jaybird18c
-
Content
1,598 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Everything posted by jaybird18c
-
"It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all." (1 Timothy 1:15) Added: Can one still be considered a Christian when they take away the essentials of what it means to be a Christian?
-
Really? Yes, really. But how about this - it is bollocks. You wouldn't last very long if your long chain molecules weren't being replenished. Duplication can't account for the kind of change you're looking for as a NDT Evolutionist. If you copy a report on your printer, all you've got is more of what you had. More information...but not new information.
-
Really? You posit a "what if" and criticize mine in response? Silly...
-
Oh hey, here's a thought... what if that's bollocks? Here's another one. What if it's not?
-
Not the same thing Billvon. A beach full of sand is information rich but specifies nothing. Snowflakes
-
So is your infinite regression argument.
-
As do you.
-
But it does establish the fact (which supposed atheists seem to withdraw from) that their beliefs are based on a presupposition just like the man of faith in God. (which influences their thinking going forward.)
-
I know you don't believe in God. However, in order to be agnostic, you must be at least open to the possibility. As you said, the definition of atheist is one who denies the existence of God. That is a declaritive statement. You're not saying that God might or even probably doesn't exist. You're saying that God does not exist.
-
Hold to your atheistic position dude. If God didn't create, then it just started itself for no reason. If you don't want to use the term atheist with regard to this, how about naturalist? I don't care. The question is still the same. Design implies a designer, does it not? “A code system is always the result of a mental process (it requires an intelligent origin or inventor) ... . It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required. There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this." - Dr. Werner Gitt
-
"Everything that has come into existence was brought into existence by something else." "By definition, the Christian God never came into existence; that is, He is the Uncaused Cause." Psalm 90:2 If Everything Needs a Creator, then Who or What Created God? - by Matt Slick So, are you really agnostic Shotgun?
-
You would like to oversimplify the issue and, in doing so, ridicule and dismiss the opposing viewpoints. It’s not that simple. Religion aside, I’m talking about what created/started the universe. It is your presupposition, is it not (as an atheist), that everything came from nothing on its own, blew up, and organized itself through random process, and sustains itself? I’m just trying to establish that starting point which is in fact an atheist/naturalistic standpoint? It is also a faith position because you can’t prove it. Is it also not true that one’s presuppositions influence their worldview (e.g. we study to understand God’s creation and bring glory to Him versus study simply for the sake of accumulation of knowledge). Otherwise, if you're just going to sit on the fence and hurl insults, aren't you really an agnostic and, by definition, at least open to the idea of a supernatural origin?
-
So what exactly is your position winsor other than to criticize the positions of others?
-
I didn't know so I looked it up. Magick Apparently, it's an early modern english spelling of the word.
-
If you claim atheism, then you do in fact claim knowledge. An atheist, in the true sense of the word, declares with certainty that there is no God. Agnosticism, on the other hand, makes no decision either way. It is reserved and declares that there is not enough evidence to make a decision. In addition, by saying that you claim no knowledge, you are denying your presupposition. In order to hold the atheistic or naturalistic position, you must presuppose that all matter, energy, and the laws of physics came from nothing, blew up, and, on its own, became organized and progressed into what we see and experience today. Since no one can prove that scientifically, you must begin with that presupposition which is a faith position. That presupposition will then influence your future interpretations. It will influence and inform your worldview.
-
Neither of which is its real purpose.
-
God...mostly due to the Great Deluge. Coconino Sandstone
-
As opposed to what exactly beowulf? You're either going to read a text and attempt to derive what the author intended to convey or you're going to impress on the text what you want it to say. You may not agree with what something says but that does not give you the right to distort what the author intended to say.
-
We're talking about God...and origins. Someone had to build your house. Someone had to cut the wood. The wood then had to grow. Taken back far enough, the matter for the wood had to come from somewhere (like all other matter). It had to be organized at the molecular level...and so on. I know who organized it. I know because design implies a designer. I also know because of the revelation of scripture...and the inner witness of the Holy Spirit informing my conscience. I don't claim all knowledge...but God does. So why aren't you an agnostic and not an atheist? Do you claim all knowledge?
-
So...are you now claiming agnosticism instead of atheism?
-
I'm just describing the grammatical-historical method of interpretation which is how even the Early Church Fathers interpreted Scripture. Somewhat different than the way you'd treat the Odyssey, I think (as you and most others would describe it; including me). There's also a whole lot more support for the biblical account making its comparison with the Odyssey kind of ridiculous.
-
No dude. You just treat it like you would honestly treat any other literary work. You treat something written as history...literally as a historical account...a poem literally as poetry...a metaphor literally as a descriptive device...etc.
-
For one to be an atheist, in the true sense of the term, he would have to claim to possess all knowledge (which is impossible). To definitively deny the possibility of God would mean that it could be proven. I admit that the contrary can't be proven airtight. But neither can you prove that God doesn't exist. Of course, I know you could then say the same could be said of the flying spaghetti monster. I would then say I am agnostic with regard to the FSM. Can you say the same with regard to God? I say you can't truly be an atheist. Then you might say that the proof is incumbent upon me because I declare that there is a God. But you make a declarative statement yourself in saying that there definitely is not. That also puts a burden of proof on you. Again unless you are going to claim agnosticism instead of atheism.
-
You neither understand nor were there. Ever. Now how could you possibly know that? I'm sorry. I didn't mean to infringe on your atheism.
-
Because I like to at least be understood even if not agreed with?
