|
One question for Christians
|
 Quote:No, we just adhere to the Biblical account, so we’re not going to postulate a natural explanation for something the Biblical account already gave us an explanation for. Pretty simple really. Translation: *fingers in ears* la la la la la la la ......... Quote:We live in a Universe governed by the Creator, you cannot avoid His involvement. Presuppositionalism bored now..  (August 27, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:Quote: That's one reason creationists tend not to be taken seriously. A logical defense would demand a logical attack. I'm glad you can accept that your claim is without logic. ![[Image: 10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg]](https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/10314461_875206779161622_3907189760171701548_n.jpg)
 (August 27, 2013 at 7:10 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote:(August 27, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No, it’s a natural tendency for people to ridicule positions they otherwise have no logical defense against. That was funny.  Though perhaps they have logical attacks, but directed at themselves.
Now! This is it! Now is the time to choose! Die, and be free of pain, or live and fight your sorrow! Now is the time to shape your stories! Your fate is in your hands!
 (August 27, 2013 at 7:07 pm)Chuck Wrote: Scientific, isn't it. You seriously didn’t know that when deduction and induction conflict deduction wins? Now that is what is really funny. (August 27, 2013 at 7:09 pm)StuW Wrote: Translation: *fingers in ears* la la la la la la la ......... No, translation = deduction trumps induction. Quote:Presuppositionalism You’re bored by truth? Not surprising. (August 27, 2013 at 7:10 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: A logical defense would demand a logical attack. Wrong again! Pointing out the fallacy of someone’s reasoning is a logical defense to an illogical attack. This is why I have to point out your fallacious reasoning over and over again. If you could do the same against creationists you would; however their arguments are logically sound so all you can resort to is irrational appeals to ridicule.
How is a presupposition logical? God has to be real for any of your mental gymnastics to work. Excuse me if I don't bite.
(August 27, 2013 at 7:26 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: How is a presupposition logical? God has to be real for any of your mental gymnastics to work. Excuse me if I don't bite. Of course they’re logical. Axioms are required in reasoning. God’s existence is my ultimate presupposition. The difference between you and me is that my ultimate presupposition makes sense of all of your presuppositions. Your presuppositions completely conflict with your espoused naturalism. In essence, you have to borrow from my view of reality in order to argue against my view of reality. 
RE: One question for Christians
August 28, 2013 at 4:47 pm
(This post was last modified: August 28, 2013 at 4:47 pm by Bad Writer.)
God of the gaps is lazy. I guess if you keep telling yourself that it's true, it becomes so, am I right? Well, I don't like your proposition that your Christian god is the answer, so I'm going to replace him with a purple polka-dotted dragon. Its fiery bubble breath of creation explains all the universe's mysteries, and you can read all about it from the cave wall upon which I etched with charcoal the words that it whispered to me in my dreams.
 (August 28, 2013 at 4:14 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote:(August 27, 2013 at 7:26 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: How is a presupposition logical? God has to be real for any of your mental gymnastics to work. Excuse me if I don't bite. Godidit only makes sense if you swallow the premise to begin with. That it can be shoehorned into a logical framework when it's the 'axiom' doesn't prove shit, other than the agenda of the armchair philosopher who spouted it. (August 28, 2013 at 4:47 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: God of the gaps is lazy. I didn’t use a god of the gaps argument. I used an argument from necessity. Quote: Well, I don't like your proposition that your Christian god is the answer, so I'm going to replace him with a purple polka-dotted dragon. Its fiery bubble breath of creation explains all the universe's mysteries, and you can read all about it from the cave wall upon which I etched with charcoal the words that it whispered to me in my dreams. You can assume such a creature exists, but in order to demonstrate necessary existence you’ll have to explain how such a dragon justifies our assumption that natural laws in the future will resemble natural laws of the past for starters. I am intrigued…
His fiery bubbles makes all past, present, and future laws possible. You can read more in that cave, but you have to die and resurrect three times in march for three years before it will fly you to this hidden cavern. I have personal experience with this dragon and its workings, so that's all the evidence I need to know it is true.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
