An atheists world (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Let me challenge that.

Do you believe there is no God?

I am ignostic on this subject. (no, not agnostic)

Do you think it's supernatural when God does it Or supernatural because you don't understand God?

I am wagering that you do not understand "God". I wager that you cannot provide a coherent, testable, falsifiable definition of what you mean by "God" right here in these forums.

If you really do understand "God" this should not be a problem.

What will we wager?
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟49,722.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
OllieFranz said:
The difference is that there is no claim that science is the unchanging absolute truth. So there are no scientists who confidently assume that they have the absolute unchanging truth, despite any evidence.

My answer in not a criticism of you. You asked me a question, I'm just answering it.

I have not read enough of your posts to know if you are one of those who are so arrogantly smug. Based on your statement about using several translations to better understand the scriptures, I suspect you are not. At least, that's why I study many different versions.

What is truth? Who was it that said science was not the absolute truth?
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟31,103.00
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Would you say you are being totally honest with yourself?
To the best of my awareness.

Are you being totally honest with us?
Where did you come from? (Mommy and Daddy)
Did they form you? (No).
No, it is my understanding that my 'formation' was the product of natural processes.
Then how did mommy and daddy make you?
They arranged for their individual genetic material required for conception to get in close enough proximity for the process to happen. Look it up on the internet. It's everywhere. I believe that the moderators would frown on the posting of visual aids at this point. :)
If both the egg and sperm died then how did you live?
Please cite the biology textbook where you got that idea from.
If it wasn't poof, then we wouldn't need a sperm or a egg then would we?
Do you think biological reproduction involves magic?
Since all we would need is what a monkey and billions of years.
A monkey and billions of years would probably just give you a dead monkey. What are you talking about?
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟49,722.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Davian said:
Well, the people you are trying to convince have a big need for that, and they are still waiting for it. Stop the hand-waving and get your homework done! (As a dad, I get to say that :))

As a dad I warn my children of hell. I call that Love. God being a father, thought it important that he told fathers that also.

What exactly were the weather, the food, and oxygen levels of that time, that would compensate for the known issues with human inbreeding?
The same as they were when your species bred outside of their species during the billion year reign of EVILUTION.

So, why was there even need for an ark? Was that just a make-work project for Noah? Why did not God bring back a big ocean-going freighter from the future, and save him all that work? As you say, anything can happen.

Same as there was need for RNA, DNA and a GENE for evolution to work.

I thought you said you were a father? Why do you teach your children anything; why not let nature take its course. Did you know if you were to open a cocoon at the very point the butterfly was fully developed it would not survive because it wasn't strong enough. Since you didn't allow it to struggle it's way out and strengthen.

A sperm looks for an egg, like, it has a sense of direction? Can you cite the biology book where you got that idea?

That reminds me of a funny story. The guy that sat in the cubical next to me back when I worked for corporate america approached me one day, and quietly asked me, so, how does the rooster fertilize the egg in the chicken... how does the sperm get through the shell?

Priceless.

If your explanation for fertilization is based on 50 to 100 million sperms swimming with no object in mind explain to me why swim at all? If evolution evolved as a need was required; why not have the sperm come out of the mouth, as almost all species put their mouths there first, if not their noses.

Reminds me, if RNA, DNA, and a gene have no purpose in mind, or reason to do what they do; what makes you think they came together to form anything.
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟49,722.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Davian said:
I am ignostic on this subject. (no, not agnostic)

I am wagering that you do not understand "God". I wager that you cannot provide a coherent, testable, falsifiable definition of what you mean by "God" right here in these forums.

If you really do understand "God" this should not be a problem.

What will we wager?

Your soul; my pride.
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟49,722.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
Davian said:
To the best of my awareness.

Are you being totally honest with us?

No, it is my understanding that my 'formation' was the product of natural processes.

They arranged for their individual genetic material required for conception to get in close enough proximity for the process to happen. Look it up on the internet. It's everywhere. I believe that the moderators would frown on the posting of visual aids at this point. :)

Please cite the biology textbook where you got that idea from.

Do you think biological reproduction involves magic?

A monkey and billions of years would probably just give you a dead monkey. What are you talking about?

If oxygen, a electrical charge, and fluids is all we need to sustain life, why can't we create life? is it not true the heart of a fetus begins to beat around three weeks, yet it's not known How? ( I would like to know)
 
Upvote 0

CarlosTomy

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2013
473
20
✟725.00
Faith
Atheist
Your soul; my pride.

Pride is a sin. Unlike the soul which is a metaphorical construct. :p

But if you want to talk Pascal's wager, do you think God wants people to believe in him simply because it is less "dangerous" than not believing in him?

I always thought God only wanted our LOVE.

Guess lip service is good enough, then?
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟23,548.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What is truth? Who was it that said science was not the absolute truth?

