  It should have been "This is why the Bible is true".




Bassquatch328 said:


> Jesus as God is omniscient, but as the humbled Son limits His access to that knowledge. It's like having a million dollars in the bank but living off of one hundred because you won't allow  yourself to use the rest of your money. The Holy Spirit has to limit Himself too, because if He did not limit Himself in His mercy He would consume everything in righteous judgment.



Changing the narrative again.  Sorry, I'm just going with what it says in the book. Who would have thought that it would be so confusing?




Bassquatch328 said:


> As in logic not being eternal? You try that and tell me how you resolve contradictions being true and not true at the same time in the same sense before the law of non-contradiction appears.




Is logic a construct?  Is math a construct?  Would you say that they are ways that we have come up with to describe what we observe in the natural world?  Do we how things operate outside of the word that we know about?  Does logic and math work the same in the realm of the supernatural?  How does the law of non-contradiction apply to god?

When we get to the point where god works outside of logic, won't it seen silly that you are trying to use logic to justify his existence?


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> It would be closer to option A. God knows what we will do before it happens, and also what we would do in a different situation. So, yes, it is inevitable that the choices we make are made. But that does not mean that anyone but ourselves makes the choice.




You are the author of confusion.


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80;8836271
Is logic a construct?  Is math a construct?  Would you say that they are ways that we have come up with to describe what we observe in the natural world?  Do we how things operate outside of the word that we know about?  Does logic and math work the same in the realm of the supernatural?  How does the law of non-contradiction apply to god?

When we get to the point where god works outside of logic said:
			
		

> Is logic a construct? No. Logic is defined as the correct line of reasoning and thinking. How does one correctly invent logic if would could not correctly reason before logic's existence. You also have the problem with the law of non-contradiction and logic both existing and not existing before it was both invented and not invented. Math is a secondary form of logic, so it's in the same boat. Also, if math was a construct, it would be unreasonable to believe humans could "discover" mathematical truths such as the Mandlebrot Set (which humans could not calculate without the aid of computers). Math also goes on infinitely, so it is unreasonable to assume finite humans could invent it.
> The law of non-contradiction stems from God's nature. The Bible says God cannot deny Himself.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> Is logic a construct? No. Logic is defined as the correct line of reasoning and thinking. How does one correctly invent logic if would could not correctly reason before logic's existence. You also have the problem with the law of non-contradiction and logic both existing and not existing before it was both invented and not invented. Math is a secondary form of logic, so it's in the same boat. Also, if math was a construct, it would be unreasonable to believe humans could "discover" mathematical truths such as the Mandlebrot Set (which humans could not calculate without the aid of computers). Math also goes on infinitely, so it is unreasonable to assume finite humans could invent it.
> The law of non-contradiction stems from God's nature. The Bible says God cannot deny Himself.



Errrrnt.



> log·ic
> noun \Ëˆlä-jik\
> 
> : a proper or reasonable way of thinking about or understanding something
> 
> : a particular way of thinking about something
> 
> : the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning
> Full Definition of LOGIC
> 1
> a (1) :  a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration :  the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) :  a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3) :  a branch of semiotics; especially :  syntactics (4) :  the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
> b (1) :  a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) :  relevance, propriety
> c :  interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable
> d :  the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also :  the circuits themselves
> 2
> :  something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war>
> — lo·gi·cian noun
> See logic defined for English-language learners »
> See logic defined for kids »



Show me in there where it says that logic is solely concerned with what is accurate? 

You can use logic properly and still come to the wrong conclusions. As evidenced by these threads.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> Is logic a construct? No. Logic is defined as the correct line of reasoning and thinking. How does one correctly invent logic if would could not correctly reason before logic's existence. You also have the problem with the law of non-contradiction and logic both existing and not existing before it was both invented and not invented. Math is a secondary form of logic, so it's in the same boat. Also, if math was a construct, it would be unreasonable to believe humans could "discover" mathematical truths such as the Mandlebrot Set (which humans could not calculate without the aid of computers). Math also goes on infinitely, so it is unreasonable to assume finite humans could invent it.
> The law of non-contradiction stems from God's nature. The Bible says God cannot deny Himself.



Someone observed that if one does "this" then "that" happens.

It's a science used to describe the natural laws that we observe. 

Your cart is before your horse.  I'm tired of you assuming that god exists and insisting that the rest of us do as well in order to discuss things.  First you have to Make the argument that the Universe and all the natural law within couldn't exist without a prime mover.  Willard anyone?


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> You can use logic properly and still come to the wrong conclusions. As evidenced by these threads.
> 
> 
> 
> He just doesn't see that you can take something that is completely unproven and go from there using logic correctly and that in the end it still remains completely unproven.
> Its as though he thinks the ability to use logic confirms that the original premise was true or a fact.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Errrrnt.
> Show me in there where it says that logic is solely concerned with what is accurate?


"a *proper or reasonable* way of thinking about or understanding something"
"a science that deals with the principles and criteria of *validity* of inference and demonstration"
"the formal principles of a branch of knowledge" knowledge being philosophically defined as *true, justified* belief.
Any way you look at it, logic is concerned differentiating between correct reasoning and faulty reasoning.


> You can use logic properly and still come to the wrong conclusions. As evidenced by these threads.


Formally speaking, you cannot have proper logic and be wrong. You can have valid logic (the conclusion follows from the premise), but if it is wrong it is not sound logic because of either a faulty premise, invalidity, a logical fallacy, etc. "Valid" and "sound" have very specific formal meanings. 
An example of both valid and sound:
a) If the light is on, it is not off.
b) The light is on.
c) Therefore, the light is not off.

An example of valid, but not sound.
a) If grass is green, then trees are blue.
b) Grass is green.
c) Therefore, trees are blue.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> "a *proper or reasonable* way of thinking about or understanding something"
> "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of *validity* of inference and demonstration"
> "the formal principles of a branch of knowledge" knowledge being philosophically defined as *true, justified* belief.
> Any way you look at it, logic is concerned differentiating between correct reasoning and faulty reasoning.
> 
> Formally speaking, you cannot have proper logic and be wrong. You can have valid logic (the conclusion follows from the premise), but if it is wrong it is not sound logic because of either a faulty premise, invalidity, a logical fallacy, etc. "Valid" and "sound" have very specific formal meanings.
> An example of both valid and sound:
> a) If the light is on, it is not off.
> b) The light is on.
> c) Therefore, the light is not off.
> 
> An example of valid, but not sound.
> a) If grass is green, then trees are blue.
> b) Grass is green.
> c) Therefore, trees are blue.




If god exists then he can make a donkey talk
god exists
the donkey talked


Like that?


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> If god exists then he can make a donkey talk
> god exists
> the donkey talked
> 
> 
> Like that?


Actually your wording is a little off. The conclusion that something *did* happen does not follow the premise that something *can* happen. Try re-wording it as,
a)An omnipotent God can make a donkey talk if He chooses to do so
b) He chose to make the donkey talk
c) Therefore, the donkey talked.
What may be harder than explaining a talking donkey is explaining how pond scum came to life.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> "a *proper or reasonable* way of thinking about or understanding something"
> "a science that deals with the principles and criteria of *validity* of inference and demonstration"
> "the formal principles of a branch of knowledge" knowledge being philosophically defined as *true, justified* belief.
> Any way you look at it, logic is concerned differentiating between correct reasoning and faulty reasoning.
> 
> Formally speaking, you cannot have proper logic and be wrong. You can have valid logic (the conclusion follows from the premise), but if it is wrong it is not sound logic because of either a faulty premise, invalidity, a logical fallacy, etc. "Valid" and "sound" have very specific formal meanings.
> An example of both valid and sound:
> a) If the light is on, it is not off.
> b) The light is on.
> c) Therefore, the light is not off.
> 
> An example of valid, but not sound.
> a) If grass is green, then trees are blue.
> b) Grass is green.
> c) Therefore, trees are blue.



So you do recognize the distinction. 

You just choose to override your logic and say that God is real. You have no proof of either side of the argument other than a single book. I have a single book that says that Luke Skywalker is real. Does that make him real?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> He just doesn't see that you can take something that is completely unproven and go from there using logic correctly and that in the end it still remains completely unproven.
> Its as though he thinks the ability to use logic confirms that the original premise was true or a fact.



I agree. I don't fault him for it, many a person has fallen into this trap about a great many things. 

That's why the distinction between provable and logical is so important.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/

Another example of proper logic used to come to faulty conclusions. 

A) Pot impairs the senses.
B) Impaired people are more likely to cause accidents.
C) We should keep pot illegal. 

Except that they've allowed pot AND traffic accidents have gone down, not up as logic would have led you to believe.


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> Can you stay up longer on the weekends?
> Sorry I just had to say it...


No, I wasn't going to bed. But I do relate better to the generation that grew up in the 60's and 70's, so I left to watch Hogan's Heroes and Welcome Back, Kotter with my family.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> No, I wasn't going to bed. But I do relate better to the generation that grew up in the 60's and 70's, so I left to watch Hogan's Heroes and Welcome Back, Kotter with my family.



Don't forget Get Smart.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Walt, my notifications are showing that you said,


> Your second example is not valid or sound.
> By what valid logic does the color of grass determine the color of trees?


You missed the point completely, but I can't find this post on the forum. Did you read it again and get the point and delete it, or can I just not find it?


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Don't forget Get Smart.


You kiddin'? Get Smart comes on at 10:00, and that is past my weeknight bed time.
But on SATURDAY NIGHT... 10:00 is time to watch Mollie B.'s Polka Party on RFDTV and laugh at the people dancing! I kinda want to get on there just to challenge one guy to a dance-off.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...lities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/
> 
> Another example of proper logic used to come to faulty conclusions.
> 
> A) Pot impairs the senses.
> B) Impaired people are more likely to cause accidents.
> C) We should keep pot illegal.
> 
> Except that they've allowed pot AND traffic accidents have gone down, not up as logic would have led you to believe.


That seems to be a little different. It is often hard to determine clear-cut causality from statistics and trends.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> You kiddin'? Get Smart comes on at *10:00, and that is past my weeknight bed time.*
> But on SATURDAY NIGHT... 10:00 is time to watch Mollie B.'s Polka Party on RFDTV and laugh at the people dancing! I kinda want to get on there just to challenge one guy to a dance-off.



Now I have to know, how old are you? Due to my birthday I was 18, almost 19, when I graduated so I imagine an older high schooler.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> That seems to be a little different. It is often hard to determine clear-cut causality from statistics and trends.



But you can accurately derive God from one book? C'mon man.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I agree. I don't fault him for it, many a person has fallen into this trap about a great many things.
> 
> That's why the distinction between provable and logical is so important.


Agreed.
Although insisting on ignoring it over and over is a little irritating considering statements like these -


> So feel free to do a basic study of logic before posting


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Now I have to know, how old are you? Due to my birthday I was 18, almost 19, when I graduated so I imagine an older high schooler.


16, about to be 17. I am a senior this year, but that's because with my birthday we were given the choice of going ahead and starting school and waiting. Waiting was recommended, but my parents opted to start me early. I won't say my class rank, but I will say it kinda demonstrates that waiting, despite the government's perfect and infallible track record of being right, wouldn't have done much good.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Walt, my notifications are showing that you said,
> 
> You missed the point completely, but I can't find this post on the forum. Did you read it again and get the point and delete it, or can I just not find it?


Yep deleted it. Broke my own rule and replied to it too fast without thinking my response through thoroughly enough.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> 16, about to be 17. I am a senior this year, but that's because with my birthday we were given the choice of going ahead and starting school and waiting. Waiting was recommended, but my parents opted to start me early. I won't say my class rank, but I will say it kinda demonstrates that waiting, despite the government's perfect and infallible track record of being right, wouldn't have done much good.



Congrats.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Also, kudos are due for you being here and going toe to toe with us at such a tender age. 

The crucible of belief is challenge, IMO, and you're challenging yours. Bravo.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR,
Thanks.
Walt, just making sure.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Also, kudos are due for you being here and going toe to toe with us at such a tender age.
> 
> The crucible of belief is challenge, IMO, and you're challenging yours. Bravo.



I agree. You are to be commended.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> Actually your wording is a little off. The conclusion that something *did* happen does not follow the premise that something *can* happen. Try re-wording it as,
> a)An omnipotent God can make a donkey talk if He chooses to do so
> b) He chose to make the donkey talk
> c) Therefore, the donkey talked.
> What may be harder than explaining a talking donkey is explaining how pond scum came to life.



How can an omnipotent God make a choice? Wouldn't his choice change the way things were going to happen to happening a different way? 
Did the talking donkey have a choice not to talk?
Did Jesus have a choice not to die on the cross?

and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Why was God well pleased after his Son's baptism? Was God well pleased that his son decided to die for our sins?

John 5:19
Jesus therefore responded and said to them, 'Verily, verily, I say to you, The Son is not able to do anything of himself, if he may not see the Father doing anything; for whatever things He may do, these also the Son in like manner doth;


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by StripeRR HunteRR View Post
> Also, kudos are due for you being here and going toe to toe with us at such a tender age.
> The crucible of belief is challenge, IMO, and you're challenging yours. Bravo.





660griz said:


> I agree. You are to be commended.


Yep agreed.
Note that everybody is commending you for being here not for the quality of your arguments.
Sorry I just had to throw that in 
Oh wait, pretend that's root beer in those mugs


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> Yep agreed.
> Note that everybody is commending you for being here not for the quality of your arguments.
> Sorry I just had to throw that in
> Oh wait, pretend that's root beer in those mugs



He's the judge of the quality of his arguments, not us. Nor is he of ours. 

See Post #4.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He's the judge of the quality of his arguments, not us. Nor is he of ours.
> 
> See Post #4.


I figured he's got so many posts already its like he's been here for years so a little good natured ribbing wouln't be inappropriate.
At his his age I was still spelling my name wrong so I assure you (and him) Im not dissing him.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> I figured he's got so many posts already its like he's been here for years so a little good natured ribbing wouln't be inappropriate.
> At his his age I was still spelling my name wrong so I assure you (and him) Im not dissing him.



I know, just ribbing all around. 

I was so lost at his age I didn't know which end was up, and I mean that in nearly every aspect of my life. 

I could talk about science somewhat, I could tell you I knew how to chase girls, but that's about it.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> In an atheistic worldview, the universe itself is governed by chance. In the biblical worldview, God upholds the universe in an orderly way. The universe is not a conscious entity and cannot make a choice. Humans can make choices. Furthermore, God does influence people's choices from time to time, but usually in the form of making they decision they already made more stubborn so He can demonstrate the error of their choice.



This earth is pockmarked with asteroid strikes and the sun is burning out. Stars are imploding and black holes are swallowing matter.
Orderly?


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> This earth is pockmarked with asteroid strikes and the sun is burning out. Stars are imploding and black holes are swallowing matter.
> Orderly?


All of that would be the result of the curse. When Adam and Eve sinned and the curse was brought about, God withdrew some, but not all of His upholding protection. The laws of nature, etc. are still in place, and you can reasonably assume your truck won't turn into a giant mushroom next time you want to drive somewhere.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> All of that would be the result of the curse. When Adam and Eve sinned and the curse was brought about, God withdrew some, but not all of His upholding protection. The laws of nature, etc. are still in place, and you can reasonably assume your truck won't turn into a giant mushroom next time you want to drive somewhere.



Ok, so let's go back to the stars burning out. 

With God in the picture, and protecting them, they would burn forever if we hadn't sinned???


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> All of that would be the result of the curse. When Adam and Eve sinned and the curse was brought about, God withdrew some, but not all of His upholding protection. The laws of nature, etc. are still in place, and you can reasonably assume your truck won't turn into a giant mushroom next time you want to drive somewhere.



What did Jesus die for then if we keep going back to Adam?


----------



## Bassquatch328

bullethead said:


> This earth is pockmarked with asteroid strikes and the sun is burning out. Stars are imploding and black holes are swallowing matter.
> Orderly?


All of that would be the result of the curse. When Adam and Eve sinned and the curse was brought about, God withdrew some, but not all of His upholding protection. The laws of nature, etc. are still in place, and you can reasonably assume your truck won't turn into a giant mushroom next time you want to drive somewhere.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> All of that would be the result of the curse. When Adam and Eve sinned and the curse was brought about, God withdrew some, but not all of His upholding protection. The laws of nature, etc. are still in place, and you can reasonably assume your truck won't turn into a giant mushroom next time you want to drive somewhere.



I think we burned the young man out.


----------



## JB0704

Bassquatch328 said:


> 16, about to be 17. I am a senior this year, but that's because with my birthday we were given the choice of going ahead and starting school and waiting. Waiting was recommended, but my parents opted to start me early. I won't say my class rank, but I will say it kinda demonstrates that waiting, despite the government's perfect and infallible track record of being right, wouldn't have done much good.



I was 16 the first half of my senior year.  My birthday was in December, and, apparently back then you could start kindergarten at 4  

I will say my class rank.....I graduated 5th from the bottom   But, all I cared about then was baseball and girls.  I figured out that all I really had to do to pass any class was ace my tests, quizzes and finals.  So, I never did homework.  My GPA was awful (72.3). 

I did a lot better in college.


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I think we burned the young man out.



Yeah
I am glad he is so enthused about his beliefs but I have had enough of the creationist/fundamentalist "facts".


----------



## StriperrHunterr

bullethead said:


> Yeah
> I am glad he is so enthused about his beliefs but I have had enough of the creationist/fundamentalist "facts".



He wants to be challenged, so we're challenging them. They don't hold up under light of day, you know it, I know it, most Christians know it, he just hasn't caught up yet. He might not ever catch up, and that's ok, but I think giving up on him today is doing so too soon.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I was 16 the first half of my senior year.  My birthday was in December, and, apparently back then you could start kindergarten at 4
> 
> I will say my class rank.....I graduated 5th from the bottom   But, all I cared about then was baseball and girls.  I figured out that all I really had to do to pass any class was ace my tests, quizzes and finals.  So, I never did homework.  My GPA was awful (72.3).
> 
> I did a lot better in college.





> I graduated 5th from the bottom


You did better than me.


> I did a lot better in college


Me too. We would buy liquor and beer on base for cheap and then go over to the college and get the college girls drunk. I did GREAT in college


----------



## bullethead

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> He wants to be challenged, so we're challenging them. They don't hold up under light of day, you know it, I know it, most Christians know it, he just hasn't caught up yet. He might not ever catch up, and that's ok, but I think giving up on him today is doing so too soon.



He doesn't understand that I was a devoted Christian. I read ALL the Creation/Intelligent design sites. I read the extreme Christian fundamentalist stuff. I read the Bible cover to cover 4 times and referenced it a couple hundred thousand times. I study it to this day. I have talked to Priests, Pastors, Deacons, Clergy and highly dedicated religious people of many denominations and a few different religions.
In my quest to find the truth..to Prove, not disprove a God, I have come across information that contradicted what the Bible tells me and what I have always been led to believe. The more I researched these things, the more I found out the Bible did not add up. It took me YEARS to even admit I was thinking "badly" about even questioning the Bible or God or Jesus. I set out to champion there existence.
Once I learned about the history of religion...as many as I dared to research religions...and studied the History of ancient times and studied the science behind the Earth and stars and Universe I found less and less evidence for a God.

To say I have been there and done that is an understatement. I hoped for a decent conversation here and it kind of was for a bit until every single answer came from creationist/fundamentalist  sites that I have already checked into and have debunked myself by checking their assertions against facts.
He has not brought up a single thing that I have not heard and discussed a hundred times already.
Maybe today I am just a little cranky. Maybe today I realized he was just like me at ages 16/17 and know that right now there is nothing I, you or anyone can say that is going to make him think against what he is SURE is true RIGHT NOW. If he is as smart as he leads us to believe he will check every source available to him, Pro,Con,Nonsensical and everything in between over the next 20+ years and make an informed decision about where he wants to be in his beliefs.
I really can't do anything for him right now or say anything that I have not said already.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Me too. We would buy liquor and beer on base for cheap and then go over to the college and get the college girls drunk. I did GREAT in college


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Ok, so let's go back to the stars burning out.
> 
> With God in the picture, and protecting them, they would burn forever if we hadn't sinned???


I'm not well informed enough to answer that question. Since God created them, He would certainly be able to steadily supply them with fuel, if He did it in a way that matter and energy were changed but not created. He could create new stars, but that poses a similar problem. In the New Creation, there won't be a sun or moon or stars, so that may be a factor into the question. Ultimately, "what if we hadn't sinned questions" always yield uncertain and hypothetical answers.


----------



## gemcgrew

Bassquatch328 said:


> If that were the case then there would be no point in even typing anything on the computer you are not sure exists.


How do you know that I typed anything on the computer? By sensation? Maybe I used voice recognition on my smart phone. Maybe I went to bed earlier and my wife decided to join the conversation under my user name. Maybe I am having a dream and have yet to wake up. Maybe you are dreaming.


Bassquatch328 said:


> If you presupposed your senses were unreliable, you probably wouldn't do anything, especially considering you wouldn't know you were even an animate object.


Probably? 
I am doing something and I do presuppose my senses are unreliable.


Bassquatch328 said:


> Because your behavior in inconsistent with the alternative.


Again, how would you know this? By sensation? 


Bassquatch328 said:


> Evidently your worldview is not consistent with the Bible.


See post # 229


Bassquatch328 said:


> Because the Bible being true would give us reason to assume our senses are reliable, and your worldview is apparently not to trust your senses (even though you presuppose their reliability in behavior).


Assume?  


Bassquatch328 said:


> Take a mirage for example. Your eyes tell you something is there, but the mirage does not trick your sense of touch, taste, or hearing. Or a trick cake. Your eyes say it is cake, but you know after feeling it or tasting it that it is cardboard.


What if it also feels and taste like cake, but is cardboard, what then?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm not well informed enough to answer that question. Since God created them, He would certainly be able to steadily supply them with fuel, if He did it in a way that matter and energy were changed but not created. He could create new stars, but that poses a similar problem. In the New Creation, there won't be a sun or moon or stars, so that may be a factor into the question. Ultimately, "what if we hadn't sinned questions" always yield uncertain and hypothetical answers.



How do you view God's creation and science. I think of God as "The Great Scientist." He used science to make the universe, energy, and the laws of science.
Some just say man made science to explain God's ways. Is science real and why did God use it? Why didn't he create life without science? An example would be making the human body without systems, genetics, etc. We would just be.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch
If everything is going as God has planned then we must assume God created Adam knowing he would fail, the whole Old Testament was to prove to man we needed a Messiah, Jesus would come and do the will of God without the choice to fail, and most importantly in God's plan, Jesus will return when he is supposed to according to God's plan.
Why would God leave the fate of the Earth in man's hand to destroy the earth with nuclear weapons or any other means? If man has free will, he could easily destroy the earth before God gets to.
I myself do believe in Limited Freewill and was hoping you as a newcomer would be able to help me use logic to fully understand my dilemma. Which is figuring out what God controls, what I control, what Satan controls, and what is just a random act.
You seem to be avoiding answering my questions regarding freewill and/or predestination. From what you have answered I would assume you believe God controls every action but the action of humans. He knows what the actions of humans will be, but he doesn't control them. What kind of logic do you use to figure out what choice you have in choosing to wear your green shirt or your red shirt if God knew before time that you would choose your red shirt?
Now if you can justify the time warp issue in God knowing before time what we will choose, why can't you understand the time warp issue of God creating the universe through Jesus before Jesus came? Time warp issue meaning God doesn't operate in the same concept of time that we operate in. 
You haven't attempted to use any logic to answer most of my questions regarding "if everything is happening according to God's plan." God has predicted exactly what will happen in the Bible. He has controlled the actions of Pharaoh, Job, Jesus, Judas and others. 
The Bible is full of prophesy and predictions. God made Esau to serve Jacob. We are talking about God. He's the entity in control. He didn't just know Esau would serve Jacob, he willed it to happen.
The whole Bible is full of and based on fulfilling prophesy. Especially of the Messiah. Especially of said Messiah coming again when God has predetermined.
Do you really believe God is going to give man the ability to mess up his plan?
Is there anything in the Bible where God says "I've got this plan "A" all laid out. If man through his choice changes it, I'll go to plan "B." I already know man will change my plan "A" so therefore I've implemented plan "B."
Jesus being a man who has given up his powers to be a man and die on a cross  to save mankind from sin is part of my plan "A." I've already looked into the future and know that Jesus will go through with my plan "A." I am well pleased he's going through with it.
God seeing that Jesus will do as willed has noticed that man won't. He will end the earth before my plan, thus even though I'm God, I have had to change my plan to accommodate man's choice. I've got to send Jesus back earlier than in my plan "A."
Can you really see God changing his plan to accommodate us? I can't.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Let me ask this of all Christians and former believers who might have input. Realizing first that God doesn't operate in time or view time as we do.
If God looked into the future before creation and knew that he would need to send Jesus, why is it hard to see that the Universe was created through Jesus and not actually created by Jesus? Why is it hard to understand that the Word was with God is this same concept? Word meaning Logos meaning conception. 
The conception was with God in the beginning because God fore knew.
Logos:  the prophetic promise was with God. 
The universe was created through Jesus not by Jesus. The promise was with God at creation.

I'm having trouble understanding why this is hard for others to see but not that God knew before hand man would sin and he WOULD be sending his Son. This is the Logos or conception or promise from the beginning of time. Everything in the Universe is built around this Logos. Yet most can't comprehend what God knew and told us in his written Word. Yet they have no trouble understanding this same concept of God knowing our future choices.

If God had said "every  one of you were with me at creation as the Universe was created with the logos of your existence," and I knew you from before time, most wouldn't assume we were with God at creation. 
We would just assume he was talking of his knowledge of our future existence. Yet with Jesus most assume he was physically or spiritually present at creation or that he actually performed the creation.


----------



## bullethead

Artfuldodger said:


> Let me ask this of all Christians and former believers who might have input. Realizing first that God doesn't operate in time or view time as we do.
> If God can look into the future and know that he will need to send Jesus, why is it hard to see that the Universe was created through Jesus? Why is it hard to understand that the Word was with God is this same concept? Word meaning Logos meaning conception.
> The conception was with God in the beginning because God fore knew.
> Logos:  the prophetic promise was with God.
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding why this is hard for others to see but not that God knew before hand man would sin and he WOULD be sending his Son. This is the Logos or conception or promise from the beginning of time. Everything in the Universe is built around this Logos. Yet most can't comprehend what God knew and told us in his written Word. Yet they have no trouble understanding this same concept of God knowing our future choices.



The Bible is full of God changing his mind, displeased with his creation and killing and restarting over so a different outcome will happen, and Biblical verses stating that there are things he does not know and cannot see.
It just doesn't add up to a God that can see the future or know the future.


----------



## 660griz

Is it just me, or does something strange occur when a seemingly intelligent conversation starts containing words like 'curse'?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm not well informed enough to answer that question. Since God created them, He would certainly be able to steadily supply them with fuel, if He did it in a way that matter and energy were changed but not created. He could create new stars, but that poses a similar problem. In the New Creation, there won't be a sun or moon or stars, so that may be a factor into the question. Ultimately, "what if we hadn't sinned questions" always yield uncertain and hypothetical answers.



1) New stars are created every day. We've witnessed it. 

2) You don't know enough about it, but you can say that he would "certainly" be able to supply them with more fuel. Don't know and certainly are not synonymous. 

3) So New Creation says that there is nothing but the earth?

You still don't see the connection I'm trying to show you?

You can't speculate with any certainty about a world with no sin, but you have no problem speculating about God, and erroneously calling it factual, based on one book. 

Sound, and correct, logic says that if the one book isn't enough for you to speculate about those things on, and be accurate, then it is also not enough for you to speculate about the actual existence of God. That's not to say that you can't still believe despite all of that, just that you're being dishonest, at least with yourself, about the ability to know, for certain, about anything sourced from the Bible.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Is it just me, or does something strange occur when a seemingly intelligent conversation starts containing words like 'curse'?



I use curse words all the time. Doesn't mean I'm not intelligent.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Artfuldodger said:


> Let me ask this of all Christians and former believers who might have input. Realizing first that God doesn't operate in time or view time as we do.
> If God looked into the future before creation and knew that he would need to send Jesus, why is it hard to see that the Universe was created through Jesus and not actually created by Jesus? Why is it hard to understand that the Word was with God is this same concept? Word meaning Logos meaning conception.
> The conception was with God in the beginning because God fore knew.
> Logos:  the prophetic promise was with God.
> The universe was created through Jesus not by Jesus. The promise was with God at creation.
> 
> I'm having trouble understanding why this is hard for others to see but not that God knew before hand man would sin and he WOULD be sending his Son. This is the Logos or conception or promise from the beginning of time. Everything in the Universe is built around this Logos. Yet most can't comprehend what God knew and told us in his written Word. Yet they have no trouble understanding this same concept of God knowing our future choices.
> 
> If God had said "every  one of you were with me at creation as the Universe was created with the logos of your existence," and I knew you from before time, most wouldn't assume we were with God at creation.
> We would just assume he was talking of his knowledge of our future existence. Yet with Jesus most assume he was physically or spiritually present at creation or that he actually performed the creation.



Because there's an entire universe of a gap between what _could_ be, and what is. 

Just because something is possible is not proof of anything, in other words


----------



## Terminal Idiot

Bassquatch328 said:


> 1) Noah didn't need polar bears, he needed members of the bear kind. Any bears at all. Bears tend to eat a large amount of vegetation.
> 3) Based on the biblical "kind", only 2000-3000 animals total were needed, with a generous maximum of 16,000. That still leaves plenty of room for food, supplies, and taking care of waste..



As per usual, I am way too slow on the reading/responding to a thread, so forgive me if this is addressed already in a post I haven't got to yet. It seems I am the only guy with a job and kids. I don't know how you all keep it moving along so steadily.

At any rate. Can you explain this to me? If there only needed to be a "kind" of bear, where did all the other variants of bears come from after the flood? I find it hard to imagine that all the creatures we have now came from only 2 or 3 thousand animals. Wouldn't that imply some sort of evolution? Which, according to many/most Christians, doesn't happen? Furthermore, why make an ark at all? Why not just start from scratch? Put Noah on a 30 foot crestliner and call it a day. What am I missing here?


----------



## Terminal Idiot

Bassquatch328 said:


> What may be harder than explaining a talking donkey is explaining how pond scum came to life.



I really, really disagree with this. Do you reasonably believe (I know that you do, this is rhetorical) that it is easier to believe that pond scum is more difficult to come from nothing than an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful god that can poof stuff into being? It seems way easier that a single cell organism would find it's way into being than a super complex god. I understand that you probably think that god has always been. No beginning and no end. But, on this one, I would have to go with "the less complex answer is probably the correct one". 

Any chance you saw the series 'Cosmos' that was recently hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson? He explains this point of view better than I ever could.


----------



## drippin' rock

Terminal Idiot said:


> As per usual, I am way too slow on the reading/responding to a thread, so forgive me if this is addressed already in a post I haven't got to yet. It seems I am the only guy with a job and kids. I don't know how you all keep it moving along so steadily.
> 
> At any rate. Can you explain this to me? If there only needed to be a "kind" of bear, where did all the other variants of bears come from after the flood? I find it hard to imagine that all the creatures we have now came from only 2 or 3 thousand animals. Wouldn't that imply some sort of evolution? Which, according to many/most Christians, doesn't happen? Furthermore, why make an ark at all? Why not just start from scratch? Put Noah on a 30 foot crestliner and call it a day. What am I missing here?



Christians believe the Bible is the word of God.  Once they take the position that God penned the bible through man, they then have to make all the pieces fit, regardless how improbable the story.  If God made the universe, he surely can cover the earth with water and then make the water go away.

What leaves the rest of us scratching our heads is the WHY of it all.  Of course the only answer that ever works is God can do anything, who are we to question?


----------



## Dr. Strangelove

Disclaimer - I'm a heathen non-believer 

It boils down to this:

You believe - there is no way to prove it right or wrong.

You don't believe - there is no way to prove it right or wrong.

I personally don't care if you care to worship Mr. Whiskers the savior cat who healed the sick and the blind and rolled his own tombstone away after three days when he got super hungry for some tasty Tender Vittles chicken flavor catfood, (see an earlier thread about the religion of Mr. Whiskers the Cat) just don't try to force your beliefs on me.


----------



## drippin' rock

gemcgrew said:


> How do you know that I typed anything on the computer? By sensation? Maybe I used voice recognition on my smart phone. Maybe I went to bed earlier and my wife decided to join the conversation under my user name. Maybe I am having a dream and have yet to wake up. Maybe you are dreaming.
> 
> Probably?
> I am doing something and I do presuppose my senses are unreliable.
> Again, how would you know this? By sensation?
> 
> See post # 229
> 
> Assume?
> 
> What if it also feels and taste like cake, but is cardboard, what then?



I asked this earlier, and I suppose my rudeness is why you didn't respond. I apologize.  In all sincerity, why do you take this stance with your senses?


----------



## gemcgrew

drippin' rock said:


> I asked this earlier, and I suppose my rudeness is why you didn't respond. I apologize.  In all sincerity, why do you take this stance with your senses?


Fine.

1) drippin' rock sensed he was rude in post #210.

2) gemcgrew sensed that drippin' rock was stupid in post #210.

3) The senses are reliable.

4) drippin' rock was rude and stupid in post #210.

Do you affirm that you were rude and stupid in post #210?

You do not need me to prove the unreliability of the senses. Identical twins will be happy to prove this to you...  time... after time... after time. It is not "nearly impossible" as proposed by Bassquatch328.


----------



## bullethead

gemcgrew said:


> Fine.
> 
> 1) drippin' rock sensed he was rude in post #210.
> 
> 2) gemcgrew sensed that drippin' rock was stupid in post #210.
> 
> 3) The senses are reliable.
> 
> 4) drippin' rock was rude and stupid in post #210.
> 
> Do you affirm that you were rude and stupid in post #210?
> 
> You do not need me to prove the unreliability of the senses. Identical twins will be happy to prove this to you...  time... after time... after time. It is not "nearly impossible" as proposed by Bassquatch328.



Totally uncalled for and no different than what you accused him of doing.


----------



## gemcgrew

bullethead said:


> Totally uncalled for and no different than what you accused him of doing.


Please present a logical argument showing that I accused him of doing anything.


----------



## WaltL1

> Originally Posted by Bassquatch328 View Post
> What may be harder than explaining a talking donkey is explaining how pond scum came to life.


Actually its not hard at all. The right combinations of chemicals and conditions produce pond scum (algea). Its not just there it gets produced. Not the right chemicals and conditions? No pond scum.


> Algae grow when they have the right conditions such as adequate nutrients (mostly phosphorus but nitrogen is important too), light levels, pH, temperature, etc. Generally the amount of phosphorus controls the amount of algae found in a freshwater lake or water body. The more nutrient-enriched a lake, typically the more algae in the lake.


See how easy that was?
Now, outside of the Bible, explain to us how a donkey talked. And not just talked but talked in the human language of the time so that it was understood.

And interestingly enough you now have an example of the right chemicals and conditions producing something that is alive. Algae is not alive you say? Well it changes, grows and has to be killed to get rid of it. Interesting huh?


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> 1) New stars are created every day. We've witnessed it.


That's a statement you would have trouble verifying or finding astrophysicists to agree with. In the secular model, no one can observe star birth even in principle because it takes long ages. We have seen stars in different stages of their life cycle, and scientists have seen what they suppose but cannot objectively confirm are the stages surrounding star birth, but no star birth has been witnessed by humans.



> 2) You don't know enough about it, but you can say that he would "certainly" be able to supply them with more fuel. Don't know and certainly are not synonymous.


Knowing what is hypothetically possible and knowing what certainly did happen or would happen are not equivalent.



> 3) So New Creation says that there is nothing but the earth?


"The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine in it..." (Rev. 21:23). After review, stars are not mentioned, but Genesis lists stars as having the same general purpose as the sun and moon (light, reference for seasons), so I see no reason why there would be need of stars if there is no need of a sun or moon. "Also, there was no more sea" (Rev. 21:1). 



> You can't speculate with any certainty about a world with no sin, but you have no problem speculating about God, and erroneously calling it factual, based on one book.


I would guess you can't speculate with any certainty about the name of that ruler two centuries from now that I've asked about, but you would have no problem speculating based on one book (a math book) about exponential growth and calling it factual. Math is a form of logic, so it's truth can be logically deduced. If logic stems from God's nature, it would follow that logic confirms His existence. Yet you have failed (granted, you haven't attempted) to present any non-biblical worldview that can account for logic's existence and properties. If you cannot justify how your worldview accounts for these things, you cannot reasonably reject anything.



> Sound, and correct, logic says that if the one book isn't enough for you to speculate about those things on, and be accurate, then it is also not enough for you to speculate about the actual existence of God. That's not to say that you can't still believe despite all of that, just that you're being dishonest, at least with yourself, about the ability to know, for certain, about anything sourced from the Bible.


