"Faith is the basis for my belief"

Author: SkepticalOne

Posts

Total: 278
#121
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0



. PGA2.0,

YOUR NON REVEALING WEAK QUOTE AGAIN TO MY MAIN PREMISE: "Unfortunately, more nonsense."

Here is something new for you to try,  prove completely that my main premise is WRONG, or otherwise go into hiding again to save further embarrassment, understood?


What part of me stating to you in the past that I do not debate pseudo-christians like you in a formal DEBATEART setting? This is because the majority of members are of the pseudo-christian status, and will vote for you no matter in how I completely and easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ for the win, get it? Huh?

THE ONLY TIME I WILL DEBATE IN A FORMAL SETTING, IS IF THE EQUALLY BIBLE IGNORANT FOOL TRADESECRET FINDS HIS "BIG BOY" PANTS AND GETS THE NERVE TO TALK ABOUT JESUS' TRUE MODUS OPERANDI. UNFORTUNATELY, HE IS TO EMBARRASSED AND SCARED TO ENGAGE THE BROTHER D UPON THIS TOPIC!!! LOL!


As is shown, I will continue to easily take you apart within the forums when you step out of line in the name of Satan, DO YOU UNDERSTAND?


NEXT PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN? 


.
Topic's author
#122
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0

I am suggesting that Uniformatarianists believe that the conditions in the present is somewhat similar to what was found in the past since the present is all they have to go by. There would be a number of assumptions built-in, like the rate of decay, the environmental conditions, the age of the rock layers, the progression of life, etc. 

In order to deny uniformitarianism, you've been reduced to arguing 'man can only know the present', but the entirety of human existence hasn't been in the present. And what you list as assumptions are not assumptions. For instance, the decay rates of radioactive materials can be objectively measured...

"I don't follow how that is explained?" is a question. I am asking you to provide a naturalistic explanation since ...
...which you are now attempting to take out of context.  You originally stated this question suggesting I had labeled your reasoning broken without explaining it (which I did...more than once).  You were not asking me to provide a naturalistic explanation in this part of our conversation.  I don't mind you asking questions of me, Peter, but I very much dislike the pretense I've avoided a question you didn't ask.

That being said, let's explore your options:

Here are some explanations:
1. Creation
2. Chance
3. Illusion
4. I don't know
None of these are explanations.  The first 3 options are hypotheses and #4 is an admission of ignorance with no attempt at a hypothesis. All options are necessarily built on ignorance - none can be confirmed in any way and, thus cannot be considered "explanations".

If you want to list fallacies, there are numerous that your worldview, without God, would fall under and employ. With the universe, you have the appeal to ignorance fallacy.
You will need to demonstrate I argue a view is true 'because it can't be proven wrong' before I can be accused of this fallacy. 

It falls under the guise of the is/ought fallacy, for without morality coming from a necessary, self-existent Being,
Just to be clear, you're falling into this fallacy while you accuse me of it. You state 'god is' and then attempt to derive an ought from this 'is'. "God" doesn't avoid Hume's guillotine. Also, I don't believe I've made any statement deriving an ought from an is in this entire thread.  If I have, I will accept your correction if you show it.

This is not a logical fallacy.  It describes the ways our senses can be fooled, and reinforces the need for a methodology (like science) which can guard against ways we can be mislead by our senses.

Also, confirmation bias as used in that the naturalistic paradigm funnels how we explain our supposed rise to our current status. You only look for evidence that confirms what you want to believe
Confirmation bias?  There is a good reason to hold to methodological naturalism (which isn't the same as philosophical naturalism). That's not confirmation bias, but another way to prevent ourselves from being fooled by disallowing 'solutions' which can't be investigated.

Evoluion could be described as an anthropomorphic bias. That is, you and those who describe macro-evolutionary principles, explain evolution by using humanlike characteristic, such as 'Mother Nature,' or 'willingly,' or 'she.' 
This is grasping for straws, Peter.  No one I know of (that knows what they're talking about) actually thinks evolution is a conscious being ...even if they use metaphorical language. 

Evolution also uses the genetic fallacy, where the history of macro-evolution is traced to the 'common ancestor.' 
The genetic fallacy would be holding a claim true or false because of it's origins rather than on it's merits. Evolution stands on it merits. 

Earnt  Haeckel created the now discredited 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny theory' as to the altering transition stages of genetic make-up before birth.
Discredited by the scientific community...and... not a fallacy - just wrong.

As for hydrogen and oxygen, I do understand that once they are cooled down can become liquids and solids, thus, I think they can contain wetness when that content is measured.
Assuming oxygen and hydrogen can combine at such temperatures, they would not produce water and wetness, but a solid without it. To be honest, I think this stretches the analogy beyond recognition. I'll provide a link regarding this fallacy below.

With consciousness, rationality, morality, I do not witness such things in materials such as rocks, and minerals, the supposed building blocks along the way to these three attributes. That assumption is built-in by a naturalistic worldview. Now, if you want to explain how it is possible, I am all ears. Again, it is your assumption that "Nature' can do this, over eons of time. Time is the magic ingredient. Demonstrate how it is possible. I'm looking for your explanation. 
I'll leave it to you to explore the fallacy represented by your words on your own.  Adjust your arguments as appropriate. https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Fallacy-of-Composition

BTW, the fallacy doesn't mean your conclusion is necessarily wrong, just that your chosen pathway to that conclusion is logically non-existent.
#123
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@PGA2.0
Morals do mean different things to different people, that's the unavoidable state of play. Just because you have a set of morals based loosely upon the Christian hypothesis, doesn't mean that they are universal morals....And I think that it is fair to say that not everyone that presents as a Christian will be as moralistic as you.

And the Christian biblical hypothesis isn't nonsense?...Perhaps you are a tad biased?......Though the Christian hypothesis may be correct, but no one actually knows. That's why I generalise and refer to creation hypotheses as GOD principle....Even chance happenstance comes under the remit of GOD principle. .....Something from nothing... Poof as if by magic everything appeared....Poof as if by magic a god appeared.....Same difference.

Depending upon your conditioning, a guy of some description is in your head, he's in my head too, he was put there when I was a kid and he will never go away.....A god created in our own image.....Swarthy, fair skinned or four armed.....Fortunately or unfortunately, there was also a strong atheist message in my formative years, so I grew up without a rigid belief in any god hypothesis...Such is human conditioning.

Actually prove the existence of a god, without going around the houses and beating about the biblical bush and I will be as content as the next theist.....Simple.

Nothing that Christianity currently has on offer is the slightest bit convincing though.
#124
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
The scientific method is not a claim in and of itself and no modern scientific theory explains or claims to explain the origins of the universe or the origins of life.
I'm all for the scientific method. Scientism is the claim and when dealing with origins scientism is what happens to a large extent. Assumptions are made but they cannot be confirmed by repeating the process. The conditions at the beginning, among other variables, have to be assumed and the success of the model depends on the number of anomalies, the greater the number the more likely such a scenario/model will be rejected. That is why older models have been rejected. Too many criticisms of the theory have been rejected, such as the example with the Steady State Theory.  

Whatever anyone else might claim I am not claiming to have the answers or that science has or can provide them. What I will claim with confidence is that historically speaking any time something was believed to have a supernatural explanation and we then became able to investigate further the answer has never once been anything supernatural. Instead all such investigations lead to naturalistic explanations without exception. 
That has not been my experience, nor countless others concerning the Bible as God's word and revelation to humanity. Historically prophecy is reasonable to believe for the OT writings preceed the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, as do the NT writings. That is more reasonabe to believe. The accurancy of the prophecies are also reasonable and logical to believe. The Old Covenant hinges largely upon Israel's relationship with God. God continually warned these people if they continued to follow false gods and idols He would bring judgment upon them. Deuteronomy 28 is the covenant blessings and curses. These curses for disobedience can be reasonably and logically shown to have taken place in AD 70. 

The unity of the Bible is another aspect that is not easily explained away. It largely focuses on the Messiah with prophecy starting in the third chapter of Genesis regarding Him. The promised Messiah was prophesied to come to OT Israel. That nation of people no longer exist in covenant after AD 70. This can be solidly verified by Scripture and history. If you think otherwise I am willing to formally debate you on the topic to show my side of the argument is sound.

Then you have a problem in making sense of existence without first presupposing God. He is necessary to make sense of origins. He is qualified because the biblical God is omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, immutable, omnibenevolent. The biblical meets the criterion, a being of which no greater can be thought of. These attributes are important for being necessary. You are not. Neither am I. Why would I believe your limited subjective mind as holding the answers???
#125
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@BrotherDThomas
YOUR NON REVEALING WEAK QUOTE AGAIN TO MY MAIN PREMISE: "Unfortunately, more nonsense."

Here is something new for you to try,  prove completely that my main premise is WRONG, or otherwise go into hiding again to save further embarrassment, understood?


What part of me stating to you in the past that I do not debate pseudo-christians like you in a formal DEBATEART setting? This is because the majority of members are of the pseudo-christian status, and will vote for you no matter in how I completely and easily Bible Slap you Silly®️ for the win, get it? Huh?
The majority of members are atheists and agnostics who would jump on your attack wagon and vote for anything that opposes true Christianity. If the argument was in the least reasonable how could you lose? If you can do that, you have the advantage. Come on, Chicken Little, put your neck out on the chopping block!  Buc buc, bok, bok, bwak. LOL!

 

#126
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0



.
PGA2.0,

NO, you are once again WRONG! The majority in this forum are pseudo-christians like you!

Why would I want to discuss your pagan division of Christianity in making you the fool once again?  Remember the last time you became silent upon your faith when I turned up the heat in the proverbial kitchen? Huh?  Besides, you have set an example of NOT addressing my post #111 in this thread, but to only state an insipid quote of  "Unfortunately, more nonsense"  which you NEVER proved otherwise, other than to RUN AWAY from my premises within said post, therefore you want me to take the time for another RUNAWAY like you?! 

I am already dealing with a blatant RUNAWAY TRADESECRET, as if you haven't noticed, and when I pull out the last feather out of his "chicken modus operandi," I may discuss your comical faith in the forum, AGAIN, as if the last time wasn't embarrassing enough for you! Understood laughable Preterist? LOL



.
#127
SirAnonymous
SirAnonymous's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 4,140
3
7
10
SirAnonymous's avatar
SirAnonymous
3
7
10
-->
@Tradesecret
@BrotherDThomas
THE ONLY TIME I WILL DEBATE IN A FORMAL SETTING, IS IF THE EQUALLY BIBLE IGNORANT FOOL TRADESECRET FINDS HIS "BIG BOY" PANTS AND GETS THE NERVE TO TALK ABOUT JESUS' TRUE MODUS OPERANDI. UNFORTUNATELY, HE IS TO EMBARRASSED AND SCARED TO ENGAGE THE BROTHER D UPON THIS TOPIC!!! LOL!
A Tradesecret vs. BrotherDThomas debate would be awesome. I would definitely read that.
Topic's author
#128
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Historically prophecy is reasonable to believe for the OT writings preceed the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, as do the NT writings.
It is more reasonable to believe the writings (a.k.a. prophecies) were written at or after the fall of the temple rather than accepting the laws of nature having been turned on their head.

#129
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne

I am suggesting that Uniformatarianists believe that the conditions in the present is somewhat similar to what was found in the past since the present is all they have to go by. There would be a number of assumptions built-in, like the rate of decay, the environmental conditions, the age of the rock layers, the progression of life, etc. 

