Intangibility doesn't mean unmeasurable. We know gravity exists because we can easily and scientifically test and measure it. On the other hand, we've yet to be able to observe, test and measure a god. Science also explains quite a lot about morality, particularly how evolution has encouraged social organisms (humans, for one) through natural selection to behave in ways that benefit a society and improves the probability of continued survival. In the explaining game, religions are far behind.
Your are reasoning back to a presupposition that naturalism and empiricism are true. The problem with that is you cannot account for anything abstract so your world view is insufficient for explaining the real world. You make the ambiguous claim that science tells us about morality but you cannot show me a law of morality because they are immaterial. Logic is immaterial. Therefore, be consistent and stop stealing from the Judeo Christian world view.
We know these things based on evidence that has been discovered, and there's a lot of it. Religious beliefs explain nothing. Creationism has no scientific value, at best it's an opinion. Scientists' findings about morality are not ambiguous, they're observed facts. Its origins are not spiritual, nor would a god need to establish it. In terms of "world view", those who look into the evidence will find that again, religious beliefs can't actually explain much of anything.
Your denial does not prove anything. Until you show me a law of morality or a law of logic you have not accounted for either with your naturalistic world view. Again stop stealing from the Judeo Christian world view. Your religion of Naturalistic Evolution is untenable.
Honest people accept the facts even when they do not like it. To believe that reality will bend to our wishes is a form of arrogance. No god or spirituality was needed for morals to develop, the immaterial argument does not work. We know how morals developed through necessity, rejecting the facts do not invalidate the truth. Logic comes from our expanding knowledge of reality.
Evolution is no more of a religion than watering plants. Evolution just describes part of nature.
@igoturnose Hitler thought he was benefiting society by speeding up the so-called evolutionary process by getting rid of people he saw as polluting the gene pool. On what basis do you say he was wrong? Logic it different than gravity because logic is conceptual by nature and gravity is not. Therefore your argument would fall under the unacceptable category of a straw man. Thanks for trying.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Graduated from WVU in 1987. Its amazing how the evangelicals still come to campus and open air preach. Have to say, one of these guys actually saved me and am appreciative. What these folks do takes guts. I was one of those kids listening 25 years ago and it took about 10 years of reflection to finally get it.
Syllogism-A logical argument in which one proposition is made from the inferrence of two other things. (FYI folks)
Well, skeptical human beings gave the process of thinking 'logically' the name 'logic'. So, I just took that definition of logic and applied it to this discussion. So, I didn't use a syllogism.
I didn't make any two assumptions. I, for a fact, made up, a way to measure something that exists abstractly by using indirect means.
what surprises me the most is that you haven't used Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:
You cannot measure something without having affected it. Thus, all measurements, are humanly flawed. Thus, science, is an imperfect series of thought and events.
however, scientists, with this in mind, have mathematics, have come up with methods to eliminate measurement error to near or absolute zero. Thus, any assumed imperfection can be discounted : )
You say you are a Christian and that you are saved by faith but your video on egg nog and bacardi is full of profanity. Is that kind of language in keeping with the faith you say you profess?
My faith accepts imperfection. I know my self-expression isn't always child friendly, but when I am working with children (and I do for volunteer), they hear no evil.
I'm showing my human side in those videos bud, your's is perversion of logic.
You could have also taken note that my clothing is not modest in some videos (my shirt is off), I talk about vice (getting drunk) and sexuality (discussed heavily in proverbs and psalms) [friend zone].
I take note of your poor logic and arguments...so, you point out my personal flaws. Juvenile?
To measure laws of logic, one would have to compare and contrast an individual or group's model of thinking (this is THIS, so THAT is THIS) with a universal model of thinking, with the model of thinking based in standardly associated vocabulary.
you want to use a tape measure, an erlenmeyer flask on concept that exists abstractly and is portrayed in human interaction?
shoot, there is another way of measuring a law of logic right there. comparing human interaction based in logic with the standardized law of logic just mentioned.
The laws of logic are abstract and therefore cannot be accounted for by the scientific method. Therefore they are assumed. The atheist which you say you are not cannot account for laws of logic or laws of morality because their worldview assumes naturalism. Therefore the naturalistic evolutionary world view is insufficient for accounting for the real world in which we live. Are you a Christian? If so how do you know you are saved?
That's funny, I just used the scientific method to account for any 'law of logic'; now I would like to compare our own definitions of the scientific method.
To be honest, you are heavily perverting any process of logical though to suit your own needs.
I already said I believe in God (probably not your interpretation of God), that I am a theist and that faith and logic are two separate things.
The scientific method is the discipline of observing and measuring things with the senses in repeatable experiments. You have not proved that laws of logic can be measured. Again writing out a syllogism to represent laws of logic does not demonstrate that they are measurable. They are not they are abstract and no amount of denying that fact will change that truth. God bless you.
religion is imperfect, because man is imperfect. science in the most righteous form is a burning curiosity to grow and develop an understanding of the universe.
notice how only incredilby intelligent individuals can work in labs. i believe in design, shoot, i see mathematics throughout nature. : ) Peace and God bless.
'Taste' is a human subjective sensation in response to ingested molecules' interaction with the tongue's nerve endings.
'Feel' is an incredible broad verb. Emotionally? Temperature?
'Smell' is another human subjective sensation of the olfactory bulb's nerve endings with airborne molecules and substances. Science in psychology or sociology could measure laws of logic.
Well I'd really like to stop commenting. But you keep saying mad things. 'which makes no sense'-why? There is a fundamental mathematical nature in the universe. I'll grant you that. But if you want to be taken seriously don't attempt to reduce my argument to absurdity. You say 'worldview' and imply vague notions... This is a fact: even if you are 100% right you are terrible at arguing. Modern philosophy is built around reactions to old dogmas rather than stealing from them.
I guess that is the easy way out but until you have a solid world view that makes sense of the real of material and immaterial things we cannot get into a more detailed discussion. What I am saying is your world view is flawed at the most basic level. Saying I am terrible at arguing while ignoring the basics proves nothing. I hope all is well with you and thanks for the discourse.
wow. wow. what are you talking about? I haven't ignored the argument from design. It's just very weak. I then I talked about the philosophy of mind. I am a materialist. But we haven't even begun to discuss the intricacies of that issue. How can you argue as if you're a saviour of logic when you aren't even able to us it?
I am not the savior of logic God is the source of logic. As a materialist you have to assume the logic came from non-thinking inert matter which makes no sense. I believe that logic came from the eternal all-knowing God. That makes much more sense than logic springing up out of nowhere by itself. You have no basis for the philosophy of the mind. Stop stealing from the Judeo Christian worldview when your worldview is found wanting. Be consistent.
I think Kierkegaard was right. Religious belief requires a 'leap of faith'. I also think the only way to justify religious belief is to show it allows for a better way of life. Empirical evidence is more reasonable than any belief system.
The Empirical Method is good but limited. It cannot account for the abstract. To assume that observable measurable things are all that there is is based of faith. In fact when you use reason which is not observable to say that the only things that we can know are concrete things you refute yourself.
No, science is based on induction. Deduction is the only way to have 100% knowledge. Even if God is real, God is not self-evident. 2+2=4 is self-evident. What would be the point of faith if God was self-evident? The scientific method is based on induction. But it is a very strong form of induction.
OK then prove the laws of logic exist with the scientific method. Prove that your conscience exists with the scientific method. Just because you suppress the truth of God's existence does not change the truth that His existence is self evident. It is not a lack of evidence problem it is a moral problem. His eternal nature and divine power are evident in what He has made (See Romans 1:18-32: It is a description of you). Unless you want to take the position that designs do not require designers.
Well logic doesn't rely on the scientific method. If two was added to itself and was equal to anything but four it would go against the nature of twoness. It's self-evident. What was all the work of Russell and Frege for if you're just going to ignore it. They didn't use the scientific method.The Argument from Design doesn't elevate God above any other spiritual being.Evolution allows for design from disorder. And the philosophy of mind is not an old discipline.Have you read about functionalism
You have demonstrated you cannot account for logic with a materialistic worldview. All your pontificating will not change that truth. You have ignored the argument of design and no amount of doing that will change the truth either. The bottom line ids that you have faith in the finite ideas of men.
Well if something's self-evident it doesn't rely on anything else. And then I just talked about the difference between induction and deduction. Neither of which need authority
Logic is self-evident philosophy. This guy doesn't even know the difference between induction and deduction. Religious faith is obviously induction. And a very weak form of induction. He's so ignorant
i plan to make a video response within the week answering your questions, so your unfounded claims of me "not answering questions" which anyone that can browse back a page or two can see that i have (all of them), will no longer stand. and maybe since my questions will be in video form you might actually be forced to answer instead of going off making more statements of your own. i have answered at least 80% of your questions by my count, you less than 20.
Law of Superposition: Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top. (left to their own environment. i.e. no earthquakes, etc.)
if everything was created at the same time, why don't we find human bones in the same strata as dinosaur bones? why do we see layers in order, consistantly, we see plants very deep, then simple lifeforms along with plants, then less deep the other lifeforms come too?
You are presupposing the evolutionary framework that assumes that the layers are laid down over long periods of time. But that has never been observed over the long periods of time that the evolutionary philosopher asserts. On the other hand sentiments have been observed being laid down in rapid succession. Like when Mt Saint Helens blew its top. Instantly millions of fossils were made.
um yeah. mt. saint helens blowing its top would be kind of a geological event that might effect the layering consistancy. remember that part about the law of superposition where i said "left to their own environment, i.e. no earthquakes, etc.)?"
yeah, volcanoes erupting are pretty similar.
you need to gain a grasp on things before you talk about them. i know i say it a lot, but as many times as you've been entirely wrong making a point, it becomes upsetting.
