SkepticalOne

It is obvious to those who use their brains that one interpretation is confirmed by the pages of Scripture. I challenged you to back up your position that Scripture is not its own interpreter. 

I see we've arrived at the point where YOU tell someone else what their beliefs are in a confused understanding of agnosticism and atheism. Atheism is not a belief system (it is a lack of a god-belief), and agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive positions (one can be an agnostic atheist).

They are belief systems. They are not formed in a vacuum. You have to believe something to be an atheist. Your belief negates some other belief. 

If you want to know my beliefs, just ask specific (and coherent) questions.

What kind of atheist are you?

Ok.  Not that this makes any difference -  A worldwide flood didn't *cause* all the rock layers either. Your sources only mention one type of rock (sedimentary) and neglect igneous and metamorphic rock. Polystrate fossils are explained by the source you provided.

Dogmatic of you.

So what, to that statement?

"Fossils, the preserved remains of animal and plant life, are mostly found embedded in sedimentary rocks. Of the sedimentary rocks, most fossils occur in shale, limestone and sandstone." 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/rock-cycle/

"Sedimentary and igneous rocks began as something other than rock. Sedimentary rocks were originally sediments, which were compacted under high pressure. Igneous rocks formed when liquid magma or lava—magma that has emerged onto the surface of the Earth—cooled and hardened. A metamorphic rock, on the other hand, began as a rock—either a sedimentary, igneous, or even a different sort of metamorphic rock. Then, due to various conditions within the Earth, the existing rock was changed into a new kind of metamorphic rock."

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/metamorphic-rocks/?utm_source=BibblioRCM_Row

I said I favour a young earth interpretation of Scripture just as I favour full Preterism. If you can convince me long periods of time is reasonable to believe go ahead. You are not my authority, Scripture is, so convince me from Scripture that I wrongly interpret it. 

What we are mainly debating is which position, Christianity or atheism is reasonable to believe. 

If you researched Pastafarianism (or listened to what I've said multiple times) you would understand that it is meant to be absurd to make the point that what someone believes (sincerely or not) in the absence of objective evidence has no place in public school science curriculum. Additionally, Pastafarianism is no mask - I openly admit to being an atheist (*eye roll*). 

Do you actaully hold to the Flying Spaghetti Monster as the creator? No, you use it to lampoon Christianity. Behind this label use, you are an atheist. That is your true belief. Are you still a soft atheist (agnostic) or are you now a hard atheist? 

Yes.  Floods do not organize rocks into layers. 

That is not what I said. I said, "a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers." I said the Flood CAUSED the rock layers to form, not organize rocks into layers. 

I'm intrigued by the absurdity of this argument. 'Naturalistic origins can be tested, but not observed'...which is still superior to a position which cannot be tested or observed.

Not in the case of origins. We can watch and test natural processes in the present and near past, but not in the distant past. Origins spose the same problem for both of us. You have to construct a model and then test its feasibility. 

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.

You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 

Scripture needs to be consistent with scripture? Nice tautology. "Reasonable" is the least relevant word in that sentence.

Not at all. When you are interpreting a passage of Scripture it is good to compare it with other Scripture to find the meaning.

I  find your faith amusing too! Pastafarianism is downright absurd and I would debate you on its absurdity if I cared or wanted to do the research on it. From the little I have read I do not find it reasonable enough to spend much time on. It is an adjusted copy-cat with major flaws, IMO. It does not interest me as a credible worldview. I think it is a shield or tag you hide behind that masks your agnosticism or soft atheism.  

Is it unreasonable to believe that a worldwide flood (catastrophism) caused the rock layers and fossil record quickly, rather than gradually? 

Origins can be explained in more than one way yet it is only naturalism that is examined or considered valid. Although the claims can be tested they cannot be verified through observation of the occurrence.

As I understood it, there were two debates being discussed. One regarding the 'reasonableness of prophecy as evidence' and one over interpretation of prophecy. The former I dislike the proposition; the latter I'm not interested in.

You can't have the one without the other. You need a correct interpretation that is verifiable by Scripture (and to some extent history) for prophecy to be reasonable. 

Your beliefs have already been revealed to be (at least partially) false in regards to the age of the Earth and evolution.

You are creating a narrative again, that what I believe is false, based on your assertion.