In order to deny uniformitarianism, you've been reduced to arguing 'man can only know the present', but the entirety of human existence hasn't been in the present. And what you list as assumptions are not assumptions. For instance, the decay rates of radioactive materials can be objectively measured...
Uniformitarianism uses the layers of rock as support of the dating process. The fossil type and rock layer they are found in are also used in determining age also. Then the current rates and processes of soil deposits, erosion, and decay that build up and tear down these layers are assumed to be the same or similar to those of the past. Then there is the problem of how millions and billions of fossils are deposited in these rock layers by Uniformitarianisn, a slow gradual process. Rather, millions and billions of fossils point to catastrophism. Finally, without God, what is the cause of consistency and uniformity of nature in a chance happenstance universe? How does chance happenstance sustain anything? Why would it do so? Why do laws exist for uniformity? To study how, the why is important. 

Only if the conditions are the same today as back then can we conclude the same results. 

In relation to origins your worldview has human history as a small blip on the time line. Then, on top of that, I understand the modern scientific method as largely influenced by Francis Bacon and Isaac Newton as its great advocates. Thomas Kuln disputed some of the reasoning with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 

As for the decay rate, Carbon 14 (relatively short-lived isotope life) and radioactive dating have only been in use since the 19th and 20th centuries, and as per normal when dealing with human endeavours, they are subject to change.

By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.
But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. 

Since the 1960s, scientists have started accounting for the variations by calibrating the clock against the known ages of tree rings. As a rule, carbon dates are younger than calendar dates: a bone carbon-dated to 10,000 years is around 11,000 years old, and 20,000 carbon years roughly equates to 24,000 calendar years.
The problem, says Bronk Ramsey, is that tree rings provide a direct record that only goes as far back as about 14,000 years. Marine records, such as corals, have been used to push farther back in time, but these are less robust because levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and the ocean are not identical and tend shift with changes in ocean circulation.



"I don't follow how that is explained?" is a question. I am asking you to provide a naturalistic explanation since ...
...which you are now attempting to take out of context.  You originally stated this question suggesting I had labeled your reasoning broken without explaining it (which I did...more than once).  You were not asking me to provide a naturalistic explanation in this part of our conversation.  I don't mind you asking questions of me, Peter, but I very much dislike the pretense I've avoided a question you didn't ask.
Here is your OP and that context:

ME: "Confirmation bias. Also, you are not speaking of science but scientism. It requires blind faith that what you identify as happening in the present was also happening in the past, that the ingredients were similar and recognizable."

YOU: "Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply. Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?  At the very least, we should be able to agree there is some evidence supporting Uniformitarianism. I don't understand what you mean by 'similar and recognizable ingredients' - are you suggesting there was dissimilar and unrecognizable ingredients? If so, where did they go?"

ME: "I don't follow how that is explained? You provided a label without an explanation." 

YOU: "Do you understand that hydrogen and oxygen, neither of which are wet, combine to make water, which IS wet? When you suggest the absence of consciousness, rationality, morality (whatever) in the individual ingredients of life as a defeator for consciousness, rationality, morality (whatever) being natural, you are relying on the composition fallacy. It's simply a fact that the whole sometimes has attributes beyond that of the parts. You're reasoning is flawed."

***

Where is your naturalistic explanation for Uniformitarianism or even how the universe began to exist and what caused that beginning? How does mentioning your parents, grandparents, etc., provide evidence for the way the universe is formed or Uniformitarianism explaining fossils, that the recent past and human history is the key to the distant past? They are not an answer to those problems. 
Topic's author
#130
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@PGA2.0
Uniformitarianism uses the layers of rock as support of the dating process. The fossil type and rock layer they are found in are also used in determining age also. Then the current rates and processes of soil deposits, erosion, and decay that build up and tear down these layers are assumed to be the same or similar to those of the past. Then there is the problem of how millions and billions of fossils are deposited in these rock layers by Uniformitarianisn, a slow gradual process. Rather, millions and billions of fossils point to catastrophism.
I generally agree with your description of the evidences for Uniformitarianism (with the caveat that there are many corroborating natural clocks besides those mentioned) .  I don't follow your assertion that fossils argue against this or how they alone are sufficient evidence to counter evidence for Uniformitarianism.  

Finally, without God, what is the cause of consistency and uniformity of nature in a chance happenstance universe? How does chance happenstance sustain anything? Why would it do so? Why do laws exist for uniformity? To study how, the why is important. 
Why would we expect consistency and uniformity to be unnatural...other than your incredulity at a natural consistency and uniformity?

By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.
But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. 

Since the 1960s, scientists have started accounting for the variations by calibrating the clock against the known ages of tree rings. As a rule, carbon dates are younger than calendar dates: a bone carbon-dated to 10,000 years is around 11,000 years old, and 20,000 carbon years roughly equates to 24,000 calendar years.
The problem, says Bronk Ramsey, is that tree rings provide a direct record that only goes as far back as about 14,000 years. Marine records, such as corals, have been used to push farther back in time, but these are less robust because levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and the ocean are not identical and tend shift with changes in ocean circulation.
First, we were talking about the consistency of the decay rate - this doesn't challenge that.  As for calibration, sure. We want to make sure we have accurate dates. Out of curiosity, how does one calibrate Biblical interpretations?  Finally, Carbon-14 is too short-lived to measure the age of the Earth, so the relevance is questionable...maybe I don't get the point you're driving at. 

"I don't follow how that is explained?" is a question. I am asking you to provide a naturalistic explanation since ...
...which you are now attempting to take out of context.  You originally stated this question suggesting I had labeled your reasoning broken without explaining it (which I did...more than once).  You were not asking me to provide a naturalistic explanation in this part of our conversation.  I don't mind you asking questions of me, Peter, but I very much dislike the pretense I've avoided a question you didn't ask.
Here is your OP and that context:

ME: "Confirmation bias. Also, you are not speaking of science but scientism. It requires blind faith that what you identify as happening in the present was also happening in the past, that the ingredients were similar and recognizable."

