Sure you can. You are just afraid to try. The fact that you are an evolved being, that you are still an ape, does not mean that Christianity is wrong. It only means that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. But I have a feeling that you already know that.Original design sir
And original designer of that design
Can't ignore it
He's not going anywhere even if some of the little coats keep running away
I'm not afraid of anythingSure you can. You are just afraid to try. The fact that you are an evolved being, that you are still an ape, does not mean that Christianity is wrong. It only means that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. But I have a feeling that you already know that.
You are afraid to learn. You are afraid that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.I'm not afraid of anything
Continue on in your discussion
If I have something to say, I'll say it
And the way I will say it without someone suggesting how I should say it
OkayYou are afraid to learn. You are afraid that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
And no, I am being honest about you.
Okay
Continue in thinking that your lies are truth
Sure you can. You are just afraid to try. The fact that you are an evolved being, that you are still an ape, does not mean that Christianity is wrong. It only means that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong. But I have a feeling that you already know that.
You are afraid to learn. You are afraid that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong.
And no, I am being honest about you.
Don't offer "opinions" of me and pass them off as trueI don't lie. Please, you can't make that claim here. Creationists that try to argue science have to lie. You seem to know that and at least are honest enough not to argue the topic. But to claim that I lied is wrong. It is also a violation of the Ninth Commandment. Do you understand that one? This is the second time that you have broken that law at the very least.
My "opinions" can be backed up. They are not lies. Let's start with how you are wrong about the Genesis myth. Now the fact that you believe a myth does not make you a liar. It only makes you terribly mistaken.[
Don't offer "opinions" of me and pass them off as true
That is a gentle way of continuing to lie about and slander hem especially when the person tells you that you are not speaking the truth about them
That's lying
No, no more so than you have. The fact that you are wrong is not a personal attack. The fact that you run away from even discussing why you are wrong is not a personal attack.You're doing to again and none of the posters are going to appreciate it
You are resorting to personal attacks
No one cares about this
Get back to the discussion
I won't run away
If I have something to say (no matter that it might be gibberish to those who can't understand) I will say it
GODNo, no more so than you have. The fact that you are wrong is not a personal attack. The fact that you run away from even discussing why you are wrong is not a personal attack.
Not discussing the science in a science based forum is running away. How can we get back to the discussion if you will not discuss the science involved?
Sorry, if you can't be honest why should we continue? If you want to claim that your "GOD" exists the burden of proof is upon you. Your version of god appears to be the hide and seek winner of the universe.GOD
science
One is sovereign over the other
That's not an opinion sir
It's a truth
We can't continueSorry, if you can't be honest why should we continue? If you want to claim that your "GOD" exists the burden of proof is upon you. Your version of god appears to be the hide and seek winner of the universe.
And no, what you posted is not a "truth".
By running away from the science, and that is what you are doing right now, you as much as admit that you are wrong.
I am sorry that your fear of reality won't let you discuss a scientific matter.We can't continue
One cannot have fear of something that does not exist. Your inability to support your claims indicates that your GOD at the very least does not exist. Of course there are many thousands of different versions of "God" in just the sects of Christianity.I am sorry your fear of GOD won't let me talk
Trusting “conclusions that come from brains because of experience” is a kind of arbitrary and gratuitous question-begging if our presuppositions cannot justify that trust. FrumiousBandersnatch remarked that our brain is “not a trustworthy calculator because, more often than not, it gives the wrong answer.” How is it, then, that people frequently draw wrong conclusions from experiences that you describe as trustworthy? What kind of trustworthiness is that which is so compatible with error? To reiterate, the lack of an intelligently-designed brain would mean that we could not justify trust in our conclusions anymore than we could justify trusting the experienced conclusions of a calculator that was not intelligently designed. (There are other reasons why atheistic materialism leaves us without a foundation for knowledge, but this point is enough for now.) Whether or not my own view is question-begging or self-defeating does not affect the argument. Lack of an intelligently-designed brain would leave us with no foundation for knowledge, and the only logically consistent position we could take would be that of universal skepticism, where every sentence should contain or imply a "perhaps." Do we agree on this much?Question begging. We trust conclusions that come from brains because of experience, not from abstract justifications.
If you don't trust your experiences, you can't get to the idea of trustworthiness at all, let alone epistemology.
Also your position is self defeating. If we couldn't trust our brains unless we know there is an intelligent designer, then we can't trust our brains because we could only know such a thing through using our brains. The trust in your brain would have to come before you could know anything, which means that you could just be wrong about knowing there is a designer.
Here's a picture of ouroboros for your troubles:
Trusting “conclusions that come from brains because of experience” is a kind of arbitrary and gratuitous question-begging if our presuppositions cannot justify that trust.
FrumiousBandersnatch remarked that our brain is “not a trustworthy calculator because, more often than not, it gives the wrong answer.” How is it, then, that people frequently draw wrong conclusions from experiences that you describe as trustworthy? What kind of trustworthiness is that which is so compatible with error?
To reiterate, the lack of an intelligently-designed brain would mean that we could not justify trust in our conclusions anymore than we could justify trusting the experienced conclusions of a calculator that was not intelligently designed.
(There are other reasons why atheistic materialism leaves us without a foundation for knowledge, but this point is enough for now.) Whether or not my own view is question-begging or self-defeating does not affect the argument.
Lack of an intelligently-designed brain would leave us with no foundation for knowledge, and the only logically consistent position we could take would be that of universal skepticism, where every sentence should contain or imply a "perhaps." Do we agree on this much?