Ironically I'm the only one who's proved either of our points. Come over to the Unicorns Steve!
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!
Current time: December 22, 2024, 11:35 pm
Thread Rating:
Does a God exist?
|
(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote:(July 5, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You initially claimed that your belief in the NT miracles was different from that of other miracle stories. You seem to be treading water here. How are you different in your belief in the miracles of Jesus than other believers in the incredible? This part of the conversation also reminded me of a quote by CS Lewis Quote:When I was an atheist I had to try to persuade myself that most of the human race have always been As a Christian, I don't have to deny every miracle claim, nor do I feel the need to. I also don't feel the need to put aside my skepticism for every miracle claim made by Christians. There are those that I doubt, and those that I place in tension.
No, of course you don't have to deny every miracle claim. The question on the table is can you substantiate one?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote:(July 5, 2016 at 9:44 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: You initially claimed that your belief in the NT miracles was different from that of other miracle stories. You seem to be treading water here. How are you different in your belief in the miracles of Jesus than other believers in the incredible? Quote:Five good reasons to believe in UFOs You have a bunch of circumstantial evidence. So do they. Both cases are weak. I've yet to see a difference. (July 6, 2016 at 12:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 1) Content of the NT is internally consistent within itself and with the OT. Thanks! I found you have to stay focused on one subject at time--sometimes ignoring parts of a reply to stay on track. It might migrate to another, but only after I am done addressing weak points in the argument or sense that my defense of xyz is not being understood. I try to respond to either 1) those that are interested in a civil discussion or 2) post that are not so much civil or thoughtful but whose contents will help me make my next point. There are some posts that I simply can't get to or cover topics already discussed in detail a few pages before. As to staying composed, I block people who either 1) clearly just intend to be hardcore blasphemous, or 2) the kind of person who only posts one-liners that do not contain anything of interest to me. (July 6, 2016 at 12:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(July 6, 2016 at 8:43 am)SteveII Wrote: 1) Content of the NT is internally consistent within itself and with the OT. Lol, RR, and the argument would be chock-full of logical fallacies if you were to do that. And the sad thing is you KNOW that because it's been explained to you over and over. But, by all means. ::
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken. (July 6, 2016 at 12:42 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(July 6, 2016 at 12:00 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: By now, I would have went POE, and started using their same arguments against evolution. It's not as productive, but I like watching them back pedal and use circular reasoning. How can the same arguments be chock-full of fallacies in one instance, and legitimate in the next? But that is the point.... thanks. (July 6, 2016 at 12:45 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(July 6, 2016 at 12:42 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, RR, and the argument would be chock-full of logical fallacies if you were to do that. And the sad thing is you KNOW that because it's been explained to you over and over. But, by all means. :: Um...Because religion and evolution are fundamentally different things, so you can't apply the same blanket arguments to both and expect the same effectiveness? Come on, RR. You've been around here for far too long to play this stupid.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
hahahahahahahahahaha God exists because of humanity we created god
(July 6, 2016 at 12:48 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:(July 6, 2016 at 12:45 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: How can the same arguments be chock-full of fallacies in one instance, and legitimate in the next? But that is the point.... thanks. A lot of them you can.... Unless it is a category mistake which I have never had brought up. Obviously, I can't make the argument from modernity, but that is a fallacy any way, thinking that because it is newer it is better. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)