YOU: "Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply. Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?  At the very least, we should be able to agree there is some evidence supporting Uniformitarianism. I don't understand what you mean by 'similar and recognizable ingredients' - are you suggesting there was dissimilar and unrecognizable ingredients? If so, where did they go?"

ME: "I don't follow how that is explained? You provided a label without an explanation." 

YOU: "Do you understand that hydrogen and oxygen, neither of which are wet, combine to make water, which IS wet? When you suggest the absence of consciousness, rationality, morality (whatever) in the individual ingredients of life as a defeator for consciousness, rationality, morality (whatever) being natural, you are relying on the composition fallacy. It's simply a fact that the whole sometimes has attributes beyond that of the parts. You're reasoning is flawed."


Wow, Peter.  You've edited our conversation to reflect a different context.  Here is the un-edited conversation pulled from directly from post #110:

If humanity has a beginning there are ultimately one of two alternatives, their cause is something unreasoning and illogical or reasoning being caused them.
I don't agree to that dichotomy. It could be  the cause of life was absent reason/rationality, or unreasoning/illogical, or with reason/rationality. Not one of these options disallows our reasoning and logical abilities.  Hydrogen nor oxygen are wet, but they make water which is wet.  Must the origin of water be wet? No, of course not.

You are making a mistake in thinking the whole must have the same attributes as the parts (or the origin of the parts).

Exactly, you infer it. It requires a reasoned faith. You trust that what you believe about the rate of decay is accurate and gives a good representation of what happened. Without God the question is how does something that is devoid of reason, devoid of logic, devoid of intelligence, devoid of intention and agency make anything happen???
Same composition fallacy hard at work here. 
Deflection. When you charge my thinking as fallacious please explain your reasoning, not just the label. I'm so tired of people doing that. 
I explain why your reasoning was bad in the underlined above.
I don't follow how that is explained? You provided a label without an explanation. 

Where is your naturalistic explanation for Uniformitarianism or even how the universe began to exist and what caused that beginning? How does mentioning your parents, grandparents, etc., provide evidence for the way the universe is formed or Uniformitarianism explaining fossils, that the recent past and human history is the key to the distant past? They are not an answer to those problems. 
You've got it backward, Peter.  The evidence supports Uniformitarianism. You're relying on faith to deny it. The validity of the evidence can be confirmed, the validity of your beliefs cannot. Given those options, Uniformitarianism is the logical choice.
#131
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
you have a problem in making sense of existence without first presupposing God.
One does not solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. As far as I can tell we both have the same problem. You are just less comfortable admitting that you do not have any real answers. It is ok not to know where the cosmos came from or how life started. It really is. We do not need an absolute answer in order to lead functional and purposeful lives.
#132
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@secularmerlin
you have a problem in making sense of existence without first presupposing God.
One does not solve a mystery by appealing to a bigger mystery. As far as I can tell we both have the same problem. You are just less comfortable admitting that you do not have any real answers. It is ok not to know where the cosmos came from or how life started. It really is. We do not need an absolute answer in order to lead functional and purposeful lives.
One can't solve a mystery if one does not start at the proper starting place. 

Where the cosmos came from determines whether there is any ultimate meaning or whether you are deluding yourself about meaning and purpose. To lead a purposeful life in a cosmos of meaninglessness is being inconsistent. That is just one of a myriad of reasons why Christianity is more plausible and reasonable than a faith that denies a creator. It has what is necessary to make sense of the cosmos/existence. 

#133
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
To lead a purposeful life in a cosmos of meaninglessness is being inconsistent. 
Let's say for the sake of discussion this is the case. How does this negatively affect a person's life in practical day to day terms? You keep saying this as if there's some huge impact, or somehow the life you're living is better or different in some way than the life secular or Skeptic are living. Can you please explain the difference? In other words, PGA's "worldview makes sense of origins, therefore he is able to _____________________, while SecMer is living inconsistently with his worldivew, therefore ________________."
#134
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
To lead a purposeful life in a cosmos of meaninglessness is being inconsistent. 
Let's say for the sake of discussion this is the case. You keep saying this as if there's some huge impact, or somehow the life you're living is better or different in some way than the life secular or Skeptic are living. Can you please explain the difference?
Without God how can it not be the case?

How do you get purpose and meaning - qualitative values - when there is no ultimate standard? It is nothing more than preference, made up likes and feelings. What makes likes or preferences good and right? Preference means values fluctuate and shift depending on the person, group, culture. One day abortion is wrong, the next it is okay. Logically this contravenes the laws of logic such as the law of identity. One day rioting is wrong, the next day it is encouraged and practiced without impunity or restraint. One day rioting is called rightful peaceful protest, the next day rioting is called civil disobedience and is wrong. One day the police matter, the next the fringe lunatic minority (lead by Democrat support) is orchestrating defunding and eliminating the police. One day BLM, the next only BLM that support the Democrat, Marxist, socialist cause. When a black person is killed who does not promote the cause, the media neglects to report it. When countless young black lives are taken in these urban crime zones that are called peaceful protests, the media ignores it. Who cares about the violence in the inner cities (controlled by Democrat mayors and governors) where blacks are killing blacks? Who cares when businesses are destroyed, police stations and court buildings are set on fire? Who cares unless it meets this crazy Marxist cause? Where have these people's values gone? They call for justice while practicing lawlessness. Who cares what is fundamentally taking place in your country, a Marxist revolution in which anything goes to further the cause. They charge social injustice to change the system. They continually tell you the system is unjust while their actions show it is they who are unjust and the groupthink herd laps it up. 