Explain the polystrate-fossilized tress that straddles supposed millions of years of time. Did those trees wait millions of years of time to be buried and fossilized? No they were buried rapidly.
yeah, unfortunately for you a polystrate tree passing through multiple layers cannot happen. these layers can represent 5 10 maybe even 20 years of annual flooding- maybe like you can see in the mississippi. just because theres more than one layer doesn't mean they represent different geological time periods- that is a creationist misconception- which you seem to have many of
I can't help but notice that you've yet to answer any of my questions- just go on to make more points of your own. I don't consider it disrespectful, i simply assume you don't answer because you don't have one.
God is one . Either thru mout of Jesus or mout of Moses. If you find in Bible that one of those prophets talking about believing in more in God , you should consider your religion as a paganisam and politeisam, but not a monoteisam.
Is the logic what Paul used to change Gospel of Jesus Christ and believing in one God and following old testament to something what is called trinity , do not follow the law but just a fate who cares what Jesus -Moses -Abraham etc spoke about. Use logic while reading bible and you gona change your religion very quickly. What kind religion is that opres to science- meaning what kind of God that would be if He created natural laws. Islam is religion that goes with science"read in the nameof Lord
What is the Hebrew word in the Bible for "one" in Deuteronomy 6:4? Does it always mean absolutely one or can it mean a united one? See Genesis 2:24. Is there another word for absolutely one in Hebrew that God could have used but did not? Who is the child called born called "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6? How come plural personal pronouns are used of God when He creates Man (including man and woman) in His image? You are wrong the relational nature of the Godhead is in the OT.
OK show me a law of logic. I am not talking about syllogisms. The laws of logic are abstract and cannot be observed or measured. The same is true with laws of morality. I hope your day is going well.
These are merely a few...The equations for if-then statements are represented as if Q then P, or q->p. With these laws, we can measure and determine the validity of biconditional, conditional, or if then statements by building a truth table.
Oh, they can even be measured using ven diagrams, or even uler diagrams...Basic college Algebra man...
These are words that represent abstract truth. The laws are not physical. Therefore, the naturalist has no basis for anything that is abstract. Yet they use something that is abstract, namely, logic to claim that all that there is is that which is material. Therefore, the naturalist lives in a dream world that denies the reality of the real world. In reality he or she does this because he or she does not want to be accountable to God.
What???? Oh man you got it backwards! I just proven to you that logic isn't based on assumptions and that it is based on the REAL WORLD. You can give me ANY statement, and ANYBODY can determine it's validity, subjigation, and contradictions. It's anything BUT abstract! It's algorrithmic and algebraic. Your the one living in the fantasy land...You cannot justify your religion, and better yet, You are basing it on a blind leap of faith! Where is the logic in that?? And you have yet to answer me.
Your denial does not change the truth. You still have not shown me a law of logic. Therefore, based on your materialistic worldview you cannot account for logic. You are a walking contradiction. You live by faith also and no amount of denial will change that truth. Faith is only as good as the object of faith. Your faith is in that which is finite. The limited, fallen, changing musings of men. Mine is in the all knowing, all powerful, everywhere present, immutable God.
??? People like you are very dangerous. I did not show you one law of logic, but multiple laws. You are very uneducated and want to follow 2000 year old bronze age palestineal rule. Of course logic isn't physical, thats insane to claim that. But we have laws of logic that challenges outrageous statements like fanatics like you. You are trying to seek patterns that aren't there, and quite honestly, you are dilusional. There is nothing abstract or assumptuious about everything I have proven.
Again, I ask you to account for the immaterial with naturalistic assumptions. All the name calling in the world will not change the truth that you have not accounted for laws of logic with empirical proof. I hate to break this to you but science is not the only way of knowing things.
I JUST DID! NOT ONLY DID I GIVE YOU MULTIPLE LAWS FOR LOGIC, EXPRESSED THE MATERIALISTIC EQUATIONS FOR VALIDATION, BUT IT ALL FITS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Do you even know what the scientific method is? Well, religion cannot fit the scientific method because god is an unknown. You cannot observe the supernatural with naturalistic mean because it is, by definition, an unknown. But logic can be obsurved by naturalistic means because it fits the laws of reality.
The reason why you have a hard time coming to terms with this is because you do not understand science, basic algebra, or philosophy, which the last one actually trancends religion. In order for you to refutiate logic you first must not only justify god, but prove his existence. You are the one with the burden of proof my friend. If you can refutiate logic, then you should have been handed a nobel peace prize, but I don't think you achieved one....
You are the one saying there is no God the burden of proof is on you. In order to say there is no God you would have to have the qualities of God. Are you everywhere present so that you can search whole universe so that you can emphatically prove there is no God. Since you would have to be God to do that you have just refuted yourself. Do you know all things? To know all things and to be everywhere present you would have to be all-powerful. Are you any of those things little man?
Again man! Affirmation of the Consequent! Just because I cannot prove his existence doesn't prove he exists! Thats a big fat falacy!!! I'm not the one preaching, I'm not the one making outrageous claims, and I am not the one claiming to speak god's mind for him! You are! By what authority do you have to make those claims???
Oh, thats right, you don't! Its just man telling man what to do.....For such extrordinary claims you need extraordinary proof..
Charging someone with making outrageous claims does not make it so. You have been very selective in the questions you have answered. For example, Are you the measure of what is true? Are you the measure of morality? Are you exercising faith when you believe in the theory of evolution?
I make the claim of God existence on the basis of creation and His Holy word.
You make your claims based on the theories of men.
Are you asserting that self reflecting, logical, moral beings that are finite are the source of all those things? Are you saying that logic and morality came into being by themselves out of that which in limited? Talk about irrational faith. All humans exercise faith. How did the universe get here? Please tell me. And then prove that there is no faith involved in your assertion.
Humans are definatly NOT the source of all things. Logic and morality came from the evoloution of Humans, which also explains the diversity and adaptation of primmates. Nothing irrational there. All of it has been proven time and time again. Humans do exercise faith, but with good reason and naturalistic means. I have faith that my family will be there for me, for I knew this pattern since I was in infant. You are trying to seek patterns that are not there, I.E. God.
Furthermore, We don't fully know how the universe got here, but to fill in the gaps with god and using him as a crutch to justify our existence isn't an answer. Science doesn't act on faith, it acts of experimentation and fact. Religion you need faith. And all the people that put faith in religion has done the most wicked acts known to man, like the Crusades, Burning times, Inquisitions, Witch Trials, ect.
Exactly you do not know. And how would you be able to know about the unobservable immeasurable genesis of the Universe? Answer: You would have to have an account from the One who was there. That is whom I have faith in. The Almighty. He is a thinking, moral, emotional God. He made us in His image so dependant people are the biggest proof of His existence.
If there is no god you should not care about murder. Truth is relative remember? You said as much. You cannot have it both ways.
Oh, by the way, I'm not claiming that god doesn't exist...Thats just as extraordinary to claim that he does. My beef is with religion and how evil it is...sorry about the confusion. But you have alot to prove in your religion...
I never denied faith as a valid way of knowing. I have faith in God who revealed how the universe got here in His word. You have faith in Darwin who was angry with God because his daughter died He then tried to explain the world through natural causes apart form super natural creation.
HAHAHAHA Oh man...You just LOVE jumping to conclusions huh???
Thats right, all you HAVE is faith. Thats it! You are so quick to deny science when science is the one that made that car you drive, that computer you use to come after atheists, or that cooler to keep your ass comfortable in your home...Haha
I never denied science. I love science, I just know that it is not the only way of knowing things. You can laugh but you have faith about how we got here. You have faith in assertions of man.
Haha well, I don't have faith in Darwin, the only thing that matters is that we further his theory to understand the behavior of this planet...At the very least he did not say believe in me, or be tortured for eternity...You seem to be all about morals, but you dont even step back and see how evil that statement is....
Hahaha oh you want scripture? I have chapter after chapter that proves the evilness in the bible and how it is manmade. I'm very consistent. I never was wishy washy on my consistency of religion. I told you it was evil, which it is.
I don't have faith about how we got here, in fact, I don't know, leaving open the the ambition to find out. I don't see where faith plays a role in that.
You want to say that morality is innate well I agree but in a different sense. I believe God wrote his laws on our hearts. Not that they came from a finite dependent source. I think the cause is greater than the effect not the other way around.
Cool, believe all you want, but you better have proof of this when you wanna assert your beliefs on a crowd (i.e. open air preaching), which you don't.
I cannot believe this because the very god you worship is, once again, a massachistic, totalitarian, and jealous god. The bible shows how your god did the most wicked things known to mankind just because he is "god," which by the way is "Circular en Demonstrando," but I'm assuming you know that falacy...
Do not forget that you are attempting to reason (which you still have yet to give a basis for) with presuppositions. All people do that so it is a matter of whose presuppositions account for the real world. You assumptions do not allow for the immaterial therefore it is flawed from the outset. You can jump up in down all you want and accuse me of not knowing anything but it will not change the truth that God is.
i don't need you to quote the bible to me. i've read it lots of times- i know about romans and psalms and all the foolish atheists. the bible has no bearing on my question- it was very simple. it was do you believe god exists or do you know that he does-you responded, "all people..."
that kind of ducking is annoying, i don't like it. if your answer came after that, where you said, "I have faith..." i must ask you, if the bible says you know, and you say you have faith, which is correct?
