-->
@zedvictor4
Well stated.
Not a leap of faith (as ludofl3x stated) where the Judeo-Christian God is concerned, but a reasonable faith, not an irrational or blind faith. Christianity is a demonstratable faith.
What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?
Posts
Total:
436
-->
@PGA2.0
Christianity is undoubtedly a demonstrable faith...As demonstrated by faithful Christians.
It is the hypothetical basis of faith, that is not demonstrable.
-->
@PGA2.0
If you think otherwise, let's see your reasoning. I bet it is extremely inconsistent with chance happenstance or materialism. The universe requires a Creator/God to make sense. Of course, you are welcome to stumble about while denying Him.
My reasoning for 2+2=4? Are you essentially arguing that because 2+2=4, Jesus? You are making a giant leap from "because we've figured out math, the universe requires a creator, AND that creator is Jesus. Can you explain the difference between me stumbling around and you knowing JEsu made math work, like in practical every day terms? What's the impact on your life, or what's the negative impact you perceive on my life? You have not once answered these questoins, in spite of saying rather arrogantly you've 'made sense of the universe.'
We don't make them up. We discover them.
True!
Thus, it is reasonable to believe a necessary Mind has put them in place. It speaks of intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe these laws or principles came about by chance happenstance.
This is the leap. There's no reason to make this conclusion based on what you've laid out. All you can conclude is that the principles in question are consistent for some reason. Anything beyond that requires one of two things: evidence that can be demonstrated independently (not your feelings), OR a leap to an unjustified conclusion. You're making the latter.
Purpose and meaning require intent and agency.
Can you demonstrate that these two things are "built into the universe"? Or are you just going to say "THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT MAKES SENSE!" (argument from incredulity / ignorance)
God, the ultimate Being (outside of our time continuum)
Where can I confirm the existence of this other time continuum? IF I can do that, I can find whichever god lives there? And who created this other time continuum, since nothing can create itself?
-->
@zedvictor4
Christianity is undoubtedly a demonstrable faith...As demonstrated by faithful Christians.It is the hypothetical basis of faith, that is not demonstrable.
Yet you display this same kind of faith except you place it in things rather than God. When you take that bungee jump off a 1000 foot building you weigh the options and BELIEVE your chances of the bungee cord breaking as small, so you take the leap. Your faith in things is demonstrated every day.
-->
@PGA2.0
Yet you display this same kind of faith except you place it in things rather than God. When you take that bungee jump off a 1000 foot building you weigh the options and BELIEVE your chances of the bungee cord breaking as small, so you take the leap. Your faith in things is demonstrated every day.
Except if he does a bungee jump, can the presence of the bungee cord be independently confirmed? He has faith in the idea that whoever fastend the cord did so properly, after the proper training, but he doesn't make the leap if someone says "Trust me, there's a bungee cord tied to you" without looking at the actual bungee cord, right? THe bungee cord doesn't only function if he BELIEVES it's there. It functions regardless. Unlike the way you describe anything to do with god: you have to believe it first, then you can confirm your beliefs. This, of course, is just confirmation bias.
-->
@ludofl3x
If you think otherwise, let's see your reasoning. I bet it is extremely inconsistent with chance happenstance or materialism. The universe requires a Creator/God to make sense. Of course, you are welcome to stumble about while denying Him.My reasoning for 2+2=4? Are you essentially arguing that because 2+2=4, Jesus? You are making a giant leap from "because we've figured out math, the universe requires a creator, AND that creator is Jesus. Can you explain the difference between me stumbling around and you knowing JEsu made math work, like in practical every day terms? What's the impact on your life, or what's the negative impact you perceive on my life? You have not once answered these questoins, in spite of saying rather arrogantly you've 'made sense of the universe.'
I'm saying that of the two beliefs, God or blind chance happenstance, God is the more reasonable. You admit we discover these laws of nature and we can formula them in mathematical principles and laws. Since mathematics is a mindful process it is reasonable to believe a Mind is behind the universe, more reasonable than blind chance. It is called weighing the two options.
From a strictly materialistic worldview, how do you explain why we discover these things from a mindless, purposely, meaningless void? And how can you ever be sure? You do not have what is required for surety. Thus, you stumble and bumble your whole life through while arguing what eventually will be meaningless. Why do these things matter to you? Are you trying to hedge your bet?
