Christ's birthday

[rjh4 is back]

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...

I do not see how this passage in Mark says it is my job to "convince" you that God exists.

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...

So enlighten me, Craveman. What are your presuppositions that allow you to be open and fair to any claims to miracles or God?

Rjh4 is PREACHING on the forum!!!

I call it answering your questions.

[Violet]

If you were to do everything the bible 'told?' you to do... you would live one hell of a messed up life

So enlighten me, Craveman. What are your presuppositions that allow you to be open and fair to any claims to miracles or God?

He already stated that:

I like to believe that I'm open and fair to reasonable suggestions and evidence...

Find us a miracle that is reasonable, or that has evidence?

[rjh4 is back]

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.

Maybe, but I'm not sure skepticism really would qualify as a presupposition. In any event, I think only Chatpilot is qualified to tell me what his presuppositions are.

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?

I think I already answered this by pointing to Romans 9:19-24.

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

I read it. So...something that appears to be a flying mechanical machine falls to earth. How do we determine whether or not it is designed or just existed in nature? Since we have not seen something like it how does one make the determination? Likewise for those scientists who are looking for signals from aliens, how can they really distinguish between the signals of nature and ones from intelligent life? Obviously they think they can without having actually received any such signals. How would they convince you?

---

If you were to do everything the bible 'told?' you to do... you would live one hell of a messed up life

Please explain further as I do not follow you.

So enlighten me, Craveman. What are your presuppositions that allow you to be open and fair to any claims to miracles or God?

He already stated that:

I like to believe that I'm open and fair to reasonable suggestions and evidence...

Find us a miracle that is reasonable, or that has evidence?

Do you always answer for everyone here? Why do you not let Craveman answer for himself?

[Violet]

I read it. So...something that appears to be a flying mechanical machine falls to earth. How do we determine whether or not it is designed or just existed in nature? Since we have not seen something like it how does one make the determination? Likewise for those scientists who are looking for signals from aliens, how can they really distinguish between the signals of nature and ones from intelligent life? Obviously they think they can without having actually received any such signals. How would they convince you?

??????????????????????????

... ................................... ?!

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I think I just got thoroughly confused... Could you re-clarify that? I am interpreting that in several ways... are you being nihilistic or absurdistic in this instance? Are you going to follow this up by the purpose of existentialism? Are you talking about something completely unrelated to the watchmaker argument?

9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?
9:22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction:
9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
9:24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

Ah, so you do agree then...?

Chatpilot may be more qualified to say what was obvious... but does that mean I can't say it myself?

[rjh4 is back]

I think I just got thoroughly confused... Could you re-clarify that? I am interpreting that in several ways... are you being nihilistic or absurdistic in this instance? Are you going to follow this up by the purpose of existentialism? Are you talking about something completely unrelated to the watchmaker argument?

The cartoon of yours concluded that the rock shape was designed because:

"Very simply, it is because rocks with that shape, and that arrangement do not occur naturally, and we have no natural mechanism for their arrangement other than chance."

Such an argument would not work for something like signals from aliens or alien flying machines because maybe they do just occur in nature and we don't know it yet.

[Violet]

The cartoon of yours concluded that the rock shape was designed because:

I do not take any credit whatsoever for that level of genius work ^_^

Very simply, it is because rocks with that shape, and that arrangement do not occur naturally, and we have no natural mechanism for their arrangement other than chance."

Such an argument would not work for something like signals from aliens or alien flying machines because maybe they do just occur in nature and we don't know it yet.

Ahhh! I thought that was the point you were addressing: how do we define 'natural', 'designed', 'complex', or anything else that matters in this instance?

I actually agree with the bold. I linked the comic as a presentation of why the watchmaker argument was a fallacy (It presumes that because A is 'true'... B must also be 'true'). 'Who put those rocks there?' is pretty funny imo ^_^ (even if it was a faulty question)... so i see no reason to dwell on it
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Edit: (Just noticed the end of post # 173)

Do you always answer for everyone here? Why do you not let Craveman answer for himself?

I answer for others only when I am quite sure my answer will be similar to theirs. Also, Craveman can easily answer for himself: there is nothing in the way of that. Why wait for an answer from person A, when person B understood exactly what A was saying... and can answer instead?

