The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

You hold that no God exists. Be honest, at least.

I don't believe that a god exists simply because that was what I was told. I try, and the word is try, to see from all perspectives. The reason I got involved in this area of boards is that I had questions and I wanted to know from others what their take on it was.

I don't reject the notion that a deity could exist, and that is not what an atheist is. How can anybody possibly know? We can't. What I try to do is look at the evidence and the possibilities based on the evidence. Being an atheist is simply a person who lacks a belief in god. Again, not having a belief does not equate to saying it doesn't exist.

You are an atheist just like me, its just that you are atheist for all other gods expect your own. We agree on 99.999% of gods, its just the final one that we disagree on.

But if you are looking for honesty, how can you honestly accept that god exists with no evidence, yet reject other life being a possibility due to there being no evidence? It simply makes no sense to take such diametrically opposed stands.

hinault

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't believe that a god exists simply because that was what I was told.

You were told that God doesn't exist by who?
Why do you believe what this person told you?

Leroy42 wrote: »

I try, and the word is try, to see from all perspectives. The reason I got involved in this area of boards is that I had questions and I wanted to know from others what their take on it was.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as regards these assertions.

Leroy42 wrote: »

How can anybody possibly know? We can't. .

No.
I don't accept that an honest and sincere person cannot possibly know and be sure that God exists.
Put that aside though.

In terms of Christianity, we have documented evidence of eye witness statements concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, for one.

That testimony, the testimony of people in the present time, the collected writings of men and women throughout history attest to the authenticity of Christianity.

The way that Christians who conform and live their lives sincerely to the teachings of the Bible.

There is evidence aplenty which points toward the truth of Christianity, if you are sincerely prepared to assimilate that evidence

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if you are looking for honesty, how can you honestly accept that god exists with no evidence, yet reject other life being a possibility due to there being no evidence? It simply makes no sense to take such diametrically opposed stands.

There is no trace of any other life, any other form of life, on any object outside of this Earth that you and inhabit this very day.

On this complete and utter absence of any scintilla of evidence, you are prepared to believe that life exists "somewhere" "out there" "in some undesignated spot unknown to Man at present".

You're wasting my time.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

You were told that God doesn't exist by who?
Why do you believe what this person told you?





I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as regards these assertions.




No.
I don't accept that an honest and sincere person cannot possibly know and be sure that God exists.
Put that aside though.

In terms of Christianity, we have documented evidence of eye witness statements concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, for one.

That testimony, the testimony of people in the present time, the collected writings of men and women throughout history attest to the authenticity of Christianity.

The way that Christians who conform and live their lives sincerely to the teachings of the Bible.

There is evidence aplenty which points toward the truth of Christianity, if you are sincerely prepared to assimilate that evidence



There is no trace of any other life, any other form of life, on any object outside of this Earth that you and inhabit this very day.

On this complete and utter absence of any scintilla of evidence, you are prepared to believe that life exists "somewhere" "out there" "in some undesignated spot unknown to Man at present".

You're wasting my time.

You seem to keep missing my question so I will ask again, do you believe that there is life at the very deepest reaches of the earth's oceans?

Leroy42

hinault wrote: »

You were told that God doesn't exist by who?
Why do you believe what this person told you?

You misunderstood. Most people believe in god simply because that what they were told by everyone around them when they were young. Their parents, teachers, auntie, uncles, granny & granda. Everyone they trust told them so. I am not going to continue to believe simply based on that. I require evidence and there is none. It is exactly that I don't just take their word for it.

Neither should you.

hinault wrote: »

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as regards these assertions.

Thats very magnanimous of you. You asked me a question and I answered it, on what grounds have you cause to doubt what I am saying?

hinault wrote: »

No.
I don't accept that an honest and sincere person cannot possibly know and be sure that God exists.
Put that aside though.

An honest and sincere person uses honest and sincerity to answer. If you can provide me with proof then I am willing to review it and chance me mind.

hinault wrote: »

In terms of Christianity, we have documented evidence of eye witness statements concerning the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, for one.