The impact on my life is that I have what is necessary for meaning and purpose. Provided this God exists there is a certainty since this God has revealed Himself to humanity. When I examine the Bible I see unity and purpose in its writings. I understand in every book of the Bible there is a revelation or typology of Jesus Christ. I can make a logical argument that verifies this is reasonable and true. I understand the verification process through other means also, such as history and prophecy which is reasonable to believe since there is evidence available that confirms my belief is reasonable. When I look at the universe and humanity I reason that God is reasonable but blind, indifferent chance happenstance is not. From necessary life come other life, from conscious Being comes other conscious beings, from meaning and purpose, come purposeful beings. Without a Creator, the universe has no intention, no purpose, no agency, no meaning. Yet I continually find these things as I examine the universe. I ask the denier of a Creator how this blind, indifferent chance happenstance is able to sustain these natural laws indefinitely and get no answer or an unreasonable answer. I see how from the axiom of chance happenstance these God deniers relay on very little explainability power, that ultimately leads to a dead-end, yet they cling to this illogical belief while scoffing at the believer? It does not make sense to me, nor can it. I keep begging the unbeliever to explain him/herself and I get silence or a redirected assault on my belief. I ask the unbeliever to make sense of morality and all I get is subjective relativism as they adopt from the Christian view on what is necessary. They state one thing while their lifestyles reflect the opposite. Thus they are inconsistent in everything they do and say - very hypocritical.
We don't make them up. We discover them.True!Thus, it is reasonable to believe a necessary Mind has put them in place. It speaks of intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe these laws or principles came about by chance happenstance.This is the leap. There's no reason to make this conclusion based on what you've laid out. All you can conclude is that the principles in question are consistent for some reason. Anything beyond that requires one of two things: evidence that can be demonstrated independently (not your feelings), OR a leap to an unjustified conclusion. You're making the latter.
We both start with the leap. Does your leap make sense? It starts with two logical starting points - God or chance happenstance - and examines each as to the likelihood. It examines what is behind believing in each worldview. It examines the evidence and presuppositions held and behind each belief as to which one can make sense of being, the universe, morality, purpose, meaning, knowledge, etc. We both (you and I) start with building on one of these two presuppositions to form our worldview, the way we choose to look at everything, for these starting positions affect everything else we believe. Without God, you rely completely on a naturalistic, materialistic explanation. Thus, I ask which is more reasonable? And the very concept of reasonableness is a mindful one.
Purpose and meaning require intent and agency.Can you demonstrate that these two things are "built into the universe"? Or are you just going to say "THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT MAKES SENSE!" (argument from incredulity / ignorance)
I can demonstrate that one makes sense of meaning and purpose and the other does not. So, with the one, a person does not live consistently with their starting presuppositions. That should be deeply troubling for it shows irrationality.
God, the ultimate Being (outside of our time continuum)Where can I confirm the existence of this other time continuum? IF I can do that, I can find whichever god lives there? And who created this other time continuum, since nothing can create itself?
You could spend your entire life examining every belief system or you can take another leap (you already took one in believing in blind indifferent chance happenstance) and trust the biblical God. For those who do He continually confirms His existence and Word as true.
Hebrews 11:6 (NASB)
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
6 And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
You are not going to find God by denying Him. How could you ever do that? You would first have to believe He is and trust (have faith in) Him before you will find Him.
Do you ever expect to find out whether God exists by constantly denying Him?
Your faith (what you rest your worldview upon and build upon, or your starting point) is blind; mine is reasonable. That should tell you something but you are in denial.
-->
@ludofl3x
Yet you display this same kind of faith except you place it in things rather than God. When you take that bungee jump off a 1000 foot building you weigh the options and BELIEVE your chances of the bungee cord breaking as small, so you take the leap. Your faith in things is demonstrated every day.Except if he does a bungee jump, can the presence of the bungee cord be independently confirmed? He has faith in the idea that whoever fastend the cord did so properly, after the proper training, but he doesn't make the leap if someone says "Trust me, there's a bungee cord tied to you" without looking at the actual bungee cord, right? THe bungee cord doesn't only function if he BELIEVES it's there. It functions regardless. Unlike the way you describe anything to do with god: you have to believe it first, then you can confirm your beliefs. This, of course, is just confirmation bias.
