Existence of God

quote:

---

However, it is not the christian calling you a sinner, because he too is sinful.

---

Yeah, right.In theory, perhaps, but not in practice.

quote:

---

My only duty is to tell you that God says you are a sinner. That is the whole point.

---

Sorry, mike, but this is kind of amusing.The problem you have is, depending upon which Christian you talk to, or one's own personal interpretation of the Bible, a person may or not be a sinner with regards to certain attitudes or behaviors or what have you.Were the Christians who killed "infidels" during the Crusades doing God's work? They certainly thought so.Were the Christians who pointed to the parts of the bible which explain the worth and treatment of slaves in order to justify the owning of slaves not simply following the bible selectively?Are the Christians who own lots of material goods and persue power and riches interpreting the bible rather opposite to Jesus' directives?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-17-2003]

quote:

---

Nonetheless, it is not the fundamentalist but God Himself that tells us that we are either saved unto eternal life (and through Jesus Christ) OR we are condemned to eternal death.

---

Funny, I can find dozens of Christian denominations which do not hold this view to be true.Why should I believe you and not them?

quote:

---

Think for a second, will you... do you HONESTLY believe that if the Bible did, in fact, have "many contradictions" that countless millions of people throughout history - including some of our smartest people ever such as Isaac Newton - would have remained believers in the Bible until they died? Would that make any sense?

---

Yes, of course I HONESTLY believe this.The thing that you forget is that fundamentalist, Biblical literalist, YEC Protestant Christians are a very small minority among all Christians, and an even more miniscule minority among all religious people.There are many, many more Christians who use the Bible as a poetic spiritual guide rather than as a literal history or science book, as you seem to.Here are some very interesting statistics regarding the stance on inerrancy of the bible of a number of the major Christian sects/denominations in the US.http://www.cesame-nm.org/...ontributions/bible/position.htmlOf those denominations surveyed, membership in churches not demanding a belief in inerrancy outnumbers membership in those that do by more than 2:1. Membership in churches professing belief in inerrancy is 15% of total U.S. population. The actual number of members accepting this belief is expected to be lower, because there are typically more church members who tend to accept a less rigid stance, than those professing a more rigid posture than their church's official position.

quote:

---

There are many people that have made and shall continue to make mistakes in these matters. Why do you insist on focusing on the mistakes rather than on the truth?

---

Depending upon what century a given Christian has lived in, what part of the world a given Christian is located, the religious teachings a given Christian has absorbed, and the personal conclusions a given Christian has reached, the "correctness" of Christians telling non-believers that they are going to hell has been variable.How do you know that the "mistake" of telling non-believers that they are going to hell isn't a mistake at all, considering this variability?

quote:

---

There are countless "personal interpretations" that are very wrong.

---

Well, how do I tell the difference between the wrong ones and the correct ones?

quote:

---

Again, why do you insist on focusing on those? I'll propose an answer to that : by focusing on the negatives, you consider yourself justified in your decision to reject Jesus Christ.

---

You say the interpretations are wrong, but the people who hold them believe just as ferverently that YOU are wrong and they are correct.Why should I believe you and not them?

quote:

---

'Christian' means a 'follower of Christ'. If a man wishes to unjustly exploit another human being then that man is not following Christ but rather his own goals.

---

You miss my point.Those slave owners considered themselves to be Christians. They saw that slavery was not condemned in the Bible; in fact, rules for how one was to treat one's slaves were included in the Bible, as well as how to calculate the monetary worth of slaves.To them, there was no problem at all, but to you, centuries later and living a culture in which slavery is considered illegal and black people are considered fully human, you find the idea horrible.My point is that one can justify nearly anything through interpretation.

quote:

---

OTOH, we are all 'slaves' - the only question is, what/who are we slaves of? Under the proper conditions, a form of 'slavery' is acceptable to God. Of course, mankind has perverted those conditions into what we commonly know as 'slavery' - an abomination to God. I sincerely doubt you'll understand this.

---

Um, do you deny that the slavery talked about in the Bible, with regards to monetary value and treatment, is the garden-variety, straightforward, owning-of-people kind of slavery?

quote:

---

If you insist on focusing on the negatives then that is exactly what you'll find. You need to ask yourself why you wish to do that. I propose : 'self-justification'.

---

You view them as "negatives" because you live today, in a certain place, and have been taught certain things.What you consider "negatives" or "mistakes" are simply different interpretations that you happen to not agree with.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

Please, don't be naive.

