Jump to content
Joshpantera

LuthAMF verses Joshpantera: informal debate

Recommended Posts

On 8/8/2019 at 8:23 AM, LuthAMF said:

And like I've said, we don't look to Genesis to prove the bible. It seems you think it is supposed to. 

Am I correct in saying this? 

Sorry to have to repeat it but your only reply was 

"Presuppositions apologetics."

Do YOU think we use Genesis to prove the bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



18 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Am I correct in saying this? 

Sorry to have to repeat it but your only reply was 

"Presuppositions apologetics."

Do YOU think we use Genesis to prove the bible?

 

You use the bible to prove the bible: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

 

Quote

Presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics that believes the Christian faith is the only basis for rational thought. It presupposes that the Bible is divine revelation and attempts to expose flaws in other worldviews.

It claims that apart from presuppositions, one could not make sense of any human experience, and there can be no set of neutral assumptions from which to reason with a non-Christian.[1] Presuppositionalists claim that a Christian cannot consistently declare his belief in the necessary existence of the God of the Bible and simultaneously argue on the basis of a different set of assumptions that God may not exist and Biblical revelation may not be true.

 

Clarkian presuppositionalism[edit]

Gordon Clark and his followers treat the truth of the Scriptures as the axiom of their system. Like all axioms, this axiom is considered to be self-evident truth, not to be proven, but used for proof.

 

Is Genesis part of the bible?

 

If the bible proves the claims made within the bible, and Genesis 1 is the first book of the bible, how do you propose that you do not use Genesis 1 to prove the bible? Especially when Genesis 1:1 introduces the initial claim of the existence of god within the bible?

 

Granted, you likely use more than just Genesis alone to prove the bible, no doubt. But why would you shy away from just admitting that you do use Genesis to prove the bible and that you do so from a platform of presupposition apologetic's (PA)? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, on this point and at this moment I'm not shying away from or declaring anything. I was just asking you if you think we use Genesis to prove the bible I got my answer. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long week...

 

I apologize up front for the formatting of this post. The Quote feature works best but I've compiled quotes in a Note App so quotes don't translate back into the forum.

 

OK. I have read back through this entire thread.
I think some things need hashed out or rather re-hashed. My take away thus far? It is impossible to engage in actual debate with you because you hold no position other than to say the bible and Christianity are wrong. That's your only absolute here. Though you say you have no absolutes: "Because I don't speak in terms of absolute's. I am not strapped with the burden of proof requirements that speakers in absolute's are chained at the ankle with") Some would say that is weasling...You need not prove anything? Sure gets one off the hook for making sense, doesn't it?
 
I have gone through and picked out relevant points that, to me, have defined the discussion thus far. Your quotes re in bold.
 
First
The bible: Demonstably false or not? 
That is the stated premise (although you could have left off the "or not")
But then turn around and say,
"But all of that has little to do with this debate about Genesis 1 as demonstrably true or false. "
I told you then "Josh, WHAT??? That's not the premise of the debate!! Are you yourself confusing the two, bouncing back and forth as though the two are interchangeable terms? I've told you we ought not jump into Genesis before establishing what scripture is."
Maybe you erred there...
So we jump in at Genesis 1:1 
And we should not have...
 
So BEFORE I take on the task of helping you understand the nature of Scripture (which I should have done already rather than get lost in abstraction)

"The point is that Genesis tells a story of the creation of the earth and universe. That story doesn't add up with observable reality."

 

"Observable reality." I've not sat idle this past week. I've compiled tons of things to address but I'm going to start right there.

"That story doesn't add up with observable reality."

It most certainly does. Everything in the text IS our observable universe. But you demand  age before everything. Something had to have been generated; spawned by a like something billions of years ago. But if created,  the world already expressed age. Aged planets. Aged vegetation and animal life - all able to procreate immediately rather than having to evolve genitalia- and then fully cognizant man also being fruitful and multiplying precisely in the same manner as today.  When have you EVER observed anything different? Who is observing reality and who us making up stories?

So here we go...

 

 
  1. We have a universe (the Heavens)  and the Earth.  You say Genesis is wrong but yet it provides for us the exact same REAL and observable world as does your attempts at "explanation" WHICH cannot be proven with any degree of certainty. 
    "The fact remains that reality is a series of "what if's,' unless of course you or someone else can step forward and prove otherwise? Where's the hard evidence that tells us exactly, absolutely how the universe, earth and life came to be?"  "Doesn't mean science is inerrant, it just means that it has better explanatory power over a bronze age creation myth." It does NOT, but you prefer it. There is "science" behind the Creation account as well. It's ALL scientifically observable. No difference whatsoever in the material being observed but only in the conclusion which can be purely subjective. ***SEE BELOW***
  1. We have mankind as conscious, sentient, self aware beings. Evolution gets us there...eventually. Even then, it does not account one shred for our eventual brain development. Was the Primordial Soup self aware? But you say "If the consciousness as fundamental arguments raging among philosophers and scientists gain merit, then additional scenarios present themselves. Awareness would be primary. It would found the whole of the material sciences as a newly discovered aspect of material itself. It would then apply to the infinite and eternal cosmological models in like fashion. Biological evolution in like fashion. Those are just two more scenarios on the table for consideration." When? When will we get to see this? And Why do we need philosophers and scientists to tell us the obvious? Certainly philosophy and psychology have their place in assisting us, but how much is sheer speculation? "Speculation" will be addressed following...)
  1. It gives us the Family unit and procreation. When did evolution produce this necessity for mankind? How did it decide a family unit was profitable? Copulation wasn't necessary in the soup. Why have we DE-volved that it is a necessity now? Why can't stuff just reproduce without male/female LIKE IT ONCE HAD TO HAVE DONE in your speculation-filled prehistoric wonder world? Whence the change?
  1. The bible, IN GENESIS gives us society structure. When did man evolve far enough along to recognize this was desirable when it wasn't part of evolution up to that point? How did evolution KNOW to program this into man? OH THAT"S RIGHT! it just randomly occurred. So which Troglodyte Council established the first grunting colony and set of UNIVERSAL rule?
  1. The bible gives us language. How and when did evolution turn grunts and squeals into all the known languages? I want documentation of when this occurred. Not History Channel 4 billion guesses.
  1. It gives us government and Law. Don't even think you can thank evolution for this observable "reality". Survival of the fittest DEMANDS death at the hands of another. How dare we go against our primordial instinct and attempt to squelch that desire by calling it murder and prosecuting people. Rape? It's an absolute necessity in evolutionary man. Spread your seed promiscuously with whomever or whatever...and when did Troglodyte women begin to object? Why be "faithful" to one? What is the purpose for marriage if in the evolutionary mind  proliferation is the only desire?
  2. It gives us History and Time. But you say "The proof for Genesis 1 should be found all around us (AND IT IS!!!) because it's about the BEGINNING OF TIME. We're in the realm of time now.  (Yes. Creation agrees) The evidence should be all around to gather and provide. But it isn't. (WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? See above i.e. "The same observable world") That's the main problem here. We can find evidence of things that go back billions of years, (APPEARING to be billions. Genesis also indicates age. Adam was not an embryo. Trees did not sprout from seed and take hundreds of years to mature. Earth did not need to grow for a billion years. Nothing inconsistent.) indirectly or which ever way we can. So why does none of it gel with Genesis 1

