Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
rjh4 Wrote:I responded: "I think you are wrong here again. Joshua, Chapter 2, tells of Rahab and her family which did have a chance to convert, did, and were then saved from the destruction. Why would you think it was any different for the rest?"
I noted above:
I Wrote:You punish someone for being evil... because you created them specifically to be evil. You let one family escape the situation by 'choosing' you... when you designed them with choosing you in your intent. Why would you punish what you designed for doing its task perfectly? There is no logic in even having created anything in the first place... let alone destroying a system that worked to the letter of your design (considering that 'God' is perfect and stuff )
God designed Rahab and her family specifically so that they would 'choose' the 'option' of following God. I do not see how Rahab following her 'subroutines' gives any credence at all to your statements... unless God is not all-powerful, all-knowing, all-present, etc.
I think you are ignoring the illogical aspect of this, that was Chatpilot's point???
I love the way you ignore my example of how god hardened Pharaohs heart to the point where he could not convert. Just so god can prove his power and glory to his "chosen".
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
(November 5, 2009 at 2:45 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote: If you can explain to me how the universe is actually evidence for God, rather than simply saying in your opinion it is and we all look at the facts differently... then fine.
Because I want to know why you think the existence of the universe itself is evidence for God? Whether that's true or not...
EvF
I think that humans have the ability to distinguish between things that are formed naturally and things that are made by intelligent beings. While I realize that there may be examples where one could conclude incorrectly, I think my previous sentence is generally applicable. For example, say I am walking through a freshly plowed field and find a flat rock that has a point and then flairs out from the point evenly to two other points. I take this rock to the geology department of my local university to see what the scientists would have to say about this neat looking rock. Does the geologist say: "I will have to come up with a naturalistic model for how this specially shaped rock formed, test this model, and I will get back to you." No, the geologist says: "It is an arrowhead the type used by the indians." If I find a bowl shaped rock or object the story would be the same. If we found a mechanical contraption that we had never seen before we would not conclude that it came about by some naturalistic process, we would quickly (and I think correctly) conclude that something intelligent produced it and left it there. At this point you may be thinking that it is easy for us to recognize these things because humans made them. That may be true. But scientists also think they can recognize signs of intelligent life even when humans are not the source. See "Listening for Alien". If some flying tranport machine not made by humans were to land on the earth, would scientists quickly try to come up with a naturalistic model for how such a thing were formed? I don't think so. Well I think the universe is pretty complex and the simplest life form is a lot more complex that anything made by man, as evidenced by the fact that man still has not been able to reproduce life from simple starting materials. So extrapolating from how humans view simple things like arrowheads and bowls and more complex things like machines and signals to something as complex as the universe and life, I think that just as we conclude the presence of the former things is evidence that something intelligent made them, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of the universe and life is evidence that something superintelligent (God) made them. Were it not for Romans 1:19-22 I would really find it "mysterious" that anyone would even begin to look for a naturalistic explanation for the more complex when they wouldn't for the less complex.
For these reasons, I think the existence of the universe and life is evidence for the existence of God.
November 6, 2009 at 10:26 am (This post was last modified: November 6, 2009 at 11:17 am by rjh4 is back.)
(November 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm)Craveman Wrote: That would mean that you also believe in all the miracles that happened. Why aren't there any evidence? By the way, you still need to convince us that there IS a god out there to start with...
First, it is not my job to convince you God exists. Second, I seriously doubt there is anything that would qualify as evidence for you for a miracle. But the reason may not be that there is no evidence. The reason may be that your presuppositions do not allow for miracles so you would not recognize the evidence as such even if you saw it.
(November 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm)Craveman Wrote: Seems to me like you've made up your mind and that you will have a perfect excuse for each inconsistancy that we would throw at you.
Well if you haven't figured it out by now...that God exists and that the Bible is the Word of God is a presupposition for me. So you would be correct.
(November 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm)Craveman Wrote: The Bible was written by primative men long after the death of Jesus so you're making a big mistake taking the Bible as the "word of God". I think it should be re-named to "the Word of men"...
Even if true, that merely means that I listen to different words of men than you. For even you in your reliance on the scientific method for all answers must rely upon the word of those scientists and hope that their conclusions are not jaded by their own presuppositions.
(November 5, 2009 at 3:34 pm)Craveman Wrote: So if you really think that the God is rational then I'm sure you won't mind following his laws and therefore start killing people (and lots of them) for 1: being gay, 2: believing in other gods, 3: women not obeying their men, 4: rebellious children etc. (the list is long...)
All of these things are "consistant" with what the Bible tells us so why do you not follow these laws dictated by your "consistant" God? You do believe it is his word after all don't you? Or have you also, like millions of other people,thought about these laws and saw them for what they are: "inconsistant"?
To me, Craveman, this is one of your most surprising statements and seems to reveal a real lack of understanding of Christianity. The laws you talk about above were given to the nation of Israel as a theocracy. While they clearly indicate that certain behaviors are sin to God, they do not indicate that we as Christians should take it upon ourselves to punish those who sin in those manners. In case you didn't realize it, in the US and UK we do not live in a theocracy. The NT tells us we as Christians should obey the laws of the land or expect to suffer the consequences of the law of the land. The laws of our land do not allow those things (that is why I think it is wrong for a Christian to kill an abortion doctor) so the fact that I do not think it appropriate to go around killing those who sin in those manners is not inconsistent with the Bible and Christianity. I do think those behaviors are sin to God but the good new is that God provided a way out of such sin through trusing in Jesus (just in case you hadn't heard before ).
