Search results

That sounds like you missed the point. I was disputing the assertion an atheist had made that people only come to beliefs through evidence. Christians, just like atheists, come to believe in things using the exact same methods. Arguments, evidence, and properly basic beliefs.

ummm...yes. That's why I pointed out that what you did, listing a set of notable Christians who happen to agree with your view, was an appeal to authority. It's a logical fallacy and doesn't do anything to prove your view. I could just as well produce an equally impressive list of Christians...

I'm very familiar with these folks and follow them often. But the point still remains...the few years of gaps that may be in the genealogies wouldn't add much more than a few generations more to the 6K years.

My comments below are given with respect... Although I like and admire many of those you mentioned above, this is an appeal to authority and doesn't really prove anything. In fact, there are quite a few other notable Christians and scientists who are YEC.

Are these gaps supposed to account for *millions* of years? To me, this explanation doesn't seem credible.

Right. So the existence of some gods are more plausible than others. I agree. Therefore, this statement (speaking of plugging any ole god into Pascal's wager) was incorrect:

You're wrong again. The scriptures in the bible are the justification for the claim that the Christian god is the standard of goodness. Whether the bible is true or not is another claim, which is based on other justification.

Ok, so the following was not correct? Thank you. As you have demonstrated by shifting the criteria, some beliefs in a god have more supporting evidence than beliefs in other gods. That's a pretty significant shift.

You're confused. This discussion originated from the Euthyphro Dilemma. The question was asked what makes God's nature the standard of goodness, and the answer was that the bible defines the Christian god as being so. This is not circular. It is tracing a truth claim back to it's justification.

Really, so you think there is just as many arguments and evidence for the existence of Neptune as there is for the Christian god?

On naturalism, you have absolutely no foundation for an objective morality. Nature is blind to morality. You're got to have some reason for believing in an objective morality. It's irrational for you to believe in an objective morality without any reason to do so. You're just making a say-so...

Another pointless remark. Really, I wish you would stick to the arguments instead of ...oh wait... “Don't interact with their arguments,” he advises, “instead just mock them and ridicule them.” Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/dawkins-gets-eastwooded#ixzz3zFulTr3n The point I have...

I don't know if you understood my selections. To review, I listed three possible answers: 1. "Raping little girls for fun *is* wrong no matter what any human thinks." 2. "Raping little girls for fun *is not* wrong no matter what any human thinks." 3. "Raping little girls for fun *may or may...

I think you overstepped your bounds here. This is demonstrably false. You're committing the genetic fallacy here. Trying to invalidate a persons' belief by trying to show how they came to believe in that belief. This is demonstrably false. After all, I was an atheist for 30+ years. Back...

But Craig's "playbook" is to deal with the actual arguments, while Dawkins publicly advocates to his devotees that they actually refrain from interacting with the arguments, and rather mock and ridicule Christians. These are his own words!! “Don't interact with their arguments...instead just...

Well, I've answered "no" many times before, but you and Arch keep asking. Are you done with this now?

Well, this is what you said: This isn't rocket science, you know. You said you believe raping little girls for fun is wrong. So the next question is do you believe that is an objective moral wrong or do you believe in it subjectively? From that point there, I can only surmise that you are...

Oh...good grief!! As I said, Pascal cited evidence and arguments for the existence of the Christian god and even why it is more likely that the Christian god exist than any other, like Zeus and so forth. He addressed your rebuttal in the Pensees!!! So no, the argument is not just as sound if...

I don't know why you and Arch are so hung up on if two or more people sound alike. The only guess I can make for your motive is that the site rules advise us not to pretend to be someone else, and maybe you're wanting to make sure that I don't break any rules. Who knows, maybe a moderator...