There is only certainty in origins if God has revealed. God is not inconsistent with what is necessary for certainty. 

Well...since over half of registered voters are going to be voting for Trump in November [...]

Do you not understand what happened in Nazi Germany and in oh so many dictatorships is the same thing taking place in your country through a massive bombardment of dis and misinformation? You are feeding off a bunch of lies under the guise of the Democrat Party. Do you know of the coming coup if Trump wins? They are already prepping you.

See here, The coming Coup

You ASSUME that rational or reasoning faith cannot be a justified true belief (knowledge). Says you. Why are you the arbitrator of what is knowledge? 

I continually argue that the Bible God is knowable and knowledge in Him is reasonable, what He says is justifiable. I gave you the opportunity to argue against this knowledge in the form of prophecy and how reasonable it is to believe. You declined. So, how can I demonstrate to you something you are not willing to explore or reason against?

You continually say, as does ludofl3x, I don't know, I don't care. Thus you have created the impass, not me. I am willing to discuss whether what I believe is reasonable and whether I have knowledge of such a God.

Prove it.

You come from a position of "I don't know."  You have demonstrated you do not have what is necessary to know. You can point to many people, scientists, who propose a reason for origins, but their opinions are conflicted. The origin of the universe is built on models that best fit the data available but there are many anomalies within these models. So, there is no surety as to what actually happened. 

For surety of origins, we are not necessary beings. We were not there. We assume that the present is the key to the past because that is our gauge to the distant past. We look at data and interpret it from the present (the past four hundred years). It is a relatively recent 'science.' Human history and records is a relatively short time frame in a supposed 14 billion year universe, if that is your paradigm you build from. 

What would be necessary? The being would have to be a personal being who was there and transcends the time, space, matter universe, who created the universe and understands it in all it aspects. If that being has revealed we can know. Now if that being was omniscient but changing could we then know? How would we be sure that being was not lying to us? Thus, that being would have to be immutable, without change. That being would have to be omnibenevolent or else there would be no guarantee that the being would lie. 

We both work from core presuppositions.

An omniscient, immutable Being who has revealed is necessary. 

Who knows the truth about origins? 

Knowing the truth about origins is not possible unless God exists and has revealed. Throughout human history the speculation is still going on and strong.

Which conscious  mind(s)? Yours? Who are you referring to? You admitted you don't know.  So, who does? If they do, why don't you trust them as truthful? Remember, you admit that you do not know. 

Why should we care about what's "more reasonable" if that reasoning doesn't establish truth?

Because you are dismissing what is necessary for truth. That is why you should care. Chance is not necessary or sufficient. It explains nothing. 

Okay, so is that a no? 

Do you agree that prophecy is reasonable to believe?

I agree, Skep, you can have reasoned conclusions, that can be wrong, but are they more reasonable than the alternative? 

True enough. I just thought you might like the challenge. You did accept it twice before as a devil's advocate. 

I'm not a fan of the wording. In particular, "reasonable" isn't clear enough for my liking. Perhaps 'Prophecy provides sufficient evidence for the Biblical God' or 'The Biblical God is rationally justified by prophecy.

The whole purpose or aim of highlighting reason is to contrast the two opposite positions against each other as to which gives better and more logical explanations.

All unfulfilled biblical prophecy has its fulfillment by AD70. 

That could be another heading for a debate. I like it. 

Jerusalem, and the temple, is key to understanding prophecy and the transition between the OT and NT. Is that reasonable to believe? I was originally going to challenge a Christian who holds to a futuristic view of prophecy (such as Dispensationalism, Millennialism, Amillennialism, etc) to showcase which view is more reasonable.  

Title: Prophecy is a reasonable evidence for the Biblical God.

What has been demonstrated is that people find a particular paradigm reasonable, but it is not from its starting of the chain of events or the ability for the apparatus (chance happenstance) to do so.

Chance is your master. 

The difference is your and my starting point - God or chance. 

...that does not mean a giant leap from a whale to a pig that can be traced through the fossil record.

Your worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of life's most important questions.

Thus, you hide from God. 

In your case, a shaky foundation that you have no justification for. My belief is so much more reasonable and logicL than yours because of where I start. 

No only one person, but around 40 different authors all centering on different aspects of the Messiah or the coming judgment of Israel.