 

You cannot say these things are not addressed in Genesis. Now where is it lacking in "observable reality"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:
OK. I have read back through this entire thread.
I think some things need hashed out or rather re-hashed. My take away thus far? It is impossible to engage in actual debate with you because you hold no position other than to say the bible and Christianity are wrong. That's your only absolute here. Though you say you have no absolutes: "Because I don't speak in terms of absolute's. I am not strapped with the burden of proof requirements that speakers in absolute's are chained at the ankle with") Some would say that is weasling...You need not prove anything? Sure gets one off the hook for making sense, doesn't it?

 

This is a good try, but I've not given you an absolute. The door is open for you to prove christianity correct, if it's possible. That's what this is. 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:
First
The bible: Demonstably false or not? 
That is the stated premise (although you could have left off the "or not")
But then turn around and say,
"But all of that has little to do with this debate about Genesis 1 as demonstrably true or false. "
I told you then "Josh, WHAT??? That's not the premise of the debate!! Are you yourself confusing the two, bouncing back and forth as though the two are interchangeable terms? I've told you we ought not jump into Genesis before establishing what scripture is."
Maybe you erred there...
So we jump in at Genesis 1:1 
And we should not have...

 

That's what I did, I went through Genesis 1 looking at what is demonstrably false. Such as days taking place before the sun. Grass growing on dry land before the sun was made. The earth existing a formless void in space prior to the existence of the sun. And so on, and so on as demonstrably false claims are made. False according to everything we know, do understand, see evidence for, and can deduce about existence in this universe and on this planet. I did not represent materialist science as absolute, either. I represented as the best of our abilities. And that's where Genesis starts out demonstrably false. 

 

You were then given opportunity to turn that around. But you haven't. 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:

"That story doesn't add up with observable reality."

It most certainly does. Everything in the text IS our observable universe. But you demand  age before everything. Something had to have been generated; spawned by a like something billions of years ago. But if created,  the world already expressed age. Aged planets. Aged vegetation and animal life - all able to procreate immediately rather than having to evolve genitalia- and then fully cognizant man also being fruitful and multiplying precisely in the same manner as today.  When have you EVER observed anything different? Who is observing reality and who us making up stories?

So here we go...

 

I say it doesn't gel with observable reality, because science has been demonstrating that for centuries. That's why science split away from religion. For you to demonstrate the above as true, you go up against everything that the sciences have discovered about the universe, the solar system, the planet and it's life. That's no small feat. It requires overwhelming evidence to the contrary, in fact. 

 

What the above looks like to me is this: http://apps.usd.edu/esci/creation/age/content/creationism_and_young_earth/appearance_of_age.html

 

God created the earth looking as if it were old, but it's young. Another popular apologetic. You have to wonder what's the idea here? Did god create the world to try and confuse people? Is part of some strategy to trick the "unelect"? I know that sounds silly, but seriously, what purpose is behind these apologetic's aside from the bible presenting a young earth and then science discovering that it's not young but old, and then apologist's knee jerking to a not so well thought out response to the earth being old. It just appears that way? Again, the onus is on the person making the claim that the earth merely appears to look old. And that is covered in the above citation. 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:
We have a universe (the Heavens)  and the Earth.  You say Genesis is wrong but yet it provides for us the exact same REAL and observable world as does your attempts at "explanation" WHICH cannot be proven with any degree of certainty. 
"The fact remains that reality is a series of "what if's,' unless of course you or someone else can step forward and prove otherwise? Where's the hard evidence that tells us exactly, absolutely how the universe, earth and life came to be?"  "Doesn't mean science is inerrant, it just means that it has better explanatory power over a bronze age creation myth." It does NOT, but you prefer it. There is "science" behind the Creation account as well. It's ALL scientifically observable. No difference whatsoever in the material being observed but only in the conclusion which can be purely subjective. ***SEE BELOW***

 

If you're trying to use "appearance of age" to substantiate this claim then you have all of the associated problems attached to the appearance of age argument. First of all, Genesis gives us a six day creation. Evening's and mornings. It doesn't suggest in the text that god created with the appearance of age. That is something that came as an afterthought to science discovering the age of the universe and earth via things like the geological record, radio active decay, etc., etc., all of which are mentioned in the citation I've provided. This is not a situation where we are on level ground because science observes and old earth and you claim that the earth appears as if it were old. You are still at odds with science nonetheless due to all of the issues mentioned in the link and more. 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:

We have mankind as conscious, sentient, self aware beings. Evolution gets us there...eventually. Even then, it does not account one shred for our eventual brain development. Was the Primordial Soup self aware? But you say "If the consciousness as fundamental arguments raging among philosophers and scientists gain merit, then additional scenarios present themselves. Awareness would be primary. It would found the whole of the material sciences as a newly discovered aspect of material itself. It would then apply to the infinite and eternal cosmological models in like fashion. Biological evolution in like fashion. Those are just two more scenarios on the table for consideration." When? When will we get to see this? And Why do we need philosophers and scientists to tell us the obvious? Certainly philosophy and psychology have their place in assisting us, but how much is sheer speculation? "Speculation" will be addressed following...)