So, what is right and good if there is no God? Are you going to tell me it is what you believe opposed to what I believe? When it turns from individual opinion and preference to group and national preference, wars are fought over such disagreements. It matters greatly if there is an ultimate standard. If not all you have is manipulation and might makes right. Can you live in such a society where real ultimate values are thrown away and replaced with evil masquerading as good? Those like-minded can thrive and survive in these urban rebellions but once a person dons a Trump hat or stands up to this thuggery he becomes the victim while the media tells you he was the perpetrator and criminal. 

It matters for justice what you believe. Why SHOULD I be 'just' in a meaningless universe? No ultimate reason, maybe some benefit at times. Why should I be a morally responsible person if I can get away doing the opposite like Kim Jong-un. If there is no God there is no ultimate accountability. You can get away with murder depending on where you live and who you are. I am going to die. Does it matter when I die? Not in the big picture of an atheistic worldview, yet atheists live inconsistently to such a worldview and live according to the Christian worldview in which things do ultimately matter. Does it matter if there is no ultimate meaning, thus no ultimate justice? Not in a universe devoid of God. Does it matter that Hitler gets away with the evil (at least you would probably call it evil - would you not?) and suffering he cause? How is that just? 

So, you see what this kind of inconsistent thinking you promote when denying God. To a worldview devoid of God, you are living a lie when lies and liars pose as the truth, and truth means nothing, ultimately. How do you get truth without an ultimate standard of right and wrong? Truth is absolute. Is it you who decides what is truth? Heaven help you when you run into opposition. When you are next in line for the gas chambers because others see you as less than they are, less human, then some things are definitely wrong. When a woman gets to choose to kill her unborn human because it is inconvenient there is something wrong if there is such a thing as justice. The thing that is wrong is inequality. You may think we as humans all desire to be treated equally, but what makes that true if ultimately nothing matters? Turn justice on its head once you throw out the ultimate and absolute and replace it with relative, subjective opinion. 

Do you believe there is such a thing as justice, or is it just something we invent for our purposes, to promote self-interest and gang up on those who oppose us? Once justice becomes relative, Hitler's Germany or Kim Jong-un's North Korea becomes just another option of what is good. Hitler definitely thought his Aryan race justified killing those less blessed.

If two societies next to each other both hold polar opposite views on the same issue, which is right? 

So, if you want to be inconsistent in your thinking that is up to you. Your worldview either has what is necessary for such values and meaning (--> morality), a fixed standard on what is good and right, or you are being inconsistent. The thing about inconsistency is that it is contradictory. The thing about inconsistency is that you do not stick with your core beliefs but borrow from mine when you say something is good or right. Can relativism recognize a fixed standard, a better or best? If there is no better or best how do you know what you believe is better? Better than what??? What do you measure better against? There has to be a standard and if it is shifting and relative then anything goes and what makes shifting standards good? Nothing unless it complies with what is actually the case. You have to have a fixed good, a right, to have good. You can't have an actual good, an actual right with relativism. Show me how that is possible. Good/right requires an ultimate, absolute, objective, standard, a fixed and final measure or reference point. Without God, as a revealed self-existing Being, you do not have what is necessary.

How does this negatively affect a person's life in practical day to day terms?
By the evil done and the insufficiency in identifying and controlling it. Why is anything evil if there are no objective fixed values - the good, the better, the best? 

In other words, PGA's "worldview makes sense of origins, therefore he is able to _  discern truth from fiction provided there is this necessary being who has revealed what is right _, while SecMer is living inconsistently with his worldivew, therefore _truth is relative and shifting, inconsistent and ultimately meaningless_."


#135
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Your added wording is redundant, unnecessary. Faith in faith in God or trust in trust in God is not the same as saying trust or faith in God. 
I was only paraphrasing your own words:

More aptly, faith in God is what we put our trust in.
...in other words "Trust in faith in God'.  There is little point in denying what has been said.  As I said, this isn't a 'gotcha', just some constructive criticism.  I'm happy to drop this particular part of our conversation.
You have to be careful when you paraphrase or rephrase my words so that you do not misrepresent what I am saying. It is not a trust in faith. Faith is trust in something or someone. It is trust in God. It is not faith in faith, it is faith in God. God is the object of our faith, our trust. 

As I have mentioned before, there are three kinds of faith that I am aware of - blind faith, rational faith, irrational faith. While the biblical faith can be blind, believers are encouraged by God to worship not only with our bodies but with our minds and thinking. The biblical God is a reasoning God.
That has already been addressed. No point in re-hashing it.
I am correcting your misconception. 

Whereas you understand evolution as progressing from a common ancestor, from the simple to the complex, we as Christians understand each to its own kind.
It's simply a fact that not all Christians adhere to the strict literalist interpretation of the Bible that you seems to prefer.
Literalistic? You are mistaken. I believe in taking the Bible literally only where the language gives reason to do so. That means literal where literally descriptive, historical narrative, not metaphoric language is used.
Clearly, you do not understand Biblical "kinds" metaphorically, and (given that this is in conflict with the facts of the world) that is a significant point to hold literally.
How is 'kinds' in conflict with 'facts.' Whose facts? Why are they facts? 

Given that I accept evidence which is not scientific in nature, scientism doesn't apply.
Then you cannot prove beginnings scientifically, something I have said all along. 

Beginnings (what caused the BB; how life came to be) cannot currently be proved.  Thus I appropriately admit ignorance. The existence of a god (or believing in the existence of a god) doesn't change this. 
God gives us a reason for the first cause, the origin or start of the universe. Thus, the Christian worldview has an adequate explanation and can make sense of origins. It has what is necessary. Do not tell me it does not have what is necessary or rational unless you can back it up reasonably and logically. Go ahead. 

Would you like me to start a thread, or you start a thread, so you can do this? If so, I have a draft waiting. It just needs some polish. 

Blind faith would mean believing without evidence - do you deny the evidence accumulated within your own life, your parents, grand parents, human history?
Some of it I deny, other 'evidence' I find reasonable and affirm. But the point is that neither you, nor I, nor they were there for the beginning of the universe or humanity. Some of the 'evidence' we derive from history is reasonable, other 'evidence' is not.

