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.
Then why are you on a Christian forum?
This may shock you, but there are other people to have discussions with on here, besides you specifically.
That's not what I was getting at at all. Why a Christian forum of all places? Why not an atheist forum, or a tech forum, why a Christian forum? Makes no sense why you are here since you don't share an interest with the subject matter.
3. I consider the public scrutiny of ideas and the reasoning behind them to be a civic duty.
Debate is largely destructive.
What a bizarre, naked assertion.
I've seen very few people change their mind because of a debate.
And debate usually comes loaded with a bunch of animosity.
The cons for debate outweigh the pros IMO.
No it doesn't.
Please don't waste our time with sophistry.You don't have proof for lots of things you believe. You don't need 100% certainty to believe something.
Please don't waste our time with sophistry.
Do you have evidence that God exists? If so, present it.
Ah. You've tried this before, have you, and found that your "logical arguments" don't work very well?Even if I offered you some, you would reject it.
Kalam.
Ah. You've tried this before, have you, and found that your "logical arguments" don't work very well?
Are you not aware that Kalam has been exposed as being a flawed argument?
Also - seriously, that's your argument that the Christian God exists? A deist argument?
Due tell how the Kalam has been debunked.
You asked for evidence on God existing. I provided evidence.
You rejected it, just as I said you would.
But we're not talking about that kind of creation. Yahweh's supposed creation was ex nihilo, which constitutes zero observed instances of something "beginning to exist", and so it has zero inductive strength.
"If something begins to exist, it has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause."
What is wrong with this scientifically exactly?
When talking about Yahweh's "creation", you're not merely referring to the observable universe, but the totality of existence itself.
While it is true that the observable universe can be said to have "begun" at the Big Bang, we have no means of telling whether existence itself ever "began to exist". Nor can we tell if our universe represents all of existence. Our current physics breaks down, pre-Planck time.
So, premise 2 is a naked assertion, which wrongfully equates the universe with the totality of existence.
Physics clearly began to exist is what you are saying then.
So practically speaking, the known universe began to exist at a specific time.
Yes, but that's not what you're arguing for.
Pardon?
Did Yahweh create the universe out of nothing, or did he simply arrange it out of pre-existing material, the way a carpenter might build a table out of a pile of wood?
Does the known universe represent the totality of existence, or is there anything outside of it (besides Yahweh himself)?
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?