"Those things"... What things are you referring to? What absolutely would be done rather than what hypothetically could be done in a situation that doesn't exist? Would you care to put your statement in a _modus tollens_ format (as in, "If blank, then blank... Blank... Therefore, blank")? In it's current format, it does not seem your argument is sound (and therefore not correct), but the format of modus tollens makes the format easier to examine, just to be sure.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> Actually its not hard at all. The right combinations of chemicals and conditions produce pond scum (algea). Its not just there it gets produced. Not the right chemicals and conditions? No pond scum.


That doesn't answer the problem. You explained how pond scum (in the sense of algae) reproduces, but the answer needed was how pond scum (which I should have clarified as non-living matter) gives rise to life on its own. In other words, abiogenesis.



> Now, outside of the Bible, explain to us how a donkey talked. And not just talked but talked in the human language of the time so that it was understood.


That's a bum question. To ask such a question is to essentially ask someone to be wrong through inconsistency. As in, "Explain how the Bible is true without assuming the Bible is true." Perhaps you would care to explain how it is absolutely impossible that the donkey talked using _nothing but_ the Bible. Explain how the Bible is false without assuming it is false.



> And interestingly enough you now have an example of the right chemicals and conditions producing something that is alive. Algae is not alive you say? Well it changes, grows and has to be killed to get rid of it. Interesting huh?


Actually, the example you gave was something that was already a living organism reproducing, not life arising from non-life by chance.


----------



## Bassquatch328

> You do not need me to prove the unreliability of the senses. Identical twins will be happy to prove this to you...  time... after time... after time. It is not "nearly impossible" as proposed by Bassquatch328.


Identical twins can be distinguished quite easily using the senses. Just get their prints.
However, if your senses are unreliable, as you assert, you would have no basis to behave as if the twins exist. You could not even know identical twins as a concept exist, yet you clearly behave as if there is such a thing as a pair of identical twins.
Let me be clear, the chronological order in which we form a belief and justify said belief is irrelevant to the issue. Children continue to believe that they are not going to float away long before that belief is justified when they learn of gravity. Likewise, it is impossible to justify the belief that senses are basically reliable before the belief is formed. Yet beliefs must be justified at some point. The belief that senses are basically reliable can be justified (but not by all explanations). However, the belief that senses are unreliable is self-defeating, as any attempt at justification implicitly assumes the contrary. If one were to consistently presuppose both in word and behavior that the senses are unreliable, then there is no reason to suppose senses are an existing entity at all. So then how could they be unreliable?


----------



## Bassquatch328

Terminal Idiot said:


> I really, really disagree with this. Do you reasonably believe (I know that you do, this is rhetorical) that it is easier to believe that pond scum is more difficult to come from nothing than an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful god that can poof stuff into being? It seems way easier that a single cell organism would find it's way into being than a super complex god. I understand that you probably think that god has always been. No beginning and no end. But, on this one, I would have to go with "the less complex answer is probably the correct one".
> 
> Any chance you saw the series 'Cosmos' that was recently hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson? He explains this point of view better than I ever could.


So it seems easier to believe that a cell can arise by random chance and evolve by random chance to greater complexity (save the rest of the universe in the equation) than to believe a Being with infinite power (omnipotent) has the power to do something? Occam's Razor does not seem to work in your favor.
Also, in _Cosmos_, Tyson made _historical errors_, save any other errors made. Tyson is a very intelligent and capable man in his field, but he does make errors as does anyone else.


----------



## Terminal Idiot

Bassquatch328 said:


> So it seems easier to believe that a cell can arise by random chance and evolve by random chance to greater complexity (save the rest of the universe in the equation) than to believe a Being with infinite power (omnipotent) has the power to do something? .



Sorry, but that's not what I said. I did not question the ability of a god to create something. I am sure that a god of your describing could create anything.

I am saying - which is more reasonable, a single cell organism coming from the "glop" that the early universe provided? Or an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful being who can poof stuff into existence? Oh, and he has been around forever. No beginning, no end. Just him. All alone for an eternity before we began.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> That doesn't answer the problem. You explained how pond scum (in the sense of algae) reproduces, but the answer needed was how pond scum (which I should have clarified as non-living matter) gives rise to life on its own. In other words, abiogenesis.
> 
> 
> That's a bum question. To ask such a question is to essentially ask someone to be wrong through inconsistency. As in, "Explain how the Bible is true without assuming the Bible is true." Perhaps you would care to explain how it is absolutely impossible that the donkey talked using _nothing but_ the Bible. Explain how the Bible is false without assuming it is false.
> 
> 
> Actually, the example you gave was something that was already a living organism reproducing, not life arising from non-life by chance.





> That doesn't answer the problem. You explained how pond scum (in the sense of algae) reproduces, but the answer needed was how pond scum (which I should have clarified as non-living matter) gives rise to life on its own. In other words, abiogenesis.


Can something that is nonliving reproduce?
Im assuming you know abiogenesis is a debunked theory. Maybe you assumed I didn't know.
As for the problem of where plant life originates, it hasn't been proven yet.
And some algae reproduces asexually. Maybe Noah grabbed one of those to save some room on the ark although that does bring up the whole issue of the two by two thing.


> That's a bum question. To ask such a question is to essentially ask someone to be wrong through inconsistency. As in, "Explain how the Bible is true without assuming the Bible is true." Perhaps you would care to explain how it is absolutely impossible that the donkey talked using _nothing but_ the Bible. Explain how the Bible is false without assuming it is false.


So would a correct translation of your answer be "nowhere outside of the Bible is a single shred of evidence supporting a donkeys ability to speak. In fact its been proven that a donkey cant speak but I don't want to say that because it opposes the Bible".?


> not life arising from non-life by chance


Define your usage life, non-life and chance.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> Can something that is nonliving reproduce?
> Im assuming you know abiogenesis is a debunked theory. Maybe you assumed I didn't know.
> As for the problem of where plant life originates, it hasn't been proven yet.


Then may I ask what position you hold? Most people who put any stock in secular evolution either assert that abiogenesis has not been disproven and that a failure to prove it thus far makes no difference, or that evolution deals strictly with life and not its origin (although secular evolution eventually must go back to abiogenesis at some point, to my knowledge). I'm not trying to tell you what you have said, but I was under the impression that you gave preference to one of a number of evolutionary worldviews. Who brought up plant life? 



> And some algae reproduces asexually. Maybe Noah grabbed one of those to save some room on the ark although that does bring up the whole issue of the two by two thing.


Well algae is neither an air-breathing land creature nor a bird, nor does it have _nephesh_ in terms of biblical Hebrew. So I don't see why algae is at all relevant to Noah.



> So would a correct translation of your answer be "nowhere outside of the Bible is a single shred of evidence supporting a donkeys ability to speak. In fact its been proven that a donkey cant speak but I don't want to say that because it opposes the Bible".?


Would a correct translation of your answer be, "I can't prove that my question wasn't logically and philosophically flawed, but I'm going to try and pass it off anyway"? Let's go back to a challenge from a few days ago. Would you care to explain, without using words, how it is possible for words to exist? 
It is true that donkeys cannot speak on their own under natural circumstances. However, to say Balaam's donkey never spoke based on natural circumstances is a straw-man fallacy. The Bible says that God made the donkey speak. To explain how something cannot occur naturally does not in any way refute an argument that makes no claim of the occurrence being natural. So to avoid constructing a straw-man and actually refute the Bible, you would have to explain how God could not possibly have made a donkey speak. 


> Define your usage life, non-life and chance.


Be aware that my usage of "life" is subject to change where biblical usage is concerned, but in other regards my usage can be considered as follows:
"life"-composed of cells, requires energy, grows and reproduces, responds to stimuli, tends to maintain homeostasis, etc.; common modern scientific definition
"non-life"- literally not life or not alive. For example, mud is a non-living concentration of certain non-living chemicals (although there may be living organisms in the mud).
"chance"- random, not guided by any mind or consciousness or sure force, unplanned, undirected, etc.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Terminal Idiot said:


> Sorry, but that's not what I said. I did not question the ability of a god to create something. I am sure that a god of your describing could create anything.
> 
> I am saying - which is more reasonable, a single cell organism coming from the "glop" that the early universe provided? Or an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful being who can poof stuff into existence? Oh, and he has been around forever. No beginning, no end. Just him. All alone for an eternity before we began.


The former cannot provide rational justification for the preconditions of intelligibility such as logic and induction, and the latter can... I'll go with the latter.


----------



## drippin' rock

gemcgrew said:


> Fine.
> 
> 1) drippin' rock sensed he was rude in post #210.
> 
> 2) gemcgrew sensed that drippin' rock was stupid in post #210.
> 
> 3) The senses are reliable.
> 
> 4) drippin' rock was rude and stupid in post #210.
> 
> Do you affirm that you were rude and stupid in post #210?
> 
> You do not need me to prove the unreliability of the senses. Identical twins will be happy to prove this to you...  time... after time... after time. It is not "nearly impossible" as proposed by Bassquatch328.




Thanks. I understand you better now.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Then may I ask what position you hold? Most people who put any stock in secular evolution either assert that abiogenesis has not been disproven and that a failure to prove it thus far makes no difference, or that evolution deals strictly with life and not its origin (although secular evolution eventually must go back to abiogenesis at some point, to my knowledge). I'm not trying to tell you what you have said, but I was under the impression that you gave preference to one of a number of evolutionary worldviews. Who brought up plant life?
> 
> 
> Well algae is neither an air-breathing land creature nor a bird, nor does it have _nephesh_ in terms of biblical Hebrew. So I don't see why algae is at all relevant to Noah.
> 
> 
> Would a correct translation of your answer be, "I can't prove that my question wasn't logically and philosophically flawed, but I'm going to try and pass it off anyway"? Let's go back to a challenge from a few days ago. Would you care to explain, without using words, how it is possible for words to exist?
> It is true that donkeys cannot speak on their own under natural circumstances. However, to say Balaam's donkey never spoke based on natural circumstances is a straw-man fallacy. The Bible says that God made the donkey speak. To explain how something cannot occur naturally does not in any way refute an argument that makes no claim of the occurrence being natural. So to avoid constructing a straw-man and actually refute the Bible, you would have to explain how God could not possibly have made a donkey speak.
> 
> Be aware that my usage of "life" is subject to change where biblical usage is concerned, but in other regards my usage can be considered as follows:
> "life"-composed of cells, requires energy, grows and reproduces, responds to stimuli, tends to maintain homeostasis, etc.; common modern scientific definition
> "non-life"- literally not life or not alive. For example, mud is a non-living concentration of certain non-living chemicals (although there may be living organisms in the mud).
> "chance"- random, not guided by any mind or consciousness or sure force, unplanned, undirected, etc.


Of course you can ask. I think I mentioned many threads ago that might should have been the first question because even amomg the A/As here we don't agree on certain things.
Yes I believe evolution exists. There is no question that things have evolved.
No I don't believe evolution answers the origin of life. In the way we use the words evolve and evolution something has to exist before it can evolve.
No I don't accept at this point in our knowledge that the Big Bang is the answer to the origin of life.
No I do not say there absolutely are no gods. However I don't accept a god yet for the exact same reason I don't accept the Big Bang yet. Evidence for either exists. However for the Christian God the only actual physical evidence is the existence of the Bible. Same evidence exists for other gods too. I also think if neither are universal facts that also means both could be wrong and a completely different scenario is possible.
So if what I think has to be forced into a category I guess that category is Agnostic.
While you seem to have an aversion to the saying of "I don't know" its actually the only honest answer. The reason I don't know is because neither God(s) or the Big Bang or any other possibility has been proven to be a universal fact. At this point in time no one "knows".
Oh and I was a believer longer than you have been alive. Research of the Bible is actually one of the things that led me AWAY from Christianity. Add to that I personally disagree with what I would have to believe about other people etc.  I believe the Bible is entirely man made, man assembled and man approved by men who were inspired only by their own interests. If the Christian God of the Bible and the Bible were proven tonight to be a universal fact, I would not worship God because of the concepts I personally disagree with and would take whatever consequences that brought.


> Who brought up plant life?


We were discussing algae. Algae is a plant. 


> Well algae is neither an air-breathing land creature nor a bird, nor does it have _nephesh_ in terms of biblical Hebrew. So I don't see why algae is at all relevant to Noah.


You are right it wouldn't apply. I was thinking about some of them being asexual and jumped the gun about Noah collecting male and female. Holding a conversation with someone else while trying to pay attention to posts isn't a good idea.


> So to avoid constructing a straw-man and actually refute the Bible, you would have to explain how God could not possibly have made a donkey speak.


Remember my comment of applying to your own argument what you demand of others to apply to theirs?
If a donkey is physically unable to speak saying one did is illogical.
Your argument that God made him speak doesn't fly until the existence of the Christian God is a universal fact.
So before I explain how he couldn't how about you prove he is real and could?
Pick -
Do you believe the Christian God exists? Have faith the Christian God exists? That the Christian God exists is a universal fact?
If you pick universal fact then discussing anything with you is a waste of time. If you pick believe and/or have faith then apply it your arguments and statements concerning logic and straw mans.


> Be aware that my usage of "life" is subject to change where biblical usage is concerned


That's convenient. Life has a definition. Why is it different when it comes to the Bible?


> "chance"- random, not guided by any mind or consciousness or sure force, unplanned, undirected, etc.


Do things happen by chance? Surely you would say yes so how exactly do you disqualify chance as a possibility?
However, if you don't want to answer any other question this one is the million dollar question -


> Pick  -
> Do you believe the Christian God exists? Have faith the Christian God exists? That the Christian God exists is a universal fact?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch
If everything is going as God has planned then we must assume God created Adam knowing he would fail, the whole Old Testament was to prove to man we needed a Messiah, Jesus would come and do the will of God without the choice to fail, and most importantly in God's plan, Jesus will return when he is supposed to according to God's plan.
Why would God leave the fate of the Earth in man's hand to destroy the earth with nuclear weapons or any other means? If man has free will, he could easily destroy the earth before God gets to.
I myself do believe in Limited Freewill and was hoping you as a newcomer would be able to help me use logic to fully understand my dilemma. Which is figuring out what God controls, what I control, what Satan controls, and what is just a random act.
You seem to be avoiding answering my questions regarding freewill and/or predestination. From what you have answered I would assume you believe God controls every action but the action of humans. He knows what the actions of humans will be, but he doesn't control them. What kind of logic do you use to figure out what choice you have in choosing to wear your green shirt or your red shirt if God knew before time that you would choose your red shirt?
Now if you can justify the time warp issue in God knowing before time what we will choose, why can't you understand the time warp issue of God creating the universe through Jesus before Jesus came? Time warp issue meaning God doesn't operate in the same concept of time that we operate in.
You haven't attempted to use any logic to answer most of my questions regarding "if everything is happening according to God's plan." God has predicted exactly what will happen in the Bible. He has controlled the actions of Pharaoh, Job, Jesus, Judas and others.
The Bible is full of prophesy and predictions. God made Esau to serve Jacob. We are talking about God. He's the entity in control. He didn't just know Esau would serve Jacob, he willed it to happen.
The whole Bible is full of and based on fulfilling prophesy. Especially of the Messiah. Especially of said Messiah coming again when God has predetermined.
Do you really believe God is going to give man the ability to mess up his plan?
Is there anything in the Bible where God says "I've got this plan "A" all laid out. If man through his choice changes it, I'll go to plan "B." I already know man will change my plan "A" so therefore I've implemented plan "B."
Jesus being a man who has given up his powers to be a man and die on a cross to save mankind from sin is part of my plan "A." I've already looked into the future and know that Jesus will go through with my plan "A." I am well pleased he's going through with it.
God seeing that Jesus will do as willed has noticed that man won't. He will end the earth before my plan, thus even though I'm God, I have had to change my plan to accommodate man's choice. I've got to send Jesus back earlier than in my plan "A."
Can you really see God changing his plan to accommodate us? I can't.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> The former cannot provide rational justification for the preconditions of intelligibility such as logic and induction, and the latter can... I'll go with the latter.




You like this term.

It's like the new apologetic buzzword.  Like irreducible complexity or intelligent design used to be until they got thrown out of court.  Sounds so scientific.

What they all really mean is "I need to insert a prime mover into the conversation".

If you believe at all that organisms evolve and that their brains can evolve then you can connect the dots as to how morals might develop.  Sure it's detective work and some of it is circumstantial evidence but honestly, lets discuss how anthropologists and archeologists do their business as opposed to apologists.  Lets talk about where they get their information.   

Have you seen Ken Ham debate Bill Nye?  Have you ever googled "evolution of morals"?  If you examine the research and come to the conclusion "OK. Maybe" then you're in good shape.  If you apply the same skepticism to talking donkeys that you do to the accuracy of carbon dating you will see that on its face that the claim of talking donkeys is ridiculous.  But you don't.

The only evidence for talking donkeys you seem to need is a book.  One, single, bizarre often nonsensical book.  Is that good examination?


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> Bassquatch
> If everything is going as God has planned then we must assume God created Adam knowing he would fail, the whole Old Testament was to prove to man we needed a Messiah, Jesus would come and do the will of God without the choice to fail, and most importantly in God's plan, Jesus will return when he is supposed to according to God's plan.
> Why would God leave the fate of the Earth in man's hand to destroy the earth with nuclear weapons or any other means? If man has free will, he could easily destroy the earth before God gets to.
> I myself do believe in Limited Freewill and was hoping you as a newcomer would be able to help me use logic to fully understand my dilemma. Which is figuring out what God controls, what I control, what Satan controls, and what is just a random act.
> You seem to be avoiding answering my questions regarding freewill and/or predestination. From what you have answered I would assume you believe God controls every action but the action of humans. He knows what the actions of humans will be, but he doesn't control them. What kind of logic do you use to figure out what choice you have in choosing to wear your green shirt or your red shirt if God knew before time that you would choose your red shirt?
> Now if you can justify the time warp issue in God knowing before time what we will choose, why can't you understand the time warp issue of God creating the universe through Jesus before Jesus came? Time warp issue meaning God doesn't operate in the same concept of time that we operate in.
> You haven't attempted to use any logic to answer most of my questions regarding "if everything is happening according to God's plan." God has predicted exactly what will happen in the Bible. He has controlled the actions of Pharaoh, Job, Jesus, Judas and others.
> The Bible is full of prophesy and predictions. God made Esau to serve Jacob. We are talking about God. He's the entity in control. He didn't just know Esau would serve Jacob, he willed it to happen.
> The whole Bible is full of and based on fulfilling prophesy. Especially of the Messiah. Especially of said Messiah coming again when God has predetermined.
> Do you really believe God is going to give man the ability to mess up his plan?
> Is there anything in the Bible where God says "I've got this plan "A" all laid out. If man through his choice changes it, I'll go to plan "B." I already know man will change my plan "A" so therefore I've implemented plan "B."
> Jesus being a man who has given up his powers to be a man and die on a cross to save mankind from sin is part of my plan "A." I've already looked into the future and know that Jesus will go through with my plan "A." I am well pleased he's going through with it.
> God seeing that Jesus will do as willed has noticed that man won't. He will end the earth before my plan, thus even though I'm God, I have had to change my plan to accommodate man's choice. I've got to send Jesus back earlier than in my plan "A."
> Can you really see God changing his plan to accommodate us? I can't.



I can't believe SemperFi called you a troll.

You, my friend, are on the verge of a breakthrough.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I can't believe SemperFi called you a troll.



Folks have been callin' Art a troll since he joined.  Definitely takes unique positions.


----------



## bullethead

JB0704 said:


> Folks have been callin' Art a troll since he joined.  Definitely takes unique positions.



I see a transformation that is along the lines of the transformation I have made.

I started as a bassquatch(no one could convince me that every word in the Bible was not true as sated), morphed into an artfuldodger(I tried to blend science and God and look at the Bible as more of a guide written by men along the lines of what they thought God would like), and have evolved into a bullethead (you all know the way I think now).


----------



## bullethead

For what it is worth I appreciate artfuldodger's thoughts and blending of sides. I think he is vital part of all of the conversations in here and a few floors up and adds a perspective that is unique so that it really makes us think inside and outside of the box.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> For what it is worth I appreciate artfuldodger's thoughts and blending of sides. I think he is vital part of all of the conversations in here and a few floors up and adds a perspective that is unique so that it really makes us think inside and outside of the box.



I applaud his efforts.  He tackles the hard ones.  He doesn't just shelve them away with a shrug.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> You like this term.
> 
> It's like the new apologetic buzzword.  Like irreducible complexity or intelligent design used to be until they got thrown out of court.  Sounds so scientific.
> 
> What they all really mean is "I need to insert a prime mover into the conversation".
> 
> If you believe at all that organisms evolve and that their brains can evolve then you can connect the dots as to how morals might develop.  Sure it's detective work and some of it is circumstantial evidence but honestly, lets discuss how anthropologists and archeologists do their business as opposed to apologists.  Lets talk about where they get their information.
> 
> Have you seen Ken Ham debate Bill Nye?  Have you ever googled "evolution of morals"?  If you examine the research and come to the conclusion "OK. Maybe" then you're in good shape.  If you apply the same skepticism to talking donkeys that you do to the accuracy of carbon dating you will see that on its face that the claim of talking donkeys is ridiculous.  But you don't.
> 
> The only evidence for talking donkeys you seem to need is a book.  One single, bizarre often nonsensical book.  Is that good examination?


He doesn't know that his Transcendental Argument theory has basically been thrown out of court too.


> This section of the GON forum is called, in part, "Apologetics." This word and the Greek word from which is is derived means to give a defense. So does anyone here care to give a defense for their beliefs? I think a great way to give that defense is through what is called a Transcendental Argument





> Despite Kant’s remaining defenders, however, few now believe that transcendental arguments can yield a direct refutation of epistemic skepticism. Most now agree that more modest goals are in order if such arguments are to remain relevant.


The Christian websites didn't mention that part. In his defense it must be awfully difficult to understand that the thing you believe in so deeply could be less than honest about what it teaches you.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Guys, thanks for the words of encouragement. I would say I sorta turned into a 1gr8bdr and Hobbs27 and might be on my way to becoming a gemcgrew.
Possibly with a little Hawgjawl thrown in. There ain't no turning back at this point.


----------



## drippin' rock

Artfuldodger said:


> Guys, thanks for the words of encouragement. I would say I sorta turned into a 1gr8bdr and Hobbs27 and might be on my way to becoming a gemcgrew.
> Possibly with a little Hawgjawl thrown in. There ain't no turning back at this point.



Please God, no.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> While you seem to have an aversion to the saying of "I don't know" its actually the only honest answer. The reason I don't know is because neither God(s) or the Big Bang or any other possibility has been proven to be a universal fact. At this point in time no one "knows".


I'll get back to you on that one.


> Add to that I personally disagree with what I would have to believe about other people etc.  I believe the Bible is entirely man made, man assembled and man approved by men who were inspired only by their own interests. If the Christian God of the Bible and the Bible were proven tonight to be a universal fact, I would not worship God because of the concepts I personally disagree with and would take whatever consequences that brought.


At least you're being honest about yourself in the last sentence (although I'm not sure why you should be, on your worldview). It's important to recognize that whether or not one personally likes an idea or argument has no bearing on the truth of said idea or argument. I know many people probably don't personally like the math that goes into their taxes, but personal dislike won't change the math.



> Remember my comment of applying to your own argument what you demand of others to apply to theirs?


Unless I just completely missed it (which is possible), no one has yet identified what I am trying to restrict others from using or how any such restriction demands a logical inconsistency in their argument. 
If a donkey is physically unable to speak saying one did is illogical.


> Your argument that God made him speak doesn't fly until the existence of the Christian God is a universal fact.
> So before I explain how he couldn't how about you prove he is real and could?
> Pick -
> Do you believe the Christian God exists? Have faith the Christian God exists? That the Christian God exists is a universal fact?
> If you pick universal fact then discussing anything with you is a waste of time. If you pick believe and/or have faith then apply it your arguments and statements concerning logic and straw mans.


Regarding the options, all of the above. And I have applied that to my arguments. My argument has been that the Bible is true because the contrary would not make knowledge possible. But if you and others refuse to or are unable to demonstrate how their worldview can make knowledge possible on its own, then we will just be talking past each other and there is no reason to continue this discussion.



> That's convenient. Life has a definition. Why is it different when it comes to the Bible?


The definition of "life" has changed many times among many different people groups. The definition continues to be debated today. So for these purposes, the definition can be purely conventional. To apply the current definition (and ignore the biblical definition) to biblical context would be as incorrect as driving on the right side of the road in Britain, as would applying the biblical definition (and ignoring the modern definition) to modern context.


> Do things happen by chance? Surely you would say yes so how exactly do you disqualify chance as a possibility?


I'll have to get back to you later due to time/schedule constraints.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'll get back to you on that one.
> 
> At least you're being honest about yourself in the last sentence (although I'm not sure why you should be, on your worldview). It's important to recognize that whether or not one personally likes an idea or argument has no bearing on the truth of said idea or argument. I know many people probably don't personally like the math that goes into their taxes, but personal dislike won't change the math.
> 
> 
> Unless I just completely missed it (which is possible), no one has yet identified what I am trying to restrict others from using or how any such restriction demands a logical inconsistency in their argument.
> If a donkey is physically unable to speak saying one did is illogical.
> 
> Regarding the options, all of the above. And I have applied that to my arguments. My argument has been that the Bible is true because the contrary would not make knowledge possible. But if you and others refuse to or are unable to demonstrate how their worldview can make knowledge possible on its own, then we will just be talking past each other and there is no reason to continue this discussion.
> 
> 
> The definition of "life" has changed many times among many different people groups. The definition continues to be debated today. So for these purposes, the definition can be purely conventional. To apply the current definition (and ignore the biblical definition) to biblical context would be as incorrect as driving on the right side of the road in Britain, as would applying the biblical definition (and ignoring the modern definition) to modern context.
> 
> I'll have to get back to you later due to time/schedule constraints.



16 years old huh?


----------



## drippin' rock

bullethead said:


> 16 years old huh?


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'll get back to you on that one.
> 
> At least you're being honest about yourself in the last sentence (although I'm not sure why you should be, on your worldview). It's important to recognize that whether or not one personally likes an idea or argument has no bearing on the truth of said idea or argument. I know many people probably don't personally like the math that goes into their taxes, but personal dislike won't change the math.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I just completely missed it (which is possible), no one has yet identified what I am trying to restrict others from using or how any such restriction demands a logical inconsistency in their argument.
> If a donkey is physically unable to speak saying one did is illogical.
> 
> Regarding the options, all of the above. And I have applied that to my arguments. My argument has been that the Bible is true because the contrary would not make knowledge possible. But if you and others refuse to or are unable to demonstrate how their worldview can make knowledge possible on its own, then we will just be talking past each other and there is no reason to continue this discussion.
> 
> 
> The definition of "life" has changed many times among many different people groups. The definition continues to be debated today. So for these purposes, the definition can be purely conventional. To apply the current definition (and ignore the biblical definition) to biblical context would be as incorrect as driving on the right side of the road in Britain, as would applying the biblical definition (and ignoring the modern definition) to modern context.
> 
> I'll have to get back to you later due to time/schedule constraints.





> I'll get back to you on that one.


Good idea. I would suggest you don't go to only a Christian website for the answer you are going to give.


> At least you're being honest about yourself in the last sentence (although I'm not sure why you should be, on your worldview)


Ive been honest about every single word Ive said. And the reason you are not sure why I would be is because you subscribe to information that only gives you one side of the story. That I was honest debunks all your worldview nonsense.


> It's important to recognize that whether or not one personally likes an idea or argument has no bearing on the truth of said idea or argument. I know many people probably don't personally like the math that goes into their taxes, but personal dislike won't change the math.


Obvious and irrelevant. I gave you the reasons I don't believe its true and me not liking it was not one of them.


> Unless I just completely missed it (which is possible), no one has yet identified what I am trying to restrict others from using or how any such restriction demands a logical inconsistency in their argument.


Yep you missed it. Over and over and over.


> If a donkey is physically unable to speak saying one did is illogical.


Yes it is and until you prove the existence of a Christian God it will remain illogical and therefore rejecting it is the logical choice.


> Regarding the options, all of the above. And I have applied that to my arguments.


Yes that's the problem. If you think that it is a universal fact/truth that the Christian God exists you have more learning to do. Its why the basis of every one of your logic debates is flawed. Also check out the definition of faith.


> My argument has been that the Bible is true because the contrary would not make knowledge possible. But if you and others refuse to or are unable to demonstrate how their worldview can make knowledge possible on its own, then we will just be talking past each other and there is no reason to continue this discussion.


My or anybody elses world view has no bearing on whether your argument is true or false. That's what Im talking about when I say apply to your own arguments what you want others to apply to theirs.


> I'll have to get back to you later due to time/schedule constraints.


Sure take all the time you need but remember what I said about the websites.


> But if you and others refuse to or are unable to demonstrate how their worldview can make knowledge possible on its own, then we will just be talking past each other and there is no reason to continue this discussion.


Until you figure out that this has no bearing on the accuracy and logic of your statements there will be no reason for you to discuss the subject with anybody except those who BELIEVE exactly the same as you do.
As a kid who use to think I knew it all I was given some very good advice -
"Make sure how smart you think you are doesn't surpass how smart you actually are".
Hopefully you will see that has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence levels.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> Good idea. I would suggest you don't go to only a Christian website for the answer you are going to give.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not just searching to see what others have to say about it as you seem to think. I've got an objection to your statement that I'm trying to word properly and also get a second assessment. However, I would hope you are saying it's good to investigate both sides, and not just saying that any answer from a Christian website is unacceptable (because that would be a No-True-Scottsman fallacy).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ive been honest about every single word Ive said. And the reason you are not sure why I would be is because you subscribe to information that only gives you one side of the story. That I was honest debunks all your worldview nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never can you quote me saying you cannot be honest if you don't hold the biblical worldview. So being honest is not a refutation. However, your worldview gives no justification for the belief that being honest is a good thing whether you actually are honest or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep you missed it. Over and over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pasted quote please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is and until you prove the existence of a Christian God it will remain illogical and therefore rejecting it is the logical choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry. Technical issue. That was a quote from you that somehow got out of the quote brackets.
> 
> Yes that's the problem. If you think that it is a universal fact/truth that the Christian God exists you have more learning to do. Its why the basis of every one of your logic debates is flawed. Also check out the definition of faith.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My or anybody elses world view has no bearing on whether your argument is true or false. That's what Im talking about when I say apply to your own arguments what you want others to apply to theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it has a very real bearing. If you could prove that your worldview can make knowledge possible, that would directly refute my argument. You have yet to make such a demonstration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure take all the time you need but remember what I said about the websites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eating supper, not desperately searching for pre-made answers as you may suppose I was. You said,
> 
> 
> 
> Do things happen by chance? Surely you would say yes so how exactly do you disqualify chance as a possibility?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. Do things happen that we can't control or guide or predict? Yes. But they don't happen by chance in a complete sense. Let's use rolling a die as an example. We (if we do an honest roll) don't consciously determine what side of the die is on top when it lands. However, gravity, velocity, timing, original position, and other factors, impact the result. But if laws of nature just arbitrarily came into effect, we would say that occurred by chance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until you figure out that this has no bearing on the accuracy and logic of your statements there will be no reason for you to discuss the subject with anybody except those who BELIEVE exactly the same as you do.
> As a kid who use to think I knew it all I was given some very good advice -
> "Make sure how smart you think you are doesn't surpass how smart you actually are".
> Hopefully you will see that has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence levels.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See my response three quotes above.
Click to expand...


----------



## Terminal Idiot

Artfuldodger said:


> Guys, thanks for the words of encouragement. I would say I sorta turned into a 1gr8bdr and Hobbs27 and might be on my way to becoming a gemcgrew.
> Possibly with a little Hawgjawl thrown in. There ain't no turning back at this point.



You ain't getting no hugs dude. Keep it manly up in here.


----------



## JB0704

drippin' rock said:


> Please God, no.



  Gem's good people.  Tactics aside, His worldview is most likely the most consistent of anybody on here.

Consider for a moment believing as he does, then having the conviction to proclaim it?  It ain't pretty, but that doesn't stop him from believing it.


----------



## JB0704

Terminal Idiot said:


> You ain't getting no hugs dude. Keep it manly up in here.





But, we did go through a poetry spell here......may have led to some confusion


----------



## drippin' rock

JB0704 said:


> Gem's good people.  Tactics aside, His worldview is most likely the most consistent of anybody on here.
> 
> Consider for a moment believing as he does, then having the conviction to proclaim it?  It ain't pretty, but that doesn't stop him from believing it.



I know.  I's jus' funnin'.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> WaltL1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not just searching to see what others have to say about it as you seem to think. I've got an objection to your statement that I'm trying to word properly and also get a second assessment. However, I would hope you are saying it's good to investigate both sides, and not just saying that any answer from a Christian website is unacceptable (because that would be a No-True-Scottsman fallacy).
> 
> 
> Never can you quote me saying you cannot be honest if you don't hold the biblical worldview. So being honest is not a refutation. However, your worldview gives no justification for the belief that being honest is a good thing whether you actually are honest or not.
> 
> 
> Pasted quote please?
> 
> 
> Sorry. Technical issue. That was a quote from you that somehow got out of the quote brackets.
> 
> Yes that's the problem. If you think that it is a universal fact/truth that the Christian God exists you have more learning to do. Its why the basis of every one of your logic debates is flawed. Also check out the definition of faith.
> 
> 
> Actually it has a very real bearing. If you could prove that your worldview can make knowledge possible, that would directly refute my argument. You have yet to make such a demonstration.
> 
> 
> Eating supper, not desperately searching for pre-made answers as you may suppose I was. You said,
> 
> No. Do things happen that we can't control or guide or predict? Yes. But they don't happen by chance in a complete sense. Let's use rolling a die as an example. We (if we do an honest roll) don't consciously determine what side of the die is on top when it lands. However, gravity, velocity, timing, original position, and other factors, impact the result. But if laws of nature just arbitrarily came into effect, we would say that occurred by chance.
> 
> 
> See my response three quotes above.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So being honest is not a refutation. However, your worldview gives no justification for the belief that being honest is a good thing whether you actually are honest or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If to me, based on my experiences, honesty is a good thing, that is part of my worldview. That I think it is good is my justification for being honest.
> 
> 
> 
> A person's worldview is affected by many factors — by their inherited characteristics, background experiences and life situations, the values, attitudes, and habits they have developed, and more — and these vary from one person to another.  Therefore, even though some parts of a worldview are shared by many people in a community, other parts differ for individuals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And interestingly enough -
> 
> 
> 
> The Christian thinker James W. Sire defines a worldview as "a commitment, a fundamental orientation of the heart, that can be expressed as a story or in a set of presuppositions (assumptions which may be true, partially true, or entirely false) which we hold (consciously or subconsciously, consistently or inconsistently) about the basic construction of reality, and that provides the foundation on which we live and move and have our being." He suggests that "we should all think in terms of worldviews, that is, with a consciousness not only of our own way of thought but also that of other people, so that we can first understand and then genuinely communicate with others in our pluralistic society."[13]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do things happen that we can't control or guide or predict? Yes. But they don't happen by chance in a complete sense. Let's use rolling a die as an example. We (if we do an honest roll) don't consciously determine what side of the die is on top when it lands. However, gravity, velocity, timing, original position, and other factors, impact the result.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Big Bang fits perfectly into your above definition. So how do you dismiss it?
> 
> 
> 
> But if laws of nature just arbitrarily came into effect, we would say that occurred by chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> law of nature is a philosophy to try to explain things that man has observed up to this point. Even in that there are disagreeing theories.
> You have a habit of using words such as arbitrarily which confines your questions to your point of view.
> 
> 
> 
> If you could prove that your worldview can make knowledge possible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> An outdated and debunked strategy. You do the work to find out why.
Click to expand...


----------



## JB0704

drippin' rock said:


> I know.  I's jus' funnin'.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Gem's good people.  Tactics aside, His worldview is most likely the most consistent of anybody on here.
> Consider for a moment believing as he does, then having the conviction to proclaim it?  It ain't pretty, but that doesn't stop him from believing it.


That's true. It doesn't leave much room for ifs, ands or buts. Its pretty cut and dry.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> That's true. It doesn't leave much room for ifs, ands or buts. Its pretty cut and dry.



That's where I was leading in my long ramble hoping to get Bassquatch to address his opinion of this world view as being the most logical or not. 
He has just ignored responding.


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> He has just ignored responding.



Maybe had homework   His track record is pretty good with the responses.

Not trying to play AAA referee or anything, but, I give the kid credit for trying to discuss his beliefs on here.  It's a difficult thing when outgunned in both the experience and education category.  He definitely compensates with confidence.  I appreciate that.  It reminds me of a time before life kicked me around and challenged all my personal "knowns."  

For me, at 16, I had yet to comprehend the magnitude of the unknowns.  It was a good time.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> He definitely compensates with confidence.



Yes he does. I hope it is not a barrier to learning.


----------



## JB0704

660griz said:


> Yes he does. I hope it is not a barrier to learning.



