Good afternoon
Abaddon,
I see you?re your usual cranky self this morning! I?m not going to debate endlessly with you what your opinion is verses what my opinion is. The subject of this thread is God does exist. IMO, you have said enough in this thread and in others for me to come to my conclusion that you will always find a way to explain away God, even if he appeared to you. You said as much yourself with your reference to hallucination. The cynic and skeptic in you requires nothing short of a 2 x 4 upside your head, just to get your attention, Afterwards, given time to heal, you would convince yourself it never happened, that it was a figment of your imagination. So, maybe for your sake, God will grant your wish and present you with a ?flaming daffodil?, lol, to get your attention. I can only hope you wouldn?t explain it away as a figment of your imagination. Remember, God might not allow the video recorder, as it requires faith to please him well.
Well, actually you tend to equate people who don't share your beliefs with moral derrangement of some sort, and imply that those who don't share yuour beliefs had better watch out when the end comes, so there is a difference; I don't equate your unsubstansiated beliefs with your individual morality.
I willl concede that I do believe there are things necessary for salvation, yet, it is ultimately up to God to judge each of us as individuals.
I assert there is no proof (of an objective nature) that god exists. This is a pretty widely accepted fact.
And I assert there is proof of an objective nature (Creation and physical laws) that God exists. This is also a pretty widely accepted fact.
It all boils down to this- you take a view based on your ?choice? evidence and conclusions available today. So do I- yet I include the knowledge that nearly all sciences and beliefs have been proven in error, to one degree or another, as time marches on.
What, you mean, like religion? Of course, you include natural philosophy with science, and I don't, and I have never argued that science is without error. All I point out is that it is less liable to error than belief systems which are as provable as something someone makes up.
Belief in Creation, IMO, is more provable based on observable evidence than evolution theory is. However, even if the gaping holes in evolution theory were filed in, it would not negate Creation- it would simply explain a different view of how creation was accomplished, not disprove Creation.
You seem to assert you have the correct understanding of the Bible and that there is only one way to god and those not following that way will suffer adverse consequences. Seems the Universe, in your head, is whirling around you.
Wrong. I assert what I believe to be the ?correct? understanding of the Bible. Should I not believe what I assert? I have not said there is only one way to God- in fact, in recent thread started by Sirona, I stated that I believe that following Jesus Christ?s teachings is more likely to provide salvation than not following Him. Again, I believe it is ultimately up to God to judge each of us as individuals.
God still is the best explanation we have. (We obviously define ?we? differently). There are no ?better ones? just different ones, all requiring ? an impossible amount of explaining, rather than actually being a solution?.
Obviously 'we' disagree. I can show theories that explain how the Univese came to be, and how it developed from that point. Many of these are experimentally verifiable or well attested to in nature. You, on the other hand, waze a historically inaccurate book about, say its god's word, and say that your interpretation is the right one, without being ablke to prove it. In what distorted Universe do those two stances qualify as equally valid explanations? That is a rhetorical question, shall I post the definition for that too?
That?s not a rhetorical question, as it begs an answer. The same theories you can show (or other generally accepted ones) that are verifiable and well attested to can be used to verify Creation, which in turn, supports, nay, proves, the existence of God,. That you choose to believe the evolution theory conclusion is your prerogative; that I choose to believe the Creation conclusion, based on the same evidence, is my prerogative. Again, I must remind you that the two, in any case, are not mutually exclusive. Next, you talk about a theoretically ?historically inaccurate book?, the Bible. It has not been proven historically inaccurate. That you choose to accept only that conclusion is telling, in light of the fact that there are alternate conclusions that support the Bible?s historical record. Therefore, yes, I do say it?s God?s word. As for my ?interpretation? that?s actually a misnomer, since I believe anything in the Bible that requires interpretation is not necessary for salvation. That?s not to say I don?t interpret parts of the Bible, just that I don?t get dogmatic about my interpretation, because no interpretation can be proven until after that which requires interpretation has been fulfilled. So, because the ?two stances? you alluded to are not my stance, but only you hypothetical stances, the ?distorted universe? is one of your own imagination.
