One question for Christians

[Statler Waldorf]

I would never follow you. Listen? Sure. Understand? I try to. Follow you?

Obviously I was using the word in the context of comprehension.

I don't like presuppositions that try to twist evidence to suit their needs, so no.

*Sigh* Evidence is interpreted in light of a person’s presuppositions. Everyone does it, including you.

The only indisputable fact about the Bible is that it exists. I'm never going to suppose that's it's what it claims to be, because there's far too much contrary evidence to my liking. A story here or there that may be shown to be possible does not make it true. It's possible that there are aliens here among us. In fact, it can be demonstrated to be plausible. Can it be demonstrated to be true? That's the unanswered question that let's us realize that the Bible is in the same category as fiction.

You sure enjoy moving those goalposts around don’t you? You asserted that the flood account in scripture was impossible, I refuted that claim. Now you’re asserting that that does not prove the Bible is true. So? I never said it did. I know the Bible is true for other reasons.

They've shown how it's possible, but not that it happened. I'm okay with this. If I was using faith, I would be asserting that I know Abiogenesis is how life began on earth. I don't say this, so I don't use faith. Stop trolling people about that.

They haven’t demonstrated it’s possible, every one of those theories you proposed possesses a fatal flaw, that’s why there are so many of them. Everyone can poke holes in every one else’s theory. Why are they unable to synthesize life in the laboratory even under the most controlled conditions?

Baseless assertion. You love these don't you?

I am sorry, I was merely responding to your baseless assertion that secular scientists are all neutral and unbiased with my own baseless assertion that they are not; I forgot that you like to play by two different sets of rules.

This is why I can't take anything you say at face value, and this is why I question all the "so-called" evidence you bring to the table.

You do not accept it because it contradicts everything you hope is true about reality; it’s a typical human response.

Then you claim that you don't need objective, demonstrable evidence to prove God exists? I'm sorry, but no one should believe in something simply because they think it's true. I sure won't. Even if I think aliens could probably exist, I'm not going to run my mouth off saying that they are truly real. That's irresponsible and leads people from what really matters: evidence that's demonstrable.

Again, you’re not following (comprehending) what I am saying. The notion of evidence proves God exists. The very concept of repeatability and demonstrability proves that God exists. In a purely natural Universe where the God of scripture did not reign it would be impossible to make sense of such concepts. You cannot make sense of your belief that your senses and memory are generally reliable, you cannot make sense of your belief that trials under identical conditions will yield identical results, you cannot justify your belief that you can trust your ability to reason, and you cannot justify your belief that there are immaterial and transcendent laws of logic that discern truth. You cannot make sense of any of these things in a purely material and natural Universe, and yet all of them are necessary in order for a person to be able to “weigh the evidence”. You’re trying to start this debate at step 20, I am trying to get you to justify how you got to step 20 without God.

You're unsettled by magical four-letter words even when they aren't aimed your way to describe your character?

Something describing my character is by definition aimed my way. I find that sort of language juvenile.

And the fact that you're trying to bring my family into this in a derogatory way proves once again what a piece of work you are.

You brought your family up first, and it was not derogatory at all, I am quite glad she keeps you in line. Cut it out with the martyr routine.

Actually that's an observation, and an astute one.

Well then, please explain how you can observe what exists in someone else’s mind. This ought to be good.

We can observe the natural world. That was easy to prove.

Surely you’re not really that ignorant of what naturalism means. How do you know that you are indeed observing the natural world? How do you know that the natural world is ALL that exists, since that’s what naturalism espouses. This is going to be a tough task, I am sure glad you bear the burden of proof on this one and not me. Good luck!

Now get back to proving God or shut up about it.

I’ll wait for you to prove your naturalism and materialism since you claim that all positive claims bear the burden of proof.

Make sense? No. It may qualify you for one of these though.

Seems we have a comprehension problem here, what doesn’t make sense? I will try my best to explain it to you in a manner you can understand.

Why would we have to disprove a book that Christians themselves admit is taken 'on faith'?

It’s not taken on faith in the sense you’re using that word.

Walk away dude...walk away...

I’ll give you credit, you know when you’re whipped!

I'm getting more and more unimpressed

That hurts my feelings!