How did the bungee cord get there? Someone MADE it. It did not just appear out of nothingness. There were design and purpose in it and its function. It was made by a purposeful being. Do you trust in the maker, that there were no flaws in the bungee cord, that appropriate tests were done on it and it passed the inspection? How old is it? Are there stress fractures in it? Is the bungee line inspected for security? It functions only because it was made with purpose and designed for a specific function. There is a casual tree as to why it does what it does. There were an agency and intent in designing it and putting it in place. It did not just suddenly appear there. To think otherwise would be to confirm another bias. Which is more reasonable to believe? Which is confirmed through our observation and logic.
When you take that leap you rely on the safeguards of others for your well-being. Many, throughout history, have tested and relied on the biblical God for life, and life in abundance. Many others watch from the sidelines. Our faith in God is a reasonable faith and leap, not a blind one like that of the atheist and denier who has not inspected the bungee line nor does he/she have a clue in how it got there. He/she thinks it magically appeared from nothing or it has always existed, without it having intent or agency. Poof!
-->
@Athias
I like to point out that these mathematical equations (proofs) that you speak of that describe the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity, the laws of thermodynamics, speed of light, etc., are principles we discover, not what we invent. They operate apart from any one of us thinking them. They are intelligible, suggesting a necessary mind (since our minds are not necessary for these laws to exist) has put these laws into place. So, we have a more plausible explanation than the materialist who is operating on the principle of blind, indifferent, chance happenstance.Can one control for this? That is isolate that which we perceive from discovery and rationalize through conceptualization and that which which we allege is independent from the former? How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?
Your statements are a little vague. I'm not grasping the significance of what you said here. Can you rephrase or expand on those thoughts? A
YOU: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"
They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know.
I think I understand what you are saying and if so I agree wholeheartedly and like what you are saying! God is Spirit and thus not physical in nature. Thus, it is with our minds that we contemplate and know Him. The mathematics we use to describe the laws of nature are also mental. We use our minds to conceptualize these laws. So, the materialist is using a double standard. He/she is working beyond what can be proven by the pure physical. The concept of twoness is not tangible, nor are the principles of mathematics we use to describe the physical workings of the universe. So, once again the materialist is inconsistent and hypocritical in his/her thinking and borrows from another worldview that does make sense.Not just used to described but to inform (i.e. mathematics and the physical laws of nature.) Other than that, you hit the nail right on the head.
True, information is mindful. If you see, "Welcome to Canada" (and I use a Van Tillian argument) as you cross the border you realize an intelligent being put it in place because it conveys information. It did not just willy-nilly come into being. In every aspect of this world, we see information contained in the micros to the macros. That is a good point.
God best explains the laws of mathematics and the physical laws of nature.
But are you saying that two physical objects plus two physical objects can equal something other than four physical objects?Yes. Even if one argues that we replace the forms that one alleges "identify," what defines it being four physical objects? Our descriptions. Our conceptualization.
So, without minds, there would be no physical objects? Is that what you are saying? How do you explain the universe before mindful beings? Was there such a thing?
Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling, and acknowledging with my mindful conception through consciousness.
But do we derive 2+2=4 from the mind of God as our source?I don't presume to have access to God's mind.
Then I question whether you know the Christian God. How well do you think your Confusism stacks up against such a God? That one and only God has revealed to humanity in two ways, through what was made and via written revelation. How does your god of Confusism do that? The Judeo-Christian has confirmed Himself in various ways and confirms it with our spirits via His Spirit. There is a way to know and reconcile with this God according to this word, and that is through His Son. Is your god a personal god? Who or what is your god? Are you it, determining all things or is your god an actual being? I'm interested in your answers so that I can analyze them further.
The definition of a house and a factory are not the same. Thus, there is a contradiction in terms unless further explanation distinguishes and contains a combination of the two definitions within the one structure.House - A structure serving as a dwelling for one or more persons, especially for a familyFactory - A building or group of buildings in which goods are manufactured; a plant.Look at those descriptions again. Neither excludes the other. A house is actually a place where goods are manufactured (e.g. food, clean clothes, etc.) And what do you see in the description of a factory that would exclude a family from living in it?
While neither excludes the other the definition and description of the two usually do.
A factory is a large scale operation in comparison. You may grow a few tomatoes, and even sell them, but once you go into larger-scale production in which goods are produced for commercial use and have an automated production line you are entering the factory atmosphere. People do not usually live in factories. They work there. The HOME and factory are usually separate abodes, although the two can be in the same building.
