Become a theist

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 496
#211
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Yet Jesus said that the servant among you is the greatest. That is the example of love we are given by him.
And the meek will inherit the earth and love thine enemy and a bunch of other stuff that isn't directly relevant to the question of female-to-male equality.

What does that mean? It means that the love a husband has for their wife should resemble that of a servant
It sounds like you are putting words in the "YHWH'S" mouth.

But woman being the head isn't precedent, and if and when everything in society falls apart and we are catapulted back into the dark ages, it will be very clear to everyone why woman has to submit to the man in the end, as it was for all but 99% of human history and in select geographic locations in that time.
Historical precedent is irrelevant and off topic.  Do the rules of the "YHWH" somehow change when and or if we are "catapulted back into the dark ages"?  I'm pretty sure they don't.

And if you look at the traditions (historical precedent) of Orthodox Jews (and the so-called old testament), for example, there isn't a lot of "equality" between men and women.
#212
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
The thing that makes human beings meaningful is not the fact that we were created by God so much as it is that we are created in the image of God.
Oh so, are you suggesting that humans are gods?

And the discipline of the Christian is to clean that image so that we can be truly human rather than reduce ourselves to the bestial level through our predispositions to idolatry and being slaves to the flesh.
Did the "YHWH" give humans bestial instincts and desires simply to keep them from developing into gods in order to reduce potential competition?
#213
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
While this is true that you need your mind to comprehend anything your mind is not a necessary mind and what you perceive is not always what really is. So how can you be sure your mind is rightly discerning something?
Basic standards of evidence.

Why did they and those before exist? You are not getting to the base of the question. I'm speaking of origins. Why did this universe happen? Why is there life in this universe? How did you, as a conscious being come about from matter?
This is a red-herring.  Even IF some sort of conscious being created everything, how does this fact alone make the slightest difference regarding your personal sense of "meaningfulness"?

So what was molding your development if there was no intent or agency behind it, and what maintains it (the uniformity of nature)? Again, how does chance happenstance sustain anything? Things just happen. Why should they continue to happen in a prescribed pattern that we call a law of nature? There is no reason unless there is a Reasonable Being behind the universe sustaining it. Reason comes from mindful beings. Show me a stone that is reasonable or reasoning. 
Even the scriptures teach that the "YHWH" is incomprehensible to a human mind, therefore it would seem illogical to presume that the "YHWH" "thinks and plans and designs" just like a human or even in some manner that a human might be able to reasonably comprehend.

The "YHWH" is quite simply noumenon.

So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

So, if you hear the message faith can arise from it because God's thoughts are being conveyed to you. 
As soon as I "hear" directly from the Jesus, I'll be sure to let you know.

Logic is verifiable by its efficacy.
But if everything is material, how do you get something immaterial like logic. It can't be touched, tasted, seen, felt, or heard. Grab hold of logic for me. 
Grab hold of the concept of verifiability for me. 
Mathematics is an abstract system that directly relates to quantifiable reality.  Nobody has "faith" in mathematics.  We know mathematics is valid because we are able to independently verify its efficacy.

Yes, it is for you have to believe something to disbelieve God. 
This is provably false.  Any number of Deistic beings and or mythological gods may "exist" or may have "existed" at some point in the past.
Is that a belief?
The statement, "Any number of Deistic beings and or mythological gods may "exist" or may have "existed" at some point in the past." is a tautological fact.

This is not a belief.

The salient question is, "who cares?" or perhaps, "why does this matter to anyone?" or even more specifically, "why should I care?"

#214
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Well I had typed a whole list of incidence and examples of women being equal with men in the pre Christian northern European cultures and it's vanished. Must have closed it out and not realized. Not typing it again. Monotheists beat down women. Real men with real gods don't need to.
#215
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I just don't understand how any of them change anything about epistemological limits and or logic and or basic standards of evidence.
The biblical teaching is God has revealed Himself, thus it would be via His thoughts written down and by His interactions in the world and universe. 

From a created universe you would expect to find things that give evidence of a Creator, like finding reasons in what we see. We find meaning and reasons why things are the way they are. We don't create those reasons, we discover them. The reasons were there before we thought them. The laws of logic or the laws of gravity or any natural law, such as the laws of thermodynamics do not depend on your reasoning for their existence. They exist independent of your reasoning. 

"Reasoning" is a mindful process, yet these laws are not dependent on your mind, or mine, and yet you find they are reasonable. 
Logical and mindful are not the same.  A computer acts logically, this does not mean a computer is mindful.

