Ask a Christian...

[Non sequitur]

Because what we see, hear and feel all contribute information that matches our memories.
As I quoted 'I think theerefore I am.

Our memories come from previous information (see, hear, feel, etc).

You can live in either world (exist or imagination) and still think therefor you are.

You've still yet to show how or can you.

 

[aiki]

Since information (methods of perception, etc.) starts at our brains, everything after that is a conclusion drawn from said information.

"Information starts at our brains"? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying all information that exists only does so once our brains take it in?

Here are a few things I would say everyone would have to presuppose, in order to even have the conversation. If you disagree, please explain why:

1) Stating any preexisting truths, facts or exclusions, first came from your brain.
2) Superimposing something is comes from your brain.
3) You can't "know" something, prior to being aware of it, and if you are, you are making unsubstantiated claims.
4) Referencing something, after the fact, is of little value since you've already arrived at your position.
5) Issues ("how do you know what you know?", etc) do not offer any solutions, but create problems outside the framework we are dealing with. Talking about what we don't/can't know gets us no closer to an answer of a question. Unanswerable questions are useless.

Seeing as how this poses a circular problem, as far as a truth goes, any positive position arrived at is equally possible as any other.

How is it possible that a Christian belief can be held as truth, given this?

1.) Stating a truth requires first that you are aware of it. Obviously, yes.
2.) I would respond to this point if I could decipher what you wrote...
3.) How would one make an "unsubtantiated claim" about something of which one is unaware? If one is unaware of a fact, one cannot make any comment on it.
4.) What does "referencing after the fact" mean, exactly? After the fact of what?
5.) What "framework" are you talking about? How does one talk about what one does not know? If one does not a know a thing, it seems to me one cannot talk about it.

I don't see the circular problem you've tried to pose. This is likely because your five points are rather ambiguous. Can you clear up your language and meaning a bit? Thanks.

 

[Non sequitur]

"Information starts at our brains"? I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying all information that exists only does so once our brains take it in?

Information exists, literally, before our brains take it in. But, for all intents and purposes, it does not prior to receiving it.

1.) Stating a truth requires first that you are aware of it. Obviously, yes.
2.) I would respond to this point if I could decipher what you wrote...

Saying there is something that exists above or over (whether-you-know-it-or-not type stuff) cannot be a valid answer. That concept still started from your brain.

3.) How would one make an "unsubtantiated claim" about something of which one is unaware? If one is unaware of a fact, one cannot make any comment on it.

Agreed.

4.) What does "referencing after the fact" mean, exactly? After the fact of what?

Post hoc rationalization. Coming after a the thing in question has already been established.

I put "prediction" in this category.

5.) What "framework" are you talking about? How does one talk about what one does not know? If one does not a know a thing, it seems to me one cannot talk about it.

If you asked where does consciousness come from and I responded with, "Consciousness first interacts with the light of acceptance. From there, it comes from the continuity of incredible possibilities, depending on exponential timelessness", I'm sure you'd find that less than helpful.

If we are going to have a conversation about a specific thing/idea, responses that merely muddy the waters offer no value.

Therefore, we need to have a basic baseline and framework to have conversations.

If we are going to have a conversation about a specific thing/idea, responses that jump outside our range of knowledge offer no value. I don't see the circular problem you've tried to pose. This is likely because your five points are rather ambiguous. Can you clear up your language and meaning a bit? Thanks.

The above help?

 

[aiki]

Information exists, literally, before our brains take it in. But, for all intents and purposes, it does not prior to receiving it.

I'm afraid this sounds like you're contradicting yourself. I agree with you that information exists independent of our brains. Saying, then, that it doesn't makes you sound confused. Besides, how would I come to know any fact if it existed only after I apprehended it?

Saying there is something that exists above or over (whether-you-know-it-or-not type stuff) cannot be a valid answer. That concept still started from your brain.

People apprehend new knowledge all the time - at least, I do. This new knowledge has existed regardless of my being aware of it. It had to have existed this way, or I would not have been able to apprehend it. Given that this is so, I don't see why we can't talk of things that exist independent of our understanding. Many, many things exist in such a realm.