Eye witness statements? First off most of them are far from eye witness. Most of the bible is written many years after he died and in some cased not even by the disciples themselves. And how do you account for the stories of his time alone in the desert, his visit to John the Baptist. These couldn't have been eye witness accounts.

hinault wrote: »

That testimony, the testimony of people in the present time, the collected writings of men and women throughout history attest to the authenticity of Christianity.

Nobody is saying that Christianity is not real, it is whether is is based on reality that is the question. The exact same reasoning can be used for all other religions yet strangely you don't subscribe to them.

hinault wrote: »

The way that Christians who conform and live their lives sincerely to the teachings of the Bible.

The same way orthodox Jews live their lives according to their book, or Buddists, or Muslims. Or Isis I suspect.

hinault wrote: »

There is evidence aplenty which points toward the truth of Christianity, if you are sincerely prepared to assimilate that evidence

yet you can't seem to offer up anything other than some people said and wrote it down so it must be true. The exact same can be said for evolution yet you are totally against that. Again, I don't understand how you can have two completely different way of accepting truth.

hinault wrote: »

There is no trace of any other life, any other form of life, on any object outside of this Earth that you and inhabit this very day.

Similarly their is no trace of God.

hinault wrote: »

On this complete and utter absence of any scintilla of evidence, you are prepared to believe that life exists "somewhere" "out there" "in some undesignated spot unknown to Man at present".

You're wasting my time.

I'll rephrase that for you. On this complete and utter absence of any scintilla of evidence, you are prepared to believe that God exists "somewhere" "out there" "in some undesignated spot unknown to Man at present".

how is that any different from your position.

hinault

You're wasting my time, Leroy.
I won't be replying further to you as you're added to my ignore list.

marienbad

hinault wrote: »

You're wasting my time, Leroy.
I won't be replying further to you as you're added to my ignore list.

when the going gets tough the tough get ignored !:)

Timberrrrrrrr

marienbad wrote: »

when the going gets tough the tough get ignored !:)

Just ask him a direct question and he will also ignore you.

marienbad

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Just ask him a direct question and he will also ignore you.

I think I am on his list from quite some time ago . Makes it one of the most amusing threads on boards . Living in a bubble

uck51js9zml2yt

Having read the last few pages of futility i'm out as well. Atheists decrying the exact same thinking Christians put forward and then using it themselves to justify their argument.
Guys , you'd be better off in A&A:)

Brian?

hinault wrote: »

You're wasting my time, Leroy.
I won't be replying further to you as you're added to my ignore list.

Leroy has engaged honestly and politely on this subject and you place him on your ignore list?

Is it because his questions make you uncomfortable? Surely, anyway me with a faith as strong as yours can take uncomfortable questions, as they are in an unassailable position of strength with God behind them.

Doesn't you God want you to convert the unbeliever and the sinner?

Brian?

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

Having read the last few pages of futility i'm out as well. Atheists decrying the exact same thinking Christians put forward and then using it themselves to justify their argument.
Guys , you'd be better off in A&A:)

And Christians refusing to answer the simplest questions about their beliefs. You're out because you're challenged.

antiskeptic

Leroy42 wrote: »

Most people believe in god simply because that what they were told by everyone around them when they were young. Their parents, teachers, auntie, uncles, granny & granda. Everyone they trust told them so. I am not going to continue to believe simply based on that.

That was my stance too - growing up in a land steeped in cultural Catholic Christianity. It is a perfectly reasonable and sensible stance you take. And one I took.

You said most. Which leaves the rest.

I require evidence and there is none..

One day, the evidence turned up for me. And so my views changed in light of that.I have all the evidence I need: compelling, substantial, multi-stranded. Sufficient for me, but not for you.

And that's where the problems start. If your adhere to naturalistic philosophies (known or unbeknownst to yourself) then your notions of what evidence will be shaped by them. Take empiricism for example - you say there is no trace of God, and I assume by that you mean there is no empirical trace of God

Can you see the problem? Folk here aren't arguing against an objective position, they are arguing their religion (on a par with a philosophy, in that it cannot be proven to be correct) against your philosophy.

Brian?

antiskeptic wrote: »

That was my stance too - growing up in a land steeped in cultural Catholic Christianity. It is a perfectly reasonable and sensible stance you take. And one I took.