(November 6, 2009 at 1:08 am)chatpilot Wrote: I love the way you ignore my example of how god hardened Pharaohs heart to the point where he could not convert. Just so god can prove his power and glory to his "chosen".
rjh4 typical apologetic bullshit response. Since he is the maker (potter) he can do whatever he wants with the vessel (clay) to prove his power and glory. No wonder you Christians are mentally ill! You justify everything god does good or bad by debasing yourselves and submitting your intellect
to ancient texts written by ignorant and superstitious fools.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
November 6, 2009 at 1:10 pm (This post was last modified: November 6, 2009 at 1:12 pm by Violet.)
rjh4 Wrote:I think that humans have the ability to distinguish between things that are formed naturally and things that are made by intelligent beings. While I realize that there may be examples where one could conclude incorrectly, I think my previous sentence is generally applicable. For example, say I am walking through a freshly plowed field and find a flat rock that has a point and then flairs out from the point evenly to two other points. I take this rock to the geology department of my local university to see what the scientists would have to say about this neat looking rock. Does the geologist say: "I will have to come up with a naturalistic model for how this specially shaped rock formed, test this model, and I will get back to you." No, the geologist says: "It is an arrowhead the type used by the indians." If I find a bowl shaped rock or object the story would be the same. If we found a mechanical contraption that we had never seen before we would not conclude that it came about by some naturalistic process, we would quickly (and I think correctly) conclude that something intelligent produced it and left it there. At this point you may be thinking that it is easy for us to recognize these things because humans made them. That may be true. But scientists also think they can recognize signs of intelligent life even when humans are not the source. See "Listening for Alien". If some flying tranport machine not made by humans were to land on the earth, would scientists quickly try to come up with a naturalistic model for how such a thing were formed? I don't think so. Well I think the universe is pretty complex and the simplest life form is a lot more complex that anything made by man, as evidenced by the fact that man still has not been able to reproduce life from simple starting materials. So extrapolating from how humans view simple things like arrowheads and bowls and more complex things like machines and signals to something as complex as the universe and life, I think that just as we conclude the presence of the former things is evidence that something intelligent made them, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the existence of the universe and life is evidence that something superintelligent (God) made them. Were it not for Romans 1:19-22 I would really find it "mysterious" that anyone would even begin to look for a naturalistic explanation for the more complex when they wouldn't for the less complex.
For these reasons, I think the existence of the universe and life is evidence for the existence of God.
November 6, 2009 at 1:46 pm (This post was last modified: November 6, 2009 at 1:48 pm by rjh4 is back.)
(November 6, 2009 at 1:03 pm)chatpilot Wrote: rjh4 typical apologetic bullshit response. Since he is the maker (potter) he can do whatever he wants with the vessel (clay) to prove his power and glory. No wonder you Christians are mentally ill! You justify everything god does good or bad by debasing yourselves and submitting your intellect
to ancient texts written by ignorant and superstitious fools.
So, Chatpilot, why don't you explain to me what your presuppositions are? What constitutes the filter you run all information through? Also, please explain why you think those presuppositions work so well and explain things so much better.
(November 6, 2009 at 1:10 pm)Saerules Wrote: The watchmaker argument is just silly, really
And why is that? You have not really explained anything.
rjh4 Wrote:First, it is not my job to convince you God exists.
Mark 16:15 He said to them, "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel to the whole creation, Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. I think it is pretty clear from this that you should spread the word of God. You would be disobeying God if you didn't...
Quote: Second, I seriously doubt there is anything that would qualify as evidence for you for a miracle.
OR better way of putting it: It would be a miracle if you can actually provide us with evidence I'm open to listen to your so-called "evidence" but so far you've only mentioned that you believe in God only because you were in awe of the complexity of nature. That is not evidence, so you are going to have to do better than that to try and convince us.
Quote: But the reason may not be that there is no evidence. The reason may be that your presuppositions do not allow for miracles so you would not recognize the evidence as such even if you saw it.
You havn't stated any yet so how would you know what my presuppositions are? I like to believe that I'm open and fair to reasonable suggestions and evidence...
Quote: Even if true, that merely means that I listen to different words of men than you.
That is to say that the "word of men" you decided to believe is not a forgery in the first place.
Quote: For even you in your reliance on the scientific method for all answers must rely upon the word of those scientists and hope that their conclusions are not jaded by their own presuppositions.
No, I do not rely on the word of scientists but rather the evidence that they give.
Quote: I do think those behaviors are sin to God but the good new is that God provided a way out of such sin through trusing in Jesus (just in case you hadn't heard before ).
November 6, 2009 at 1:51 pm (This post was last modified: November 6, 2009 at 1:53 pm by Violet.)
rjh4 Wrote:So, Chatpilot, why don't you explain to me what your presuppositions are? What constitutes the filter you run all information through? Also, please explain why you think those presuppositions work so well and explain things so much better.
Chatpilot's filter appears to be skepticism... why should he believe you? He has no reason to, so far as I am aware... nor do most of us here.
chatty Wrote:Since he is the maker (potter) he can do whatever he wants with the vessel (clay) to prove his power and glory.
Do you disagree with this statement here, rjh4? If so: why?
rjh4 Wrote:And why is that? You have not really explained anything.
Click on my linky Not only is it evidence against your watchmaker statements (it is complex, so it must have had a designer)... but it is a humorous read
Quote:(it is complex, so it must have had a designer)
You know, Saerules, the fact is some people are so intellectually limited that evolution IS beyond them. Those people they have my permission to keep believing in fairy tales.
Just let them keep their bullshit in their churches and homes (and out of our classrooms) and we'll get along fine.
)
).
I'm open to listen to your so-called "evidence" but so far you've only mentioned that you believe in God only because you were in awe of the complexity of nature. That is not evidence, so you are going to have to do better than that to try and convince us.