Usually, a description of a factory would not include bedrooms, sometimes exclude a kitchen, a den with fireplace, and family members. It would include big machinery, a production line, many workers who are from different families, etc. So while there are similarities the two very seldom match the qualifications of both. Does anyone else here believe that a factory is the same as a house???
-->
@PGA2.0
Your statements are a little vague. I'm not grasping the significance of what you said here. Can you rephrase or expand on those thoughts? AYOU: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know.
You assert that they are independent of the mind; how does one know this? How can one know this? In order to "know," you require the use of your mind; so then how does one "know" of that which is independent of one's mind? In order to do this, one would have to control (reduce variance) for that which you allege "is" independent of the influence, conceptions, rationalizations, and manipulations of one's mind. That is, to isolate and extract and observe how it behaves. Consequentially, the use of the mind would be prohibited. That means, no math; no science, no language, no logic. What's left? Irrationality.
So, without minds, there would be no physical objects? Is that what you are saying? How do you explain the universe before mindful beings? Was there such a thing?Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling, and acknowledging with my mindful conception through consciousness.
Without the mind, physicality would be irrational. Even when considering somatosensation, and the process of interpreting information from stimuli, what would any of that be without conception and rationalization? One "feels something." What's the difference between feeling something and not feeling something? What if one couldn't verbalize that sensation? What if there was no language? Once again, in order to assert that there's something which "is" independent of one's mind, one would have to control for independence.
Then I question whether you know the Christian God.
I do not know the Christian God; I know of the Christian God. And why are you qualifying God with the adjective, "Christian"?
How well do you think your Confusism stacks up against such a God?
Fairly well. I don't see how Tien is any less existent than God.
That one and only God has revealed to humanity in two ways, through what was made and via written revelation. How does your god of Confusism do that?
Through the Mandate of Heaven and Confucius.
The Judeo-Christian has confirmed Himself in various ways and confirms it with our spirits via His Spirit. There is a way to know and reconcile with this God according to this word, and that is through His Son.
So then, once again, why do you qualify God with the description "Judeo-Christian?"
Is [your] god a personal god?
Tien is not a personal God.
Who or what is your god?
"My" God does not register. God is not possessed.
Are you it.
I don't practice suitheism.
is [your] god an actual being?
What do you mean by "actual"? Material? Or does the distinction not matter?
A factory is a large scale operation in comparison. You may grow a few tomatoes, and even sell them, but once you go into larger-scale production in which goods are produced for commercial use and have an automated production line you are entering the factory atmosphere. People do not usually live in factories. They work there. The HOME and factory are usually separate abodes, although the two can be in the same building
We're not discussing "usual behavior" since "usual behavior" doesn't qualify their descriptions.
Usually, a description of a factory would not include bedrooms, sometimes exclude a kitchen, a den with fireplace, and family members.
Where in your cited description of a house does it state that a house necessitates a bedroom, kitchen, or den?
So while there are similarities the two very seldom match the qualifications of both.
What qualifications? Once again, point out to me the exact description that precludes a house from being a factory, and vice versa.
Does anyone else here believe that a factory is the same as a house???
You're appealing to incredulity. We're discussing whether the descriptions of a house and factory, and the argument that both can be the same, demonstrates a contradiction.
-->
@PGA2.0
Faith or trust or hope or choice in something tangible within the context of a perceivable experience, is somewhat different to faith in one particular hypothetical deity.
-->
@zedvictor4
Faith or trust or hope or choice in something tangible within the context of a perceivable experience, is somewhat different to faith in one particular hypothetical deity.
Origins are not tangibly verified in one sense that none living were there at the beginning, and everyone in the present is looking back in time and assuming the present is the key to the past because the present is what we have to measure the past. You have just as much faith in your presuppositions (even more I might add) as a Christian does in theirs. Yet what is the more reasonable position? Your deity, if not a Creator, is yourself. Your denial, if you deny, sets you as the final arbitrator. Without a Creator, there is no one higher in determining how you will live than you. You decide and call what you will and will not believe from a subjective standpoint because you have no objective criterion to reference in the case of origins. It is speculative. There are many theories of origins where humanity decides they are the measure of all things.
Unless you can prove the existence of an actual higher authority, then there is no more that an internally governed mass operating within a presumably, external environment.