You said most. Which leaves the rest.



One day, the evidence turned up for me. And so my views changed in light of that.I have all the evidence I need: compelling, substantial, multi-stranded. Sufficient for me, but not for you.

And that's where the problems start. If your adhere to naturalistic philosophies (known or unbeknownst to yourself) then your notions of what evidence ought to be will be shaped by them. Take empiricism - you say there is no trace of God, and I assume by that you mean there is no empirical trace of God

Can you see the problem? Folk here aren't arguing against an objective position, they are arguing their religion (on a par with a philosophy, in that it cannot be proven to be correct) against your philosophy.

It's not philosophy v philosophy those though. It's philosophy v a lack of any philosophy. That's the mistake believers continually make. They think atheism is a belief system because it fits their own world view. They see atheism as a religion counter to their own, imo, because they are believers.

Advbrd

The usual lalalalalalalalalalalala can't hear you from Hinault. Blinkered.
His nonsense quotation "Ecumenism means Equivocation" speaks volumes even among those of a religious persuasion.

Advbrd

antiskeptic wrote: »

That was my stance too - growing up in a land steeped in cultural Catholic Christianity. It is a perfectly reasonable and sensible stance you take. And one I took.

You said most. Which leaves the rest.



One day, the evidence turned up for me. And so my views changed in light of that.I have all the evidence I need: compelling, substantial, multi-stranded. Sufficient for me, but not for you.

And that's where the problems start. If your adhere to naturalistic philosophies (known or unbeknownst to yourself) then your notions of what evidence ought to be will be shaped by them. Take empiricism - you say there is no trace of God, and I assume by that you mean there is no empirical trace of God

Can you see the problem? Folk here aren't arguing against an objective position, they are arguing their religion (on a par with a philosophy, in that it cannot be proven to be correct) against your philosophy.

Personally, I very much see the problem. Persons who have blind faith in God will retain that and probably cannot understand how those with no belief in God cannot believe. I have never seen or sensed that there is a God and cannot understand how people believe. It just does not make sense. There is no evidence empirical or otherwise. There may be a God, there may not be. Saying there is a God because this planet exists, because we exist, because the moon is a number of times its diameter from the sun or because its written in a book that certain people met God or experienced 'miracles' or were told by others that there is a God just does not cut it for me.

antiskeptic

Advbrd wrote: »

Personally, I very much see the problem. Persons who have blind faith in God will retain that

Whereas I've specifically stated the faith is based on evidence. Such faith isn't blind (although I accept that some believe blindly)

and probably cannot understand how those with no belief in God cannot believe.

I understand perfectly: lack of evidence on which to based the belief.

I have never seen or sensed that there is a God and cannot understand how people believe.

See my first point after which it will..

make sense.

There is no evidence empirical or otherwise.

But there is evidence. See the problems with that in my last point. A problem for you that is, not for me.

There may be a God, there may not be. Saying there is a God because this planet exists, because we exist, because the moon is a number of times its diameter from the sun or because its written in a book that certain people met God or experienced 'miracles' or were told by others that there is a God just does not cut it for me.

I think that's a wise position to take.

uck51js9zml2yt

Brian? wrote: »

And Christians refusing to answer the simplest questions about their beliefs. You're out because you're challenged.

on the contrary. I'm out because the atheists can't see that the arguments they are deriding the Christians over are the exact same ones they are using in reverse.
There is also a time when time is better spent than going around in circles rehashing the same stuff.

Advbrd

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whereas I've specifically stated the faith is based on evidence. Such faith isn't blind (although I accept that some believe blindly)



I understand perfectly: lack of evidence on which to based the belief.



See my first point after which it will..





But there is evidence. See the problems with that in my last point. A problem for you that is, not for me.



I think that's a wise position to take.

I think we are agreeing that there is no point in discussing this due to the difference in points of view.
Re the last point, there is no evidence. Feeling or sensing something is not evidence. And it is not a problem for me, there simply is no evidence.

Brian?

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

on the contrary. I'm out because the atheists can't see that the arguments they are deriding the Christians over are the exact same ones they are using in reverse.
There is also a time when time is better spent than going around in circles rehashing the same stuff.