Post hoc rationalization. Coming after a the thing in question has already been established.

I put "prediction" in this category.

How do you distinguish between a "post hoc rationalization" and new light coming to a matter as one thinks on it and investigates related data?

If we are going to have a conversation about a specific thing/idea, responses that merely muddy the waters offer no value.

But what one may find murky another may regard as entirely clear. On what basis, then, do you determine what does and doesn't "offer value" in a particular discussion?

Therefore, we need to have a basic baseline and framework to have conversations.

Of course. How do you decide what the framework or baseline should be? Why should anyone else agree to meet your framework or baseline?

The above help?

A little. See above.

 

[Non sequitur]

I'm afraid this sounds like you're contradicting yourself. I agree with you that information exists independent of our brains. Saying, then, that it doesn't makes you sound confused. Besides, how would I come to know any fact if it existed only after I apprehended it?

Maybe I should have used different wording. Information is the incorrect word, as it is knowledge (of) or something that can be learned. Information only exists after it is received, because we have brains.

"Things" happen/exist, whether we are aware of them or not.

People apprehend new knowledge all the time - at least, I do. This new knowledge has existed regardless of my being aware of it. It had to have existed this way, or I would not have been able to apprehend it. Given that this is so, I don't see why we can't talk of things that exist independent of our understanding. Many, many things exist in such a realm.

We can't, usefully, talk of "things that exist independent of our understanding", prior to understanding the concept/idea of them. In order to talk about these things, we have to accept that we first received and interpreted information about them.

How do you distinguish between a "post hoc rationalization" and new light coming to a matter as one thinks on it and investigates related data?

For the sake of argument, so things don't get to long, let's just say I concede to that.

But what one may find murky another may regard as entirely clear. On what basis, then, do you determine what does and doesn't "offer value" in a particular discussion?

Anything can be seen to offer value, but if it goes into a realm that is not useful (see my previous definition of "what is consciousness" it can't inherently help with any discussion.

'The number 3 is happy', might "offer value" to someone, but it doesn't help with determining anything.

Of course. How do you decide what the framework or baseline should be? Why should anyone else agree to meet your framework or baseline?

Well, if nobody wants to have any meaningful discussion, we need to have a baseline and framework for how we go about things.

Starting with the minimal required, to have a rational discussion, seems like a good way to do so.

What baseline and framework would you add or subtract from what I have, to have a rational discussion?

 

[Uber Genius]

Since information (methods of perception, etc.) starts at our brains, everything after that is a conclusion drawn from said information.

Entertaining! We have had versions of skepticism since Socrates, and Descartes is germane to your assumptions, but few philosophers hold to skepticism these days.

Google foundationalism and it will help.

1) Stating any preexisting truths, facts or exclusions, first came from your brain.

okay... but you have already violated your first rule!

How do you, "Know," perception starts with your brain?

You just hand us that presupposition without fulfilling any of your rules.

You can't "know" something, prior to being aware of it, and if you are, you are making unsubstantiated claims.

See the last comment. Your statement is self-refuting. For a recent scholarly treatment of the problem see Roderick Chisholm "The Problem of The Criterion."
Chisholm engages Montaigne's essay on same stating,

"To know whether things really are as they seem to be, we must have a procedure for distinguishing appearances that are true from appearances that are false. But to know whether our procedure is a good procedure, we have to know whether it really succeeds in distinguishing appearances that are true from appearances that are false. And we cannot know whether it does really succeed unless we already know which appearances are true and which ones are false. And so we are caught in a circle."

Referencing something, after the fact, is of little value since you've already arrived at your position.

Such as your referencing you assumption that all perceptions starts at our brain.

Issues ("how do you know what you know?", etc) do not offer any solutions, but create problems outside the framework we are dealing with. Talking about what we don't/can't know gets us no closer to an answer of a question. Unanswerable questions are useless.

So skepticism always collapses on itself due to the fact that it assumes knowledge and criterion that it then says we can't gain.

Please justify you initial presupposition based on your own set of rules.