Life has a way of humbling most egos.

Also, it is possible to learn, and keep the faith.  Everybody's path takes them to different places.


----------



## 660griz

JB0704 said:


> Also, it is possible to learn, and keep the faith.



I agree...to a point.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> That's a statement you would have trouble verifying or finding astrophysicists to agree with. In the secular model, no one can observe star birth even in principle because it takes long ages. We have seen stars in different stages of their life cycle, and scientists have seen what they suppose but cannot objectively confirm are the stages surrounding star birth, but no star birth has been witnessed by humans.




I hope I can get away with citing this website by the mods. The acronym contains some  language, but it's not spelled out here. 

http://www.iflscience.com/space/new-stars-born-milky-ways-edge

This one is clean, and universally respected. 

http://science.time.com/2013/07/10/supersun-a-giant-new-star-is-born-in-the-milky-way/

Both show that you haven't taken the time to research your counter to our arguments, unlike we who counter the Bible. 

You've chosen your side, made up your mind, and that's all well and good, but you're obviously arguing from a position of ignorance, and I don't use that term to insult. You're ignoring everything else that is dissonant with the story you've chosen, and are ignoring its own flaws. 

You're a bright young man, so do your research before you continue making wildly inaccurate claims about what we have and have not observed. 

This search took all of 30 seconds, by the way, with the mysterious key words "new star born" typed into Google.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> Maybe had homework   His track record is pretty good with the responses.
> 
> Not trying to play AAA referee or anything, but, I give the kid credit for trying to discuss his beliefs on here.  It's a difficult thing when outgunned in both the experience and education category.  He definitely compensates with confidence.  I appreciate that.  It reminds me of a time before life kicked me around and challenged all my personal "knowns."
> 
> For me, at 16, I had yet to comprehend the magnitude of the unknowns.  It was a good time.



I respect his knowldge and  opinion especially being so young. His answers to my questions could  help me with my struggle between freewill & predestination. 
I'm trying to use logic to figure out at what point God quit using predestination and turned over everything to freewill.
Perhaps I will need to stick to my faith and abandon logic.
In other words "let the mystery be."
I have a feeling Bassquatch can't let the mystery be at his age as I'm having trouble letting the mystery be at my age.


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> I respect his knowldge and  opinion especially being so young. His answers to my questions could  help me with my struggle between freewill & predestination.
> I'm trying to use logic to figure out at what point God quit using predestination and turned over everything to freewill.
> Perhaps I will need to stick to my faith and abandon logic.
> In other words "let the mystery be."
> I have a feeling Bassquatch can't let the mystery be at his age as I'm having trouble letting the mystery be at my age.



When I consider the problems presented by both, my head starts to hurt.

Freewill is not consitent with an omnipotent God as we understand the concept.  Predes seems to make the cross, plus a lot of the OT stories unnecessary.....such as the flood, etc.  In particular, there are stories where God was willing to change his mond based on the actions of men.....or, he gave the impression of such.  However, it does solve the problem of evil.

I sit, and think about it a while, then I decide to put it off till the next time I am ready to think on such things.


----------



## EverGreen1231

bullethead said:


> This earth is pockmarked with asteroid strikes and the sun is burning out. Stars are imploding and black holes are swallowing matter.
> Orderly?



Yes, orderly: VERY orderly.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> When I consider the problems presented by both, my head starts to hurt.
> 
> Freewill is not consitent with an omnipotent God as we understand the concept.  Predes seems to make the cross, plus a lot of the OT stories unnecessary.....such as the flood, etc.  In particular, there are stories where God was willing to change his mond based on the actions of men.....or, he gave the impression of such.  However, it does solve the problem of evil.
> 
> I sit, and think about it a while, then I decide to put it off till the next time I am ready to think on such things.



And yet God has a prophesied plan. Did he get the ball rolling with creation and then turned it over to us until he decides to end it all? That would be more logical to understand if the Bible wasn't full of prophesy and God's control.
In giving a defense that God has to be in charge of "order" and there is no room for randomness in creation. God will also be in charge of the "end" and in that too there is no room for randomness. How can I logically believe the time between the two is controlled by anyone else? How canI use logic to understand the reandomness of how one man gets cancer and the other man doesn't?
I want to believe I have free will otherwise other parts of the Bible aren't logical. I want to believe in randomness. I want to believe the Grand Canyon is a random happening. I want to believe that I am who I am because of genetic randomness. I'm not talking about my soul being random, just my human attributes.


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> And yet God has a prophesied plan. Did he get the ball rolling with creation and then turned it over to us until he decides to end it all? That would be more logical to understand if the Bible wasn't full of prophesy and God's control.
> In giving a defense that God has to be in charge of "order" and there is no room for randomness in creation. God will also be in charge of the "end" and in that too there is no room for randomness. How can I logically believe the time between the two is controlled by anyone else? How canI use logic to understand the reandomness of how one man gets cancer and the other man doesn't?
> I want to believe I have free will otherwise other parts of the Bible aren't logical. I want to believe in randomness. I want to believe the Grand Canyon is a random happening. I want to believe that I am who I am because of genetic randomness. I'm not talking about my soul being random, just my human attributes.



Here's where I get stuck in a circle.....

Man is created in God's image.  In the garden, pre-fall, whether the story is literal or metaphorical, man sought "freedom" from boundaries and restrictions, thus the fall.

Pre-fall this cannot be attributed to the sin-nature.  Post-fall it can.

Is the desire for freedom a univeral attribute because we are in God's image, or is it part of human nature which limits us.....is it good or bad?

I dunno.  That's why I have come to admire the predes belief system.  It is logically consistent, and these questions are answered very simply......it's by design because it is.  I'm not on board, but I definitely get it.


----------



## EverGreen1231

Bassquatch328 said:


> EverGreen, you said
> 
> If I may, I think you might have a little misconception about circular reasoning, which is common. Circular reasoning is usually called a fallacy, but that's not always the case. Circular reasoning is always valid, but it can't be arbitrary or self-defeating. But circular reasoning is unavoidable when dealing with ultimate standards, and God and the Bible are the Christian ultimate standard for knowledge. If you could use another standard to justify your ultimate standard then it would be a higher standard than your "ultimate" standard. An ultimate standard justifies all others as well as itself. God used circular reasoning in the Bible when He made His covenant with Abraham. Because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. Science in its basic definition is simply knowledge. If God is the beginning of all knowledge, then true science agrees with the Bible. God's wisdom and knowledge also means logic is part of God's nature, so it agrees with the Bible. I prefer to use logic because physical evidence can be interpreted through any worldview and any evidential problems can be thought away with rescuing devices (like the Oort Cloud, for which we have no evidence but scientists say must exist or else comets wouldn't be here). Logic, on the other hand, can't be imagined away.



 I have no misconception. In circular reasoning, the premise is in as much need of proof as the conclusion. God gave no explanation of his existence; we are simply left with the choice "believe or not". We're given no "scientific" evidence to substantiate our belief. How can you know that B is true if A is unknown? You can't. It defies logic, or, at least, the logic you're trying to use. 
In so far as logical proof of existence...I have heard compelling logical arguments from both sides of the fence, a good number of them from this forum; however, I still cannot find a logically sound argument definitively persuading either way. The best an atheist can do is "well, I really don't know". The best a believer can do is "well, I'm pretty sure".
My point is: Faith is the only thing by which Atheists and believers alike can say "I know God does/doesn't exist". Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. 
I understand and find interesting your explanation of an ultimate standard, but it still doesn't get you much of anywhere. The Christian ultimate standard relies on the fact that God exists'. Without that fact, the standard is no better then any other arbitrary thing you decide sounds good. The Bible is true because God said it is in the Bible. This is fine I you have faith that God exists' without you having seen him; but, if you don't, then the Bible is just a book full of dreams and fairly tails.
From your stance, which I assume is a believer, the same as mine, your logic makes perfect and complete sense. But coming from someone whom doesn't believe, or is, at the very least, skeptical, your argument is self-defeating.
It is the logic of man that leadeth to repentance...Oh, wait. I think I'm miss-quoting.


----------



## Bassquatch328

JB0704 said:


> Maybe had homework   His track record is pretty good with the responses.


Not homework (although I do have long-standing AP pre-work I need to do), but I do have other extracurricular interests and responsibilities. Couple that with me only having five hours in the day in which I am both home and awake to carry out those activities and the many comments there are to respond to, and I can't really reply to very many responses. It's getting to the point that I am losing sense of the flow of discussion.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I hope I can get away with citing this website by the mods. The acronym contains some  language, but it's not spelled out here.
> 
> http://www.iflscience.com/space/new-stars-born-milky-ways-edge
> 
> This one is clean, and universally respected.
> 
> http://science.time.com/2013/07/10/supersun-a-giant-new-star-is-born-in-the-milky-way/
> 
> Both show that you haven't taken the time to research your counter to our arguments, unlike we who counter the Bible.
> 
> You've chosen your side, made up your mind, and that's all well and good, but you're obviously arguing from a position of ignorance, and I don't use that term to insult. You're ignoring everything else that is dissonant with the story you've chosen, and are ignoring its own flaws.
> 
> You're a bright young man, so do your research before you continue making wildly inaccurate claims about what we have and have not observed.
> 
> This search took all of 30 seconds, by the way, with the mysterious key words "new star born" typed into Google.


"Star formation begins when the denser parts of the cloud core collapse under their own weight/gravity. These cores typically have masses around 10 solar masses in the form of gas and dust. The cores are denser than the outer cloud, so they collapse first. As the cores collapse they fragment into clumps around 0.1 parsecs in size and 10 to 50 solar masses in mass. These clumps then form into protostars and *the whole process takes about 10 millions years*."- http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html 
Do you know anyone who has lived 10 million years to observe this process?
Also,
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/
NASA doesn't give any figures under the star formation heading in this article, but the process described is thought to take millions of years as described in other sources. However, note that NASA uses words such as "predict" and "are believed."  Conjecture is perfectly fine, but any statement made by people that involves a time span in which no one could live long enough to observe involves assumptions and conjecture.


----------



## Bassquatch328

EverGreen1231 said:


> I have no misconception. In circular reasoning, the premise is in as much need of proof as the conclusion.





> I understand and find interesting your explanation of an ultimate standard, but it still doesn't get you much of anywhere. The Christian ultimate standard relies on the fact that God exists'. Without that fact, the standard is no better then any other arbitrary thing you decide sounds good. The Bible is true because God said it is in the Bible.


I just picked out these quotes because I think these may as well be the heart of the issue. You're right that the premise in circular reasoning requires justification. But it does not mean one must always be required to use a "greater" premise to justify the premise of the circular argument. Circular reasoning can be logically sound in some cases, and this is when the premise successfully justifies itself whether through an absurdity of the alternative or some other reason. An example may explain it better than this. Take the existence of logic for example. In order to justify the belief that logic exists, one must inevitably use logic. The argument is self-justifying. This is in contrast to the fact that one must inevitably use logic (though ultimately inconsistent and faulty logic) in order to argue against the existence of logic, in which case the argument is self-defeating.
So it doesn't work with every premise, and the premise of a circular argument is only arbitrary if it fails to adequately justify itself. For the sake of time and room, the fact that I have a hard time putting some things into words, and the fact that condensing enough for this medium would not do it justice, I won't try and explain this application to the Bible. However, I can refer you to resources if you wish.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Artfuldodger said:


> I respect his knowldge and  opinion especially being so young. His answers to my questions could  help me with my struggle between freewill & predestination.
> I'm trying to use logic to figure out at what point God quit using predestination and turned over everything to freewill.
> Perhaps I will need to stick to my faith and abandon logic.
> In other words "let the mystery be."
> I have a feeling Bassquatch can't let the mystery be at his age as I'm having trouble letting the mystery be at my age.


I don't consider myself studied or learned enough to make an authoritative stance on the issue at this point. I would say firmly that God did not just pick and choose before creation who to save and who not to save. But as far as I can tell, predestination/predetermination/foreordaining in some form is a biblical concept. So my current position (which is subject to change) is that God knew before-hand who would and would not be saved (while not making the decision Himself) and then may have predestined what would occur in the lives of these people (who would be a pastor, who would be a missionary, who would be a president, a king, etc.). Again, that's just my first thought having not thoroughly studied or been extensively exposed to the ideas surrounding the issue. I do not hold it dogmatically and it is subject to change.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Bassquatch328 said:


> I don't consider myself studied or learned enough to make an authoritative stance on the issue at this point. I would say firmly that God did not just pick and choose before creation who to save and who not to save. But as far as I can tell, predestination/predetermination/foreordaining in some form is a biblical concept. So my current position (which is subject to change) is that God knew before-hand who would and would not be saved (while not making the decision Himself) and then may have predestined what would occur in the lives of these people (who would be a pastor, who would be a missionary, who would be a president, a king, etc.). Again, that's just my first thought having not thoroughly studied or been extensively exposed to the ideas surrounding the issue. I do not hold it dogmatically and it is subject to change.



My own beliefs are aligned similar to your beliefs in this regard. My difference is I see more randomness and science. I see God using randomness and science in design. In science class we would roll dice as an example of how genetics works and just how random God let the dice fall as they may that gives red hair or wrinkled peas.
None of the parents rejected to this exercise in randomness. In this loss of order if you will in creation.


----------



## gordon 2

JB0704 said:


> Here's where I get stuck in a circle.....
> 
> Man is created in God's image.  In the garden, pre-fall, whether the story is literal or metaphorical, man sought "freedom" from boundaries and restrictions, thus the fall.
> 
> Pre-fall this cannot be attributed to the sin-nature.  Post-fall it can.
> 
> Is the desire for freedom a univeral attribute because we are in God's image, or is it part of human nature which limits us.....is it good or bad?
> 
> I dunno.  That's why I have come to admire the predes belief system.  It is logically consistent, and these questions are answered very simply......it's by design because it is.  I'm not on board, but I definitely get it.



Is this what really happened? Quote: {man sought "freedom" from boundaries and restrictions, .. end quote.}

I think freedom is not a limiting attribute when used with responibility.  Man is free to manage all living things, animals, fish, herbs, etc...  except that which is the responibility of God.

 Part of God's response to creation is that it was good. This implies that He has the knowledge of good vs "not so good" and that which is evil for man to do... in the case that man tries to manage the Creator as if He was just another "part" of creation.

Evil:2 Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous.

So it is good that man has freedom over that which the creator has given him responsibility.  It is not good or evil in fact that man would impose his freedom, his will on that which he has no responsibility.

So man sought to impose his freedom of choice outside of the boundaries his freedom was designed for. Man sought to control and manage God. And more than this to blame God for creating evil, which is the creation of man, since in all of creation before the fall, everything was good. 

So I'll try to write this in another way: 


 Quote{Is the desire for freedom a univeral attribute because we are in God's image, or is it part of human nature which limits us.....is it good or bad?} end quote.

Is the desire for good ( which includes freedom) a universal attribute because we are in God's image? I would answer yes. 

Or is part of human nature which is good,  that part which limits us? No would be my answer. 

Or is part of human nature which is bad, that part which limits us? Yes would be my answer.

What is this part which is bad and limiting? It is the part, in man, which still believes that a little bit of poison is good for what ails. It is playing God and doing evil which is to lie concerning God,  because it was never our responsibility  to manage God's good and Holy Spirit, let alone name it Evil...

The day that man will love again as God intended will indeed be, once again, a good day.


----------



## JB0704

Bassquatch328 said:


> Not homework (although I do have long-standing AP pre-work I need to do), but I do have other extracurricular interests and responsibilities. Couple that with me only having five hours in the day in which I am both home and awake to carry out those activities and the many comments there are to respond to, and I can't really reply to very many responses. It's getting to the point that I am losing sense of the flow of discussion.



No excuses  

Just get to what you can.  These debates almost always end in a stalemate.  If you are looking for a conclusion, you will be disappointed.  IF you are looking for some good mental exercise, it's fantastic.


----------



## Artfuldodger

gordon 2 said:


> Is this what really happened? Quote: {man sought "freedom" from boundaries and restrictions, .. end quote.}
> 
> I think freedom is not a limiting attribute when used with responibility.  Man is free to manage all living things, animals, fish, herbs, etc...  except that which is the responibility of God.
> 
> Part of God's response to creation is that it was good. This implies that He has the knowledge of good vs "not so good" and that which is evil for man to do... in the case that man tries to manage the Creator as if He was just another "part" of creation.
> 
> Evil:2 Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
> 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous.
> 
> So it is good that man has freedom over that which the creator has given him responsibility.  It is not good or evil in fact that man would impose his freedom, his will on that which he has no responsibility.
> 
> So man sought to impose his freedom of choice outside of the boundaries his freedom was designed for. Man sought to control and manage God. And more than this to blame God for creating evil, which is the creation of man, since in all of creation before the fall, everything was good.
> 
> So I'll try to write this in another way:
> 
> 
> Quote{Is the desire for freedom a univeral attribute because we are in God's image, or is it part of human nature which limits us.....is it good or bad?} end quote.
> 
> Is the desire for good ( which includes freedom) a universal attribute because we are in God's image? I would answer yes.
> 
> Or is part of human nature which is good,  that part which limits us? No would be my answer.
> 
> Or is part of human nature which is bad, that part which limits us? Yes would be my answer.
> 
> What is this part which is bad and limiting? It is the part, in man, which still believes that a little bit of poison is good for what ails. It is playing God and doing evil which is to lie concerning God,  because it was never our responsibility  to manage God's good and Holy Spirit, let alone name it Evil...
> 
> The day that man will love again as God intended will indeed be, once again, a good day.



You explained it somewhat (sorry) better than I have.
It's all based on us being made in God's image and his "response" to this.


----------



## JB0704

gordon 2 said:


> Is this what really happened? Quote: {man sought "freedom" from boundaries and restrictions, .. end quote.}
> 
> I think freedom is not a limiting attribute when used with responibility.  Man is free to manage all living things, animals, fish, herbs, etc...  except that which is the responibility of God.
> 
> Part of God's response to creation is that it was good. This implies that He has the knowledge of good vs "not so good" and that which is evil for man to do... in the case that man tries to manage the Creator as if He was just another "part" of creation.
> 
> Evil:2 Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
> 3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous.
> 
> So it is good that man has freedom over that which the creator has given him responsibility.  It is not good or evil in fact that man would impose his freedom, his will on that which he has no responsibility.
> 
> So man sought to impose his freedom of choice outside of the boundaries his freedom was designed for. Man sought to control and manage God. And more than this to blame God for creating evil, which is the creation of man, since in all of creation before the fall, everything was good.
> 
> So I'll try to write this in another way:
> 
> 
> Quote{Is the desire for freedom a univeral attribute because we are in God's image, or is it part of human nature which limits us.....is it good or bad?} end quote.
> 
> Is the desire for good ( which includes freedom) a universal attribute because we are in God's image? I would answer yes.
> 
> Or is part of human nature which is good,  that part which limits us? No would be my answer.
> 
> Or is part of human nature which is bad, that part which limits us? Yes would be my answer.
> 
> What is this part which is bad and limiting? It is the part, in man, which still believes that a little bit of poison is good for what ails. It is playing God and doing evil which is to lie concerning God,  because it was never our responsibility  to manage God's good and Holy Spirit, let alone name it Evil...
> 
> The day that man will love again as God intended will indeed be, once again, a good day.



Interesting, G2.  Ima need ponder that a bit.

My knee-jerk response would be man's desire, or weakness, to seek that which was forbidden was there before the fall.  We blame so much on the sin-nature, but, if literal, that event happens before sin is introduced, and the desire to seek the "forbidden fruit" was itself sinful.

Predes would say it's part of the plan.  Free will would say there must be a choice in order to choose good or evil.


----------



## gordon 2

JB0704 said:


> Interesting, G2.  Ima need ponder that a bit.
> 
> My knee-jerk response would be man's desire, or weakness, to seek that which was forbidden was there before the fall.  We blame so much on the sin-nature, but, if literal, that event happens before sin is introduced, and the desire to seek the "forbidden fruit" was itself sinful.
> 
> Predes would say it's part of the plan.  Free will would say there must be a choice in order to choose good or evil.



The first "evil" or "sinful" act was probably done without a bit of suspect for the consequences. The caution of "Evil will kill you. Don't touch it." was probably like saying to  someone for the first time, "Don't touch the hot stove!" What is a hot stove? What is evil? I won't get burnt... It cannot kill me! Bah! 

"Adam we manage everything around here except that dumb tree. God thinks we can't manage evil, what ever that might be... Yeah right! He can. We can."

We don't always know the consequences of sin or evil, so though we and others can suffer for our sinful and evil acts what makes them sinful and evil is not always of our willful choice, but the act is our choice.

I suspect that the original sin is man's ambition to be the Lord of his Creator. I can't see that this was predestined. What was predestined is the order where the Creator is our father and on issues of good and evil, sin and forgiving, we differ to Him. That's were, with lots of patience, we are going. It was our choices that got us bogged down. It was not the destiny of our origin.


----------



## Israel

gordon 2 said:


> The first "evil" act was probably done without a bit of suspect for the consequences. The caution of "Evil will kill you. Don't touch it." was probably like saying to  someone for the first time, "Don't touch the hot stove!" What is a hot stove? What is evil?


Amen.
What is "die"?
Now we know.
A man may learn who he is, and who God is.
The Father is the One who speaks to us of things we know not.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> "Star formation begins when the denser parts of the cloud core collapse under their own weight/gravity. These cores typically have masses around 10 solar masses in the form of gas and dust. The cores are denser than the outer cloud, so they collapse first. As the cores collapse they fragment into clumps around 0.1 parsecs in size and 10 to 50 solar masses in mass. These clumps then form into protostars and *the whole process takes about 10 millions years*."- http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec13.html
> Do you know anyone who has lived 10 million years to observe this process?
> Also,
> http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/how-do-stars-form-and-evolve/
> NASA doesn't give any figures under the star formation heading in this article, but the process described is thought to take millions of years as described in other sources. However, note that NASA uses words such as "predict" and "are believed."  Conjecture is perfectly fine, but any statement made by people that involves a time span in which no one could live long enough to observe involves assumptions and conjecture.



So you're saying that since we didn't observe the whole thing that observing them switch on is irrelevant?


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> So you're saying that since we didn't observe the whole thing that observing them switch on is irrelevant?


I'm saying anyone who claims we have actually observed star formation, rather than just observing stages and processes _thought to be associated with_ star formation, is saying or implying something that is simply not true.
I have heard of stars "switching on," but I'm having trouble finding information specifically on this subject. The only information I have found that is similar to the topic deals more with starlight and its relationship with spacial dust clouds, but "switching on" to me implies (and seemed to be explicitly stated by one cosmologist) the point at which stars actually begin to facilitate nuclear reactions and produce light. May I ask where I could find the information specifically dealing with this so I can better discuss it? 
Another thing is that it's not just that we haven't observed star formation. Star formation seems to be shrouded in questions of the physics of gases actually compressing into stars to which solutions have been proposed, but to my knowledge (using my limited free-to-use resources) are still very debated. The physics-related challenges seem to be easier to solve if one were to deal with stars born from a pre-existing star that has died, but that doesn't alleviate the challenge of the first stars. And then that gets into supposed conditions of the early universe and questions of the lack of monopoles and Population III stars, and that would be pretty time consuming and stray away from the original topic of this thread.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If the creation of the universe and Earth was done in six literal days then why? Why would God need six days? Didn't he already have his master plan memorized? I mean he didn't do a little each day, see how that turned out and then do a little more the next day.
I want even suggest he actually rested on the 7th literal day as "rested" could mean he stopped. There would be no reason for God to admire his creation as he knew before how it would turn out.
We're talking about God who doesn't operate in the same concept of time as we do. I believe the 6 days to be symbolic of 6 ages in God's scientific creation of the universe & earth. 
Otherwise if God used the "poof" method to create the earth, then he would use the "poof" method for everything after creation. One couldn't explain anything using science such as the rainbow. One would use the "poof" method to explain everything.


----------



## Artfuldodger

If God "poofed" me into existence and will "poof" me out of existence, then who am I to explain anything else in life other than using "poof." Poof vs science? Science is obviously wrong and possibly the work of Satan. We'd better work fast and get it removed from schools before it's too late.


----------



## Artfuldodger

I was being facetious because I know God used and uses science for his creation and maintenance of his creation. How can someone pit science against God knowing full well his creation is based on science?
Some of the smartest believers in God are scientist. I'm not a scientist nor even that smart but I can see how God & science co-exist. Science isn't from man nor Satan but from God. 
All of his natural laws such as gravity, energy, etc. are from God set up for the earth to have the order in which it operates. 
He decided to use science for reproduction and the human body operating systems. None of this is a part of man or Satan. 
I could only imagine how terrible our existence would be without science.
Now if God had chosen our existence as something other than a human mammal placed on a specific planet with specific components needed for support, then maybe i could assume he didn't use science.
If he had made us a life form other than who we are perhaps not needing food, oxygen,  sex, or shelter. A life form not explainable by science in a place not explainable by time. A place where we don't even need gravity or E=mc2. 
I truly believe such a place and creation is possible from God but he chose not to use such a place to create us.
He chose to create us in a place and with the need and concept of science. It was HIS plan. 
God decided, not man. Why is it so hard to accept or at least consider?


----------



## JB0704

Artfuldodger said:


> How can someone pit science against God knowing full well his creation is based on science?



If God created the universe, science is the study of his creation.  Which makes the whole science/faith debate ironic to me.


----------



## Artfuldodger

JB0704 said:


> If God created the universe, science is the study of his creation.  Which makes the whole science/faith debate ironic to me.



Me too. It would mean all scientist are "totally depraved" or 
"non-regenerate." 
If this is true Christians shouldn't use scientist in any debate proving smart people choose God.
Some scientist and or some smart people's eyes have been opened and some haven't. I wouldn't use smart people as a judge for much of anything especially religion.


----------



## Madman

Where do we begin?

 ex nihilo nihil fit


----------



## Artfuldodger

I don't conclude that evolutionary theory can be accepted "only if one categorically dismisses the existence of an omnipotent God."
I support God's creation with whatever method he used. If I wasn't needing to use oxygen at the moment I would support the "poof" method. Since I am needing to use oxygen and I'm hot because my A/C don't work to good, being I'm a warm-blooded mammal, I must assume my fate. A fate based on God's science.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Toenail fungus is God's science, sour kraut is God's science, drowning on the Chattooga River is God's science. Falling off or freezing on Mt. Everest is God's science. One can use God's math to figure out one's odds of falling off Mt. Everest or developing Colon cancer.
If none of this exist and there are no odds, randomness or free will, then I will convert to Total Predestination and start claiming science the work of the Devil.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> Where do we begin?
> 
> ex nihilo nihil fit



Everything does have a cause and effect. 
This could be used for or against creation science.
Is the cause and effect always from God or does he give man the capability to cause and effect? Does God give nature the ability to cause and effect?
Do we begin with the chicken or the egg?
Can we as Christians use science and free will to explain which came first?


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> Everything does have a cause and effect.
> This could be used for or against creation science.



That is not so.  The law of causality says that every effect must have a cause.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm saying anyone who claims we have actually observed star formation, rather than just observing stages and processes _thought to be associated with_ star formation, is saying or implying something that is simply not true.
> I have heard of stars "switching on," but I'm having trouble finding information specifically on this subject. The only information I have found that is similar to the topic deals more with starlight and its relationship with spacial dust clouds, but "switching on" to me implies (and seemed to be explicitly stated by one cosmologist) the point at which stars actually begin to facilitate nuclear reactions and produce light. May I ask where I could find the information specifically dealing with this so I can better discuss it?
> Another thing is that it's not just that we haven't observed star formation. Star formation seems to be shrouded in questions of the physics of gases actually compressing into stars to which solutions have been proposed, but to my knowledge (using my limited free-to-use resources) are still very debated. The physics-related challenges seem to be easier to solve if one were to deal with stars born from a pre-existing star that has died, but that doesn't alleviate the challenge of the first stars. And then that gets into supposed conditions of the early universe and questions of the lack of monopoles and Population III stars, and that would be pretty time consuming and stray away from the original topic of this thread.



Well, you could start here, and follow it and all of its sources. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence

That's the bulk of what people talk about when they talk of star formation. 

Brown Dwarfs, white dwarfs, and a whole host of others have their own conditions. 

Yes, dust obscures a large portion of the star during formation, and even if that weren't so you'd essentially be asking for me to demonstrate that nuclear fusion exists beyond a photosphere that is impermeable. 

We have observed what we can observe from these distances, and with those limitations, as every stage of stellar formation. I've already given you the source, read its sources, and follow it to conclusion. It's all right there. I won't spoon feed, not because I don't care to, but because I've already given you the information and you're choosing to argue it with me rather than follow it for yourself. Not to say that I don't enjoy these tete a tete's, I just don't have the time for it right now to do it justice, and when I do, I'm at home with 1000 other things that need my attention. 

The science of stellar formation is very well understood, and is probably the most straight forward of all of the big bang concepts. 

Hydrogen + Gravity + Time = Star

We've witnessed the nucleus of the star being formed. We've seen the jets that result from the reactions starting, but not the reactions themselves, that's impossible. 
We've seen the dust blowing away as the star stabilizes going on to form the accretion disk that will eventually become that stars planetary system. 
We've seen supernovae, and red giants, that result from the stars of different masses running out of fuel and engaging in their deaths. 
We've witnessed magnetaurs, neutron stars, and other wild beasts that result from giant stars dying. 
We've also witnessed the cores of galaxies, and the supermassive black holes that would have resulted from the coalescence of lesser black holes created from the very first stars after the big bang. 
We know this to be true based on the unique property of the speed of light not only being a limiting factor to travel in our universe, but also a mechanism that allows us to look back in time, since the light from 14.6 billion years ago (the time of the Big Bang so far as we can tell) is just now reaching us and that there appears to be nothing observable beyond that in any spectra. 

Stellar formation is one of my interests, if you can't tell. 

I would recommend a few good programs if you're inclined to watch TV. 

Cosmos with Neil DeGrasse Tyson is amazing. 
How the Universe Works (narrated by a favorite of mine, Mike Rowe) is great since they interview every expert they can find on the topic du jour. 
The Universe, used to be on History and I don't know if it still is, was almost encyclopaedic in their thoroughness, but they did a great job at relating very complicated, and dry, math to the lay person. 

I'd also recommend
A Brief History of Time, and The Universe in a Nutshell, both by Steven Hawking. That man has a talent for explanation, which you'd kind of expect from a tenured professor.


----------



## Madman

I was trying to find a starting point with some.  Bassquatch mentioned apologetics but beginning at what point?  

Some who post here will not acknowledge a self existing being, one that always was and always will be,  from a scientific, philosophical, and theological point of view that belief is is not rational.  With them there is no place of commonality, no starting point.  I know that, from a rational perspective, there must be a self sustaining eternal being, I look at everything from that perspective,  others say that there is no self sustaining eternal being and therefore look at everything from that perspective.  We have no starting point, no need to discuss what they believe does not exist, it is best to just discuss the weather. 


 For those who do believe in a self existent eternal being we can then begin to look at him and for him in nature and then do, as many early Christians did, develop theories, which we then try to prove, to better understand this being.  



Artfuldodger said:


> .
> Is the cause and effect always from God or does he give man the capability to cause and effect?



I assume your question is Does "God" control everything, or does He relinquish control to His creation?

I vote for the first choice.


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> I assume your question is Does "God" control everything, or does He relinquish control to His creation?
> 
> I vote for the first choice.



I would like to believe that also but somehow just realized science would not be possible.
Science could be possible without free will or randomness but then one would need to ask why God needed or used science in the first place.

Madman, do you believe in any type of free will or do you believe in science?


----------



## Artfuldodger

This article shows an interesting take on God & science being compatible with each other:

Rather than undercutting faith and a sense of the spiritual, scientific discoveries are offering support for them, at least in the minds of people of faith. Big-bang cosmology, for instance, once read as leaving no room for a Creator, now implies to some scientists that there is a design and purpose behind the universe. Evolution, say some scientist-theologians, provides clues to the very nature of God. And chaos theory, which describes such mundane processes as the patterns of weather and the dripping of faucets, is being interpreted as opening a door for God to act in the world.

Science cannot prove the existence of God, let alone spy him at the end of a telescope. But to some believers, learning about the universe offers clues about what God might be like. 

As W. Mark Richardson of the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences says, "Science may not serve as an eyewitness of God the creator, but it can serve as a character witness." One place to get a glimpse of God's character, ironically, is in the workings of evolution. 

Arthur Peacocke, a biochemist who became a priest in the Church of England in 1971, has no quarrel with evolution. To the contrary: he finds in it signs of God's nature. He infers, from evolution, that God has chosen to limit his omnipotence and omniscience. In other words, it is the appearance of chance mutations, and the Darwinian laws of natural selection acting on this "variation," that bring about the diversity of life on Earth. 

This process suggests a divine humility, a God who acts selflessly for the good of creation, says theologian John Haught, who founded the Georgetown (University) Center for the Study of Science and Religion. He calls this a "humble retreat on God's part": much as a loving parent lets a child be, and become, freely and without interference, so does God let creation make itself.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/newsweek/science_of_god/scienceofgod.htm


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> I would like to believe that also but somehow just realized science would not be possible.



I would say that without the laws of physics etc. that God created then there would be total randomness, (the apple would fall down today and maybe up tomorrow), therefore science would be impossible.

As for freewill.  Just how free do you believe your will is?


----------



## Artfuldodger

Madman said:


> I would say that without the laws of physics etc. that God created then there would be total randomness, (the apple would fall down today and maybe up tomorrow), therefore science would be impossible.
> 
> As for freewill.  Just how free do you believe your will is?



I don't really know. I wish I could figure it out in percentage.
75% God, 20% me, 3% randomness, and 1%Satan.

While I do believe God made certain scientific laws such as gravity that even free will or randomness can't overcome, I believe God doesn't control everything all the time.
I believe he throws in enough randomness to allow animals to mate with other animals within their species in a random manner. Likewise I don't believe God controls who gets diarrhea or toenail fungus.
I don't believe God decided which pine tree limbs fell off of which trees and whose cars they fell on during our winter ice storm.
I don't believe God decides who will drink too much alcohol tonight.
I don't believe God controls the chemical & PH level in my pool although he could do a much better job than me. He leaves it up to science which needs a certain amount of randomness beyond the realm of the laws God instilled in nature to work. 

Otherwise God could have just as easily made us into another living form capable of living on any planet perhaps getting energy directly from God. We wouldn't even need the sun. It would be like Heaven or the new Earth. 
What kind of laws or science will be needed in Heaven or on the New Earth?


----------



## fc3spr0

What's the last one percent? 


j/k


----------



## centerpin fan

fc3spr0 said:


> what's the last one percent?


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't really know. I wish I could figure it out in percentage.
> 75% God, 20% me, 3% randomness, and 1%Satan.
> 
> While I do believe God made certain scientific laws such as gravity that even free will or randomness can't overcome, I believe God doesn't control everything all the time.




I am not a philosophy student, but I have began studying these ideas and I cannot say I always like the logical conclusion at which I arrive.

For instance, does one believe God is capable of controlling every atom in the universe?   Does he have the ability to make your car turn right when you want to turn left?  Just because he doesn't turn your car does not mean he is not in control or does it mean he has chosen not to act.  He is still in control.

As your "freewill" is the same.  When I go to the movie I can sit anywhere I choose, unless someone is already in that seat.  So my "freewill" takes a backseat to someone else's freewill, whose freewill may have taken a backseat to someone else's and so on and so on.

My will is not all that free.


----------



## Artfuldodger

fc3spr0 said:


> What's the last one percent?
> 
> 
> j/k



I would like to think it's the Lucky 8 Ball but it's actually just bad math caused by a terrible dose of Free Will!


----------



## Madman

Artfuldodger said:


> Madman, do you believe in any type of free will or do you believe in science?



I see no problem in the reconciliation of my belief system and my formal education.


I don't believe "in science", I do believe we use science to find out more about the creator of the universe by looking at His creation and the laws that He created to govern it.

As for free will, suffice it to say I don't believe our will is as free as we would like to think.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Artfuldodger,
I'm not sure if you were just making a general point or addressing me or what, but who in this thread has ever said science was the work of the devil or that science and the Bible are incompatible. JB0704 was right that in the biblical worldview, science is simply the study of God's creation. Science confirms the Bible and is in fact contingent on God. But when fallible and imperfect humans do research and from that research come to conclusions that do not fit with the Bible, our first thought as Christians should be to re-examine the research rather than try to reinterpret the Bible; especially considering much of the research is done with the scientist already assuming concepts popularized by those who reject biblical authority completely (for example, Charles Lyell, who popularized the idea of long ages in geology, thought the Bible was a joke and often mocked it). Popular beliefs in the scientific community change periodically, but the Bible says God stays the same yesterday, today, and forever, and so does His Word. 
You brought up the question of why God would create in six days. That is a main reason that many Christians say the six days were literal twenty-four hour days. God could have created everything instantly. Lengthening the creation process to six days was certainly not for God's own benefit. But in Exodus 20, God told Moses that Israel was to work six days and rest one because He did so. Obviously, six days of work and one of rest was a pattern for our benefit. Our days are not long, undefined periods of time, so why would God take long ages to set an example for us if our days are only twenty-four hours? One can conversely ask why God would decide to take long ages to create if it was completely within His power to do it in six days or instantly. It's not a good answer to say He did it so the stars and planets and oceans can form, because the Bible gives a completely different order for those events than the secular models which assert long ages. And it can't be so life can evolve, because that would require millions of years of death and disease, but God said those only entered into the world after man sinned. These are also obviously not good things, and the Bible says they won't exist in the new creation, but throughout creation week, God said His creation was "very good." Again, science is a wonderful thing and is completely biblical, but Christians shouldn't accept fallible man's word, which changes constantly, over God's inerrant truth.