 

All of these new theories on consciousness merge with human evolution. They show how awareness can be primary and then run through evolution. More to the point, even the more mystical oriented PSI phenomenon research runs in line with human evolution. Showing how animals and primitive man could have harnessed consciousness and awareness for survival advantages. Peter Russell, Donald Hoffman and Kirby Surprise are all working in a similar area of inquiry. The point being that mind and consciousness do not take us away from what science has already established through human evolution, but instead offers the potential to bring us ever closer to better understanding it as this all continues to play out. 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:
  1. It gives us the Family unit and procreation. When did evolution produce this necessity for mankind? How did it decide a family unit was profitable? Copulation wasn't necessary in the soup. Why have we DE-volved that it is a necessity now? Why can't stuff just reproduce without male/female LIKE IT ONCE HAD TO HAVE DONE in your speculation-filled prehistoric wonder world? Whence the change?
  1.  

 

According to me, this seems like an obvious situation. Survival determines these things. A family unit, tribal units, communities all derive from survival. 

 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:
  1. The bible, IN GENESIS gives us society structure. When did man evolve far enough along to recognize this was desirable when it wasn't part of evolution up to that point? How did evolution KNOW to program this into man? OH THAT"S RIGHT! it just randomly occurred. So which Troglodyte Council established the first grunting colony and set of UNIVERSAL rule?
  1.  

 

Genesis comes to us from the post babylonian time period. If you argue for Moses, still, that places it in Egypt. Genesis was written long after societal structure already existed. It doesn't give us societal structure, it tries to back date an already existing societal structure and offer reasons as to why. But society exists because of human survival tendencies. Tribalism eventually turned into the agricultural high societies of the past. These are all obvious things to look at and consider. But not so obvious to someone under the influence of an "apriori religious belief assumption." You are assuming apriori that the bible is true and then back peddling to try and confirm an apriori belief. Everything you're offering comes from pre-assuming that the bible is true and then scrambling to try and offer evidence, after the fact, that you think can be used to support the apriori belief. 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:

The bible gives us language. How and when did evolution turn grunts and squeals into all the known languages? I want documentation of when this occurred. Not History Channel 4 billion guesses.

 

http://whoami.sciencemuseum.org.uk/whoami/findoutmore/yourbrain/whatisspecialabouthumanlanguage/whendidhumansstarttalking

 

The fixed beginning of human language is another uncertainty. Among many others mentioned so far in this debate. And so what? That doesn't default back to you substantiating the claim that the bible gives us the origin of language. It gives us days going by before the existence of the sun. So when it points to language how is that any different? The bible starts off making false claims. And then language falls in place in a series of evidently false claims. A day, an evening and morning exist only because of the planet facing towards or away from the it's star, the sun. These myths do not describe for us how the world was created nor how human language began in any literal way. Again, trying to poke holes in science or other world views doesn't automatically default your preferred mythology into absolute truth status. You haven't caught on to that yet apparently. 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:

It gives us government and Law. Don't even think you can thank evolution for this observable "reality". Survival of the fittest DEMANDS death at the hands of another. How dare we go against our primordial instinct and attempt to squelch that desire by calling it murder and prosecuting people. Rape? It's an absolute necessity in evolutionary man. Spread your seed promiscuously with whomever or whatever...and when did Troglodyte women begin to object? Why be "faithful" to one? What is the purpose for marriage if in the evolutionary mind  proliferation is the only desire?

 

Same issue, same problems. See all of the above. 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:

It gives us History and Time. But you say "The proof for Genesis 1 should be found all around us (AND IT IS!!!) because it's about the BEGINNING OF TIME. We're in the realm of time now.  (Yes. Creation agrees) The evidence should be all around to gather and provide. But it isn't. (WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??? See above i.e. "The same observable world") That's the main problem here. We can find evidence of things that go back billions of years, (APPEARING to be billions. Genesis also indicates age. Adam was not an embryo. Trees did not sprout from seed and take hundreds of years to mature. Earth did not need to grow for a billion years. Nothing inconsistent.) indirectly or which ever way we can. So why does none of it gel with Genesis 1

 

No, the proof is not found all around us. That's a very spurious claim on your part, Luth. The world of Genesis is NOT the same observable world, that's been addressed. And "appearance of age" apologetic's fails to accomplish the claim. So you are using reasoning based on a faulty premise outlined briefly in my first citation. Instead of a home run, you're striking out. 

 

On 8/18/2019 at 3:07 PM, LuthAMF said:

You cannot say these things are not addressed in Genesis. Now where is it lacking in "observable reality"?

 

And here we are back at square one. These things are addressed as mythology in Genesis, all well after the fact as mentioned. And "appearance of age" arguments don't put Genesis on level ground with science and observation. Not to mention the philosophical and religious issues and problems with "appearance of age" apologetic's. 

 

To summarize, you have gone on for pages from the premise of presuppositional apologetics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics

 

That's a dead end street because it fails to offer evidence. It just toes the party line of an already pre-existing, self confirming belief that the bible is true because the bible says that it's true. And that the bible proves the claims made within the bible. Being that that's a dead end we've tried moving on to something else. Next in order you've introduced an attempt at evidence oriented arguing which brings us to "appearance of age": http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=548

 

Both have already dead ended. Is there something else? More options? 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

This is a good try, but I've not given you an absolute. The door is open for you to prove christianity correct, if it's possible. That's what this is. 

Oh that's right. You're a "what if?" kinda guy. Be careful to never make a clear statement so can never be pinned down to anything. THATS what this is. 