P.S. Some theists have had at least a freshman-college-level understanding of epistemology

 

[Non sequitur]

Entertaining! We have had versions of skepticism since Socrates, and Descartes is germane to your assumptions, but few philosophers hold to skepticism these days.

Google foundationalism and it will help.

okay... but you have already violated your first rule!

How do you, "Know," perception starts with your brain?

You just hand us that presupposition without fulfilling any of your rules.

See the last comment. Your statement is self-refuting. For a recent scholarly treatment of the problem see Roderick Chisolm "The Problem of The Criterion."

Such as your referencing you assumption that all perceptions starts at our brain.

So skepticism always collapses on itself due to the fact that it assumes knowledge and criterion that it then says we can't gain.

Please justify you initial presupposition based on your own set of rules.

P.S. Some theists have had at least a freshman-college-level understanding of epistemology

We get all information from our senses. Your brain is at the center of all your input, from those senses.

What's the alternative starting point, for anything?

 

[Uber Genius]

I cannot see of a way to know or believe or have a thought about anything, without that coming from my brain.

Why would I believe my senses or yours? Were we design by someone to have perfect or even reasonable sensorial comprehension of the external world given atheism/naturalism.

Why would random mutation focused on survival of the fittest lead to survival or the most epistemically-accurate. Or truth? The brainiacs would get eaten by the football squad every time it seems.

Alvin Plantinga has dealt with this idea in his, "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism."

We get all information from our senses. Your brain is at the center of all your input, from those senses.

Repeating a belief no matter how many times does not add warrant. What is the justification for your claim? Using your own knowledge criterion.

This is not a word-game here.

This is why skepticism does not last long in any culture. It just raises the bar for what we call knowledge. The content of knowledge doesn't actually go up or down.

Again see Foundationalism for more info.

Assume your mom has passed away. Also we might destroy all records of your mom's existence. Say in a fire or series of fires. Although you had a rich experience of your mother, if someone ask you to prove that the person in a picture was you mom how might you do that. There is no one living to confirm you claims. No records.

Point is that experience or a posteriori claims may be enough to warrant beliefs. In fact every day we can hold Cartesian skepticism up against millions of facts. The data of the surrounding world that allows up to operate in same. Billions of pieces of grass everyone of which we can pluck, and they will smell of chlorophyll, and appear green rather than purple or black, they will be able to be torn. The fact that a few times in the billions, we misperceive, doesn't mean we can't properly perceive most of the time.

Reply after you have reviewed some of the material I proposed and I would be glad to engage and see how you respond.

 

[Non sequitur]

Why would I believe my senses or yours? Were we design by someone to have perfect or even reasonable sensorial comprehension of the external world given atheism/naturalism.

Why would random mutation focused on survival of the fittest lead to survival or the most epistemically-accurate. Or truth? The brainiacs would get eaten by the football squad every time it seems.

Alvin Plantinga has dealt with this idea in his, "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism."

Repeating a belief no matter how many times does not add warrant. What is the justification for your claim? Using your own knowledge criterion.

This is not a word-game here.

This is why skepticism does not last long in any culture. It just raises the bar for what we call knowledge. The content of knowledge doesn't actually go up or down.

Again see Foundationalism for more info.

Assume your mom has passed away. Also we might destroy all records of your mom's existence. Say in a fire or series of fires. Although you had a rich experience of your mother, if someone ask you to prove that the person in a picture was you mom how might you do that. There is no one living to confirm you claims. No records.

Point is that experience or a posteriori claims may be enough to warrant beliefs. In fact every day we can hold Cartesian skepticism up against millions of facts. The data of the surrounding world that allows up to operate in same. Billions of pieces of grass everyone of which we can pluck, and they will smell of chlorophyll, and appear green rather than purple or black, they will be able to be torn. The fact that a few times in the billions, we misperceive, doesn't mean we can't properly perceive most of the time.

Reply after you have reviewed some of the material I proposed and I would be glad to engage and see how you respond.

Well, I'm at work and can't respond to all of that easily.

I'll address basic questions:
"Why would I believe my senses or yours?"
You wouldn't. How are you aware of these senses or what they even are to believe?