It is more reasonable to believe the writings (a.k.a. prophecies) were written at or after the fall of the temple rather than accepting the laws of nature having been turned on their head.

No, it is not more reasonable. It would be a great topic of debate to highlight the reasons for each side of the issue, similar to our debates of the past on Matthew 24 and Revelation. 

How is 'kinds' in conflict with 'facts.' Whose facts? Why are they facts? 

God gives us a reason for the first cause, the origin or start of the universe. Thus, the Christian worldview has an adequate explanation and can make sense of origins. It has what is necessary. Do not tell me it does not have what is necessary or rational unless you can back it up reasonably and logically. Go ahead. 

I'm curious how you reject some evidence and accept other. Would it be incorrect to describe your priority as presuppositions and not the evidence? 

I reject it based on the starting point, the core presuppositions are not logical or reasonable. 

Uniformitarianism uses the layers of rock as support of the dating process. The fossil type and rock layer they are found in are also used in determining age also. Then the current rates and processes of soil deposits, erosion, and decay that build up and tear down these layers are assumed to be the same or similar to those of the past. Then there is the problem of how millions and billions of fossils are deposited in these rock layers by Uniformitarianisn, a slow gradual process. Rather, millions and billions of fossils point to catastrophism.

Finally, without God, what is the cause of consistency and uniformity of nature in a chance happenstance universe? How does chance happenstance sustain anything? Why would it do so? Why do laws exist for uniformity? To study how, the why is important. 

By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. 

Since the 1960s, scientists have started accounting for the variations by calibrating the clock against the known ages of tree rings. As a rule, carbon dates are younger than calendar dates: a bone carbon-dated to 10,000 years is around 11,000 years old, and 20,000 carbon years roughly equates to 24,000 calendar years.
The problem, says Bronk Ramsey, is that tree rings provide a direct record that only goes as far back as about 14,000 years. Marine records, such as corals, have been used to push farther back in time, but these are less robust because levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and the ocean are not identical and tend shift with changes in ocean circulation.

"I don't follow how that is explained?" is a question. I am asking you to provide a naturalistic explanation since ...

...which you are now attempting to take out of context.  You originally stated this question suggesting I had labeled your reasoning broken without explaining it (which I did...more than once).  You were not asking me to provide a naturalistic explanation in this part of our conversation.  I don't mind you asking questions of me, Peter, but I very much dislike the pretense I've avoided a question you didn't ask.

Here is your OP and that context:

ME: "Confirmation bias. Also, you are not speaking of science but scientism. It requires blind faith that what you identify as happening in the present was also happening in the past, that the ingredients were similar and recognizable."

YOU: "Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply. Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?  At the very least, we should be able to agree there is some evidence supporting Uniformitarianism. I don't understand what you mean by 'similar and recognizable ingredients' - are you suggesting there was dissimilar and unrecognizable ingredients? If so, where did they go?"

ME: "I don't follow how that is explained? You provided a label without an explanation." 

YOU: "Do you understand that hydrogen and oxygen, neither of which are wet, combine to make water, which IS wet? When you suggest the absence of consciousness, rationality, morality (whatever) in the individual ingredients of life as a defeator for consciousness, rationality, morality (whatever) being natural, you are relying on the composition fallacy. It's simply a fact that the whole sometimes has attributes beyond that of the parts. You're reasoning is flawed."

If humanity has a beginning there are ultimately one of two alternatives, their cause is something unreasoning and illogical or reasoning being caused them.

I don't agree to that dichotomy. It could be  the cause of life was absent reason/rationality, or unreasoning/illogical, or with reason/rationality. Not one of these options disallows our reasoning and logical abilities.  Hydrogen nor oxygen are wet, but they make water which is wet.  Must the origin of water be wet? No, of course not.

You are making a mistake in thinking the whole must have the same attributes as the parts (or the origin of the parts).

Exactly, you infer it. It requires a reasoned faith. You trust that what you believe about the rate of decay is accurate and gives a good representation of what happened. Without God the question is how does something that is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, devoid of intelligence, devoid of intention and agency make anything happen???

Same composition fallacy hard at work here. 

Deflection. When you charge my thinking as fallacious please explain your reasoning, not just the label. I'm so tired of people doing that. 