I told you the truth. There is no ducking here. All people know God exists but some suppress that truth. If you claim God does not exist you are suppressing the clear truth. Do you think you are the measure of what is true? Do you believe that Charles Darwin was correct and the theory of Evolution as it has evolved is correct?
There is no clear proof that a god exists, much less that your god exists. it is arrogant to think so- and obvious that there is no clear answer- hence all of the religions (with and without gods) throughout history.
i do not think i'm the measure of what is true, i think that evidence measures what is true- just because you or I or anyone says something is true doesn't mean anything- there are no authoritative powers anywhere- only the evidence and its validity justifies truth.
that being said, yes i do think Darwin's theory is correct, at least for the most part. Is it perfect? unlikely, but nonetheless Evolution by Natural Selection best explains how we got here. (needless to say, "let there be light" isn't exactly good enough for me, neither is "intelligent design." if maybe there was some evidence we could debate it...but there isn't any-unless you want to try and find some)
Do you believe the book, The Origin of Species is true? Did a finite man write that book? Do you believe the Theory of Evolution as it has evolved since Darwin penned his work? Do you think that finite men presupposing naturalistic evolution further developed the theory? Has any evolutionist believer seen the beginning of the Universe? Are they exercising faith when they make statements about the unseen unmeasurable beginning?
Yes the Bible was written by men but they were inspired by God.
answering every question in order, (if you want reasoning just ask for it)
Yes, yes, yes, there is no presupposition in science only evidence. before darwin's theory was presented with evidence evolution was not a viable (at least scientifically) option. No, do you need to see the beginning of something to understand its outcome? Can you see an electron? Do you believe its there? Can you see the inner core of the earth (no one ever has) do you believe it's there? it's called EVIDENCE, get it
Are you saying that nature (material) is all that there is? Do you believe in the uniformity of nature in the unseen past and in the seen present?
You can deny presuppositions but you are either in denial or you are being dishonest. Your denial or acquiescence is not the proof of truth. You have not seen the beginning of things therefore when you believe the theory of evolution's explanation of the genesis of things you take it by faith. You have a framework and you make it fit.
yes i am saying that nature is all that there is, because if it's not nature then it must be the supernatural- and what evidence is there of the supernatural? if you answer is none, you are correct. sorry, but i don't believe things without evidence, no matter how comforting or reassuring.
What presuppositions am I making? I have evidence for the theory of evolution, if you want me to give it to you PLEASE ask. I've asked you many times for evidence of creation and received none.
also, if you're going to debate something, have a clue what yo'ure talking about.
"you have not seen the beginning of things therefore when you believe the theory of evolution's explanation..."
not only is this not to correct, or just a little off, it's absolutely wrong, and you make it painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
the theory of evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life, not it's ORIGINS- nor does it attempt to. your point is- pointless.
"The theory of evolution asserts that all organisms are related yet this assumption has never been proven"
aha, here we go again with you "not knowing what you are talking about"
theories can never be proven entirely true- they are meant to explain things- that's what science does. but theories CAN be disproven. TAXONOMY "all organisms being related" is how SCIENCE CLASSIFIES organisms. find something that violates this and you have DISPROVEN the theory.
by the way, im not claiming that you do not know what you are talking about. i am showing WITH EVIDENCE that u don't.
you made arguments that the theory of evolution doesn't explain lifes origins, that it doesn't "prove" all organisms are related, that evolutionists try to tell us how things came into existence- all of which are either untrue or irrelevant.
u said that i was "all over the place" without even noticing you've jumped from biology to chemistry to biochemistry to theology. hm.
At least geneticist and professor Richard Lewontin, is honest about the Evolutionist commitment to the unproven assumption of naturalism. He said,
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
all he said is that we must take the side of the material world because it is all that we know! you're saying that because we are "mystified to the uninitiated" we must GUESS and ASSUME the answers are divine. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.
the very argument you're making is a logical fallacy, an argument to ignorance. "i dont know how the universe began...it's really hard to think about and i don't understand it....it must be magic!"
You are wrong. His point was that the materialist has a commitment to materialism no matter what the evidence says. So much for your claim of no presuppositional commitments.
No I have God's word on how the universe began. He spoke and it came to be. Your unbelief does not make it untrue. It just means you deny the clear self evident truth. The Bible describes you in Romans 1:18-32. You should read the passage.
you tell me to read the bible after, very early in our conversation, i told you "i have read the bible many times, about the 'foolish atheists' in romans and psalms..."
and now, you clearly NOT having read about evolution! i love it. i debate things i know about, and you debate things you don't know about!
"a theory that asserts a creation has no creator is foolish"
NOWHERE DOES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TRY TO ACCOUNT FOR "THE CREATION" LEARN OR STOP DEBATING
I have learned about evolution since I was a child. Again then tell all the evolutionary sages to stop asserting that nature is the source of all things. You have not even answered one of my questions. What is the source of the electricity in your heart? How did it get into the first human? What is the source of the first life? Did it come from non-life? What is the source of all that is abstract? Stop the ad hominem attacks they are not valid in formal debate. Answer or stop typing.
there is nothing ad hominem about what i've said. every negative thing i've said about you has been backed up with reasoning. calling you unqualified to talk about evolution isn't ad hominem if i show you WHY you are.
1) you think the theory of evolution discusses the origin of life.
2) you think the LAW of superposition is invalid.
why don't you answer your own questions? im anxious to hear- how DID electricity get into your heart? what IS the source of the first life?
You do not know me. Electricity got into my heart by God's creative design and genius. Life came from life. This is basic common sense. I know a lot of everyday common people with no education that know that truth.
How do you know electricity got into your heart by God's creative design? If you assert that this is true surely you have some evidence..
I know life comes from life, this is what the theory of evolution states- and what science has shown.
where did the FIRST LIFE come from? this is the question you asked me, then i asked you the same one, and you didn't answer it. and this time, give evidence please.
I answered. I have God's word on where the first life came from. I also explained that it was necessary for something to exist for eternity because you cannot get something from nothing. The fact that life does not come from non-life requires that that something is living. That being is God to whom you will bow either as your savior or you judge. I will be looking forward to your video. God bless.
God's word? what kind of evidence is that? Are you saying that god's word is evidence of god's word? because im pretty sure that's never going to stand up scientifically. sorry but if you want to disprove the stacks of evidence that science has, you're going to have to do better than "an invisible being told me that he created everything, and i can't come up with a better answer as to how it came about so i figure i'll play along. oh, he would send me to hell if i didn't"
Do you think that science is the only way of knowing things? The evidence of creation shows there is a creator. God's revelation of His word is another. Your conscience demonstrates that you are accountable for you actions before God.
science is not the only way of knowing things- there are many other means of gaining information- science is the standard that society has set to gain more knowledge and EXPLAIN things. not only explain them, but give evidence for it, so that it is simpler to understand.
what evidence is there of creation? even if there is a creation why does the creator have to be all powerful, all knowing, all loving, etc.? you assume all of these characteristics
You do not know that life comes from life? You do not know how electricity got into the first heart. Well it is only common sense that an eternal all wise God is the source. It is going to be interesting to see the non-believing people who earned PhD degrees before God's judgment seat. I am not asserting that you have a PhD. However, you do believe non believing people that do. Education does not always eqaul truth.
also, "learning about evolution" doesn't mean sitting down and listening to what you're told about it. especially if your information is as flawed as it seems- if you have any intellectual honesty at all (knowing what you talk about before you talk about it) then go read about what it is, and what the theory of evolution ACTUALLY says.
I know in my heart that there is no real difference between life and non-life. Life is a complex arrangement of atoms that has somehow formed conciousness. A slightly different arrangment could form a rock. It is the physical parts of the brain that form conciousness. Rocks probably aren't sentient, neither are starfishes in the same way we are. After we die, it all goes away and there is nothing.
I just prefer to believe in what is plainly evident rather than supernatural. "life" coming from "nonlife" while not absolutely provable has at least some evidence to support it.
i'll give you some evidence. the law of superposition, like i've stated before. very deep buried within the earth are ONLY plants. not as deep are plants and simple life. as you move less deep you get plants, simple life, and complex life. unless you think these were created (at different times, citing the law of superposition AS EVIDENCE) you can only reach the conclusion that life came from nonlife, and complex life came from simple life.
The amine groups that form DNA can be replecated in a lab using non organic compounds, effectively creating something organic from something inorganic. While the conditions necessary for this to happen naturally are not present today, it is likely that they were when Earth was in it's early development.
This is where you are. You deny that you have presuppositions but you do. You deny that you are a believer in the Theorytale of Evolution but you are. You have faith in finite man's natural explanation of the universe and I have faith in Almighty God's revelation the Bible. Yes through finite men but inspired by the Almighty. You have faith in the weak, changing, flawed, musings of men. I have faith in the All Knowing, All Powerful, Everywhere Present, Eternal God.
why call it the "theorytale of evolution"? are you intimidated by it so much that you have to belittle it?
once again, the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is scientifically valid, WITH EVIDENCE, AND CAN BE DISPROVEN. you have yet to provide any evidence against it, you simply call it dumb and brush it aside because it doesn't coincide with your beliefs. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE. I CARE ABOUT FACTS AND EVIDENCE.
