All good examples for the sake of this conversation. I would add Jonah being in the fish three days and virgin conception, not metaphors all actual historical events.
Supernaturally.
Empirical science agrees with you. But for those of us who believe that "all things (creation included) are held together in Christ" it's reasonable that a God who can speak the world into existence (including gravity) could easily simultaneously stop the earth from rotating and create a new type of gravity that would hold everyone/thing on in the interim. It seems unreasonable to anyone who automatically rules out a transcendent God who can work both empirically and supernaturally.
The "burden of proof" argument is more of a tactic than it is sound debate. The burden of proof is on both the person making the claim and the person who disagrees with the claim. This is foundational to debate/science/truth seeking. The claim that these are empirical questions that need to be settled by (empirical?) evidence is made by you. These may be empirical questions but they could be very well explained as supernatural events. My evidence is the written testimony of these events. If the truth is outside of your set of beliefs, to say it's not possible as truth is an argument from ignorance. The Laws of logic say that truth is justified independently of a person's beliefs.
"Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:" Fits extremely well. People hear religion and think deity but not all religion's have a god per say.
If you rule out the answer before you ask the question, you will either search for the answer forever or you will accept any answer as truth.
(February 12, 2014 at 3:35 pm)xpastor Wrote: How would a snake talk in terms of its physical structure?
Supernaturally.
(February 12, 2014 at 3:35 pm)xpastor Wrote: What would happen if the earth suddenly stopped rotating? Or actually went in reverse? Which would have to happen to make the sun stand still in the sky or a shadow move backward. In terms of physics I would expect that it would be the end of terrestrial life. Humans, animals and most other surface objects would fly off into space.
Empirical science agrees with you. But for those of us who believe that "all things (creation included) are held together in Christ" it's reasonable that a God who can speak the world into existence (including gravity) could easily simultaneously stop the earth from rotating and create a new type of gravity that would hold everyone/thing on in the interim. It seems unreasonable to anyone who automatically rules out a transcendent God who can work both empirically and supernaturally.
(February 12, 2014 at 3:35 pm)xpastor Wrote: No, you can't play the argument from ignorance game. These are empirical questions which need to be settled by evidence. If someone told you in all seriousness that unicorns really exist, you would not feel that you had to prove they do not exist.
No, I don't have to prove that fairies or gods exist or that violations of the laws of nature do not occur. The burden of proof is on those who believe such things.
The "burden of proof" argument is more of a tactic than it is sound debate. The burden of proof is on both the person making the claim and the person who disagrees with the claim. This is foundational to debate/science/truth seeking. The claim that these are empirical questions that need to be settled by (empirical?) evidence is made by you. These may be empirical questions but they could be very well explained as supernatural events. My evidence is the written testimony of these events. If the truth is outside of your set of beliefs, to say it's not possible as truth is an argument from ignorance. The Laws of logic say that truth is justified independently of a person's beliefs.
(February 12, 2014 at 3:35 pm)xpastor Wrote: I do not have a religion. I have beliefs and opinions based so far as possible on reason and evidence.
"Religion: 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:" Fits extremely well. People hear religion and think deity but not all religion's have a god per say.
(February 12, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Tonus Wrote: Has anyone ever noticed that sometimes a theist will try to denigrate atheism or science by calling them "religion"?Why does calling something "religion" denigrate it? Seems like the prejudice toward the word is on your side?
If you rule out the answer before you ask the question, you will either search for the answer forever or you will accept any answer as truth.
If it could be proven beyond doubt that God exists...
and that He is the one spoken of in the Bible...
would you repent of your sins and place your faith in Jesus Christ?