I explain why your reasoning was bad in the underlined above.

I don't follow how that is explained? You provided a label without an explanation. 

Where is your naturalistic explanation for Uniformitarianism or even how the universe began to exist and what caused that beginning? How does mentioning your parents, grandparents, etc., provide evidence for the way the universe is formed or Uniformitarianism explaining fossils, that the recent past and human history is the key to the distant past? They are not an answer to those problems. 

Historically prophecy is reasonable to believe for the OT writings preceed the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, as do the NT writings.

I am suggesting that Uniformatarianists believe that the conditions in the present is somewhat similar to what was found in the past since the present is all they have to go by. There would be a number of assumptions built-in, like the rate of decay, the environmental conditions, the age of the rock layers, the progression of life, etc. 

"I don't follow how that is explained?" is a question. I am asking you to provide a naturalistic explanation since ...

Here are some explanations:

1. Creation

2. Chance

3. Illusion

4. I don't know

If you want to list fallacies, there are numerous that your worldview, without God, would fall under and employ. With the universe, you have the appeal to ignorance fallacy.

It falls under the guise of the is/ought fallacy, for without morality coming from a necessary, self-existent Being,

"the constructive nature of perception" fallacy 

Also, confirmation bias as used in that the naturalistic paradigm funnels how we explain our supposed rise to our current status. You only look for evidence that confirms what you want to believe

Evoluion could be described as an anthropomorphic bias. That is, you and those who describe macro-evolutionary principles, explain evolution by using humanlike characteristic, such as 'Mother Nature,' or 'willingly,' or 'she.' 

Evolution also uses the genetic fallacy, where the history of macro-evolution is traced to the 'common ancestor.' 

Earnt  Haeckel created the now discredited 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny theory' as to the altering transition stages of genetic make-up before birth.

As for hydrogen and oxygen, I do understand that once they are cooled down can become liquids and solids, thus, I think they can contain wetness when that content is measured.

With consciousness, rationality, morality, I do not witness such things in materials such as rocks, and minerals, the supposed building blocks along the way to these three attributes. That assumption is built-in by a naturalistic worldview. Now, if you want to explain how it is possible, I am all ears. Again, it is your assumption that "Nature' can do this, over eons of time. Time is the magic ingredient. Demonstrate how it is possible. I'm looking for your explanation. 

Your added wording is redundant, unnecessary. Faith in faith in God or trust in trust in God is not the same as saying trust or faith in God. 

More aptly, faith in God is what we put our trust in.

As I have mentioned before, there are three kinds of faith that I am aware of - blind faith, rational faith, irrational faith. While the biblical faith can be blind, believers are encouraged by God to worship not only with our bodies but with our minds and thinking. The biblical God is a reasoning God.

Whereas you understand evolution as progressing from a common ancestor, from the simple to the complex, we as Christians understand each to its own kind.

It's simply a fact that not all Christians adhere to the strict literalist interpretation of the Bible that you seems to prefer.

Literalistic? You are mistaken. I believe in taking the Bible literally only where the language gives reason to do so. That means literal where literally descriptive, historical narrative, not metaphoric language is used.

Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply.

Then you cannot prove beginnings scientifically, something I have said all along. 

Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?

Some of it I deny, other 'evidence' I find reasonable and affirm. But the point is that neither you, nor I, nor they were there for the beginning of the universe or humanity. Some of the 'evidence' we derive from history is reasonable, other 'evidence' is not.

Again, your starting point or core presuppositions without God is what you build your worldview upon, and your starting point is unreasoning (mindless, blind, random, chance happenstance) and unreasonable. 

Lost half my post due to carelessness and do not feel like responding to the rest of your post presently. (^8

Faith has to have an object that one places trust in. Faith itself is not the object.

It doesn't seem like you're disagreeing with my evaluation of the devotional excerpt...

Your evaluation seems to doubt the evidence.

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

False. Some Christians accept theistic evolution or just plain ol' evolution.  Henderson was targeting individuals who sought to have their ignorances taught in schools...which, as illustrated above, isn't necessarily Christianity in general.

Theistic evolution still has as its cause an intelligent maker. Thus, even theistic evolution has as its creator God.

Intelligent Design will obviously need to hold more than just a creator god as it attempts to provide a non-natural alternative for the diversity of life evolution explains. I stand by my point.