Religion doesn't give you answers, just makes you stop asking questions.
i have made some belittling statements, but they have all been followed with reasoning. when i say you have no idea what you're talking about it's for a reason. like now when you say "a theory that asserts a creation has no creator is foolish"
i say you have no business discussing the theory of evolution because you DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. The theory of evolution discusses the complexity of life, not it's origin. now, either go read about it or stop debating something you don't know about
I am not intimidated. BTW, writing in capitals does not make the theory anymore convincing or true. You theory could be valid if your presuppositions are correct. The word of God and the evidence of the real creation demonstrate that materialistic assumptions are wrong. Even most scientists now believe that there was a beginning of the material world (Big Bang Cosmology). That means that the universe and all corporeal things had a source that was incorporeal.
the big bang theory is about the rapid expansion of space and time, it has nothing to do with anything supernatural. once again, you don't know what you're talking about. talking in caps doesn't make anything more true, but it lets you know that the same argument that you keep making against evolution is flawed. read what it says.
also, it's not my theory. it has evidence- all of which you could see if you had the intellectual honesty to, which clearly you don't. it makes no presuppositions.
Evolutionary believers are constantly talking about how things came into being and so you are not being honest here. Prove scientifically that all organisms have a common ancestor. Prove the uniformity of nature in the unseen past. I asked you to do that days ago and you have not.
evolutionary believers don't matter..anyone can have opinions. how things came into existence is not the discussion, because there are no theories or evidence to support anyone's case. the problem is that YOU claim to KNOW that we were created when you do not. that is the point, i admit i do not know, while you arrogantly claim to have the answer, even without evidence. you're asking me to prove things that cannot be proven, and you assume that since i cannot, i must be wrong. can you prove god?
what laws of logic do you want me to prove? that A=A? that A is not not A?
please, i've followed and learned creationist rhetoric for a long time now. "avoid questions and keep asking questions" is what it comes down to.
think about it, if we're debating god, or creation vs. evolution, and you're asking me about laws of logic, which side do you think this debate is on?
you're trying to win a battle of rhetoric when you're fighting a battle of thoughts
The laws of logic are universal and abstract. They are outside the realm of the senses. You cannot taste, touch, see, or smell them. We use the formula like you have to explain the unseen. You have yet to empirically prove they exist. You assume them when you make your case but you cannot see them. I do not care how long you have been debating your denial does not change the truth.
I am not the one claiming that nature is all that there is. Good try but your answer is flawed. Show me a law of logic. Not a formula but the actual law. Show me a moral? Shoe me human essence? Explain to me how electricity got inside of the human person. Do cars put batteries inside of themselves and wire themselves or do they have to be designed and wired? Are you more complex than a car?
Stay on the subject and answer the questions. You are all over the place. You stated that nature is all that there is and so I will ask you why you are attempting to use abstract untouchable laws of logic? Can you prove they exist? If you dodge the question this time I will be through because I will know that you just want to play games.
i've asked you for evidence for your claim that god created things at least three times now, idk who's dodging and playing games. i've answered all your questions fully, and if i haven't you can just rewrite them and i will- i apologize if i havent got to them. you on the other hand are very directly dodging my questions, simply asking your own and making assertions.
evolutionists don't try to tell us how to things came into existence. by definition that's not what they do. if they try to tell us how things came into existence they are no longer evolutionists, merely theologians, or scientists making hypotheses...because they may believe in science/evolution has nothing to do with the validity of what they say- the fact is scientists or creationists don't know how life began, only creationists have the arrogance to claim they do even without evidence
Openaire, you seem to be dealing with a couple of misconceptions.
1. The theory of evolution never try's to explain the beginning of life. The theory of abiogenesis does that. If you have a problem with that argue it elsewhere.
2. While flylike1 was almost certainly not at the beginning of life, neither were you nor anyone who wrote the bible, so I don't see your point in that, unless your falling back on the argument that "Atheist have faith too".
Evolutionists exercise faith in the weak, changing, flawed, musings of men. I have faith in the All Knowing, All Powerful, Everywhere Present, Eternal God.
Men may be weak, changing, and flawed, but evidence is concrete. Where is yours? Science has it, evolution has it, but the religious have none. only their bibles and white boards and churches and beliefs.
Science doesn't care what you believe, science cares about the facts. if the facts go against what your bible says, then tough shit. you can put your fingers in your ears and ignore it, call it dumb, but facts don't lie- and that's what science has.
The creation is the evidence for the creator. He accounts for both the seen and unseen world. He is a moral, logical, volitional, being. Those unmeasurable things are accounted for by Him. Nature does not. If something exists than something had to exist for eternity because you cannot get something from nothing. You cannot get life from non life. Therefore, that which is for eternity is living. And that person is God. The Almighty! The All Knowing! The All Powerful! The Eternal One!
Those weak changing flawed musings have brought us electricity, the gift of flight, years upon years of longer life, among other things. What has "god" done for us?
Heyyyy it's Paul! And I've driven through WVU once. Neat, this kinda brings it a little closer to home.
dougmoerhoffman 2 months ago
Intangibility doesn't mean unmeasurable. We know gravity exists because we can easily and scientifically test and measure it. On the other hand, we've yet to be able to observe, test and measure a god. Science also explains quite a lot about morality, particularly how evolution has encouraged social organisms (humans, for one) through natural selection to behave in ways that benefit a society and improves the probability of continued survival. In the explaining game, religions are far behind.
igoturnose 1 year ago
@igoturnose,
Hello,
Your are reasoning back to a presupposition that naturalism and empiricism are true. The problem with that is you cannot account for anything abstract so your world view is insufficient for explaining the real world. You make the ambiguous claim that science tells us about morality but you cannot show me a law of morality because they are immaterial. Logic is immaterial. Therefore, be consistent and stop stealing from the Judeo Christian world view.
openairevangelism 1 year ago
@openairevangelism
We know these things based on evidence that has been discovered, and there's a lot of it. Religious beliefs explain nothing. Creationism has no scientific value, at best it's an opinion. Scientists' findings about morality are not ambiguous, they're observed facts. Its origins are not spiritual, nor would a god need to establish it. In terms of "world view", those who look into the evidence will find that again, religious beliefs can't actually explain much of anything.
igoturnose 1 year ago
@igoturnose,
Your denial does not prove anything. Until you show me a law of morality or a law of logic you have not accounted for either with your naturalistic world view. Again stop stealing from the Judeo Christian world view. Your religion of Naturalistic Evolution is untenable.
openairevangelism 1 year ago
@openairevangelism
Honest people accept the facts even when they do not like it. To believe that reality will bend to our wishes is a form of arrogance. No god or spirituality was needed for morals to develop, the immaterial argument does not work. We know how morals developed through necessity, rejecting the facts do not invalidate the truth. Logic comes from our expanding knowledge of reality.
Evolution is no more of a religion than watering plants. Evolution just describes part of nature.
igoturnose 1 year ago
@igoturnose
You are in denial.
openairevangelism 1 year ago
@igoturnose Hitler thought he was benefiting society by speeding up the so-called evolutionary process by getting rid of people he saw as polluting the gene pool. On what basis do you say he was wrong? Logic it different than gravity because logic is conceptual by nature and gravity is not. Therefore your argument would fall under the unacceptable category of a straw man. Thanks for trying.
openairevangelism 9 months ago
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
openairevangelism 1 year ago
Faith isnt knowing, its trusting.
HouseHaunter484 1 year ago
@HouseHaunter484
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
openairevangelism 1 year ago
Graduated from WVU in 1987. Its amazing how the evangelicals still come to campus and open air preach. Have to say, one of these guys actually saved me and am appreciative. What these folks do takes guts. I was one of those kids listening 25 years ago and it took about 10 years of reflection to finally get it.
nrems 1 year ago
i think he came to my church last week :D
JMLXKIMCHI 2 years ago
"You can't argue faith with logic."
Faith is an investment of trust in something, with love.
Logic is an A- B- C way of processing information.
: )
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
You have to use a syllogism to represent them because you cannot measure them.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Syllogism-A logical argument in which one proposition is made from the inferrence of two other things. (FYI folks)
Well, skeptical human beings gave the process of thinking 'logically' the name 'logic'. So, I just took that definition of logic and applied it to this discussion. So, I didn't use a syllogism.
I didn't make any two assumptions. I, for a fact, made up, a way to measure something that exists abstractly by using indirect means.
: )
What surprises me the most
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
what surprises me the most is that you haven't used Heisenberg's uncertainty principle:
You cannot measure something without having affected it. Thus, all measurements, are humanly flawed. Thus, science, is an imperfect series of thought and events.
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
however, scientists, with this in mind, have mathematics, have come up with methods to eliminate measurement error to near or absolute zero. Thus, any assumed imperfection can be discounted : )
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
You say you are a Christian and that you are saved by faith but your video on egg nog and bacardi is full of profanity. Is that kind of language in keeping with the faith you say you profess?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
My faith accepts imperfection. I know my self-expression isn't always child friendly, but when I am working with children (and I do for volunteer), they hear no evil.
I'm showing my human side in those videos bud, your's is perversion of logic.
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
You could have also taken note that my clothing is not modest in some videos (my shirt is off), I talk about vice (getting drunk) and sexuality (discussed heavily in proverbs and psalms) [friend zone].
I take note of your poor logic and arguments...so, you point out my personal flaws. Juvenile?
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
You argument does not follow.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
follow what? dude, if you're going to keep discussing the process of arguments and theology with me, you have to keep up.
