Jump to content


Photo

Let's All Be Honest...


  • Please log in to reply
175 replies to this topic

#21 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 February 2009 - 10:28 AM

I'm not sure I understand what you meant by this.  Do you mean many atheists start from a presuppositionalist position?  If so, what is it that they (we) presuppose?

View Post


I thought it was pretty simple and straight-forward!

You presuppose that there is no God.....

#22 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 February 2009 - 10:34 AM

and
Okay, here's a non-exhastive list of 'types' of people. There are those who:
a. See God and fit nature in.
b. See evolution and fit nature in.
c. See nature and fit God in.
d. See nature and fit evolution in.

View Post

You are correct, “Non-exhaustive”….

Personally, I didn't start believing in evolution first and then decide be an athiest.
My initial impression looking at the world and universe was that there is no god. The more I learn about evolutionary and biological science, cosmology, geology and so on, the more my athiesm seems to be confirmed.

View Post

And at this point we can start a discussion. Since you have viewed all the current evidence for evolutionary and biological science, cosmology, geology, my question, then, becomes “How can everything (all of this) come from nothing”?

#23 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 12 February 2009 - 11:56 AM

I thought it was pretty simple and straight-forward!

You presuppose that there is no God.....

View Post


Ah, thank you.

You're right, I do presuppose that. Also no Santa, no Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy, etc.

Yes, that accurately describes my presupposition.

:lol:

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 February 2009 - 12:00 PM

Can we go one step further and say; therefore you presuppose existence without causation, preordained order or purpose?

#25 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 12 February 2009 - 12:06 PM

Can we go one step further and say; therefore you presuppose existence without causation, preordained order or purpose?

View Post


Existence of everything in general, or of human beings specifically?

#26 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 February 2009 - 12:09 PM

Ah, thank you.

You're right, I do presuppose that.  Also no Santa, no Easter Bunny, no Tooth Fairy, etc.

Yes, that accurately describes my presupposition.

:)

View Post


Actually there was a Santa Clause, Judy.... So much for that whole analogy :lol:

#27 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 February 2009 - 12:12 PM

Existence of everything in general, or of human beings specifically?

View Post


Everything of course, Judy.... It all comes as a package, and it all is predicated by a causal agent.

#28 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 12 February 2009 - 12:29 PM

Everything of course, Judy.... It all comes as a package, and it all is predicated by a causal agent.

View Post


I'm more than willing to concede that we don't know how the universe began. I'm completely happy to concede that there could have been some agent that got things going. However, to go from deism, which I am quite comfortable with as a belief system, to Fundamentalist Biblical Christianity, is a leap of astronomical proportions.

Here's a quote that I like, from John Loftus, author of "Why I Became an Atheist."

While I might happily concede deism, a distant God is hardly distinguishable from no God at all. Moving from the deism implied by arguments for the existence of God to full-blown Christianity is like trying to fly a plane to the moon: there is simply no way to get there. And the theistic arguments don't lead us to any particular kind of theism, whether Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, let alone to any particular branch of these religions.



#29 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 12 February 2009 - 12:43 PM

I'm more than willing to concede that we don't know how the universe began.  I'm completely happy to concede that there could have been some agent that got things going.  However, to go from deism, which I am quite comfortable with as a belief system, to Fundamentalist Biblical Christianity, is a leap of astronomical proportions.

View Post

No more of a leap than to think that some (random, unspecific?!?! Not really sure what you mean here) agent got things going.
Deism is weak, but it’s not as weak as atheism…. So, you’re going in the right direction.

#30 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 12 February 2009 - 02:00 PM

:lol:

I have a couple of confessing Christians here. Ikester was, to my surprise, the first one in my confessional booth followed by Totton. You showed up as the comic relief. Now we just need a couple of atheists to think through what I said and respond...

View Post


Changes within a kind does not stray off the creation path. Evolution as a whole does not work. Only parts here and there seem to. The rest is speculations and assumptions because the claimed processes are not even observable.

Example: In speciation, a bird producing a different type bird is still within the bird kind. Just as a dog being breeded to produce a different type dog is still within the dog kind.

Nothing has been observe going beyond that rule.

Example of creation kind rule: Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

If there were no kind laws about reproducing written in our DNA. Then any animal or human could basicallt mate with anything and have offspring. Now can you imagine how messed up life would be on this earth if that were able to happen? So how did such a barrier evolve and why?

#31 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 February 2009 - 02:24 PM

I better clarify why I opened this thread now and Ikester's post is a good one to follow for my explanation.

I totally agree with you, Ikester. Evolution, as in change over time, is observed. Evolution as in speciation and diversification within certain body plans and within certain kinds is observed. Any creationist who looks at the evidence can see that there are characteristics built into creation that allow things to develop and change over time. This includes biology, geology and cosmology. The very fact that stars are burning fuel proves that they are evolving or maybe more correctly devolving.