Whereas you understand evolution as progressing from a common ancestor, from the simple to the complex, we as Christians understand each to its own kind.

What you view as a weakness, I view as a strength.  The problem isn't ignorance in a position, but how it is treated. That's the point of this thread.  Faith can argue ignorance as knowledge.  Science seeks to diminish ignorance.

Confirmation bias. Also, you are not speaking of science but scientism. It requires blind faith that what you identify as happening in the present was also happening in the past, that the ingredients were similar and recognizable.

I don't follow how that is explained? You provided a label without an explanation. 

I primarily see a misunderstanding of evolution represented here. Other than an example of what uninformed faith can yield, I see little relevance to the OP.

Another copout. You have yet to explain the links in the chain to make evolution possible let alone the agency of it. Follow the chain to its first link, its initial link that began all the other links.

First, what caused the BB? [...]

Again, you have the scenario of the dice rolling themselves without any agency. Then you have the dice producing a fixed result (six, six, six, six, six...) without any intent. You continually look for the explanation within the universe, within the natural realm. So, if the universe had a beginning, there must have been something to cause it, or else it would be self-created, which is a contradiction in terms and self-refuting.

Then from this primordial earth life begins. According to evolution, from the simplest life form diverge other life forms and complexity. From the data (fossils) scientists piece together links based on a desired naturalistic explanation and interpretation. Again, the fossil data does not come stamped, "One billion years old transitional mutation from a whale to a pig." That kind of assumption or inference is read into the data based on a worldview paradigm and similarity between one kind and another, forgetting that we have similarities because we share the same environments and food sources. The two do not necessarily equate.  

More aptly, faith in God is what we put our trust in.  Faith has to be directed to something or someone. The Christian faith is directed to God, trusting in God, as I have continually pointed out.

I found your devotional excerpts to be in-line with faith as defined in the OP too - ie, faith itself is the important part, and not the reasons for it.

The reason for our faith in God is confirmed by His word and a realization that there is no higher court of appeal than God. 

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

False. Some Christians accept theistic evolution or just plain ol' evolution.  Henderson was targeting individuals who sought to have their ignorances taught in schools...which, as illustrated above, isn't necessarily Christianity in general.

Theistic evolution still has as its cause an intelligent maker. Thus, even theistic evolution has as its creator God.

The ignorance is just as great with naturalism and its use of the scientific method in that it cannot verify origins by repeating these beginnings, and as I said before the premise is that the present is the key to the past.

If humanity has a beginning there are ultimately one of two alternatives, their cause is something unreasoning and illogical or reasoning being caused them.

I don't agree to that dichotomy. It could be  the cause of life was absent reason/rationality, or unreasoning/illogical, or with reason/rationality. Not one of these options disallows our reasoning and logical abilities.  Hydrogen nor oxygen are wet, but they make water which is wet.  Must the origin of water be wet? No, of course not.

You are making a mistake in thinking the whole must have the same attributes as the parts (or the origin of the parts).

Exactly, you infer it. It requires a reasoned faith. You trust that what you believe about the rate of decay is accurate and gives a good representation of what happened. Without God the question is how does something that is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, devoid of intelligence, devoid of intention and agency make anything happen???

Same composition fallacy hard at work here. 

Deflection. When you charge my thinking as fallacious please explain your reasoning, not just the label. I'm so tired of people doing that. 

It's not uniformitarianism (which has withstood scrutiny) that's the problem, but a Biblical belief that can't be validated with it.

Certainly it has withstood your scrutiny. You are piped into the Darwinian dream, built upon the belief of Uniformitarianism. Scientists accepted the Darwins paradigm, despite the many anomalies in his thinking including missing links and gaps in the fossil record.

 

Many accepted Haeckel's Recapitulation theory but it has been largely discredited.

What these theories propose is not what we witness. I see the same kind of beings producing the same kind of offspring.  I don't see apes producing humans or whales producing pigs. Millions and billions of years, I am told, is necessary for that (Once upon a time, a long, long time ago...). That is the presupposition that the theory relies upon - time. Time is the magical ingredient.