---

Please, don't patronize me.

quote:

---

As you, I can find "Christian" denominations that also believe that same-sex marriages are okay or that abortion is okay or that Christ was not born of a virgin or that Christ did not resurrect in body as well as in Spirit or many other anti-Scriptural things.

---

Well...right.Sone Christian denominations use the Bible as a poetic spiritual guide rather than a history and science book, as you seem to.Considering that much of the science and history of the Bible is obviously wrong, it would seem that some of these other denominations are more rational and willing to actually see nature for what it is, not what they wish or need it to be.Why should I believe you and not them?

quote:

---

Simple - because we can give a consistent, Scripturally-supported account

---

...an account of what, exactly?[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2003]

The thing that you forget is that fundamentalist, Biblical literalist, YEC Protestant Christians are a very small minority among all Christians, and an even more miniscule minority among all religious people.

quote:

---

I never forget it and if I should ever forget I always have people like you reminding me of the fact.

​

Yet YOU seem to forget these matters are not a numbers game. If 25 of the most prominent Nobel Prize winners came to my house and told me that God didn't exist, how much worth do you think I'd place on their opinion? Let me give you a hint : it wouldn't be enough to buy a stale doughnut.

---

Turnabout is fair play, Joralex.You are the one who first brought up the numbers game:

quote:

---

Think for a second, will you... do you HONESTLY believe that if the Bible did, in fact, have "many contradictions" that countless millions of people throughout history - including some of our smartest people ever such as Isaac Newton - would have remained believers in the Bible until they died? Would that make any sense?

---

So, non-believers should take your advice and let the Christian belief of Isaac Newton and "countless millions throughout history" influence them, yet you reject that very argument when it is directed back at your own minority belief. [i]There are many, many more Christians who use the Bible as a poetic spiritual guide[/quote]

quote:

---

Yup... right you are. So, does that mean they're correct in so doing? Why do you choose to believe that these people are 'okay' and yet I'm not?

---

Because in order to take the Bible as literal truth I must stop using my intellect.It's really that simple.rather than as a literal history or science book, as you seem to.

quote:

---

Nope... wrong you are. The Bible was never meant to be a history or science Book. There is some history and science, but it's role is definitely not priority one. OTOH, there is enough there so as to validate the Bible's authenticity.

---

OK, then why are you a YEC?This would certainly indicate to me that you are rejecting most of modern science in favor of the bible.Here are some very interesting statistics regarding the stance on inerrancy of the bible of a number of the major Christian sects/denominations in the US.

​

http://www.cesame-nm.org/...ontributions/bible/position.html

​

Of those denominations surveyed, membership in churches not demanding a belief in inerrancy outnumbers membership in those that do by more than 2:1. Membership in churches professing belief in inerrancy is 15% of total U.S. population. The actual number of members accepting this belief is expected to be lower, because there are typically more church members who tend to accept a less rigid stance, than those professing a more rigid posture than their church's official position.

quote:

---

So, you are going to risk the destiny of YOUR eternal soul on some 'statistics', is that about the size of it?

​

I hope you won't mind if I base MY eternal destiny on something quite a bit more substantial than this, thank you.

---

You miss my point in mentioning the statistics.You tried to use the argument of "many people believe like I do, therefore what I believe must be true".The fact is, most people do NOT believe as you do. According to your logic, truth is determined by how many people believe something, so you should be converting to a more mainstream denomination any moment now[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2003]

quote:

---

... there are few things more despicable than a non-believer selectively quoting Scripture in order to support his/her position.

---

The fact that anyone can selectively quote scripture in order to support their position is a good lesson to all, wouldn't you say?

What is the evidence you refer to?

quote:

---

I have long held the view that if a person must ask this question then that person is too far gone for me to help.

---

How convenient for you.Someone makes a simple request for an example of the evidence which you seem to know all about, and you refuse to provide it.If you can't show the evidence, then how do we know it exists?Why so coy?I only ask because to this point I've only seen assertions from you, no evidence, and I'm beginning to wonder if perhaps we're using different definitions of evidence.

quote:

---

Over the years I've become convinced that most Naturalists haven't given the subject of 'evidence' more than a passing thought.

---

So, why not take this opporunity to educate us, Joralex?Since you seem to be saying that you have given the concept of 'evidence' more than 'a passing thought', why don't you explain the concept, and perhaps give us some examples?Do you think saying something like "The evidence for a divine creator is all around us" constitutes evidence?

quote:

---

Absolutely not. It is the actual evidence that is all around us that supports the existence of a purposeful Creator - not the mere act of saying so.

