- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,21:44) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,00:27) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,20:18) Logic demands a creator.
Logic says that created things were made by a creator.Stuart
Logic says that all things were created, came from nothing, or have always existed in some form.
Empirical evidence says that the variety of living organisms that exist, including us, arose by natural selection.That isn't creation, it isn't something arising from nothing, and it isn't an example of something that “always” existed (where always can't be any longer than 13.7 billion years).
Stuart
Wrong.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
It is the evidence of things not seen.
Not the lack of evidence.Faith is actually confidence and trust.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,00:49) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,21:44) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,00:27) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,20:18) Logic demands a creator.
Logic says that created things were made by a creator.Stuart
Logic says that all things were created, came from nothing, or have always existed in some form.
Empirical evidence says that the variety of living organisms that exist, including us, arose by natural selection.That isn't creation, it isn't something arising from nothing, and it isn't an example of something that “always” existed (where always can't be any longer than 13.7 billion years).
Stuart
Stu you lack understanding. FAIL.Do you think that believers believe that when God created the first humans, that he also directly created their children including us?
The term son of God is a reference to a person being created directly from God and not procreated. e.g., Adam and Jesus are called the son of God. So are angels.
The rest are a procreated which means begotten and conceived offspring; reproduced.
At least I understand Evolution Stu. How about you return the favour and understand what you are debating.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,00:49) That isn't creation, it isn't something arising from nothing, and it isn't an example of something that “always” existed (where always can't be any longer than 13.7 billion years).
Interesting comment.Not created.
Not from nothing.
Not something that always existed.Please enlighten us.
If you actually have another option, then I can add it to my writing here:
https://heavennet.net/writings/fatheism/Please answer. I have waited for this day for years now. Can't believe I am on the cusp of learning a new option. Exciting times.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 26 2012,00:27) Quote (TimothyVI @ Oct. 26 2012,00:15) Yes it is. Even if they do not believe in a creator God, they do believe in various gods and angels. And they have faith that these things exist.
And scientists believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.So not a religion.
Makes perfect sense TimothyVI.
Further, many scientists and mathematicians believe in higher dimensions. So when you believe in beings that occupy these higher dimensions its a religion, and when you believe in 3 dimensional beings from a different world, it is not a religion.Okay got it now I think. Um, actually please explain.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,21:53) Wrong. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
It is the evidence of things not seen.
Not the lack of evidence.Faith is actually confidence and trust.
As long as you are happy to accept that the word “seen” stands in for all the senses, and I think you should accept that, then the statement “the evidence of the unseen” is an oxymoron. That is unless you have some other special christian definition of evidence.I associate faith with this oxymoronic statement that means no empirical evidence, and the things I do on trust are things supported by evidence of the “seen”.
Otherwise there is nothing special about “faith”, really, is there. You could call faith the same thing as scientific conclusions, and if you are going to respect empirical evidence in an objective manner, there is no evidence whatever for the christian conspiracy theory of Imaginary Beings running the universe.
I'd take some care here t8. You are threatening your own belief system with logic. It might turn out that your logic demands there is no creator.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,22:00) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,00:49) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,21:44) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,00:27) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,20:18) Logic demands a creator.
Logic says that created things were made by a creator.Stuart
Logic says that all things were created, came from nothing, or have always existed in some form.
Empirical evidence says that the variety of living organisms that exist, including us, arose by natural selection.That isn't creation, it isn't something arising from nothing, and it isn't an example of something that “always” existed (where always can't be any longer than 13.7 billion years).
Stuart
Stu you lack understanding. FAIL.Do you think that believers believe that when God created the first humans, that he also directly created their children including us?
The term son of God is a reference to a person being created directly from God and not procreated. e.g., Adam and Jesus are called the son of God. So are angels.
The rest are a procreated which means begotten and conceived offspring; reproduced.
At least I understand Evolution Stu. How about you return the favour and understand what you are debating.
You seem to be agreeing with me, and contradicting your previous claim there, t8.How does a subsequent generation in the way you are describing it conform to your claim “Logic says that all things were created, came from nothing, or have always existed in some form.“?
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,22:07) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,00:49) That isn't creation, it isn't something arising from nothing, and it isn't an example of something that “always” existed (where always can't be any longer than 13.7 billion years).
Interesting comment.Not created.
Not from nothing.
Not something that always existed.Please enlighten us.
If you actually have another option, then I can add it to my writing here:
https://heavennet.net/writings/fatheism/Please answer. I have waited for this day for years now. Can't believe I am on the cusp of learning a new option. Exciting times.
