1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusIt's not even a "book"; it's a compilation of writings stitched together in its present form by men in about 300-500 AD. And those writings are filled with contradictions. And accounts of mass murder and other horrors committed in your monster God's name. And you don't make any claims; you parrot claims made by superstitious semi-savages from 2000 years ago. Your hubris and conceit are showing as usual, Darfius; if there is a God an insignificant insect like you wouldn't have a clue as to his characteristics and you are an arrogant fraud to assert otherwise.
You're implying man-made theories and principles to a God. I'm not sure I even need to point out the absurdity of this, but I will. That's absurd.
Your rebuttal (since I tend to make better ones than most of you) might be that I am ...[text shortened]... nd you are crying wolf because you like the attention it gets you.
BTW, would you kill an infant if your God commanded you to, Darfius?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBy definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed — no one created God. He is the self-existing one — the great ‘I am’ of the Bible. He is outside of time — in fact, He created time.
[b]Go ahead and prove to me that God has a beginnig. Evidently he cannot because, by definition he is eternal.
Really? What's the definition of God?
'Eternal' might mean he will never end. It might not have anything to do with whether or not he began or not.[/b]
You might say, ‘But that means I have to accept this by faith, as I can’t understand it.’
We read in the book of Hebrews, ‘But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him’ (Hebrews 11:6).
But this is not blind faith, as some think. In fact, the evolutionists who deny God have a blind faith — they have to believe something that is against real science — namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.
Can you believe in the existence of something that you cannot see? Have you ever seen your own brain? We all believe in many things that we have never seen. Have you ever seen the wind? Have you seen history? We see the effects of the wind, but the wind is invisible. We have records of history, but it is by faith we believe that certain historical events happened. Television waves are invisible, but an antenna and a receiver can detect their presence.
Do you know that you have a receiver? Prior to becoming a child of God, your 'receiver' (your spirit) is dead because of sin (see Ephesians 2:1). You need to be plugged into the life of God, and then you will come alive and be aware of the invisible spiritual realm.
The Christian faith is not a blind faith — it is a logically defensible faith. This is why the Bible makes it clear that anyone who does not believe in God is without excuse:
‘For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).
Originally posted by DarfiusWhat does it mean for something to be 'proven' false? Can you give me an example of something that was proven false?
You're implying man-made theories and principles to a God. I'm not sure I even need to point out the absurdity of this, but I will. That's absurd.
Your rebuttal (since I tend to make better ones than most of you) might be that I am making claims about said God. However, I back my claims up with a book that archeology and no amount of atheistic dribb ...[text shortened]... en in fact it might be a dog and you are crying wolf because you like the attention it gets you.
Originally posted by dj2beckerDictionary.com doesn't have 'eternal' or 'uncaused' in any of their 6 definitions of the word 'god'.
By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed — no one created God. He is the self-existing one — the great ‘I am’ of the Bible. He is outside of time — in fact, He created time.
You might say, ‘But that means I have to accept this by faith, as I can’t understand it.’
We read in the book of Hebrews, ‘But without faith it is impossible ...[text shortened]... re made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse’ (Romans 1:20).
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god
By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed — no one created God.
You are still telling me what the implications of the definition of God are; not what that definition is. "By definition..." What definition is all this 'by'? I especially like how you claim how an infinite, eternal being exists solely because it was defined a certain way. This seems to be a ridiculous argument. Can you clarify it?
they have to believe something that is against real science — namely, that information can arise from disorder by chance.
I've dealt with this sort of argument before. The key here is, again, a definition. How exactly is 'information' defined? Werner Gitt tried to use this argument in his book, In The Beginning Was Information. He defined all information as coming from an intelligent source; then he claimed DNA has information. This second statement seems intuitively true, but we're supposed to be working with Gitt's special definition of 'information', not an intuitive one. One cannot prove that the genetic blueprint in DNA came from an intelligent designer by claiming that it came from an intelligent designer, which is basically what he did.
Do you have a different argument, probably using a different definition of 'information'? If you do, please explain. Otherwise I'll assume you're just repeating what Werner Gitt wrongly asserted.
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungsome typical thumper arguments.
Dictionary.com doesn't have 'eternal' or 'uncaused' in any of their 6 definitions of the word 'god'.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=god
[b]By definition, an infinite, eternal being has always existed — n ...[text shortened]... l assume you're just repeating what Werner Gitt wrongly asserted.
False Dilemma
argumentum ad ignorantiam
argumentum ad baculum
argumentum ad misercordiam
argumentum ad consequentiam
Prejudicial Language
argumentum ad hominem
argumentum ad verecundiam
False Analogy
Slothful Induction
Fallacy of Exclusion
post hoc ergo propter hoc
petitio principii
Straw Man
Composition
Fallacy of Drawing an Affirmative Conclusion From a Negative Premise
Untestability
Thers's probably more.. those are just the ones i can identify offhand.
2 edits
Originally posted by PullhardThis was an event that occurred in the present.
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.
How about something that took place several thousand years ago and was 'proven' false in modern times?
By the way, the same arguments that people use to discount theories that claim the universe is billions of years old could be used to discount the 'proof' that took place in the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky situation.
