Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
It's also the sort of thing you might expect if the Moon God was jealous of the Sun God.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Quite serious.
The earth/moon system produces eclipses that are unique in the solar system. No other planet has a moon that exactly covers the sun during a total solar eclipse, producing a beautiful artistic effect. This is completely unnecessary for life - it is the sort of thing you would expect to find if there were a Creator.
...and since when and how has "Goddidit" changed its status from "assertion" to "explanation", anyway?That's incorrect. Atheists typically assert that if theism is not warranted then the universe has no proven theistic explanation for its existence. Since when does the rejection of a theistic explanation count as rejection of any and all explanations?
...and since when and how has "Goddidit" changed its status from "assertion" to "explanation", anyway?
Ok, Ray Comfort's sidekick...
This is completely ridiculous... OFF COURSE (un)belief is a matter of the intellect!!!!
I don't "choose" what to believe. I believe whatever convinces me and disbelief whatever doesn't. Belief for me is not a "choice". It is a compulsion based on evidence, rational reasoning, trust and valid argumentation. I don't hold beliefs because I want to or because they make me feel good. I hold beliefs (tentatively) when they convince me.
I am going to speak as you speak for a moment and simply say I thank you for sharing your opinion with me.
You see how easy that was?
Anyone who is in your position can do and say the things you do.
That is easy. I lived the way you do for many years. It was easy. It was not hard at all. Do as I please, believe what I please, come and go as I please, pretend I am the be all and end all and the only one around whom the world revolves.
It is easy to be self-centered and egotistical. Nothing hard in that. To stand aloof from the world and pretend it is all an illusion.
rampant.a.i. said:You believe you have the right to be rude, arrogant, condescending, derogatory, insincere, untrustworthy, abrasive, use personal information people reveal about their lives against them, and still think you ought to be welcomed with open arms and respected despite your actions, for the mere reason you converted to Christianity because you couldn't behave morally on your own.
It is people like you that remind me of how I was and how God wrought in me something that someone like you could never do on your own. Even if you desired to be displaced from the center of the universe (or should I say, your universe), you would have no way of doing so.
You cannot be what I am. The desire must be present first and even if the desire is present, one cannot change their nature in and of themselves.
But you do not envy me at all. In fact you may feel sorry for me and I understand, for when I was like you I felt sorry for all them that did not worship themselves as I did.
But your posts reek of pride. It oozes out of much of what you write on here. You are so prideful that in your pride you attempt to mask it so as to not be too evident. Vanity rules you but it is also your weakness. You cannot tolerate being called out or exposed. You let it be known when you are slighted, but only off-handedly.
To facilitate the discussion let it be known that he can only hold one of two positions regarding moral semantics:
1. Cognitivist theories hold that evaluative moral sentences express propositions (that is, they are "truth apt" or "truth bearers", capable of being true or false), as opposed to non-cognitivism.
2. Non-Cognitivist theories hold that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions. Non-cognitivism is another form of moral anti-realism. Most forms of non-cognitivism are also forms of expressivism, however some such as Mark Timmons and Terrence Horgan distinguish the two and allow the possibility of cognitivist forms of expressivism.
never mind your habit of dodging. Lets look at your reply:
the moral argument basically is summed up like this, real simple. How does an athiest account for morality? In other words, what makes a God who tortures babies for fun, evil? Or a God who loves babies, Good? Who or what law does an athiest adhere to to make that call? IT is the moral law. If the moral law does not exist, then we are forced to vote for morality in which the athiest is forced to declare that there is not proper moral ground to declare any act of God evil without evidence (as voting for morality is not empirical methodology).
even stanford encyclopedia of philosophy states this:
"the fact that we humans are aware of moral facts is itself surprising and calls for an explanation."
Moral Arguments for the Existence of God (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
I assume you may have one or two replies for this topic. That being said, this debate will last 6-10 post max. That is one of the 10 arguments at most, for the existence of God. it does not take that much time, if you know exactly what the argument entails.
there are four premises and one conclusion. They are sequential. Do you understand the logic behind debate? If not I can explain it in more detail.
Evolutionists have no moral standard according to Darwin
it follows logically from premise 1,
"1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause."
The atheist typically asserts the following:
A. If atheism is true, the universe has no explanation of its existence.
Citation needed. Let's see 10 examples of atheists saying this. Please be specific.
As noted by Daniel Chaney, this statement is also a fallacy. "Atheists typically assert..." Even if atheists did typically assert what WLC claims they do, it would be an appeal to the majority. There is nothing about atheism that requires the atheist to state that, without God, the universe has no explanation for its existence. It would be like saying that, without the Thunder God, lightning has no explanation for its existence.
As noted by Daniel Chaney, this statement is also a fallacy. "Atheists typically assert..." Even if atheists did typically assert what WLC claims they do, it would be an appeal to the majority.
Woah, woah, woah, time out. You're not trying to prove the existence of God in scripture, you're trying to prove the existence of Yahweh. Big difference there. Yahweh is certainly not self-evident.
Mark Kennedy said:In Christian theology and Scripture God's existence is never argued, it's an a priori fact.
Nonsense, this kind of semantical hair splitting is a poor basis for any philosophical discussion. God is the core term, used by Aristotle without any reference to the Covenant name(s) for God in the Old Testament. The proofs for Yahweh are the same as the ones for the existence of the Hebrew people and the covenant relationship of the Jews with God. The Hebrews never proved or denied the existence of God, your being ridiculous.
That's what happens when you refuse to define core terms, you get personal objections where you should be getting substantive arguments.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?