The variety of life and its appearance on earth doesn't conform to any of your three options, as I explained.Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,22:11) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 26 2012,00:27) Quote (TimothyVI @ Oct. 26 2012,00:15) Yes it is. Even if they do not believe in a creator God, they do believe in various gods and angels. And they have faith that these things exist.
And scientists believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.So not a religion.
Makes perfect sense TimothyVI.
Further, many scientists and mathematicians believe in higher dimensions. So when you believe in beings that occupy these higher dimensions its a religion, and when you believe in 3 dimensional beings from a different world, it is not a religion.Okay got it now I think. Um, actually please explain.
You seem not to have grasped the dictionary definition of the term “religion”.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,01:13) “the evidence of the unseen” is an oxymoron.
Coblers. Black Holes were never witnessed and were figured out from Mathematics and Physics that allowed for such a possibility and possibly even demanded it.Then one was witnessed after the fact.
Scientists had faith that they had existed up until the point that it was witnessed.
And there is a lot more compelling reason and logic that there must be an eternal creator than there was for a black hole.
Your comment shows ignorance.
Detectives work out murders from the smallest of clues in the absence of the murder being seen.
You shot yourself in the foot here Stu.
It only exists if Stu sees it. And here is the ironic thing. What you see is merely electrical impulses to the brain that makes a mental image or representation of the light that is being received.
Thanks Stu for the admission of ignorance.
Quote (SimplyForgiven @ Oct. 25 2012,16:59) Colter, (Where are you quoting from?)
Consider,
A Father who disciplines his child is good, though his child may see the discipline as evil.
Hebrews 12:5-9
5 And ye have forgotten the exhortation which speaketh unto you as unto children, My son, despise not thou the chastening of the Lord, nor faint when thou art rebuked of him:
6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?Fact is that he did send a lying spirit, but not to his child. He sent it to someone who he wanted to destroy yetttt was warned by Micaiah about what was really going on.
1 Kings 22Some how you assume that God sent a lying spirit to his child?
I do agree that many people blame the devil for a things that really concern thier own carnal minds and desires.
To you Job is a parable, there isn't any warrents that say otherwise. If you believe Job to be a parable, than might as well believe that the Devil is the personafication of evil.
Quote The life of Jesus, the Son of God, should be proof enough that God is good and trustworthy while Satan was evil.
Not that I disagree, but you just contradicted yourself. You first talk about how the bible “evolves” and retrospective, and than you talk about how the life of Jesus as something as proof.
If YOU believe your reference is evolving, and restrospective, than the life of Jesus woudn't be “proof” enough, because its a evolving story and restropective.In your past post you talked about “cherry picking” and it seems that you simply cherry picked about what you feel like believing and disregarded everything else as a parable.
Correcting evil, isn't evil, its actually good. Evil see's correction as evil, but the wise one see's it as nessary.
Dennison
SimplyForgiven,The loving Mature Father does correct and chastise, but that does not come close to justifying a philosophy that had the Father creating an evil counterpart to work against his will or send out liars, or regret that he ever created man etc. That's God created in mans own image.
There were more books in the Bible collection that were considered to be “inspired” in the first 300 years of the Christian movement but the church un-inspired them.
The books “about” Jesus were all that we had, the grave, contaminating mistake that corrupted the gospel against Jesus' warnings, came when the “new wine” was put into the old wine skins. The redacted, edited, historically inaccurate Old Testament books, written by the elite Hebrew priest class in Babylon have contaminated the gospel of Jesus only to be further complicated by the Pagan concepts of human sacrifice.
I look at the Bible much like a flea market, I have to take what's true and leave the rest.
Colter
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,01:16) You seem to be agreeing with me, and contradicting your previous claim there, t8. How does a subsequent generation in the way you are describing it conform to your claim “Logic says that all things were created, came from nothing, or have always existed in some form.”?
Stuart
You really do not understand do you.It all came from God because he is the originator of all things. He is the great law giver.
God sets things and processes in motion. Look at the water cycle. It is governed by laws. The Earth goes round the sun because of laws. It is not this I have a problem with, it is the fact that some people think that laws came out of a hat.
If I created chat service on the web and gave participants the ability to change their avatars and to created new chat rooms in my program, and to chat with whoever, then I am still the creator of the chat service.
If I build a house and someone else places the furniture and decorates the place, then I am still the builder of the house.
God is smart. He doesn't create things that need 100% management. He even reuses code when creating species.