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

I've not given you an absolute

"All of these new theories on consciousness merge with human evolution. "

That's an absolute..

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

I say it doesn't gel with observable reality, because science has been demonstrating that for centuries

 That's an absolute.

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

No, the proof is not found all around us.

That's an absolute. 

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

The world of Genesis is NOT the same observable world, that's been addressed.

That's an absolute. 

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

These things are addressed as mythology in Genesis, all well after the fact as mentioned.

Absolute.

 

1 hour ago, Joshpantera said:

These myths do not describe for us how the world was created nor how human language began in any literal way.

Absolute.

And on this note, the only thing you are actually demonstrating is that you are as much wedded to a system as any other. "Chained at the ankle" to use your term.

 

Again, the entirety of humanity has observed the exact same world from the beginning. Everyone has the same matter to observe yet you somehow are trying to tell me we observe different worlds. Cue Twilight Zone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Oh that's right. You're a "what if?" kinda guy. Be careful to never make a clear statement so can never be pinned down to anything. THATS what this is.

 

"He who thinks he knows, doesn't know. He who knows that he doesn't know, knows." - Aristotle

 

The suggestion above is that the head corner stone, the peak of the pyramid, is found in the intellectually honest admission of uncertainty.

 

There is nothing aside from, "what if" at the moment. Your challenge is to change that by providing the absolutely true answers, which, the bible in and of itself, by itself, is not even able to provide you with. You need to confirm the claims of the bible independent of it's own claims. But that's never been possible to date. Is today your lucky day? 

 

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:
4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

I say it doesn't gel with observable reality, because science has been demonstrating that for centuries

 That's an absolute.

 

Offering my ("I say") opinion by qualifying it as my opinion is a statement of absolute truth? 

 

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"All of these new theories on consciousness merge with human evolution. "

That's an absolute..

 

Check the three theories of consciousness that I named individually for citation - Peter Russell, Donald Hoffman and Kirby Surprise. All three mentioned work in league with human evolution and the scientific method. I think you're having even more confusion here with the word absolute. There's context.

 

We're talking about claims of absolute truth. Absolute claims about something in specific - the origins of the universe, planet and life. Those are the "absolute claims" that we are concerned with here in this debate. Not any run of the mill mundane absolute sounding statement. Try and keep to the context of the debate and stay on focus

 

This is all nonsense and besides the point.

 

I'm saying that no one's offered anything absolutely true about the mystery of origins. Not you. Not me. Where does that leave us? I've alleged that it leaves everyone to speculation. But you argue against that. In order to argue against that you are charged with proving that WE DO KNOW. There is WE DON'T KNOW or WE DO KNOW. Your methodology for KNOWING is you pointing at the bible and theological history and claims made by christian theologians about the bible. 

 

3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:
4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

No, the proof is not found all around us.

That's an absolute. 

 

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

The world of Genesis is NOT the same observable world, that's been addressed.

That's an absolute. 

 

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

These things are addressed as mythology in Genesis, all well after the fact as mentioned.

Absolute.

 

4 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

These myths do not describe for us how the world was created nor how human language began in any literal way.

Absolute.

And on this note, the only thing you are actually demonstrating is that you are as much wedded to a system as any other. "Chained at the ankle" to use your term.

 

Chained at the ankle to what? I've already made clear that I'm not chained theology nor materialist science and that the only thing what we know about origins is that ultimately we do not know. Until we know, we don't know. And, to the best of our ability, none of the creation myths in the world square up with the evidence that is available to us. This is not me making absolute claims, this is me reporting on the current status of the subject matter. This is where we are at as of the year 2019. These are the facts on the table. I did not create these facts out of my own mind and you did not create these apologetic's out your own. We are reporting on long existing arguments and worldviews and hopefully, adding our own two cents where possible. 

 

But what if you were right? And we are BOTH making absolute truth claims? What does that mean to you? 

 

Does it make you think that if you can say that I am making absolute truth claims about origins in context to this discussion that you can then put me on a level playing field with yourself and then over take me as the dominant absolute truth claimer about origins? Inching yourself ever closer to some perceived win for the bible and christianity? Because if you think that, I'm inclined now to play along and watch you try.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

hained at the ankle to what? I've already made clear that I'm not chained theology nor materialist science and that the only thing what we know about origins is that ultimately we do not know. Until we know, we don't know. And, to the best of our ability, none of the creation myths in the world square up with the evidence that is available to us. This is not me making absolute claims, this is me reporting on the current status of the subject matter. This is where we are at as of the year 2019. These are the facts on the table. I did not create these facts out of my own mind and you did not create these apologetic's out your own. We are reporting on long existing arguments and worldviews and hopefully, adding our own two cents where possible. 

 

But what if you were right? And we are BOTH making absolute truth claims? What does that mean to you? 

 

Does it make you think that if you can say that I am making absolute truth claims about origins in context to this discussion that you can then put me on a level playing field with yourself and then over take me as the dominant absolute truth claimer about origins? Inching yourself ever closer to some perceived win for the bible and christianity? Because if you think that, I'm inclined now to play along and watch you try.....

We need to find a great big ol' rubber stamp and pound that thing down upon the entirety of your presentation. We rubber stamp it ALL...

AR▪BI▪TRA▪RY.

 

What more do you offer?

 

If that's the "intellectually honest" world you think you're living in, you are deluded beyond hope.

Arbitrary, Josh. Why not just say so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

none of the creation myths in the world square up with the evidence that is available to us.

We're not talking about "creation myths in the world." Otherwise the premise of the debate would be "Creation Myths: Demonstrably False?"

 

17 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

This is not me making absolute claims, this is me reporting on the current status of the subject matter. This is where we are at as of the year 2019. These are the facts on the table

Last time I checked, facts are absolute if we attempt to declare somethingas "true". But "true" rings hollow in an arbitrary world, eh?

 

This is "you reporting". Have you ever heard of biased journalism? It's not looked upon favorably.

30 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

Does it make you think that if you can say that I am making absolute truth claims about origins in context to this discussion that you can then put me on a level playing field with yourself and then over take me as the dominant absolute truth claimer about origins?

