tijkmo
abaddon...i believe in a creator...as such EVERYTHING is explainable either by something he did or by something he did not do.
Whether you believe in something means precisely nothing as regards whether that is true or not. You believing it doesn't make it true. Sorry to highlight that so, but you seem to think it is a relevent or interesting argument. Other people have similar beliefs in creators that contradict yours to the extent of being mutually exclusive. Some people believe women are inferior. Others that Hitler didn't direct the Holocaust. Belief in the context of faith unsupported by evidence means NOTHING beyond the skull it takes place in.
If you are a presuppositonalist it will be impossible to have a logical argument with you, as if you find it difficult to prove an opinion is correct you'll just say some tired equaivalent of 'god did it', without any evidence to support the assertion, and believe that that proves your point. Could you please clarify this point so I don't waste any time talking to someone there's no point in talking to? If you're willing to conceed that you might be wrong (as I am), then there is a point to this discussion.
.for you to convince me otherwise you will have to do better than call me childish cos that dont scare me
I pointed out that ALL you do is make assertions without any evidence to support them. I see this as childish. Deal with the reaction you get; if you did anything other than make bland unsuported assertions you wouldn't have your behaviour commented on like that.
And what precisely is adult about saying 'but that doesn't explain X' when it is obvious you have no knowledege of what the explanation for X is in detail? What do you think you bring to this discussion? "I am right and I don't have to prove it" (this is not anything you have said verbatim but is a portrayal of your attitude as thus far espoused) is not the attitude most people would value in a discussion, yet this attitude what is apparent in your responses.
At least the Boreans checked their facts. You just repeat yourself. Can you be something more than an empty vessel or a clashing cymbal?
Anyway, how can I convince you of a subject you know nothing about? It is like me trying to convince you whether it was correct to use 'ho theos' or 'theos' if you had no knowledge of koine Greek in particular or grammar in general. Whether I could overcome any preconceptions you had would have NOTHING to do with whether 'ho theos' or 'theos' was right.
ultimately it does come down to faith...
you were not around in the 'beginning' and you did not come up with your beliefs by yourself..someone told you..someone influenced you either in person or by books etc
And you differ from that by what? Let me see, you weren't around in the begining, you did not come up with your beliefs by yourself, someone told you, influenced you etc.
Oh, I do know the difference. There's a difference in between believing in things because of faith and believing things because of evidence. I can produce evidence for the specific claims I can make. Where is your evidence for the specific claims you make? Where is your proof that your beliefs aren't just primative myths, believed in with as much fervour as any other primative myths are believed in by their adherants, but still as wrong?
Right now, based on what you've said, there is nothing to seperate the validity of your beliefs from those of a stone-age shamen with a bone through his nose. This is entirely a product of the competence of the argument you are presenting; if you want that to change you must argue differently, don't get sore with me.
but a lot of what they said is hypothesis or conjecture and conveniently unprovable..but you have faith that what they tell you is true...but it may not be..just because it is unprovable is no guarantee that it is correct
Please be specific. There is a lot of what "they say" that has very little conjecture in it and stuff that is very provable. If you persist in making vauge allegations about a subject (that it is more readily apparent with everything you type) you know very little about, it simply isn't worth the time discussing it with you, as you do not return the time and trouble taken, not the respect shown you.
As an example of the lack of respect you show, you criticise science using terms like 'conveniently unprovable' when this discription fits your presuppositionalistic attitude perfectly. Did you think people don't notice this double standard?
You act like you have proved something when you haven't proved anything other than your ability to sit at a keyboard and type your opinion. What have you proved? NOTHING.
interesting that in the section below you put a 'comment' of mine in quotation marks as if you are directly quoting something that i said which if i had said it would make me an idiot..but clearly i did not say or even imply anything of the sort so your resorting to this kind of deception greatly weakens your argument
You said;
'and thats not right before my eyes...in order for it to be right before my eyes it would need to be happening all around me'.
My intention with the quotes was to paraphrase your attitude as displayed by the above verbatim quote, and to question your logic of using NOT ever having seen something as a determinator of whether it ever happened. I am sorry you took it the wrong way
Will you now explain how your use of not seeing something as an indicator of whether it ever happens can be applied consistantly to other events you have never seen happen?
- And is your lack of answer to all the other questions because you are preparing answers?
- Because you are so confident of your rightness you won't answer?
- Or because evasion is the only way you can handle those questions?