----------



## Bassquatch328

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I won't spoon feed, not because I don't care to, but because I've already given you the information and you're choosing to argue it with me rather than follow it for yourself. Not to say that I don't enjoy these tete a tete's, I just don't have the time for it right now to do it justice, and when I do, I'm at home with 1000 other things that need my attention.


I don't expect any spoon feeding, and same here.



> The science of stellar formation is very well understood, and is probably the most straight forward of all of the big bang concepts.
> 
> Hydrogen + Gravity + Time = Star


The concept is well understood, but it's definitely not without assumptions, problems, and debate. Astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle summarizes it in the following way:
"According to the standard model of star formation, stars form from a collapsing nebula. However, when gas is compressed, it heats up. This higher temperature creates extra pressure which resists further compression. The collapse would have a tendency to stop before the star ever formed. Furthermore, a collapsing cloud would spin faster as it collapsed. This is much the same way a skater spins up as she pulls her arms in. As the cloud spins faster, it becomes increasingly difficult to pull material in further: much as weights held at arm’s length are difficult to pull closer when one is spinning. Even if the star were able to form by pulling in the material, it would be spinning extremely rapidly. A small percentage of stars do spin rapidly, but most do not. The sun takes about 25 days to rotate once at its equator.
There is also a problem with magnetic fields. The intrinsic (weak) magnetic field of the collapsing nebula would become intensified as the cloud collapsed; the process “concentrates” the magnetic field. The magnetic field would then resist being compressed further—much like trying to push two magnets together when their like poles are facing each other. Gas pressure, angular momentum, and magnetic fields all work against the possibility of a condensing star."
From what I have seen in other papers (secular if you're wondering, although Dr. Lisle is published in secular papers and the above is pretty much textbook stuff anyway), there have been suggestions to solve these problems, but none have been accepted unanimously. Most of these suggestions also rely on pre-existing stars, so they still do not account for how the first stars formed. 



> We've witnessed the nucleus of the star being formed. We've seen the jets that result from the reactions starting, but not the reactions themselves, that's impossible.
> We've seen the dust blowing away as the star stabilizes going on to form the accretion disk that will eventually become that stars planetary system.
> We've seen supernovae, and red giants, that result from the stars of different masses running out of fuel and engaging in their deaths.
> We've witnessed magnetaurs, neutron stars, and other wild beasts that result from giant stars dying.
> We've also witnessed the cores of galaxies, and the supermassive black holes that would have resulted from the coalescence of lesser black holes created from the very first stars after the big bang.
> We know this to be true based on the unique property of the speed of light not only being a limiting factor to travel in our universe, but also a mechanism that allows us to look back in time, since the light from 14.6 billion years ago (the time of the Big Bang so far as we can tell) is just now reaching us and that there appears to be nothing observable beyond that in any spectra.


I don't deny those, although I would clarify on some points. Firstly, just to be clear, I have no problem with star death; but star birth is another animal. Could you clarify on the nucleus of the star "being formed?" What specifically are you referring to? If I understand you correctly, that would objectively solve the problems of the gas actually condensing to form the star, but I haven't read any such news that this is so. Then on the subject of solar system formation, that too has evidential and theoretical problems. And the last point of your list of observations is contingent on the speed of light. However, your point demands that light travels the same speed in all directions (isotropic synchrony or Einstein Synchrony Convention), which cannot be stated with certainty. The round-trip speed of light is the same in all directions in a vacuum, you are dealing with the one-way speed of light which Einstein as well as today's scientific community realize cannot be measured. One could just as reasonably assume an anisotropic synchrony convention. So one can't accurately say "we know this is true [based on a speed we can't know]."



> Cosmos with Neil DeGrasse Tyson is amazing.


I personally haven't watched it, but I have read the original Cosmos series was more accurate (relative to the time, of course), and the new one contains even historical inaccuracies.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Artfuldodger,
> I'm not sure if you were just making a general point or addressing me or what, but who in this thread has ever said science was the work of the devil or that science and the Bible are incompatible. JB0704 was right that in the biblical worldview, science is simply the study of God's creation. Science confirms the Bible and is in fact contingent on God. But when fallible and imperfect humans do research and from that research come to conclusions that do not fit with the Bible, our first thought as Christians should be to re-examine the research rather than try to reinterpret the Bible; especially considering much of the research is done with the scientist already assuming concepts popularized by those who reject biblical authority completely (for example, Charles Lyell, who popularized the idea of long ages in geology, thought the Bible was a joke and often mocked it). Popular beliefs in the scientific community change periodically, but the Bible says God stays the same yesterday, today, and forever, and so does His Word.
> You brought up the question of why God would create in six days. That is a main reason that many Christians say the six days were literal twenty-four hour days. God could have created everything instantly. Lengthening the creation process to six days was certainly not for God's own benefit. But in Exodus 20, God told Moses that Israel was to work six days and rest one because He did so. Obviously, six days of work and one of rest was a pattern for our benefit. Our days are not long, undefined periods of time, so why would God take long ages to set an example for us if our days are only twenty-four hours? One can conversely ask why God would decide to take long ages to create if it was completely within His power to do it in six days or instantly. It's not a good answer to say He did it so the stars and planets and oceans can form, because the Bible gives a completely different order for those events than the secular models which assert long ages. And it can't be so life can evolve, because that would require millions of years of death and disease, but God said those only entered into the world after man sinned. These are also obviously not good things, and the Bible says they won't exist in the new creation, but throughout creation week, God said His creation was "very good." Again, science is a wonderful thing and is completely biblical, but Christians shouldn't accept fallible man's word, which changes constantly, over God's inerrant truth.





> Bassquatch328 (for example, Charles Lyell, who popularized the idea of long ages in geology, thought the Bible was a joke and often mocked it)





> Lyell's staunch Christianity was apparent in his treatment of the Theory of Evolution as a possibility, but not a certainty.





> Lyell, a devout Christian, had great difficulty reconciling his beliefs with natural selection.[





> He was a deist and, in his thinking, God made the universe





> Bassquatch328  Science confirms the Bible


So dishonest. Confirming some places and people existed does NOT confirm the Bible.
When did science confirm that the Christian God exists? I missed that somehow.


----------



## Artfuldodger

WaltL1 said:


> So dishonest. Confirming some places and people existed does NOT confirm the Bible.
> When did science confirm that the Christian God exists? I missed that somehow.



It's not like I can't find Theist Evolutionists.
Example:

In this provocative book, evolutionist and evangelical Christian Denis O. Lamoureux proposes an approach to origins that moves beyond the 'evolution-versus-creation' debate. Arguing for an intimate relationship between the Book of God's Words and the Book of God's Works, he presents evolutionary creation a position that asserts that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit created the universe and life through an ordained and sustained evolutionary process. This view of origins affirms an evolutionary understanding of the concept of intelligent design and the belief that beauty, complexity, and functionality in nature reflect the mind of God. Lamoureux also challenges the popular Christian assumption that the Holy Spirit revealed scientific and historical facts in the opening chapters of the Bible. He contends that Scripture features an ancient understanding of origins that functions as a vessel to deliver inerrant and infallible messages of faith. The book closes with the two most important issues in the origins controversy: pastoral and pedagogical implications. How should churches approach this volatile topic? And what should Christians teach their children about origins?

http://www.amazon.com/Evolutionary-...ach-Evolution/dp/1556355815?tag=vglnkc2567-20


----------



## Artfuldodger

If creation in Genesis is literal and no scientific process can parallel this creation, then why are some Christians OK to dismiss other Biblical events and use science to explain them?
I use the rainbow often as an example or that man thinks with his heart instead of his brain. 

Here is another:
I believe the Bible is inspired, infallible and authoritative, that doesn't mean I have to interpret the first part of Genesis literally. The question is, was Genesis intended to be interpreted literally? You believe it was, I believe it wasn't.

As to your other comments, do you harbor similar outrage toward Christians who allow their view of scripture to be swayed by the scientists who claim the earth revolves around the sun? After all, the Bible clearly teaches that the earth does not move (e.g. 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1 and Psalm 96:10) and the sun does (Joshua 10:12-13, Habakkuk 3:11 and Ecclesiastes 1:5), such that a leading cleric was quoted during the Galileo affair as saying, "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."

I see. So when the Psalmist wrote in Psalm 104:5, "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved," evoking clear imagery of a large structure like a temple being built on a firm foundation, you're saying that what the author "really meant" was that the earth was set upon a constantly revolving "foundation" of empty space. Makes perfect sense.

http://www.godofevolution.com/statement-of-faith-for-christian-theistic-evolutionists/


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm saying anyone who claims we have actually observed star formation, rather than just observing stages and processes _thought to be associated with_ star formation, is saying or implying something that is simply not true.
> I have heard of stars "switching on," but I'm having trouble finding information specifically on this subject. The only information I have found that is similar to the topic deals more with starlight and its relationship with spacial dust clouds, but "switching on" to me implies (and seemed to be explicitly stated by one cosmologist) the point at which stars actually begin to facilitate nuclear reactions and produce light. May I ask where I could find the information specifically dealing with this so I can better discuss it?
> Another thing is that it's not just that we haven't observed star formation. Star formation seems to be shrouded in questions of the physics of gases actually compressing into stars to which solutions have been proposed, but to my knowledge (using my limited free-to-use resources) are still very debated. The physics-related challenges seem to be easier to solve if one were to deal with stars born from a pre-existing star that has died, but that doesn't alleviate the challenge of the first stars. And then that gets into supposed conditions of the early universe and questions of the lack of monopoles and Population III stars, and that would be pretty time consuming and stray away from the original topic of this thread.



How would you teach Biology and Anatomy?  Particularly in relation to how donkey vocal chords might be able to produce human speech?


----------



## Artfuldodger

If a rainbow can be explained by light refraction, can the Ark of the Covenant be explained as a giant battery or being radioactive?
If literal how would one explain the Firmament that seperates the two different waters?


----------



## ambush80

Artfuldodger said:


> If a rainbow can be explained by light refraction, can the Ark of the Covenant be explained as a giant battery or being radioactive?
> If literal how would one explain the Firmament that seperates the two different waters?



You keep talking about rainbows.  Do you think there was no such thing as atomized water particles or that light refracted differently before the flood......in order for there to be rainbows?


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> So dishonest. Confirming some places and people existed does NOT confirm the Bible.
> When did science confirm that the Christian God exists? I missed that somehow.


The quotes you posted are completely irrelevant to my assertion. I never said Lyell didn't consider himself a Christian (although, as essentially a Unitarian, he wasn't). But it is clear that in his attempt to "free the science of geology from Moses" and his admission that his ideas were "anti-Mosaical," he held a position of derision regarding the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. And this bias shows in his writings, as he was prone to stating arbitrary values of age (which now are thought to be way off the mark) in part because he sought to discredit the Bible, which he saw as a major hindrance to geology. Even modern geologists recognize that Lyell would fudge figures and blind himself to evidence contrary to his ideas, and Stephen Jay Gould noted that, in Lyell's time, it was the catastrophists, not uniformitarians, who were more empirically minded.


> Lyell relied upon true bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. . . . In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence. The geologic record, he argued, is extremely imperfect and we must interpolate into it what we can reasonably infer but cannot see. The catastrophists were the hardnosed empiricists of their day, not the blinded theological apologists.


-Gould
By the way, "dishonest" is a funny word for you to use. Why, on your own worldview, should dishonesty be wrong?


----------



## Artfuldodger

ambush80 said:


> You keep talking about rainbows.  Do you think there was no such thing as atomized water particles or that light refracted differently before the flood......in order for there to be rainbows?



I believe that there was but if everything in the Bible is literal then there wasn't rainbows in the sky before the flood. Perhaps God grabbed one from a waterfall and placed it in the sky. 
Regardless we can describe a rainbow as you just did or as God did. The problem I have with most Christians is why is it OK to use science to explain the rainbow as you did but not creation? 
Now one could say creation is explained as God poofing everything in six days. Even if he did the reason someone gave about being to show us to rest on the Sabbath isn't biblical. There are many things that involve science to include reproduction. God prophesied many people being born to certain parents. Using the same logic, we can't say just reproduction is a part of this. According to most Christians science is OK for everthing between creation and death but not those two. The beginning and end is from God.
I just see irony.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> The quotes you posted are completely irrelevant to my assertion. I never said Lyell didn't consider himself a Christian (although, as essentially a Unitarian, he wasn't). But it is clear that in his attempt to "free the science of geology from Moses" and his admission that his ideas were "anti-Mosaical," he held a position of derision regarding the inerrancy and authority of the Bible. And this bias shows in his writings, as he was prone to stating arbitrary values of age (which now are thought to be way off the mark) in part because he sought to discredit the Bible, which he saw as a major hindrance to geology. Even modern geologists recognize that Lyell would fudge figures and blind himself to evidence contrary to his ideas, and Stephen Jay Gould noted that, in Lyell's time, it was the catastrophists, not uniformitarians, who were more empirically minded.
> -Gould
> By the way, "dishonest" is a funny word for you to use. Why, on your own worldview, should dishonesty be wrong?


Your response is straight out of answersingenesis.
Cant imagine why they would want to discredit him.
My 3 different quotes were just 3 random nongenesis websites I clicked on when I did a search. Interesting how the info paints two different pictures.


> By the way, "dishonest" is a funny word for you to use. Why, on your own worldview, should dishonesty be wrong?


Your argument is tiring. Time for you to find some new catch phrases to cling on to. That one is getting you nowhere.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Artfuldodger said:


> If creation in Genesis is literal and no scientific process can parallel this creation, then why are some Christians OK to dismiss other Biblical events and use science to explain them?
> I use the rainbow often as an example or that man thinks with his heart instead of his brain.


Because it's not arbitrary. As I said earlier, there are events in the Bible that are described as occurring through natural means, and there are events that are described as miraculous. To attempt to explain naturally what the Bible describes as miraculous is to disregard the text, as it attempting to explain a biblical event through miraculous means when no such implication is given. 



> Here is another:
> I believe the Bible is inspired, infallible and authoritative, that doesn't mean I have to interpret the first part of Genesis literally. The question is, was Genesis intended to be interpreted literally? You believe it was, I believe it wasn't.


You would be hard-pressed to present evidence that Genesis was not meant to be interpreted literally. The literal reading is confirmed by both OT and NT references to Genesis, is consistent with the biblical dichotomy of "very good" and sin, and tends to be the interpretation held by Hebrew scholars (although the biblical indications are far more important).



> As to your other comments, do you harbor similar outrage toward Christians who allow their view of scripture to be swayed by the scientists who claim the earth revolves around the sun? After all, the Bible clearly teaches that the earth does not move (e.g. 1 Chronicles 16:30, Psalm 93:1 and Psalm 96:10)


The Bible actually does not endorse any system as far as geocentrism and heliocentrism. The passages you mentioned make no indication of geocentrism in the original Hebrew or in translated English. If you want specific discussion of said grammar, this article discusses it well. https://answersingenesis.org/creationism/arguments-to-avoid/geocentrism-and-creation/


> and the sun does (Joshua 10:12-13


Joshua 10 does not indicate that the sun as an astronomical body moved in space. It does, however, indicate that the sun's position as seen from earth abnormally froze (which is also mentioned in accounts from the Chinese, West Africans, North American Indians, and others), without stating if this was due to the sun's movement or the earth's. Joshua also described a miraculous event, so it doesn't really apply to geocentrism vs heliocentrism as a regular and general pattern. Furthermore, the sun does move in our galaxy, and our galaxy moves in the universe. 





> Habakkuk 3:11


Figurative and poetic passage, as should be clearly evident. 


> and Ecclesiastes 1:5)


I guess everyone in the world says the sun moves then, because I don't know a soul who doesn't say the sun sets and rises.


> such that a leading cleric was quoted during the Galileo affair as saying, "To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin."


What a leading cleric had to say is irrelevant to what the Bible says. And the body of that age that called itself the church held a geocentric view largely because it was the dominant view in what was that time's scientific community. Missionaries to places such as China began teaching heliocentrism and Galileo's ideas pretty quickly.


> I see. So when the Psalmist wrote in Psalm 104:5, "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved," evoking clear imagery of a large structure like a temple being built on a firm foundation, you're saying that what the author "really meant" was that the earth was set upon a constantly revolving "foundation" of empty space. Makes perfect sense.


Similar claim already addressed.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> Your response is straight out of answersingenesis.
> Cant imagine why they would want to discredit him.
> My 3 different quotes were just 3 random nongenesis websites I clicked on when I did a search. Interesting how the info paints two different pictures.


Genetic fallacy. Where information is found has no bearing on the information or argument's truth or merit. The same sentiments are as easily found by searching "Charles Lyell Moses" on Google Scholar and at http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~curd/lyellhd.html when searching "modern criticism of Charles Lyell." And of course the info paints two different pictures when the info is related to two different subjects. Your quotes were irrelevant to the issue, so why should they answer the question of how Lyell regarded biblical authority?



> Your argument is tiring. Time for you to find some new catch phrases to cling on to. That one is getting you nowhere.


It ought to be easy to answer if you're right. But so far you've just dismissed it without actually addressing it.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Genetic fallacy. Where information is found has no bearing on the information or argument's truth or merit. The same sentiments are as easily found by searching "Charles Lyell Moses" on Google Scholar and at http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~curd/lyellhd.html when searching "modern criticism of Charles Lyell." And of course the info paints two different pictures when the info is related to two different subjects. Your quotes were irrelevant to the issue, so why should they answer the question of how Lyell regarded biblical authority?
> 
> 
> It ought to be easy to answer if you're right. But so far you've just dismissed it without actually addressing it.


Yawn


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> Because it's not arbitrary. As I said earlier, there are events in the Bible that are described as occurring through natural means, and there are events that are described as miraculous. To attempt to explain naturally what the Bible describes as miraculous is to disregard the text, as it attempting to explain a biblical event through miraculous means when no such implication is given.



Lead me through the intellectual process that allows you to believe in the supernatural.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Lead me through the intellectual process that allows you to believe in the supernatural.



If it exists, it ain't supernatural.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> If it exists, it ain't supernatural.



Then a talking donkey is natural?  Besides, I'm using his word.  I relegate the term "supernatural" to the funny pages.


----------



## Bassquatch328

Artfuldodger said:


> If a rainbow can be explained by light refraction, can the Ark of the Covenant be explained as a giant battery or being radioactive?
> If literal how would one explain the Firmament that seperates the two different waters?


I suppose when you say "giant battery" or "radioactive," you have in mind the incident with Uzzah. The Ark of the Covenant would have no reason to be such an object. The Bible makes clear that the Ark was nothing more than acacia wood overlaid with gold, and it thus had no power in and of itself. The Bible even makes ridicule of those who think they can go out and cut down a tree, burn half of it, and make the other half a powerful and saving god. The Ark was simply to signify God's presence with Israel and to house certain objects, and even then God did not go out with Israel regardless of where the Ark was. It was not meant to be anything other than an inert object with great significance, just as the bronze serpent was just ordinary bronze with no powers but huge significance (if it was anything other than ordinary bronze, it would have helped the Israelites when they started worshiping it). Thus, the Uzzah incident was purely by God's power, and not by any inherent properties of the Ark.
Like the Ark, the rainbow is just an ordinary thing with great significance. Nowhere does the Bible say rainbows didn't exist before the Flood. God simply said, "I do set My rainbow in the cloud, and it shall be for the sign of the covenant between Me and the earth." He never says He had never set a rainbow in the clouds before, but He simply says the rainbow shall signify the covenant He had made. And for this to be a regular thing with new significance would not break any pattern in Scripture. The Jews had certainly eaten lambs before the Passover, but this took on a new meaning when the Passover was instituted. 
As for the firmament, a better translation of the Hebrew word used would be "expanse." In its usage in Scripture, it is clear that the word refers to the sky. This is even the dictionary definition of the same word in Modern Hebrew. The Bible says birds fly across its face, the sun and moon and stars are in it, there is water in it, etc. The waters below the expanse are simply the waters on earth, and the waters above refer to any waters not on earth's surface (more specifically that in the atmosphere, although there is water beyond our atmosphere which is also included in the term).


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> Yawn


"argument"-
a process of reasoning; series of reasons

a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point

an address or composition intended to convince or persuade

"Yawn"- not an argument; possibly indicative of an inability to develop a cogent and sound refutation


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> Lead me through the intellectual process that allows you to believe in the supernatural.


When you say "intellectual process," that assumes the existence of both logic and thought. The alternative to a supernatural worldview is of course a naturalistic worldview. Logic is an immaterial and abstract entity, but the naturalistic world is purely physical. Logic is also universal and invariant, but no physical thing exists everywhere at once and the universe is constantly changing. In the naturalistic worldview, there is no real thought, only electro-chemical reactions in the brain over which no one has control. So your question itself denies the naturalistic worldview and demonstrates why a supernatural worldview must be true.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> "argument"-
> a process of reasoning; series of reasons
> 
> a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point
> 
> an address or composition intended to convince or persuade
> 
> "Yawn"- not an argument; possibly indicative of an inability to develop a cogent and sound refutation


Or it could mean your insistence on clinging to outdated and debunked "worldview" theories and your inability to think beyond answersingenesis, has become tiresome and boring. I don't need you to regurgitate answersingenesis, I can just go to the site myself and cut out the middle man.
Lets take a break from our conversations and you can focus on the other questions you are being asked.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> Or it could mean your insistence on clinging to outdated and debunked "worldview" theories and your inability to think beyond answersingenesis, has become tiresome and boring. I don't need you to regurgitate answersingenesis, I can just go to the site myself and cut out the middle man.
> Lets take a break from our conversations and you can focus on the other questions you are being asked.


Such an "outdated and debunked" argument should be quite easy to refute, but you have yet to even attempt to do so. Also, why put "worldview" in quotation marks as if it were not a thing? You have given no reason to refute the idea of a worldview, and most would say it's impossible to do so. Furthermore, to say something read from another source and agreed with is "regurgitated" and merely imply invalidity is not to refute the argument. I could very easily say that you are incapable of thinking beyond a textbook because you use mathematics, but that does not refute mathematics.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Then a talking donkey is natural?



As far as we know, it sure ain't.  But, if the universe were reversed, and evolution played some jokes on us, and people hee-hawed and donkeys talked, it would seem very normal to all of us.

A talking donkey would require some anatomical re-arranging.

But, everything that occurs in nature is natural.  Even God.  Think about it......humans can fly.  It requires some mechanical rearranging, but we pull it off.  Probably confuses the donkeys too.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> As far as we know, it sure ain't.  But, if the universe were reversed, and evolution played some jokes on us, and people hee-hawed and donkeys talked, it would seem very normal to all of us.
> 
> A talking donkey would require some anatomical re-arranging.
> 
> Think about it......humans can fly.  It requires some mechanical rearranging, but we pull it off.  Probably confuses the donkeys too.


Um that mechanical rearranging is called being a passenger on something that CAN fly because we cant.
I tried it as a kid. It hurt. A donkey could have flew just as far as I did


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> Um that mechanical rearranging is called being a passenger on something that CAN fly because we cant.



I don't think a donkey knows the difference 



WaltL1 said:


> I tried it as a kid. It hurt. A donkey could have flew just as far as I did



I tried when I was little too.  Got one scar on my forehead, and another from a knee surgery which all served to prove that I just needed to try harder.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> I don't think a donkey knows the difference
> 
> 
> 
> I tried when I was little too.  Got one scar on my forehead, and another from a knee surgery which all served to prove that I just needed to try harder.


If at first you don't succeed..... Now that you are older and stronger you could probably flap your arms a lot faster.
I say go for it.


----------



## JB0704

WaltL1 said:


> If at first you don't succeed..... Now that you are older and stronger you could probably flap your arms a lot faster.
> I say go for it.



I prefer the super-cape method


----------



## 660griz

Bassquatch328 said:


> In the naturalistic worldview, there is no real thought, only electro-chemical reactions in the brain over which no one has control. So your question itself denies the naturalistic worldview and demonstrates why a supernatural worldview must be true.



A supernatural worldview would have killed us all(or most) a long time ago. 
When I get sick, I prefer that a cure is sought and not blamed on a demon. I'll take those electro-chemical reactions over supernatural any day.

However, everyone is entitled to their views. I think religious folks should be exempt from the healthcare mandate. I mean, it goes against their worldview, right? 
Just pray or exorcise that demon out. Couple slaps on the forehead and you will be fine.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Such an "outdated and debunked" argument should be quote easy to refute, but you have yet to even attempt to do so. Also, why put "worldview" in quotation marks as if it were not a thing? You have given no reason to refute the idea of a worldview, and most would say it's impossible to do so. Furthermore, to say something read from another source and agreed with is "regurgitated" and merely imply invalidity is not to refute the argument. I could very easily say that you are incapable of thinking beyond a textbook because you use mathematics, but that does not refute mathematics.





> Such an "outdated and debunked" argument should be quote easy to refute, but you have yet to even attempt to do so.


Read that to yourself. Hopefully you will see how silly it is.
Add this to the list of information you have been given that you have ignored or rejected -


> At first sight, this anti-skeptical potential of such arguments makes them seem powerful and attractive, by offering a proof of what otherwise might seem to be known only through inductive reasoning or fallible experience. However, as we shall see, transcendental arguments conceived of in this ambitious form have struggled to live up to this promise,





> though they still have their devotees


You would fall into that category.


> Nonetheless, the potential for such arguments has been kept alive, by reassessing their possible uses, where it has been suggested that they can perhaps be given a more modest role, which then makes them more viable and enables their apparent difficulties to be set aside


What you are trying to prove is using this argument in the pre reassessment form. It was shown not be a viable argument so therefore had to be reassessed and given a more modest role. In other words, it doesnt work the way you want it to.
View it as buying a little 4 cylinder truck to pull your 35' luxury camper. You then figured out it wasn't powerful enough to do the job intended. However its still great at going to the grocery store so no need to completely scrap it. You just cant use it the way you intended to. It cannot accomplish what you wanted it to.


> Also, why put "worldview" in quotation marks as if it were not a thing? You have given no reason to refute the idea of a worldview, and most would say it's impossible to do so.


Because you refuse and dismiss the mountain of information you have been given already you don't realize its not "worldviews" that is the issue, it is how you are trying to use "worldviews". See above.


> The features discussed above therefore have a reasonable claim to be what make transcendental arguments distinctive, at least of the sort we have considered so far. However, as we shall now go on to see, transcendental arguments of this type have turned out to be open to serious objections, so that alternative models have been proposed which do not incorporate all these features in quite the same way.


It isn't sound. Alternative models proposed without the features of your argument. Because it doesn't work the way you are trying to use it.
Full article here. Note the difference in authorship between the links you are provided with the links you provide. -


> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/transcendental-arguments/


Lots more links with lots more information outside of answersingenesis if you actually care to learn about the validity of the argument you are making.


> Furthermore, to say something read from another source and agreed with is


You can agree with anything you want. However if you are going to post it up here for debate you are going to have to stop ignoring and rejecting the mountain of info against it because you don't personally agree with it.
Your favorite saying of "if you are right you should be able to...." applies to you to. You haven't done that and you cant do that.


> is "regurgitated" and merely imply invalidity is not to refute the argument


Regurgitated fits perfectly. The bulk of your arguments are word for word what is said on answersingenesis or directly related sites. And I don't mean similar I mean word for word. Yet you don't put that information in quotes to show that. You assert it is as your own and everybody is suitably impressed. At first.
So here you have been given more information. Do with it what you will. 
Im not going to answer questions or debate it any further. 
Its all there in front of you, you can choose to ignore it or reject it or research it or whatever you want to do based on "what you agree with".
If you continue on with your "worldview" or "if you are right" arguments, we will know what choice you made.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> When you say "intellectual process," that assumes the existence of both logic and thought. The alternative to a supernatural worldview is of course a naturalistic worldview. Logic is an immaterial and abstract entity, but the naturalistic world is purely physical. Logic is also universal and invariant, but no physical thing exists everywhere at once and the universe is constantly changing. In the naturalistic worldview, there is no real thought, only electro-chemical reactions in the brain over which no one has control. So your question itself denies the naturalistic worldview and demonstrates why a supernatural worldview must be true.



intellectual process can mean alot of things and it may or may not involve logic as you will demonstrate when you attempt to explain a talking donkey.

Logic doesn't exist without a mind suited to conceive it.  My reality only exists because I am here to experience it.  

Why haven't you answered post #403?


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> As far as we know, it sure ain't.  But, if the universe were reversed, and evolution played some jokes on us, and people hee-hawed and donkeys talked, it would seem very normal to all of us.
> 
> A talking donkey would require some anatomical re-arranging.
> 
> But, everything that occurs in nature is natural.  Even God.  Think about it......humans can fly.  It requires some mechanical rearranging, but we pull it off.  Probably confuses the donkeys too.



You are saying if things were different, they'd be different.

Things are the way they are and they don't allow for talking donkeys.

IF god exists then he would be part of the natural world.  He hasn't been demonstrated to exist.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> You are saying if things were different, they'd be different.
> 
> Things are the way they are and they don't allow for talking donkeys.



Yes, that's what I'm saying.  But, my point is that we would accept those differences as normal.  Our concept of supernatural is based on what we know to be natural.  However, we don't know where those boundaries begin and end.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Yes, that's what I'm saying.  But, my point is that we would accept those differences as normal.  Our concept of supernatural is based on what we know to be natural.  However, we don't know where those boundaries begin and end.



Has a donkey ever talked?  Tell me you really believe it.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Has a donkey ever talked?  Tell me you really believe it.


 

Wouldn't your perspective lead you to believe it is within the realm of possibilities?  Look at everything we have which is "normal," compare it to everything outside of our planet, and figure how odd is must be to stardust that there is talking things on this planet.

They don't talk now.  The story which references them talking has all kinds of other stuff which you might find equally fantastic.  I will be pleasantly surprised to find out I am wrong in how I view those few chapters.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Wouldn't your perspective lead you to believe it is within the realm of possibilities?  Look at everything we have which is "normal," compare it to everything outside of our planet, and figure how odd is must be to stardust that there is talking things on this planet.
> 
> They don't talk now.  The story which references them talking has all kinds of other stuff which you might find equally fantastic.  I will be pleasantly surprised to find out I am wrong in how I view those few chapters.



My perspective, and I believe it to be firmly grounded in reality, tells me that a donkey would have to have its intrinsic form altered, physically and mentally in order to speak like a human.  It's impossible.

 "how odd is must be to stardust that there is talking things on this planet."

This part I just don't get.


Do you view those chapters as metaphors?  How about the flood?


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> "how odd is must be to stardust that there is talking things on this planet."
> 
> This part I just don't get.



It's perspective, isn't it?  You guys claim regularly that we are all stardust.  Now, imagine you are a speck of stardust floating a billion miles away, cold, dead, nothingness.....and somebody tells you there is a place where stardust ahs assembled, and talks.




ambush80 said:


> Do you view those chapters as metaphors?  How about the flood?



I don't talk about it much because I generally find myself in the middle of a very unproductive conversation.  One side calls me crazy and the other considers me a heretic.  I generally figure it doesn't matter either way in the grand scheme of things.

I'd much rather kick the logical/philosophical ball around, if you don't mind


----------



## Bassquatch328

660griz said:


> A supernatural worldview would have killed us all(or most) a long time ago.
> When I get sick, I prefer that a cure is sought and not blamed on a demon. I'll take those electro-chemical reactions over supernatural any day.
> 
> However, everyone is entitled to their views. I think religious folks should be exempt from the healthcare mandate. I mean, it goes against their worldview, right?
> Just pray or exorcise that demon out. Couple slaps on the forehead and you will be fine.


Strawman argument (when referring specifically to the biblical worldview; idk about other supernatural worldviews). Nowhere does the Bible preclude natural cures to diseases nor does it affirm that diseases are merely demons. It does imply physical as well as mental disorders that may come with demon possession, but it does not ever state that these ailments are caused only by such possession.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> Read that to yourself. Hopefully you will see how silly it is.


I'll have to admit that you're right. It was silly of my to type "quote" in place of "quite." Ya gotta hate those typos.


> What you are trying to prove is using this argument in the pre reassessment form. It was shown not be a viable argument so therefore had to be reassessed and given a more modest role. In other words, it doesnt work the way you want it to.


Actually, if you would read the section of that article on the readjusted arguments, the argument I have presented is more similar to some of those. And that same article as a whole implies more that the problem is more with how to apply transcendental arguments or using them in certain cases than with the principle of the concept itself. That should be expected, considering not all positions provide the epistemological justification that is required. If a transcendental argument does not work to support a position, that position is likely wrong.



> It isn't sound. Alternative models proposed without the features of your argument. Because it doesn't work the way you are trying to use it.
> Full article here. Note the difference in authorship between the links you are provided with the links you provide. -
> 
> Lots more links with lots more information outside of answersingenesis if you actually care to learn about the validity of the argument you are making.


"Open to serious objection" and "unsound" are not synonymous. When the heliocentric model was first proposed, it faced "serious objection," but that didn't make it unsound. And a search for alternative models does not mean transcendental arguments are unsound either. However, it does at least mean that transcendental arguments do not perform the way _those searching for alternatives_ hoped, because it doesn't support their position and worldview. You have yet to refute the transcendental argument in its particular application here. BTW, I had seen that article long before you posted it here, and you have engaged in another genetic fallacy. But for the sake of argument, the authors of the links I posted have Ph.D's in their fields of study and often either have graduated from, are employed at, or are publish by prestigious institutions. So what exactly is your point in "the difference in authorship?"



> You can agree with anything you want. However if you are going to post it up here for debate you are going to have to stop ignoring and rejecting the mountain of info against it because you don't personally agree with it.
> Your favorite saying of "if you are right you should be able to...." applies to you to. You haven't done that and you cant do that.


Simply stating that there is a "mountain of info" against an argument does not refute it. You must actually point out where an argument fails and you have not done so.


> Regurgitated fits perfectly. The bulk of your arguments are word for word what is said on answersingenesis or directly related sites. And I don't mean similar I mean word for word. Yet you don't put that information in quotes to show that. You assert it is as your own and everybody is suitably impressed. At first.


So now you are going to engage in the plagiarism charge? If I have posted anything word for word without putting it in quotes, it was unintentionally from recall. I will readily admit that I have used arguments and even examples used by others because I sometimes have trouble putting thoughts into words and the best example I could ever think of has already been used, but to say that I have plagiarized that work without demonstrating the truth of such a claim is unethical on your part. There has been no occasion on this forum where I have directly and intentionally copied and pasted the work of others without putting it in either quotation marks or in the quotation boxes provided by the formatting tools of this forum. 



> Im not going to answer questions or debate it any further.


Good because I have to study for Econ and do my AP work.


> Its all there in front of you, you can choose to ignore it or reject it or research it or whatever you want to do based on "what you agree with".
> If you continue on with your "worldview" or "if you are right" arguments, we will know what choice you made.


Says the one who has engaged in genetic fallacies on multiple occasions, has dismissed arguments without actually refuting them, and cannot account for the laws of logic.


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> intellectual process can mean alot of things and it may or may not involve logic as you will demonstrate when you attempt to explain a talking donkey.


Intellectual processes necessarily involve logic. If you disagree then you are using a personally invented definition of logic not used by the rest of the world. And I have already explained the donkey. Whether you accept that explanation or reject it has no bearing on that fact, nor does it refute the logical soundness of the explanation given.



> Logic doesn't exist without a mind suited to conceive it.  My reality only exists because I am here to experience it.


So before there was ever any mind (in your worldview; there has always been a mind in mine), logic could both exist and not exist, be man-made and non-man-made, concrete and not concrete, abstract and not abstract (and a host of other absurdities) in the same sense at the same time? Your argument runs itself into absurdity and defeats itself.



> Why haven't you answered post #403?


Because I didn't think it was necessary to considering I have already answered your question about the donkey. But how would you teach biology in your worldview, particularly in relation to how abiogenesis would be possible and minds could both exist and not exist before minds existed (and did not exist)?