You already hold that we both work from a position of neutrality with the goal being to tip the balance one way or another. I emphatically deny this because there is NO SUCH THING in matters such as this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

If that's the "intellectually honest" world you think you're living in, you are deluded beyond hope.

Arbitrary, Josh. Why not just say so?

 

Well that's something for people to ponder. Who seems more deluded?

 

1) A guy that presupposes from the outset that a supernatural god has to be the reason the universe exists, without any way of substantiating the claim, and then logic leaps even further to conclude that out of the entire worlds selection of religions about gods, only one particular religion, and one particular interpretation of that religion is absolutely true and all else false? 

 

2) A guy who openly points out where obvious errors exist in just about everything and honestly admits that when it comes to these ultimate questions, we're still seeking answers and don't actually posses any absolute truths on the subject matter? 

 

You allege that guy #2 is deluded beyond hope, without any credible evidence or possible way of substantiating the claim. For guy #2 to be deluded, guy #1 has to demonstrate "absolute truth." The claim is that guy #2 is deluded because he doesn't think there is absolute truth in this context, and that he's wrong and such absolute truth does in fact exist. 

 

DEMONSTRATE your claim please!!!!!

 

19 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

You already hold that we both work from a position of neutrality with the goal being to tip the balance one way or another. I emphatically deny this because there is NO SUCH THING in matters such as this.

 

Very hallow claim on your part without the supporting evidence. Again, and again. Hallow claims, no evidence to support your claims. Saying we're wrong and don't understand, failing to follow through and show us where and why we're wrong and to prove yourself. 

 

This is what you do with an open forum to witness, testify to the truth and / or argue on behalf of the god you presuppose and belief in?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

A guy that presupposes from the outset that a supernatural god has to be the reason the universe exists, without any way of substantiating the claim,

Just can't help yourself can you?

A person does not open scripture, read of God whom he does not know and of whom he has no real comprehension and presuppose Him to be real. That is either a serious misrepresentation on your part or an outright lie. I'll let you tell us which.

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

and then logic leaps even further to conclude that out of the entire worlds selection of religions about gods, only one particular religion, and one particular interpretation of that religion is absolutely true and all else false? 

Where did you obtain this gem? We've not discussed other religions. Your concern has not been with other religions (other than to state they are all myth.) YOU proposed the debate topic. I take it that you are of those who equate all "religions" as basically the same and equal? Please tell me (us)  you have not made that blunder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/20/2019 at 8:59 AM, Joshpantera said:

According to me, this seems like an obvious situation. Survival determines these things. A family unit, tribal units, communities all derive from survival.

Survival also DEMANDS murder. Or was there such a thing before the Troglodyte council declared killing one's equal to be "wrong"? 

This still doesn't tell us how evolution "programmed" it in. Trial and error produced family and society? One Troglodyte male copulates with 400 Troglodettes and what? Decides he likes only one to the exclusion of all others when it is also "programmed" in him to procreate promiscuously?

Tribal units? All living in peaceful harmony? "Me have 800 offspring from 400 different Troglodettes. You have only 300. We take all you have and kill you all. We win."

Community? Who told them community was better than killing rivals? Why did they believe them? When did this occur? Which Troglodyte council established this? You don't know??? There's no evidence for any of this? Oh, I see. You're guessing this is how it took place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue becomes "How does the bible establish itself?" That is the question you all seem to be pulling for. Forget the stated premise The Bible: Demonstrably False or not). You abandoned that a long time ago.

So like I said, "A person does not open scripture, read of God whom he does not know and of whom he has no real comprehension and presuppose Him to be real."

It takes one testimony upon another: one fact upon another. Eyewitness accounts corroborated by others. Historically verifiable events; some even foretold long before.

 

Your position, Josh,  is simple denial in favor of other things you consider "proofs" when in fact they are no more than alternative theory because you've developed strong bias against the alternative.

 

So, how does the bible establish itself amongst all the other "religious" writings?

***If you, from this point, are expecting 250 character Twitter responses or Wiki-like summations, sorry. If the attention span of "The Lurkers" is no longer than a glance at an iPhone message, sorry. Maybe this is what folks have been asking for all along. Maybe I'm dense enough that it took this long to understand. Maybe I've wanted to really get a grasp of what ExC is all about. 

 

1) What is the bible? Why is the bible?

Stupid questions? Evidently everyone knows what it is, right? Since I can't count on anyone offering to tell me (thanks to RNP) you are left at the mercy of scripture itself telling you what it is. Afterall, who better? Do you wish to take the word of the philosopher? From where and whom does he draw his conclusions? The gasses from his own meandering brain? (Thanks here to @midniterider:

Physicists Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow open their 2010 book The Grand Design by asking:

What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? ... Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.

These ARE NOT questions for philosophy.

 

So try to follow. 

 

A) The Necessity of Verbal Revelation

QUESTION 1: Was revelation by the word necessary? Affirmative.

I. Since the word of God is the unique foundation (principium) of theology, its necessity is properly investigated at the very beginning: was it necessary for God to reveal himself to us by the word? or, was the word of God necessary? There have been in the past, and are also today, some who maintain that sufficient capacity for living well and happily resides in human nature, so that they regard any revelation from heaven as not only superfluous, but even as absurd. Since nature takes care of the needs of people just as it does those of other living creatures, so, they believe, reason, or the light of nature, is fully sufficient for the guidance of life and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Chapter VIII: The Divine Decrees (Note mine: Of which scripture is part)
1. The Divine Decrees in General. The decree of God is His eternal plan or purpose, in which He has foreordained all things that come to pass. Since it includes many particulars, we often speak of the divine decrees in the plural, though in reality there is but a single decree. It covers all the works of God in creation and redemption, and also embraces the actions of men, not excluding their sinful deeds. But while it rendered the entrance of sin into the world certain, it does not make God responsible for our sinful deeds. His decree with respect to sin is a permissive decree.