 

[Uber Genius]

I'll address basic questions:
"Why would I believe my senses or yours?"
You wouldn't. How are you aware of these senses or what they even are to believe?

LOL. That reply is a non-sequitur.

I am not talking about the private nature of ones qualia.

I am asking for justification of you presupposition.

However, I get that it may take a few days or longer to engage the material I suggested and that is no problem.

I would rather engage these ideas at a high level than in an off-the-cuff manor anyways. Just reach back out when you get a chance.

 

[Non sequitur]

LOL. That reply is a non-sequitur.

I am not talking about the private nature of ones qualia.

I am asking for justification of you presupposition.

However, I get that it may take a few days or longer to engage the material I suggested and that is no problem.

I would rather engage these ideas at a high level than in an off-the-cuff manor anyways. Just reach back out when you get a chance.

I feel if I go over all that you have said, we'll have a debate inside a debate, etc.

I'm trying to start at the beginning, before you get to problems with solipsism, etc. You are starting after a few things. Maybe one question at a time will help you and me understand where I'm coming from.

How are we aware of anything?

 

[Uber Genius]

I would advise avoiding responding to the self-refuting premises in the OP. They assume the very knowledge they are skeptical of.

Here are two videos discussing the challenges to skepticism and the potential self-refuting nature of skeptical claims. It may highlight the important issues more quickly and more broadly than "The Problem of The Criterion." which is another resource.

 

[Non sequitur]

If you see this as self-refuting, ok. I don't, and was welcoming a discusion about *that*.

I would advise those who don't want to have a discussion, and merely proclaim themselves right, to do so elsewhere.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks.

So, it seems that faith is the key. Faith in what (part), exactly?

So in the continnum of religious faith that is the Christian Church there is a line that runs through from Jesus, the Apostles, the Church, and eventually to me.

On some level I need to trust that which has communicated to me these things, which includes my parents, other Christians who have been part of my religious formation, as well as the various historic witnesses: that would include historic Christian writings, the historic Creeds, as well as the Bible itself. That faith that these things are reliably communicating something true, which goes back to the historical Jesus and His earliest followers. Thus it is a faith that happens all along that line, that faith includes that historic writings of the Church are to be reliable, faith that what these things are saying about the Apostles and Jesus are reliable, and that what I encounter as the apostolic teaching is reliable, etc.

In the Apostles' Creed we read, "We believe ... in one holy catholic Church" the Nicene Creed likewise says, "We believe ... in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". Thus to believe in the Church is an article of faith, and to believe in the Church is nothing other than to believe that this historic assembly of believing members confessing together one and the same Jesus is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic:

One, for Jesus has only one people, comprised of all the baptized faithful of every tribe, tongue, and nation.
Holy, sanctified in Christ as a holy people whose identity has been found through Jesus.
Catholic, an indivisible body made up of many members.
Apostolic, comprised of and built upon the faithful reception and teaching of the ancient apostles.

And this one, holy, catholic, and apostolic assembly of Christian people has been entrusted and has safeguarded the faith since the beginning, which I now receive in good faith--even in spite of the many problems which it has faced both external and internal such as schisms and persecutions.

To believe in the Church is to believe that God faithfully has continued to communicate the Word given at the beginning in and through Christ and who is Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Non sequitur]

So in the continnum of religious faith that is the Christian Church there is a line that runs through from Jesus, the Apostles, the Church, and eventually to me.

On some level I need to trust that which has communicated to me these things, which includes my parents, other Christians who have been part of my religious formation, as well as the various historic witnesses: that would include historic Christian writings, the historic Creeds, as well as the Bible itself. That faith that these things are reliably communicating something true, which goes back to the historical Jesus and His earliest followers. Thus it is a faith that happens all along that line, that faith includes that historic writings of the Church are to be reliable, faith that what these things are saying about the Apostles and Jesus are reliable, and that what I encounter as the apostolic teaching is reliable, etc.

In the Apostles' Creed we read, "We believe ... in one holy catholic Church" the Nicene Creed likewise says, "We believe ... in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". Thus to believe in the Church is an article of faith, and to believe in the Church is nothing other than to believe that this historic assembly of believing members confessing together one and the same Jesus is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic:

One, for Jesus has only one people, comprised of all the baptized faithful of every tribe, tongue, and nation.
Holy, sanctified in Christ as a holy people whose identity has been found through Jesus.
Catholic, an indivisible body made up of many members.
Apostolic, comprised of and built upon the faithful reception and teaching of the ancient apostles.

And this one, holy, catholic, and apostolic assembly of Christian people has been entrusted and has safeguarded the faith since the beginning, which I now receive in good faith--even in spite of the many problems which it has faced both external and internal such as schisms and persecutions.

To believe in the Church is to believe that God faithfully has continued to communicate the Word given at the beginning in and through Christ and who is Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks.

What did you mean by "I need to trust"?

It would appear that would be the path to confirm something you want to solidify current belief in, not whether these beliefs are true. Which, seems to me, you'll always end up in the affirmative. And seems like the worse path to truth.

 

[Uber Genius]

Why should we adopt a skeptical view of knowledge demonstrated by OP's premises?

In 2013, 99 of the Top university philosophy departments from around the world were surveyed (over 900 professional respondents replied).

Only 4.8% held skepticism to be true!

If professional philosophers soundly reject the OP's a priori assumptions (even though philosophers are over-represented as a class holding to atheism), why should we accept them?

https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP.pdf

 

[Non sequitur]

Why should we adopt a skeptical view of knowledge demonstrated by OP's premises?

In 2013, 99 of the Top university philosophy departments from around the world were surveyed (over 900 professional respondents replied).

Only 4.8% held skepticism to be true!

If professional philosophers soundly reject the OP's a priori assumptions (even though philosophers are over-represented as a class holding to atheism), why should we accept them?

https://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP.pdf

The scenario deals with you just finding yourself in that situation, not whether you should or not accept the premises of it. It is what it is. You are where you are.

I can't fathom why hypothetical scenarios cause you to respond the way you are, like it's a debate or propaganda.

(I thought you were you weren't going to waste any more of your time?)

 

[possibletarian]

Hello,

Think of it this way:
Instead of, "One of the things I've always found puzzling is the acceptance of deities"

I would say, "One of the things I always find puzzling is the denial of evidence found, to believe in God."

What evidence ?

The law of Causality, the law of Biogenesis, the first and second laws of Thermodynamics, are all laws that rule in favor of a supreme being. These are laws that world agrees upon, yet they "deny" that there is a God.

Why would there have to be a god, the laws we understand are not laws in legal terms, they are merely how we describe what we see.

With all the technology we have today, no one can yet still prove that non life can create life. Dead matter cannot create living matter

What is non life exactly, and what is 'dead' matter, is there a difference ?

Also, on top of scientific evidence,

Which evidence do you speak of ?

the bible has been found historically accurate and of the centuries upon centuries upon centuries of time the bible has been written,

So, do you believe in a 7 days creation, people who lived to be nearly 1000 years old, unicorns,and floods that covered the highest mountain on Earth ?

And just because it mentions historical events (many of which are unproven) does not mean it's supernatural claims are in fact true. Any more than because London exists and Dick Whittington existed, and his descriptions of what life in London at the time is correct, means that his cat stories are true.

it is not contradictory of itself one little bit. People have tried to bring evidence of its contradictions but have been found wrong. It doesn't contradict at all with all the men that wrote in all the centuries of separation between them. This brings you to who the real author behind the scenes is, God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Actually the denial of many of the contradictions are nothing more than torturous attempts to twist logic and often appeal to the old 'god can do what he wants' or 'his ways are not our ways' reasoning.

Of course to ask anyone to adopt these is firstly to bear the burden of evidence of a god in the first place.

 

[Acts2:38]

Greetings,

What evidence ?

Well, kind of like a book for example, you need to read the introduction and then you get into the meat of the story after the intro.

Before you post a separate quote to something I jot down like "what evidence?" at the very beginning of my post, why don't you read the entire post first to see the evidence I explain.

Why would there have to be a god, the laws we understand are not laws in legal terms, they are merely how we describe what we see.