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'll have to admit that you're right. It was silly of my to type "quote" in place of "quite." Ya gotta hate those typos.
> 
> Actually, if you would read the section of that article on the readjusted arguments, the argument I have presented is more similar to some of those. And that same article as a whole implies more that the problem is more with how to apply transcendental arguments or using them in certain cases than with the principle of the concept itself. That should be expected, considering not all positions provide the epistemological justification that is required. If a transcendental argument does not work to support a position, that position is likely wrong.
> 
> 
> "Open to serious objection" and "unsound" are not synonymous. When the heliocentric model was first proposed, it faced "serious objection," but that didn't make it unsound. And a search for alternative models does not mean transcendental arguments are unsound either. However, it does at least mean that transcendental arguments do not perform the way _those searching for alternatives_ hoped, because it doesn't support their position and worldview. You have yet to refute the transcendental argument in its particular application here. BTW, I had seen that article long before you posted it here, and you have engaged in another genetic fallacy. But for the sake of argument, the authors of the links I posted have Ph.D's in their fields of study and often either have graduated from, are employed at, or are publish by prestigious institutions. So what exactly is your point in "the difference in authorship?"
> 
> 
> Simply stating that there is a "mountain of info" against an argument does not refute it. You must actually point out where an argument fails and you have not done so.
> 
> So now you are going to engage in the plagiarism charge? If I have posted anything word for word without putting it in quotes, it was unintentionally from recall. I will readily admit that I have used arguments and even examples used by others because I sometimes have trouble putting thoughts into words and the best example I could ever think of has already been used, but to say that I have plagiarized that work without demonstrating the truth of such a claim is unethical on your part. There has been no occasion on this forum where I have directly and intentionally copied and pasted the work of others without putting it in either quotation marks or in the quotation boxes provided by the formatting tools of this forum.
> 
> 
> Good because I have to study for Econ and do my AP work.
> 
> Says the one who has engaged in genetic fallacies on multiple occasions, has dismissed arguments without actually refuting them, and cannot account for the laws of logic.


I think I will stick with you a little longer and point a few things out.


> It was silly of my to type "quote" in place of "quite."


It was obvious what you meant and the typo was insignificant.


> If a transcendental argument does not work to support a position, that position is likely wrong


If you read the article long ago then you must have read the Concluding Remarks -


> We have looked in some depth at the role of transcendental arguments that have been given in philosophy, not only in refuting the epistemological skeptic but also in ethics. As we have seen, such arguments clearly face challenges, both in their details but also at a more general level, concerning how much they can ever hope to achieve. However, while these challenges are certainly significant, it would be wrong to exaggerate them: for, as we have also seen, the range of potential uses for such arguments is wide, while it seems that their intriguing power, as well as their alluring promise, will mean that philosophers will continue to be drawn to them. As a result, therefore, it seems unlikely that those engaged in the subject will ever cease to feel that ‘tenderness for transcendental arguments’ (Strawson 1985: 21) instilled in them by Kant and others.


That's a far cry from this and explains why you insist on making the argument that you do. -


> If a transcendental argument does not work to support a position, that position is likely wrong


Seriously, read that again -


> As we have seen, such arguments clearly face challenges, both in their details but also at a more general level, concerning how much they can ever hope to achieve.


You have given the argument a nearly invincible status -


> If a transcendental argument does not work to support a position, that position is likely wrong


And the article (and others) concludes -


> such arguments clearly face challenges, both in their details but also at a more general level, concerning how much they can ever hope to achieve.


Loooong way apart. 


> more that the problem is more with how to apply transcendental arguments or using them in certain cases than with the principle of the concept itself.


Read the concluding remarks again. 
And yes it absolutely goes on to talk about its value -


> the range of potential uses for such arguments is wide, while it seems that their intriguing power, as well as their alluring promise, will mean that philosophers will continue to be drawn to them. As a result, therefore, it seems unlikely that those engaged in the subject will ever cease to feel that ‘tenderness for transcendental arguments’


However note the usage of "alluring promise" and "tenderness for transcendental arguments".
Those are emotions. He is clearly making a distinction between the arguments ultimate value and two (not all) reasons why it still continues to get used by some people.
And before you start whining, that is not an attempt to refute the argument. Its merely pointing out perspective.


> So what exactly is your point in "the difference in authorship?"


I honestly don't understand why you don't grasp the difference. Do this -
Go to a Ford website and tell me what they say about Chevys and why you should buy a Chevy and not a Ford.
Go to an Atheist website and tell me all the reasons they give about why you SHOULD believe in God.
That's is NOT saying they information they give you is false, its saying they only give you the information that supports THEIR view. 
Your mind is so focused on refuting and world views and proving right and wrong that you miss the simple but oh so important stuff.


> Simply stating that there is a "mountain of info" against an argument does not refute it. You must actually point out where an argument fails and you have not done so


This is where the problem lies. Ultimately all these arguments whether they be world views, yadadada are about the existence of the Christian God.
So in essence, EVERY argument fails as in the end none of them prove or disprove the existence of the Christian God. You are blind to that fact and the fact that we on this forum are not here to prove each other right or wrong BECAUSE WE CANT. The mountain of opposing information is not meant to prove you wrong, its meant to show you that you are viewing the subject from within a tiny box as is evidenced by every single one of your arguments.
Including this one -


> So now you are going to engage in the plagiarism charge?


That what your mind set is.
Nobody gives a hoot about plagiarism nonsense. Its said to show you what I said above about the tiny box. That you quote word for word whats in that tiny box. And yes its also a dig at the elevated view of yourself that you give off. Its a reminder that those aren't your thoughts and those aren't facts.


> Says the one who has engaged in genetic fallacies on multiple occasions, has dismissed arguments without actually refuting them, and cannot account for the laws of logic


You are portraying on to me what is rolling around in your head.
I haven't dismissed any argument. Ive repeatedly said I leave open the possibility of a God. Again that's what all this is about. Giving you information that makes a case against an argument is not dismissing it. You don't seem to grasp that.
Your logic comment is laughable. Anybody whose logic starts with God is real doesn't need to be pointing out logic usage.
Your genetic fallacy is nonsense too. Pointing out the differences in information is not a fallacy and its not irrelevant. AGAIN it points out opposing information to the information you are supplying.  
You are discussing a subject where there is no right and is no wrong. Yet you insist that somebody is right and somebody is wrong. You have failed miserably at proving that because it cant be proven. And you have convinced yourself that we are playing that same game you are.
We aren't.
At some point you will come to the realization that you believe and you have faith. Not facts. Then you will see the futility and silliness in all this refute this and refute that and "if you are right you could prove this" nonsense.
Its all smoke and mirrors because in the end you proved NOTHING.
If you are right you could prove the existence of the Christian God.
But you cant so that only leaves you are wrong and there is no Christian God.
Right?


----------



## bullethead

waltl1 said:


> i think i will stick with you a little longer and point a few things out.
> 
> It was obvious what you meant and the typo was insignificant.
> 
> If you read the article long ago then you must have read the concluding remarks -
> 
> that's a far cry from this and explains why you insist on making the argument that you do. -
> 
> seriously, read that again -
> 
> you have given the argument a nearly invincible status -
> 
> and the article (and others) concludes -
> 
> loooong way apart.
> 
> Read the concluding remarks again.
> And yes it absolutely goes on to talk about its value -
> 
> however note the usage of "alluring promise" and "tenderness for transcendental arguments".
> Those are emotions. He is clearly making a distinction between the arguments ultimate value and two (not all) reasons why it still continues to get used by some people.
> And before you start whining, that is not an attempt to refute the argument. Its merely pointing out perspective.
> 
> I honestly don't understand why you don't grasp the difference. Do this -
> go to a ford website and tell me what they say about chevys and why you should buy a chevy and not a ford.
> Go to an atheist website and tell me all the reasons they give about why you should believe in god.
> That's is not saying they information they give you is false, its saying they only give you the information that supports their view.
> Your mind is so focused on refuting and world views and proving right and wrong that you miss the simple but oh so important stuff.
> 
> This is where the problem lies. Ultimately all these arguments whether they be world views, yadadada are about the existence of the christian god.
> So in essence, every argument fails as in the end none of them prove or disprove the existence of the christian god. You are blind to that fact and the fact that we on this forum are not here to prove each other right or wrong because we cant. The mountain of opposing information is not meant to prove you wrong, its meant to show you that you are viewing the subject from within a tiny box as is evidenced by every single one of your arguments.
> Including this one -
> 
> that what your mind set is.
> Nobody gives a hoot about plagiarism nonsense. Its said to show you what i said above about the tiny box. That you quote word for word whats in that tiny box. And yes its also a dig at the elevated view of yourself that you give off. Its a reminder that those aren't your thoughts and those aren't facts.
> 
> You are portraying on to me what is rolling around in your head.
> I haven't dismissed any argument. Ive repeatedly said i leave open the possibility of a god. Again that's what all this is about. Giving you information that makes a case against an argument is not dismissing it. You don't seem to grasp that.
> Your logic comment is laughable. Anybody whose logic starts with god is real doesn't need to be pointing out logic usage.
> Your genetic fallacy is nonsense too. Pointing out the differences in information is not a fallacy and its not irrelevant. Again it points out opposing information to the information you are supplying.
> You are discussing a subject where there is no right and is no wrong. Yet you insist that somebody is right and somebody is wrong. You have failed miserably at proving that because it cant be proven. And you have convinced yourself that we are playing that same game you are.
> We aren't.
> At some point you will come to the realization that you believe and you have faith. Not facts. Then you will see the futility and silliness in all this refute this and refute that and "if you are right you could prove this" nonsense.
> Its all smoke and mirrors because in the end you proved nothing.
> If you are right you could prove the existence of the christian god.
> But you cant so that only leaves you are wrong and there is no christian god.
> Right?



w
a
l
t
!


----------



## Israel

I have never understood the term "christian god".
I think maybe I see the utility of it in argument, but beyond that...mere argument I mean, it is meaningless.
If a thing has a beginning, then for me it has an end.
The beginning of all things, and the end of all things, despite ALL my obvious lack of understanding, is God...the One without beginning or end that contains all "other" that does.
That _I believe_ this is perfectly formed in Jesus my Messiah, who for me now is _the_ Christ doesn't reduce the all being one to a "christian god", it may at best, reduce me to being a christian. That this term of itself has also become of questionable utility to me, for the sake of communication, there may be little else to use.
I see my beginning, and my end, in _the_ Christ of God.
Where anyone else sees theirs is entirely beyond me.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> Intellectual processes necessarily involve logic. If you disagree then you are using a personally invented definition of logic not used by the rest of the world. And I have already explained the donkey. Whether you accept that explanation or reject it has no bearing on that fact, nor does it refute the logical soundness of the explanation given.



Is picking a flavor of ice cream or a flavor of god an intellectual process?  Is it logical?




Bassquatch328 said:


> So before there was ever any mind (in your worldview; there has always been a mind in mine), logic could both exist and not exist, be man-made and non-man-made, concrete and not concrete, abstract and not abstract (and a host of other absurdities) in the same sense at the same time? Your argument runs itself into absurdity and defeats itself.



It's always abstract.




Bassquatch328 said:


> Because I didn't think it was necessary to considering I have already answered your question about the donkey. But how would you teach biology in your worldview, particularly in relation to how abiogenesis would be possible and minds could both exist and not exist before minds existed (and did not exist)?



I would say "No one knows for sure, despite what the religious might have you believe."


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> I have never understood the term "christian god".
> I think maybe I see the utility of it in argument, but beyond that...mere argument I mean, it is meaningless.
> If a thing has a beginning, then for me it has an end.
> The beginning of all things, and the end of all things, despite ALL my obvious lack of understanding, is God...the One without beginning or end that contains all "other" that does.
> That _I believe_ this is perfectly formed in Jesus my Messiah, who for me now is _the_ Christ doesn't reduce the all being one to a "christian god", it may at best, reduce me to being a christian. That this term of itself has also become of questionable utility to me, for the sake of communication, there may be little else to use.
> I see my beginning, and my end, in _the_ Christ of God.
> Where anyone else sees theirs is entirely beyond me.



It exists because Christiandom has specific rites, and rituals attributed to the worship of their God that no one else has. That God is also different, in manner and personality, if the books are taken at face value, than nearly every other God of every other religion. You can find common threads, few and far between, but you highlight more difference than similarity when doing a compare/contrast of deities. 

It's not thrown out as an insult, by anyone I've seen here that's used it. It's merely a statement of fact that, based on how they are worshipped, and what traits are supposed upon them, that the Gods of different religions should be different as well. 

You guys say it as "my understanding" or the "Christian understanding" or the "Baptist understanding" of God, but if they're all the same then there would be no delineation, in my opinion.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It exists because Christiandom has specific rites, and rituals attributed to the worship of their God that no one else has. That God is also different, in manner and personality, if the books are taken at face value, than nearly every other God of every other religion. You can find common threads, few and far between, but you highlight more difference than similarity when doing a compare/contrast of deities.
> 
> It's not thrown out as an insult, by anyone I've seen here that's used it. It's merely a statement of fact that, based on how they are worshipped, and what traits are supposed upon them, that the Gods of different religions should be different as well.
> 
> You guys say it as "my understanding" or the "Christian understanding" or the "Baptist understanding" of God, but if they're all the same then there would be no delineation, in my opinion.


Good answer and Im glad you threw in that its not meant as insult in any way.
Its also used as a reminder that when a believer is positing the existence of a God the argument doesn't end there, it also has to be refined down further to the existence of "their" God out of all the Gods throughout history. 
The Christian God in our case.


----------



## Israel

Not even a hint here of insult perceived. 
I mean, I think I get it...to some extent, I tend to think the same people that have had me put in jail are the same people who, no doubt, can circumscribe God with their words...so that God does indeed become "theirs"...and I can then see that any perceived affront becomes grievous to them , indeed.
Perhaps, then, since I don't believe in a "christian" God, just God as revealed to me through Jesus Christ...I may not, in actual common parlance...be a "christian". 
But as I've said, I am not convinced what I think of myself has ever had much bearing on anything beyond this skin...

God could be no more "mine" than anyone elses...or, to me at least, that would not be God we are speaking of. Now I have to admit, the experience is so personal, I am not ashamed to call him my God, but, I am more convinced that this has something to do with his nature, more than my attempt to own him. 
He likes personal.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Israel said:


> Not even a hint here of insult perceived.
> I mean, I think I get it...to some extent, I tend to think the same people that have had me put in jail are the same people who, no doubt, can circumscribe God with their words...so that God does indeed become "theirs"...and I can then see that any perceived affront becomes grievous to them , indeed.
> Perhaps, then, since I don't believe in a "christian" God, just God as revealed to me through Jesus Christ...I may not, in actual common parlance...be a "christian".
> But as I've said, I am not convinced what I think of myself has ever had much bearing on anything beyond this skin...
> 
> God could be no more "mine" than anyone elses...or, to me at least, that would not be God we are speaking of. Now I have to admit, the experience is so personal, I am not ashamed to call him my God, but, I am more convinced that this has something to do with his nature, more than my attempt to own him.
> He likes personal.



It's not about ownership, it's about that lens of Jesus, or yourself. 

It refracts the light passing through it to such an extent that it may no longer represent the source. Further, since the source is obscured from all of us, as far as "knowing" it rather than feeling it, it looks like the light originates from the lenses. This is further complicated by the fact that no two beams of this light are the same shade, rather a spectra much wider than the visible rainbow. 

Sure, they _could_ be fragments of the whole just like ROYGBIV is with white light, but there's no evidence to support this, because if you put together all of the colors of religion you don't get white. You get war.


----------



## 660griz

Bassquatch328 said:


> Strawman argument (when referring specifically to the biblical worldview; idk about other supernatural worldviews). Nowhere does the Bible preclude natural cures to diseases nor does it affirm that diseases are merely demons. It does imply physical as well as mental disorders that may come with demon possession, but it does not ever state that these ailments are caused only by such possession.



You are asking general questions and then specifying once you get a general answer. (that you don't like)
You have got to make up your mind.
Where did "God bless you" originate when someone sneezes?

I'll save ya some Google-ing.

Some people believed that a sneeze causes the soul to escape the body through the nose. Saying "bless you" would stop the devil from claiming the person's freed soul. Others believed the opposite: that evil spirits use the sneeze as an opportunity to enter a person's body.


----------



## bullethead

Israel said:


> Not even a hint here of insult perceived.
> I mean, I think I get it...to some extent, I tend to think the same people that have had me put in jail are the same people who, no doubt, can circumscribe God with their words...so that God does indeed become "theirs"...and I can then see that any perceived affront becomes grievous to them , indeed.
> Perhaps, then, since I don't believe in a "christian" God, just God as revealed to me through Jesus Christ...I may not, in actual common parlance...be a "christian".
> But as I've said, I am not convinced what I think of myself has ever had much bearing on anything beyond this skin...
> 
> God could be no more "mine" than anyone elses...or, to me at least, that would not be God we are speaking of. Now I have to admit, the experience is so personal, I am not ashamed to call him my God, but, I am more convinced that this has something to do with his nature, more than my attempt to own him.
> He likes personal.



You are always on good rolls and then you throw in the comments that are pure speculation and assertion.

I can tell you with confidence that "He likes personal" is personal only to you.

The relationship you think you have with him is all you. I am here as proof that there is no personal relationship with a God for me, let alone the God you say is personal. 
And if there is such a God, I am and have been open to any personal relationship he cares to offer me. A God would know exactly how to get my attention.
Here I am.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> I think I will stick with you a little longer and point a few things out.


Walt, your fickleness is showing. 



> If you read the article long ago then you must have read the Concluding Remarks -
> 
> That's a far cry from this and explains why you insist on making the argument that you do. -
> 
> Seriously, read that again -
> 
> You have given the argument a nearly invincible status -
> 
> And the article (and others) concludes -
> 
> Loooong way apart.
> 
> Read the concluding remarks again.
> And yes it absolutely goes on to talk about its value -
> 
> However note the usage of "alluring promise" and "tenderness for transcendental arguments".
> Those are emotions. He is clearly making a distinction between the arguments ultimate value and two (not all) reasons why it still continues to get used by some people.
> And before you start whining, that is not an attempt to refute the argument. Its merely pointing out perspective.


You may want to read the Objections section more closely. Firstly, that section briefly admits a certain weakness in the objections themselves to begin with. Secondly, the main objection I see is that attempts to counter objections to transcendental arguments render the arguments redundant by verifying other modes of justification and cause the transcendental argument to become unconvincing. However, it is important to note that whether someone is convinced by an argument has no bearing on its logical strength. People are often convinced for illogical reasons. It is also important to note that the transcendental argument I have presented by virtue grants various means for justification of beliefs, but it asserts one overarching reason justifying all other preconditions of intelligibility. An example of this would be laws of logic. Anyone holding any worldview can deduce and state with certain justification that there are indeed laws of logic even if they deny the existence of such laws, because any attempt to refute them verifies them. However, once the belief in the existence of logic is justified, that fact may not be justified by one's overarching worldview. A Hindu who believes in Maya can state with certainty that the laws of logic exist, but the existence of the laws of logic runs contrary to a belief in Maya. Thus, transcendental arguments, depending on their details, do provide other means of rational justification but ultimately transcend even these means by making them possible.


> I honestly don't understand why you don't grasp the difference. Do this -
> Go to a Ford website and tell me what they say about Chevys and why you should buy a Chevy and not a Ford.
> Go to an Atheist website and tell me all the reasons they give about why you SHOULD believe in God.
> That's is NOT saying they information they give you is false, its saying they only give you the information that supports THEIR view.


So, basically, no source is going to state why their argument is wrong (if it is). That's pretty obvious. If someone knew their position was wrong, they would not hold that position. So why even make a point about difference in authorship? Or were you stating that the difference is between one source holding a position and another source being neutral? If so, there is no neutrality in this specific regard. The reason is that the Bible denies any neutrality on the subject. So to even claim neutrality is to take a position against the Bible, making it non-neutral.



> This is where the problem lies. Ultimately all these arguments whether they be world views, yadadada are about the existence of the Christian God.
> So in essence, EVERY argument fails as in the end none of them prove or disprove the existence of the Christian God. You are blind to that fact and the fact that we on this forum are not here to prove each other right or wrong BECAUSE WE CANT. The mountain of opposing information is not meant to prove you wrong, its meant to show you that you are viewing the subject from within a tiny box as is evidenced by every single one of your arguments.


This is, in essence, simply an unsubstantiated and inconsistent circular claim. The reason being is I asked you to refute my argument if you could. My argument claims that the existence of the Christian God and truth of the Bible is evidenced by the inability of any other worldview to make knowledge possible. You basically responded (without justification) that the existence of the Christian God cannot be proven nor disproved. You thus stated that the argument I have presented is wrong because it can't be right, but that it also can't be refuted (because it is based on a premise which you say cannot be disproved). 



> Nobody gives a hoot about plagiarism nonsense. Its said to show you what I said above about the tiny box. That you quote word for word whats in that tiny box. And yes its also a dig at the elevated view of yourself that you give off. Its a reminder that those aren't your thoughts and those aren't facts.


That's a dodge to my statement. The fact is that you claimed I have copied and pasted "word for word" without giving credit, and you have not proved that claim. Unless you can show that I have plagiarized (which is not the case) you have made an unethical and slanderous claim in an attempt (whether conscious or not) to discredit me. Neither have you shown that the arguments from other websites "aren't facts." You also have not proven that there is anything falling intellectually short of repeating something one has read. If that were the case, then you should stop using all of these words from the dictionary and invent your own words, you should stop using any math you learned at any point in your life, you should stop referencing the Stanford article on transcendental arguments, and you should stop doing a host of other things because they "aren't your thoughts." If an argument or idea is correct, then there is no problem at all in repeating it, but an argument must be refuted if it is to be dismissed, and you have yet to do so. 
I also do not hold an "elevated view" of myself. I do hold the view that I am not wrong and you are, but if I did not then I wouldn't make any argument now would I? 



> I haven't dismissed any argument.


You have and you do so below.


> Ive repeatedly said I leave open the possibility of a God. Again that's what all this is about. Giving you information that makes a case against an argument is not dismissing it. You don't seem to grasp that.


I did not say you didn't leave open that possibility. But you have simply brushed off my arguments affirming the certainty of that possibility without actually refuting those arguments. 


> Your logic comment is laughable. Anybody whose logic starts with God is real doesn't need to be pointing out logic usage.


A prime example of you simply dismissing an argument without refuting it. You have not shown why logic cannot begin with the presupposition of God's existence. You also have not justified how the existence of logic is justified in any non-biblical worldview such as your own, which is what I have asked you to do repeatedly.


> Your genetic fallacy is nonsense too. Pointing out the differences in information is not a fallacy and its not irrelevant. AGAIN it points out opposing information to the information you are supplying.


Interestingly, you present a strawman argument (a fallacy) to defend your genetic fallacy. I was not referring to simply pointing out opposing information. I was referring to your (at least) two instances of simply stating that there is something wrong with pulling an argument from a certain source, without actually refuting said argument.


> You are discussing a subject where there is no right and is no wrong. Yet you insist that somebody is right and somebody is wrong. You have failed miserably at proving that because it cant be proven. And you have convinced yourself that we are playing that same game you are.
> We aren't.


"No right and no wrong".... The subject at hand deals with the existence of the biblical God. So you have stated that neither the affirmation nor denial of that claim is right or wrong. That would violate the law of non-contradiction. It can't be neither right nor wrong at the same time in the same sense that something exists or does not exist. Something must either exist or not exist. Two contradictory claims cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense, and two contradictory claims cannot both be wrong in the same sense at the same time if they are the only two options. When it comes to something's existence, there are only two (contradictory) options. Care to explain to the world how you have disproved the law of non-contradiction?



> At some point you will come to the realization that you believe and you have faith. Not facts.


I readily admit that I have faith, but you have failed to show how faith and facts are mutually exclusive (in the biblical sense of the word "faith" since that is what I have). 


> Then you will see the futility and silliness in all this refute this and refute that and "if you are right you could prove this" nonsense.


So it is silly to actually have a reason for your belief? That is what many call _blind_ faith.


> Its all smoke and mirrors because in the end you proved NOTHING.


Ironically, you have not proven that statement, because you have not refuted the argument I presented.


> If you are right you could prove the existence of the Christian God.


I have presented a proof of the Christian God's existence, and you have not refuted it. You should jump at the opportunity, too, since the easiest way to refute the argument I presented (if it were refutable) would be to justify your own worldview. But we seem to have already established that you have blind faith.


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> Is picking a flavor of ice cream or a flavor of god an intellectual process?  Is it logical?


You must first assume that there actually is any ice cream and further that there are different flavors of ice cream. So logic inevitably comes into play.



> It's always abstract.


That contradicts your previous statement. If logic is always abstract then it is independent of any physical being. Logic can therefore not be a construct of the mind in your worldview.



> I would say "No one knows for sure, despite what the religious might have you believe."


To say "no one knows for sure" is a statement of knowing for certain that one is ignorant. However, this is ultimately self defeating because it allows the possibility of a worldview that cannot account for absolute statements or logic. In other words, it (breifly) boils down to, "(I know) that no one knows for sure if abiogenesis can or cannot occur and it is entirely possible that we can't know anything." The statement also presupposes the existence of both an audience and religious people. However, it allows a position which cannot account for why senses should be reliable for you to know there actually is an audience and religious people.


----------



## Bassquatch328

660griz said:


> You are asking general questions and then specifying once you get a general answer. (that you don't like)
> You have got to make up your mind.
> Where did "God bless you" originate when someone sneezes?
> 
> I'll save ya some Google-ing.
> 
> Some people believed that a sneeze causes the soul to escape the body through the nose. Saying "bless you" would stop the devil from claiming the person's freed soul. Others believed the opposite: that evil spirits use the sneeze as an opportunity to enter a person's body.


Nope. I was asked to point out the intellectual process affirming a supernatural worldview. I then pointed out that the truth of a supernatural worldview is affirmed through the impossibility of a purely natural worldview. You then claimed that supernatural worldviews would have gotten us killed. I then simply pointed out that while I do not know about other supernatural belief systems, Christianity is not one such supernatural system that would get everyone killed on the terms you described because it does not preclude natural causes to diseases or natural cures to those diseases. I was not arbitrarily shifting from general to specific. I was just pointing out that your statement does not hold true in all cases. 
I was aware of the origination of "God bless you" in regard to sneezing, but it is a man-made convention rather than a biblical principle, so it does not apply to my statement.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Walt, your fickleness is showing.
> 
> 
> You may want to read the Objections section more closely. Firstly, that section briefly admits a certain weakness in the objections themselves to begin with. Secondly, the main objection I see is that attempts to counter objections to transcendental arguments render the arguments redundant by verifying other modes of justification and cause the transcendental argument to become unconvincing. However, it is important to note that whether someone is convinced by an argument has no bearing on its logical strength. People are often convinced for illogical reasons. It is also important to note that the transcendental argument I have presented by virtue grants various means for justification of beliefs, but it asserts one overarching reason justifying all other preconditions of intelligibility. An example of this would be laws of logic. Anyone holding any worldview can deduce and state with certain justification that there are indeed laws of logic even if they deny the existence of such laws, because any attempt to refute them verifies them. However, once the belief in the existence of logic is justified, that fact may not be justified by one's overarching worldview. A Hindu who believes in Maya can state with certainty that the laws of logic exist, but the existence of the laws of logic runs contrary to a belief in Maya. Thus, transcendental arguments, depending on their details, do provide other means of rational justification but ultimately transcend even these means by making them possible.
> 
> So, basically, no source is going to state why their argument is wrong (if it is). That's pretty obvious. If someone knew their position was wrong, they would not hold that position. So why even make a point about difference in authorship? Or were you stating that the difference is between one source holding a position and another source being neutral? If so, there is no neutrality in this specific regard. The reason is that the Bible denies any neutrality on the subject. So to even claim neutrality is to take a position against the Bible, making it non-neutral.
> 
> 
> This is, in essence, simply an unsubstantiated and inconsistent circular claim. The reason being is I asked you to refute my argument if you could. My argument claims that the existence of the Christian God and truth of the Bible is evidenced by the inability of any other worldview to make knowledge possible. You basically responded (without justification) that the existence of the Christian God cannot be proven nor disproved. You thus stated that the argument I have presented is wrong because it can't be right, but that it also can't be refuted (because it is based on a premise which you say cannot be disproved).
> 
> 
> That's a dodge to my statement. The fact is that you claimed I have copied and pasted "word for word" without giving credit, and you have not proved that claim. Unless you can show that I have plagiarized (which is not the case) you have made an unethical and slanderous claim in an attempt (whether conscious or not) to discredit me. Neither have you shown that the arguments from other websites "aren't facts." You also have not proven that there is anything falling intellectually short of repeating something one has read. If that were the case, then you should stop using all of these words from the dictionary and invent your own words, you should stop using any math you learned at any point in your life, you should stop referencing the Stanford article on transcendental arguments, and you should stop doing a host of other things because they "aren't your thoughts." If an argument or idea is correct, then there is no problem at all in repeating it, but an argument must be refuted if it is to be dismissed, and you have yet to do so.
> I also do not hold an "elevated view" of myself. I do hold the view that I am not wrong and you are, but if I did not then I wouldn't make any argument now would I?
> 
> 
> You have and you do so below.
> 
> I did not say you didn't leave open that possibility. But you have simply brushed off my arguments affirming the certainty of that possibility without actually refuting those arguments.
> 
> A prime example of you simply dismissing an argument without refuting it. You have not shown why logic cannot begin with the presupposition of God's existence. You also have not justified how the existence of logic is justified in any non-biblical worldview such as your own, which is what I have asked you to do repeatedly.
> 
> Interestingly, you present a strawman argument (a fallacy) to defend your genetic fallacy. I was not referring to simply pointing out opposing information. I was referring to your (at least) two instances of simply stating that there is something wrong with pulling an argument from a certain source, without actually refuting said argument.
> 
> "No right and no wrong".... The subject at hand deals with the existence of the biblical God. So you have stated that neither the affirmation nor denial of that claim is right or wrong. That would violate the law of non-contradiction. It can't be neither right nor wrong at the same time in the same sense that something exists or does not exist. Something must either exist or not exist. Two contradictory claims cannot both be true at the same time in the same sense, and two contradictory claims cannot both be wrong in the same sense at the same time if they are the only two options. When it comes to something's existence, there are only two (contradictory) options. Care to explain to the world how you have disproved the law of non-contradiction?
> 
> 
> I readily admit that I have faith, but you have failed to show how faith and facts are mutually exclusive (in the biblical sense of the word "faith" since that is what I have).
> 
> So it is silly to actually have a reason for your belief? That is what many call _blind_ faith.
> 
> Ironically, you have not proven that statement, because you have not refuted the argument I presented.
> 
> I have presented a proof of the Christian God's existence, and you have not refuted it. You should jump at the opportunity, too, since the easiest way to refute the argument I presented (if it were refutable) would be to justify your own worldview. But we seem to have already established that you have blind faith.





> Walt, your fickleness is showing.


You make a lot of incorrect assumptions. I wasn't being fickle. I was actually giving you the benefit of the doubt which I now see was incorrect on my part.

You are caught up in an endless loop of minutia that goes nowhere. If you have proven the Christians Gods existence you are going to be a very busy person so get prepared.


> I do hold the view that I am not wrong and you are, but if I did not then I wouldn't make any argument now would I?


When you come to the understanding that when it comes to this subject, that there is only what is right or wrong for YOU PERSONALLY and that we are dealing with faith and belief and not universal facts, we may talk again. None of your argumentative theories and processes gets around that no matter how hard you try or how may times you repeat them or if anybody can or can not refute them, it all leads right back to faith and your personal belief. 
No way around it.
To show you what it actually looks like when I dismiss an argument as nonsense, it goes like this -
You take care and I wish you the best in school. (and if you assume I don't actually mean that, see what I said above about your assumptions)


----------



## 660griz

Bassquatch328 said:


> Nope. I was asked to point out the intellectual process affirming a supernatural worldview. I then pointed out that the truth of a supernatural worldview is affirmed through the impossibility of a purely natural worldview. You then claimed that supernatural worldviews would have gotten us killed. I then simply pointed out that while I do not know about other supernatural belief systems, Christianity is not one such supernatural system that would get everyone killed on the terms you described because it does not preclude natural causes to diseases or natural cures to those diseases. I was not arbitrarily shifting from general to specific. I was just pointing out that your statement does not hold true in all cases.
> I was aware of the origination of "God bless you" in regard to sneezing, but it is a man-made convention rather than a biblical principle, so it does not apply to my statement.



Nope. If the Bible describes an all powerful, all knowing God that can cure and create everything and anything, then a pure belief in that would cause a very short life expectancy. 
Even the recently cured ebola patient, thanked God for his recovery when we really know what cured him. That, or God hates all the Africans that die from it.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> Nope. I was asked to point out the intellectual process affirming a supernatural worldview. I then pointed out that the truth of a supernatural worldview is affirmed through the impossibility of a purely natural worldview. You then claimed that supernatural worldviews would have gotten us killed. I then simply pointed out that while I do not know about other supernatural belief systems, Christianity is not one such supernatural system that would get everyone killed on the terms you described because it does not preclude natural causes to diseases or natural cures to those diseases. I was not arbitrarily shifting from general to specific. I was just pointing out that your statement does not hold true in all cases.
> I was aware of the origination of "God bless you" in regard to sneezing, but it is a man-made convention rather than a biblical principle, so it does not apply to my statement.




Wait.  Everyone help me out.  Does Bassquatch keep saying that Intelligence and logic exist only, ONLY because a god must have made them and furthermore it is ABSOLUTELY the god of the Bible _because it says so in the Bible_?  

Am I dense or is that what he keeps saying.

Somebody throw me a bone.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

ambush80 said:


> Wait.  Everyone help me out.  Does Bassquatch keep saying that Intelligence and logic exist only, ONLY because a god must have made them and furthermore it is ABSOLUTELY the god of the Bible _because it says so in the Bible_?
> 
> Am I dense or is that what he keeps saying.
> 
> Somebody throw me a bone.



That's what I got from it, too. That's why I stopped playing. There's no discussion to be had with that viewpoint.


----------



## 660griz

Yes, he also proved a naturalistic worldview is impossible according to a book inspired by the supernatural.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Yes, he also proved a naturalistic worldview is impossible according to a book inspired by the supernatural.



That's bizarre, right?


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> That's bizarre, right?



Extremely.


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Yes, he also proved a naturalistic worldview is impossible according to a book inspired by the supernatural.



So when the argument was made that logic and reason are constructs; pattern recognitions, that aided in survival, he entirely dismissed as a possibility that they could have developed without a god.

And why was that, again?


----------



## Bassquatch328

660griz said:


> Nope. If the Bible describes an all powerful, all knowing God that can cure and create everything and anything, then a pure belief in that would cause a very short life expectancy.
> Even the recently cured ebola patient, thanked God for his recovery when we really know what cured him. That, or God hates all the Africans that die from it.


Your statement doesn't follow logically. There is no reason to assume that because God can cure all disease miraculously He is under any obligation to do so, even if asked. God has no problem with us gaining knowledge, and part of that knowledge includes curing diseases through natural means. The Bible has even described at least one occasion where God "prescribed" a natural remedy to an ailment. Who God decides to cure and not cure miraculously or through a human agent/natural means would be entirely up to Him. If a person is obedient to Him, then to die is better than to live as far as pain goes, and if they have not repented but are still in rebellion, God certainly does not have any special obligation to heal them. But that's getting into the theology of God's will, which is not the topic of this thread.
However, a completely naturalistic worldview would be unable to heal people on a consistent basis. In a naturalistic worldview, there is no reason to assume the future should be generally like the past, so a vaccine that worked one minute ago may not work in the next second, a condition that was harmless yesterday may be fatal today, etc. etc. There would also be no reason to assume the reliability of the senses, so that would add to the difficulty of diagnosis and developing treatments and cures in the first place.


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> Wait.  Everyone help me out.  Does Bassquatch keep saying that Intelligence and logic exist only, ONLY because a god must have made them and furthermore it is ABSOLUTELY the god of the Bible _because it says so in the Bible_?
> 
> Am I dense or is that what he keeps saying.
> 
> Somebody throw me a bone.


Actually, logic and (in general) intelligence, are eternal entities. So God did not make them, but they are a part of His nature. And the argument is that the Bible can account for these things logically while other worldviews cannot. I've asked multiple times for anyone to refute this argument and present another worldview that can rationally make knowledge possible, and no one has. And I have specifically addressed some worldviews and where they fall short of this.


----------



## Bassquatch328

660griz said:


> Yes, he also proved a naturalistic worldview is impossible according to a book inspired by the supernatural.


Strawman argument. I explained how a naturalistic worldview fails as an epistemological system on its own features. When I did that, I did not say anything like, "Naturalistic worldviews are false because the Bible says..." Rather, I explained how the very things that make knowledge possible (I focused on logic) make are not justified in a naturalistic worldview.


----------



## Bassquatch328

ambush80 said:


> So when the argument was made that logic and reason are constructs; pattern recognitions, that aided in survival, he entirely dismissed as a possibility that they could have developed without a god.
> 
> And why was that, again?


