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.
Hey, you're the one who was pretending that subjective experience or personal revelation was a valid alternative. Why so upset that people want to explore that claim? No need to get all defensive if you can't answer my questions - no one is perfect.
There is NO EVIDENCE that you don't owe me $10,000. Got it?
Talk about a stuck record!"Move along, nothing to see here"
Just that the foundation of Naturalism is based on faith, that's all!
You cannot prove otherwise.
Of course you want to move on. Your foundation has been exposed.
To say the least you have some serious problems continuing your dogmatic evidence only "proof please" push toward Christians on this forum.
Ad hominem is an age old debate tactic. Sweeping major issues under the rug is another.
Debate tactics do not win over truth seekers.
The very elements we are composed of have been created. And you have no evidence otherwise. Just jokes, opinions, and fairy tale bent perception of a Creator. You make it a point to exclude Him at all cost and every opportunity.
Your weaknesses are being exposed.
Heiss,
This has all been addressed and questions to you have been ignored. Repeating the samething, while ignoring questions asked of you, is not the way to progress a discussion.
Why should I believe you?....The very elements we are composed of have been created. And you have no evidence otherwise. Just jokes, opinions, and fairy tale bent perception of a Creator. You make it a point to exclude Him at all cost and every opportunity.
"This has all been addressed" - excuse me, sweeping the foundational problems of Naturalism under the rug is calling it addressed. Are you serious?
You have no proof that you are not composed of matter created by God. If this statement is not true then give us your bright evidence based answer.
Who is ignoring the central point?
Talk about a stuck record!
We don't give a pair of flying foetid dingoes kidneys that you think naturalism is based on "faith". Unless and until there is evidence that can be brought to bear on origins, anyone with two or more brain cells to rub together will be agnostic on the subject. That is the definition of agnosticism - we cannot know what we cannot know (yet, at least). We all have our opinions, but that's all they are, unless we have a desperate need for certitude, even if it is illusory.
Tell me, why is "faith" a dirty word for you anyway? I have no faith, 'cept the belief that nothing good can ultimately come from that which is false (such as evolution-denial), but presumably, you have some sort of faith, however misguided it may be. Why are you not berating yourself for it?
Why should I believe you?
I'm asking for ANY reason why I should believe you.Reread the thread - your reply is to be based on evidence.
So there is a problem, and you are mute about it. Is that called honesty?
"I don't know" is 'hiding the major limitations of naturalism'.You know the ramifications of this issue. But you are mute. You are trying to prevent further exposure.
You should be a sincere seeker of truth. But you have chosen rather to hide the major limitations of Naturalism. Again, you know the ramifications of Naturalism based on faith.
If you will not be truthful and honest then I will continue to present the foundation of faith that Naturalists base all their "evidence" on, and the multitude of false premises on.
To start, you are composed of elements that were created by God. You have no evidence that you are not using what was created. You cannot provide any evidence that the elements you are composed of have always been.
Now tell all of us your bright, evidence based answer of how the elements you are composed of were made.
"This has all been addressed" - excuse me, sweeping the foundational problems of Naturalism under the rug is calling it addressed. Are you serious?
You have no proof that you are not composed of matter created by God. If this statement is not true then give us your bright evidence based answer.
We also have no evidence that it was created. So the best we can say is that we don't know what happened.
I don't have to. You are making the claim to know what happened, I don't.
Where did I ever deny that I cannot answer the question? I have consistently stated in this thread that since I have no evidence one way or the other, all I can say is that I do not know. How many more times must I repeat this position before you get it right? When are you going to listen to the answers people give you?
Stating you do not know is not faith. You have a very unorthodox usage of the term, one that makes the term faith completely meaningless. Got it?
It's very stale at this point Heiss, face it.
Neither do you have proof that we are composed of elements created by God.+Is the following "very stale"?
You have no proof that you are not composed of elements created by God.
If the above statement is not true then give us your evidence based answer.
Talk about a stuck record!
We don't give a pair of flying foetid dingoes kidneys that you think naturalism is based on "faith". Unless and until there is evidence that can be brought to bear on origins, anyone with two or more brain cells to rub together will be agnostic on the subject. That is the definition of agnosticism - we cannot know what we cannot know (yet, at least). [\QUOTE]
"Until there is evidence"
1. You have no evidence that the elements you are composed of were not created
Humm, seemed to leave the Creator out. No evidence you didn't.
Do you call this a small defect in your knowledge? Christians on this forum would. Big time.
Neither do you have proof that we are composed of elements created by God.+
So yes, it is very stale.
Stale, stale, stale.Tom,
It is called "ramifications"
The ramifications of your lack of evidence is serious and substantial.
One major ramification is the elements you are composed of. You have no evidence on if they have always been or were created.
Another ramification is you are a agnostic by choice. It is not based on evidence. To break the news to you this is called "faith". You are an agnostic by faith. You walk by faith. No "stale" matter, right?
"I don't know" is 'hiding the major limitations of naturalism'.
Right.
I'll ask you again: please give me ANY reason why I should believe this....The very elements we are composed of have been created. And you have no evidence otherwise. ...
Stale, stale, stale.
No matter the ramifications, the lack of evidence is there. It doesn't somehow go away because you wish it so.
And again, if there is no evidence, how am I agnostic by choice? In the absence of evidence, what other logical conclusion is there?
Die-hard denial by Naturalists on this forum.
1. Most cannot state their limitations
2. The biggest push back is this walk by faith stuff - it just doesn't seem to set well with every one that replied
3. Many that reply "have to" include the weaknesses of origin by a Creator, etc.
4. For most belief in a Creator is not an option - they put such in the perspective of leprechauns, least probability, etc.
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?