There can be no doubt that God exists; any alternative is self-refuting.
Feb 22, 2017 14:20:23 #
Feb 22, 2017 16:22:59 #
Feb 22, 2017 16:27:08 #
Apr 25, 2017 15:06:32 #
Apr 25, 2017 15:08:04 #
Dedo wrote:
Circular reasoning. Complete nonsense.
Except that all reasoning (if in involves our most basic beliefs are circular) Being circular isn't an issue as long as the circle is a vicious one.
If you want to impress me, speak specifically about one of his points and we can discuss..otherwise...your comment is close to useless.
Jul 30, 2017 07:50:18 #
the true fact is that no one on either side knows for sure how it all began. both the scientist and believers accounts are full of holes. we don't know so we postulate. I believe in a God, but not as any religious book describes Him. I have no idea if He has a specific "plan" for us, or whether He put us here with what we need to survive, and are left to our own devises.
Jul 30, 2017 08:06:08 #
bull drink water wrote:
the true fact is that no one on either side knows for sure how it all began. both the scientist and believers accounts are full of holes. we don't know so we postulate. I believe in a God, but not as any religious book describes Him. I have no idea if He has a specific "plan" for us, or whether He put us here with what we need to survive, and are left to our own devises.
Untrue.
We have an eyewitness account of the only one who was there; God.
At least read the article and if you have any specific refutation of what he says, then explain it but just throwing out what you think without reasons doesn't hold much weight.
Jul 31, 2017 16:42:51 #
rpavich wrote:
Untrue.
We have an eyewitness account of the only one who was there; God.
At least read the article and if you have any specific refutation of what he says, then explain it but just throwing out what you think without reasons doesn't hold much weight.
We have an eyewitness account of the only one who was there; God.
At least read the article and if you have any specific refutation of what he says, then explain it but just throwing out what you think without reasons doesn't hold much weight.
we can't get him on a witness stand. my 65 yrs of research and using my brain to put two and two together.
Aug 21, 2017 11:11:00 #
bull drink water wrote:
we can't get him on a witness stand. my 65 yrs of research and using my brain to put two and two together.
Oh...so no real refutation.
Ok.
Aug 30, 2017 08:47:23 #
StanRP
Loc: Ontario Canada
rpavich wrote:
INHO Not really. Too many assumptions and similes based on them.
E.G:
The situation is analogous to someone who argues against the existence of air. The critic of air must use air to voice his argument. The fact that he is able to state his position demonstrates that it is wrong.
The assumption is that using his voice is the ONLY means of stating his position.
A person is able to state their position in many ways. e.g. like I am now, writing this reply. and this invalidates his 'proof'.
Aug 30, 2017 09:02:44 #
StanRP wrote:
INHO Not really. Too many assumptions and similes... (show quote)
You must be joking. Really?
Do you GET the essence of the analogy or do you want to nit pick the details?
He's not saying that that's the ONLY way of objecting...sheesh....
Aug 30, 2017 09:26:16 #
StanRP
Loc: Ontario Canada
You did write "At least read the article and if you have any specific refutation of what he says, then explain it " so I did.
With so many 'assumptions' that are provably wrong, the whole paper loses credibility.
The arguments made by the 'Creation Research Society' have similar errors in their debates - plus one that really loses them credibility - tying the existence of God to their arguments for a 'young earth'. I have been told that because I do not accept that the earth is as young as they claim, that I do not believe God and am going to hell.
With so many 'assumptions' that are provably wrong, the whole paper loses credibility.
The arguments made by the 'Creation Research Society' have similar errors in their debates - plus one that really loses them credibility - tying the existence of God to their arguments for a 'young earth'. I have been told that because I do not accept that the earth is as young as they claim, that I do not believe God and am going to hell.
Aug 30, 2017 09:31:31 #
StanRP wrote:
You did write "At least read the article and ... (show quote)
No, you didn't explain anything, you nit picked an analogy he used. Big deal.
Do you have a rebut to his argument that in order to argue against God's existence, you have to use the very senses and reasoning that are only valid if God exists and thus your argument is self refuting.
That's just a summary of his argument, there are a lot of details fleshing it out and by all means...please let me know how you know your senses and reasoning are valid based on your worldview which I assume doesn't include the God of the bible.
PS: I'm glad that folks were bold and loving enough to tell you the truth of where you'll end up unless you repent and believe. That's great. Too many folks are too timid to do that.
Aug 30, 2017 10:57:49 #
StanRP
Loc: Ontario Canada
rpavich wrote:
No, you didn't explain anything, you nit picked an... (show quote)
***********
No, you didn't explain anything, you nit picked an analogy he used. Big deal. Do you have a rebut to his argument that in order to argue against God's existence, you have to use the very senses and reasoning that are only valid if God exists and thus your argument is self refuting.
That's just a summary of his argument, there are a lot of details fleshing it out and by all means...please let me know how you know your senses and reasoning are valid based on your worldview which I assume doesn't include the God of the bible.
PS: I'm glad that folks were bold and loving enough to tell you the truth of where you'll end up unless you repent and believe. That's great. Too many folks are too timid to do that.
************
Now you are making assumptions and coming to a wrong conclusion: When any paper has too many assumptions that can be 'nit-picked' - that paper loses it's credibility.
The fact that this specific paper is not credible does NOT prove that god does not exist. As I think I mentioned, IMHO The Creation Research Society make the same mistake: Tying the existence of God to claims that the universe ~ 5000-6000 years old, when the Bible does not.
Again, IMHO they would be more credible if they spent their time and research into the real wonder of and beauty of all that God created for us. Instead of endless debate over one species evolving into another, it would be better if they 'put that on the shelf' as it were, and went back to the origin of life - the DNA - where even Dawkins has no answer. ( and even if he did, there would be nothing in existence to support it).
The more we learn about our earth and universe, how it interacts an in many ways inter-dependant - the more difficult it becomes to believe that it all came together 'by chance'.
I assure you that the statement " 'your worldview which I assume doesn't include the God of the bible', is also wrong.
A disagreement about the interpretation of some parts does not invalidate a personal knowledge of God.
What DOES validate a personal relationship with God is given in the NT - John 13:34-35. From your last comment - would appear to apply to you.
Aug 31, 2017 04:22:00 #
StanRP wrote:
*********** br br No, you didn't explain anything... (show quote)
You appear to like quoting the bible but don't believe it when it talks about Gods account of creation...too bad you pick and choose, I don't.
Its not a disagreement on interpretation, it's a disagreement on authority. I believe that God is the authority on the account of creation, you believe that something else is; mans fallible ideas about the subject.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.