• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Where is your evidence creationists?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by revo74, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    You're confused. One can be a sinner and wicked and one can be a sinner and not wicked. We are all sinners according to Christian theology, but that doesn't mean we are all wicked too. One could be a very good person (far from a wicked one) and a sinner.

    Noah may have been a sinner, but he wasn't looked upon as being wicked.

    "5 And G[SIZE=-1]OD[/SIZE] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually."

    It's pretty clear according to this scripture and the definitions of sin and wicked that they are not one in the same.

    By the way are you planning on addressing all the other points I directed toward you?
     
  2. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    A perfect agent would be incapable of committing an imperfect action.
     
  3. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,432
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    No.
     
  4. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,158
    Ignostic
    Married
    It was AV that introduced me to how he uses evasion as an attempt to support his assertions.

    Oh, and welcome to CF, revo.
     
  5. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    I won't be here much longer. I will start a thread shortly that explains how beliefs transcend the spoken word and are often places where we assign emotional attachments, which prevent many religious people from being able to see reason clearly on subject matter that conflicts with their beliefs.

    This is the first time I have debated with a theist is quite some time. Recently I have been arguing with atheists, which are more challenging and fun. I argue that design (intention) is a better explanation as the cause of the Universe than chance (non-intention).
     
  6. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    That's fine, but you should at least rethink your position on certain beliefs. That is if you are interested in seeking truth.
     
  7. someguy14

    someguy14 Guest

    +0
    :D

    Humble yourself brother. :D
     
  8. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,158
    Ignostic
    Married
    The false dichotomy, a very popular topic on this board. But that might be better suited for another thread.
     
  9. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    What is a false dichotomy?
     
  10. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +150
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are additional options (sometimes shades of grey between the extremes). For example, "It wasn't medicine that cured Ms. X, so it must have been a miracle."
     
  11. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    CabVet,

    I forgot to place an "a" in my sentence. I meant to say "What is a false dichotomy?", but even then I realize the sentence was poorly structured.

    I know what a false dichotomy is. What I wanted to ask was: what exactly are you referring to in my post when you say I have invoked a false dichotomy?
     
  12. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +150
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    Haha, that's what I get for not reading all the posts you were answering to :) But I am glad I posted the definition as I am sure I will use it many times ;)
     
  13. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,158
    Ignostic
    Married
    You claimed that "design (intention) is a better explanation as the cause of the Universe than chance (non-intention)".

    The false dichotomy arises from your implication that those are the only two options on the subject of the cause of the universe.
     
  14. driewerf

    driewerf a day at the Zoo

    +253
    Atheist
    Married
    AV1611VET already answered that, some time ago.
    I copy - paste this without any editing, change, deleting or adding anything:

    http://www.christianforums.com/t7520877-2/#post56361063
     
  15. AV1611VET

    AV1611VET SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE Supporter

    +40,432
    United States
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Thank you, driewerf; I appreciate it! :)
     
  16. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    A third option is necessity.

    People generally don't argue for necessity so I don't bother with it.
     
  17. driewerf

    driewerf a day at the Zoo

    +253
    Atheist
    Married
    Your christian brethren appreciate this too. ;)
     
  18. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,158
    Ignostic
    Married
    The universe may have always existed, just not in its current form.

    And why would we assume that the instantiation of the cosmos required a deity? And why *yours*?

    There may be other options that I have not come across yet.
     
  19. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    The post that he failed to address was post # 50, which included the following:

    1. I specifically wrote "almost all" because I was under the impression Noah wasn't wicked and that is why he chose him.

    1 & 2. You cannot blame free will for the fact that all men or almost all men turned out wicked. At the very least god shares the blame if he is not entirely responsible himself, which I believe is the case. There are many if not an infinite amount of ways that god could have created a natural world where free will exists. He decided to choose a world where he knew in advance (because he is omniscient) the people would all or almost all turn out wicked. These human emotions of grieving and repenting were brought onto him by his own hand. This is a problem that you cannot account for.

    What is god's purpose for man? From my understanding it is that man inherits the kingdom of god. God wants the maximum number of men through their own free will to come to know and love god. Well he obviously did a very poor job his first time at it, so much so that he had to erase the drawing board and start over. This does not sound like the work an agent with infinite powers.

    If god is the creator and he is also omniscient then he knew what the result of his actions would be. He knew that all of man or most of man would turn out wicked and that it would bring himself grief. He knew that he would hit the reboot button and start all over. I am sorry sir, but this is a major problem that you need to address.

    If god was not omniscient then this problem would go away. Well...perhaps only partially because he is would be omnipotent. It would still be a mistake for an omnipotent all wise being to get things so wrong. God is said to be perfect. Perfect beings don't make mistakes like these, perfect beings don't have mortal emotions (which you had no response to).

    The attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence cause many, many logical problems for god. As does the notion of perfection.

    I would also like to mention that we have a very good understanding about the nature of people through many years of observation and science. There are some people who are inherently kind for example. This knowledge conflicts with the notion that every single or at the very least well over 99% of them turned out to be wicked.

    3. Your answer here places god in a real bad light. What you're basically saying is, and what the entire floor story conveys is that god desperately wants free willed creatures to turn to him and the actions he takes to accomplish this fails miserably.

    Incompetence, desperation, repentance and grievance are not attributes of an all-powerful god.

    4. A definition of deliberate is: To think carefully and often slowly, as about a choice to be made.

    God certainly made choices when he designed the Universe did he not?
     
    Last edited: Dec 16, 2011
  20. revo74

    revo74 Newbie

    53
    +1
    Deist
    Married
    The Universe may have existed eternally, however, contemporary cosmology suggests it had a finite beginning some 13.72 billion years ago.

    There may be other options, but if they cannot be defined and argued for then why should we consider them?

    Deism is often misunderstood because the world derives from the Latin word deus, which means god or deity. Deism is not necessarily a belief in a deity/god, but a creator(s)/force. The term god is simply used as a label for this unknown, undefined, creator(s)/force.

    Since Deism has no dogma, tenets or sacred text that say how things must be, the answers are not always cut and dried. Bear in mind that the answers that follow merely represent the beliefs of many Deists. No one answers for all Deists.

    Deism was intended to grow and evolve with new evidence and arguments.

    I hold an unassuming deistic view. It goes like this:

    As a result of knowledge revealed to me with the aid of reasoning, I conclude that design is the best explanation for the nature of our Universe. It appears to me that the Universe was contrived and not a result of random events. That the intention of some creative intelligence was at work.

    I am an agnostic in the fact that I admit I do not "know". I am a weak deist because I don't maintain a very high degree of certainty with my belief. I am therefore best classified as an agnostic/weak deist.

    If you like I can provide you with reasons and evidence to support my claim, however, this thread is probably not the best place to do it.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2011
Loading...