Again, your starting point or core presuppositions without God is what you build your worldview upon, and your starting point is unreasoning (mindless, blind, random, chance happenstance) and unreasonable. 
I'm curious how you reject some evidence and accept other. Would it be incorrect to describe your priority as presuppositions and not the evidence? 
I reject it based on the starting point, the core presuppositions are not logical or reasonable. 

Lost half my post due to carelessness and do not feel like responding to the rest of your post presently. (^8
I expect you'll get back to it before you respond to this post. 

I will have to find it. I'm not sure where I left off. 
#136
BrotherDThomas
BrotherDThomas's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,140
3
3
7
BrotherDThomas's avatar
BrotherDThomas
3
3
7
-->
@Tradesecret
@SirAnonymous


SirAnonymous,

YOUR PAY PER VIEW QUOTE:   "A Tradesecret vs. BrotherDThomas debate would be awesome. I would definitely read that."

As it has been shown ad infinitum with the totally Bible ignorant Tradesecret, this will never happen because he is to SCARED, and where he has presented a myriad of "little boy" excuses to RUN AWAY from this debate, and he wants to call himself a Christian? NOT! LOL  He continually slaps Jesus in the face because He said to defend the faith, whereas Tradesecret only runs away from it!  (2 Corinthians 10:5, Titus 1:9) 

To give the RUNAWAY Tradesecret a modicum of a chance, I told him that I would blind-fold myself, have my hands tied behind me, and type with my feet in response to his Devil Speak in this debate, but his silence was deafening with no response to me throwing him a bone in this respect. 

Tradesecret continues to RUN AWAY from my Jesus inspired posts as embarrassingly shown below, therefore why do we expect him to actually engage with the D-man where he can only run and hide while he blusters more excuses to RUN from the Brother D!

Tradesecret remains what the following image represents:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uI7ni7zL8qU


.


#137
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
That's a really long way to say "no, I can't." 
#138
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@ludofl3x
That's a really long way to say "no, I can't." 
Short answer, I have a worldview that has what is necessary to make sense of origins. What is more, it is consistent.

Short answer, have you demonstrated you can? I do not believe it is possible without belief in the biblical God. 

And there is a way to test the reasonableness by putting our beliefs on display for questioning. Are you game? If so, state what you believe about the origins of the universe, the existence of living things, and morality. 
#139
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@SkepticalOne
Historically prophecy is reasonable to believe for the OT writings preceed the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, as do the NT writings.
It is more reasonable to believe the writings (a.k.a. prophecies) were written at or after the fall of the temple rather than accepting the laws of nature having been turned on their head.
No, it is not more reasonable. It would be a great topic of debate to highlight the reasons for each side of the issue, similar to our debates of the past on Matthew 24 and Revelation. 

How would the 'laws of nature,' been turned on their heads, fall into the reasonableness of a post AD70 writing of the OT and NT? 

#140
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@PGA2.0
I don't think "because God did it" makes sense of anything, it simply assigns a cause out of nowhere. 

     have you demonstrated you can? 
    I didn't claim that I could. I am simply wondering why you think this is critical to living life every single day, when clearly so many people mange to do so without sharing your incredible knowledge about origins. This knowledge of yours has no practical impact on your day, as far as I can tell, because I don't make sense of origins and I'm not out raping everything in sight or causing a dystopian hellscape in my neighborhood, and I don't believe in any god at all. You tout "consistent" but don't indicate what an "inconsistent" life would lack that yours has. 
    #141
    PGA2.0
    PGA2.0's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 3,179
    3
    5
    8
    PGA2.0's avatar
    PGA2.0
    3
    5
    8
    -->
    @ludofl3x
    I don't think "because God did it" makes sense of anything, it simply assigns a cause out of nowhere. 
    It is not out of nowhere. The Bible claims to be a revelation from and about God and His relationship with humanity through a people, Israel, that actually existed in space and time. 

    It makes sense of what caused the universe, an uncaused, eternal God who exists outside of the space, time, matter continuum. It also makes sense of meaning, why we seek meaning, why we are reasoning beings and find meaning, logic, purpose. 

    How is a belief excluding God any different that what you charge of Christianity (i.e., how random chance happenstance makes sense of anything). It is quite the contrary, belief in God gives meaning to our existence, a reason for the universe and existence, for why does anything at all exist? How does the universe begin, if you think it began? If not a beginning we have other problems. 



     have you demonstrated you can? 
    I didn't claim that I could. I am simply wondering why you think this is critical to living life every single day, when clearly so many people mange to do so without sharing your incredible knowledge about origins.
    They do so despite the foundation their core beliefs rests upon. In one scientific model, the BB, we can trace the universe back to that first cause, but no further. How does that make sense? Did the universe create itself, and how, why? How did conscious living beings come from non-conscious, nonliving matter? Where has this ever been witnessed as happening? Nowhere, you say. Then you are assuming such things can yet you can't make sense of them. The Christian worldview can. And to say 'who cares,' is to live inconsistently because you act like you care by your enquiries. 

    This knowledge of yours has no practical impact on your day, as far as I can tell, because I don't make sense of origins and I'm not out raping everything in sight or causing a dystopian hellscape in my neighborhood, and I don't believe in any god at all. You tout "consistent" but don't indicate what an "inconsistent" life would lack that yours has. 
    What knowledge are you speaking of? Knowledge of God, the universe, existence? You do not rape because you think raping is wrong. In an indifferent universe what does it matter and why are you making it matter? In an indifferent universe what is the standard for morality? Whose subjective opinion? Why should I believe it? You are being inconsistent from your starting point (without God). Why should rape matter in an amoral universe? It is just one member of a species securing their offspring. Ultimately it does not. Why are you making meaning matter and seeking meaning if you start with a random chance happenstance universe? What difference does it ultimately make? How do you explain justice in a universe devoid of God? 