You keep harping on "meaningfulness" but what is that?  Doesn't the "YHWH" teach that our highest purpose is to worship god forever and ever?

That seems pretty pointless to me.

You start out with the premise that God does not exist 
I start out, like anyone, with the premise that nothing exists (all phenomena are unreliable).
If all phenomena are unreliable then don't worry about looking both ways when you cross the street. That car coming at you is unreliable. It is not there. Nothing exists. Now see how your thought process works in the real world (Nice knowing you!). Do you see the inconsistency of such a statement? 
Step one, wipe the slate clean of presupposition, you can do this by hypothesizing, "nothing exists (all phenomena are unreliable)".

Step two, identify what is logically impossible to disbelieve, you can do this by recognizing the fact that, "I think, therefore I am".

Step three, continue along this path, making a clear distinction between what is logically impossible to disbelieve (QUANTA) and what is purely imaginary (QUALIA).

or there is no evidence for God and you look for your explanations by excluding God as the likely reason. 
The axiom "there is no god" is absolutely nowhere in my ontology.
It must be somewhere or you would not have stated it.
I've never asserted "there is no god".  In fact, I am often very quick to defend hypothetical Desim.

You can conceptualize God. You are discussing God. You have beliefs ABOUT God.
Oh, god.  Not the ontological argument again.

Nevertheless, you deny God.
I only "deny" god in the same way you "blaspheme" Marduk.

How can you discuss Someone/thing you have no belief about?
How can you have a serious discussion about Sherlock Holmes unless you believe they are a real, flesh and blood person????????

If I said pink unicorn you would conjure up an image of a horse with a horn in the middle of its head, so there is a belief there.
You just destroyed your own argument.  Do you believe that "pink unicorn" is a really real, real actual and existing thing?  I'm going to guess "no".

You also have a concept of the color pink. You believe it is different than the color green or purple or you have a wrong conception of pink. "Pink" is the word we use to describe a particular color or hue. Unicorn/God is the word we use to describe a particular being.    
I know how language works, thank you.

You build your whole worldview from its core belief on outward like the layers of onion on materialism and naturalism.   
My "whole worldview" is based on the core belief that, "I think, therefore I am".
Then have you stuffed everything into a very small narrow box in which things are hanging out that don't fit into your neat little box? Have you not contemplated how you got here unless you believe you created yourself (novel idea - self-creation; also self-refuting) or everything is an illusion? And what about your parents? You mentioned them earlier. 
This is where I repeat myself about standards of evidence and epistemological limits.

Prima facie, axiomatic "atheism" has absolutely nothing to do with epistemological limits and or logic and or basic standards of evidence.
The worldview is constructed on particular premises. It looks for naturalistic means to explain things. 
It clearly separates what is knowable from what is unknowable.

It clearly separates what is Quantitative from what is Qualitative.

I mean, I certainly believe it is fair to say that Spinoza's god exists.
I don't know much of Spinoza or his teaching, so what you are saying is not being comprehended except that I believe he thought everything was god or held to pantheism (the universe is god and god is the universe). The biblical God, on the other hand, is personal and distinct from the universe.
Spinoza's reasoning is something like, (IFF) god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and the creator of all things (AND) this oooc god properly "exists" (THEN) everything that properly "exists" must NECESSARILY be god.

This is bullet-proof, air-tight, perfectly valid and sound logic.
#216
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@janesix
Women are certainly not property of men, married or otherwise. That isn't how the church sees it.
We revere Mary above all the saints. I think that is worth pointing out.

#217
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
There is no god that can be competition to God, and man woman relations have been established by nature.

And we Christians are to submit to eachother. We serve. eachother. If you are trying to imply that the way we do marriage is wrong, Inwill have you know that I am very happy with my marriage, so is my spouse. Please, if you want an example of women being subservient to men in the way you are inagining, look at Islam. Compare the two. Women certainly have dignity and respect in Orthodoxy. I think it is worth pointing out that Mary is revered above all the saints, and that we have many female saints besides.

It seems to me that you are offended.


#218
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
What does "equal" mean?  To me, it does not mean "the same".  Every generation ends up with a division of roles in which they make contribution to their family


#219
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
There is no god that can be competition to God, and man woman relations have been established by nature.
And we Christians are to submit to eachother. We serve. eachother. If you are trying to imply that the way we do marriage is wrong, Inwill have you know that I am very happy with my marriage, so is my spouse. Please, if you want an example of women being subservient to men in the way you are inagining, look at Islam. Compare the two. Women certainly have dignity and respect in Orthodoxy. I think it is worth pointing out that Mary is revered above all the saints, and that we have many female saints besides.
It seems to me that you are offended.
I am merely pointing out that the christian bible (especially the OT, Abraham, who is chosen of god, has multiple wives and bears children with handmaidens) has very few (if any) examples of female to male equality (even the Jesus seemed to have a strong preference for men when choosing disciples).
#220
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Men and women are not treated the same way by the world. 