Originally posted by frogstompAre you claiming I made those fallacies in the post you quoted, frogstomp? I kind of doubt it, as you refer to 'thumpers' (Bible thumpers I am guessing) and I am an atheist.
some typical thumper arguments.
False Dilemma
argumentum ad ignorantiam
argumentum ad baculum
argumentum ad misercordiam
argumentum ad consequentiam
Prejudicial Language
argumentum ad hominem
argumentum ad verecundiam
False Analogy
Slothful Induction
Fallacy of Exclusion
post hoc ergo propter hoc
petitio principii
Straw Man
Composition
Fa ...[text shortened]... Untestability
Thers's probably more.. those are just the ones i can identify offhand.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungPeople used to think the earth was flat 1000 years ago (some still do). Do you reckon we have proved this to be false? I do.
This was an event that occurred in the present.
How about something that took place several thousand years ago and was 'proven' false in modern times?
By the way, the same arguments that people use to discount theories that claim the universe is billions of years old could be used to discount the 'proof' that took place in the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky situation.
The Clinton affair isn't a theory (he admits it, she admits it, there is now nobody who thinks it didn't happen), the age the the universe is.
3 edits
Originally posted by PullhardPeople used to think the earth was flat 1000 years ago (some still do). Do you reckon we have proved this to be false? I do.
People used to think the earth was flat 1000 years ago (some still do). Do you reckon we have proved this to be false? I do.
The Clinton affair isn't a theory (he admits it, she admits it, there is now nobody who thinks it didn't happen), the age the the universe is.
Depends on how you define 'proved'. I can propose a scenario that explains that the Earth is flat. If we've proved the Earth is not flat, then I'd say we've proved the universe is more than 6000 years old.
I can also propose a scenario which explains that the Clinton affair did not occur. Remember, in order to explain these things, I can say things like "time was condensed" or "the speed of light changed" or "how do we know the methods we used to test XXX are absolutely reliable? Just because it worked 10,000 times before doesn't mean it will work this time." These are the kinds of arguments people are using to claim the Bible is totally and literally true.
You do realize there are a number of people out there who still think the Earth is flat, and argue for this idea with the same vigor and conviction that Bible literalists argue their point of view, right? Oh yes, you mentioned this in your post.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't see the connection between the geometry of the earth and proof of the age of the universe.
If we've proved the Earth is not flat, then I'd say we've proved the universe is more than 6000 years old.
In the thread you are alluding to, Marauder's whole contention was based on the consequences of some scientific theory. I saw holes in the logic of his arguement and illustrated them by impressing that those theories were not as solid as the average person believes (e.g. age of the universe conclusion from red shift and mass densities), therefore his conclusions should not have been presented as fact. There are some theories that modern science accepts as fact. I'm sure all science professors across the US consider "Clinton did have sexual relations with Lewinsky" as fact.
Of course, comparing a scientific issue with a social issue is illogical, and I shouldn't have had to write this post. Proof of a Clinton affair and proof of scientific theory are incomparable because they come under different frameworks.
BTW, my original post was meant to be light hearted. I don't think it warrented a response in the first instance.
1 edit
Originally posted by PullhardI don't see the connection between the geometry of the earth and proof of the age of the universe.
I don't see the connection between the geometry of the earth and proof of the age of the universe.
In the thread you are alluding to, Marauder's whole contention was based on the consequences of some scientific theory. I saw holes in ...[text shortened]... ted. I don't think it warrented a response in the first instance.
The connection is that both the claim that the universe is billions of years old and the claim that the Earth is roughly spherical are hypotheses. Both have tremendous evidence supporting them; enough that the scientific community accepts them as reality without feeling that there is any reasonable basis to doubt them. A person can describe a scenario in which either is false; however in order to do so that person must make bizaare assumptions that are not supported by the evidence available to us, like "light used to move faster than it does now".
I don't remember what your contribution to rauder's The Universe is More than 6000 Years Old thread. What page(s) was it on? I glanced at the last three pages and didn't see it. Possibly your criticisms of his argument are less far fetched than the ones I remember other people offering.
There are some theories that modern science accepts as fact.
The entire science of biology assumes that the TOE is correct. For example:
Modern biology is based on our understanding that life has evolved.
...the cell theory...and the theory of evolution are fundamental to the study of biology.
Audesirk, Teresa, Gerald Audesirk and Bruce E. Byers. Biology: Life on Earth Seventh Edition. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005.
If the TOE is true, then the Earth is more than 6000 years old.
Proof of a Clinton affair and proof of scientific theory are incomparable because they come under different frameworks.
Oh. Then the Clinton reference was inappropriate as an example of something that was proved.
BTW, my original post was meant to be light hearted. I don't think it warrented a response in the first instance.
Well, I am trying to communicate that almost nothing is proveable beyond any possible doubt. It all comes down to what is likely, and the arguments young earth advocates use are incredibly far-fetched. Yes, it's possible they are right, but it's just as possible that the Earth is flat. Your post wasn't so obviously a joke that I could ignore it without my position being seen as weaker than it is.