Would you like another turn at explaining how logic both existed and did not exist in the same sense at the same time before it was both invented as a construct and not invented as a construct in the same sense at the same time? Because I'm still waiting for you to explain that one. You also admitted that logic has always been abstract, which is not possible in a naturalistic universe. Also, to say they were invented because they aid in survival doesn't solve any problems. Firstly, it begs the question of how anyone survived before logic was invented. Secondly, there are logical and mathematical truths (math is a secondary form of logic) that have absolutely no bearing on the physical world and deal completely with abstract concepts that it doesn't really matter if you know or not. Also, if logic is merely conventional, as are driving laws, then international communication and cooperation would be impossible and you could be as circular and arbitrary and fallacious (in terms of US conventions) as you want and still be 100% correct if you're in another country (depending on their conventions).


----------



## WaltL1

If you guys want a view of what you are trying to have a discussion with, check this out. Shockingly its from answersingenesis.
https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/fool-proof-apologetics/
Its downright scary.


----------



## Bassquatch328

WaltL1 said:


> If you guys want a view of what you are trying to have a discussion with, check this out. Shockingly its from answersingenesis.
> https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/fool-proof-apologetics/
> Its downright scary.


Oh, Walt... The genetic fallacy is not your friend. And I want to clarify to prevent any rabbit hole from being followed that the fallacy was not in presenting a link, but in the statement, "shockingly [insert comma here] its [it's] from answersingenesis." Unless you actually refute the argument presented, the argument's source (actually, a source using the argument) is irrelevant. And I'm really not sure that's where I learned about that argument anyway.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> If you guys want a view of what you are trying to have a discussion with, check this out. Shockingly its from answersingenesis.
> https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/fool-proof-apologetics/
> Its downright scary.



Here is a good link for you Walt
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2010/02/refuting-presuppositionalism.html?m=1


----------



## WaltL1

I love this one -


> When an unbeliever tries to set the terms of the conversation by saying things like, “You can’t use the Bible in your argument,” or “Miracles are not allowed as a legitimate explanation,” he is embracing an illogical starting point for this thinking. It is inappropriate to agree to such terms.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> Here is a good link for you Walt
> http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/2010/02/refuting-presuppositionalism.html?m=1


Aw man and I was just getting to enjoy answersingenesis. It makes me giggle.


----------



## WaltL1

Bassquatch328 said:


> Oh, Walt... The genetic fallacy is not your friend. And I want to clarify to prevent any rabbit hole from being followed that the fallacy was not in presenting a link, but in the statement, "shockingly [insert comma here] its [it's] from answersingenesis." Unless you actually refute the argument presented, the argument's source (actually, a source using the argument) is irrelevant. And I'm really not sure that's where I learned about that argument anyway.


And your assumptions are not your friend.
By using the phrase "what you are trying to have a conversation with" refers to the website itself and its content and what it indoctrinates. You are inconsequential to the statement.
Unless your name is What of course.
Feel free, in fact I invite you, to use the Don't Answer tactic to my posts


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> Oh, Walt... The genetic fallacy is not your friend. And I want to clarify to prevent any rabbit hole from being followed that the fallacy was not in presenting a link, but in the statement, "shockingly [insert comma here] its [it's] from answersingenesis." Unless you actually refute the argument presented, the argument's source (actually, a source using the argument) is irrelevant. And I'm really not sure that's where I learned about that argument anyway.



Love the proofreading...


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Love the proofreading...




Cause we're stoopid.


----------



## ambush80

This is what I've been trying to express:

_Questionable Premises of TAG

The first questionable premise is A (1). Logical absolutes do not “arise from” physical things, rather logical absolutes are expressed by physical things because everything (whether possible or actual) must follow logical absolutes (for example, all possible or actual things must be what they are and cannot be what they are not). In fact, for something to even be considered “possible” it must, by definition, be in accord with the laws of logic (it must be what it is and not what it is not).
The second questionable premise is A (3). Just because something is not physical does not automatically mean that it is conceptual. Perhaps logical absolutes constitute a category in and of themselves and are not part of the categories of ‘conceptual things’ or ‘physical things’. They aren’t physical. And they are not conceptual: something that is conceptual is a mental representation of an actual or possible thing. But the mental representation of, for example, the law of non-contradiction, is not identical with the law of non-contradiction itself. The law of non-contradiction is an objectively true statement that applies to all possible or actual states of affairs._

Bassquatch?


----------



## ambush80

This guy:

_Presuppositionalist arguments are often difficult to refute on the spot if you’ve never heard them before. Chances are you haven’t heard them before, because Presuppositionalism represents a minority view that has only recently made a splash on the scene of Christian apologetics. I suspect that Christians are now using these arguments precisely because of their obscurity: the rarity and complexity of these arguments are such that many atheists won’t be able to respond to these arguments immediately, whereas more traditional arguments like the first cause argument and the argument from design are arguments that practically every atheist can immediately tear down (because atheists have heard these arguments used so much). However, once presuppositionalist arguments are carefully examined, they can quickly be shown to be fallacious and invalid. So my advice to fellow atheists and agnostics who frequently argue with Christians is this: be familiar with these arguments and be prepared to expose the errors in them whenever you hear them. Chances are that sooner or later you will come across someone in person or on the internet who uses these arguments. Please take my advice and arm yourself in advance._

Like I said before, this is the new "Intelligent Design" or "Prime Mover" or "Irriducible Complexity".  Terms made to sound important.  But if you can't get my 6 year old to believe in talking donkeys then your argument is garbage.


----------



## ambush80

ambush80 said:


> Wait.  Everyone help me out.  Does Bassquatch keep saying that Intelligence and logic exist only, ONLY because a god must have made them and furthermore it is ABSOLUTELY the god of the Bible _because it says so in the Bible_?
> 
> Am I dense or is that what he keeps saying.
> 
> Somebody throw me a bone.





ambush80 said:


> So when the argument was made that logic and reason are constructs; pattern recognitions, that aided in survival, he entirely dismissed as a possibility that they could have developed without a god.
> 
> And why was that, again?



This IS what he's been saying:


_Presuppositionalism is one of the strangest, and indeed, one of the most difficult-to-understand approaches to defending the existence of God. The basic idea is that you cannot believe that something (i.e. the uniformity of nature or the reliability of your mind) unless you presuppose the existence of God. The reasoning behind all of this is very peculiar and seldom clearly stated by its proponents._

Bassquatch,

You should make up a new term.  Instead of defending god, attack non-belief.   How about _Methaphysical Ennui_.  The premise being that since the development farming, man has had too much time on his hands resulting in thinking god out of existence.  There has been an actual, measurable degradation of the soul.  You'll have to come up with how these degradations are measured.  I have faith you can.

How about _Hyper-Planal Disconnect_.  You can describe how when we were goat herders we had a far superior connection with events that occur in the Hyper-Plane (the new word for the spiritual realm) because our minds were more open to receive currents from the "beyond".  Perhaps you can throw in some psuedo-science that involves depletion of the ozone acting as an interference.




Presup's dead, baby.  Presup's dead.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> Would you like another turn at explaining how logic both existed and did not exist in the same sense at the same time before it was both invented as a construct and not invented as a construct in the same sense at the same time? Because I'm still waiting for you to explain that one.



I never said any such thing.  You put words in my mouth from the Presup argument.

Logic describes things that we observe in the world which includes our thoughts.   It exits because things and ideas exist.  Without things and ideas it doesn't exist.



Bassquatch328 said:


> You also admitted that logic has always been abstract, which is not possible in a naturalistic universe.



I didn't admit it, I declared it.

There aren't any abstractions in the natural world?  My mind is part of the natural world and I can imagine a rock falling up or a donkey talking or a god.




Bassquatch328 said:


> Also, to say they were invented because they aid in survival doesn't solve any problems. Firstly, it begs the question of how anyone survived before logic was invented.



Not as well.



Bassquatch328 said:


> Secondly, there are logical and mathematical truths (math is a secondary form of logic) that have absolutely no bearing on the physical world and deal completely with abstract concepts that it doesn't really matter if you know or not.



Like imaginary numbers and theoretical maths?  They're ideas that don't exist without a mind to express them. 




Bassquatch328 said:


> Also, if logic is merely conventional, as are driving laws, then international communication and cooperation would be impossible and you could be as circular and arbitrary and fallacious (in terms of US conventions) as you want and still be 100% correct if you're in another country (depending on their conventions).



Logic should be standard and in any given situation people should come to the exact same conclusions about a course of action but they don't.   Why do you think that is?

The answer explains why cooperation and communication ARE difficult sometimes.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> This IS what he's been saying:
> 
> 
> _Presuppositionalism is one of the strangest, and indeed, one of the most difficult-to-understand approaches to defending the existence of God. The basic idea is that you cannot believe that something (i.e. the uniformity of nature or the reliability of your mind) unless you presuppose the existence of God. The reasoning behind all of this is very peculiar and seldom clearly stated by its proponents._
> 
> Bassquatch,
> 
> You should make up a new term.  Instead of defending god, attack non-belief.   How about _Methaphysical Ennui_.  The premise being that since the development farming, man has had too much time on his hands to think god out of existence.  The result has been an actual, measurable degradation of the soul.  You'll have to come up with how these degradations are measured.  I have faith you can.
> 
> How about _Hyper-Planal Disconnect_.  You can describe how when we were goat herders we had a far superior connection with events that occur in the Hyper-Plane (the new word for the spiritual realm) because our minds were more open to receive currents from the "beyond".  Perhaps you can throw in some psuedo-science that involves depletion of the ozone acting as an interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Presup's dead, baby.  Presup's dead.





> Originally Posted by ambush80 View Post
> Wait. Everyone help me out. Does Bassquatch keep saying that Intelligence and logic exist only, ONLY because a god must have made them and furthermore it is ABSOLUTELY the god of the Bible because it says so in the Bible?
> Am I dense or is that what he keeps saying.
> Somebody throw me a bone.





> Originally Posted by ambush80 View Post
> So when the argument was made that logic and reason are constructs; pattern recognitions, that aided in survival, he entirely dismissed as a possibility that they could have developed without a god.
> 
> And why was that, again?





> This IS what he's been saying:


Yes. It says so right here -


> In the end, we know that Christianity is true because, if it were not, then we couldn’t know anything at all.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> If you guys want a view of what you are trying to have a discussion with, check this out. Shockingly its from answersingenesis.
> https://answersingenesis.org/apologetics/fool-proof-apologetics/
> Its downright scary.




This is a good one:


_Footnote 4x
In the evolutionary worldview, one might argue that the brain has been preserved because it has survival value. But that does not equate to rationality. For example, a blade of grass has properties that allow it to survive; but that does not mean that a blade of grass is an intelligent, rational being. In the evolutionary worldview, the thoughts of the mind are merely chemical reactions—essentially the equivalent of weeds growing. Our thoughts may have survival value, but this does not translate to “truth._

I don't remember that from science class.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Aw man and I was just getting to enjoy answersingenesis. It makes me giggle.



this one's good too:

_The “don’t answer, answer” strategy is a powerful tool to use when defending the Christian faith. Consider those who say, “Christians are dishonest. They teach that God created the world only thousands of years ago, which is clearly false.” First, using the “don’t answer” side of the strategy, you’d reject the starting assumption of the critic and say something like this: “I don’t accept your claim that teaching creation is dishonest. We are equally convinced that evolution is untrue.”_


----------



## ambush80

It just gets better and better:

_When we defend the Christian faith, we must avoid the temptation to get side-tracked on secondary issues, such as nuances of scientific arguments.1 The goal is to quickly hone in on the heart of the matter—the debate is ultimately an issue of competing worldviews._


----------



## ambush80

Is this really how you want to send your kids off to meet the big bad world?

_ Non-Christian worldviews always have internal defects. Because they reject the Bible at their foundation, they end up being inconsistent, arbitrary, and ultimately irrational. _


----------



## ambush80

I can preach all day, Y'all.........

But that chicken's smellin' good.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> this one's good too:
> 
> _The “don’t answer, answer” strategy is a powerful tool to use when defending the Christian faith. Consider those who say, “Christians are dishonest. They teach that God created the world only thousands of years ago, which is clearly false.” First, using the “don’t answer” side of the strategy, you’d reject the starting assumption of the critic and say something like this: “I don’t accept your claim that teaching creation is dishonest. We are equally convinced that evolution is untrue.”_


I guess you have to be a nonbeliever to notice that the strategy seems to confirm the dishonesty by totally avoiding the question of age and turning the conversation to creation and evolution.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> Is this really how you want to send your kids off to meet the big bad world?
> 
> _ Non-Christian worldviews always have internal defects. Because they reject the Bible at their foundation, they end up being inconsistent, arbitrary, and ultimately irrational. _


And in the next sentence claim their beliefs are being attacked by getting this narrow minded, tiny box way of thinking out of the public school systems.
Its a good thing I know Christians that can completely believe and also think intelligently at the same time or my opinions would be very different after reading ignorance like this stuff.


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> And in the next sentence claim their beliefs are being attacked by getting this narrow minded, tiny box way of thinking out of the public school systems.
> Its a good thing I know Christians that can completely believe and also think intelligently at the same time or my opinions would be very different after reading ignorance like this stuff.



What's more tragic is that intelligent people will fall for this stuff.


----------



## bullethead

'squatch is like Deputy Police Chief Dwayne T Robinson and the F-B-I on Diehard.....They've got the terrorist
                 playbook and they're running it, step
                 by step.
'squatch is following the A.I.G Handbook step by step


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> What's more tragic is that intelligent people will fall for this stuff.



Don't know if I'm intelligent, but I also thought the "don't answer, answer" approach was ridiculous.  Most of the stuff on sites like that is.


----------



## JB0704

bullethead said:


> 'squatch is following the A.I.G Handbook step by step



It comes across as a project to me.

A lot of times people get stuck in groupthink.  They come up with all these approaches, answers, and replies, and pat themselves on the back as if it is brilliant.....and, because they all agree with each other, fail to recognize how weak certain arguments and positions are.  This happens in politics a lot too.  

The good thing for squatch is that he is getting challenged here.  It's a healthy thing.


----------



## Bassquatch328

I'm gone for two days and the thread is filled with responses that basically equate to "that's silly and dumb" without actually making or refuting any argument. Since that seems to be the definition of "debate" held by most of the posters here most of the time, and since many of the posters here refuse to make an attempt to refrain from fallacies and present reasoned arguments, I will begin using my time in a more valuable fashion than explaining why people who make no attempt to justify their beliefs might want to consider who really ignores rationality.
However, I will respond to this (actually verified) pasted quote as a final response. (I think you were trying to indicate that it was a quote by italicizing it, but you must still indicate the source even if it was provided in a previous post.)


ambush80 said:


> This is what I've been trying to express:
> 
> _Questionable Premises of TAG
> 
> The first questionable premise is A (1). Logical absolutes do not “arise from” physical things, rather logical absolutes are expressed by physical things because everything (whether possible or actual) must follow logical absolutes (for example, all possible or actual things must be what they are and cannot be what they are not). In fact, for something to even be considered “possible” it must, by definition, be in accord with the laws of logic (it must be what it is and not what it is not)._


Correct, but that merely describes what is true. It does nothing to explain how what is true is justified in any particular worldview. Nor does it address Hume's problem of induction. Why should the laws of logic be the same in the future? Why should the definition of "possible" remain static?
_



			The second questionable premise is A (3). Just because something is not physical does not automatically mean that it is conceptual. Perhaps logical absolutes constitute a category in and of themselves and are not part of the categories of ‘conceptual things’ or ‘physical things’. They aren’t physical. And they are not conceptual: something that is conceptual is a mental representation of an actual or possible thing. But the mental representation of, for example, the law of non-contradiction, is not identical with the law of non-contradiction itself. The law of non-contradiction is an objectively true statement that applies to all possible or actual states of affairs.
		
Click to expand...

_ This is simply a verbal dispute (an issue over definition), rather than an actual argument. "Conceptual", as I have seen it used in this context, is simply synonymous with "abstract" and other such words. To say laws of logic are not conceptual by using a different definition is simply to say we use different definitions. (And they still only addressed what is, not why what is should be and why it should continue to be.)


----------



## WaltL1

Every one of your "reasoned" arguments is completely dependent on the unreasonable requirement that it is presupposed that the Christian God is real. Without that presupposition every one of your arguments means squat.
After you prove the Christian God is real, come back and then you can presuppose the Christian God is real. 
Not before.
What you don't get is that IS the refutation of your entire argument. As much as you want to skip over that fact and use all your argumentative theories, its not necessary for us to go any further than that.
Your argument refutes itself.


----------



## bullethead

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm gone for two days and the thread is filled with responses that basically equate to "that's silly and dumb" without actually making or refuting any argument. Since that seems to be the definition of "debate" held by most of the posters here most of the time, and since many of the posters here refuse to make an attempt to refrain from fallacies and present reasoned arguments, I will begin using my time in a more valuable fashion than explaining why people who make no attempt to justify their beliefs might want to consider who really ignores rationality.
> However, I will respond to this (actually verified) pasted quote as a final response.



To the rest...."Don't answer...answer"

Pop back in here in ten years when you have gotten to think about things a little more. I will appreciate your own line of thinking then.


----------



## ambush80

Bassquatch328 said:


> I'm gone for two days and the thread is filled with responses that basically equate to "that's silly and dumb" without actually making or refuting any argument. Since that seems to be the definition of "debate" held by most of the posters here most of the time, and since many of the posters here refuse to make an attempt to refrain from fallacies and present reasoned arguments, I will begin using my time in a more valuable fashion than explaining why people who make no attempt to justify their beliefs might want to consider who really ignores rationality.
> However, I will respond to this (actually verified) pasted quote as a final response. (I think you were trying to indicate that it was a quote by italicizing it, but you must still indicate the source even if it was provided in a previous post.)



Italics in 470-472 are from AIGbusted.  Did you read it?

All the rest are from AnswersGenesis.

I told you a looooong time ago that "you put your cart before your horse".  Do you remember that?  How sharp are your debating skills when you continue to assume a god, specifically the god of the Bible and insist that all further arguments start there?

Your arguments are silly and dumb because you don't start at the beginning, which is what AnswersGenesis tells you to do as well as those apologetic youtube videos that instruct you how to deal with Atheists.  That's their/your strategy.



Bassquatch328 said:


> Correct, but that merely describes what is true. It does nothing to explain how what is true is justified in any particular worldview. Nor does it address Hume's problem of induction. Why should the laws of logic be the same in the future? Why should the definition of "possible" remain static?



What if I were to tell you that my worldview is that anything that someone says that disagrees with what I believe is wrong because I said so?

What would Hume have said about some of Bohr's theories?



Bassquatch328 said:


> _ This is simply a verbal dispute (an issue over definition), rather than an actual argument. "Conceptual", as I have seen it used in this context, is simply synonymous with "abstract" and other such words. To say laws of logic are not conceptual by using a different definition is simply to say we use different definitions. (And they still only addressed what is, not why what is should be and why it should continue to be.)_


_

When did I say that the laws of logic are NOT conceptual?  Was it here? Post 427 or 440?

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=812100&page=18

Was it here?  http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=812100&page=19  Post 457 or 473?


You and your ilk are the only ones who insist that anything is never changing; same as today as yesterday, or that there is a reason for things to exist and you know that reason because it's in a strange book.  

I implore you. Keep looking._


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> It comes across as a project to me.
> 
> A lot of times people get stuck in groupthink.  They come up with all these approaches, answers, and replies, and pat themselves on the back as if it is brilliant.....and, because they all agree with each other, fail to recognize how weak certain arguments and positions are.  This happens in politics a lot too.
> 
> The good thing for squatch is that he is getting challenged here.  It's a healthy thing.



I know you guys are kind of on the same side but help him out.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> I know you guys are kind of on the same side but help him out.





I've tried a few times.  I'm trying to wrap my head around the approach.  The replies are so long, from both sides, I've been kind-a sittin' it out and offering occasional commentary.  I can't jump in on the AIG stuff.  It's hard to say what I'm thinking without getting caught in the middle.

Much like a group of democrats or republicans will sit around and say things that make a lot of sense to them, but when they get out and take a certain position in the face of opposing beliefs it falls apart, this stuff happens with Christians too.  If we are not careful, we trap ourselves in a bubble.  Believe me, I have heard every single talking point in this thread several times in the past.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I've tried a few times.  I'm trying to wrap my head around the approach.  The replies are so long, from both sides, I've been kind-a sittin' it out and offering occasional commentary.  I can't jump in on the AIG stuff.  It's hard to say what I'm thinking without getting caught in the middle.




Ahhh.  The mushy middle.  I make my living there.



JB0704 said:


> Much like a group of democrats or republicans will sit around and say things that make a lot of sense to them, but when they get out and take a certain position in the face of opposing beliefs it falls apart, this stuff happens with Christians too.  If we are not careful, we trap ourselves in a bubble.  Believe me, I have heard every single talking point in this thread several times in the past.



If only logic were universal and perfect......

That's a curious condition: most of it kind of makes sense.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Your arguments are silly and dumb because you don't start at the beginning, which is what AnswersGenesis tells you to do as well as those apologetic you tube videos that instruct you how to deal with Atheists.  That's their/your strategy.



Put yourself in his shoes.  If this is the kind-a thing we are taught, assuming a neutral position feels like a "sin," even for the sake of a debate.

I took an origins class taught by a man who is big on the AIG-type stuff.  He was a phd, neuroscience I think.  Anyway, his approach was always start with the Bible, and let science fill in from there.  Which makes a heck-of-a-lot of sense in a room full of Christians.  Assuming a neutral position in that room means "you are questioning the almighty God."  Hard thing to do, I assure you.  

I was very lonely in that class as the only "old-earth" Christian.  Folks take the Bible and say "you are arguing with God."  When the real question should be "what does the Bible actually say on that subject, and is our perspective why we have trouble squaring Genesis and science."

If I believe in God, I believe science is the study of his creation, regardless of what the science is studying.  I have nothing to fear of discovery, because I have faith in the origin.


----------



## JB0704

ambush80 said:


> Ahhh.  The mushy middle.  I make my living there.



I just differ with a lot of my "team" when it comes to interpretation and perspective.  For a person of faith, once they have concluded that they "know" what the Bible says, contradictory opinions are considered "un-Biblical," and therefore "un-Godly."  I don't like being given that label, it bothers me.  And I know debating against it is a losing battle.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> Put yourself in his shoes.  If this is the kind-a thing we are taught, assuming a neutral position feels like a "sin," even for the sake of a debate.
> 
> I took an origins class taught by a man who is big on the AIG-type stuff.  He was a phd, neuroscience I think.  Anyway, his approach was always start with the Bible, and let science fill in from there.  Which makes a heck-of-a-lot of sense in a room full of Christians.  Assuming a neutral position in that room means "you are questioning the almighty God."  Hard thing to do, I assure you.
> 
> I was very lonely in that class as the only "old-earth" Christian.  Folks take the Bible and say "you are arguing with God."  When the real question should be "what does the Bible actually say on that subject, and is our perspective why we have trouble squaring Genesis and science."
> 
> If I believe in God, I believe science is the study of his creation, regardless of what the science is studying.  I have nothing to fear of discovery, because I have faith in the origin.



....and you don't have to, nor could you,  prove that to anyone.

That's strong faith.


----------



## ambush80

JB0704 said:


> I just differ with a lot of my "team" when it comes to interpretation and perspective.  For a person of faith, once they have concluded that they "know" what the Bible says, contradictory opinions are considered "un-Biblical," and therefore "un-Godly."  I don't like being given that label, it bothers me.  And I know debating against it is a losing battle.



I can only imagine how uncomfortable that must be.


----------



## WaltL1

JB0704 said:


> Put yourself in his shoes.  If this is the kind-a thing we are taught, assuming a neutral position feels like a "sin," even for the sake of a debate.
> 
> I took an origins class taught by a man who is big on the AIG-type stuff.  He was a phd, neuroscience I think.  Anyway, his approach was always start with the Bible, and let science fill in from there.  Which makes a heck-of-a-lot of sense in a room full of Christians.  Assuming a neutral position in that room means "you are questioning the almighty God."  Hard thing to do, I assure you.
> 
> I was very lonely in that class as the only "old-earth" Christian.  Folks take the Bible and say "you are arguing with God."  When the real question should be "what does the Bible actually say on that subject, and is our perspective why we have trouble squaring Genesis and science."
> 
> If I believe in God, I believe science is the study of his creation, regardless of what the science is studying.  I have nothing to fear of discovery, because I have faith in the origin.





> Put yourself in his shoes.  If this is the kind-a thing we are taught, assuming a neutral position feels like a "sin," even for the sake of a debate.


I'm not so sure.
Does belief in God REQUIRE you to think everyone else is wrong? Is your belief in God DEPENDENT on everybody else's view being wrong?
If you believe in God but admit its based on faith and personal belief is that being "neutral"?
Regardless of how you got there or how you view the surrounding circumstances, in the end if you believe in God, you are not neutral.
Or is it personal pride or insecurity or lack of maturity in your beliefs that makes some Christians want to PROVE everybody else is wrong?
Even though they cant and must know they cant?
Note the first responses by the A/As to the OP. Every one of them pointed out its all based on personal belief. That's not an attack, that's not saying you are wrong, that doesn't even require a defense. Unless of course you must be "right" and everybody else wrong.
So it begs my question above -


> Or is it personal pride or insecurity or lack of maturity in your beliefs that makes some Christians want to PROVE everybody else is wrong?
> Even though they cant and must know they cant?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> I'm not so sure.
> Does belief in God REQUIRE you to think everyone else is wrong? Is your belief in God DEPENDENT on everybody else's view being wrong?
> If you believe in God but admit its based on faith and personal belief is that being "neutral"?
> Regardless of how you got there or how you view the surrounding circumstances, in the end if you believe in God, you are not neutral.
> Or is it personal pride or insecurity or lack of maturity in your beliefs that makes some Christians want to PROVE everybody else is wrong?
> Even though they cant and must know they cant?
> Note the first responses by the A/As to the OP. Every one of them pointed out its all based on personal belief. That's not an attack, that's not saying you are wrong, that doesn't even require a defense. Unless of course you must be "right" and everybody else wrong.
> So it begs my question above -



I've heard a total of two Christians in my entire life say honestly "I could be wrong".  One of them is my mother.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> How would you teach Biology and Anatomy?  Particularly in relation to how donkey vocal chords might be able to produce human speech?



The same way students are now taught that at some time in the past there was a point of singularity, an infinitely dense mass that contained all the matter in the universe and then somehow there was a cosmic hiccup and it went BANG!


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> The same way students are now taught that at some time in the past there was a point of singularity, an infinitely dense mass that contained all the matter in the universe and then somehow there was a cosmic hiccup and it went BANG!




Come on......

You can trace the logic behind those hypotheses to research, measurements, calculations and observations.

Postulating on how the Starship Enterprise's warp engines work is more based in reality that trying to explain a talking donkey.

Weak.  I'm a little disappointed.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> The same way students are now taught that at some time in the past there was a point of singularity, an infinitely dense mass that contained all the matter in the universe and then somehow there was a cosmic hiccup and it went BANG!



The big bang created mass.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> The big bang created mass.



Can't say that. We still don't know anything about the genesis of mass with any certainty. That's why the Higgs is still in a state of uncertainty. 

The current big bang model shows that nothing but energy came out of the big bang, and that as the universe expanded that energy cooled into elementary particles, one of which could be the Higgs, which then coalesced into atoms of hydrogen.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Can't say that. We still don't know anything about the genesis of mass with any certainty. That's why the Higgs is still in a state of uncertainty.



Sure we can. Unless E=MC(2) has been disproven or the fact that they have created mass from energy was a lie.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> The big bang created mass.



What created the energy?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Sure we can. Unless E=MC(2) has been disproven or the fact that they have created mass from energy was a lie.



That's what I'm saying. BB created energy and the rule of energy, mass was a result of that. 

It's the difference between making your own woodcarving, and being the guy who built the tools or cut the log. Neither can lay claim to the results of a secondary process.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> What created the energy?



What created God?


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> That's what I'm saying. BB created energy and the rule of energy, mass was a result of that.



I thought that is what I said.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> I thought that is what I said.



It is, but my point is the last phrase in my post. Secondary processes created mass, the BB just laid the framework for that to happen. It's not unrelated, IMO, just not the proximate cause.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Sure we can. Unless E=MC(2) has been disproven or the fact that they have created mass from energy was a lie.



That really requires a deeper question than I asked because it speaks to heart of the heart of the agnostic dilemma.

Matter is neither created nor destroyed it is converted from one state to another therefore the idea of which came first the energy or the matter is a non-starter, both are created and therefore need a creator.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> What created God?



God is a self existent being, he needs no creator.


----------



## 660griz

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> It is, but my point is the last phrase in my post. Secondary processes created mass, the BB just laid the framework for that to happen. It's not unrelated, IMO, just not the proximate cause.



Hmmm. The BB created matter. Common matter came later (after some cooling) but...

Guess we are off on a tangent. 
My reply was to madman saying 


> an infinitely dense mass that contained all the matter in the universe and then somehow there was a cosmic hiccup and it went BANG!



I was just disagreeing and making the point that there was (probably)no mass or matter before big bang.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> God is a self existent being, he needs no creator.



Just like energy. Maybe you are worshipping energy.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Just like energy. Maybe you are worshipping energy.



Is energy an effect, or is energy the cause?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

660griz said:


> Hmmm. The BB created matter. Common matter came later (after some cooling) but...
> 
> Guess we are off on a tangent.
> My reply was to madman saying
> 
> 
> I was just disagreeing and making the point that there was (probably)no mass or matter before big bang.



Close. There was no matter at the moment of the big bang, according to our understanding. The only immediate result, also for the first 300,000 years if I'm recalling current models correctly, was energy. Cooling energy results in matter, in the form of elementary particles. Groupings of those give rise to electrons, neutrons, and protons. Those give rise to hydrogen. Hydrogen coalesced into stars, which then formed every other heavier element.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Just like energy. Maybe you are worshipping energy.



So you believe there is a self existent being, that has always been and will always be, this being, which you call energy, has the ability to bring itself, or some part of itself, together into a state of order, some call a point of singularity, and then with a cosmic hiccup, rapidly move into a state of disorder that you call the big bang.

I would argue that you believe in an eternal, self sufficient being, call it what you will.  What ever you call it, it has the ability to think, organize, create, etc.  

Glad we agree on a creator, even if we don't yet agree on what to call Him.


----------



## Madman

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Close. There was no matter at the moment of the big bang, according to our understanding. The only immediate result, also for the first 300,000 years if I'm recalling current models correctly, was energy.



If there was no matter, and no energy, what was the "Point of singularity" from which this came?


ex nihilo nihil fit


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> Is energy an effect?



It can be. I am not sure vacuum energy is a cause or effect.
Who created the vacuum of space/universe? Does nothing have to be created?  

Not knowing is not an explanation for the existence of God.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> If there was no matter, and no energy, what was the "Point of singularity" from which this came?
> 
> 
> ex nihilo nihil fit



I didn't say there was no energy. I said there was no matter. As to how energy gets bottled into a singularity, you'd have to ask people smarter than I. Perhaps the singularity converts it to equivalent energy, maybe it stays as matter and is sprayed into the universe as energy in order to agree with the laws of entropy. 

Like a person who believes in deities my belief has holes in it that I don't quite understand fully. But my explanation for the existence of life and the universe is also quite fine with not having all of the answers.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> So you believe there is a self existent being,


 No. Sorry, when I said, "Just like energy", that was to the part you said,  "needs no creator."


> I would argue that you believe in an eternal, self sufficient being, call it what you will.  What ever you call it, it has the ability to think, organize, create, etc.


 You could argue if you want. However, I don't believe in any eternal BEINGS.   



> Glad we agree on a creator, even if we don't yet agree on what to call Him.



 We only agree stuff was created.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Not knowing is not an explanation for the existence of God.



Science is the very study of causes and effects.  To say "we just don't know but it is definitely not god" is a cop out of the highest order.

Perhaps agnostics need to reread Metaphysics by Aristotle.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> Science is the very study of causes and effects.  To say "we just don't know but it is definitely not god" is a cop out of the highest order.
> 
> Perhaps agnostics need to reread Metaphysics by Aristotle.



Perhaps you should paint the individual making that kind of absolutist statement with that brush, instead of all agnostics. 

The core tenet of agnosticism is the lack of true knowledge, and one who is truly agnostic can't say that God did do it, any more than they can say He didn't. Sounds like you were speaking to a closeted atheist there, or there is a misunderstanding somewhere in the grapevine.


----------



## WaltL1

Actually -


> "we just don't know but it is definitely not god" is a cop out of the highest order.


Acknowledging that there is a god but arguing that he/she/it didn't do something is nether an Atheist or Agnostic position.
One position says there are no gods
One position says we cant know if there is or if there isn't.
So whoever said that was neither.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> Perhaps agnostics need to reread Metaphysics by Aristotle.



Perhaps they do. What does that have to do with me?


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Perhaps they do. What does that have to do with me?



To argue that a created item created itself before it existed is  irrational in every theater, scientific, philosophical, and theological.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> What created the energy?



Simple answer is none of us know.
Slightly more complex answer is that the energy may have always been around in one form or another.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> God is a self existent being, he needs no creator.



It is your belief that the God you worship is a self existing being.
If you could somehow prove what you say is an absolute truth you would be light years ahead of anyone else that constantly asserts these things about their God.
It seems that they say anything they want about what their God thinks, says, does, they know all about his existence, his commands and even his will but in reality NOBODY has ever given us anything but a concept of a God. In one sentence they tell us their God is unknowable and in the next their God seems to like and dislike everything they do and they tell us all about it.

Really really Odd.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Simple answer is none of us know.
> Slightly more complex answer is that the energy may have always been around in one form or another.



This defies all reason and logic, the very science that is used to interpret our world tells us that is impossible.  Scientifically, philosophically, and theologically, the only answer is that some eternal, self existing being created it all.


Any other solution is irrational.  

Many refuse to admit it but we know why.

Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> In one sentence they tell us their God is unknowable



My God is very knowable.

His word tells me a lot about Him, then he sent His son that I would know Him better.  

You should meet Him.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> This defies all reason and logic, the very science that is used to interpret our world tells us that is impossible.  Scientifically, philosophically, and theologically, the only answer is that some eternal, self existing being created it all.
> 
> 
> Any other solution is irrational.
> 
> Many refuse to admit it but we know why.
> 
> Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1


Actually it fits right in with the laws of conservation of energy, but don't let me stop you from insulting those of us who don't agree with you.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> My God is very knowable.
> 
> His word tells me a lot about Him, then he sent His son that I would know Him better.
> 
> You should meet Him.



That book could be fiction you know. What if no book? Would your God still be very knowable? Should a God need a book written by men in order to be knowable?


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1



Matthew 5:22, 
Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of he!! fire.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> This defies all reason and logic, the very science that is used to interpret our world tells us that is impossible.  Scientifically, philosophically, and theologically, the only answer is that some eternal, self existing being created it all.
> 
> 
> Any other solution is irrational.
> 
> Many refuse to admit it but we know why.
> 
> Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1



Scientifically, you have your answer.
http://wright.grc.nasa.gov/airplane/thermo1f.html


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> My God is very knowable.
> 
> His word tells me a lot about Him, then he sent His son that I would know Him better.
> 
> You should meet Him.



You are a few hundreds threads late on using that stuff as proof of a God.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Science is the very study of causes and effects.  To say "we just don't know but it is definitely not god" is a cop out of the highest order.
> 
> Perhaps agnostics need to reread Metaphysics by Aristotle.





bullethead said:


> Simple answer is none of us know.
> Slightly more complex answer is that the energy may have always been around in one form or another.



Is there any element of a cop out in saying "there MUST have been a creator"?


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> This defies all reason and logic, the very science that is used to interpret our world tells us that is impossible.  Scientifically, philosophically, and theologically, the only answer is that some eternal, self existing being created it all.
> 
> 
> Any other solution is irrational.
> 
> Many refuse to admit it but we know why.
> 
> Only fools say in their hearts, "There is no God." Psalm 14:1





> Originally Posted by bullethead View Post
> Simple answer is none of us know.
> Slightly more complex answer is that the energy may have always been around in one form or another.





> This defies all reason and logic, the very science that is used to interpret our world tells us that is impossible.


Wait a minute.
You use this to refute that energy may have always been around and yet posit that a god has always been around???


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Matthew 5:22,
> Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of he!! fire.




I did not say it, God did. Perhaps that is something you can ask Him about.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Wait a minute.
> You use this to refute that energy may have always been around and yet posit that a god has always been around???



Only an effect needs a cause.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Is there any element of a cop out in saying "there MUST have been a creator"?



It is the only logical conclusion.


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> That book could be fiction you know.



Could be but it has MANY fulfilled prophesies, many witness that saw first hand what was being discussed.



660griz said:


> What if no book? Would your God still be very knowable?



This point is moot, there is a book.



660griz said:


> Should a God need a book written by men in order to be knowable?



He is knowable in His creation yet many say "there is no God"  He penned a book for you and then sent His son.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> You are a few hundreds threads late on using that stuff as proof of a God.