Evolutionists, physicists, chronologists, archaeologists, etc can?t agree amongst themselves, why hold theists to a different standard?
There is a difference, and jokes about your lack of wit (all definitions) aside, you're probably intelligent enough to realise that the methods of determining facts and formulating theories are the same amongst some you mention, and that whilst there may be disputations of detail, the general theory of evolution is not generally disputed...
The general theory of evolution is disputed. Millions dispute it. ?The Devil is in the details?, and those details are at the heart of the disputes. There is no proof of one species becoming another; the fossil record does not show incremental, slow change in organisms of any type. Rather, the fossil record shows a sudden jump from one genetic organism, species, or type, to an appreciably different one.
there is total agreement about all aspects of physics we can test experimentaly, and wide argeement about the theory that we can't test. No one's saying the Univese flew out of someone's arse. Dating is an increasingly precise art... archaeology is more open to disputation by its very nature, but the fact is that theists are held to a different standard as their experimental foundation is non-existant, so your above comparison is a bad one.
Wrong again. Quark theory is one area, as an example, where there is much disagreement. The ?Big Bang? theory is yet another. Dating is an increasingly precise art? Not so. There is so much work to be done in that area that any presumption of accuracy, as to whether it is accurate, not accurate, whether it?s getting more or less accurate, is all subject to much speculation. That is a science truly in it?s infancy. Theists ?experimental foundation? is the same as atheists. I look at the same studies and research that is available to everyone else.
And ?some nutter? kills both ?in the name of God? and for many other reasons.
Yours is a specious argument if there ever were one.
If it's so specious, how come you are incapable of
demonstrating
how it is not fair, sound or true? Your assertions are worthless, back them up.
I did so, perhaps you missed it. Analyzing violent crime, the majority of those were not perpetrated by someone who claimed ?God made him do it?. Google it yourself. Or was your point something other than that?
More of Abaddon?s game playing. Neither can you irrefutably prove your views.
So I have ?tired old excuses? and you have ?new excuses?. Give me a break! You are a broken record!
The ones I assert are irrefutable (like 'no objective proof of god') are irrefutable.
I?ve already refuted that statement numerous times in this post (above).
Others are opinions, but they are opinions backed by facts, not opinions backed by opinions based on some book that can't even get a Global Flood right.
Likewise. Mine are opinions based on the same facts; different conclusions based on the same evidence. The Global flood has been disputed, true, but it has not been dis-proven. Numerous cultures tell of a Global Flood, and the geological evidence of a Great flood is overwhelming.
And you still haven't answered, how come
if you are right
,
- why is your arguement indestinguishable from many religionists now and before you?
OK. My argument is very distinguishable from others, perhaps you?re jumping to your desired conclusion- open your eyes and mind. I am not a ?religionist?, unless you consider my individually following the teachings of Jesus Christ as being one. I think of myself as a non-denomonational Christian.
- why god is something it is even possible to have an arguement about the existance of and how this status quo is fair or logical if god is benevolent?
Big question, there Abaddon. Here?s my answer in a nutshell (I?m sure you?ll ?require? more, but this post is rather lengthy already). The first part?s easy- it?s possible to argue about the existence of God because there are numerous conclusions that can be drawn from the observable evidence. Now, on to the tough part- the ?status quo? is fair as explained in the Bible. Adam, being perfect, forsook perfection, and passed it on to his offspring (us). God so loved us, He sent His only begotten Son to Earth to redeem us by way of his sacrifice. He taught us what is necessary for salvation, and recorded it in the Bible, his written word. The troubles we see around us are symptomatic of mankind?s imperfection, not caused by God. The time will come (or happens at Death, depending on interpretation) when God will judge us each as individuals, and reward or punish us based on his judgment. Now, back to interpretation. If our judgment happens at Death, then our reward (or punishment) may take place anywhere, anytime- it could be a parallel universe, a future time, a sprit world, etc, etc, etc. On the other hand, if the day of judgment is at a future appointed time, then the same possibilities exist, though in the future, not at Death (or at Death, as is the case with us, that our Death is in the future). As for ?logical? and ?benevolent?, I trust that we are imperfect, and He is perfect, therefore, our logic is imperfect, and His perfect. So his benevolence is certain.
