Well those are pure logic. The first act had to cause everything else. It had to have the potentiality of everything that now exists. It had to be before anything else. After it came time, as time was caused. So it is outside time.

Sighs and shakes his head in disbelief lol. You don't get it do you? In order to accept fr0d0's assertions about God being for example the beginning,the prime mover etc etc. you have to start from the Christian worldview. In other words you have to start by believing in faith that that first statement is true so that the rest of this pathetic apologetic god speak can make sense to you. Without accepting that God is the Alpha and the Omega of all things in existence all you are doing is feeding into this vicious cycle of never ending gibberish. Think of God as the all spark from the movie Transformers and then maybe you will understand this mess better.

As I have said countless times apologetics is Christianities pathetic attempt to sound intelligent while trying to explain away the bibles many inconsistencies. I am pretty sure that the many authors of the bible were not sitting around rambling about the attributes of God or hell etc. apologetics is a modern phenomenon to counter traditional philosophy. Like faith, apologetics is nothing more than as opposed to your so called "pure logic" pure speculation.

And when have I said anything else CP? A logical idea is just that. You can have many ideas and formulate a logical worldview from it also. This is the worldview I choose to adopt, and I can defend that. Your view is also no more valid, yet you seek to dismiss mine. This is the interesting part.

In the case of apologetics the worldview comes first, it's not formulated in a gradual manner. What bothers me about it most is that it starts with an absolute based on faith. That in my view is science in reverse. In science we first formulate a theory based on observations and repeatable experimentation. Then we begin to find supporting evidence to the theory but the theory is almost never an absolute and is always subject to change upon the discovery of contradictory evidence and new theories are formed and tested.

Apologetics starts with an "absolute" which cannot be proven absolutely. Then builds upon this non absolute totally relying on extremely exaggerated scriptural analysis and pseudo scientific interpretation. In the end if you are not a believer all of that is just gibberish and leads to as has been demonstrated in many of the forums and threads here to a never ending merry go round. Regarding God being the prime mover and beginning of all things that is far from a logical idea.

First of all his existence, precedes all the so called theorizing on his attributes etc. It's like theorizing on the attributes of Santa or the Easter bunny without first establishing their existence. What is so logical about that? Stating God exists because "I feel his presence, the bible tells me so, it makes sense to me, or he spoke to me in a dream, or I have faith that he exists", are not valid as proofs. The concept of faith itself is not a valid concept at all because faith cannot create what is not there. Nor validate what is not there nor can be proven to be there.

Well the absolute was at some point subject to the same train of reasoning. And your own worldview, if predicated by any concept of 'beginning' starts with not your own unique inquiry but an accepted theorem. How are they different?

Theology intrinsically denies scientific validation. The problem isn't with theology, it's yours.

There maybe lack of evidence to prove christianity
But there is non to prove it wrong


and i ask you all
look at the map of earth and look at the water depth
there is a approx. 40,000 mile crack starting from the red sead crossing all the way to the indian ocean it splits in 2. one crack goes to the west directly up the atlantic ocean and heads towards nothern russia. The other goes all the way past australia right up the pacific ocean and ends at san andreas fault U.S.A. This is not a tectonic plate, this is a crack of somekind.
There is reason to believe that this was appart of noah's flood and clearly looks like it parted North and South America from Africa and Europe.

Also on the map check out the gulf of Mexico. It is a tremenous amount of mud underneith the sea plowed down from the great mississipi river.

Now think about this. If the world is millions of years old and mississipi is millions of years olf, wouldn't the gulf of mexico by now be another country.

On various infomation iv seen on the internet apparently there is only 4,500 years worth of mud. This was when Noahs flood happened. No major river doesn't carry mud so how can there only be 4,500 years worth of mud if the world is billions of years old and the mississipi river is millians of years old

check it out guys interesting stuff

check out the huge crack on google earth (change setting to ocean depth) and any ocean depth map on google

you will clearly see it in the middle of the atlantic but remember it starts at the red sea eastern africa

I personally have never claimed to know anything about origins or beginnings when it comes to the universe and how it came to be. I am content to state that I do not know how it all began but if I had to weigh the big bang theory with the Creationists theory I would go towards the one which seems most likely. There are many versions of the big bang theory for example yet no one could really state that those theories are absolutely true. Unlike faith which states that Creationism or ID are absolutely true. Not based on facts nor experimentation nor observation it's all based on primitive tales from a fearful and ignorant people and time period in human history. I find that faith and reason are like oil and water they don't generally mix. I think it an insult to call creationism or ID reasonable or logical since its very foundation is based on primitive mythologies.

zoso,

Not only did you not pay attention to the multiple banners telling you to post an introduction thread, but your knowledge of science is laughable. We speak with intelligent Christians here...people who have long ago rejected any notions of "creationism" in favour of the evidence-based theories that are the result of centuries of work.

(October 6, 2009 at 4:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Theology intrinsically denies scientific validation. The problem isn't with theology, it's yours.

You know, this really reminds me of the emporer's new clothes...

---

(October 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm)zoso Wrote: There maybe lack of evidence to prove christianity
But there is non to prove it wrong

The same for Thor, Zeus, Odin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I assume then, that you believe in all of those?

(October 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm)zoso Wrote: blah blah, stuff about geology which I clearly dont understand, blahh

You're essentially saying "I don't understand how something happened, therefore the only possible explantion is that the deity that I happen to believe in must have done it."
Take a few moments to consider that position, and you'll realise just how ridiculous it is

(October 6, 2009 at 5:01 pm)Tiberius Wrote: zoso,

Not only did you not pay attention to the multiple banners telling you to post an introduction thread, but your knowledge of science is laughable. We speak with intelligent Christians here...people who have long ago rejected any notions of "creationism" in favour of the evidence-based theories that are the result of centuries of work.

I'm sorry but your arguing nothing is said in my post, you are just being intimidating
No "intelligent" true christian would ever reject the idea of creationism.
In the bible if you reject the belief of Genesis then you do not belive Gods word.

have you looked at the crack by the way. it does look highly perculiar

---

(October 6, 2009 at 5:03 pm)lilphil1989 Wrote:

(October 6, 2009 at 4:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Theology intrinsically denies scientific validation. The problem isn't with theology, it's yours.

You know, this really reminds me of the emporer's new clothes...

---

(October 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm)zoso Wrote: There maybe lack of evidence to prove christianity
But there is non to prove it wrong

The same for Thor, Zeus, Odin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I assume then, that you believe in all of those?

(October 6, 2009 at 4:51 pm)zoso Wrote: blah blah, stuff about geology which I clearly dont understand, blahh

You're essentially saying "I don't understand how something happened, therefore the only possible explantion is that the deity that I happen to believe in must have done it."
Take a few moments to consider that position, and you'll realise just how ridiculous it is

fair enough you explain mypost to me in you logical explanation im very open for someone to explain it to me because so far im not finding one