So unless you have perceived an externally existent GOD, then GODS are no more than internally generated concepts (beliefs).
It's funny how theists always try to accuse sceptics of being more presupposing.....Something of a playground argument in my opinion.
Sceptics are sceptical because the will not presuppose....Whereas all hypothetical deist arguments are based purely on presupposition.
-->
@PGA2.0
.........you realize an intelligent being put it in place because it conveys information. It did not just willy-nilly come into being.
I think you will find that all intelligent beings "willy-nilly" came into being.
Just as all life on earth came "willy-nilly" into being.
Anybody who erroneously chooses to believe otherwise is egotistical and self-centred.
-->
@wlsw9
Well......I'm the ardent sceptic/atheist, but nonetheless, your assumption of willynillyness is just another arbitrary opinion that attempts to explain the unexplainable.
Though all hypotheses remain valid until such times as they are either proven to be correct or incorrect.
So I will add your hypothesis to the list.
Gods
Big Bang
Willynillyness
-->
@wlsw9
.........you realize an intelligent being put it in place because it conveys information. It did not just willy-nilly come into being.I think you will find that all intelligent beings "willy-nilly" came into being.
How? Why? When?
Just as all life on earth came "willy-nilly" into being.
That is your presupposition, your personal opinion, built upon a particular worldview, or do you have concrete evidence as my previous comment asks?
Anybody who erroneously chooses to believe otherwise is egotistical and self-centred.
Can you apply the same standards to your belief or is it elitist, egotistical and self-centred in its own right? Just a question.
-->
@Athias
Your statements are a little vague. I'm not grasping the significance of what you said here. Can you rephrase or expand on those thoughts? AYOU: "How are these principles intelligible independent of our minds when our minds are used to rationalize?"They exist without you thinking them. They are (or do you deny this?), and they are independent of your and my mind but still need mindfulness to know.You assert that they are independent of the mind; how does one know this? How can one know this? In order to "know," you require the use of your mind; so then how does one "know" of that which is independent of one's mind? In order to do this, one would have to control (reduce variance) for that which you allege "is" independent of the influence, conceptions, rationalizations, and manipulations of one's mind. That is, to isolate and extract and observe how it behaves. Consequentially, the use of the mind would be prohibited. That means, no math; no science, no language, no logic. What's left? Irrationality.
I assert they are independent of our human minds. Can you show me a mind that is necessary for them to exist, a necessary mind? You insist mind is necessary for the existence of the physical. Which mind? Is your mind necessary for such existence? I say they will exist if you do not. I will still perceive and experience the physical. So, how can one know? On the impossibility of the contrary. Some things are just plain illogical and irrational to think. They make no sense. They go against what coherent. Even so, you are welcome to think such nonsense. Your limited, subjective mind does not have what is necessary. I will argue that you are not having this conversation with yourself.
If only you exist you will address yourself. Here you go, "I am delusional!" There, you have stated this since only you exist.
Why are you having a conversation with yourself? Are you lonely? Just create a fictitious being to converse with. Oh, you are, or should you say, "I have!"
Since I have created this conversation with myself, I win! My ultra-ego, who I am talking to, is wrong! That ultra-ego is insane, therefore...(fill in the rest)
***
The inconsistency of your thinking is troubling to me who claims I exist apart from you.
No math, no logic - how so? God (in three Persons), is that necessary mindfulness that we originate from and owe our being. How is that irrational? From the living comes life. From conscious beings come other conscious beings. From the loving come other loving beings. From personal beings come other personal beings. From intelligent mindful beings come other intelligent, mindful beings. Do you ever witness otherwise?
So, without minds, there would be no physical objects? Is that what you are saying? How do you explain the universe before mindful beings? Was there such a thing?Even if your mind was not, there would still be these four physical objects (2+2) I keep bumping into or knocking over or feeling, and acknowledging with my mindful conception through consciousness.Without the mind, physicality would be irrational. Even when considering somatosensation, and the process of interpreting information from stimuli, what would any of that be without conception and rationalization? One "feels something." What's the difference between feeling something and not feeling something? What if one couldn't verbalize that sensation? What if there was no language? Once again, in order to assert that there's something which "is" independent of one's mind, one would have to control for independence.