 

b. Objections to the doctrine of the decrees. Many do not believe in the doctrine of the decrees, and raise especially three objections. (1) It is inconsistent with, the moral freedom of man. But the Bible clearly teaches not only that God has decreed the free acts of man, but also that man is none to the less free and responsible for his acts, Gen. 50:19, 20; Acts 2:23; 4:27-29. We may not be able to harmonize the two altogether, but it is evident from Scripture that the one does not cancel the other. (2) It makes people slothful in seeking salvation. They feel that, if God has determined whether they will be saved or not, it makes no difference what they may do. But this is hardly correct, because man does not know what God has decreed respecting him. Moreover, God has decreed not only the final destiny of man, but also the means by which it will be realized. And seeing that the end is decreed only as the result of the appointed means, it encourages rather than discourages their use. (3) It makes God the author of sin. It may be said, however, that the decree merely makes God the author of free moral beings, who are themselves the authors of sin. Sin is made certain by the decree, but God does not Himself produce it by His direct action. At the same time it must be admitted that the problem of God's relation to sin remains a mystery which we cannot fully solve.

 

Scripture
1. Revelation and Scripture. The term 'special revelation' may be used in more than one sense. It may denote the direct self-communications of God in verbal messages and in miraculous facts. The prophets and the apostles often received messages from God long before they committed them to writing. These are now contained in Scripture, but do not constitute the whole of the Bible. There is much in it that was not revealed in a supernatural way, but is the result of study and of previous reflection. However, the term may also be used to denote the Bible as a whole, that whole complex of redemptive truths and facts, with the proper historical setting, that is found in Scripture and has the divine guarantee of its truth in the fact that it is infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit. In view of this fact it may be said that the whole Bible, and the Bible only, is for us God's special revelation. It is in the Bible that God's special revelation lives on and brings even now life, light, and holiness.
2. Scripture Proof for the Inspiration of Scripture. The whole Bible is given by inspiration of God, and is as such the infallible rule of faith and practice for all mankind. Since the doctrine of inspiration is often denied, it calls for special consideration.
This doctrine, like every other, is based on Scripture, and is not an invention of man. While it is founded on a great number of passages, only a few of these can be indicated here. The Old Testament writers are repeatedly instructed to write what the Lord commands them, Ex, 17:14; 34:27; Num. 33:2; Isa. 8:1; 30:8; Jer. 25:13; 30:2; Ezek. 24:1; Dan. 12:4; Hab. 2:2. The prophets were conscious of bringing the word of the Lord, and therefore introduced their messages with some such formula as, "Thus saith the Lord," or, "The word of the Lord came unto me," Jer. 36:27, 32; Ezek., chapters 26, 27, 31, 32, 39. Paul speaks of his words as Spirit-taught words, I Cor. 2:13, claims that Christ is speaking in him, II Cor. 13:3, and describes his message to the Thessalonians as the word of God, I Thess. 2:13. The Epistle to the Hebrews often quotes passages of the Old Testament as words of God or of the Holy Spirit, Heb. 1:6; 3:7; 4:3;" 5:6; 7:21. The most important passage to prove the inspiration of Scripture is II Tim. 3:16, which reads as follows in the Authorized Version: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
3. The Nature of Inspiration. There are especially two wrong views of inspiration, representing extremes that should be avoided.
a. Mechanical inspiration. It has sometimes been represented as if God literally dictated what the human authors of the Bible had to write, and as if they were purely passive like a pen in the hand of a writer. This means that their minds did not contribute in any way to the contents or form of their writings. But in view of what we find this can hardly be true. They were real authors, who in some cases gathered their materials from sources at their command, I Kings 11:41; 14:29; I Chron. 29:29; Luke 1:1-4, in other instances recorded their own experiences as, for instance, in many of the psalms, and impressed upon their writings their own particular style. The style of Isaiah differs from that of Jeremiah, and the style of John is not like that of Paul.

b. Dynamic inspiration. Others thought of the process of inspiration as affecting only the writers, and having no direct bearing on their writings. Their mental and spiritual life was strengthened and raised to a higher pitch, so that they saw things more clearly and had a more profound sense of their real spiritual value. This inspiration was not limited to the time when they wrote the books of the Bible, but was a permanent characteristic of the writers and affected their writings only indirectly. It differed only in degree from the spiritual illumination of all believers. This theory certainly does not do justice to the biblical view of inspiration.

 

c. Organic inspiration. The proper conception of inspiration holds that the Holy Spirit acted on the writers of the Bible in an organic way, in harmony with the laws of their own inner being, using them just as they were, with their character and temperament, their gifts and talents, their education and culture, their vocabulary and style. The Holy Spirit illumined their minds, aided their memory, prompted them to write, repressed the influence of sin on their writings, and guided them in the expression of their thoughts even to the choice of their words. In no small measure He left free scope to their own activity. They could give the results of their own investigations, write of their own experiences, and put the imprint of their own style and language on their books.

 

Lest you become overwhelmed and lose the thrust of the explanation, I'll stop for now. How this is refutable is in your hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

The issue becomes "How does the bible establish itself?" That is the question you all seem to be pulling for. Forget the stated premise The Bible: Demonstrably False or not). You abandoned that a long time ago.

 

No, I established that from the very outset. We established that false claims were being made as of the first day of creation. The bible starts out making false claims, that's the point of the debate. And the claims don't get any better as they go along. That's what brings us to analyzing how the bible is in and of itself a "castle built upon the sand..."

 

Weak foundations. 

 

15 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

A) The Necessity of Verbal Revelation

QUESTION 1: Was revelation by the word necessary? Affirmative.

I. Since the word of God is the unique foundation (principium) of theology, its necessity is properly investigated at the very beginning: was it necessary for God to reveal himself to us by the word? or, was the word of God necessary? There have been in the past, and are also today, some who maintain that sufficient capacity for living well and happily resides in human nature, so that they regard any revelation from heaven as not only superfluous, but even as absurd. Since nature takes care of the needs of people just as it does those of other living creatures, so, they believe, reason, or the light of nature, is fully sufficient for the guidance of life and the pursuit of happiness.