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
OK show me a law of logic. What do they taste like? Can you smell them? Do they emit sound?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
To measure laws of logic, one would have to compare and contrast an individual or group's model of thinking (this is THIS, so THAT is THIS) with a universal model of thinking, with the model of thinking based in standardly associated vocabulary.
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
you want to use a tape measure, an erlenmeyer flask on concept that exists abstractly and is portrayed in human interaction?
shoot, there is another way of measuring a law of logic right there. comparing human interaction based in logic with the standardized law of logic just mentioned.
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
The laws of logic are abstract and therefore cannot be accounted for by the scientific method. Therefore they are assumed. The atheist which you say you are not cannot account for laws of logic or laws of morality because their worldview assumes naturalism. Therefore the naturalistic evolutionary world view is insufficient for accounting for the real world in which we live. Are you a Christian? If so how do you know you are saved?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
That's funny, I just used the scientific method to account for any 'law of logic'; now I would like to compare our own definitions of the scientific method.
To be honest, you are heavily perverting any process of logical though to suit your own needs.
I already said I believe in God (probably not your interpretation of God), that I am a theist and that faith and logic are two separate things.
Your last question....I am a christian.
How do I know? I have faith.
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
The scientific method is the discipline of observing and measuring things with the senses in repeatable experiments. You have not proved that laws of logic can be measured. Again writing out a syllogism to represent laws of logic does not demonstrate that they are measurable. They are not they are abstract and no amount of denying that fact will change that truth. God bless you.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Brohim,
I used human behavior (observable) to measure 'laws of logic'.
To your own definition, you are being true.
So, we can both make an observation from this:
To measure the abstract, one does not use subjective senses. The abstract can also be (weakly) measured through behavior.
Of course dude. God bless you too. This was fun : )
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
don't freak out bud. I am a theist as well.
religion is imperfect, because man is imperfect. science in the most righteous form is a burning curiosity to grow and develop an understanding of the universe.
notice how only incredilby intelligent individuals can work in labs. i believe in design, shoot, i see mathematics throughout nature. : ) Peace and God bless.
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
the laws of logic can be measured.
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
OK show them to me. What does a law of logic taste like? How do they feel? Do the emit sound? Do they smell good or bad?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
'Taste' is a human subjective sensation in response to ingested molecules' interaction with the tongue's nerve endings.
'Feel' is an incredible broad verb. Emotionally? Temperature?
'Smell' is another human subjective sensation of the olfactory bulb's nerve endings with airborne molecules and substances. Science in psychology or sociology could measure laws of logic.
Tra1n3rfromH3ll 2 years ago
I inadvertently removed your comment on morality. Please re-post it so I may respond. Thanks
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Good job Bro.-keep preaching the truth and reaching out to a lost and dying world
great video
Bibledefender4u 2 years ago
Well I'd really like to stop commenting. But you keep saying mad things. 'which makes no sense'-why? There is a fundamental mathematical nature in the universe. I'll grant you that. But if you want to be taken seriously don't attempt to reduce my argument to absurdity. You say 'worldview' and imply vague notions... This is a fact: even if you are 100% right you are terrible at arguing. Modern philosophy is built around reactions to old dogmas rather than stealing from them.
poetryiscool 2 years ago
I guess that is the easy way out but until you have a solid world view that makes sense of the real of material and immaterial things we cannot get into a more detailed discussion. What I am saying is your world view is flawed at the most basic level. Saying I am terrible at arguing while ignoring the basics proves nothing. I hope all is well with you and thanks for the discourse.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
wow. wow. what are you talking about? I haven't ignored the argument from design. It's just very weak. I then I talked about the philosophy of mind. I am a materialist. But we haven't even begun to discuss the intricacies of that issue. How can you argue as if you're a saviour of logic when you aren't even able to us it?
poetryiscool 2 years ago
I am not the savior of logic God is the source of logic. As a materialist you have to assume the logic came from non-thinking inert matter which makes no sense. I believe that logic came from the eternal all-knowing God. That makes much more sense than logic springing up out of nowhere by itself. You have no basis for the philosophy of the mind. Stop stealing from the Judeo Christian worldview when your worldview is found wanting. Be consistent.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
I think Kierkegaard was right. Religious belief requires a 'leap of faith'. I also think the only way to justify religious belief is to show it allows for a better way of life. Empirical evidence is more reasonable than any belief system.
poetryiscool 2 years ago
The Empirical Method is good but limited. It cannot account for the abstract. To assume that observable measurable things are all that there is is based of faith. In fact when you use reason which is not observable to say that the only things that we can know are concrete things you refute yourself.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
No, science is based on induction. Deduction is the only way to have 100% knowledge. Even if God is real, God is not self-evident. 2+2=4 is self-evident. What would be the point of faith if God was self-evident? The scientific method is based on induction. But it is a very strong form of induction.
poetryiscool 2 years ago
OK then prove the laws of logic exist with the scientific method. Prove that your conscience exists with the scientific method. Just because you suppress the truth of God's existence does not change the truth that His existence is self evident. It is not a lack of evidence problem it is a moral problem. His eternal nature and divine power are evident in what He has made (See Romans 1:18-32: It is a description of you). Unless you want to take the position that designs do not require designers.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Well logic doesn't rely on the scientific method. If two was added to itself and was equal to anything but four it would go against the nature of twoness. It's self-evident. What was all the work of Russell and Frege for if you're just going to ignore it. They didn't use the scientific method.The Argument from Design doesn't elevate God above any other spiritual being.Evolution allows for design from disorder. And the philosophy of mind is not an old discipline.Have you read about functionalism
poetryiscool 2 years ago
You have demonstrated you cannot account for logic with a materialistic worldview. All your pontificating will not change that truth. You have ignored the argument of design and no amount of doing that will change the truth either. The bottom line ids that you have faith in the finite ideas of men.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Well if something's self-evident it doesn't rely on anything else. And then I just talked about the difference between induction and deduction. Neither of which need authority
poetryiscool 2 years ago
God's existence is self evident. Are you assuming the only way to know things is through the scientific method.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Logic is self-evident philosophy. This guy doesn't even know the difference between induction and deduction. Religious faith is obviously induction. And a very weak form of induction. He's so ignorant
poetryiscool 2 years ago
On what authority do you make your claims?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Very Good ! Hope you continue.
Deliveranceminister 2 years ago
Comment removed
flylike1 2 years ago
Comment removed
CanadiaNecro1 2 years ago
if you think the video is good read some of the conversations we've had over the past week or so
flylike1 2 years ago
You have ducked all questions so I hope he does read all your unqualified statements.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
i have answered all questions, sir.
i plan to make a video response within the week answering your questions, so your unfounded claims of me "not answering questions" which anyone that can browse back a page or two can see that i have (all of them), will no longer stand. and maybe since my questions will be in video form you might actually be forced to answer instead of going off making more statements of your own. i have answered at least 80% of your questions by my count, you less than 20.
flylike1 2 years ago
and yes i counted so if you want me to SHOW you, WITH EVIDENCE, i'd be absolutely delighted :)
flylike1 2 years ago
Law of Superposition: Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top. (left to their own environment. i.e. no earthquakes, etc.)
if everything was created at the same time, why don't we find human bones in the same strata as dinosaur bones? why do we see layers in order, consistantly, we see plants very deep, then simple lifeforms along with plants, then less deep the other lifeforms come too?
oh, yeah, it's a law. good luck
flylike1 2 years ago
You are presupposing the evolutionary framework that assumes that the layers are laid down over long periods of time. But that has never been observed over the long periods of time that the evolutionary philosopher asserts. On the other hand sentiments have been observed being laid down in rapid succession. Like when Mt Saint Helens blew its top. Instantly millions of fossils were made.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
um yeah. mt. saint helens blowing its top would be kind of a geological event that might effect the layering consistancy. remember that part about the law of superposition where i said "left to their own environment, i.e. no earthquakes, etc.)?"
yeah, volcanoes erupting are pretty similar.
you need to gain a grasp on things before you talk about them. i know i say it a lot, but as many times as you've been entirely wrong making a point, it becomes upsetting.
flylike1 2 years ago
Explain the polystrate-fossilized tress that straddles supposed millions of years of time. Did those trees wait millions of years of time to be buried and fossilized? No they were buried rapidly.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
yeah, unfortunately for you a polystrate tree passing through multiple layers cannot happen. these layers can represent 5 10 maybe even 20 years of annual flooding- maybe like you can see in the mississippi. just because theres more than one layer doesn't mean they represent different geological time periods- that is a creationist misconception- which you seem to have many of
flylike1 2 years ago
I can't help but notice that you've yet to answer any of my questions- just go on to make more points of your own. I don't consider it disrespectful, i simply assume you don't answer because you don't have one.
flylike1 2 years ago
God is one . Either thru mout of Jesus or mout of Moses. If you find in Bible that one of those prophets talking about believing in more in God , you should consider your religion as a paganisam and politeisam, but not a monoteisam.
atomac23 2 years ago
Is the logic what Paul used to change Gospel of Jesus Christ and believing in one God and following old testament to something what is called trinity , do not follow the law but just a fate who cares what Jesus -Moses -Abraham etc spoke about. Use logic while reading bible and you gona change your religion very quickly. What kind religion is that opres to science- meaning what kind of God that would be if He created natural laws. Islam is religion that goes with science"read in the nameof Lord
atomac23 2 years ago
What is the Hebrew word in the Bible for "one" in Deuteronomy 6:4? Does it always mean absolutely one or can it mean a united one? See Genesis 2:24. Is there another word for absolutely one in Hebrew that God could have used but did not? Who is the child called born called "Mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6? How come plural personal pronouns are used of God when He creates Man (including man and woman) in His image? You are wrong the relational nature of the Godhead is in the OT.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Logic CAN be verified!
