Originally posted by RBHILLHow do you get 'banned' from evangelicalism? Do they tell you, "Our TV network will no longer air your telethons."? 😵
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/church/6-heretics-should-be-banned-evangelicalism#lhlKVcZszgCb1Koz.01
rebuttal:
http://www.therecapitulator.com/one-very-misleading-article-about-six-heretics-who-should-be-banned-from-evangelicalism-if-evangelicals-were-consistent/
21 May 14
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThe problem is how man structures the church. If it were done according to biblical instructions there might not be so much corruption. Especially the kind we see in the public sphere.
How do you get 'banned' from evangelicalism? Do they tell you, "Our TV network will no longer air your telethons."? 😵
21 May 14
Originally posted by josephwMan always structures the church, even if he does so according to biblical instructions.
The problem is how man structures the church. If it were done according to biblical instructions there might not be so much corruption. Especially the kind we see in the public sphere.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI'm glad God is the one defining the terms and not you.
To know something requires by definition the ability to prove it.
If you can't prove it you can't know it.
Everything that exists is the evidence for the creator God. That's all you need and all you'll get. When you quit denying it, then you will know more. Until then your perceptions are limited to your immediate environment.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 May 14
Originally posted by josephwThis is wrong.
I'm glad God is the one defining the terms and not you.
Everything that exists is the evidence for the creator God. That's all you need and all you'll get. When you quit denying it, then you will know more. Until then your perceptions are limited to your immediate environment.
For the universe to be evidence for god, the observation of it's existence must make
the explanation that it was created by god more likely than any [and all] other potential
explanations.
To be proof of the same it must make the explanation that god did it more likely beyond
whatever threshold of probability is agreed upon as the threshold of proof in this field.
There are a whole slew of highly effective means of demonstrating that it is in fact vastly
more probable that the universe could have formed naturally [as opposed to supernaturally]
and a host of philosophical arguments that demonstrate that you simply cannot get from
the universe exists to it must have a creator to that creator is god.
These arguments are made on a regular basis and you must have read [if not comprehended]
them.
So saying to us that everything exists is evidence for god is both wrong and stupid.
You know we are never going to accept that argument as it is multiply refuted.
It thus doesn't prove that god exists, you thus have not, and cannot prove god exists,
and thus cannot know that god exists.
To prove me wrong you must prove to ME that you can prove god exists, BY proving
that god exists.
Originally posted by googlefudgeProbability?
This is wrong.
For the universe to be evidence for god, the observation of it's existence must make
the explanation that it was created by god more likely than any [and all] other potential
explanations.
To be proof of the same it must make the explanation that god did it more likely beyond
whatever threshold of probability is agreed upon as ...[text shortened]... prove me wrong you must prove to ME that you can prove god exists, BY proving
that god exists.
The sum of all man's knowledge isn't enough to put one shred of faith in, much less rely on a single probability that anything other than a creator could have brought the universe into existence.
The existence of the universe is the evidence and proof of a creator. You are way over complicating life.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
22 May 14
Originally posted by josephwStating your position that the universe is evidence of a creator over and over
Probability?
The sum of all man's knowledge isn't enough to put one shred of faith in, much less rely on a single probability that anything other than a creator could have brought the universe into existence.
The existence of the universe [b]is the evidence and proof of a creator. You are way over complicating life.[/b]
again does nothing to deal with the fact that that argument is long refuted.
Not just rebutted, but refuted. It's provably, and proven wrong.
Simply stating your position over and over again just makes you look stupid.
It makes it look like you can't comprehend that your position is wrong.
And if you think our knowledge doesn't amount to much...
I suggest you go to the library of congress and start reading scientific papers...
When you die, having got further and further from finishing as new papers are
added faster than you can read them, maybe then you will comprehend how dumb
that statement is.
