Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Plenty have proven those debates wrong as well, like CS Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Jeff Vines, and countless others. The Bible remains the #1 selling book in the world, generation after generation. There are reasons behind all that. I don't think the debate will ever stop, but science offers much less proof than the Resurrection. Science is merely discovering Gods work.
Plenty have proven those debates wrong as well, like CS Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Jeff Vines, and countless others.
Look, I was a big a Lewis fan as anyone in my Evangelical days, but once I stopped looking through the lens of belief, his apologetics became a lot less compelling. I am familiar with Zacharias, Schaeffer, and the lot. Simply name dropping these guys does not make your assertions true. Anyone's ideas can be debated discussed and scrutinized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
The Bible remains the #1 selling book in the world, generation after generation. There are reasons behind all that.
Yup, amazing what conquering and colonizing just about the entire world will do for the spread of the conqueror's religion. Doesn't mean it is true, just that it is pervasive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
I don't think the debate will ever stop, but science offers much less proof than the Resurrection. Science is merely discovering Gods work.
I don't think the debate will even get started, with statemets like this. What does this even mean? You are trying to compare a methodology for examining observable reality with a mythical event, how does that even work?
Plenty have proven those debates wrong as well, like CS Lewis, Ravi Zacharias, Jeff Vines, and countless others. The Bible remains the #1 selling book in the world, generation after generation. There are reasons behind all that. I don't think the debate will ever stop, but science offers much less proof than the Resurrection. Science is merely discovering Gods work.
Again ... confirmation bias in spades. Yes, I know the concept of "thinking god's thoughts after him" (the concept originated with Johannes Kepler, by the way). But that is not what science does.
Science discovers how reality works. It works the way it does whether or not gods or other magic forces are involved in how reality came to be. But notably, science does not engage the issue of deities because personal interventionist deities are inherently unfalsifiable (and therefore scientifically invalid) hypotheses. It also doesn't address the supernatural because super-natural inherently refers to things not part of nature or the material world and therefore not available to our senses to examine.
Science, you will doubtless be heartened to know, will never disprove the supernatural or any deities including your own. But the bad news for you is that (1) it won't prove them either and (2) it doesn't need deities to render reality explicable.
What anyone can legitimately say about reality is based on how reality presents itself for examination and experimentation -- not on someone asserting a first cause and then seeing everything that descends from that asserted cause as proof of same.
People live their lives in a method that puts value on it. They get angry when bad things happen, hence "they care". If we were random beings, we would not put value on each other or live in that manner. Therefore I do not believe we are random beings here by chance. That would leave God as the creator.
This is in no way, shape, or form an answer to the question posed by OP, and is not an appropriate discussion for this sub-forum.
It's documented, the same way books and now DVD's document. Will they say WW2 was a mythical event in 2000 years?
Quote:
Science, you will doubtless be heartened to know, will never disprove the supernatural or any deities including your own.
So, honestly, if no human can prove or disprove either side, does that make the entire debate null and void? That's what this makes it sound like. However the morality and explanations that we DO have make God and The Bible perfectly viable options.
There are a lot of explanations trying to disprove God but none of them really work. On top of that, there is a certain emptiness and incompleteness to them, perhaps why I for one and over 75% of others don't subscribe to it.
It's documented, the same way books and now DVD's document. Will they say WW2 was a mythical event in 2000 years?
So, honestly, if no human can prove or disprove either side, does that make the entire debate null and void? That's what this makes it sound like. However the morality and explanations that we DO have make God and The Bible perfectly viable options.
There are a lot of explanations trying to disprove God but none of them really work. On top of that, there is a certain emptiness and incompleteness to them, perhaps why I for one and over 75% of others don't subscribe to it.
based on my pop's stories you would the 517 attack paratroopers won ww2 all by themselves. And that Japan surrendered because they were on their way to the pacific to get ready for the invasion of the main island.
People live their lives in a method that puts value on it. They get angry when bad things happen, hence "they care". If we were random beings, we would not put value on each other or live in that manner. Therefore I do not believe we are random beings here by chance. That would leave God as the creator.
Let me post a reminder here that this is the Atheism & Agnosticism forum. Besides the fundamental purpose of the forum, that is, to discuss issues having to do with Atheism & Agnosticism, the owner of this site (Administrator) has prohibited the act of proselytizing in this forum. Statements such as "That would leave God as the creator" are right on the verge of crossing the line. Take any and all such discussions somewhere besides the Atheism & Agnosticism forum.
It's documented, the same way books and now DVD's document. Will they say WW2 was a mythical event in 2000 years?
It is "documented" by 4 sources of unknown authorship, which were clearly borrowing from each other. We have no attestation outside of these religious texts, no external evidence, no physical evidence, nothing. Why should we assume this is any less a myth than Achilles or Gilgamesh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
So, honestly, if no human can prove or disprove either side, does that make the entire debate null and void? That's what this makes it sound like.
This is true as long as your view of the supernatural does not involve natural consequences. If however makes promises or predictions about measurable reality, things like prosperity, health, or well being, we can evaluate that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 909er
There are a lot of explanations trying to disprove God but none of them really work. On top of that, there is a certain emptiness and incompleteness to them, perhaps why I for one and over 75% of others don't subscribe to it.
There is no need to disprove God (and logically no way to do so). We can, however examine the evidence for God. And it is so lacking as to be virtually nonexistent. the best attempts I have seen rely of on some pretty sophisticated semantic wrangling, but no evidence.
But if you would like to go back to discussing morality, perhaps we can keep this thread from being mistaken as an attempt to win souls... I am curious to know how you back your assertions about the impossibility of subjective morality, or even biologically based objective morality.
-NoCapo
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