---

Please pick one or two specific examples of this evidence and explain how they are evidence of a creator.

quote:

---

The 'best inference', given our present state of knowledge, is that of 'intelligent, purposeful design'.

---

How can we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural system that we do not understand yet, but may in the future, or that we do not have the intelligence to ever understand?

quote:

---

The Creator had the foresight to make organisms "flexible" so that they could adapt to the changes that were to come in a Fallen creation.

---

Except that most of the life that has ever lived on the planet has gone extinct.

quote:

---

The 'purpose' is evident in a creation that, while incredibly diverse, is yet also intricately interconnected/interdependent all the way from the microorganism scale to the giant Redwood scale.

---

This interconnectedness is predicted from a naturalistic viewpoint. It needs no magic to explain it.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-19-2003]

Replies to messages #91 and #92 in this thread would be much appreciated, Joralex.I couldn't help but notice you kind of skipped them over.There's no rush if you've become busy suddenly, but considering your history of non-response, I thought I'd let you know that I have noticed.Just let me know when you plan to repond if you can't right now.------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 10-20-2003]

quote:

---

The basis for detection of intelligent design is very simple : if one cannot reasonably explain an observation by chance, natural law, or combinations thereof, then the only remaining alternative is intelligent design.

---

So, how do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we;1) do not currently understand but may in the future, or2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand?According to Behe's book, "Darwin's Black Box", the biological origins of the mammalian blood clotting mechanism was an example of IC, and therefore indicated ID.Problem was that through research and study, a more rudimentary blood clotting mechanism was found with clear evolutionary pathways.So, in a nutshell, I'd like you to explain what is the difference between saying "We don't know" and "Godidit"?To me, the difference is clear; the former spurs more inquiry and research, and the latter stops both in their tracks.

Joralex, maybe you missed my post?I'll restate my question for you here.How do we tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one which we1) do not currently understand but may in the future, and/or2) do not have the intelligence to ever understand?------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

Are creationists rationally / scientifically justified in our position or, as your questions appear to imply, must we abandon our position because of the fact that certain limitations exist today and may always exist?

​

If we have to abandon our position, then so do Naturalists and for the same cause. Stated differently, ultimately we must all stand on faith given the epistemological limitations that are always present.

---

Incorrect.Methodological naturalism operates within the tenet that we never have perfect, complete knowledge about the natural world.We may be very convinced by the existing evidence that the Earth is a sphere, for instance, but if evidence came forward from many sources which showed that it was not actually spherical, science would change.That is why ID is not a scientific concept, but a philosophical or religious one.ID claims have been made since humans started asking questions about how and why things in nature are the way they are. It used to be that humans thought that gods and supernatural beings controlled everything quite directly (Apollo and his firey chariot pulls the sun across the sky); now, this same argument has been reduced to a few microbiological or biochemical systems which we do not currently understand fully.What ID does is attempt to come to a conclusion based upon a lack of understanding, which is not scientific.In science, no conclusion can ever be based upon a lack of understanding; conclusions are based upon positive evidence or falsifications of predictions.

quote:

---

Understanding something doesn't eliminate (or establish) whether or not it's been intelligently designed.

---

But you just said that we could tell when something was ID because it couldn't be explained by natural law.This is what I mean by "understand".Since this is an obvious contradiction of what you said initially, please clarify.

quote:

---

Regardless, ID systems are recognized by the presence of CSI. God is arrived at in a very straighforward manner : huge quantities of CSI are present in nature and neither chance, natural laws, or combinations thereof are able to explain the origin of this CSI. So what are the options?

---

If what you are saying above is valid, then the scientific answer is, "We don't know."To say anything else is meaningless from a scientific standpoint.

A reply to message #63, please, Joralex.I can also tell you that Zhimbo is also wondering why you are ignoring him.we both look forward to your replies, as you have a bit of a backlog. ------------------
"Evolution is a 'theory', just like gravity. If you don't like it, go jump off a bridge."

quote:

---

Your honor, I feel no need to discuss the blood-stained murder weapon found in my client's home. The thing I've noticed about district attorneys is that they are always asking questions... question after question... there are an infinite number of questions that can be asked, and it serves no purpose. Feel free, however, to call me after the case, and we can discuss these matters over the phone if you are truly seeking the truth.

---

ROTFLMAO!!!I love you, Dan.Seriously, I'd have you over for dinner as long as you don't mind smoking outside.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-04-2003]