That response was not a proof it was a response.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Scientifically, you have your answer.
> http://wright.grc.nasa.gov/airplane/thermo1f.html



What does this link have to do with the discussion?

You have yet to address the question.  Where did any effect come from? Matter, energy, dirt, asphalt, are all created.  What created them?


----------



## Madman

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> Actually it fits right in with the laws of conservation of energy, but don't let me stop you from insulting those of us who don't agree with you.



This discussion has nothing to do with the conservation of energy, the discussion is not about the relationship between energy and matter, the question is where did it come from.  

I didn't intend to hurt your feelings, to be considered irrational simply means that ones logic does not follow the rules that govern logic and rationality, it in no way implies stupidity, I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.

I sincerely apologize.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> Only an effect needs a cause.


And of course everything that exists is an effect of the Christian God right?


> This defies all reason and logic, the very science that is used to interpret our world tells us that is impossible.


Please show us how reason and logic dictates that the Christian God is the cause of all effects to the exclusion of any and all other possibilities.
And "because that's what I believe" would be perfectly acceptable as an answer instead of making nonfactual, unprovable assertions.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> What does this link have to do with the discussion?
> 
> You have yet to address the question.  Where did any effect come from? Matter, energy, dirt, asphalt, are all created.  What created them?



The link answers your problem with energy being eternal.
Energy always was and matter came from energy.
If you care to spend ten minutes researching it you will find lots of information on it about how everything formed as a result from the Big Bang.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Could be but it has MANY fulfilled prophesies, many witness that saw first hand what was being discussed.


And just as many prophesies left unfulfilled.

Do you have anything from these witnesses that tell us about exactly what they saw?





Madman said:


> This point is moot, there is a book.


Who wrote this book?





Madman said:


> He is knowable in His creation yet many say "there is no God"


If creation is his means to know him why do the majority of people on Earth not know or acknowledge his existence?



Madman said:


> He penned a book for you and then sent His son.



Is this the book that was found in the middle of the desert in all types of weather yet shows no wear? Is it the same book that has been determined to be older than the earth itself yet still looks brand new? Is this the book that is written in letters that is of a language that nothing on earth compares to yet is understood by all who read it?

Nope, your God did not actually "Pen" anything. The book you follow is anything and everything but the works of a God. It is a bunch of man made stories thought up and assembled by men. It is wonderfully entertaining and at the same time woefully inaccurate, full of contradictions, error ridden, historically false, geographically challenged and scientifically wrong.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Please show us how reason and logic dictates that the Christian God is the cause of all effects to the exclusion of any and all other possibilities.



I have not said reason and logic dictate a Christian God.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> The link answers your problem with energy being eternal.
> Energy always was and matter came from energy.
> If you care to spend ten minutes researching it you will find lots of information on it about how everything formed as a result from the Big Bang.



Absolutely no research proves that energy is eternal.  I have spent 30 years in the field of physics.  There are hypnosis that are presented but no evidence.

Every argument of an eternal effect falls short and MANY in the scientific field are finally admitting to a cause.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> And just as many prophesies left unfulfilled.
> 
> Do you have anything from these witnesses that tell us about exactly what they saw?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who wrote this book?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If creation is his means to know him why do the majority of people on Earth not know or acknowledge his existence?
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the book that was found in the middle of the desert in all types of weather yet shows no wear? Is it the same book that has been determined to be older than the earth itself yet still looks brand new? Is this the book that is written in letters that is of a language that nothing on earth compares to yet is understood by all who read it?
> 
> Nope, your God did not actually "Pen" anything. The book you follow is anything and everything but the works of a God. It is a bunch of man made stories thought up and assembled by men. It is wonderfully entertaining and at the same time woefully inaccurate, full of contradictions, error ridden, historically false, geographically challenged and scientifically wrong.



This is getting off topic.  pick it up on another post.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> This is getting off topic.  pick it up on another post.



I don't blame you for not wanting to tackle that one.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> The link answers your problem with energy being eternal.
> Energy always was and matter came from energy.
> If you care to spend ten minutes researching it you will find lots of information on it about how everything formed as a result from the Big Bang.



If you choose to believe that an "effect", energy, was able to create itself before it existed, and then ordered itself, even though that is direct conflict with the laws of thermodynamics, that you claim to follow, and then by it's own "power" suddenly "hiccuped" into the big bang, then have at it.

But that course is philosophically irrational, and scientific nonsense.  From nothing nothing comes.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Absolutely no research proves that energy is eternal.  I have spent 30 years in the field of physics.  There are hypnosis that are presented but no evidence.
> 
> Every argument of an eternal effect falls short and MANY in the scientific field are finally admitting to a cause.



Hypnosis presented but no evidence...wow does that sound familiar.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> I don't blame you for not wanting to tackle that one.



Let's finish this one first.  Misdirection will not work.  Focus, stay on topic. 

You can handle it.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> If you choose to believe that an "effect", energy, was able to create itself before it existed, and then ordered itself, even though that is direct conflict with the laws of thermodynamics, that you claim to follow, and then by it's own "power" suddenly "hiccuped" into the big bang, then have at it.
> 
> But that course is philosophically irrational, and scientific nonsense.  From nothing nothing comes.



Those are your words. Not mine at all.

Who ever said or implied there was ever nothing?


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Let's finish this one first.  Misdirection will not work.  Focus, stay on topic.
> 
> You can handle it.



I've got a fantasy football draft in 30 mins so I will pick this up later.
But no misdirection intended. Sometimes you have have to take a detour to get to the same destination. The paths are different but all connected.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Those are your words. Not mine at all.
> 
> Who ever said or implied there was ever nothing?



Go back to your high school text book. 
Nothing can come from nothing. 

Go back to high school philosophy book. 
Ever cause must have an effect.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> If you choose to believe that an "effect", energy, was able to create itself before it existed, and then ordered itself, even though that is direct conflict with the laws of thermodynamics, that you claim to follow, and then by it's own "power" suddenly "hiccuped" into the big bang, then have at it.
> 
> But that course is philosophically irrational, and scientific nonsense.  From nothing nothing comes.



What is the first law of thermodynamics?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> I've got a fantasy football draft in 30 mins so I will pick this up later.



More fantasies going on than a draft.  

Sorry I couldn't resist.  No "foul"  intended.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> Go back to your high school text book.
> Nothing can come from nothing.
> 
> Go back to high school philosophy book.
> Ever cause must have an effect.



 Energy is eternal...it has always been.

No high school text books needed.

Unless if you want to explain (using your high school philosophy book) how every cause must have an effect....except of course YOUR cause.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> More fantasies going on than a draft.
> 
> Sorry I couldn't resist.  No "foul"  intended.



No "Offense" taken.

But I'd like you to explain just what your God looks like.

Is it a man with long white hair and a long white beard floating in a world outside of this Universe?

Is it a "force" outside and inside of this Universe?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> What is the first law of thermodynamics?



It is the law of the conservation of energy.

The change in U is equal to the heat added minus the work done.

where U= internal energy

You are misapplying the laws of physics.  If you are trying to get me to say that neither matter nor energy are created or destroyed then I will.

In a system neither energy nor matter are created or destroyed, but only change state.

Once again that has nothing to with the discussion.  

To say that energy or matter have existed eternally flies in the face of science, philosophy, and theology.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Hypnosis presented but no evidence...wow does that sound familiar.



Evidence of a creator is everywhere.  Look at information science, language or code must come from a code writer, the human genome is code.

In fact we are discussing the scientific fact that nothing can come from nothing, everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder, energy and matter cannot be created by it's own will, yet you choose to ignore what science and philosophy have shown and continue to show.

"Why do you kick against the goads?"


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> No "Offense" taken.
> 
> But I'd like you to explain just what your God looks like.
> 
> Is it a man with long white hair and a long white beard floating in a world outside of this Universe?
> 
> Is it a "force" outside and inside of this Universe?



bullethead,

I'd like to come to an agreement on one topic before we move on.  If we can't agree on simple scientific and philosophical proofs then there is no where to move on too.

By the way,  who did you get in the draft?  I'm watching Tech get embarrassed by Wofford.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Energy is eternal...it has always been.
> 
> No high school text books needed.
> 
> Unless if you want to explain (using your high school philosophy book) how every cause must have an effect....except of course YOUR cause.



My physics book is at work, wikipedia will have to suffice: "A formulation of physical laws in terms of cause and effect is useful for the purposes of explanation and prediction. For instance, in Newtonian mechanics, an observed acceleration can be explained by reference to an applied force. So Newton's second law can be used to predict the force necessary to realize a desired acceleration.

In classical physics, a cause should always precede its effect. In relativity theory the equivalent restriction limits causes to the back (past) light cone of the event to be explained (the "effect"), and any effect of a cause must lie in the cause's front (future) light cone. These restrictions are consistent with the grounded belief (or assumption) that causal influences cannot travel faster than the speed of light and/or backwards in time."

Philosophically:  "Causality (also referred to as causation) is the relation between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a physical consequence of the first."  

Aristotle has some great writings moving causes.

As for MY cause; it is not an effect therefore philosophically, and scientifically it needs no cause.


----------



## Madman

Since I have answered all your questions and objections why don't you answer one of mine?

Why does what you call my "effect" need a cause?  How does my argument violate any law of physics, or any law of Philosophy.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> Since I have answered all your questions and objections why don't you answer one of mine?
> 
> Why does what you call my "effect" need a cause?  How does my argument violate any law of physics, or any law of Philosophy.


Your answer is simply "none of the things I have applied to your argument applies to mine because God is outside all of that".
Until you can actually prove that why should we bother? That's the question.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Your answer is simply "none of the things I have applied to your argument applies to mine because God is outside all of that".
> Until you can actually prove that why should we bother? That's the question.



On
The
Nosey!


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Your answer is simply "none of the things I have applied to your argument applies to mine because God is outside all of that".
> Until you can actually prove that why should we bother? That's the question.



You are correct, why should you bother?  That would take effort on your part and require you to do more than give some snide remark. It would require you to make others think that they are of some importance and have enough value to carry on a reasonable discussion, but then we know that those who claim to be atheists have no basis for humans having value so why should you waste time in a civil discussion, we are all just worm dirt and have no value. 

It would require you do some research, other then cutting and pasting some url that you think will shut somebody up and give you a;  

I see those who claim to have such a high degree of intelligence making those wonderful remarks like: "why should we bother?" 

Some of us carry on these discussions because you are of great importance to us, we believe these are discussions that have eternal consequences so we spend time and effort on your behalf.

You have yet to give any evidence, scientific, philosophical, or theological to address any questions. 

Y'all constantly asked for scientific answers as to why I believe what I believe and then when presented in a rational and logical manner you divert and obfuscate even though the science you worship shows that your belief system is in conflict.  

I have answered bullet's question about the 1st law, I have answered the question about only an effect needing a cause, (I have yet to get to the law inertia that your big bang violates) and you have addressed neither.

Your only response is irrational; something on the order of; 

"there is no god so energy must be eternal, and the matter came from the energy some how, and everything moved from state of disorder into a state of order and then the somehow the law of inertia was suspended, and the energy or matter, whichever came first, activated itself by acting on the point of singularity to release the energy, (never mind that the law of inertia says that an item at rest will stay at rest until acted on by an outside force)and, and, and, it has to be so because god does not exist." 


I have presented the rational argument from science, and philosophy, yet when I ask you to do the same all I get is "why bother"? 

Thanks.  I see I am not worth the trouble, but I believe you are.

I believe you are worth the trouble because God sent His son "That all who believe in him should not perish...........".  
And that includes you.  "Repent and believe".


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> You are correct, why should you bother?  That would take effort on your part and require you to do more than give some snide remark. It would require you to make others think that they are of some importance and have enough value to carry on a reasonable discussion, but then we know that those who claim to be atheists have no basis for humans having value so why should you waste time in a civil discussion, we are all just worm dirt and have no value.
> 
> It would require you do some research, other then cutting and pasting some url that you think will shut somebody up and give you a;
> 
> I see those who claim to have such a high degree of intelligence making those wonderful remarks like: "why should we bother?"
> 
> Some of us carry on these discussions because you are of great importance to us, we believe these are discussions that have eternal consequences so we spend time and effort on your behalf.
> 
> You have yet to give any evidence, scientific, philosophical, or theological to address any questions.
> 
> Y'all constantly asked for scientific answers as to why I believe what I believe and then when presented in a rational and logical manner you divert and obfuscate even though the science you worship shows that your belief system is in conflict.
> 
> I have answered bullet's question about the 1st law, I have answered the question about only an effect needing a cause, (I have yet to get to the law inertia that your big bang violates) and you have addressed neither.
> 
> Your only response is irrational; something on the order of;
> 
> "there is no god so energy must be eternal, and the matter came from the energy some how, and everything moved from state of disorder into a state of order and then the somehow the law of inertia was suspended, and the energy or matter, whichever came first, activated itself by acting on the point of singularity to release the energy, (never mind that the law of inertia says that an item at rest will stay at rest until acted on by an outside force)and, and, and, it has to be so because god does not exist."
> 
> 
> I have presented the rational argument from science, and philosophy, yet when I ask you to do the same all I get is "why bother"?
> 
> Thanks.  I see I am not worth the trouble, but I believe you are.
> 
> I believe you are worth the trouble because God sent His son "That all who believe in him should not perish...........".
> And that includes you.  "Repent and believe".



We have bothered multiple times over in multiple threads.
In those threads We have already answered in depth and in great length along with providing links as to how energy has become matter and how things have, based on our best guesses from our best observable information, More Likely Than Not came together and formed everything from that Big Bang.
Much of it is speculation based off of thing we can observe.
The rest is a best educated guess.

Nobody knows what, if anything, was around before that Big Bang.
Nobody knows what, if anything, is a God.

Just like I am using Man to explain things to me in ways that I can relate to... You are using Man to explain things to you in ways that you relate to.

One big difference is that I have come to a line of thought based off of testable theories that always leave room for new information. Inaccurate information is corrected.

Your way, your Book there is no room for adjustment.
When I have given you examples you deflect your answer so as to not address them. 

How can I have an in depth conversation with someone that tells me "Nothing is Eternal", give me the reasons why.... and immediately follow it with "except for my God".


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> We have bothered multiple times over in multiple threads.
> In those threads We have already answered in depth and in great length along with providing links as to how energy has become matter and how things have, based on our best guesses from our best observable information, More Likely Than Not came together and formed everything from that Big Bang.
> Much of it is speculation based off of thing we can observe.
> The rest is a best educated guess.
> 
> Nobody knows what, if anything, was around before that Big Bang.
> Nobody knows what, if anything, is a God.



None of us argue that there was "nothing".  That line of thinking comes from the Bible.



bullethead said:


> Just like I am using Man to explain things to me in ways that I can relate to... You are using Man to explain things to you in ways that you relate to.
> 
> One big difference is that I have come to a line of thought based off of testable theories that always leave room for new information. Inaccurate information is corrected.
> 
> Your way, your Book there is no room for adjustment.
> When I have given you examples you deflect your answer so as to not address them.



Without the idea of a creator implanted in one's mind one would not necessarily come to the conclusion that there must have been one.  One would come to the conclusion that they don't know.




bullethead said:


> How can I have an in depth conversation with someone that tells me "Nothing is Eternal", give me the reasons why.... and immediately follow it with "except for my God".



I still don't get how believers can think that that's a good argument.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> You are correct, why should you bother?  That would take effort on your part and require you to do more than give some snide remark. It would require you to make others think that they are of some importance and have enough value to carry on a reasonable discussion, but then we know that those who claim to be atheists have no basis for humans having value so why should you waste time in a civil discussion, we are all just worm dirt and have no value.
> 
> It would require you do some research, other then cutting and pasting some url that you think will shut somebody up and give you a;
> 
> I see those who claim to have such a high degree of intelligence making those wonderful remarks like: "why should we bother?"
> 
> Some of us carry on these discussions because you are of great importance to us, we believe these are discussions that have eternal consequences so we spend time and effort on your behalf.
> 
> You have yet to give any evidence, scientific, philosophical, or theological to address any questions.
> 
> Y'all constantly asked for scientific answers as to why I believe what I believe and then when presented in a rational and logical manner you divert and obfuscate even though the science you worship shows that your belief system is in conflict.
> 
> I have answered bullet's question about the 1st law, I have answered the question about only an effect needing a cause, (I have yet to get to the law inertia that your big bang violates) and you have addressed neither.
> 
> Your only response is irrational; something on the order of;
> 
> "there is no god so energy must be eternal, and the matter came from the energy some how, and everything moved from state of disorder into a state of order and then the somehow the law of inertia was suspended, and the energy or matter, whichever came first, activated itself by acting on the point of singularity to release the energy, (never mind that the law of inertia says that an item at rest will stay at rest until acted on by an outside force)and, and, and, it has to be so because god does not exist."
> 
> 
> I have presented the rational argument from science, and philosophy, yet when I ask you to do the same all I get is "why bother"?
> 
> Thanks.  I see I am not worth the trouble, but I believe you are.
> 
> I believe you are worth the trouble because God sent His son "That all who believe in him should not perish...........".
> And that includes you.  "Repent and believe".


1. Im not an Atheist so there goes your entire first paragraph.
2. What is it that you would like me to research that is going to prove the origin of life or the existence or nonexistence of a god?
3. I have made no claim of higher intelligence. It doesn't take a high degree of intelligence to understand your argument.
4. The only "evidence" you have provided for your argument begins with the presupposition that a god exists.
5. You actually think that you have provided scientific evidence FOR a god? Come on.
Regardless if the Big Bang is a croc of doodoo, that does NOT prove the existence of a god.


> I have answered bullet's question about the 1st law, I have answered the question about only an effect needing a cause, (I have yet to get to the law inertia that your big bang violates) and you have addressed neither.


Before you get to inertia, prove that your god is not an effect please. And its not MY big bang. Your statements are very telling and inaccurate. 


> "there is no god so energy must be eternal, and the matter came from the energy some how, and everything moved from state of disorder into a state of order and then the somehow the law of inertia was suspended, and the energy or matter, whichever came first, activated itself by acting on the point of singularity to release the energy, (never mind that the law of inertia says that an item at rest will stay at rest until acted on by an outside force)and, and, and, it has to be so because god does not exist."


That argument came out of your head. No one here has said this. But it does show how you view the subject in that a god existing or not directs how you view the subject.


> I have presented the rational argument from science, and philosophy, yet when I ask you to do the same all I get is "why bother"?


What rational argument have you presented? For the existence of a god? Where?
That's where the "why bother" comes in. Because you believe you have.


> Thanks.  I see I am not worth the trouble, but I believe you are.


You as a person are worth the trouble unless you prove not to be.. Your argument is not.


> I believe you are worth the trouble because God sent His son "That all who believe in him should not perish...........".
> And that includes you.  "Repent and believe".


I believe you as a person are worth the trouble all on my own not because a god or anybody else sent anything or did anything or told me to.
And I did believe. Don't anymore. Partially because of the ridiculous arguments I had to make up to support what I believed.
Like your argument.


> Some of us carry on these discussions because you are of great importance to us, we believe these are discussions that have eternal consequences so we spend time and effort on your behalf.


Yes Im sure that's why you are here. Some of the things you have said certainly back that up. 

For some reason you think discrediting the big bang somehow proves the existence of a god and not just any god, your god..
It doesn't.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> 1. Im not an Atheist so there goes your entire first paragraph.
> 2. What is it that you would like me to research that is going to prove the origin of life or the existence or nonexistence of a god?
> 3. I have made no claim of higher intelligence. It doesn't take a high degree of intelligence to understand your argument.
> 4. The only "evidence" you have provided for your argument begins with the presupposition that a god exists.
> 5. You actually think that you have provided scientific evidence FOR a god? Come on.
> Regardless if the Big Bang is a croc of doodoo, that does NOT prove the existence of a god.
> 
> Before you get to inertia, prove that your god is not an effect please. And its not MY big bang. Your statements are very telling and inaccurate.
> 
> That argument came out of your head. No one here has said this. But it does show how you view the subject in that a god existing or not directs how you view the subject.
> 
> What rational argument have you presented? For the existence of a god? Where?
> That's where the "why bother" comes in. Because you believe you have.
> 
> You as a person are worth the trouble unless you prove not to be.. Your argument is not.
> 
> I believe you as a person are worth the trouble all on my own not because a god or anybody else sent anything or did anything or told me to.
> And I did believe. Don't anymore. Partially because of the ridiculous arguments I had to make up to support what I believed.
> Like your argument.
> 
> Yes Im sure that's why you are here. Some of the things you have said certainly back that up.
> 
> For some reason you think discrediting the big bang somehow proves the existence of a god and not just any god, your god..
> It doesn't.



You fight for something but refuse to claim it.


Does an effect need a cause?


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> You fight for something but refuse to claim it.
> 
> 
> Does an effect need a cause?


You are mistaking refuting your argument as a fight for the big bang. They are 2 separate subjects that you seem to be having a very hard time separating.
As your final question attests to.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> 1. Im not an Atheist so there goes your entire first paragraph.




Then what are you?




WaltL1 said:


> 2. What is it that you would like me to research that is going to prove the origin of life or the existence or nonexistence of a god?



Where does the energy/matter come from?
What caused inertia?
Where does the information come from?
How you can have an effect without a cause.



WaltL1 said:


> 3. I have made no claim of higher intelligence. It doesn't take a high degree of intelligence to understand your argument.



What is my argument?



WaltL1 said:


> 4. The only "evidence" you have provided for your argument begins with the presupposition that a god exists.



I have not gotten to that yet.  Only that There needs to be a first cause.  You are so hung up on no god you refuse to see how irrational your argument is.



WaltL1 said:


> 5. You actually think that you have provided scientific evidence FOR a god? Come on.



Wait for it.



WaltL1 said:


> Regardless if the Big Bang is a croc of doodoo, that does NOT prove the existence of a god.



Wait for it.




WaltL1 said:


> Before you get to inertia, prove that your god is not an effect please.



You need to grasp first principles first.



WaltL1 said:


> No one here has said this.



Sure you have.  you argue for an effect without a cause, inertia without an outside force, etc., etc., etc.



WaltL1 said:


> What rational argument have you presented?



That nothing comes from nothing, every effect needs a cause. 




WaltL1 said:


> unless you prove not to be..



and what warrants that?



WaltL1 said:


> I believe you as a person are worth the trouble all on my own



why?  Never mind that would come along later if you choose to continue.



WaltL1 said:


> And I did believe. Don't anymore.



I thought you weren't an atheist.



WaltL1 said:


> Partially because of the ridiculous arguments I had to make up to support what I believed.
> Like your argument.



If the argument is so ridiculous please discredit it.  It is scientifically sound and philosophically sound. 



WaltL1 said:


> Yes Im sure that's why you are here. Some of the things you have said certainly back that up.



Most believers admit that.  Why are you here?



WaltL1 said:


> For some reason you think discrediting the big bang somehow proves the existence of a god and not just any god, your god..
> It doesn't.



I have not discredited the big bang theory, I have not even tried to discredit the big bang.  

As I have said, you do not understand the argument.


----------



## bullethead

Madman can you cite ONE scientific source that has a non religious affiliation that has gone on record to say that Energy and Matter comes from the God of the Bible?

I would really like to read their research.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> Then what are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where does the energy/matter come from?
> What caused inertia?
> Where does the information come from?
> How you can have an effect without a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> What is my argument?
> 
> 
> 
> I have not gotten to that yet.  Only that There needs to be a first cause.  You are so hung up on no god you refuse to see how irrational your argument is.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to grasp first principles first.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you have.  you argue for an effect without a cause, inertia without an outside force, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> 
> 
> That nothing comes from nothing, every effect needs a cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and what warrants that?
> 
> 
> 
> why?  Never mind that would come along later if you choose to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought you weren't an atheist.
> 
> 
> 
> If the argument is so ridiculous please discredit it.  It is scientifically sound and philosophically sound.
> 
> 
> 
> Most believers admit that.  Why are you here?
> 
> 
> 
> I have not discredited the big bang theory, I have not even tried to discredit the big bang.
> 
> As I have said, you do not understand the argument.


You are trying to use science as to cause and effect and outside sources and matter and a host of other things to make the claim that a god is logical and reasonable.
You don't get that science isn't going to take you there, you have to make a leap of faith.
A choice is only logical and reasonable after you prove it actually exists.
I assure you I understand your argument. Have heard it at least a 1000 times. Always ends the same. You make a leap of faith where science stops. That's all there is to your argument.
So as to not interrupt I'll hold my posts. Lets see where you end up. Im betting on leap of faith.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> I did not say it, God did. Perhaps that is something you can ask Him about.



Christians have been using that reasoning for centuries. 
Just like a free pass to an insult.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> You are trying to use science as to cause and effect and outside sources and matter and a host of other things to make the claim that a god is logical and reasonable.



As opposed to your argument: matter and energy created itself, ordered itself, and created inertia while still being at rest, etc., etc., etc.

Your arguments are in direct conflict with science, please show me where mine are.

There are basic scientific principles that need to be agreed on before we move on. 

Can an effect cause itself?  Yes or no?


----------



## Madman

660griz said:


> Christians have been using that reasoning for centuries.
> Just like a free pass to an insult.



Take it up with the One who wrote it.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> Take it up with the One who wrote it.



Ok. Who wrote it?


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> As opposed to your argument: matter and energy created itself, ordered itself, and created inertia while still being at rest, etc., etc., etc.


You CONSTANTLY write down words of your own and try to pass them off as someone else saying them in order to make your own argument sound better.

WHO said " matter and energy created itself, ordered itself and created inertia while still being at rest, etc., etc., etc." ?

Seriously WHO said that? Please give us the post number.



Madman said:


> Your arguments are in direct conflict with science, please show me where mine are.



Those arguments are YOURS that you graciously have given to us.
I asked you before to please give us a scientific source(no religious affiliation) that has worked out the formulas and backtracked their findings to the God of the Bible.



Madman said:


> There are basic scientific principles that need to be agreed on before we move on.


Lay em out. You expect us to stick to basic science principals yet you throw them out the window to explain your God.



Madman said:


> Can an effect cause itself?  Yes or no?



Better than I can put it into words...from Yahoo answers:

 Michael answered 8 years ago
You have to always remember that ideas don't exist in a vacuum. They are logically dependent on other ideas, in a hierarchical fashion.

For example, I could not explain what an "orphan" was to you if you didn't already understand the meaning of "parent."

Similarly, asking the question "what caused the universe?" ignores the context. The universe is the background for which explanations and causes are possible. We observe cause and effect WITHIN the universe, but it does not mean that the universe as a whole must have preceeding cause. That's extending something you observe to someplace where it might not apply.

I'm not saying the universe is uncaused (I don't think science really knows yet), but if it were uncaused, I would be ok with that. A lot of people have trouble with accepting an uncaused universe, "because something so complex cannot be uncaused," but then go on to accept an uncaused god, who by definition must be more complex than the universe he created...? It seems hypocritical to me.

The other common argument is "anything that begins to exist has a cause," but this is blatant question-begging, and follows in the same traditional "god of the gaps" style.

The final tidbit that is of interest is the fact that time is not independent of space. We know that from many experiments with clocks on satellites and observations in astronomy. So it's very possible that time BEGAN with the universe. Therefore, asking "what came before the universe?" is like asking "what's north of the north pole?" It could be an invalid question, because there is no "before" to speak of.

Bottom line - we don't know for sure yet all the details of the universe's beginning (if it even had one?). But saying "God did it" doesn't actually make us know, it's just a more egotistical way of saying "I don't know."


----------



## 660griz

bullethead said:


> saying "God did it" doesn't actually make us know, it's just a more egotistical way of saying "I don't know."



And all religion is born. The End.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> As opposed to your argument: matter and energy created itself, ordered itself, and created inertia while still being at rest, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Your arguments are in direct conflict with science, please show me where mine are.
> 
> There are basic scientific principles that need to be agreed on before we move on.
> 
> Can an effect cause itself?  Yes or no?





Madman said:


> As opposed to your argument: matter and energy created itself, ordered itself, and created inertia while still being at rest, etc., etc., etc.


Go cut and paste where I have made any such argument.
When you cant, will you stop saying this?


> There are basic scientific principles that need to be agreed on before we move on.


None of those principals will get you to where you are going. Just skip to the end where you make a leap of faith. 
How about we do this - I absolutely concur to every single argument you make concerning science and cause and effect and matter and energy and inertia and any other scientific argument you are just dying to make.
Fast forward (catch up to where we are) to where that all makes a god and then your god, logical and reasonable.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> You CONSTANTLY write down words of your own and try to pass them off as someone else saying them in order to make your own argument sound better.
> 
> WHO said " matter and energy created itself, ordered itself and created inertia while still being at rest, etc., etc., etc." ?
> 
> Seriously WHO said that? Please give us the post number.
> 
> 
> 
> Those arguments are YOURS that you graciously have given to us.
> I asked you before to please give us a scientific source(no religious affiliation) that has worked out the formulas and backtracked their findings to the God of the Bible.
> 
> 
> Lay em out. You expect us to stick to basic science principals yet you throw them out the window to explain your God.
> 
> 
> 
> Better than I can put it into words...from Yahoo answers:
> 
> Michael answered 8 years ago
> You have to always remember that ideas don't exist in a vacuum. They are logically dependent on other ideas, in a hierarchical fashion.
> 
> For example, I could not explain what an "orphan" was to you if you didn't already understand the meaning of "parent."
> 
> Similarly, asking the question "what caused the universe?" ignores the context. The universe is the background for which explanations and causes are possible. We observe cause and effect WITHIN the universe, but it does not mean that the universe as a whole must have preceeding cause. That's extending something you observe to someplace where it might not apply.
> 
> I'm not saying the universe is uncaused (I don't think science really knows yet), but if it were uncaused, I would be ok with that. A lot of people have trouble with accepting an uncaused universe, "because something so complex cannot be uncaused," but then go on to accept an uncaused god, who by definition must be more complex than the universe he created...? It seems hypocritical to me.
> 
> The other common argument is "anything that begins to exist has a cause," but this is blatant question-begging, and follows in the same traditional "god of the gaps" style.
> 
> The final tidbit that is of interest is the fact that time is not independent of space. We know that from many experiments with clocks on satellites and observations in astronomy. So it's very possible that time BEGAN with the universe. Therefore, asking "what came before the universe?" is like asking "what's north of the north pole?" It could be an invalid question, because there is no "before" to speak of.
> 
> Bottom line - we don't know for sure yet all the details of the universe's beginning (if it even had one?). But saying "God did it" doesn't actually make us know, it's just a more egotistical way of saying "I don't know."


Its very odd. Its like he is having a debate with himself where he is thinking "I need them to say that so I can say this". 
And the fact that no one said it but him darn sure isn't going to get in his way.


----------



## bullethead

WaltL1 said:


> Its very odd. Its like he is having a debate with himself where he is thinking "I need them to say that so I can say this".
> And the fact that no one said it but him darn sure isn't going to get in his way.



Exactly Walt.
In order for any of it to work we have to conform to and accept the presuppositions and assertions.

We get no answer to what we are actually saying and asking.
We get replies to questions madman is essentially asking himself because that is the only way it could make sense to him in order to point him in a gods direction.


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Exactly Walt.
> In order for any of it to work we have to conform to and accept the presuppositions and assertions.
> 
> We get no answer to what we are actually saying and asking.
> We get replies to questions madman is essentially asking himself because that is the only way it could make sense to him in order to point him in a gods direction.



Reminds me of the Bassquatch or Willard school.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> As opposed to your argument: matter and energy created itself, ordered itself, and created inertia while still being at rest, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Your arguments are in direct conflict with science, please show me where mine are.
> 
> There are basic scientific principles that need to be agreed on before we move on.
> 
> Can an effect cause itself?  Yes or no?



I tried to think like a believer and I think I see where Madman is coming from. 

I think he is saying that if you don't assume a creator then you are assuming that matter created itself not recognizing that there are other possibilities, only one of them being that all the matter an energy is eternal. 

furthermore he assumes like all the presups that the behavior of matter to react in patterns MUST be the effect of a designer.

You see, when you assume a designer you get arguments like how the banana was made to fit just so in the palm of the human hand.

I see where he's coming from. I really do. It's not that he's incapable of considering any other scenarios, he's simply unwilling.

I don't like how he says that the existence of a creator is the only logical conclusion one MUST come to, but not for the same reasons that he doesn't like how someone else can come to the conclusion that there need be no creator.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I tried to think like a believer and I think I see where Madman is coming from.
> 
> I think he is saying that if you don't assume a creator then you are assuming that matter created itself not recognizing that there are other possibilities, only one of them being that all the matter an energy is eternal.
> 
> furthermore he assumes like all the presups that the behavior of matter to react in patterns MUST be the effect of a designer.
> 
> 
> 
> You see, when you assume a designer you get arguments like how the banana was made to fit just so in the palm of the human hand.
> 
> I see where he's coming from. I really do. It's not that he's incapable of considering any other scenarios, he's simply unwilling.
> 
> I don't like how he says that the existence of a creator is the only logical conclusion one MUST come to, but not for the same reasons that he doesn't like how someone else can come to the conclusion that there need be no creator.



What little sympathy I have for that thought process comes from me thinking just like that for almost half of my life.


----------



## bullethead

ambush80 said:


> I tried to think like a believer and I think I see where Madman is coming from.
> 
> I think he is saying that if you don't assume a creator then you are assuming that matter created itself not recognizing that there are other possibilities, only one of them being that all the matter an energy is eternal.
> 
> furthermore he assumes like all the presups that the behavior of matter to react in patterns MUST be the effect of a designer.
> 
> You see, when you assume a designer you get arguments like how the banana was made to fit just so in the palm of the human hand.
> 
> I see where he's coming from. I really do. It's not that he's incapable of considering any other scenarios, he's simply unwilling.
> 
> I don't like how he says that the existence of a creator is the only logical conclusion one MUST come to, but not for the same reasons that he doesn't like how someone else can come to the conclusion that there need be no creator.



Your post made me remember this reply from a forum:
http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/4...itself-to-become-the-universe-as-it-is-today/




> ..saying that god created everything does not explain anything at all. In fact, saying that god created everything is itself an admission that the one who says that has no idea how it all got started. Even if we assume that god did it, then the question arises for the one who truly wants to know the answers exactly how god did it. Take the building of a 747 jetliner. If all we say is that Boeing did it, that does tell us very much at all. What we really want to know is how did the Boeing engineers conceive of such an aircraft, how did they test their conception, what materials were used, how were those materials developed, how were they put together, and what is it about a 747 that makes it actually fly?
> 
> Trying to understand how the universe got started and developed into what we observe today is one of those great questions that we may never fully understand. But the search for the answers, unhindered by the lazy way out of simply saying that, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," is what we need if we are ever to come closer to finding answers. The god hypothesis is lazy, uninformative, and risks curtailing scientific inquiry.



Believers always want to throw in an even more complex god to explain a complex Universe.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> I tried to think like a believer and I think I see where Madman is coming from.
> 
> I think he is saying that if you don't assume a creator then you are assuming that matter created itself not recognizing that there are other possibilities, only one of them being that all the matter an energy is eternal.
> 
> furthermore he assumes like all the presups that the behavior of matter to react in patterns MUST be the effect of a designer.
> 
> You see, when you assume a designer you get arguments like how the banana was made to fit just so in the palm of the human hand.
> 
> I see where he's coming from. I really do. It's not that he's incapable of considering any other scenarios, he's simply unwilling.
> 
> I don't like how he says that the existence of a creator is the only logical conclusion one MUST come to, but not for the same reasons that he doesn't like how someone else can come to the conclusion that there need be no creator.





> It's not that he's incapable of considering any other scenarios, he's simply unwilling.


I haven't met a person on here that I thought was literally "incapable" of considering other scenarios.
Actually that I could overlook with no ill will whatsoever.
Its this part that I have a problem with -


> he's simply unwilling


And its not the unwilling part that bugs me. Its that they know they are unwilling and yet pretend to want to have a conversation or debate about the subject.
I find it wholly dishonest.
I'll never understand what is so difficult about saying "this is what I believe but I know it cant be proven but we can have a friendly discussion/debate about why I believe what I do and vice versa".
Fortunately we have Christians here who can do that which makes these discussions worth having.


----------



## gemcgrew

WaltL1 said:


> I'll never understand what is so difficult about saying "this is what I believe but I know it cant be proven but we can have a friendly discussion/debate about why I believe what I do and vice versa".


Walt, why would a believer say this? A believer has been converted from unbelief. It has been proven to him . You are requiring him to be dishonest.


----------



## Israel

gemcgrew said:


> Walt, why would a believer say this? A believer has been converted from unbelief. It has been proven to him . You are requiring him to be dishonest.


Well said.
A witness merely speaks what he has seen and heard.
Some said it thundered, some said an angel spoke.
Perhaps some see creation, but deny what's inherent in that word.
And perhaps one might ask what is the end of one claiming chaos as its paternity? Even using the order of logic and judgments to "discern" chaos is all?