Havent you ever heard of truth tables? We can take statements and determine the validity of every statement based on this method...what a douche....
evilnomad111 2 years ago
OK show me a law of logic. I am not talking about syllogisms. The laws of logic are abstract and cannot be observed or measured. The same is true with laws of morality. I hope your day is going well.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
The law of identity
The law of non-contradiction
The law of the excluded middle
These are merely a few...The equations for if-then statements are represented as if Q then P, or q->p. With these laws, we can measure and determine the validity of biconditional, conditional, or if then statements by building a truth table.
Oh, they can even be measured using ven diagrams, or even uler diagrams...Basic college Algebra man...
evilnomad111 2 years ago
These are words that represent abstract truth. The laws are not physical. Therefore, the naturalist has no basis for anything that is abstract. Yet they use something that is abstract, namely, logic to claim that all that there is is that which is material. Therefore, the naturalist lives in a dream world that denies the reality of the real world. In reality he or she does this because he or she does not want to be accountable to God.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
What???? Oh man you got it backwards! I just proven to you that logic isn't based on assumptions and that it is based on the REAL WORLD. You can give me ANY statement, and ANYBODY can determine it's validity, subjigation, and contradictions. It's anything BUT abstract! It's algorrithmic and algebraic. Your the one living in the fantasy land...You cannot justify your religion, and better yet, You are basing it on a blind leap of faith! Where is the logic in that?? And you have yet to answer me.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
Your denial does not change the truth. You still have not shown me a law of logic. Therefore, based on your materialistic worldview you cannot account for logic. You are a walking contradiction. You live by faith also and no amount of denial will change that truth. Faith is only as good as the object of faith. Your faith is in that which is finite. The limited, fallen, changing musings of men. Mine is in the all knowing, all powerful, everywhere present, immutable God.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
??? People like you are very dangerous. I did not show you one law of logic, but multiple laws. You are very uneducated and want to follow 2000 year old bronze age palestineal rule. Of course logic isn't physical, thats insane to claim that. But we have laws of logic that challenges outrageous statements like fanatics like you. You are trying to seek patterns that aren't there, and quite honestly, you are dilusional. There is nothing abstract or assumptuious about everything I have proven.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
Again, I ask you to account for the immaterial with naturalistic assumptions. All the name calling in the world will not change the truth that you have not accounted for laws of logic with empirical proof. I hate to break this to you but science is not the only way of knowing things.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
I JUST DID! NOT ONLY DID I GIVE YOU MULTIPLE LAWS FOR LOGIC, EXPRESSED THE MATERIALISTIC EQUATIONS FOR VALIDATION, BUT IT ALL FITS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Do you even know what the scientific method is? Well, religion cannot fit the scientific method because god is an unknown. You cannot observe the supernatural with naturalistic mean because it is, by definition, an unknown. But logic can be obsurved by naturalistic means because it fits the laws of reality.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
The reason why you have a hard time coming to terms with this is because you do not understand science, basic algebra, or philosophy, which the last one actually trancends religion. In order for you to refutiate logic you first must not only justify god, but prove his existence. You are the one with the burden of proof my friend. If you can refutiate logic, then you should have been handed a nobel peace prize, but I don't think you achieved one....
evilnomad111 2 years ago
You are the one saying there is no God the burden of proof is on you. In order to say there is no God you would have to have the qualities of God. Are you everywhere present so that you can search whole universe so that you can emphatically prove there is no God. Since you would have to be God to do that you have just refuted yourself. Do you know all things? To know all things and to be everywhere present you would have to be all-powerful. Are you any of those things little man?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Again man! Affirmation of the Consequent! Just because I cannot prove his existence doesn't prove he exists! Thats a big fat falacy!!! I'm not the one preaching, I'm not the one making outrageous claims, and I am not the one claiming to speak god's mind for him! You are! By what authority do you have to make those claims???
Oh, thats right, you don't! Its just man telling man what to do.....For such extrordinary claims you need extraordinary proof..
evilnomad111 2 years ago
Charging someone with making outrageous claims does not make it so. You have been very selective in the questions you have answered. For example, Are you the measure of what is true? Are you the measure of morality? Are you exercising faith when you believe in the theory of evolution?
I make the claim of God existence on the basis of creation and His Holy word.
You make your claims based on the theories of men.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Yes it does. Nobody should buy into what you say not unless you can back it up, which you can't.
I already answered those questions. SCIENCE DOESN'T NEED FAITH. You do. By no means am I a measurement of morality, but neither is superstition.
There is piles and piles of evidence that support the theory of evoloution and have accurate dating to prove it. There is no faith involved.
The bible is so wicked, calling it holy just makes me sick.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
But I have something I want to show you: Faith in god is abstract, illogical, and intangible in every sense. I dare you to prove me wrong.
Furthermore, name me one moral deed that a christian has done or is capable of doing that an atheist cannot do.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
I never denied faith as a way of knowing you are the one asserting that fallacy.
Why would an atheist call something moral or immoral that comes from a world view that assumes God. Why are you stealing from my worldview?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
It's not a falacy, and according to this whole argument you are not denying faith, you are embracing it.
I would not steal from your world view if you believe in a supernatural entity that is sado massachistic. Keep it. I don't want it.
Well, for an atheist, Morality is innate. It does not come from the divine. I'll prove it to you
evilnomad111 2 years ago
Are you asserting that self reflecting, logical, moral beings that are finite are the source of all those things? Are you saying that logic and morality came into being by themselves out of that which in limited? Talk about irrational faith. All humans exercise faith. How did the universe get here? Please tell me. And then prove that there is no faith involved in your assertion.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Humans are definatly NOT the source of all things. Logic and morality came from the evoloution of Humans, which also explains the diversity and adaptation of primmates. Nothing irrational there. All of it has been proven time and time again. Humans do exercise faith, but with good reason and naturalistic means. I have faith that my family will be there for me, for I knew this pattern since I was in infant. You are trying to seek patterns that are not there, I.E. God.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
Furthermore, We don't fully know how the universe got here, but to fill in the gaps with god and using him as a crutch to justify our existence isn't an answer. Science doesn't act on faith, it acts of experimentation and fact. Religion you need faith. And all the people that put faith in religion has done the most wicked acts known to man, like the Crusades, Burning times, Inquisitions, Witch Trials, ect.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
Exactly you do not know. And how would you be able to know about the unobservable immeasurable genesis of the Universe? Answer: You would have to have an account from the One who was there. That is whom I have faith in. The Almighty. He is a thinking, moral, emotional God. He made us in His image so dependant people are the biggest proof of His existence.
If there is no god you should not care about murder. Truth is relative remember? You said as much. You cannot have it both ways.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Oh, by the way, I'm not claiming that god doesn't exist...Thats just as extraordinary to claim that he does. My beef is with religion and how evil it is...sorry about the confusion. But you have alot to prove in your religion...
evilnomad111 2 years ago
"How did the universe get here? Please tell me. And then prove that there is no faith involved in your assertion."
Affirmation of the Consequent. Just because I cannot prove the origion of the universe doesn't prove that your god exists or is the answer.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
I never denied faith as a valid way of knowing. I have faith in God who revealed how the universe got here in His word. You have faith in Darwin who was angry with God because his daughter died He then tried to explain the world through natural causes apart form super natural creation.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
HAHAHAHA Oh man...You just LOVE jumping to conclusions huh???
Thats right, all you HAVE is faith. Thats it! You are so quick to deny science when science is the one that made that car you drive, that computer you use to come after atheists, or that cooler to keep your ass comfortable in your home...Haha
evilnomad111 2 years ago
I never denied science. I love science, I just know that it is not the only way of knowing things. You can laugh but you have faith about how we got here. You have faith in assertions of man.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Haha well, I don't have faith in Darwin, the only thing that matters is that we further his theory to understand the behavior of this planet...At the very least he did not say believe in me, or be tortured for eternity...You seem to be all about morals, but you dont even step back and see how evil that statement is....
evilnomad111 2 years ago
You have no basis for calling something evil. That belongs to my worldview. Stop stealing and be consistent. God bless.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Hahaha oh you want scripture? I have chapter after chapter that proves the evilness in the bible and how it is manmade. I'm very consistent. I never was wishy washy on my consistency of religion. I told you it was evil, which it is.
I don't have faith about how we got here, in fact, I don't know, leaving open the the ambition to find out. I don't see where faith plays a role in that.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
You want to say that morality is innate well I agree but in a different sense. I believe God wrote his laws on our hearts. Not that they came from a finite dependent source. I think the cause is greater than the effect not the other way around.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Cool, believe all you want, but you better have proof of this when you wanna assert your beliefs on a crowd (i.e. open air preaching), which you don't.
I cannot believe this because the very god you worship is, once again, a massachistic, totalitarian, and jealous god. The bible shows how your god did the most wicked things known to mankind just because he is "god," which by the way is "Circular en Demonstrando," but I'm assuming you know that falacy...
evilnomad111 2 years ago
Do not forget that you are attempting to reason (which you still have yet to give a basis for) with presuppositions. All people do that so it is a matter of whose presuppositions account for the real world. You assumptions do not allow for the immaterial therefore it is flawed from the outset. You can jump up in down all you want and accuse me of not knowing anything but it will not change the truth that God is.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
I already given you the basis for logic and reason, but you don't know an equation if it slapped you in the face.