 

But you said:

 

15 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

So like I said, "A person does not open scripture, read of God whom he does not know and of whom he has no real comprehension and presuppose Him to be real."

It takes one testimony upon another: one fact upon another. Eyewitness accounts corroborated by others. Historically verifiable events; some even foretold long before.

 

Section A, paragraph I., starts out PRESUPPOSING the claim. As if the claim is already well substantiated when it hasn't been. You are literally "presupposing Him to be real." What I'm saying is that believing hearsay from others, playing lip service to other people making unsubstantiated claims and pretend as if history falls in favor of any unsubstantiated claim (when it really doesn't when you look into it and fact check) amounts to delusion. You're deluding yourself in the presence of witnessing readers in real time. If you think that the listed items prove the existence of god and the absolute truth of the judeo-christian bible then you are struggling right now with a hefty amount of delusion informing your opinions and world view. 

 

Especially when you hail history as your ally when in fact (as we will also have demonstrated before this is over) it's one of your biggest enemies along with the hard sciences. 

 

15 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

1. Revelation and Scripture. The term 'special revelation' may be used in more than one sense. It may denote the direct self-communications of God in verbal messages and in miraculous facts. The prophets and the apostles often received messages from God long before they committed them to writing. These are now contained in Scripture, but do not constitute the whole of the Bible. There is much in it that was not revealed in a supernatural way, but is the result of study and of previous reflection. However, the term may also be used to denote the Bible as a whole, that whole complex of redemptive truths and facts, with the proper historical setting, that is found in Scripture and has the divine guarantee of its truth in the fact that it is infallibly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

These are absolute claims in context to what we're discussing. Infallibility, inspired by an unproveable entity?

 

This is ok in terms of you witnessing what your beliefs are. But your beliefs stem from sand foundation assumption at the same time. The bible is horribly out of place in key historical and archaeological perspectives. Even if there begins to be some confirmations of the existence of King David and Solomon, the big take away is that the bible was wrong about the size of the kingdom and the popularity of the kings. And it's like that over and over again. Wrong, exaggerated, misinformed historically, etc., etc. That's what people who take a step away from blind belief and really investigate these claims can discover by taking an objective look at the biblical landscape. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gfd4kFPWjzU&t=8s

 

15 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Lest you become overwhelmed and lose the thrust of the explanation, I'll stop for now. How this is refutable is in your hands.

 

I have no need to outline the rest of your statement of beliefs. They're up for people read through. People can make of it what they like. Hopefully the points that have been made about apriori assumption sink in and those reading along who have not realized this previously have a chance to let it sink in and possibly realize it now or later. The ultimate idea here is to try and be encouraging and helpful to others. These types of debates have the potential to do that via demonstrations of opinions and positions. 

 

How it's refutable is simply found in looking into absolute position taking with something that is far less than absolute. 

 

You say it's absolute, infallible, etc., etc., but have no possible way of proving or substantiating your claim. You depend on people taking you at your word, or the word of others (writers and scribes) and believing that something which has never been established in the first place, is absolutely and infallibly true. And of course lots of people do take you and others at your word. And some of those people's lives are run down through manipulation and perversions that stem from taking people at their word and believing the hollow claims and threats that go along with the territory. Do this or else. Believe this or else. Do as I say or else. 

 

All nonsense. 

 

All fluff. 

 

Nothing more than the blind leading the blind further along into the darkness, and in a hurry to do it......

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

No, I established that from the very outset. We established that false claims were being made as of the first day of creation.

No, you presumed upon the text without any reason to do so and then you introduced alleged "alternatives" that disrupted the composition of the text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, LuthAMF said:

No, you presumed upon the text without any reason to do so and then you introduced alleged "alternatives" that disrupted the compisition of the text.

 

No reason? Evening's and mornings, with no sun in existence, just light and darkness independent of the sun? That's as false a statement as could be made. 

 

Or is it true? Explain how an evening and morning from the perspective of earth can possibly take place without facing towards and then away from the sun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

No reason? Evening's and mornings, with no sun in existence, just light and darkness independent of the sun? That's as false a statement as could be made. 

 

Or is it true? Explain how an evening and morning from the perspective of earth can possibly take place without facing towards and then away from the sun. 

"Let there be light."

There is no reason to immediately presume this to be our sun when initial light is not identified. Is the sun the only source of light?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Groovy. More YT videos? Come on.

So it's obvious you're quite enamored with all manner of anti-theistic and anti-biblical claims. 

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

You say it's absolute, infallible, etc., etc., but have no possible way of proving or substantiating your claim.

When are you going to get this? The claim is not our own!!!!

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:
8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

A) The Necessity of Verbal Revelation

QUESTION 1: Was revelation by the word necessary? Affirmative.

I. Since the word of God is the unique foundation (principium) of theology, its necessity is properly investigated at the very beginning: was it necessary for God to reveal himself to us by the word? or, was the word of God necessary? There have been in the past, and are also today, some who maintain that sufficient capacity for living well and happily resides in human nature, so that they regard any revelation from heaven as not only superfluous, but even as absurd. Since nature takes care of the needs of people just as it does those of other living creatures, so, they believe, reason, or the light of nature, is fully sufficient for the guidance of life and the pursuit of happiness.

 

But you said:

 

8 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

So like I said, "A person does not open scripture, read of God whom he does not know and of whom he has no real comprehension and presuppose Him to be real."

Are you pitting these statements against one another? Our positive statements as in Q 1 above give a foundation for acceptance but it is not presupposing!

You've learned a new word. What fun to apply it everywhere now!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

"Let there be light."

There is no reason to immediately presume this to be our sun when initial light is not identified. Is the sun the only source of light?  

 

That's my point. Light is not identified. There is sun light, star light, reflected light from the sun via the moon. But none of these are mentioned as created on the 1st day. Just vague light and darkness. Of all of the available sources of light, NONE were created on the first day. Not the sun, moon or stars. We identified that by looking forward to "day" 4 when the sun, moon and stars are claimed to have been made. Prior to that in the text, they were not made if the claim is that they were made on the 4th day. 