----------



## WaltL1

gemcgrew said:


> Walt, why would a believer say this? A believer has been converted from unbelief. It has been proven to him . You are requiring him to be dishonest.


It hasn't been proven. Not in the definition of the word.
A believer believes. The faithful have faith. 
Many believers seem to mix up proof and belief. For instance "look at those flowers they are so beautiful, that's proof of God's work". When actually that's only what you believe to be God's work. Its only proof to you or those who believe what you do. But obviously we are in an A/A/A forum. So that requires you to admit what you believe to be true is a personal thing and not a fact if you are going to make an argument.
There are beliefs that are also universal facts and can be proven. There are beliefs based on what you believe and are not universal facts and can not be proven.
Maybe "I cant prove it to you" would be easier and also perfectly acceptable.


----------



## Madman

Walt,

This is a very simple and logical process however for some reason you refuse to answer a couple of simple questions:

1) does an effect need a cause?
2) does a body a rest stay at rest until acted on by an outside force?


Will you answer them?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Walt,
> 
> This is a very simple and logical process however for some reason you refuse to answer a couple of simple questions:
> 
> 1) does an effect need a cause?
> 2) does a body a rest stay at rest until acted on by an outside force?
> 
> 
> Will you answer them?



He didn't read this:



bullethead said:


> You CONSTANTLY write down words of your own and try to pass them off as someone else saying them in order to make your own argument sound better.
> 
> WHO said " matter and energy created itself, ordered itself and created inertia while still being at rest, etc., etc., etc." ?
> 
> Seriously WHO said that? Please give us the post number.
> 
> 
> 
> Those arguments are YOURS that you graciously have given to us.
> I asked you before to please give us a scientific source(no religious affiliation) that has worked out the formulas and backtracked their findings to the God of the Bible.
> 
> 
> Lay em out. You expect us to stick to basic science principals yet you throw them out the window to explain your God.
> 
> 
> 
> Better than I can put it into words...from Yahoo answers:
> 
> Michael answered 8 years ago
> You have to always remember that ideas don't exist in a vacuum. They are logically dependent on other ideas, in a hierarchical fashion.
> 
> For example, I could not explain what an "orphan" was to you if you didn't already understand the meaning of "parent."
> 
> Similarly, asking the question "what caused the universe?" ignores the context. The universe is the background for which explanations and causes are possible. We observe cause and effect WITHIN the universe, but it does not mean that the universe as a whole must have preceeding cause. That's extending something you observe to someplace where it might not apply.
> 
> I'm not saying the universe is uncaused (I don't think science really knows yet), but if it were uncaused, I would be ok with that. A lot of people have trouble with accepting an uncaused universe, "because something so complex cannot be uncaused," but then go on to accept an uncaused god, who by definition must be more complex than the universe he created...? It seems hypocritical to me.
> 
> The other common argument is "anything that begins to exist has a cause," but this is blatant question-begging, and follows in the same traditional "god of the gaps" style.
> 
> The final tidbit that is of interest is the fact that time is not independent of space. We know that from many experiments with clocks on satellites and observations in astronomy. So it's very possible that time BEGAN with the universe. Therefore, asking "what came before the universe?" is like asking "what's north of the north pole?" It could be an invalid question, because there is no "before" to speak of.
> 
> Bottom line - we don't know for sure yet all the details of the universe's beginning (if it even had one?). But saying "God did it" doesn't actually make us know, it's just a more egotistical way of saying "I don't know."



Did he?


----------



## Madman

Ambush,

Thank you for this post.  I appreciate your attempt to dissect the argument. It is very close but your assumption has gone beyond where I am right now.

I read quite often how those who have faith must suspend science and reason then when I attempt to use it .



ambush80 said:


> I think he is saying that if you don't assume a creator then you are assuming that matter created itself not recognizing that there are other possibilities, only one of them being that all the matter an energy is eternal.



I am not assuming anything at this point in the conversation.  Right now all I know, based on science, is that every effect must have a cause, and I see matter and energy as an effect, therefore they need a cause. If there ever was a time when nothing and I mean absolutely  existed, then something had to create it. 

What can that be?  Could it be a self existent, eternal being?




ambush80 said:


> furthermore he assumes like all the presups that the behavior of matter to react in patterns MUST be the effect of a designer.



We all have presups anyone who says they don't is being disingenuous, some believe there is no "first cause" therefore they MUST build models using the presup that   "effects" are eternal.  

This argument has nothing to do with a designer, it has to do with the law of physics.  We know from the law of inertia that a body in motion will stay in motion until acted on..... and a body at rest will stay at rest until acted on by .....



ambush80 said:


> You see, when you assume a designer you get arguments like how the banana was made to fit just so in the palm of the human hand.


But I have not given such arguments, my arguments have been based on science and philosophy and are verifiable.



ambush80 said:


> I see where he's coming from. I really do. It's not that he's incapable of considering any other scenarios, he's simply unwilling.



Not only have I considered other scenarios, I constantly look at new "discoveries" to see how they affect what I believe.

I realize some have moved from a position of belief to a position of unbelief, but some of us have moved the other way.



ambush80 said:


> I don't like how he says that the existence of a creator is the only logical conclusion one MUST come to,



That is only one option.  All of this could be an illusion, but if it is not then I have come to the conclusion based on science and philosophy, that there needs to be what Aristotle called a "first cause", there needs to be something eternal, with the ability to "order" the cosmos, (because we know everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder) or helps us with the skeptic Immanuel Kant's problem "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me"  that is what continues to drive me, and these men were no light weights.  I figure if they struggled with these ideas perhaps I should not flippantly excuse them either.

I read to much about what people don't believe, I have spent my life trying to reconcile all that I see.  There is a lot more to this conversation then "I think" or "I believe", there are elements that when viewed scientifically or philosophically need hard scrutiny.





ambush80 said:


> but not for the same reasons that he doesn't like how someone else can come to the conclusion that there need be no creator.



It is not that I don't like it, I believe, based on science and philosophy it is irrational, just as some believe I am irrational because I believe the evidence is overwhelming for the need of a first cause.  

To say the "Big Bang was the beginning of it all" is not enough for me, just as "god is the answer" is not enough either.

It takes time to move along a continuum.  I hope you can appreciate that I have not arrived at my current position based on some "blind faith", but continue to pursue truth.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> He didn't read this:



Yes I read it.  Most of it is mumbo jumbo. 

there are some remarks in there that I agree with. others that I don't, while they may sound good they carry no scientific or philosophical weight.

That does not change the argument.  Science has always searched for the cause.  To say there must be a first cause can be seen as "egotistical" but to suspend science and reason and say we "don't know", and the "laws that apply here may not apply elsewhere",  is irrational.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> Walt,
> 
> This is a very simple and logical process however for some reason you refuse to answer a couple of simple questions:
> 
> 1) does an effect need a cause?
> 2) does a body a rest stay at rest until acted on by an outside force?
> 
> 
> Will you answer them?


You have a number of questions and requests that you haven't yet responded to. Go ahead and catch up on all of those first.


----------



## bullethead

Walt, Pick a card, any card...wait no not that card, ooops no not that card...here pick this card...it will help the trick work the way I need it to.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> You have a number of questions and requests that you haven't yet responded to. Go ahead and catch up on all of those first.



What question have I not answered?

Other than what "what does god look like"?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Walt, Pick a card, any card...wait no not that card, ooops no not that card...here pick this card...it will help the trick work the way I need it to.



That's cute right there.

I've answered all the questions you have pertaining to the topic at hand.

Please let me know where my argument breaks down?


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> That's cute right there.
> 
> I've answered all the questions you have pertaining to the topic at hand.
> 
> Please let me know where my argument breaks down?



You made statements and assertions and answered few questions.
You told me that "many" scientists now have come to the conclusion of reducing it all down to a creator.
I asked to twice, specifically, which scientific organizations..or individual scientists (that have no religious affiliation) now hold these beliefs and is it possible for you to show us how they have come to that conclusion.....especially a conclusion that backs up the God you worship as being the responsible party.

I would really like to just take your word on it, but you may have guessed that I am a bit skeptical and I am also very interested in reading their research that has led them to their current line of thought. In fact I am excited to finally see some scientific proof of a specific God and double super excited to see that "many" peers in the scientific community have all come to the same conclusion. Reading their work will be something that I look forward to doing.


Now, your argument breaks down as soon as you insert "God" to cover the answers that you really don't know.
In 30 years of working in the field of Physics I am sure you have run into some perplexing problems. I would guess that you keep working at them until you find a solution or leave the work open until you or someone else figures out the answer.
I am almost..ALMOST.. 100% positive that no one in your 30 years of physics has ever accepted an answer of "God did it" to solve anything that had you or them stumped. 

How can you tell us science says nothing is eternal and then in the same sentence tell us a God, specifically YOUR God is eternal?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> How can you tell us science says nothing is eternal and then in the same sentence tell us a God, specifically YOUR God is eternal?



I never said this.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> You made statements and assertions and answered few questions.
> You told me that "many" scientists now have come to the conclusion of reducing it all down to a creator.
> I asked to twice, specifically, which scientific organizations..or individual scientists (that have no religious affiliation) now hold these beliefs and is it possible for you to show us how they have come to that conclusion.....especially a conclusion that backs up the God you worship as being the responsible party.



You can look up the scientist that are now believing in a "first cause". 

I have asked what Scientific or philosophical law I have violated to come to my conclusion.  If I have broken one please let me know.

Until then you have a huge problem with matter and or energy being eternal.


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> You made statements and assertions and answered few questions.
> You told me that "many" scientists now have come to the conclusion of reducing it all down to a creator.
> I asked to twice, specifically, which scientific organizations..or individual scientists (that have no religious affiliation) now hold these beliefs


That is ridiculous.  If they held the belief in a first cause don't you think that would automatically give them a "religious" affiliation? 



bullethead said:


> and is it possible for you to show us how they have come to that conclusion.....especially a conclusion that backs up the God you worship as being the responsible party.


I have very patiently been trying to lead you through that process but you seem to be having a hard time focusing.

Ambush had a good response last night and I tried to address his concerns.  Go back and follow the logic.


----------



## 660griz

“Creation science is an attempt to give credibility to Hebrew mythology by making people believe that the world’s foremost biologists, palaeontologists, and geologists are a bunch of incompetent nincompoops.” – Ron Peterson

This has been stated but, found a place that summed it up rather nicely.
Problem 1 – 
•A rule is assumed that everything has a cause, including the universe
•Since something must have caused the universe … god did it.

The most immediate and obvious reply is to ask, “But what caused God?”. The standard answer is, “Ah, but God has no cause, god is an exception to that rule”. So essentially, an entire layer of pointless complexity called God is invented and then declared to be an exception to the rule that everything has a cause. If you want to get into the game of deciding that there is no cause for the first cause, then it would be far simpler to simply decide that the universe itself has no cause, there is no need to invent additional and utterly pointless layers of complexity, especially when there is no credible objective evidence that can justify such a leap.

Problem 2 – The assumption that causality applies to the universe may not be true (just like other 'laws' of physics)

Clearly causality applies to the known world but we have no evidence to verify that it applies to the universe at large, that is simply an assumption. When we think of the big bang, the rapid expansion of the early universe from the singularity, we think of that as the start of both space and also time. The thought that something causes something else describes a sequence of events one after the other in space-time. If you then ask questions such as what caused the big bang, the start of space-time, you are in fact asking a meaningless question. It is perhaps akin to asking what is south of the south pole.

Problem 3 – It is a modern variation of palaeolithic thinking

Once upon a time our ancestors faced deeply mysterious things, lights in the sky, thunder, wind, and so as an attempt to grasp meaning they attributed these to be manifestations of supernatural entities. We now know a lot more and understand all these to be quite natural – no gods required. Our current knowledge and understanding has an ever-expanding boundary, but right now the origin of the universe is still a mystery.


----------



## 660griz

Madman said:


> You can look up the scientist that are now believing in a "first cause".



When I searched, I got:
Did you mean: scientist that are not believing in a "first cause".    

Seems to be more of a philosophy than science.


----------



## WaltL1

> Madman -
> That is ridiculous. If they held the belief in a first cause don't you think that would automatically give them a "religious" affiliation?


Its ridiculous to you because in your mind a first cause MUST be religious. Or you wouldn't have just made that statement.
While you have been patiently trying to lead us through, we have been patiently trying to drag you forward to this exact end of your argument.
The science of cause and effect, matter, energy, does NOT lead to religion. Since you are merely using the First Cause Argument you know what the holes in that argument are. 
One of those holes is that where the science stops you have to make the leap of faith. You know that and so do we and you are just patiently trying to make that leap sound reasonable and logical. 
You will only be successful with people who are willing to make that same leap where the science stops.


----------



## ambush80

"Science, science, science, logic, science, logic, logic, philosophy.......................EXCEPT for god."


Do you see how unscientific, illogical and irrational those last three words are?  I can put anything in there for god and it will do the same thing.

How about  Except for strings? Or how about except for energy?  Except for disembodied dreams?  Maybe disembodied dreams are eternal and they sparked everything.  There, now there's a human element.  Does that make you feel better?

I just had a paradigm shift.  People want to believe in a "guy/creature/consciousness" because its like them.   (I actually knew that already).


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> That is ridiculous.  If they held the belief in a first cause don't you think that would automatically give them a "religious" affiliation?
> 
> 
> I have very patiently been trying to lead you through that process but you seem to be having a hard time focusing.
> 
> Ambush had a good response last night and I tried to address his concerns.  Go back and follow the logic.



Earlier I had a lengthy reply all typed out to you on my phone, when I hit submit the page sat there in No Mans Land and did nothing. Lost in internetville somewhere.

Lucky for me darn near everything I had said was reiterated here from these fine fellows.



If I had to say where your argument breaks down, it is right about the point where you introduce a god into the mix.
We have had these conversations before on here with others and are just trying to get to the end where you bring a God into the mix.
I know you are making an argument using the laws of science and philosophy but to then bring your God into it breaks all of those laws.
So tell us by using your laws of science and philosophy how do you explain a god, his angels, his son and all of our dead relatives living in a place that is BEYOND our known Universe where all of these laws are contained.
And if your God can exist outside of "our" universe....is it possible that other things can?


----------



## ambush80

bullethead said:


> Earlier I had a lengthy reply all typed out to you on my phone, when I hit submit the page sat there in No Mans Land and did nothing. Lost in internetville somewhere.
> 
> Lucky for me darn near everything I had said was reiterated here from these fine fellows.
> 
> 
> 
> If I had to say where your argument breaks down, it is right about the point where you introduce a god into the mix.
> We have had these conversations before on here with others and are just trying to get to the end where you bring a God into the mix.
> I know you are making an argument using the laws of science and philosophy but to then bring your God into it breaks all of those laws.
> So tell us by using your laws of science and philosophy how do you explain a god, his angels, his son and all of our dead relatives living in a place that is BEYOND our known Universe where all of these laws are contained.
> And if your God can exist outside of "our" universe....is it possible that other things can?



Whoa there pardner,  let him explain god first, then we'll talk about HIS god.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Ambush,
> 
> Thank you for this post.  I appreciate your attempt to dissect the argument. It is very close but your assumption has gone beyond where I am right now.
> 
> I read quite often how those who have faith must suspend science and reason then when I attempt to use it .



Yes.  But you use it until the words "except god" show up.  Then there are talking donkeys and angels and walking on water and resurrections and floods and then what good is all that science stuff?



Madman said:


> I am not assuming anything at this point in the conversation.  Right now all I know, based on science, is that every effect must have a cause, and I see matter and energy as an effect, therefore they need a cause. If there ever was a time when nothing and I mean absolutely  existed, then something had to create it.
> 
> What can that be?  Could it be a self existent, eternal being?



It could be any fanciful thing I could imagine that fits into "except for _________"






Madman said:


> We all have presups anyone who says they don't is being disingenuous, some believe there is no "first cause" therefore they MUST build models using the presup that   "effects" are eternal.



Before I knew about god I was without presups.  I knew what I could feel, taste, measure.  I had to undo all the teaching and take it from the beginning to figure it out.  




Madman said:


> This argument has nothing to do with a designer, it has to do with the law of physics.  We know from the law of inertia that a body in motion will stay in motion until acted on..... and a body at rest will stay at rest until acted on by .....



Jor El




Madman said:


> But I have not given such arguments, my arguments have been based on science and philosophy and are verifiable.



"...except for_________"


I'll have to get back to this after dinner....




Madman said:


> Not only have I considered other scenarios, I constantly look at new "discoveries" to see how they affect what I believe.
> 
> I realize some have moved from a position of belief to a position of unbelief, but some of us have moved the other way.
> 
> 
> 
> That is only one option.  All of this could be an illusion, but if it is not then I have come to the conclusion based on science and philosophy, that there needs to be what Aristotle called a "first cause", there needs to be something eternal, with the ability to "order" the cosmos, (because we know everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder) or helps us with the skeptic Immanuel Kant's problem "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me"  that is what continues to drive me, and these men were no light weights.  I figure if they struggled with these ideas perhaps I should not flippantly excuse them either.
> 
> I read to much about what people don't believe, I have spent my life trying to reconcile all that I see.  There is a lot more to this conversation then "I think" or "I believe", there are elements that when viewed scientifically or philosophically need hard scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not that I don't like it, I believe, based on science and philosophy it is irrational, just as some believe I am irrational because I believe the evidence is overwhelming for the need of a first cause.
> 
> To say the "Big Bang was the beginning of it all" is not enough for me, just as "god is the answer" is not enough either.
> 
> It takes time to move along a continuum.  I hope you can appreciate that I have not arrived at my current position based on some "blind faith", but continue to pursue truth.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> Not only have I considered other scenarios, I constantly look at new "discoveries" to see how they affect what I believe.



They won't affect it because your premise is untouchable:  ..."except for______"



Madman said:


> I realize some have moved from a position of belief to a position of unbelief, but some of us have moved the other way.



It often has nothing to do with science.





Madman said:


> That is only one option.  All of this could be an illusion, but if it is not then I have come to the conclusion based on science and philosophy, that there needs to be what Aristotle called a "first cause", there needs to be something eternal, with the ability to "order" the cosmos, (because we know everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder) or helps us with the skeptic Immanuel Kant's problem "Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me"  that is what continues to drive me, and these men were no light weights.  I figure if they struggled with these ideas perhaps I should not flippantly excuse them either.



They could be wrong....




Madman said:


> I read to much about what people don't believe, I have spent my life trying to reconcile all that I see.  There is a lot more to this conversation then "I think" or "I believe", there are elements that when viewed scientifically or philosophically need hard scrutiny.



Talking donkeys.




Madman said:


> It is not that I don't like it, I believe, based on science and philosophy it is irrational, just as some believe I am irrational because I believe the evidence is overwhelming for the need of a first cause.



Atheism, true atheism states that it's sooooooo unlikely that there is a god (like unicorns) that one might as well say there are none.  




Madman said:


> To say the "Big Bang was the beginning of it all" is not enough for me, just as "god is the answer" is not enough either.
> 
> It takes time to move along a continuum.  I hope you can appreciate that I have not arrived at my current position based on some "blind faith", but continue to pursue truth.




Speaking of continuums, how do you feel about the notion presented that before matter, there was no time so talking about before matter is illogical?


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> "Science, science, science, logic, science, logic, logic, philosophy.......................EXCEPT for god."
> 
> 
> Do you see how unscientific, logical or rational those last three words are?  I can put anything in there for god and it will do the same thing.
> 
> How about  Except for strings? Or how about except for energy?  Except for disembodied dreams?  Maybe disembodied dreams are eternal and they sparked everything.  There, now there's a human element.  Does that make you feel better?
> 
> I just had a paradigm shift.  People want to believe in a "guy/creature/consciousness" because its like them.   (I actually knew that already).


Exactly. His argument refutes his argument. If nothing can come from nothing but yet God did well then you just proved that nothing can come from nothing is false.
Its like saying 1+1=2. Except for that time it equaled 3.
But we'll ignore that because 1+1=2


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> Exactly. His argument refutes his argument. If nothing can come from nothing but yet God did well then you just proved that nothing can come from nothing is false.
> Its like saying 1+1=2. Except for that time it equaled 3.
> But we'll ignore that because 1+1=2




How about that?  

Except that his/their claim is that god has no beginning....but everything had to have a beginning....no, wait, how does it go?  When there's nothing then there can't be something unless there was something that always was so then there was something and not nothing that made something from the nothing that wasn't there.....It's gotta be god.

By Jove I think I've got it; anxiously awaiting my Pulitzer.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> How about that?
> 
> Except that his/their claim is that god has no beginning....but everything had to have a beginning....no, wait, how does it go?  When there's nothing then there can't be something unless there was something that always was so then there was something and not nothing that made something from the nothing that wasn't there.....It's gotta be god.
> 
> By Jove I think I've got it; anxiously awaiting my Pulitzer.


You DO have it. That's the exact argument in a nutshell.
Oprah should be ringing your phone any moment now for an interview.


----------



## 660griz

ambush80 said:


> When there's nothing then there can't be something unless there was something that always was so then there was something and not nothing that made something from the nothing that wasn't there.....It's gotta be god.



Sounds like lyrics to a song. Hmmm. You could make millions!


----------



## ambush80

660griz said:


> Sounds like lyrics to a song. Hmmm. You could make millions!



B flat?  Maybe a rap song.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Science takes us all the way up to the moment the big bang occurred and then can't go beyond that because we haven't found a way to circumvent the event horizon of a singularity. It makes no presumptions about how or why the singularity came to be, only offers theories that can't be proven, but to say that subscribing to the Big Bang model is similar to believing in a God is just being dishonest with yourself. It's a straight linear path from here to the BB. Faith has to make leaps the entire way. You have to accept Jesus as the son of God, the burning bush, the Ark, talking donkeys, curing the sick by the laying of hands, none of which has been evidenced since in any shape, or form. 

That's like comparing oranges to orangutans.


----------



## 660griz

Assuming God made the earth from 'nothing', why did he/she require 'something' after that point. Dust for Adam, rib for Eve, rain for flood, folks to do his killing, son to die for sins, etc.?


----------



## WaltL1

> madman -
> It is not that I don't like it, I believe, based on science and philosophy it is irrational, just as some believe I am irrational because I believe the evidence is overwhelming for the need of a first cause.


Although it appears you may have given up on this argument, one last comment -
I don't believe that is irrational at all. Its how we are conditioned to think. The need for a first cause is perfectly normal.
What is irrational is saying a god did it just to satisfy your need for an answer or to justify your religious beliefs.
Our position is simple as that.
If you are satisfied with God being your answer to a first cause that's fine.
But you have to accept that the argument you are using fails. Its always failed. It has to fail. If it didn't fail it would only take you seconds to prove God did it. In fact you wouldn't have to prove it because it would already be the greatest discovery that man has ever known.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> How about that?
> 
> Except that his/their claim is that god has no beginning....but everything had to have a beginning....no, wait, how does it go?  When there's nothing then there can't be something unless there was something that always was so then there was something and not nothing that made something from the nothing that wasn't there.....It's gotta be god.
> 
> By Jove I think I've got it; anxiously awaiting my Pulitzer.



You fellows are smarter than yourselves.
The simple question is can an effect be it's own cause.  Please review the law of causality.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Atheism, true atheism states that it's sooooooo unlikely that there is a god (like unicorns) that one might as well say there are none.



That is a remake of Flew's argument that "god dies the death of a thousand qualifications", but in Flew's parable he still has to explain the garden.


----------



## Madman

Look fellows y'all are more interested in making pithy little comments then following the argument, even though Ambush did make an attempt.

You have yet to show where my argument breaks down in science or philosophy.

Every part of your argument violates some law that directs our realm. If you would stay focused on the topic, not talking donkeys, and walking on water, and directly answer questions, this could have been much more enlightening for all of us.

Eventually we could have gotten to what god looks, like, talking donkeys, etc., sorry we couldn't get there.

Break is over, back on your heads.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> Although it appears you may have given up on this argument, one last comment -
> I don't believe that is irrational at all. Its how we are conditioned to think. The need for a first cause is perfectly normal.



No just your capacity to follow it.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> "Science, science, science, logic, science, logic, logic, philosophy.......................EXCEPT for god."
> 
> 
> Do you see how unscientific, illogical and irrational those last three words are?  I can put anything in there for god and it will do the same thing.




DING, DING,DING!!!   Put it in there!  That is my point!!!

WHAT IS THE FIRST CAUSE?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> Look fellows y'all are more interested in making pithy little comments then following the argument, even though Ambush did make an attempt.
> 
> You have yet to show where my argument breaks down in science or philosophy.
> 
> Every part of your argument violates some law that directs our realm. If you would stay focused on the topic, not talking donkeys, and walking on water, and directly answer questions, this could have been much more enlightening for all of us.
> 
> Eventually we could have gotten to what god looks, like, talking donkeys, etc., sorry we couldn't get there.
> 
> Break is over, back on your heads.



I'm sorry we broke your "God is as real as science" thread with logic and truth.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> No just your capacity to follow it.


Whatever you need to tell yourself is fine with me.
Your argument is not new. It went nowhere then and it goes nowhere now.
Sorry about that.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm sorry we broke your "God is as real as science" thread with logic and truth.


And its worth noting we didn't have to resort to insults to do it.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> And its worth noting we didn't have to resort to insults to do it.



I can't vouch for that. I wasn't here for all 26 pages, but I do know that the counter-argument to his position doesn't require them in order to be made.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> And its worth noting we didn't have to resort to insults to do it.



You are right.  Perhaps I misspoke,  maybe you have the capacity to follow just not desire.

Whichever.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> You fellows are smarter than yourselves.
> The simple question is can an effect be it's own cause.  Please review the law of causality.



No. But only in terms of what we can observe.  Anything else is would be speculation. 

Can you prove that something, anything is eternal using science, logic or philosophy??

Which part of MY new theory is false?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> DING, DING,DING!!!   Put it in there!  That is my point!!!
> 
> WHAT IS THE FIRST CAUSE?



Don't know.  I can reason how there doesn't have to be one.  Can you?


----------



## bullethead

Madman, cut to the chase and show us how a god ties in with all these laws of science and philosophy.
I figure you are trying to build up to a grand revealing and not just giving us a science and philosophy lesson.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> No. But only in terms of what we can observe.  Anything else is would be speculation.
> 
> Can you prove that something, anything is eternal using science, logic or philosophy??
> 
> Which part of MY new theory is false?



I don't understand your qualifier.  What effect would be un-observable?


----------



## Madman

bullethead said:


> Madman, cut to the chase and show us how a god ties in with all these laws of science and philosophy.
> I figure you are trying to build up to a grand revealing and not just giving us a science and philosophy lesson.



bullet,

this is not a 30 min sitcom.  If you don't have time to work through these things it is ok.


----------



## bullethead

Madman said:


> bullet,
> 
> this is not a 30 min sitcom.  If you don't have time to work through these things it is ok.



It is more like a repeat of a repeat of a re-run that has been cancelled from syndication.

Everybody can recite the lines but stick around to see the bloopers.

Get on with it already.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> You are right.  Perhaps I misspoke,  maybe you have the capacity to follow just not desire.
> 
> Whichever.


I had the desire until you repeatedly try to drag us backwards to make points that do not and cannot justify your end.
About 3 pages ago you told us God is not an effect and therefore needs no cause. That is the end of your argument and your entire argument hinges on that one statement and 3 pages ago we asked you to prove that.
For someone who proposes I/we don't understand your argument you don't seem to realize that your argument means squat whether it uses science or not until you prove that statement.
I can use your exact argument and at the end say "therefore the science proves the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a reasonable and logical choice as the creator".
Which of course is nonsense. And whenever you FINALLY get to the end of your argument and say "therefore God is a reasonable and logical choice as the creator", it will be nonsense too because there is no proof, scientifically or otherwise that either a Flying Spaghetti Monster or a god (any of them) exist.
I really don't know how to put it any simpler.
I get the feeling that you are so invested in this argument because it makes up a large part of your justification to yourself about why you believe what you do and therefore simply cannot accept that its a failed argument.


----------



## WaltL1

bullethead said:


> It is more like a repeat of a repeat of a re-run that has been cancelled from syndication.
> 
> Everybody can recite the lines but stick around to see the bloopers.
> 
> Get on with it already.


He knows he cant prove his final assertion so his argument is completely dependent on going step by step so we say yes that's true, yes that's true, yes that's true, well golly gee if all them things are true then not only does a god make sense but this one particular god makes sense.
Wrong crowd to think that's going to work.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> He knows he cant prove his final assertion so his argument is completely dependent on going step by step so we say yes that's true, yes that's true, yes that's true, well golly gee if all them things are true then not only does a god make sense but this one particular god makes sense.
> Wrong crowd to think that's going to work.



If the line between us and God were an unbroken string of objectively true statements like that, then this would be the perfect argument and place to make it. 

Like Jurassic Park, though, the code is full of holes that have to be filled for it to be "complete" and it's full of nothing but subjective belief. At a certain point of splicing in amphibian DNA you stop making a cloned dinosaur and start making a cobbled together frog. Paying attention to the tipping point is important.


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I don't understand your qualifier.  What effect would be un-observable?



None that I would claim.  You claim different.


----------



## WaltL1

StripeRR HunteRR;8902046]If the line between us and God were an unbroken string of objectively true statements like that, then this would be the perfect argument and place to make it. 

Like Jurassic Park, though, the code is full of holes that have to be filled for it to be "complete" and it's full of nothing but subjective belief. At a certain point of splicing in amphibian DNA you stop making a cloned dinosaur and start making a cobbled together frog. Paying attention to the tipping point is important.


> If the line between us and God were an unbroken string of objectively true statements like that, then this would be the perfect argument and place to make it.


Yeah you would think so.
Pages ago I was told to wait for it -


> Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post
> 5. You actually think that you have provided scientific evidence FOR a god? Come on.





> Wait for it.





> Quote:
> Originally Posted by WaltL1 View Post
> Regardless if the Big Bang is a croc of doodoo, that does NOT prove the existence of a god.





> Wait for it.



Still waiting. 
I'm trying to figure out why his proof requires my understanding. Whether I understand it or not if something is proven to be a fact then its a fact and his burden has been met


----------



## ambush80

Madman,

Would you say that everything that god does is brand new (being the first cause and all) or that new doesn't apply to him because he is eternal?

Lets reason out god.  That's what you want to do isn't it?


----------



## StriperrHunterr

WaltL1 said:


> StripeRR HunteRR;8902046]If the line between us and God were an unbroken string of objectively true statements like that, then this would be the perfect argument and place to make it.
> 
> Like Jurassic Park, though, the code is full of holes that have to be filled for it to be "complete" and it's full of nothing but subjective belief. At a certain point of splicing in amphibian DNA you stop making a cloned dinosaur and start making a cobbled together frog. Paying attention to the tipping point is important.
> 
> Yeah you would think so.
> Pages ago I was told to wait for it -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting.
> I'm trying to figure out why his proof requires my understanding. Whether I understand it or not if something is proven to be a fact then its a fact and his burden has been met



I dunno.


----------



## Madman

ambush80 said:


> Don't know.  I can reason how there doesn't have to be one.  Can you?



I can imagine how but have a difficult time reasoning how.

If it is true, that every effect must have a cause, nothing comes from nothing, the laws of thermo, the informational sciences, the law of inertia, etc. reasonably there needs to be some first cause, I see that as very reasonable.  


If I must suspend the basic laws we use in the sciences I find the answers I derive from doing so as unreasonable.

What we observe and what we theorize must coincide.  If the laws we observe do not work in other parts of the universe or even outside of the universe then it is impossible to use the scientific method to discern anything. 

Not to mention why would they be different?  We are not talking about theories and concepts, we are just touching the most basic of the laws.  If we must violate them to get the answer we want what good are the answers or the laws?

But if I believe current laws I have to present all possibilities, even the great spaghetti monster.

My question here is based on the evidence.  Why can't, whatever is eternal, be a self existent being?  

By putting that into the mix no laws, or rules have been broken.

It is that simple.


----------



## WaltL1

Without trying to hijack your question to Ambush I just want to say this -


> Why can't, whatever is eternal, be a self existent being?


Is very different from the proofless assertions that you have been making. Maybe we are making progress.
Im getting interested again.


----------



## Madman

WaltL1 said:


> He knows he cant prove his final assertion so his argument is completely dependent on going step by step so we say yes that's true, yes that's true, yes that's true, well golly gee if all them things are true then not only does a god make sense but this one particular god makes sense.
> Wrong crowd to think that's going to work.



That argument makes math difficult if not impossible.


----------



## WaltL1

Madman said:


> That argument makes math difficult if not impossible.


Nope. No leap of faith, opinion, varying beliefs or guesses required at the end of a math problem.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

Madman said:


> That argument makes math difficult if not impossible.



The transitive property makes math impossible? A=B=C=D so A=D is wrong?


----------



## ambush80

Madman said:


> I can imagine how but have a difficult time reasoning how.
> 
> If it is true, that every effect must have a cause, nothing comes from nothing, the laws of thermo, the informational sciences, the law of inertia, etc. reasonably there needs to be some first cause, I see that as very reasonable.
> 
> 
> If I must suspend the basic laws we use in the sciences I find the answers I derive from doing so as unreasonable.
> 
> What we observe and what we theorize must coincide.  If the laws we observe do not work in other parts of the universe or even outside of the universe then it is impossible to use the scientific method to discern anything.
> 
> Not to mention why would they be different?  We are not talking about theories and concepts, we are just touching the most basic of the laws.  If we must violate them to get the answer we want what good are the answers or the laws?
> 
> But if I believe current laws I have to present all possibilities, even the great spaghetti monster.
> 
> My question here is based on the evidence.  Why can't, whatever is eternal, be a self existent being?
> 
> By putting that into the mix no laws, or rules have been broken.
> 
> It is that simple.




_ "Why can't, whatever is eternal, be a self existent being?"_ 

_1." ....based on the evidence."  (we have to discuss the evidence)

2."....that every effect must have a cause, nothing comes from nothing, the laws of thermo, the informational sciences, the law of inertia, etc. reasonably there needs to be some first cause"  (except the first cause.  Then see below.)

3."If we must violate them to get the answer we want what good are the answers or the laws?" (I said that same thing earlier.  Shall I go back and find it?)_

4."What we observe and what we theorize must coincide."(what have you observed?  We have to talk about your observations; your data.)

5."If the laws we observe do not work in other parts of the universe or even outside of the universe then it is impossible to use the scientific method to discern anything."(Do tell....)

6."Not to mention why would they be different?"(Why would he be different?)

7."....I must suspend the basic laws we use in the sciences I find the answers I derive from doing so as unreasonable."(except...)


Do you see how you answered your own question with 7 very compelling points?


I'd like to go through these points one by one.


----------



## WaltL1

ambush80 said:


> _ "Why can't, whatever is eternal, be a self existent being?"_
> 
> _1." ....based on the evidence."  (we have to discuss the evidence)
> 
> 2."....that every effect must have a cause, nothing comes from nothing, the laws of thermo, the informational sciences, the law of inertia, etc. reasonably there needs to be some first cause"  (except the first cause.  Then see below.)
> 
> 3."If we must violate them to get the answer we want what good are the answers or the laws?" (I said that same thing earlier.  Shall I go back and find it?)_
> 
> 4."What we observe and what we theorize must coincide."(what have you observed?  We have to talk about your observations; your data.)
> 
> 5."If the laws we observe do not work in other parts of the universe or even outside of the universe then it is impossible to use the scientific method to discern anything."(Do tell....)
> 
> 6."Not to mention why would they be different?"(Why would he be different?)
> 
> 7."....I must suspend the basic laws we use in the sciences I find the answers I derive from doing so as unreasonable."(except...)
> 
> 
> Do you see how you answered your own question with 7 very compelling points?
> 
> 
> I'd like to go through these points one by one.


So what ever happened with this?


----------



## ambush80

WaltL1 said:


> So what ever happened with this?



quitters


----------



## StriperrHunterr

I'm guessing school picked up again.


----------



## JB0704

StripeRR HunteRR said:


> I'm guessing school picked up again.



Every once in a while somebody will come in guns-a-blazin', then they will realize very few change their mind, and very few see their points as valid as they do.......and they move on to other sub-forums.

It's only the crazy folks who stick around.


----------



## StriperrHunterr

JB0704 said:


> Every once in a while somebody will come in guns-a-blazin', then they will realize very few change their mind, and very few see their points as valid as they do.......and they move on to other sub-forums.
> 
> It's only the crazy folks who stick around.



Crazy like a fox!


----------



## Swaggert

I try to avoid religious debates. Every religious debate is completely dependent on the premise that God exists. No one can prove empirically that God does exist, so it isn't a valid topic in logical debate. If I say that the Bible says all people of Arian descent are supreme and all others should be murdered because God says so, that is only true if God does in fact exist and he did in fact say so. But I cant prove he exists or said that to others so using what I have to place faith in to justify my use of force against other people is incompetent.

It all comes back to our own justification of ethnical and moral reasoning.


----------