I do not assume. Name one statement that I have based on an assumption.
Again, you probably know a few things, but you are claiming to know god and speak his mind with no evidence.
evilnomad111 2 years ago
do you know that god exists or do you believe that he does?
flylike1 2 years ago
All people know God exists (Romans 1:18-32). I have faith is Jesus Christ and His work on the cross for the forgiveness of my sin.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
i don't need you to quote the bible to me. i've read it lots of times- i know about romans and psalms and all the foolish atheists. the bible has no bearing on my question- it was very simple. it was do you believe god exists or do you know that he does-you responded, "all people..."
that kind of ducking is annoying, i don't like it. if your answer came after that, where you said, "I have faith..." i must ask you, if the bible says you know, and you say you have faith, which is correct?
flylike1 2 years ago
I told you the truth. There is no ducking here. All people know God exists but some suppress that truth. If you claim God does not exist you are suppressing the clear truth. Do you think you are the measure of what is true? Do you believe that Charles Darwin was correct and the theory of Evolution as it has evolved is correct?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
There is no clear proof that a god exists, much less that your god exists. it is arrogant to think so- and obvious that there is no clear answer- hence all of the religions (with and without gods) throughout history.
i do not think i'm the measure of what is true, i think that evidence measures what is true- just because you or I or anyone says something is true doesn't mean anything- there are no authoritative powers anywhere- only the evidence and its validity justifies truth.
flylike1 2 years ago
that being said, yes i do think Darwin's theory is correct, at least for the most part. Is it perfect? unlikely, but nonetheless Evolution by Natural Selection best explains how we got here. (needless to say, "let there be light" isn't exactly good enough for me, neither is "intelligent design." if maybe there was some evidence we could debate it...but there isn't any-unless you want to try and find some)
The evidence favors what Darwin's theory states.
flylike1 2 years ago
Do you believe the book, The Origin of Species is true? Did a finite man write that book? Do you believe the Theory of Evolution as it has evolved since Darwin penned his work? Do you think that finite men presupposing naturalistic evolution further developed the theory? Has any evolutionist believer seen the beginning of the Universe? Are they exercising faith when they make statements about the unseen unmeasurable beginning?
Yes the Bible was written by men but they were inspired by God.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
answering every question in order, (if you want reasoning just ask for it)
Yes, yes, yes, there is no presupposition in science only evidence. before darwin's theory was presented with evidence evolution was not a viable (at least scientifically) option. No, do you need to see the beginning of something to understand its outcome? Can you see an electron? Do you believe its there? Can you see the inner core of the earth (no one ever has) do you believe it's there? it's called EVIDENCE, get it
flylike1 2 years ago
Are you saying that nature (material) is all that there is? Do you believe in the uniformity of nature in the unseen past and in the seen present?
You can deny presuppositions but you are either in denial or you are being dishonest. Your denial or acquiescence is not the proof of truth. You have not seen the beginning of things therefore when you believe the theory of evolution's explanation of the genesis of things you take it by faith. You have a framework and you make it fit.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
yes i am saying that nature is all that there is, because if it's not nature then it must be the supernatural- and what evidence is there of the supernatural? if you answer is none, you are correct. sorry, but i don't believe things without evidence, no matter how comforting or reassuring.
What presuppositions am I making? I have evidence for the theory of evolution, if you want me to give it to you PLEASE ask. I've asked you many times for evidence of creation and received none.
flylike1 2 years ago
also, if you're going to debate something, have a clue what yo'ure talking about.
"you have not seen the beginning of things therefore when you believe the theory of evolution's explanation..."
not only is this not to correct, or just a little off, it's absolutely wrong, and you make it painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about.
the theory of evolution explains the DIVERSITY of life, not it's ORIGINS- nor does it attempt to. your point is- pointless.
flylike1 2 years ago
Then why do evolutionist continually try to tell us how things came into existence?
The theory of evolution asserts that all organisms are related yet this assumption has never been proven.
Claiming I do not know what I am talking about proves nothing. So give some real answers.
openaircampaigners 2 years ago
"The theory of evolution asserts that all organisms are related yet this assumption has never been proven"
aha, here we go again with you "not knowing what you are talking about"
theories can never be proven entirely true- they are meant to explain things- that's what science does. but theories CAN be disproven. TAXONOMY "all organisms being related" is how SCIENCE CLASSIFIES organisms. find something that violates this and you have DISPROVEN the theory.
flylike1 2 years ago
by the way, im not claiming that you do not know what you are talking about. i am showing WITH EVIDENCE that u don't.
you made arguments that the theory of evolution doesn't explain lifes origins, that it doesn't "prove" all organisms are related, that evolutionists try to tell us how things came into existence- all of which are either untrue or irrelevant.
u said that i was "all over the place" without even noticing you've jumped from biology to chemistry to biochemistry to theology. hm.
flylike1 2 years ago
At least geneticist and professor Richard Lewontin, is honest about the Evolutionist commitment to the unproven assumption of naturalism. He said,
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism."
openairevangelism 2 years ago
He continues,
"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
openairevangelism 2 years ago
all he said is that we must take the side of the material world because it is all that we know! you're saying that because we are "mystified to the uninitiated" we must GUESS and ASSUME the answers are divine. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT.
the very argument you're making is a logical fallacy, an argument to ignorance. "i dont know how the universe began...it's really hard to think about and i don't understand it....it must be magic!"
that's the exact argument you're making
flylike1 2 years ago
You are wrong. His point was that the materialist has a commitment to materialism no matter what the evidence says. So much for your claim of no presuppositional commitments.
No I have God's word on how the universe began. He spoke and it came to be. Your unbelief does not make it untrue. It just means you deny the clear self evident truth. The Bible describes you in Romans 1:18-32. You should read the passage.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Comment removed
flylike1 2 years ago
oh how ironic this is!
you tell me to read the bible after, very early in our conversation, i told you "i have read the bible many times, about the 'foolish atheists' in romans and psalms..."
and now, you clearly NOT having read about evolution! i love it. i debate things i know about, and you debate things you don't know about!
"a theory that asserts a creation has no creator is foolish"
NOWHERE DOES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TRY TO ACCOUNT FOR "THE CREATION" LEARN OR STOP DEBATING
flylike1 2 years ago
I have learned about evolution since I was a child. Again then tell all the evolutionary sages to stop asserting that nature is the source of all things. You have not even answered one of my questions. What is the source of the electricity in your heart? How did it get into the first human? What is the source of the first life? Did it come from non-life? What is the source of all that is abstract? Stop the ad hominem attacks they are not valid in formal debate. Answer or stop typing.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
there is nothing ad hominem about what i've said. every negative thing i've said about you has been backed up with reasoning. calling you unqualified to talk about evolution isn't ad hominem if i show you WHY you are.
1) you think the theory of evolution discusses the origin of life.
2) you think the LAW of superposition is invalid.
why don't you answer your own questions? im anxious to hear- how DID electricity get into your heart? what IS the source of the first life?
flylike1 2 years ago
You do not know me. Electricity got into my heart by God's creative design and genius. Life came from life. This is basic common sense. I know a lot of everyday common people with no education that know that truth.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
How do you know electricity got into your heart by God's creative design? If you assert that this is true surely you have some evidence..
I know life comes from life, this is what the theory of evolution states- and what science has shown.
where did the FIRST LIFE come from? this is the question you asked me, then i asked you the same one, and you didn't answer it. and this time, give evidence please.
flylike1 2 years ago
I answered. I have God's word on where the first life came from. I also explained that it was necessary for something to exist for eternity because you cannot get something from nothing. The fact that life does not come from non-life requires that that something is living. That being is God to whom you will bow either as your savior or you judge. I will be looking forward to your video. God bless.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Comment removed
flylike1 2 years ago
i never asserted that life came from non life- i said i don't know where the first life came from...
i never asserted that reason came from inert matter, i said that (by my judgment) that reason comes from minds and smart beings like humans-
i never asserted that there was nothing after you die- i said that it was illogical to claim you know that there is when you certainly do not
"man would be in a poor way indeed if he lived only for hope of reward after death, and fear of punishment"
flylike1 2 years ago
God's word? what kind of evidence is that? Are you saying that god's word is evidence of god's word? because im pretty sure that's never going to stand up scientifically. sorry but if you want to disprove the stacks of evidence that science has, you're going to have to do better than "an invisible being told me that he created everything, and i can't come up with a better answer as to how it came about so i figure i'll play along. oh, he would send me to hell if i didn't"
nope, not gonna work
flylike1 2 years ago
Hope you had a good day.
Do you think that science is the only way of knowing things? The evidence of creation shows there is a creator. God's revelation of His word is another. Your conscience demonstrates that you are accountable for you actions before God.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
science is not the only way of knowing things- there are many other means of gaining information- science is the standard that society has set to gain more knowledge and EXPLAIN things. not only explain them, but give evidence for it, so that it is simpler to understand.
what evidence is there of creation? even if there is a creation why does the creator have to be all powerful, all knowing, all loving, etc.? you assume all of these characteristics
flylike1 2 years ago
maybe it was odins creative life? or allahs? perhaps zeus?
fullMetaLxMantis 2 years ago
oh, and to answer your questions directly:
i don't know how electricity got into my heart, and i don't know the source of the first life.
i'm still waiting for your answer to those same questions.
flylike1 2 years ago
You do not know that life comes from life? You do not know how electricity got into the first heart. Well it is only common sense that an eternal all wise God is the source. It is going to be interesting to see the non-believing people who earned PhD degrees before God's judgment seat. I am not asserting that you have a PhD. However, you do believe non believing people that do. Education does not always eqaul truth.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
I know that it is irrational to believe in something without evidence.