I am not forcing these laws to say there is a God, I use them because the world agrees to the laws definition. The definitions in which proves a higher being behind the scenes from what we know in science, etc.

I know they are not legally binding definitions, but like from what you said, "they are merely how we describe what we see." and what we see is why the world agrees upon the laws very definitions. This is "ungetaroundable" as a friend of a friend once said.

These laws on which the world agrees upon mind you, are very relevant as evidence. If you did indeed understand what these laws are stating, then it should be clear. If not, I understand why you are brushing this under the rug. If you do understand and are trying to brush it aside, that in itself would be denial, knowing what it says yet turning a blind eye at this truth, to push it off as nothing. No, you don't get to do that. This is a relevant case that you tried to sweep away as nothing, knowing that you cannot explain it.

What is non life exactly, and what is 'dead' matter, is there a difference ?

Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain this. I'm sure you already know. Just in case you really just do not know, dead matter/non-living is the same. I basically repeated myself on that part using two different words with the same meaning.

What is the meaning? Well, a good example is rocks. Using that example of rocks, nothing has ever started off as a rock (dead matter/non-living) and then became an ape (another example). Nothing non-living, ever begot living. Nothing of dead matter (rocks as an example) ever begot a living organism.

This simple fact alone debunks atheism/evolution just in itself.

Which evidence do you speak of ?

Again, you have to read on further to see the evidence I speak of. Why do you waste your time with this kind of quote reply? You clearly responded to it later just like you did previously.

So, do you believe in a 7 days creation, people who lived to be nearly 1000 years old, unicorns,and floods that covered the highest mountain on Earth ?

And just because it mentions historical events (many of which are unproven) does not mean it's supernatural claims are in fact true. Any more than because London exists and Dick Whittington existed, and his descriptions of what life in London at the time is correct, means that his cat stories are true.

Dick Whittington also wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit like the men who jotted everything down in the bible.

Many of which ARE proven as well like Sodom and Gomorrah, of a supernatural event that had happened there. No volcano's around, an area that should not have sulfur (brimstone) has sulfur just in those specific locations, found to be the destruction of those cities. This is just one case of many.

Your trouble stems from the fact that since you are "uncertain" that a God exists, how would you ever believe that God's power could indeed create the earth, heavens, and life, in just 7 days. Or even flood it up over the highest mountains. Obviously, I would not see in converting you just on the miracles explained in the bible, however, I use the events and historical aspect of the bible to aid in showing you the evidence for God. One example being that the writers, centuries apart from each other, speak of the same things without contradictions.

Actually the denial of many of the contradictions are nothing more than torturous attempts to twist logic and often appeal to the old 'god can do what he wants' or 'his ways are not our ways' reasoning.

Of course to ask anyone to adopt these is firstly to bear the burden of evidence of a god in the first place.

Anyone who has spotted what they thought was a contradiction, has been found in error. This is fact. No logic twisting. This statement you made could actually be placed back at you as people doing everything they can to try to disprove God, so they "twist logic" with their "torturous attempts" to say God is not so.

I never said in this thread that "God can do what He wants" or "His ways are not our ways", but since you bring it up, God could indeed do as He wishes. However, even though He could do as He wishes, He would not break His covenant and promises He made with us.

I never placed the burden of evidence in your lap friend. I brought forth the evidence that you thought you could brush off as nothing. You haven't.

 

[possibletarian]

Greetings,Well, kind of like a book for example, you need to read the introduction and then you get into the meat of the story after the intro.

Like the Quran, Shreemad Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and Veda, Tripitakas, Guru Granth Sahib, Kitáb-i-Aqdas you mean ?

Before you post a separate quote to something I jot down like "what evidence?" at the very beginning of my post, why don't you read the entire post first to see the evidence I explain.

I did, why do you assume I did not ?
Proclaiming evidence is not the same as providing it, so I ask again, what evidence?

I am not forcing these laws to say there is a God, I use them because the world agrees to the laws definition. The definitions in which proves a higher being behind the scenes from what we know in science, etc.

How do observations and understanding of what is prove a higher being ?

