Jump to content


Photo

Prototypical


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 24 February 2012 - 11:19 AM

Hey Ron



What I said was that the only reason to believe in God, that I have found, was the desire to do so. You may have many other reasons to believe in God and those are what I came looking for, as stated.

I agreed with this because at some point one must desire to believe in God or they will not even consider looking at any of the evidence to begin with. After they have looked at the evidence or had a personal encounter with God himself, then they have more reason.

#22 Prototypical

Prototypical

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ontario

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:09 PM

.....


This is far too scattered to achieve anything. I am happy to address your points one at a time. By doing this we can come to an agreement (or not) about any particular point and then move on.

I gave you my definition for supernatural. I answered your question in an unequivical manner. What is your definition of supernatural?

#23 Prototypical

Prototypical

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ontario

Posted 24 February 2012 - 12:15 PM

I agreed with this because at some point one must desire to believe in God or they will not even consider looking at any of the evidence to begin with. After they have looked at the evidence or had a personal encounter with God himself, then they have more reason.


Are you saying then that I must want the evidence to be true before I can actually even see it? Do you not see a problem with that or are you not saying that?

#24 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 24 February 2012 - 04:30 PM

This is far too scattered to achieve anything. I am happy to address your points one at a time. By doing this we can come to an agreement (or not) about any particular point and then move on.

I gave you my definition for supernatural. I answered your question in an unequivical manner. What is your definition of supernatural?


Well unles you can start addressing what I post instead of wiggling out of it and changing your tune everytime someone wants you to be more specific you will be considered a timewaster. Which is someone we deem to have joined here not to actually debate or look for truth but to waste time and make people jump through hoops that they will not jump through themselves. Your wiggling out of answering questions is proof of that.

So if you want to get out of being tagged a time waster which can eventually get you banned, I suggest you start answering most all the questions asked, and be more specific in what you want instead of being always vague. At this point we cannot answer your questions to the point you want them. But until you do these things you are just wasting our time.

#25 Prototypical

Prototypical

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ontario

Posted 24 February 2012 - 05:37 PM

Only you can waste your time Ikester. Just like only I can waste my time.

So OK, which one of these questions would you like me to answer first? I was trying to answer your questions regarding what I consider to be reasonable when the following list of questions came flooding out before we could resolve the first question about what we consider to be reasonable.

Ikester asks;

1) The first cause or first existence of anything cannot be explained naturally or reasonably. So what would be left?
2) There is no explanation for laws that exist that make the universe work. There is not natural process to explain and science cannot even make a first step into explaining it. Not even how they not only exist but are fine tuned to bring order to where there would be chaos.
3) That if all matter came from the same source such as the Big Bang, then all matter would be as old at the Big Bang and all would date the same instead of different ages. Because regardless of how long it stayed a ball of molten matter, and it had to cool off to leave dating markers. It's really as old as the supposed Big Bang. Showing that the age dating process is flawed from the get go.
4) Because creation was done before the first sin, and according to God's word time without sin is eternal. So the 6 days of creation were done under eternal laws. Laws that cannot be the same as what we observe because where we are is not eternal. So one of the things that has to be different is aging. No aging means that everything has to be created already aged. For why create humans and animals as babies that would never grow up? This is why God commanded each created life to go forth and multiply is because He was illustrating that all created life was created old enough to bare offspring. And if God can create living matter already aged why not dead matter as well? You see all this explains all the different ages because age was part of the equation for creation.


1) Do all reasonable things have to be natural and done by nature?
2) And why do you accept things that cannot be explained by a natural process as being true and reasonable anyway?

Like: Can you explain the natural process in which the laws of physics came about and where balanced to cause order insted of chaos?


Because if you cannot explain why what you believe is more reasonable even though "you" cannot explain it yourself then we cannot and will never meet your criteria because of the bias that exists. and if it's not bias then explain how one unreasonable unexplainable process is any better than another? I ask this because you cannot prove that what you believe is 100% reasonable. And if you can please explain away we are all ears.


So is there a written criteria for being reasonable? Nope. So what are you afraid of that you would start a safe debate instead of getting into a type of debate that would really challenge your current ideals and beliefs that would more fulfill the goal you claim you are seeking? Are you afraid that you might actually have your beliefs shaken here?


Do I go and start a Aghost group? Do I put up websites, blogs, webpages, forums etc... To discuss my disbelief in ghosts? Nope. This is because I "truly" believe there are no ghosts so why would I waste my time on the subject?

But if I did do all these things and allow that obsession to take over my life what would all my efforts really say about my belief? That I know that ghosts probably do exist it just that I need to "justify" my disbelief in ghost on a daily bases. Because if I truly believed that they did not exist and I would not give 2 cents of my time to it?

Example: If you ran into a atheist that "truly" believed God did not exist, how much time would he invest proving or justifying what he truly believes does not exist?


What kind of evidence do you need and what kind of person would you listen to that could present it?


Please explain in detail what would make the evidence I presented above unreasonable in support of a Creator?


When one particular viewpoint rules a sector that controls what viewpoints will be accepted or rejected what would one expect to be accepted or rejected 100% of the time?



#26 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 24 February 2012 - 07:20 PM

Are you saying then that I must want the evidence to be true before I can actually even see it? Do you not see a problem with that or are you not saying that?

No... of course some atheists have changed their minds without ever intending to. I guess I was looking at my own personal situation... when the Jehovah's Witness literature came up short on the subject of evolution/creation I chose to read books written by both evolutionists and creationists instead of automatically dismissing anything written by the creationist side.

Does what I said make more sense now?

#27 Prototypical

Prototypical

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 15 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ontario

Posted 24 February 2012 - 07:37 PM

No... of course some atheists have changed their minds without ever intending to. I guess I was looking at my own personal situation... when the Jehovah's Witness literature came up short on the subject of evolution/creation I chose to read books written by both evolutionists and creationists instead of automatically dismissing anything written by the creationist side.

Does what I said make more sense now?


Yes I think so. I do have a desire to continuously examine what I believe to be true but I don't know that I have a desire to believe in any particular thing. I seldom dismiss anything without consideration.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users