When the creationist is cornered as a believer of evolution it is always in relationship to these observable changes. Darwinists dislike qualifying what's understood because clarity brings with it better understanding. Knowledge tells us that Darwin and his adherents want a loyal following of believers who do not view the subject too critically and instead trust the "hard working" evolutionists out in the field to understand the answers through their esoteric insights.

Well, what about the supernatural part? As I predicted the dilemma we face existing in a Universe, as we do, with the knowledge we have, and just the shear fact that conscious beings even exist is ignored and avoided.

Though falcone must be commended for laying out a basic vision that is noteworthy. Why do atheists take such pains to ignore the perceivable implications of current knowledge when current knowledge is heralded as so great? How do you decide which areas of study must be labeled as unknowns or troublesome facts that will someday have a solution... hopefully?

It seems to me all the off limit questions and dilemmas always deal directly with a pointer that's pointing outside the cosmic box.

Adam

#32 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 12 February 2009 - 02:33 PM

If you could travel back in time a few hundred years and show people a cigarette lighter, they'd take it from you and use it to burn you as a witch. Of course, there's nothing supernatural about cigarette lighters.

View Post

That's the best argument I've seen in favour of broken "child-proof" lighters.
:lol:

#33 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 February 2009 - 03:13 PM

I thought it was pretty simple and straight-forward!

You presuppose that there is no God.....

View Post


I don't think that's right. We see no evidence for a god, so it stands to reason that none exists.

On the other hand, we could assume that everything exists, until evidence is presented to show that it doesn't. But that would require me to believe in every single thing that anyone else believed in until I could find evidence that it didn't exist. I'm sorry, but I just can't believe in that many crazy and contradictory things.

#34 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 February 2009 - 03:16 PM

Untrue Jason, you are generalizing here. There are many scientists and philosophers (etc…) who came to Christ after giving in to the overwhelming evidence (think Francis Collins etc...) in His favor. And there are many of us set out to disprove the Bible, and then gave into the overwhelming evidence in His favor.

I agree with you that there are some who see God first, then see the universe from that standpoint. But there are many-many (many-many many-many many-many) atheists who do the same. And with the evolution indoctrination we are force-fed in the school system here in America, your theory is well documented in explaining why atheists are doing that self-same thing.

View Post


There are also many that fell away from Christ after a lifetime of believing in him. So that doesn't really prove or disprove anything does it?

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 February 2009 - 03:29 PM

I don't think that's right.  We see no evidence for a god, so it stands to reason that none exists.

View Post

How would you answer these questions:

What is the weakest part in your argument? What argument best works against your position?

#36 performedge

performedge

    Don - a Child of the King

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:Being a logician. Debating the origins controversy. Going to heaven. Taking others with me. Seeing the creator.
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Rock Hill, SC

Posted 12 February 2009 - 03:32 PM

I don't think that's right.  We see no evidence for a god, so it stands to reason that none exists.

View Post


I don't know who "we" is. Is it atheists? Because if it is, then atheists have chosen not to believe in a god by their faith. Is it scientists? If it is, then science has defined out the rationalization of a god by the definition of methodological naturalism. Neither philosophy can recognize evidence of a god by definition and choice.

Therefore, you are using a tautology in your reasoning by saying "we see no evidence for a god". You should recognize this fallacy of thought.

When you change your definitive perpective, you wil see evidence of God in everything that is made. Until then you will be ignorant of it.

#37 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 February 2009 - 04:45 PM

If there were no kind laws about reproducing written in our DNA. Then any animal or human could basicallt mate with anything and have offspring. Now can you imagine how messed up life would be on this earth if that were able to happen? So how did such a barrier evolve and why?

View Post


That doesn't make sense. The laws of chemistry aren't written in our DNA, and chemistry still works.

#38 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 February 2009 - 04:45 PM

I don't know who "we" is.  Is it atheists?  Because if it is, then atheists have chosen not to believe in a god by their faith.  Is it scientists?  If it is, then science has defined out the rationalization of a god by the definition of methodological naturalism.  Neither philosophy can recognize evidence of a god by definition and choice.

Therefore, you are using a tautology in your reasoning by saying "we see no evidence for a god".  You should recognize this fallacy of thought.

When you change your definitive perpective, you wil see evidence of God in everything that is made.  Until then you will be ignorant of it.

View Post


I was using the royal we. As in "We are not amused."

#39 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 12 February 2009 - 04:48 PM

What is the weakest part in your argument?

View Post


I think that would be the no evidence part.

What argument best works against your position?

View Post


The way to refute my position would be to provide some evidence that gods exist.

#40 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 12 February 2009 - 07:33 PM

If you could travel back in time a few hundred years and show people a cigarette lighter, they'd take it from you and use it to burn you as a witch. Of course, there's nothing supernatural about cigarette lighters.

View Post


And if you were one of the bystanders, you'd probably cheer that on believing the same thing. What's the point? Are you dfending those who dabble in magic?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users