 

Hang with me now. What is an evening and morning? It requires that we are facing towards or away from a light source. A fixed light source that you CAN face towards and away from. Not just light all over the place, like omnipresent light. If we were talking about omnipresent light, such as the light of god or some such thing, there would be no darkness to contrast the omnipresent light with. Some apologist's at this point like to assert that the mysterious light was the light of god, or flip to John and claim that it was coming from jesus as the "logos." These are of course dead end streets as well. 

 

It requires that jesus or the trinity (which ever way they try and spin it) would in some position like the sun, emitting light from a finite location in the center of our solar system, where the earth could be spinning on it's own axis and orbiting around the light source, which, is something OTHER THAN THE SUN. So that literal "evenings" (facing away from a finite light source) and "mornings" (facing towards a finite light source) can be taking place.

 

This is what I mean about the holes getting deeper and the apologetic's becoming increasingly nonsensical as apologist's try to layer on more and more apologetic's. Do you think that jesus (or the trinity in general) are finite light sources, like the sun, that stood in place as finite light emitting entities until the sun, moon, and stars were made on the 4th day? If not, then what do YOU think in contrast to what these others try and allege? 

 

They had no idea that the earth was a sphere, rotating on it's own axis, or any of that during the bronze age mythological period which informed the writing of Genesis 1. They thought that the earth (the circle of the earth) was a flat, circular, disk with a dome overhead. It was a geocentric cosmological view of the earth and universe. Light existed independent of the sun in this creation myth. Then the sun, moon and stars were made and placed up in the sky which were conceived of as circling around the earth. That's what the "Genesis 1 and the Creationist Debate" book strongly outlines, among other things. 

 

image.jpeg

 

It's all been laid bare going into this. There's much to demonstrate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not my job here to present the positive case for scripture? Or is it my job to chase down every offshoot of atheistic objection?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/21/2019 at 1:59 PM, Joshpantera said:
On 8/21/2019 at 11:22 AM, LuthAMF said:

You already hold that we both work from a position of neutrality with the goal being to tip the balance one way or another. I emphatically deny this because there is NO SUCH THING in matters such as this.

 

Very hollow claim on your part without the supporting evidence. Again, and again. Hollow claims, no evidence to support your claims. Saying we're wrong and don't understand, failing to follow through and show us where and why we're wrong and to prove yourself. 

How is this a "hollow claim"? Are you saying you have NOT approached this from a neutral position? That's been the gist so far! "Nobody really knows anything for sure, Luth. We just wait and hope for better explanations later on down the road." The idea being we'll tip this way one day and then tip another way the next. 

I offered one simple paragraph of the beginnings of the Christian doctrinal foundation for scripture. You whined about unsubstantiated claims and presupposes stuff and then gave me a nearly 2 hr video to watch.

 

Mine was FOUNDATIONAL meaning the rest that follows is definitional. Again, you want a Tweet. 

9 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Especially when you hail history as your ally when in fact (as we will also have demonstrated before this is over) it's one of your biggest enemies along with the hard sciences. 

It will be demonstrated. History in  whose hands ? Weve seen what radical revisionists csn do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

Is it not my job here to present the positive case for scripture? Or is it my job to chase down every offshoot of atheistic objection?

 

Why would it be your job to chase down every atheist objection? I'm airing out atheist objections as we go along.

 

1 hour ago, LuthAMF said:

How is this a "hollow claim"? Are you saying you have NOT approached this from a neutral position? That's been the gist so far! "Nobody really knows anything for sure, Luth. We just wait and hope for better explanations later on down the road." The idea being we'll tip this way one day and then tip another way the next. 

I offered one simple paragraph of the beginnings of the Christian doctrinal foundation for scripture. You whined about unsubstantiated claims and presupposes stuff and then gave me a nearly 2 hr video to watch.

 

 

The christian doctrinal foundation for scripture necessary begins with presupposing. It's not neutral. You're not neutral. Because god is an unproven assertion, no one from any religious persuasion can start out talking about god as if it's already been substantiated that the god actually does exist. You can't do that with YHWH and the Hindu can't do that with Brahman. Every time you attempt to show me something, that something necessarily comes from a foundation of presupposing the existence of an as of yet unproven god. 

 

1) Take something unproven

2) Build upon that which is unproven

3) Speaking about that which is unproven as if it were a hard fact. 

4) Special pleading for one's own personal belief system about that which has remained unproven all this time.

 

And it all involved assuming apriori the existence of something as of yet unproven, unsubstantiated, unclear, and ultimately unknowable as it grows towards "transcendent" claims. In reality, what I'm saying, is that we are both in the same boat in terms of speculating about the hard questions, the ultimate realities, certainties and absolutes. But you don't believe me. You seem to think that you are beyond this neutral position of speculation about the absolute ultimate's of life and existence. You seem to think that you do know things that you could not possibly know, like how the universe, earth and it's life came into existence, via, a religious text that starts off this badly. 

 

The reason for science is to press forward and discover more about these things with time. Because religious myths (as I've outlined) do not give us the real answers. What they give us are things like "days" without the existence of the sun, moon or stars and other related information that has little to do with discovering true answers to the big questions. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

The christian doctrinal foundation for scripture necessary begins with presupposing.

It does NOT! 

This is another bald assertion that you cannot make a case for yet you keep repeating it as tho that makes it so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, LuthAMF said:

It does NOT! 

This is another bald assertion that you cannot make a case for yet you keep repeating it as tho that makes it so.

 

The delusion you're experiencing is pretty wild. It blinds you to the facts on the table. 

 

Has christianity proven the existence of god? Direct me to the evidence where god has been proven by christianity

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Joshpantera said:

 

The delusion you're experiencing is pretty wild. It blinds you to the facts on the table. 

 

Has christianity proven the existence of god? Direct me to the evidence where god has been proven by christianity

 

 

This isnt our debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.