I know they are not legally binding definitions, but like from what you said, "they are merely how we describe what we see." and what we see is why the world agrees upon the laws very definitions. This is "ungetaroundable" as a friend of a friend once said.

Yes, but again how does this prove a higher being ?

These laws on which the world agrees upon mind you, are very relevant as evidence. If you did indeed understand what these laws are stating, then it should be clear. If not, I understand why you are brushing this under the rug. If you do understand and are trying to brush it aside, that in itself would be denial, knowing what it says yet turning a blind eye at this truth, to push it off as nothing. No, you don't get to do that. This is a relevant case that you tried to sweep away as nothing, knowing that you cannot explain it.

That's just a proclamation of belief that these laws come form a higher being, not evidence.
And why would anyone have to explain how they came into being to understand them ?
You really shouldn't invent gods like all the other religions to explain them.

Honestly, I shouldn't have to explain this. I'm sure you already know. Just in case you really just do not know, dead matter/non-living is the same. I basically repeated myself on that part using two different words with the same meaning.

Is life made of matter ?

What is the meaning? Well, a good example is rocks. Using that example of rocks, nothing has ever started off as a rock (dead matter/non-living) and then became an ape (another example). Nothing non-living, ever begot living. Nothing of dead matter (rocks as an example) ever begot a living organism.

Well we don't know how life started, but surely the honest answer to that is 'I don't know' instead of inventing a god, leave ignorance where it belongs.

This simple fact alone debunks atheism/evolution just in itself.

Actually no it does not evolution really does not concern itself with the origins of life, and how does it debunk atheism. ?

As for evolution that itself is accepted by many Christians, simply because no serious scientific institution believes that the earth is a young as the bible says and it's a constant source of amusement to people like myself to see this debate within Christianity itself.

How do we know that evolution is really happening?

again, you have to read on further to see the evidence I speak of. Why do you waste your time with this kind of quote reply? You clearly responded to it later just like you did previously.

Again you provide no evidence, you simply proclaim what you believe to be true, to be true.

Dick Whittington also wasn't inspired by the Holy Spirit like the men who jotted everything down in the bible.

Again to proclaim inspiration you would have to provide evidence of an inspirer

Many of which ARE proven as well like Sodom and Gomorrah, of a supernatural event that had happened there.No volcano's around, an area that should not have sulfur (brimstone) has sulfur just in those specific locations, found to be the destruction of those cities. This is just one case of many.

I did a quick search, not only are they not certain that Tall el-Hammam is actually the biblical Sodom and Gomorah, but that there are many theories around it's sudden evacuation (something that did not happen in the biblical account, suggesting that the writer may have written about it long after the event). There are many competing theories ranging from and asteroid strike to an earthquake amongst others.

No serious respectable scientific paper describe and 'supernatural' event. You do know don't you that saying 'we don't really know what happened' is not the same as saying 'the bible must be true' ?

Your trouble stems from the fact that since you are "uncertain" that a God exists, how would you ever believe that God's power could indeed create the earth, heavens, and life, in just 7 days. Or even flood it up over the highest mountains. Obviously, I would not see in converting you just on the miracles explained in the bible, however, I use the events and historical aspect of the bible to aid in showing you the evidence for God. One example being that the writers, centuries apart from each other, speak of the same things without contradictions.

Of course if they merely quoted earlier parts of the same collection of books, why would they be contradictions, that does not point to or provide evidence of a supernatural source.

Anyone who has spotted what they thought was a contradiction, has been found in error. This is fact. No logic twisting. This statement you made could actually be placed back at you as people doing everything they can to try to disprove God, so they "twist logic" with their "torturous attempts" to say God is not so.

Here are a few Bible Inconsistencies - Bible Contradictions
Asking a question is not twisting anything, you are the one claiming one of many holy books to be true.

I never said in this thread that "God can do what He wants" or "His ways are not our ways", but since you bring it up, God could indeed do as He wishes. However, even though He could do as He wishes, He would not break His covenant and promises He made with us.

Actually i never accused you.

I never placed the burden of evidence in your lap friend. I brought forth the evidence that you thought you could brush off as nothing. You haven't.

Again, what evidence ?