I did not say that science is notthe absolute truth, I just said that no scientist is arrogant enough to claim that it is. Also notice the word "absolute." That is an important part of the thought. The statement is more about attitude than objective knowledge.

As for your first question, I don't think anyone has answered it satisfactorily in the last 2000 years. I won't pretend that I can.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Maybe you should just come right out and tell us what you want to say. You've seen the transitionals as often as we have. You know the scientific names, the common names for the species, and the nicknames for the individuals. Nothing is gained by my repeating them.

ok so you don't want to give us the names of transitions you believe in? What are you scared of? It simply generates discussion. I could slap a few down but it would be a waste of time if you particularly don't adhere to them.
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟49,722.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
CarlosTomy said:
Pride is a sin. Unlike the soul which is a metaphorical construct. :p

But if you want to talk Pascal's wager, do you think God wants people to believe in him simply because it is less "dangerous" than not believing in him?

I always thought God only wanted our LOVE.

Guess lip service is good enough, then?

Not sure what your getting at, but pride is a sin, so is arrogance, boastfulness and self-pity. As for your explanation of the soul; that is not provable from your perspective.

God doesn't ask for our belief in him. God tells us the truth and allows us to believe in him. It's not by my will but His will. I must die to self, and He must live inside me.

You are not capable of real love. God is Love and therefore its his love that is perfect.

I have no clue what Pascal wagered, please tell me.
 
Upvote 0

toolmanjantzi

Veteran
Supporter
Feb 1, 2013
2,505
28
Sundridge, Ontario
✟49,722.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
OllieFranz said:
I did not say that science is notthe absolute truth, I just said that no scientist is arrogant enough to claim that it is. Also notice the word "absolute." That is an important part of the thought. The statement is more about attitude than objective knowledge.

As for your first question, I don't think anyone has answered it satisfactorily in the last 2000 years. I won't pretend that I can.

Thanks for your honesty.
 
Upvote 0

CarlosTomy

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2013
473
20
✟725.00
Faith
Atheist
Not sure what your getting at, but pride is a sin, so is arrogance, boastfulness and self-pity. As for your explanation of the soul; that is not provable from your perspective.

But it is not my task to prove the existence of the soul.

I have no clue what Pascal wagered, please tell me.

Then you may wish to become more familiar with Christian thought! There's a great deal of famous philosophers who have written in support of Christianity over the millennia.

I recommend reading more roundly in your faith.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I always thought God only wanted our LOVE.

Guess lip service is good enough, then?

He wants our love and our worship. We can believe in him as savior but He must also be our Lord. To repent of our sin and believe in Jesus' sacrifice is the Gospel.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I am ignostic on this subject. (no, not agnostic)



I am wagering that you do not understand "God". I wager that you cannot provide a coherent, testable, falsifiable definition of what you mean by "God" right here in these forums.

If you really do understand "God" this should not be a problem.

What will we wager?

Thats easy, God is our Creator. Thats it, you just wanted a definition of God. And since we have never proved abiogenesis, the only other option is that someone created us. (as opposed to nothing exploding). Falsifiable? Yeah sure. It could also be that nothing exploded. What would you believe?
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
Thats easy, God is our Heavenly Father. Thats it, you just wanted a definition of God.

That's not really a definition. That doesn't actually tell us anything about God's properties.

And since we have never proved abiogenesis, the only other option is that someone "fathered" our creation.

False dichotomy.

(as opposed to nothing exploding)

Strawman.

Falsifiable? Yeah sure.

You can't falsify gods.
 
Upvote 0

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
That's not really a definition. That doesn't actually tell us anything about God's properties.



False dichotomy.



Strawman.



You can't falsify gods.

I changed my comment to "creator" as my definition. Same thing, falsifiable and provable beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
Upvote 0

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,793
✟229,457.00
Faith
Seeker
I changed my comment to "creator" as my definition. Same thing, falsifiable and provable beyond a reasonable doubt.

Your change doesn't actually fix the problem. It still tells me nothing about God's properties, just that he creates things. It doesn't make him falsifiable, and it sure as shooting doesn't 'prove him beyond a reasonable doubt'.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

createdtoworship

In the grip of grace
Mar 13, 2004
18,941
1,758
West Coast USA
✟33,173.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So I ask an athiest, " are you sure there is no God."

not really He says,

then I say you are not an athiest but an agnostic.

then I ask what kind of agnostic are you?

the ornery kind or the ordinary kind?

the ordinary kind says - "we don't know anything for sure

the ornery kind says - "we CAN'T know anything for sure

Then He says "I am the ornery kind."

Then I say, "if you can't know any thing for sure how do you know THAT for sure?"

"In other words how do you know for sure that you can't know anything for sure?"

You can't be skeptical about everything, that means you would doubt skepticism.

The more you doubt skepticism the more sure you become.

then He says I guess I am the ordinary kind.


(above dialogue from Norman Geisler-I don't have enough faith to be an athiest)
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.