    I anxiously await your answers to my questions since I have answered yours! 

    #142
    ludofl3x
    ludofl3x's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 2,071
    3
    2
    2
    ludofl3x's avatar
    ludofl3x
    3
    2
    2
    -->
    @PGA2.0
    They do so despite the foundation their core beliefs rests upon.
    How? And what difference does it make, if they're doing it? Doesn't seem like making sense of origins is hurting their ability to act in this way. Now to your questions. 

    why does anything at all exist?
    Don't know. 
    How does the universe begin, if you think it began?
    All evidence points to time beginning at the big bang. Before that, don't know. In either case, makes no difference to my life every day.

    we can trace the universe back to that first cause, but no further. How does that make sense?
    Don't know. Again, immaterial to my life. 
    Did the universe create itself, and how, why? 
    Don't know. 
    How did conscious living beings come from non-conscious, nonliving matter? 
    Don't know. 
    What knowledge are you speaking of?
    How the universe started. 

    You do not rape because you think raping is wrong. In an indifferent universe what does it matter and why are you making it matter? 
    I don't have the compulsion to rape anyone. Weird, huh? I also know a lot of non-rapists, and not just atheists. Hindus, Christians of many stripes...I don't want to speak for anyone else, but I doubt many of them would say "God said not to do it so I don't do it." Especially considering god never says in the bile NOT to do it, and in spots seems to condone doing it, provided it's not a hebrew. 

    In an indifferent universe what is the standard for morality?
    There is no standard and there never has been. How do I know? Morality shifts between societies both contemporaneous and in different times, At one time it was moral to beat your wife, and now it isn't. 
    Whose subjective opinion?
    It's not one person. It's society. The one you live in determines it. 

    Why should I believe it?
    Well you don't want to go to jail, right?

    You are being inconsistent from your starting point (without God). Why should rape matter in an amoral universe? It is just one member of a species securing their offspring. Ultimately it does not.
    You know, now that you've mentionedit like five hundred times, I've decided you make a good point. It DOESN'T matter I guess. Looks like I've got a new plan for my weekend!!! LOOK OUT LADIES! Come on man. 

    Why are you making meaning matter and seeking meaning if you start with a random chance happenstance universe? 
    Because I care about my fellow people. Apparently you do it because if you don't you'll be punished forever? if that condition were removed, would you be out raping?

    What difference does it ultimately make?
    I'm not causing anyone else any harm, that seems pretty good, particularly if I'd rather not have harm done to me. Maybe I don't get the modifier "ultimately" here, maybe you mean something else?

    How do you explain justice in a universe devoid of God? 

    I don't understand why I need to 'explain' justice, I mean do you think it popped into existence with the big bang? Does somehow having the origin of theuniverse knowledge that you have, and I don't, mean you understand justice better? It's sort of a different word for fairness, I guess, but there's also the concept of remediation and punishment in there. Justice is pretty complicated, but it's a human construct (fairness, the simpler version, is not a human construct, animals display a keen understanding of this behavior). Now that I mention it, hyenas understand punishment and rules and morality, too. If a hyena pup steals food before it's his turn to eat, he's punished by being tormented and bitten and outcast even temporarily. That teaches other hyena pups not to do it. They even understand forgiveness, because they've been known to let he pups back into the pack after a time. 

    All questions answered. 
    Topic's author
    #143
    SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 1,720
    3
    3
    7
    SkepticalOne's avatar
    SkepticalOne
    3
    3
    7
    -->
    @PGA2.0
    How is 'kinds' in conflict with 'facts.' Whose facts? Why are they facts? 
    Ok, in reverse order: Because they have been demonstrated to be true. Facts belong to no one...or everyone - however you want to look at it. All life is related (a tree of life) - Kinds would have groups of related life unrelated to each other (an orchard of life).

    God gives us a reason for the first cause, the origin or start of the universe. Thus, the Christian worldview has an adequate explanation and can make sense of origins. It has what is necessary. Do not tell me it does not have what is necessary or rational unless you can back it up reasonably and logically. Go ahead. 
    The Christian creation is a story.  Stories don't provide 'what is necessary or rational'. The only difference between our positions is that I don't pretend to have all the answers.

    I'm curious how you reject some evidence and accept other. Would it be incorrect to describe your priority as presuppositions and not the evidence? 
    I reject it based on the starting point, the core presuppositions are not logical or reasonable. 
    Presuppositions then.


    Topic's author
    #144
    SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 1,720
    3
    3
    7
    SkepticalOne's avatar
    SkepticalOne
    3
    3
    7
    -->
    @PGA2.0
    It is more reasonable to believe the writings (a.k.a. prophecies) were written at or after the fall of the temple rather than accepting the laws of nature having been turned on their head.
    No, it is not more reasonable. It would be a great topic of debate to highlight the reasons for each side of the issue, similar to our debates of the past on Matthew 24 and Revelation. 
    Doesn't seem like much of a debate.  The choices are 'someone recorded history after the fact' or 'someone predicted the future'. I bet historians don't normally have difficulty making these type of decisions...unless it's in the Bible.  ;-P
    #145
    PGA2.0
    PGA2.0's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 3,179
    3
    5
    8
    PGA2.0's avatar
    PGA2.0
    3
    5
    8
    -->
    @SkepticalOne
    It is more reasonable to believe the writings (a.k.a. prophecies) were written at or after the fall of the temple rather than accepting the laws of nature having been turned on their head.
    No, it is not more reasonable. It would be a great topic of debate to highlight the reasons for each side of the issue, similar to our debates of the past on Matthew 24 and Revelation. 
    Doesn't seem like much of a debate.  The choices are 'someone recorded history after the fact'
    That position is not as easy to justify as you think. I contend my view is more reasonable and logical than yours would be. 

    or 'someone predicted the future'.
    No only one person, but around 40 different authors all centering on different aspects of the Messiah or the coming judgment of Israel. Plus these 'predictions' happen as specified. The Olivet Discourse is a focus on things that would shortly take place to Old Covenant Israel. 