What I am saying is that your mind is not necessary for physicality. I can still sense the two plus two. If I was not here, someone else would sense it or do you believe that only your mind exists? So what I am saying is that this physicality is not something that depends on your mind or mine. They are not necessary for it. This same physicality would exist if either you or I did not, or do you believe there is only you and you are having a conversation with yourself? If so, I'll leave you to do that. In such a case, I would suggest you re-examine yourself. With such thinking, you are obviously capable of more than you give yourself credit for! Why not just materialize your heart's desire?
What I am saying is which mind is necessary for physicality? Is it yours alone? (All by yourself?!!) So no individual human mind is necessary, or do you believe the first one was?
-->
@Athias
Then I question whether you know the Christian God.I do not know the Christian God; I know of the Christian God. And why are you qualifying God with the adjective, "Christian"?
That is just my point, you don't know Him.
Why? Because logically there can only be one true and living God, and I believe that God is the God revealed in the Bible. I state that based on many pieces of evidence and will gladly argue for this God against your belief. Is that sufficient?
How well do you think your Confusism stacks up against such a God?Fairly well. I don't see how Tien is any less existent than God.
How do you test for Tien's existence? What kind of proof has Tien left you that he/she/it actually exists? Is it wishful thinking?
That one and only God has revealed to humanity in two ways, through what was made and via written revelation. How does your god of Confusism do that?Through the Mandate of Heaven and Confucius.
What is that and how do you verify it is true? If your god is not a personal being, as you state, how did you get this "Mandate of Heaven and Confucius?" Did Confucius just invent it?
The Judeo-Christian has confirmed Himself in various ways and confirms it with our spirits via His Spirit. There is a way to know and reconcile with this God according to this word, and that is through His Son.So then, once again, why do you qualify God with the description "Judeo-Christian?"
Because I believe the evidence points to the Jewish Scriptures as related to the Christian Scriptures and speak of the same God, just in a greater revelation.
Is [your] god a personal god?Tien is not a personal God.
Really? What is Tien then? I will stop using the pronouns "he" or "she" and call Tien "it."
How do you account for consciousness and personhood if Tien is not personal?
Who or what is your god?"My" God does not register. God is not possessed.
What is it, then?
Are you it.I don't practice suitheism.
Are you a pantheist or panentheist then?
is [your] god an actual being?What do you mean by "actual"? Material? Or does the distinction not matter?
It matters a lot. Is your god real (exists) or a figment of your imagination.
A factory is a large scale operation in comparison. You may grow a few tomatoes, and even sell them, but once you go into larger-scale production in which goods are produced for commercial use and have an automated production line you are entering the factory atmosphere. People do not usually live in factories. They work there. The HOME and factory are usually separate abodes, although the two can be in the same buildingWe're not discussing "usual behavior" since "usual behavior" doesn't qualify their descriptions.
Do words have meaning or have you lost the law of identity to your vocabulary? (I.e., A=A)
Words convey a specific meaning. They represent and are necessary for communication. Don't blur the difference between a house and a factory without qualifying what you mean. House =/= factory. House = house. Factory = factory. A building that "houses" both is possible (pardon the pun), but it is an exception to the general rule and needs to be qualified.
Usually, a description of a factory would not include bedrooms, sometimes exclude a kitchen, a den with fireplace, and family members.Where in your cited description of a house does it state that a house necessitates a bedroom, kitchen, or den?
A house is a living abode. We don't usually have our abode in factories. A house has a place to eat, a place to sleep and a place to s_ _ t. A factory does not usually have a place to sleep. A word that describes the place we sleep is called a bedroom when it is walled and separated from other areas. Yes, some people do not have such rooms. I speak of what is common. A factory does not usually have bedrooms. Houses usually do have bedrooms.
So while there are similarities the two very seldom match the qualifications of both.What qualifications? Once again, point out to me the exact description that precludes a house from being a factory, and vice versa.
I have not argued a building called a house cannot ALSO act as a factory or visa versa. To call a house a factory would be adding to our normal understanding of what a factory is and such distinction needs to be qualified since what is meant is not in the standard meaning of the word factory, to call it a house. The definition of a house is not the same as that of a factory. To call the two the same needs qualification. If the BUILDING you call home also is being used as a factory I have no beef about that.
Does anyone else here believe that a factory is the same as a house???You're appealing to incredulity. We're discussing whether the descriptions of a house and factory, and the argument that both can be the same, demonstrates a contradiction.
