11 May '05 21:54>
I find it interesting that whenever I am debating about any Biblical events and issues - the first rules seems to be - pretend like God does not exist.
Now I can understand this with my opponents. I mean, with God on my side, I have an advantage. God is by definition a supernatural being, who supersedes the laws of nature. Nothing is impossible for God.
But why should I deny God when I am debating things like the flood, or a 6-day creation. Wouldn't that be the supreme example of absurdity to argue about acts of God by first assuming God is not God?
So all you who wish to argue about the contents of the Bible - please explain why you think it is reasonable to first pretend like God does not exist? Is there any reason that is not the following: it gives the Christian theist an unfair advantage?
Now I can understand this with my opponents. I mean, with God on my side, I have an advantage. God is by definition a supernatural being, who supersedes the laws of nature. Nothing is impossible for God.
But why should I deny God when I am debating things like the flood, or a 6-day creation. Wouldn't that be the supreme example of absurdity to argue about acts of God by first assuming God is not God?
So all you who wish to argue about the contents of the Bible - please explain why you think it is reasonable to first pretend like God does not exist? Is there any reason that is not the following: it gives the Christian theist an unfair advantage?