A man traveling around the world alone is not going to face the kind of problems a woman traveling alone will.

There were many female disciples, but a female should not be someone who is sent out into a foreign country to spread the good news. In fact, every single one of the apostles with one exception was martyred in some gruesome way. The one that didn't die? He was boiled alive, but lived. Guess he lucked out.

But men and women are different, and they have to deal with different issues. The idea that we are all the same is ridiculous as even in socieites that like to pretend this is the case, one cannot help but observe that it is impossible for men and women to not treat eachother differently than they do their own sex. On an individual level? Maybe, but not on a societal level. Besides that, it is contrary to nature, and ultimately not truly desirable.

We are different, and that is ok. Lets make it complimentary and cooperative rather than a point of covetousness or contention.

#221
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
Yeah that is why there are so many women priests. 
#222
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Plisken
Really? What does equal mean? No wonder there is a women's movement in 2019
#223
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Men and women are not treated the same way by the world. 
I'm pretty sure nobody suggested they were.

A man traveling around the world alone is not going to face the kind of problems a woman traveling alone will.
Every creature will have to overcome interesting obstacles regardless of whether they are female or male.

There were many female disciples,
Only if you blur the line between "disciples" and "followers".

but a female should not be someone who is sent out into a foreign country to spread the good news. In fact, every single one of the apostles with one exception was martyred in some gruesome way. The one that didn't die? He was boiled alive, but lived. Guess he lucked out.
Are you suggesting that women are incapable of death?  I'm pretty sure women could have been martyred just as well as any man.

But men and women are different, and they have to deal with different issues.
No kidding.  You seem to be waffling between "women are equal in the church" and "women and men are never equal anywhere".

Please choose one or the other.

The idea that we are all the same is ridiculous as even in socieites that like to pretend this is the case, one cannot help but observe that it is impossible for men and women to not treat eachother differently than they do their own sex.
Please figure out if you believe they should be treated more equally or if you believe the status-quo (or ancient tradition) is acceptable.

On an individual level? Maybe, but not on a societal level. Besides that, it is contrary to nature, and ultimately not truly desirable.
Ok, I was under the impression that societies were comprised of individuals.  It sounds like you said "gender equality is ultimately not truly desirable".

We are different, and that is ok. Lets make it complimentary and cooperative rather than a point of covetousness or contention.
It's funny that you bring up "covetousness" - it reminds me that, in the "YHWH'S" law, a woman who sleeps with any man other than her husband is to be stoned to death, but the married man who sleeps with an unmarried woman suffers no such penalty.  Biblical "adultery" only applied to women.

Maybe you should stick to, "gender equality is ultimately not truly desirable".

#224
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
The priest is an icon of Christ. We do not paint icons of Mary as a male.
#225
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Really? What does equal mean? No wonder there is a women's movement in 2019

You are right about my absurd use of "equal" contorted to the context.  I guess, what does equal refer to?  Are men and women of equal value?  Yes.  Are men and women different?  Yes.  

No matter how psychotic a feminist may come, it's still a women's movement.



#226
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Plisken
Play word games and wonder why women are still raped. 

#227
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
There are plenty female martyrs.

A disciple is one who practices a discipline. There are female disciples.

 Gender equality is a myth and and it has nothing to do with being desirable or undesirable.




#228
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
There are plenty female martyrs.
A disciple is one who practices a discipline. There are female disciples.
Gender equality is a myth and and it has nothing to do with being desirable or undesirable.
Ok, which is it?

Are women treated equally by the church, (OR) is gender equality a myth?

Please choose one or the other.
#229
Plisken
Plisken's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 706
2
1
5
Plisken's avatar
Plisken
2
1
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Play word games and wonder why women are still raped. 
I guess society tells people that "men and women are equal", and that's what I was crudely referring to when I said, "what does equal mean?".  I think that is really quite a hollow message, don't you?
#230
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
They aren't even the same thing as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, women are loved by the church just as men.

No, women are not the same as men. A man cannot carry a child and give birth. Woman have a wonderful gift in that regard, and this modern idea that it is a shameful thing to be a mother is a reflection of how perverse the prevailing culture is.