I see a variation of birds that have adapted to their environments having different features from other birds but they are still birds. I see a variety of dogs that have adapted to their environments that have different features, but they are still dogs. I witness cross-breeding of dogs, but the end result is still a dog. I don't see a horse and a dog as being able to breed. I see people with different skin pigmentation but they are still human beings. Some are short, others tall in comparison, but they are still the same kind of beings. 

Could fallible humans successfully produce the message God intended for man in the form of literatute?

Fallible humans built the great pyramid, from the bond servant who placed the last brick in the wall, to the authority figure who commanded it's construction. Does anyone have any complaints about the great pyramid? Is there any imperfections that cause you to do a face palm when thinking on that 7th wonder of the world?

Faith is what we put our trust in. Faith = trust IN God. 

I think we should all have the discussion [...]

Intelligent design is a belief of all Christians [...]

When you target believers of a young earth you think there is no evidence for such a belief [...]

The misconception propograted online is the Christianity has no evidence. 

If humanity has a beginning there are ultimately one of two alternatives, their cause is something unreasoning and illogical or reasoning being caused them.

Exactly, you infer it. It requires a reasoned faith. You trust that what you believe about the rate of decay is accurate and gives a good representation of what happened. Without God the question is how does something that is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, devoid of intelligence, devoid of intention and agency make anything happen???

You assume that what we see and understand now is what happened in the distant past. 

When you concede 'faith is the object of trust' you also give away any rational foundation. If your understanding of you religious beliefs is based on no evidence how can it be rational?

[...] The object of our faith is a rational, reasoning Person....

Human beings? Complete organisms that begins at conception, directs their growth from within, and contain in their makeup biological information from a male and female human being.

By secondary (second class) human beings I mean that pro-choice treats the unborn as less than it is, usually dehumanizing it.

You claim as your religion a satire, a mocking of Intelligent Design as believed in Christian circles. 

Now, when you say that versions of Christianity are mocked because the data is not real and verifiable, I claim that what is called science (it is really scientism) but looks at beginnings has exactly the same problem. 

A normal person would not believe something unless they thought of it as true. The object of that faith is important

A belief that is not logically consistent shows it has falsity to it. That, as a start, should be a discouragement and warning sign that something is wrong with a persons thinking. 

No, there is no guarantee that what happens today will happen tomorrow in a universe where random chance happenstance (that is not driven by intent and purpose) is its cause (somehow).

How do you know the same rate of decay was present in the past?

As I said before, there are three types of faith, blind, rational, and irrational. The Christian faith is a rational faith even though many accept it blindly

Either, both, but I'm lazy right now and do not want to do the leg work. I would rather debate the central issue of abortion, why pro-choice treat the unborn as secondary human beings. 0 :^)

Sure it [Pastafarianism] is in opposition to Christianity. It mocks Christianity. 

You equated the same defense to other religions, not me. I'm asking you to show me how the evidence is same regarding prophecy. 

It is [logical consistency] the starting point in showing that a belief is at least logical. 

I know the sun will rise because I have what is necessary for its uniformity. How does an atheist know it will? 

With uranium decay, you assume that what we determine in the present is the key to the past. 

Faith is the object trusted in.

In fairness, I answered your statement regarding the "Judeo-Christian" principles, and you pushed against my rejection of that. If it is important to you, start a debate and we can devote all our attention to that subject rather than derailing this one. 

Yes, I pushed against your statement as you continually push against mine. I pushed against it because it deserved a reply. You have admitted you work from ignorance about God, origins, existence, morality. I ask what would be necessary for the knowledge of such things? I say that it is your belief system and structure that is unreasonable (granting you are still an atheist or agnostic, although you are hiding behind Pastafarianism), not mine.  

What kind of debate would you suggest? Would you pit Pastafarianism against Christianity as to which is more reasonable? (There would be a lot of work to such a debate). Or do you still consider yourself truly as an atheist or agnostic? How reasonable are those beliefs? 

I offered you substantiation. Prophecy is evidence. 

Again, adherents of other religions can offer the same heartfelt defense. An internally consistent belief is not evidence of anything except internal consistency. Harry Potter has that too.

Show me how their prophecies come true and what they are based upon.

A belief that is not internally consistent shows that it is not logical to believe in. If I say "a dog is a dog" then later on I say "a dog is a cat," I am not being consistent. Inconsistency goes against logic. 

What you build your worldview upon are core beliefs or values that are not verifiable in the same way normal science is verifiable.