"It is common sense that an all eternal wise god is the source"
No, that assertion is a mockery to common sense, and if it were common sense surely you could prove it very easily...so I'm waiting..
flylike1 2 years ago
also, "learning about evolution" doesn't mean sitting down and listening to what you're told about it. especially if your information is as flawed as it seems- if you have any intellectual honesty at all (knowing what you talk about before you talk about it) then go read about what it is, and what the theory of evolution ACTUALLY says.
flylike1 2 years ago
I know in my heart that there is no real difference between life and non-life. Life is a complex arrangement of atoms that has somehow formed conciousness. A slightly different arrangment could form a rock. It is the physical parts of the brain that form conciousness. Rocks probably aren't sentient, neither are starfishes in the same way we are. After we die, it all goes away and there is nothing.
CanadiaNecro1 2 years ago
Can you prove that life comes from non life? Can you prove that reason came from inert matter? Can you prove there is nothing after you die?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
I just prefer to believe in what is plainly evident rather than supernatural. "life" coming from "nonlife" while not absolutely provable has at least some evidence to support it.
CanadiaNecro1 2 years ago
Can you give some evidence?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
i'll give you some evidence. the law of superposition, like i've stated before. very deep buried within the earth are ONLY plants. not as deep are plants and simple life. as you move less deep you get plants, simple life, and complex life. unless you think these were created (at different times, citing the law of superposition AS EVIDENCE) you can only reach the conclusion that life came from nonlife, and complex life came from simple life.
flylike1 2 years ago
The amine groups that form DNA can be replecated in a lab using non organic compounds, effectively creating something organic from something inorganic. While the conditions necessary for this to happen naturally are not present today, it is likely that they were when Earth was in it's early development.
CanadiaNecro1 2 years ago
First of all the scientists are engineering the experiment so it is not happening spontaneously. Secondly they are not creating life from non-life.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
This is where you are. You deny that you have presuppositions but you do. You deny that you are a believer in the Theorytale of Evolution but you are. You have faith in finite man's natural explanation of the universe and I have faith in Almighty God's revelation the Bible. Yes through finite men but inspired by the Almighty. You have faith in the weak, changing, flawed, musings of men. I have faith in the All Knowing, All Powerful, Everywhere Present, Eternal God.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
why call it the "theorytale of evolution"? are you intimidated by it so much that you have to belittle it?
once again, the THEORY OF EVOLUTION is scientifically valid, WITH EVIDENCE, AND CAN BE DISPROVEN. you have yet to provide any evidence against it, you simply call it dumb and brush it aside because it doesn't coincide with your beliefs. I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE. I CARE ABOUT FACTS AND EVIDENCE.
Religion doesn't give you answers, just makes you stop asking questions.
flylike1 2 years ago
Have you made any belittling statements during this discourse?
A theory that asserts that a creation has no creator is foolish.
The Bible says,
"The fool says in his heart, There is no God.
They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds,
there is none who does good" (Psalm 14:1).
openairevangelism 2 years ago
i have made some belittling statements, but they have all been followed with reasoning. when i say you have no idea what you're talking about it's for a reason. like now when you say "a theory that asserts a creation has no creator is foolish"
i say you have no business discussing the theory of evolution because you DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. The theory of evolution discusses the complexity of life, not it's origin. now, either go read about it or stop debating something you don't know about
flylike1 2 years ago
I am not intimidated. BTW, writing in capitals does not make the theory anymore convincing or true. You theory could be valid if your presuppositions are correct. The word of God and the evidence of the real creation demonstrate that materialistic assumptions are wrong. Even most scientists now believe that there was a beginning of the material world (Big Bang Cosmology). That means that the universe and all corporeal things had a source that was incorporeal.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
the big bang theory is about the rapid expansion of space and time, it has nothing to do with anything supernatural. once again, you don't know what you're talking about. talking in caps doesn't make anything more true, but it lets you know that the same argument that you keep making against evolution is flawed. read what it says.
also, it's not my theory. it has evidence- all of which you could see if you had the intellectual honesty to, which clearly you don't. it makes no presuppositions.
flylike1 2 years ago
Evolutionary believers are constantly talking about how things came into being and so you are not being honest here. Prove scientifically that all organisms have a common ancestor. Prove the uniformity of nature in the unseen past. I asked you to do that days ago and you have not.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
evolutionary believers don't matter..anyone can have opinions. how things came into existence is not the discussion, because there are no theories or evidence to support anyone's case. the problem is that YOU claim to KNOW that we were created when you do not. that is the point, i admit i do not know, while you arrogantly claim to have the answer, even without evidence. you're asking me to prove things that cannot be proven, and you assume that since i cannot, i must be wrong. can you prove god?
flylike1 2 years ago
what laws of logic do you want me to prove? that A=A? that A is not not A?
please, i've followed and learned creationist rhetoric for a long time now. "avoid questions and keep asking questions" is what it comes down to.
think about it, if we're debating god, or creation vs. evolution, and you're asking me about laws of logic, which side do you think this debate is on?
you're trying to win a battle of rhetoric when you're fighting a battle of thoughts
flylike1 2 years ago
The laws of logic are universal and abstract. They are outside the realm of the senses. You cannot taste, touch, see, or smell them. We use the formula like you have to explain the unseen. You have yet to empirically prove they exist. You assume them when you make your case but you cannot see them. I do not care how long you have been debating your denial does not change the truth.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
can you see gravity?
can you see an electron, proton, neutron?
can you see, taste, smell, touch, the inner or outer core of the earth? (no one has)
do you believe in any of those things? do you think you could prove they existed?
the same is with the laws of logic, and evolution. you don't have to be able to see feel taste smell hear them to know they exist.
and yes, our senses teach us the laws of logic. we know from causation, or experience, that something is what it is (A=A)
flylike1 2 years ago
I am not the one claiming that nature is all that there is. Good try but your answer is flawed. Show me a law of logic. Not a formula but the actual law. Show me a moral? Shoe me human essence? Explain to me how electricity got inside of the human person. Do cars put batteries inside of themselves and wire themselves or do they have to be designed and wired? Are you more complex than a car?
openairevangelism 2 years ago
i've never claimed nature is all there is...i said that it's illogical to believe in the supernatural without proof
flylike1 2 years ago
if you reject the theory of evolution because it doesn't explain the origin of life, then you can also (with that same..umm..logic) reject:
the theory of gravity (for failing to specify the origins of gravity)
the atomic theory (for failing to show where atoms came from)
see where I'm going here? the theory of evolution does what it tries to do, and very well.
do you think the theory of evolution is flawed (maybe a creation + evolution believer)?
or, that it is totally wrong?
flylike1 2 years ago
Stay on the subject and answer the questions. You are all over the place. You stated that nature is all that there is and so I will ask you why you are attempting to use abstract untouchable laws of logic? Can you prove they exist? If you dodge the question this time I will be through because I will know that you just want to play games.
openaircampaigners 2 years ago
i've asked you for evidence for your claim that god created things at least three times now, idk who's dodging and playing games. i've answered all your questions fully, and if i haven't you can just rewrite them and i will- i apologize if i havent got to them. you on the other hand are very directly dodging my questions, simply asking your own and making assertions.
flylike1 2 years ago
evolutionists don't try to tell us how to things came into existence. by definition that's not what they do. if they try to tell us how things came into existence they are no longer evolutionists, merely theologians, or scientists making hypotheses...because they may believe in science/evolution has nothing to do with the validity of what they say- the fact is scientists or creationists don't know how life began, only creationists have the arrogance to claim they do even without evidence
flylike1 2 years ago
Openaire, you seem to be dealing with a couple of misconceptions.
1. The theory of evolution never try's to explain the beginning of life. The theory of abiogenesis does that. If you have a problem with that argue it elsewhere.
2. While flylike1 was almost certainly not at the beginning of life, neither were you nor anyone who wrote the bible, so I don't see your point in that, unless your falling back on the argument that "Atheist have faith too".
louvsco 2 years ago
Evolutionists exercise faith in the weak, changing, flawed, musings of men. I have faith in the All Knowing, All Powerful, Everywhere Present, Eternal God.
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Men may be weak, changing, and flawed, but evidence is concrete. Where is yours? Science has it, evolution has it, but the religious have none. only their bibles and white boards and churches and beliefs.
Science doesn't care what you believe, science cares about the facts. if the facts go against what your bible says, then tough shit. you can put your fingers in your ears and ignore it, call it dumb, but facts don't lie- and that's what science has.
flylike1 2 years ago
The creation is the evidence for the creator. He accounts for both the seen and unseen world. He is a moral, logical, volitional, being. Those unmeasurable things are accounted for by Him. Nature does not. If something exists than something had to exist for eternity because you cannot get something from nothing. You cannot get life from non life. Therefore, that which is for eternity is living. And that person is God. The Almighty! The All Knowing! The All Powerful! The Eternal One!
openairevangelism 2 years ago
Those weak changing flawed musings have brought us electricity, the gift of flight, years upon years of longer life, among other things. What has "god" done for us?
louvsco 2 years ago