How Does One Reconcile The Existence of God on a Debate Site?

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 138
#91
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@PGA2.0
I wouldn't equate the universe with God. I would say that the universe is reconciled to God through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I could even say that the universe has been in a sense deified in the process, much like how the saints have been deified in their unity with Christ. Would I call the universe God? No, it is creation, but God is in it. Would I call the saints God? No, they are creation, but God is in them. So I say there is an honor due to the universe, as it is the handiwork of God. I say there is an honor due to the saints, as they in their lives became less so that Christ would shine through them.


In both cases, the veneration is given due to a greater adoration that is given to God. Without that, matter becomes evil, and then we find ourselves committing the error of the gnostics, iconoclasts, and other such heretics. God is with us, everywhere present and filling all things. 

Topic's author
#92
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Thanks for the concession, but my hope is that it engaged your thinking and that you thought about it in a more thorough way.
When I said you won, I was referring to the game of endurance it turned into.

Do you believe in evolution?







#93
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
Thanks for the concession, but my hope is that it engaged your thinking and that you thought about it in a more thorough way.
When I said you won, I was referring to the game of endurance it turned into.

Do you believe in evolution?


It depends on what you mean by "evolution." 

I believe that God has designed us to adapt and change to our environment but not the change from one kind of being to another. So, we evolve in that some of us have darker skins than others, but as a human being, we are different than the animals. 

Your explanation, if a naturalist or materialist, would be that we evolve from a common ancestor millions of years previously, into all kinds of diverse life forms. You take that presuppositional proposition by faith since you were not there to observe beginnings. You build the worldview (or others have for you) based on particular biases and myopic thinking. From the data, usually, a naturalistic worldview reads into the data an interpretation that they try to falsify and can't because they manipulate the data from within the naturalistic box. Anything unexplainable is left for a later time and more knowledge of the data by such catchphrases as "we do not currently know but science is working on it."  One of the basic assumptions of a naturalistic worldview is the present is the KEY to the past. All we have is now so we make assumptions based on the present as being the same or similar to the past. What is more, your worldview does not have what is necessary for complete knowledge of origins, thus science of origins (scientism - look it up) begins with speculation on the past and builds a worldview on what is likely until another worldview and more data that does not comply with the existing data supersedes it, thus creating a paradigm shift.

Granting God exists I can have a surety. Without God, we cannot get the big or complete picture since our minds are so limited, subjective, and not all-encompassing. Thus, it comes to a question of what is more reasonable to truly know or how it is possible to make sense of unless God exists?

But you/science continually look for answers. Why would you expect to find them in a universe that has no reason or purpose to it, yet you do. As I mentioned before, God makes sense. A universe by chance happenstance does not and you live inconsistently by adopting such a worldview, but that is your choice. I say your belief is irrational. It can't explain itself. It does not have a means of explanation from where you start from or from your core presuppositions.

Is the Christian worldview rational? I believe I can demonstrate reasonably it is. Is it logical? I believe, again, I can demonstrate it reasonably. 

The options are you can continue to live as if nothing ultimately matters or you can investigate purpose and reason and what makes sense.

Sense or nonsense, those are your options. 

If you want to know (personally, as opposed to knowledge of the concept of God) God you first have to believe He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).  
 
Topic's author
#94
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
It depends on what you mean by "evolution." 

I believe that God has designed us to adapt and change to our environment but not the change from one kind of being to another. So, we evolve in that some of us have darker skins than others, but as a human being, we are different than the animals. 

Your explanation, if a naturalist or materialist, would be that we evolve from a common ancestor millions of years previously, into all kinds of diverse life forms. You take that presuppositional proposition by faith since you were not there to observe beginnings. You build the worldview (or others have for you) based on particular biases and myopic thinking. From the data, usually, a naturalistic worldview reads into the data an interpretation that they try to falsify and can't because they manipulate the data from within the naturalistic box. Anything unexplainable is left for a later time and more knowledge of the data by such catchphrases as "we do not currently know but science is working on it."  One of the basic assumptions of a naturalistic worldview is the present is the KEY to the past. All we have is now so we make assumptions based on the present as being the same or similar to the past. What is more, your worldview does not have what is necessary for complete knowledge of origins, thus science of origins (scientism - look it up) begins with speculation on the past and builds a worldview on what is likely until another worldview and more data that does not comply with the existing data supersedes it, thus creating a paradigm shift.

