What Does One Need to Know...

Originally posted by @fmf
Yes but it's daft nonsense. Use your own obvious circular logic as the example. No need to use a daft example.

Zzzz

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Zzzz

You're just fending off scrutiny of your own circular logic by saying something daft.

Originally posted by @fmf
You're just fending off scrutiny of your own circular logic by saying something daft.

I laid out a case you can disagree and discuss or nit pick without really addressing the key points. If all you are going to do is express your disapproval you don’t need any response from me.

Originally posted by @kellyjay
I laid out a case you can disagree and discuss or nit pick without really addressing the key points. If all you are going to do is express your disapproval you don’t need any response from me.

"Nit pick"? The "case" you tried to make using the age of rocks was ludicrous. Your thing about "the list" is dyed-in-the-wool circular logic. Run away, KellyJay. Run away.

Originally posted by @fmf
"Nit pick"? The "case" you tried to make using the age of rocks was ludicrous. Your thing about "the list" is dyed-in-the-wool circular logic. Run away, KellyJay. Run away.

Imagine that you disapprove!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Imagine that you disapprove!

Is every religion ~ and not just yours ~ fully entitled to cite "the universe" as evidence for its creator?

Originally posted by @fmf
Is every religion ~ and not just yours ~ fully entitled to cite "the universe" as evidence for its creator?

No time have I denied that anyone can believe in other creation stories.
For that matter people have the right to deny in a creator too.
Just because people can make claims doesn't mean those claims are true.
Truth is not dependent upon human opinions.

Originally posted by @secondson
...to know there is no God?

No modifying the question. Please.

that love must live in your heart

Originally posted by @kellyjay
No time have I denied that anyone can believe in other creation stories.
For that matter people have the right to deny in a creator too.
Just because people can make claims doesn't mean those claims are true.
Truth is not dependent upon human opinions.

So is that a yes or a no?

Originally posted by @fmf
So is that a yes or a no?

They can cite whatever they want, what is that to me? They can make whatever arguments for their beliefs they want, that is all up to them not me!

Originally posted by @kellyjay
They can cite whatever they want, what is that to me? They can make whatever arguments for their beliefs they want, that is all up to them not me!

Does "the universe" constitute evidence that supports the claims that other religions make about there being a creator?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
They can cite whatever they want, what is that to me?

It's "evidence" to you, isn't it? That's what it is to you and to me and to anyone who considers it, surely?

Originally posted by @kellyjay
Actually circular logic would be the earth is billions of years old, how do you know, well
we have these rocks that are billions of years old, how do you know, because the earth
is billions of years old.

Stating that a list and history makes the Bible stand apart isn't circular it is stating
something that I agree with, there isn't anything else like ...[text shortened]... eal, just look at
the scriptures.

Accept it or reject it, it is evidence that points to God.

But rocks can be, and are, dated to see how old they are.
They are all different ages.

Why would scientists bother dating rocks if they thought your "logic" was sufficient?
Nobody (at least nobody sensible) says rocks must be billions of years old because the Earth is.