When God is ready, he will undeniably reveal himself to all.
That's a prophecy! If it isn't, what is it, cottage cheese?
OK, you got me there (savor the flavor). I have faith, I believe, that he will reveal Himself to all.
The Bible is accurate.
Accurate as in 'asserts certain events happened in a time frame that there is no evidence for them happening in'? That sort of accurate?
Ah, but there is evidence, just as I pointed out earlier. Same evidence, yet different conclusions.
Creation is not a myth.
Oh, well that settles it...
NOT
; my point is (as I think you know) is that rather obviously the account in Genesis is a
mythic
account of Creation, not an
accurate
description of Creation. If you dispute that line up with the YEC's and the appearance of age posse in the queue for a clue.
It?s not ?rather obvious?, Abaddon. I (and many others) don?t take the ?Creative Days? literally, as a 24-hour period (how could anyone, in light of the evidence?), rather, each Creative Day was an undetermined period of time. I see absolutely nothing ?mythical? in the Genesis account of Creation.
My conviction stems from evidence as well.
Evidence that is objective, demonstrable, reliable, verifiable and repeatable? Okay, please provide evidence the Flood happened when it said it did... you do after all hold the Bible to be
accurate
, and I can post the definiton of this word if you like. Of course, we know you can't, as it's a myth, but it'll be fun you trying!!
Yes, evidence that is demonstrable, reliable, verifiable and repeatable. The same evidence your pet conclusion is based on. Same evidence, different conclusions.
?Choose Wisely? is not a threat. Since when is it?
I disagree; you say choose wisely as you believe if I don't I will suffer adverse consequences. You might not deliver the adverse consequences but you pointing them out is still a threat.
I say ?choose wisely? as much to myself as to everyone else. To regularly question or choices is wise, IMO. There is always a threat of adverse consequences, or beneficial ones, based on our choices.
?I had a factual example and you don't doesn't actually work... I can no longer be bothered to carry on typing...
Your examples have been no more or less factual than mine, Abaddon. We use the same evidence, yet come to different conclusions.
Oh, come on Loves_Truth, you know I'm utterly unbothered by your behaviour, I don't respect your opinions enough to care about them, as they are poorly founded in other areas and are no less likely to be equally poorly founded when it applies to me. Insult away, your philosophy of ashes is really not that scarey.
Clearly not the case, Abaddon- you?re in denial. I?ll be the first here to try and keep things civil between us. Is that sio much to ask? You are as much to blame as I am for spirited discussions- I don?t mind them, but it seems to stir up the others here, so I?ll do my best to keep the sarcasm and wit to a simmer. I trust you?ll do likewise (really, I expect that you?ll be an @!#&^%*#@!!! again, but here?s to hoping!)
You wouldn?t be having these lengthy conversations with me if you didn?t care about the substance of my arguments or opinions, Abaddon. Be honest, you enjoy a good debate as much as I do.
Anyhow, as you observed in another thread, I can say the same of you- I?m sure we?d be like old pals over a beer or spliff, or better yet, both. I hold no animosity or resentment towards anyone here. There are some things, like facial expression, body language, vocal inflections, laughter, etc, that are challenging to express and observe readily in such a forum as this.
Bottom line, Abaddon- you?re not so bad for an atheist.
Love_truth- extends hand, not for handshake, but to pass the ?peace pipe?.