I appeal to common sense. While the two can share functions common to each individually, in the same building, that is an exception to the norm.
What I am saying is don't blur the distinction that gives words meaning (in context) without qualifying what you mean.
-->
@PGA2.0
That is your presupposition, your personal opinion, built upon a particular worldview, or do you have concrete evidence as my previous comment asks?
The irrefutable evidence is that life was formed through evolution by natural selection and there is no evidence whatsoever as to life being intended.
The undisputed evidence that backs my claim is clearly and comprehensively tabled in the book by Richard Dawkins...The Greatest Show On Earth.
Are you able to present any concrete evidence that contradicts such facts?
-->
@wllws9
The irrefutable evidence is that life was formed through evolution
Fine no problem, but evolution in itself is an intelligent process, meaning it's compatible with the notion that that process requires a mind. Processes themselves have no mind, no ability to think and begin to evolve things into existence.
by natural selection
Depends on what you are asserting here, if you're pushing materialsm or atheism you have no evidence for such an assertion. That could be your personal interpretation of course, but not a superior one.
and there is no evidence whatsoever as to life being intended.
BS, this is where you get silly. There's every indicator that life was intended, the very processes themselves point straight to it.
The undisputed evidence that backs my claim is clearly and comprehensively tabled in the book by Richard Dawkins...The Greatest Show On Earth.
Lol sure, but as long as you or Richard try and push atheism just know it's an inferior interpretation.
Are you able to present any concrete evidence that contradicts such facts?
If you fully understand how evidence is defined (which most people appear not to) then yes (assuming you're pushing atheism). The indicators all point to creation through intelligent processes not atheism or materialism. Processes are associated with agency, inanimate materials don't evolve life just like bricks don't construct buildings by themselves.
-->
@wllws9
That is your presupposition, your personal opinion, built upon a particular worldview, or do you have concrete evidence as my previous comment asks?The irrefutable evidence is that life was formed through evolution by natural selection and there is no evidence whatsoever as to life being intended.The undisputed evidence that backs my claim is clearly and comprehensively tabled in the book by Richard Dawkins...The Greatest Show On Earth.Are you able to present any concrete evidence that contradicts such facts?
Irrefutable evidence. You first. Present your concrete evidence. Where do you observe a change in kind? What is intended by chance happenstance? How does such a process even happen? Who is Richard Dawkins that I should believe another fallible, subjective limited in knowledge human being?
-->
@PGA2.0
Irrefutable evidence. You first. Present your concrete evidence. Where do you observe a change in kind? What is intended by chance happenstance? How does such a process even happen? Who is Richard Dawkins that I should believe another fallible, subjective limited in knowledge human being?
I can see how perhaps you are so mixed up and confused.
You see, I correctly cited viable, authoritative evidence to back up what I stated.
Looking through your posts I can see not one iota of evidence to back your stance (presumably of creation) and it is very telling that you seem to be unaware of who Richard Dawkins is.
It is a common characteristic of those who firmly believe in God to shun and ignore facts in order to protect themselves from their ill-gotten, absurd beliefs.
-->
@wlws9
Irrefutable evidence. You first. Present your concrete evidence. Where do you observe a change in kind? What is intended by chance happenstance? How does such a process even happen? Who is Richard Dawkins that I should believe another fallible, subjective limited in knowledge human being?I can see how perhaps you are so mixed up and confused.You see, I correctly cited viable, authoritative evidence to back up what I stated.
Which post was that?
Looking through your posts I can see not one iota of evidence to back your stance (presumably of creation) and it is very telling that you seem to be unaware of who Richard Dawkins is.
I was using reason.
What would you accept as evidence? I have tried a discussion on the evidence and very few want to engage in disputing it. If I got a commitment to have a reasonable and civil discussion I would present it yet again.
It is a common characteristic of those who firmly believe in God to shun and ignore facts in order to protect themselves from their ill-gotten, absurd beliefs.
What facts are those?
-->
@PGA2.0
Let's go back to my point which you clearly rejected.
I quoted Richard Dawkins and "The Greatest Show On Earth" as a definitive work on the fact that life evolved as a result of evolution through natural selection.
The findings are irrefutable and fully backed up with carefully researched evidence, none of which has been successfully challenged.
So, the fact of evolution through natural selection stands and any notion or theory of creation is completely nullified. There is no God and life was not created.