#231
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Plisken
The idea that men and women are different must be obnoxious in a culture of choose your own gender. A culture of "self declaration is proof of identity".


Only in terms of being convenient. 


#232
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Mopac
Not a single person has said that. You are dishonest
#233
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
They aren't even the same thing as far as I'm concerned.
Nobody believes they are indistinguishable.

Yes, women are loved by the church just as men.
Ok, so only equal in love, in that regard they are the same as small children.

No, women are not the same as men.
You may be shocked that I agree that, generally speaking, men and women are easily distinguishable (but not always), but you are sidestepping the central issue here, which is equal rights and protection from discrimination under the law.

A man cannot carry a child and give birth.
I see men carrying children all the time.  And even though not all women can gestate human embryos, that fact alone doesn't make them "men".

Woman have a wonderful gift in that regard, and this modern idea that it is a shameful thing to be a mother is a reflection of how perverse the prevailing culture is.
Shameful how?  Perverse?  What the heck are you talking about?

#234
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL

you are sidestepping the central issue here, which is equal rights and protection from discrimination under the law

Orthodoxy is not a religion of law, but spirit.
The spirit is truth and love.


Equal rights and protection under the law is something statesmen and politicians can argue about. We Orthodox are supposed to obey the law.

#235
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
What did I say anybody said? Why do accuse me of dishonesty, I am without guile. Your accusation is baseless.

#236
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
When you say Christians are delusional because they place faith in an invisible Being I query how well your belief system can make sense of why you exist? If you do not care to question this then you are left with your facts and the present alone. Nothing else can be known, or so you seem to believe.

So unless I make assumptions about things I don't actually know to be true, I can't know those things? I guess you've never heard of scientific research? Please carefully read what I'm about to say.
Whether you want to think of it or not humanity got here somehow. Whether you know or not your atheistic worldview is impacted. The universe and you are here due to one of a few possibilities. I would argue two main contenders; chance or Creator. Other beliefs are not reasonable. Of atheism or theism, which is more logical and reasonable to believe? Your worldview being right/true depends on whether or not you are right about origins. That is the simple explanation. So, if you want to hold to atheism without considering the truth of your belief system that is your choice. Thus, it matters greatly how we got here. If God is true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4), you have a problem. 

You make assumptions about things you don't know to be true whether you are aware of it or not just by the choice of your worldview: atheism. There is no getting around that. You accuse Christians of being delusional because you see no evidence of God. I ask, where is the evidence that the atheistic view of origins of the universe and life is true, which means not my belief but yours could be the delusional one because your belief at present is hinged on the idea of naturalism or materialism. That is how you go about proving things, through a naturalistic perspective. 

Looking at the universe, the world, life, human nature, etc. You see it through naturalistic eyes alone.  

Greg Bahnsen expounding on Van Til put it this way:

"Whenever we are drawn into a defense of the faith, Van Til observed, there is a dispute between two different ultimate commitments - a conflict between final authorities for living and reasoning. Neither side can be neutral, and the unbeliever's bias will be evident by his opposition to any authority that does not leave him autonomous." Van Til Apologetics, Reading and Analysis, by Greg Bahnsen, p. 700.

So, you and I disagree on the nature of truth, meaning, evidence, and the source of our knowledge, you being an atheist and I being a Christian. Van Til argued, as an atheist, you have a prejudice against God. The Bible argues the same proposition (i.e., Romans 1:18-28).

"If God exists and is as the Christian worldview claims, then His existence has an undeniable bearing on how we understand the process of knowing, the standard of truth and evidence, ultimate authority, and other crucial matters of epistemology." Van Til, p. 146.

Thus, as an atheist, you have committed to a specific and particular kind of thinking. Your mind operates not in a neutral fashion but with a particular bias and predispositions towards that mindset. Your mindset interprets the world strictly through a naturalistic process. 

Bahnsen continues to extrapolate on Van Til's thoughts, about the problem of knowledge and how some philosophers see the problem of how "a finite mind can have a wide enough (inclusive enough) system to know any particular or limited truth....while [awaiting] progress towards more adequate integration of the various aspects of what we know." p. 147.

This is what you expressed above in your statement, "I can't know these things..."