I haven't derided a single argument made by Christians, I have scoffed at flat denials of evidence for evolution existing in the fossil record. I have repeatedly posted evidence to the contrary and received no answers.

I have been told I don't have to capacity to understand, but I didn't let that hurt my feelings. I'd like to engage in genuine debate, but I can't get any of you to simply reply to an entire post of mine.

marienbad

Astrid Quick Case wrote: »

on the contrary. I'm out because the atheists can't see that the arguments they are deriding the Christians over are the exact same ones they are using in reverse.
There is also a time when time is better spent than going around in circles rehashing the same stuff.

Can you give a specific example ?

hinault

Brian? wrote: »

Leroy has engaged honestly

Nope, but that's over and done with at this point.

Timberrrrrrrr

hinault wrote: »

Nope, but that's over and done with at this point.

Do you believe there is life at the very bottom of our deepest oceans? I know you see these posts because you quoted and replied to me recently so why do you continue to refuse to answer this simple question?

hinault

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whereas I've specifically stated the faith is based on evidence. Such faith isn't blind (although I accept that some believe blindly)



I understand perfectly: lack of evidence on which to based the belief.



See my first point after which it will..





But there is evidence. See the problems with that in my last point. A problem for you that is, not for me.



I think that's a wise position to take.

You're wasting your time because the atheists/anti-theists who frequent this part of the Board (and why they're permitted to post here is a separate problem) regard all faith as being blind.

So even when you present empirical evidence to justify your faith, the atheists/anti-theists refuse to examine the evidence or will cite a lack of evidence from another source as verification that your evidence isn't impartial.

hinault

Actually apologist Frank Turek cites a very interesting point.

He says that the very first question one should ask an atheist/anti-theist is
"if incontrovertible proof and evidence was provided to you, would you still refuse to accept that God is real?"

Many atheists/anti-atheists who claim to follow the evidence, don't.

Brian?

hinault wrote: »

You're wasting your time because the atheists/anti-theists who frequent this part of the Board (and why they're permitted to post here is a separate problem) regard all faith as being blind.

So even when you present empirical evidence to justify your faith, the atheists/anti-theists refuse to examine the evidence or will cite a lack of evidence from another source as verification that your evidence isn't impartial.

I'm willing to admit I missed it, but when did you present empirical evidence for a divine creator?

How old do you believe the earth is.

Timberrrrrrrr

If there is anyone hinault hasn't placed on ignore or if someone could quote this post and ask him if he believes there is life at the very bottom of our deepest oceans or not?

Brian?

hinault wrote: »

Actually apologist Frank Turek cites a very interesting point.

He says that the very first question one should ask an atheist/anti-theist is
"if incontrovertible proof and evidence was provided to you, would you still refuse to accept that God is real?"

Many atheists/anti-atheists who claim to follow the evidence, don't.

I've already answered this question. I would accept the existence of god if there was incontrovertible proof. What does that matter?

Brian?

hinault wrote: »

Nope, but that's over and done with at this point.

It's over and down with because you decided it. You could easily decide to rengage. How was Leroy dishonest? I'd like to know so I don't end up on the ignore list.

marienbad

Brian? wrote: »

It's over and down with because you decided it. You could easily decide to rengage. How was Leroy dishonest? I'd like to know so I don't end up on the ignore list.

I wonder how long his ignore list is ? A fossil record of unrefuted arguments all on its own

Absolam

hinault wrote: »

There has been nothing detected on any of the 40 billion candidates that you insist on citing here. None of those 40 billion candidates are therefore commensurate right now to what you see and sense all around you on Earth. Yet you weigh all that you cannot detect on those other 40 billion candidates right now, to claim that Earth is not unique. You refuse to weigh the evidence.

Does that actually matter? The evidence, such as there is, is that those parts of the universe have the potential to provide the perfect conditions to allow life to exist, to nourish and flourish to the level of sophistication and diversity that we have here on Earth. And that's before we consider other kinds of life.
That Earth is (reasonably) unique is as true as it is for every other planet, and that diversity provides no information to inform the question of whether God is the catalyst for creation; it can be the case with or without a God.