What evidence do you think have to support your (supposed) notion that God exists and we were created?
Just so everyone knows, all the wlw alts are fake accounts by the moron Willows who has again broken into the site to tell us how terrible Jesus is - as a public service, (not because he is bitter and has OCD).
-->
@ethang5
Just so everyone knows, all the wlw alts are fake accounts by the moron Willows who has again broken into the site to tell us how terrible Jesus is - as a public service, (not because he is bitter and has OCD).
Well, thanks for the heads up. We were saturated with those posts before. It has been a while since I engaged with him. I will see how much he wants to dialogue. If it is anything like I experienced before I will give up quickly. I'm game for a good exchange though.
-->
@PGA2.0
His idea of dialogue is limited to setting himself up to post another diatribe against God. In seven years I saw no difference.
If a guy has to repeatedly create fake alts and break into a private site just to spew his hatred of Christianity with basically the same post over and over, how sincere can he be?
But his lame over the top repetitive vitriol does give us the chance to evangelize. He thinks he's "exposing" Christianity tilting at windmills.
-->
@wlws9
Let's go back to my point which you clearly rejected.I quoted Richard Dawkins and "The Greatest Show On Earth" as a definitive work on the fact that life evolved as a result of evolution through natural selection.
So what? A definite work in your subjective eyes. So what? What exactly is he saying that you favour?
The findings are irrefutable and fully backed up with carefully researched evidence, none of which has been successfully challenged.
Such as what evidence?
So, the fact of evolution through natural selection stands and any notion or theory of creation is completely nullified. There is no God and life was not created.
All I ever witness is micro-evolution (change within a kind - fact), not macro-evolution (change of kind - speculation).
What evidence do you think have to support your (supposed) notion that God exists and we were created?
The impossibility of the contrary/the ability to make sense of origins because we, as Christians, have what is necessary to make sense of origins. With chance happenstance where do you get the agency from? What can "chance" do and how? Explain that, please.
The evidence is the Bible, 66 different books by about 40 different authors that claim to be God's revelation to humanity through a people (the Jews) that are verified to exist in history, as are names, places, events. Prophecy is a specific avenue of investigation. It is reasonable to believe.
Chance happenstance explaining our existence is not reasonable for it does not have the means of explanation for it is not a thing and definitely not personal but material. So what you have is subjective human beings interpreting origins from the present. Chance cannot think, cannot give meaning, cannot create for it has no intent or purpose. When we examine the universe we find information and complexity, from the macros to the micros. From the laws of nature, we are able to explain, in precise mathematical formulas, the operation of things in the universe - and in a general way, how it works. It seems like there is a purpose here that is not explained by blind indifferent chance happenstance. Why do we find consistency and sustainability from such willy-nilly happenstances? No reason, yet you continually find meaning. You continually find information. What is information? It is mindful. When you travel to NY City you find a sign conveying information - "Welcome to NY City." Did it just materialize out of nothing and for no purpose? No, mindful beings are informing you of something. The sign has a purpose.
-->
@ethang5
His idea of dialogue is limited to setting himself up to post another diatribe against God. In seven years I saw no difference.If a guy has to repeatedly create fake alts and break into a private site just to spew his hatred of Christianity with basically the same post over and over, how sincere can he be?But his lame over the top repetitive vitriol does give us the chance to evangelize. He thinks he's "exposing" Christianity tilting at windmills.
Yes, there is a chance to ask him to be accountable and when he is not expose his thinking as biased or unsound. IMO, there is an extreme confirmational bias going on here on his part. If he is not open to a fair exchange where both sides have their questions met then I will discontinue.
-->
@PGA2.0
Well, he will need some time to create fake accounts the mods don't know of.
But he's compulsive so, like a cockroach, he will be back.
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, there is a chance to ask him to be accountable and when he is not expose his thinking as biased or unsound. IMO, there is an extreme confirmational bias going on here on his part. If he is not open to a fair exchange where both sides have their questions met then I will discontinue.
I have never displayed "an extreme confirmational bias" and I ask you to explain what on earth you are talking about.
I have always been open to discussion.
Perhaps you may be more than a little prejudiced against those who (quite rightly and justifiably with sound evidence and reason) question the unfounded and absurd beliefs of others.
In other words, if you have a question, have the guts to ask it instead of pussy-footing around with unfounded, wild insinuations.