Please explain further as I do not follow you.

In example... follow every law in leviticus You would lead one 'messed up' life

[chatpilot]

rjh4 my filters and presuppositions stem from reason and logical thinking. First I have been where you are now. I have been a practicing Christian to the extreme even. Secondly I find it amusing that you are trying to present evidence for your god using the argument from design which has been thoroughly refuted years ago by many others more qualified than myself.

I do not like that argument because quite frankly you can't compare a freaking watch to the vastness and complexity of our universe. That is like comparing a rubiks cube to an ape one is man made and the other is biological two different things altogether. Also, you talk about design and order in the universe but if you look close enough there is also lots of chaos in the universe as well, and some things are not so neatly placed in your god did it basket.

[Edwardo Piet]

chatpilot: I believe I have already explained in a past post to you that you can't believe that murder is wrong and at the same time think there is no God. You cant say God is evil by your standards since you cant believe in any real morality.

Nonsense... yes you can - here I go:

"God is evil by my standards"...

There are things I think are immoral, and there are things I think are moral. I judge with my own empathy (who's elses am I supposed to judge with?!)... and I don't think that the God described in the Bible is moral. Of course I can think that, and I do.

...

There is evidence that I exist. And from my perspective the evidence is completely self-evident... God on the other hand......

Even if I were to believe in God and try and follow his morals in the Bible, I'd still be doing it through my own subjective moral filter... how could I and would I, not?

Atheists have proven on here that their morality is socioculturally influenced[...]

Sociocultural influenced is not the same as "not any real morality" as Solarwave incorrectly describes it. Morals are morals. Even if morality was objective, it would still be filtered through our own subjectivity. How could it or would it, not?

[...]
For these reasons, I think the existence of the universe and life is evidence for the existence of God.

So basically you are just giving the argument from design?

Well aside from the fact evolution completely refutes that, since you won't accept evolution - I'll give you another argument:

If the universe is complex, as you say, and the simplest life is even more complex, as you say... then how does God make it any less complex? If God is to be there from the beginning... then doesn't that just complicate things further? How does postulating God - something else to explain -...help?

If life and the universe requires an explanation... why doesn't God? If God can be there from the beginning.. why can't they? Or rather, why can't whatever started off the big bang be there form the beginning... without the extra addition of a superintelligent deity, "God", to create it all from the outset?

Why the special pleading for God? If you are simply to define it so you can say "God's whole purpose is to be there from the beginning... he doesn't need an explanation..." why can't you do the same for say, a big bang singularity, or the laws of physics, etc? Why postulate God [i]in addition[/i?] - you are only adding an even more complex thing to explain! it complicates things further, does it not? Special pleading alert on your part, I say.

Saerules, EVF, and Craveman I commend you all for having the patience of Job with our xtian friends.[...]

Thank you very much CP.

EvF

[chatpilot]

solarwave, you seem to be digging your god into a deeper hole with every post. Like I said to you so many times I don't need god to tell me what is moral or not. As EVF just stated I judge him by my own filters. My point is that just because according to you god created us, does not give him the right to do what he wants with us and play with peoples lives. Your statement puts god in the position of a chess player and we are nothing more than his pawns to do as he wills (sounds like dictatorship to me).

I judge your god by my own standards because that is what I know, if I read anywhere else about someone that was killing people because he did not agree with their ideologies I would think that person was a monster or a fiend. Hitler hated the Jews and exterminated about 6 million of them simply because he thought he was doing gods will. What is the difference between what Hitler did and what god did? You may say one was delusional and the other was the creator of all things but in my mind the simple act of murdering millions or in gods case billions of people for petty crimes puts him on the same playing field of Hitler, delusional.

[Craveman]

I do not see how this passage in Mark says it is my job to "convince" you that God exists.

That quote does state that you, as a Christian, should spread the word of God. How are you otherwise going to convince any non-believers to follow your God? Surely you have to try and convince them there is a God for them to follow. Or am I interpreting this Biblical verse wrong yet again?

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...

So enlighten me, Craveman. What are your presuppositions that allow you to be open and fair to any claims to miracles or God?

Saerules already answered that question on my behalf (thanks Sae!!) It was obvious what I meant in my previous quote so anyone could have answered that on my behalf.