I think you are getting my arguments confused here. I am making a logical argument here, not a scientific one. So the fact I was not there to observe the first cause is irrelevant to its logical validity. If I remember correctly I think my objections to your use of radiometric dating was focused on your uniformitarian principles and the fact you had no control to prove the method was valid. I don’t think any of that is relevant to the “first cause” logical argument for God. You say the evidence disproves my position, are you suggesting you have evidence that one, something can create itself, or two it is possible to have an infinite series of causes? I feel have plenty of empirical evidence that out of nothing nothing comes and a good logical argument against an infinite series of causes.
I disagree that evolution would preserve rationality in humans (even if it did preserve it, that doesn’t explain where the first rational mind came from). Say I have a set of berries, the red ones are poisonous and the blue ones are not. Even if I hold an irrational view that eating anything red will turn me into a frog and I thus do not eat the red berries I will survive and this irrational thought is thus preserved. I think there is plenty of empirical evidence suggesting that non-rational events cannot give rise to rational minds. A rational creator is a better explanation I think. Feel free to opine though.
Oops, I was actually looking for a frowning face, not an angry one. I apologize if that came across the wrong way.
Where did I ask you to prove a negative? Even if you hold a negative position, I would expect you to have good reasons for holding it. I do not believe in aliens, this is a negative position but I can still back it up with reasoning.
I didn’t realize we were playing only by the rules in “your book” here. I assume I am the prophet with the lying spirit? I am not a prophet, and nor have I lied about anything. If you are convinced I have please point to the instance so we can rectify the situation, if you cannot then please stop bearing false witness.
Again, I am not lying at all. To me you are very inconsistent on this issue. You were part of the “Atheism is a Religion” thread and I am sure you saw the ad hominem attacks against me on that thread and yet you did not criticize the attackers, only to turn around and criticize me for being “rude”. C’mon.
There is no such thing as a “deconversion” in Christianity. Scripture is very clear that you either die a Christian or you never were one. So either you will die a Christian or you never were one. Since you are still very much alive, I cannot tell you which of these is the case here. You may not agree with this, but since I am a Christian and believe scripture is inerrant it is completely consistent for me to hold this position.
I guess I could pull a page from your playbook here and say “sorry your dime is up, no more questions”. As tempting as that is, just to see how you like it, I will rise up and answer the question.
Man is made in God’s image. So man feels sympathy for other men because they too are made in the image of God. Even if the character is fictional, they too are modeled after creatures made in God’s image. Man inherently recognizes this and therefore almost always holds a higher respect for other humans than any other creatures on earth. Even if we feel sympathy for another creature I would argue it is because we see attributes in them that are human in nature. People are far more likely to feel sympathy for a talking dog’s plight in a story than just a normal dog.
Regarding your second point as to “why didn’t God include footnotes in His book”, this assumes (incorrectly I believe) that God is desperately wanting everyone to read scripture, and come to a saving faith because of it, if only they could understand it better! This is not the case at all (see what Jesus says when he is asked why he uses parables). Everyone God wants to save will get saved. Sin clouds some of our interpretive abilities; even the disciples made mistakes so it is ridiculous to assume we wouldn’t make any even if we had inspired footnotes in Genesis. A sinful fallible mind not understanding why a perfect infallible being did something is not only reasonable but quite frankly expected. As to the whole “my God can beat up your God” point, I am obligated to believe what scripture teaches, not what my sinful mind thinks it should teach. So it is not really “my God”, it is what scripture says. Did I understand what you were asking?