I hope you get it now because your old view was way off the mark.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,22:20) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,01:13) “the evidence of the unseen” is an oxymoron.
Coblers. Black Holes were never witnessed and were figured out from Mathematics and Physics that allowed for such a possibility and possibly even demanded it.Then one was witnessed after the fact.
Scientists had faith that they had existed up until the point that it was witnessed.
And there is a lot more compelling reason and logic that there must be an eternal creator than there was for a black hole.
Your comment shows ignorance.
Detectives work out murders from the smallest of clues in the absence of the murder being seen.
You shot yourself in the foot here Stu.
It only exists if Stu sees it. And here is the ironic thing. What you see is merely electrical impulses to the brain that makes a mental image or representation of the light that is being received.
Thanks Stu for the admission of ignorance.
Briefly:Black holes were a prediction based on models that were in turn based on evidence. What is the status of that hypothesis prior to its confirmation? A faith claim? A claim based on the 'evidence of the unseen'? It is exactly the opposite, it is entirely based on the 'seen'.
There is no unambiguous evidence for your creator claim, or anyone's.
What detectives do is recreate the details of a past event using evidence. Are you suggesting they cannot see the evidence?
Why do you post here? What have you added that you can support with all this reason you keep claiming?
What, actually, is the logic that supports a creator? All you have ever given us is false analogy and personal incredulity. Both of those are logical fallacies.
Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,22:32) He even reuses code when creating species.
I'm very glad you brought this one up again. Maybe this time you won't run away from the question.Do you agree that you would expect the same job to be done in a similar way in the biological world because “code is reused”?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,01:32) Black holes were a prediction based on models that were in turn based on evidence.
Exactly what I have said all along. Are you paying attention?We can work things out based on evidence and logic.
You don't have to see it.
You are the one who said “evidence of the unseen” was an oxymoron. And you have made similar comments in the past, so not a slip of the keyboard.
Now you are arguing against yourself.
I will leave both Stus to it.
Let me know which Stu wins.
Stu 1 says evidence of things unseen is an oxymoron
Stu 2 says that you can have evidence of things not seen.Getting very late but will return to see which Stu won.
Could you head each post with either Stu 1 or Stu 2, so I can follow the debate.
Thanks.
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 26 2012,01:37) Do you agree that you would expect the same job to be done in a similar way in the biological world because “code is reused”?
No. I could use a mechanical engine to run a car or as an electrical generator. Same tech, different application.Please focus on my last post. There is a challenge for both Stus.
Thanks.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,21:53) Wrong. Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
It is the evidence of things not seen.
Not the lack of evidence.Faith is actually confidence and trust.
Yes T8, Stuart doesn't know what faith is.Faith is: The substance of the things hoped for
combined with evidence of the things not yet seen.The A,B,C's of faith are:
A) Action, based
B) upon Belief,
C) sustained by ConfidenceFaith is more than just belief, faith is action
based upon that belief sustained by confidence.God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgBy faith the new Testament was written.
By faith Abraham offered up Issac.
By faith “The Passover” was kept.
By faith the walls of Jerico fell.
By faith Noah built “The Ark”.And the list goes on…
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 25 2012,22:19) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,22:11) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 26 2012,00:27) Quote (TimothyVI @ Oct. 26 2012,00:15) Yes it is. Even if they do not believe in a creator God, they do believe in various gods and angels. And they have faith that these things exist.
And scientists believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.So not a religion.
Makes perfect sense TimothyVI.
Further, many scientists and mathematicians believe in higher dimensions. So when you believe in beings that occupy these higher dimensions its a religion, and when you believe in 3 dimensional beings from a different world, it is not a religion.Okay got it now I think. Um, actually please explain.
You seem not to have grasped the dictionary definition of the term “religion”.Stuart
I think that is the crux of the problem.
TimQuote (Stu @ Oct. 25 2012,22:19) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 25 2012,22:11) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 26 2012,00:27) Quote (TimothyVI @ Oct. 26 2012,00:15) Yes it is. Even if they do not believe in a creator God, they do believe in various gods and angels. And they have faith that these things exist.
And scientists believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe.So not a religion.
Makes perfect sense TimothyVI.
Further, many scientists and mathematicians believe in higher dimensions. So when you believe in beings that occupy these higher dimensions its a religion, and when you believe in 3 dimensional beings from a different world, it is not a religion.Okay got it now I think. Um, actually please explain.
You seem not to have grasped the dictionary definition of the term “religion”.Stuart
I think that is the crux of the problem.
Tim
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
