The Bible is the claim, not the evidence

[feeling]

---

Actually that’s wrong. The Bible would be evidence for Yahweh the same way the Lord of The Rings books are evidence for JRR Tolkien.


We shouldn’t do it because it will get us laughed at? What kind of argument is that? That’s merely a fallacious appeal to consequence. Secondly, the measure of a sound argument is not its ability to convince others. People are often unconvinced by sound arguments and are convinced by invalid arguments. Do you have anything better?


Where did he say that? He merely said he thought creation was more likely than a naturalistic explanation. I think it is more likely that pigs cannot fly than they can, that is not a fallacious argument from incredulity. If you’re going to accuse someone of committing a fallacy make sure you understand the fallacy first.


Tell Doubting Thomas that, he’s the one who seemed to think it was relevant.


Then what is proven?


It does in fact matter if you’re trying to demonstrate that RNA could spontaneously generate on the early Earth. It’s embarrassing how lacks your standards are when dealing with something that you desperately want to be true.


Actually Whateverist just did Toots (“please do post some evidence for thinking RNA cannot spontaneously exist”). Whateverist asked him to prove a negative.


I was told that denying God’s existence opened up the door to questioning all things; can you point me to any well-known atheist thinkers who question any of the previously mentioned things?


You’re welcome.


Trust me, I am not worried.


Nope.


Yes, atheists love making assertions.


Not a coincidence at all, I would expect similar irrational minds to arrive at similar irrational conclusions.


Yup, all of them.


Neither, it’s because I am a Christian Theist. We live in a Universe created by a rational God who likewise created us. It makes sense for all of these things to be true in my conceptual scheme. Of course as an atheist he’s not allowed to appeal to my theistic conceptual scheme so he’s going to have to figure it out on his own.



You believe his circular reasoning was sufficient? It’s not surprising you are completely content when atheists use such reasoning but object (ironically in this very thread) when you think that theists are using such reasoning. Playing the game by two different sets of rules I see.


So you claim, but your actions indicate otherwise.


You.



It does.


I have misrepresented nothing and I follow the forum rules. The Bible says you know that it is the word of God. Am I going to believe it or you?

What fact what stated? I saw a lot of opinions.


That’s a non-sequitur; the complex system changing over time does not negate the need for a creative agent. Computer operating systems undergo mutative changes over time and yet they still require creative agents.


We are not talking specifically about eyesight we are talking about our sensory perception as a whole which you have yet to justify in a non-circular manner. Secondly, using other senses to justify the reliability of a person’s eyesight does not even work because we know that people will experience cases of sensory deception where all of the senses are deceived in a consistent manner (i.e. Old Hag Syndrome). The problem here is that you are objecting when Christians supposedly do the exact same thing you are doing here.


That’s incorrect; everyone knows God exists, whether implicitly or explicitly.


There’s a difference between being able to operate without believing something is true and being able to operate without something actually being true. Whether or not you believe scripture is true is irrelevant. Its reliability is just as essential to our existence as the reliability of our senses is.


If God did not exist none of this would be possible either so I do not see your point.

How do you know we do those things? Do you perceive doing this using your senses? More circularity.


I think therefore I am is a circular argument.

You’re completely missing the point. Within my conceptual scheme it makes sense for us to be able to trust our senses. The problem is that you cannot use my conceptual scheme because you are an atheist. You’re going to have to justify your beliefs in accordance with your own conceptual scheme and thus far you have not been able to do so without invoking circularity.


Absurd? I am not the one using my memory to try and justify the reliability of my memory here.


How do you know that you are the one who wrote that down? Do you remember writing it down?



We’re not merely talking about short term memory here; we are talking about all memory. Using a list that you remember writing does not justify your memory.


Then stop writing them. They are not doing you any good anyways.



They are still axiomatic so it was a fair analogy.


The Bible contains principles as well; perhaps you should read it sometime. God’s existence is a fundamental principle, God’s love is a fundamental principle, Man being created in the image of God is a fundamental principle, and so on.


How do you know you are still alive? You perceive that you are still alive? You thought that you were up to the challenge so do not get fussy with me when we find that you fall short. Calling me names may make you feel better but it does not help defend your position any.


No I value rationality so I disregarded it. If Christians are not allowed to use circularity then you sir are not allowed to either.


Then neither is using the New Testament to verify the Old Testament.



If you have to remember who wrote the list it is.


Question-begging epithets aside, they are.


Easy, He who knows everything and who cannot lie revealed it to us (Romans 1). You do not know everything and are perfectly capable of lying so why should I believe you over Him? It’d be crazy for me to.


By using your senses to verify your senses and using your memory to verify your memory? Right.


…says the guy who apparently is completely incapable of spotting circularity in his own arguments.


It means all people are subject to what it says.


My eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because my touch tells me so, my touch is reliable because my ears tell me so, my ears are reliable because my eyes tell me so, and my eyes are reliable because…

Around and around you go!


How so?


My barbarism? You must have me confused with someone else.


Not all biologists think that. We’ve never observed one to arise without a creative agent so I believe the empirical evidence supports my position.


Sure, but the Universe is not totally unique. It does seem to be a specified complex operating system with laws of operation and functionality. Every other such system is the product of a creative mind. I do not believe it is unreasonable to therefore argue that the Universe is also the product of a creative mind.


I am not seeing how it is begging the question so you’ll have to be more specific.


I think it’s more akin to…

If The adventures of Huckleberry Finn exists, then Mark Twain also had to exist
The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn exists, therefore Mark Twain had to exist.


Which does seem right.

From my perspective I could say the very same thing about many atheists on here. Do you know how many times I have seen the, “God is a big meanie face!” argument on here? The difference between you and me is that you won’t see me wasting everyone’s time whining about it or lobbying for banning anyone who follows the rules from the forum. Your attempts at censorship have been noted.


You mean to tell me that if you want a transitional form you merely have an artist draw you a picture and then exclaim, “Voila!!!”?


Well here's an Oviraptor without feathers...Voila!

---

Man wrote the Bible, not GOD! I think god does not understand the concept of writing in English!

This book is written by god because it says in this book that it is written by god. Stop arguing and submit yourself right away.