(April 17, 2014 at 6:12 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Look what you are saying,,,"blindly accept" If I hold up a watch and say, "someone created this" and you reply, "how could you blindly accept that?" How is that logical? The watch itself is the thing that points to an intelligent designer. If I had not watch then it would be a different story. However, the fact there is a planet, and every observable thing has a cause, then we have to reasonable conclude that there is a Creator.
We don't identify design by complexity or function. We identify design by contrasting it to nature.
The watch is obviously designed because they don't exist in nature.
It is not reasonable to point at existence and claim there is a designer.
Quote:I respectfully disagree. You are entitled to your opinion. I base my answers on the Truth of God's Word and what I feel is sound reasoning. If you call that being dishonest then what can I say?
Ancient texts, written centuries or decades after the alleged events, by unknown authors, is not 'God's word'.
Sound reasoning, by definition, is based on valid and sound logic. You haven't displayed any.
Quote:Something miraculous happened this time apx. 2,000 years ago. That is why this Sunday billions of people will observe this miracle. I encourage you to read the accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
Texts are not evidence for miracles.
Matthew, Mark and Luke were written decades after the alleged events. The authors are unknown, and not eyewitnesses. The author of Luke even admits he wasn't an eyewitness.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