And, as I have said many times (building upon others), we take for granted that what we learn in the present and look at in the present is the key to the past since we are working from the present. Do you think and know that the present is the key to the past? 

Faith (or claimed faith) doesn't make something true.

But it does make it important.

Hold me accountable...in a relevant thread.

You made a statement. I aswered it. 

That's my point - I can't tell the difference between your defense and a defense other religious adherents might make. They're identical and said with just as much passion, conviction, and lack of substantiation.

I offered you substantiation. Prophecy is evidence. 

You have nothing I lack except for additional presuppositions which seem to be based on what you want to be true and not on what is necessary or pragmatic. 

You lack certainty of knowledge and cannot get there unless such a revealed God exists [...]

That makes it [Christianity] different from other religious beliefs.

I'm just answering your charges. Is you aim just to state things without accountability? Do you want me to remain silent and let you control the whole narrative? 

Still claimed by adherents of every religion.

And not every religious belief is true since every religion makes absolute claims that contradict other religions. I only defend my Christian beliefs since I do not believe other worldviews are based on truth. That is where my arguments come from. 

You've mistaken having an answer with having knowledge.

I have what is necessary for such knowledge of origins [...]

I don't follow that distinction.  The Christian church does not stand untainted by the world (and neither does any other religion that I know of).  There are plenty of examples of 'wordly stains' on the church. 

Even though we are frail and tainted in ourselves, 

Who fled on the Mayflower? What principles did they build upon? 

Our belief in built upon a [insert attribute here] like no other religious belief,

It [Pastafarianism] is just fiction made up in 2005 to mock Christianity and that you also use as a club, IMO. 

I ask you what would be necessary for our knowledge of origins since you claim ignorance? Is that something you have an answer for because I do.

Biblical faith is not defined by just one verse, but the whole context, the whole chapter speaks of a trust in God. You still have to trust in the substance of things you hope for, that God exists and is a rewarded of those who diligently seek Him. The biblical record is one of trust in Him identified by those who are faithful and distrust and doubting Him for the faithless. 

Yes - I believe religion shouldn't be taught as true or factual by government in schools. Do you disagree with that notion? 

I make a distinction between religion and Christianity based on James 1:27, so what is classed as religion does not usually represent the true tenents of Christianity.

As for teaching Christianity as true, I agree that it is, so I see the benefits of teaching the Judeo-Christian belief system since your country was founded on many of its principles. 

As for the factuality of Christianity, I believe I can make a good case for it. 

Do you believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster is real as your religion states?

You have as much faith as I do, I would say more, it is just directed in another direction, to scientism when you speak of origins. 

Brain function....The acquisition, storage, manipulation and output of data....Faith and scepticism are two labels that we apply to bits of this process.

At this point IDK if this post contradicts my viewpoint 3 days ago, but I will say it.

Faith is needed in the basis of belief, because if it is 100% certain, of no need of faith, then it is facts. There is no need to disbelieve in facts unless you have faith that they are wrong, which is also faith.

You have faith that what you have taught was correct(or even wrong).

Are you using the label to identify what you really believe in - a flying spaghetti monster, first revealed in 2005 - or are you just using the term as a form of mockery of religions in general, especially Christianity? 

The "many, many words" were an example of various thoughts on the subject, thus not just my opinion. They are confirmed by dictionaries, encyclopedias, and religious authorities as well as from the etymology of the word "faith." They do not deflect; rather they prove. 

I also noticed you have once again changed your religious belief to Pastafarianism, from atheist and agnostic, and originally Christian. How steadfast is your faith this time?

You're on the defensive again! When in denial use "gish gallop" as your form of escapism.

Basically in a nutshell, there is no faith without warrant, it's a meaningless term. 

It sounds like you believe some specific religions are dangerous, others not?

What is your definition of fundamentalism?

No. Intelligent design is a product of humanity built from bias and science/scientism. 

How in the world did an inanimate, non-entity get accused of possessing human traits?

Why do you think the accusers in the Dover trial didn't just say "The Discovery Institute has a religious agenda, therefore they shouldn't be the organization to handle the subject in our schools"? Why are they attempting to treat intelligent design like a human organization?

Do you feel that the accusers in the Dover trial were free of bias?