    I bet historians don't normally have difficulty making these type of decisions...unless it's in the Bible.  ;-P

    There is external evidence that backs many of these prophecies. 
    Topic's author
    #146
    SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 1,720
    3
    3
    7
    SkepticalOne's avatar
    SkepticalOne
    3
    3
    7
    -->
    @PGA2.0
    No only one person, but around 40 different authors all centering on different aspects of the Messiah or the coming judgment of Israel.
    You must be drawing from the OT with that number of authors. Given that Jesus wasn't mentioned by name in the OT, I'd say that's begging the question a bit. 

    Let's see a *concise* proposition for this proposed debate, and we can go from there.
    Topic's author
    #147
    SkepticalOne
    SkepticalOne's avatar
    Debates: 9
    Posts: 1,720
    3
    3
    7
    SkepticalOne's avatar
    SkepticalOne
    3
    3
    7
    -->
    @PGA2.0
    Maybe you'll need to narrow the subject to *a* phophecy rather than all prophecies. After all, we will need to be able to cover this in a single debate.
    #148
    PGA2.0
    PGA2.0's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 3,179
    3
    5
    8
    PGA2.0's avatar
    PGA2.0
    3
    5
    8
    -->
    @SkepticalOne

    How is 'kinds' in conflict with 'facts.' Whose facts? Why are they facts? 
    Ok, in reverse order: Because they have been demonstrated to be true.
    What has been demonstrated is that people find a particular paradigm reasonable, but it is not from its starting of the chain of events or the ability for the apparatus (chance happenstance) to do so. There is no human being that was alive for these beginnings, no human record at the time, so where a person starts is where they usually end up. Start with naturalism and you are going to continue looking for naturalistic reasons. Chance is your master. Thus, the whole foundation is built on sinking sand. When one starts from beginnings from chance happenstance they are not able to sustain its reasonableness. It is like the analogy of the dice that rolls itself, then sustains the number six roll indefinitely. 

    Facts belong to no one...or everyone - however you want to look at it.
    They are an interpretation of the data available to us in the present of recent past. We only go back so far.

    All life is related (a tree of life) - Kinds would have groups of related life unrelated to each other (an orchard of life).
    The difference is your and my starting point - God or chance. The difference is that a kind to me is representative of all kinds of human beings, not apes and monkeys. The difference in kinds and species is that you believe we have a common ancestor that is traced to a simple or simplest life form. I believe the common ancestor is God. We are created by Him, each to its own kind. Although there are minor evolutionary changes because of adaption --> isolation or mutation, that does not mean a giant leap from a whale to a pig that can be traced through the fossil record. It means that animals in isolation adapt to their environment so that their features are a little different, like a beak that is slightly different from other finches because of the food types available and the isolation from other finches. A horse  and a zebra, or different kinds of horses, such as Arabian or Clydesdale are other examples. A cat is still a cat, a dog a dog, although one might be a lion and another a domestic cat, a wolf as compared to a poodle.  

    God gives us a reason for the first cause, the origin or start of the universe. Thus, the Christian worldview has an adequate explanation and can make sense of origins. It has what is necessary. Do not tell me it does not have what is necessary or rational unless you can back it up reasonably and logically. Go ahead. 
    The Christian creation is a story.  Stories don't provide 'what is necessary or rational'. The only difference between our positions is that I don't pretend to have all the answers.
    No, the Christian creation as a story is your assessment. There is nothing irrational about it. God is a supernatural Being. That means He trnascends the natural. 

    You are ignorant of the answers. You have admitted it. Your worldview does not have what is necessary to make sense of life's most important questions. You are here because of something yet your bias will not acknowledge this. You do not want to look for the reason why and the reason why is senseless without God. Even the how of origins is ignorance to you. That is because of where you start. You start from within the universe. You think that the box (the universe) created itself, for no reason. It disturbs you that God may be the reason. Thus, you hide from God. 

    I'm curious how you reject some evidence and accept other. Would it be incorrect to describe your priority as presuppositions and not the evidence? 
    I reject it based on the starting point, the core presuppositions are not logical or reasonable. 
    Presuppositions then.
    In your case, a shaky foundation that you have no justification for. My belief is so much more reasonable and logicL than yours because of where I start. 
    #149
    PGA2.0
    PGA2.0's avatar
    Debates: 7
    Posts: 3,179
    3
    5
    8
    PGA2.0's avatar
    PGA2.0
    3
    5
    8
    -->
    @SkepticalOne
    Maybe you'll need to narrow the subject to *a* phophecy rather than all prophecies. After all, we will need to be able to cover this in a single debate.
    Well, almost every NT writing has in its address some aspect of the Olivet Discourse prophecy. What is more, these NT prophecies concern an OT people and their Messiah.  OT Scripture is related to some aspects of these prophecies. Thus the prophecies of Mathew 24, Luke 21:10-36, and Mark  13 are an example that is confirmed by either the NT writings as the correct interpretation or by the history of the times because they all take place before or in AD 70. That is most reasonable and logical to believe.  

    So, I believe every one of these prophecies of Matthew 24 has been fulfilled before or during AD70. I believe I can give the most reasonable, exegetical (and sometimes historical) support for that claim.
    #150
    secularmerlin
    secularmerlin's avatar
    Debates: 0
    Posts: 7,093
    3
    3
    3
    secularmerlin's avatar
    secularmerlin
    3
    3
    3
    -->
    @PGA2.0
    One can't solve a mystery if one does not start at the proper starting place. 
    The proper starting place is skepticism. The understanding that we do not know and we should investigate. Do you believe that there is a diamond the size of my head at the core of Neptune? Can you say yes or no before we can investigate?