Granting God exists I can have a surety. Without God, we cannot get the big or complete picture since our minds are so limited, subjective, and not all-encompassing. Thus, it comes to a question of what is more reasonable to truly know or how it is possible to make sense of unless God exists?

But you/science continually look for answers. Why would you expect to find them in a universe that has no reason or purpose to it, yet you do. As I mentioned before, God makes sense. A universe by chance happenstance does not and you live inconsistently by adopting such a worldview, but that is your choice. I say your belief is irrational. It can't explain itself. It does not have a means of explanation from where you start from or from your core presuppositions.

Is the Christian worldview rational? I believe I can demonstrate reasonably it is. Is it logical? I believe, again, I can demonstrate it reasonably. 

The options are you can continue to live as if nothing ultimately matters or you can investigate purpose and reason and what makes sense.

Sense or nonsense, those are your options. 

If you want to know (personally, as opposed to knowledge of the concept of God) God you first have to believe He exists and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).  
“I believe that God has designed us to adapt and change to our environment but not the change from one kind of being to another.”

Okay, let’s ignore inconvenient science like genetics, palaeontology, etc.

Do you know the thought experiment “The Ship of Theseus”?
It deals with the metaphysics of identity. If a ship has all its parts replaced over time, is it still fundamentally the same ship?
What about some of its parts replaced?... What about only one part replaced? I just find it interesting.

Did you know the ancestors of chihuahuas are wolves? Took under 50,000 years for that to happen. How does that compare to 4,500,000,000 years?
Or are you young Earth creationist? If so you would have to ignore geology and anthropology as well

#95
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
“I believe that God has designed us to adapt and change to our environment but not the change from one kind of being to another.”

Okay, let’s ignore inconvenient science like genetics, palaeontology, etc.
Did you know that many branches of sciences had there beginnings in theistic thinking? Scientists were looking for ways to explain God's creation by trying to think His thoughts after Him. The consequence of ideas with the Age of Reason turned the thinking from God as the measure to humanity as the measure. Thus, a paradigm shift took place in how we view things. The focus switched from theistic thinking to naturalistic thinking. With evolutionary thought and Darwinism dominating the thoughts of science the interpretation changed. 

Thus, science is investigated from a purely naturalistic perspective. 


Do you know the thought experiment “The Ship of Theseus”?
It deals with the metaphysics of identity. If a ship has all its parts replaced over time, is it still fundamentally the same ship?
What about some of its parts replaced?... What about only one part replaced? I just find it interesting.
No, I do not know it. 

As a theist, I believe there is a difference between a property and a substance in its identity. A property can change over time but a substance cannot. A ship is a property. I believe a mindful being is not. You are you from conception onwards throughout your life. You can lose an arm or acquire a disease but that does not change who or what you are. You still function as you. You are still a personal being. You still have the same identity. Although you go through different stages of growth there is an essence to you that is different from physical matter. You can still function as you. If a ship loses its parts it can no longer function as a ship. Thus, it loses its identity. You can replace the parts and as long as they are the same kind of part the ship still continues to function as a ship and retains its identity.

I.e.,



Did you know the ancestors of chihuahuas are wolves? Took under 50,000 years for that to happen. How does that compare to 4,500,000,000 years?
Or are you young Earth creationist? If so you would have to ignore geology and anthropology as well

Yes, a chihuahua and wolf are all from the same kind. We can breed dogs with other dogs. We can't breed a dog with a pig or cat. So, because of similarities (we all share the same earth and live to some extent off the same environments and vegetation thus, we would naturally share some common traits and features). The jump comes when we start jumping from one kind to another. That takes a leap of faith since we do not witness it happening in everyday life. Since you were not there to witness it there is also an interpretation and assumption of the data. Being a naturalist would require a different interpretation than that of theism. One looks at the evidence only from the natural viewpoint. The other sees the natural pointing to the supernatural. 

I believe the evidence points to the earth being young from a biblical standpoint, yet science has a different paradigm and different way of looking at the evidence. That is the focus that has been indoctrinated into us from a very early age. We are taught from a naturalistic perspective. We get used to thinking from that paradigm alone. I'm also aware that some theists look for an explanation in theistic evolution. I have difficulty understanding how they reconcile that position from a biblical standpoint. My highest authority is not that of humanity, granting the biblical God as my core presupposition (and from that presupposition I can make sense of existence). A naturalist position is by default nature and the material realm. Science has directed the explanation to a purely physical and natural explanation. Any explanation that goes against the main paradigm is ridiculed and made fun of. 

I do not have to ignore geology or anthropology. I just tackle them from a somewhat different standpoint in regards to origins. Since Darwinism exploded on the scene there has been a focus to include it as the most reasonable explanation. There are many problems with Darwinism that tend to be ignored (i.e., missing links, uniformitarianism, time, looking at the present as the key to the past, biases, etc). 


#96
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
Corinthians 2:5 ESV
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:5, yes.
Topic's author
#97
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Are you trying to give me an aneurysm? 

I wouldn’t be surprised if you were an anti-vaxxer and flat earther.
#98
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
Are you trying to give me an aneurysm? 

I wouldn’t be surprised if you were an anti-vaxxer and flat earther.
Thanks for the ad hominems!

You asked, I explained. Then you dropped any discussion. 

If you have a serious question or response I will be glad to contend.
Topic's author
#99
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
Look, there’s no way of having a rational discussion if your whole world view is based on presuppositions (large ones at that)
which aren’t based in scientific objective reality. I’ll ask again, is there any foundation of reality that we can agree to?

#100
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
It makes one wonder what else they believe in so much but can't prove.
#101
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101

We can agree that there is reality as it truly is, right?

We can agree that our experience comes from reality as it truly is, exists and is existing because of reality as it truly is, and is our only way of knowledge pertaining said reality as it truly is, right?

We can agree that reality as it truly is has no beginning, has always existed, will always exist, exists without being contingent on any other reality, is wholly unique and can properly be called The Uncreated, right?

We can agree that what we perceive in our experience is that the things we observe have beginnings, change over time, have an end, do not exist on their own but are contingent, and can properly be called created right?

We can agree that the uncreated reality as it truly is fills all creation, and that it is witnessed through the things that are made, right?






#102
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
Look, there’s no way of having a rational discussion if your whole world view is based on presuppositions (large ones at that)
which aren’t based in scientific objective reality. I’ll ask again, is there any foundation of reality that we can agree to?

My discussion has been rational. Every worldview has core presuppositions it holds that if compromised you would no longer hold that worldview or you would hold it irrationally. I believe the latter is the case with you.

IMO, simply put, you are avoiding the conversation with excuses because you know deep down your worldview is devoid of the answers to the questions I have been asking you. 
Topic's author
#103
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
These are my only issues. You can assume I agree with everything else:

3rd question: ‘our reality is wholly unique’.
The potential for a multi-verse containing exact duplicate universes kind of ruins that notion.

4th question: Something that is created isn’t necessarily intelligently created. If you were going for ambiguity then yeah I agree

5th question: what do you mean by ‘the uncreated reality as it truly is fills all creation‘?

Topic's author
#104
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
If you want to be all pseudo-psychological I could just say you’re projecting.
The difference between us is that I’ve been admitting when I don’t know.
I say I don’t know, you say God did it. Maybe I should reference the dragon in my garage more often.

#105
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
3rd question: ‘our reality is wholly unique’.
The potential for a multi-verse containing exact duplicate universes kind of ruins that notion.


For the 3rd question, I was refering to reality as it truly is in its completeness. Ultimate Reality. That being the case, even if there are "multiple universes", these universes which by definition are not linked to eachother in a causal manner,  still find a common cause and sustenance in reality as it truly actually is.

In other words, the existence of multiple universes can be accounted for and in no way undermines reality as it truly is.



4th question: Something that is created isn’t necessarily intelligently created. If you were going for ambiguity then yeah I agree

What defines creation is that it is temporal. Reality as it truly is would be pre-eternal, that is, time finds its existence in it, not the other way around.


5th question: what do you mean by ‘the uncreated reality as it truly is fills all creation‘?

If something exists, there must be some reality to it, there must be some truth in it that gives it existence. So very naturally, even at the core of illusory reality, there must be some reality in it that even allows it to exist as illusion. Even though illusion is defined by its unreality, the reality in it is what allows illusion to exist as illusion.
#106
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
If you want to be all pseudo-psychological I could just say you’re projecting.
The difference between us is that I’ve been admitting when I don’t know.
I say I don’t know, you say God did it. Maybe I should reference the dragon in my garage more often.


I know I have hit a nerve when someone ignores virtually everything I have said or acts hostile to me with ad hominem putdowns. 

Just like you, I have a finite mind that does not understand oh so many things. Sometimes I admit when I don't know things, but I also use my intellect to investigate important claims and to weed out what is true and what is fluff. I gauge things against God's word to its truth claims. 

The difference between you and me is that God, through His Holy Spirit, has mercifully granted me His grace to hear His Word, the message. You do not want to hear it for what it is, even though it as plain as day. Thus, when you do hear the word, you block your ears to the message or dismiss it. Therefore, you don't know God, only about Him. You probably think I can't know God because you doubt His message and existence.

God gives grace to the humble in spirit but resists the proud of spirit who rebel against Him.

 James 4:5-7 (NASB)
5 Or do you think that the Scripture speaks to no purpose: “He jealously desires the Spirit which He has made to dwell in us”? 6 But He gives a greater grace. Therefore it says, “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” 7 Submit therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.

You do not hear the message. You do not let God speak to you via the word and through His Spirit because you continually deny Him existence, or simply ignore Him. The Spirit speaks to the Christians' inner self via His Word, for those who are able by His grace to hear His voice (i.e., the words of His Mind, in what He has spoken and has been written down, interacting with our spirits).

The difference between you and the Christian is that the Christian knows Him who has the answers and has revealed some things. You (unless you borrow from the Christian worldview) are in a relative, subjective existence in all things because you have no absolutely objective source as your reference point.

You look to the "wisdom" of this world, to subjective relative people whose opinions change on any issue. The wisdom I look to is above and beyond such nonsense.

and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,

1 Corinthians 2:11-16 (NASB)
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. 15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. 16 For who has known the mind of the Lord, that he will instruct Him? But we have the mind of Christ.

I don't know what you think in your mind to yourself. Those thoughts are only known by you and those you care to reveal them. I only know what you reveal in your written or oral words, but those words also reflect your heart, your inner self, what you hold close to you, what you value or hold as most dear.

God's Spirit dwells with the Christian spirit (those in Christ) to understand the simplicity of the Word of God. I hear and can understand it for it is plain. You cannot even hear it because of your enmity with God. You tune it out. That is my witness with unbelievers of God. Thus, your inference or thought that I or others don't know in regards to God is wrong. God's word is foolish to you. I can't convince you. I have learned a long time ago that you can't convince a person against their will. That person may grant lip service but nothing else. It takes an act of God's Holy Spirit to hear the message. That is why Jesus said, "You must be born again" (new birth, regenerated in spirit, changed by God, the scales lifted from our eyes) to see or enter His kingdom. 

Topic's author
#107
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
 You’re a young Earth creationist. There’s no reasoning with someone who wholeheartedly believes in a magic sky daddy. Be honest. That’s what you believe in.
Topic's author
#108
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
For the 3rd question, I was refering to reality as it truly is in its completeness. Ultimate Reality. That being the case, even if there are "multiple universes", these universes which by definition are not linked to eachother in a causal manner,  still find a common cause and sustenance in reality as it truly actually is.

In other words, the existence of multiple universes can be accounted for and in no way undermines reality as it truly is.
Yeah, already took that into account. Still kinda ruins it though.

What defines creation is that it is temporal. Reality as it truly is would be pre-eternal, that is, time finds its existence in it, not the other way around.
What would you call it other than creation from a christians perspective?

If something exists, there must be some reality to it, there must be some truth in it that gives it existence. So very naturally, even at the core of illusory reality, there must be some reality in it that even allows it to exist as illusion. Even though illusion is defined by its unreality, the reality in it is what allows illusion to exist as illusion.
I think I follow.

#109
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
In other words, the existence of multiple universes can be accounted for and in no way undermines reality as it truly is.
Yeah, already took that into account. Still kinda ruins it though.

I don't believe it does. But besides that, I would like to point out that it is scientifically impossible to prove the existence of other universes, as they have no causal connection to our own universe. If there is a causal connection, I am not sure it could be called a seperate universe.

What would you call it other than creation from a christians perspective?

Contingent and temporal reality. 
#110
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
 You’re a young Earth creationist. There’s no reasoning with someone who wholeheartedly believes in a magic sky daddy. Be honest. That’s what you believe in.
Oh, there is lots of reasoning there. It is not the kind you like since it is counter to what you believe and I find when someone is not sure of a position they lash out against an opposing position instead of answering the questions and refuting the claims. 

Very simply, there are two viable options to my mind; either we are here because of chance happenstance or because of a mindful Being.

Which is more reasonable?

Well, what do you find?

You find a universe with anthropic principles. You find laws and principles that explain how things work. You look for meaning, purpose, and information. Information can be made sense of, like the uniformity of nature. Why would you expect to find things continually running as they have in the past if the universe is a fluke? If there is no intent or agency behind the universe then chance happenstance is responsible. What can "chance" do? It does not have an ability. 

As I said before, creationism and a young earth is a position I favour since Scripture is my highest authority and I have not seen a position that easily refutes it. I'm not a group-think, indoctrinate of dogma from youth, fan. I have not bought into the evolutional whale of a tail that my long distant cousin or ancient ancestor is a one-celled organism. 

***

Your post shows more of the same bigotry and closed-mindedness. You are not willing to discuss the issues, just attack me. 

Topic's author
#111
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
I don't believe it does. But besides that, I would like to point out that it is scientifically impossible to prove the existence of other universes, as they have no causal connection to our own universe. If there is a causal connection, I am not sure it could be called a seperate universe
That’s sort of why I said ‘potential’ for there being a multi-verse. 
I’m sure there’s complicated math involved.

Contingent and temporal reality. 
I was meaning if causation/creation is temporal, how did God start to create the universe without it (time)?

Topic's author
#112
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
So you think science should be taught from a Christian perspective, correct?
#113
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Reece101
Corinthians 2:5 ESV
That your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
For one, your quote is an incorrect reference. It has to identify which letter, first or second. 

So, without God, your faith or belief rests on the subjective, limited, relative opinions and views of like-minded limited, subjective, relative men. The question is which one(s)?

So you think science should be taught from a Christian perspective, correct?
I believe only one position is correct and that position is a God-oriented perspective. Granting this universe is created the Creator would be the source and ultimate knowledge in how He created it and every detail of it. 

The question is which is the more reasonable belief and does the evidence really point to a solely naturalistic view? To decide you have to unpack the two beliefs, get to their core presuppositions and find how they are able to make sense of ultimate beliefs. 

Naturalism can't make sense of ultimate beliefs. Thus, if you want to hold it you are welcome to it, but you will consistently be inconsistent in what you say and what you do. You will be living a contradiction. 

I have no objection to both positions being taught. What I object to is when science is hijacked so that only one paradigm is investigated and looked at, when the orientation only looks at the data from a solely naturalistic viewpoint, when the evidence for the other side is totally ignored and when anyone holding such a position is ridiculed out of the scientific endeavour.   
#114
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
I was meaning if causation/creation is temporal, how did God start to create the universe without it (time)?
God created the universe from nothing. We say that God spoke everything into existence. The Word of God itself being co-Eternal with God as God. Time came about at the beginning.

God is pre-eternal, that is, the beginning and end of time itself is known to God, who is outside of time, yet in it, but not subject to it.

Topic's author
#115
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
For one, your quote is an incorrect reference. It has to identify which letter, first or second. 

So, without God, your faith or belief rests on the subjective, limited, relative opinions and views of like-minded limited, subjective, relative men. The question is which one(s)?
You’ve changed your answer. 

What if they’re christians? We’re all born having a lack of knowledge of “God”, right?

I believe only one position is correct and that position is a God-oriented perspective. Granting this universe is created the Creator would be the source and ultimate knowledge in how He created it and every detail of it. 

The question is which is the more reasonable belief and does the evidence really point to a solely naturalistic view? To decide you have to unpack the two beliefs, get to their core presuppositions and find how they are able to make sense of ultimate beliefs. 

Naturalism can't make sense of ultimate beliefs. Thus, if you want to hold it you are welcome to it, but you will consistently be inconsistent in what you say and what you do. You will be living a contradiction. 

I have no objection to both positions being taught. What I object to is when science is hijacked so that only one paradigm is investigated and looked at, when the orientation only looks at the data from a solely naturalistic viewpoint, when the evidence for the other side is totally ignored and when anyone holding such a position is ridiculed out of the scientific endeavour.
Okay, so what about when it comes to young Earth creationism; how should radiometric dating be handled? 
Topic's author
#116
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Mopac
God created the universe from nothing. We say that God spoke everything into existence. The Word of God itself being co-Eternal with God as God. Time came about at the beginning.

God is pre-eternal, that is, the beginning and end of time itself is known to God, who is outside of time, yet in it, but not subject to it.
Did God speak in tongue?



#117
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,205
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Imagine having to say NO. to radiometric testing, rock settlement and dinos and the heaps of other stuff.

TO  BELIEVE IN GOD ONE MUST LIE TO ONE's SELF FULL STOP.
ORRRRRRRRRR
OR ONE THINKS GOD IS 79% TRUE, real like.

ONE CAN'T BELIEVE IN GOD 92%
No.. 84%. 
One  can't / should not be able to believe that it's a 84% chance God exists.

Theists don't compromise.
I'd be happy to say the Universe is 500 million years old. And talk from there.
But they ain't going to consider that.  I'd settle for Half a mill year old universe.
I can compromise all day. 
But If they sway once from " the way " then they run the risk of not going to the heaven place. 
 
So yeah, ummmmmmm.
You can't believe there is a 84% chance that God exists.

Good game.
Good game.








#118
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Perhaps "tongue"  and God are  binary data.

One and the same thing.

That were once created and are yet to be recreated.

No hymns required.
#119
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Reece101
It isn't so much that God speaks as if with a human like tongue so much as it is an illustration of how everything originates in God.


In a pre-eternal sense, God spoke the word. The word existed before it left the mouth(this isn't to say that the pre-incarnate God has a literal mouth or tongue.), and after leaving the mouth, became flesh as it has been incarnate in the air as a word. Like all words, it is carried by the breath that proceeded from the "lungs of God" so to speak.

The Father is The One speaking.
The Son is The Word.
The Holy Spirit is the breath.

We use these illustrations as images, types, and shadows of the greater reality that we are witnessing to. It would be a mistake to see the hand of God as being literal hands like a man's hand rather than God's work in the world. That said, God did become man, and so we can speak of "God's hands". We can also say that the bishops and priests who administer the sacred mysteries as well as anyone who does the work of God is working with the hands of God. 


#120
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Hard as it may be for you to accept, I am 100% certain of God's existence and the discipline I practice very much has to do with purifying the heart and mind so as to repel delusion and abide in The Truth.