***


#237
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
I supplied a definition of the word evidence and it fits with Christian belief. Here is what you said in your debate on the existence of God:

I use "evidence" in quotes because the Christian bible is merely a book. A book is nothing more than several pieces of paper bound together with text filling the pages. Ergo, a book, in and of itself, cannot serve as evidence of anything other than:

  • The existence of paper
  • The existence of the material used to bind the book (leather, for example)
  • A being capable of making paper
  • A being capable of making the material used to bind the book
  • A being capable of binding together paper with the material used to bind the book
  • The existence of ink
  • A being capable of creating ink
  • A being capable of using ink to create text
  • The existence of a language
  • A being capable of writing said language on paper with ink
Here is the definition of evidence once again, since you did not address it in a previous post:

Definition of evidence 
(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: an outward sign: INDICATION
b: something that furnishes proof: TESTIMONY specifically: something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter
2: one who bears witness

1. uncountable noun [NOUN that, NOUN to-infinitive]
Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened.
2. uncountable noun
Evidence is the information which is used in a court of law to try to prove something. Evidence is obtained from documents, objects, or witnesses.

There are four general types of evidence:
  1. Real evidence (tangible things, such as a weapon)
  2. Demonstrative (a model of what likely happened at a given time and place)
  3. Documentary (a letter, blog post, or other document)
  4. Testimonial (witness testimony)

  • Circumstantial Evidence: Evidence that tends to prove a factual matter by proving other events or circumstances from which the occurrence of the matter can be reasonably inferred.
  • Corroborating Evidence: Evidence that is independent of and different from but that supplements and strengthens evidence already presented as proof of a factual matter.
  • Hearsay: A statement made out of court and not under oath which is offered as proof that what is stated is true (usually deemed inadmissible).
  • Exclusionary Rule: A rule of evidence that excludes or suppresses evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's constitutional rights.
Many things could be pointed out but I will list what comes immediately to mind without researching:
1. The tangible things are the biblical manuscripts that corroborate the evidence as well as artifacts and extra-biblical writings that confirm the factualness of many biblical accounts which come from church fathers and historians from the period. 
2. An example of demonstrative evidence would be other accounts of what life was like that are also described in the Bible.
3. Documentary evidence would be the letters sent to the churches, for instance.
4. Testimonial evidence would be the eyewitness accounts, such as the gospels and apostles accounts.

Circumstantial evidence: historical artifacts from the period, historical writings from the period, archeological digs and discoveries from the period, many documented eyewitness accounts, confirmed by early church fathers of the eyewitnesses. 



Collaborative evidence would be the history and archeology from the period. 

So I think your statement in your debate is wrong, concerning the definition of evidence or what constitutes evidence. 

The Bible is more than words on paper. It conveys information that has been proven factual. 

***


#238
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Heb 11:1
#239
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrutalTruth
Another dispute regarding your debate (link in a previous post):

There are only two forms of knowledge available to humans:

  • Knowledge a priori
  • Knowledge a posteriori
I contend that there is another form of evidence, transcendent in nature - God's revelation. 



For thousands of years, humans thought the earth was flat. One day, science proved that wrong. You're saying that had I been alive about 50 years before science proved that the earth is round, and I had withheld any affirmative belief(no belief that the earth is flat, nor round) until science proved which one it is, that means I don't care to question the shape of the earth, and nothing of it can be known? In what universe, other than the confines of your imagination, would that ever make any sense at all?

Science is a tool with many flaws that forms many worldviews. It can be used as an idol of worship in the sense that it replaces God as the ultimate authority when, as you say, so much just can't be known about the world via science. First, in the case of origins, it relies on the interpretation of the data which could be wrong. It is observing things in the present from the past that doesn't come stamped, 13.9 billion years old, or 3.4 billion years old. Many, many things have to be presupposed. 

In the case of the Bible, thoughts are being conveyed that contain evidence of a particular timeline in history that have verifications.  

For thousands of years, the biblical concept of the earth was round. The term four corners speak of north, south, east, and west, not the shape of the earth but a metaphor for direction.

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.

That is around 28 centuries ago. 

“He has inscribed a circle on the surface of the waters At the boundary of light and darkness.

“When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep,




You are so deluded. You say atheists are delusional because they don't make assumptions about the origins of existence. Ironic that an assumption actually IS delusional. Say what you wish. Your words are devoid of reason, and it's painfully obvious.
No, my worldview is not void of reason, thus delusional. EITHER we are here because of a Creator, chance, or this is all an illusion. You could probably insert one or two more views into the equation but as I said earlier, I believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 

Which is more reasonable?

From what I see, you do not wish to tackle the choices as to their reasonableness.


#240
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe they are eventually boiled down to two, God or chance. 
Which is more reasonable?
Then I choose chance.