• 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.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Why are creationists always wrong?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
Loudmouth

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
TheOutsider said:
To be more precise, if we could somehow observe God in someway, he would no longer be supernatural.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true. Let's pretend that a fish in a fishbowl is us, and the owner (living outside the fishbowl) is God. God could interact with the fish in the fishbowl while staying outside (superbowl ;)). Sprinkling in food is equivalent to feeding the Hebrews with manna.

In our world, the instaneous replacement of a severed limb after reciting a special incantation, if repeatable, would be evidence for the supernatural.

I don't think that the word "visible" should be in that definition, btw.
Click to expand...

I agree. "Objectively detectable" would be better.
 
Upvote 0

Similar threads

Aggie
Human/chimp genomic similarity drops to ~85%: for real this time?
Replies
10
Views
517
Creation & Evolution
Gene2memE
G
Michie
Why Christians are more frustrated than ever and desperately need discernment
Replies
0
Views
160
General Theology
Michie
Michie
Michie
Why I Always Have—and Always Will—Call Myself “Catholic” Before “Christian”
Replies
1
Views
93
One Bread, One Body - Catholic
RileyG
RileyG
didactics
The ANE perspective on creation & am I fence sitting?
Replies
25
Views
2K
Creation & Theistic Evolution
Job 33:6
Job 33:6
Christsfreeservant
They Try to Compel You
Replies
0
Views
146
Deeper Fellowship
Christsfreeservant
Christsfreeservant
Top Bottom
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply