- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhat better evidence do you need of a designer than the design itself?
Ah, now we come to the point. An [b]assumption.
But you can show no evidence of either the designer or the builder. There is another process by which it could be made, one which can be proven to exist. Which do you choose?[/b]
If you saw a painting, what better evidence do you need that the painter exists, other than the painting itself?
04 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerExactly. I'll give you created (as this does not imply an agent doing the creating). But not designed. So by putting in "or", rather than "and", you negate the whole point of the argument.
[b]Yes. The natural world is not designed AND created.
My question contained OR not AND. There is a difference. [/b]
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerI need a tangable, provable, agent by which it could happen. God is neither of those.
What better evidence do you need of a designer than the design itself?
If you saw a painting, what better evidence do you need that the painter exists, other than the painting itself?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
04 Sep 06
Originally posted by dottewellYou are saying that the universe was created and not designed?
Exactly. I'll give you created (as this does not imply an agent doing the creating). But not designed. So by putting in "or", rather than "and", you negate the whole point of the argument.
What do you use as evidence? The universe?
Is that not circular reasoning?
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerTell me, dj2, what's so wrong with metaphysical randomness? Do you really think we have good rational grounds for accepting the Principle of Sufficient Reason? I don't see any good grounds, but I am open to interpretations.
Who made God? No one did. He was not made. He has always existed. Only things that had a beginning - like the world - need a maker. God had no beginning , so God did not need to be made. For those who are a little older, a little more can be said. Traditionally, most atheist who deny the existence of God believe that the universe was not made; it was just ...[text shortened]... as well ask, "Where is the bachelor's wife?"
- Dr. Norman L. Geisler
The ironic thing is that many will support the PSR and yet argue for the existence of libertarian free will. But under just about every formulation, an argument for libertarian free will is, in fact, also an argument for metaphysical randomness.
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhat? By whom? You want me just to take your word for it?
I admit it's a lot more complex than that... I have plenty of reason to believe that Mohammed was a false prophet and that Jesus was whom he claimed to be, the son of God.[/b]
Flavius Josephus is widely recognised as one of the greatest first-century historians.
You claim to be a Seeker of the Truth. Then by all means, go...seek. Jospehus was a great historian, but the paltry reference to Jesus is extremely suspect for many different reasons.
According to Professor Michael L. White, from Yale, Josephus' passage has been drastically altered:
Josephus wrote the Antiquities in the mid-90s CE; however, the passage above is widely considered to be a Christian forgery, either whole or in part, inserted centuries later (See Louis H Feldman, Josephus, Anchor Bible Dictionary 3:990–92). The parts in bold above almost all scholars agree are Christian interpolations; the remainder is doubted by some but accepted by others. There are several reasons. The parallel sections of Josephus's Jewish War make no mention of Jesus, and Christian writers as late as the third century CE who made extensive use of Josephus's Antiquities show no awareness of it. Had it been there, they would have gladly used it for proof of Christian claims. Instead, these same writers, notably Origen, admit that Josephus did not believe in Jesus (Origin Commentary on Matthew 10.17;Against Celsus 1.47) [18]
I know exactly what you wrote. Do you maintain that you intended some ambiguity?
Not rejecting Mohammed's historicity is not the same as accepting it. As I stated, I haven't looked at it in any way. Maybe there is a case to be made for a mythical Mohammed, I dunno.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by dj2beckerI'm sorry, am I understanding that you are inferring that mankind pre-dates the sun? Not "a starting point" for what? Reality? The universe? Your own existence? The star that our planet orbits is demonstrably older than life on Earth.
Because the sun is running out of energy, it implies that the sun is not eternal and thus not the starting point. If the sun made man, but is in itself not the starting point, it is fair of me to ask who made the sun.
Once again, your question as phrased is begging the question. The sun was not made by a "who" it was made by a "what". At least, so the theory goes.
05 Sep 06
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloOooo! Is he really?
No. The poster was talking about the fact that your God doesn't exist.
The poster does not know by FACT that my God does not exist. The poster can only assert that it is a fact. The poster has no formula which demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that God does not exist. If the poster does have such a mathematical formula then let's cut to the chase and let the poster present it and settle the matter.
So where is your mathematical formula proving beyond all reasonable doubt that God does not exist?
So one may respond that I cannot prove it either, that God exists. I agree. But then again I freely confess that it is my FAITH that God exists. And I think I have enough evidence, if not to prove, at least to indicate that I am on the right track that God exists.
Basically I don't have enough faith to believe that nothing produced the universe. Out of nothing nothing comes.
But there is much more than this. There is the testimony of one Jesus of Nazareth. I believe that He qualifies to be as He claimed, God manifest in the flesh as a man. And what has happened to me since the day I called on the name of Jesus to receive Him, if not proves to me that God exists, mightily affirms that I am on the right track.
05 Sep 06
3 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzHow can God forget? I don't know.
How can God forget? That would go against omniscience. However, if he can't, that goes against omnipotence.
[edit; interesting conversation - spiritually bankrupt thread]
However omniscience, I think, does not mean that a Being with perfect self control could not forget something.
Secondly, God's forgetting is adaquate forgetting if not total forgetting. And for a big sinner like you if God said He was willing to forget your sins, personally, I would take up the offer. What rebellion and pride to argue that omnipotence and omniscience forbids that He forget your sins.
You may realize one day that you have been an expert on missing the point, as far as God is concerned.
If your mortgage company said it was willing to forget the late penalty on your late payment, you might argue that that could not be. But then you might simply say "Thanks guys"
The forgetting of God of the redeemed sinner's sins is adaquate forgetting to meet the need of reconciliation.
05 Sep 06
Originally posted by jaywillYou are full of yourself, aren't you? Why do you dislike someone using logical deduction on your god to show that the entire enterprise is full of logical fallacies?
How can God forget? I don't know.
However omniscience, I think, does not mean that a Being with perfect self control could not forget something.
Secondly, God's forgetting is adaquate forgetting if not total forgetting. And for a big sinner like you if God said He was willing to forget your sins, personally, I would take up the offer. What rebellion ...[text shortened]... d of the redeemed sinner's sins is adaquate forgetting to meet the need of reconciliation.