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.
There has been proof, but proof that many people choose not to accept. Fulfilled prophecies might be explained away as "Well, maybe they wrote it after it happened!", even if it can be shown such was not the case. Some might say that the remains found in the Red Sea were made up just to prove the Exodus account. Some might suggest that something as complex as DNA which some says seems to be written almost like a biological computer language can come up by chance or that something can truly come from nothing!
"many people", "some might" - boy, those are sure logically defensible arguments - NOT.
Put it out there, with trackable citations, or you got nuthin'.
"To some, the concept of having faith in a higher power or a set of religious beliefs is nonsensical. Indeed, many view religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as unfounded and unreasonable.
Norman Geisler and Frank Turek argue, however, that Christianity is not only more reasonable than all other belief systems, but is indeed more rational than unbelief itself. With conviction and clear thinking, Geisler and Turek guide readers through some of the traditional, tested arguments for the existence of a creator God. They move into an examination of the source of morality and the reliability of the New Testament accounts concerning Jesus. The final section of the book deals with a detailed investigation of the claims of Christ. This volume will be an interesting read for those skeptical about Christianity, as well as a helpful resource for Christians seeking to articulate a more sophisticated defense of their faith."
Well, I'll be darned! Two Christians assert that Christianity is the best belief system of all!
That's as compelling an argument as claiming that communism is the best socio-economic system because, hey, Marx and Lenin and Mao have all said so! So, following the ... ahem, 'logic' ... that you're serving up in this thread, it's close-minded not to agree with the communists about communism. Right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lucas
There has been proof, but proof that many people choose not to accept. Fulfilled prophecies might be explained away as "Well, maybe they wrote it after it happened!", even if it can be shown such was not the case. Some might say that the remains found in the Red Sea were made up just to prove the Exodus account. Some might suggest that something as complex as DNA which some says seems to be written almost like a biological computer language can come up by chance or that something can truly come from nothing!
'Some might say' they saw Elvis working the late shift at a Circle K in Sarasota. That, and a serving of personal incredulity, is your argument?
Look, I can see that you're striving to cover every bad and nonsensical argument. But don't you think it would be better - or maybe just a tad less ridiculous - to focus on advancing just one fallacious argument rather that skipping from one red-herring to another?
"To some, the concept of having faith in a higher power or a set of religious beliefs is nonsensical. Indeed, many view religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as unfounded and unreasonable.
Norman Geisler and Frank Turek argue, however, that Christianity is not only more reasonable than all other belief systems, but is indeed more rational than unbelief itself. With conviction and clear thinking, Geisler and Turek guide readers through some of the traditional, tested arguments for the existence of a creator God. They move into an examination of the source of morality and the reliability of the New Testament accounts concerning Jesus. The final section of the book deals with a detailed investigation of the claims of Christ. This volume will be an interesting read for those skeptical about Christianity, as well as a helpful resource for Christians seeking to articulate a more sophisticated defense of their faith."
Is that the same Normal Geisler who testified that his expertise on the subject of the existence of Satan came from, among other things, his studies of UFO phenomena? That would be the same testimony where he said that UFOs are one of the means by which Satan deceives us.
Seems like a reliable source to me. Someone would really have to be closed minded not to accept that at face value.
There has been proof, but proof that many people choose not to accept. Fulfilled prophecies might be explained away as "Well, maybe they wrote it after it happened!", even if it can be shown such was not the case. Some might say that the remains found in the Red Sea were made up just to prove the Exodus account. Some might suggest that something as complex as DNA which some says seems to be written almost like a biological computer language can come up by chance or that something can truly come from nothing!
1) If I say, "In the next 10 years, Event X is going to happen," and then in the next 10 years, Event X happens, that doesn't mean it was a fulfilled prophecy.
2) So apparently, you are only willing to accept evidence that coincides with what you already believe. This is called confirmation bias.
3) There is much more evidence for evolution than there is for creation. Why don't you believe it?
4) You have a weird sense of what constitutes proof.
Many seemingly arrogant atheists would like to sit back and claim that those who label themselves as Christians are closed-minded.
There are hundreds of contradictions in the New Testament. Let us know when you accept them as true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lucas
What I'm saying is, some atheists seem to have an absolute refusal of even the possibility of Intelligent Design. There are many logical arguments for it, particularly when one considers the complexity of DNA and so on and so forth. At least some agnostics claim they don't know.
Mind you, I'm talking about the absolute refusal to even accept the possibility that Intelligent Design, let alone biblical accounts, are true.
Design by Yahweh? Yahweh isn't that intelligent.
Speaking of biblical accounts, the account of the cities destroyed by the Israelites during Exodus has been proven as untrue.
Three of the alleged cities weren't even inhabited at the time they were claimed to have been destroyed/captured.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lucas
Norman Geisler and Frank Turek argue, however, that Christianity is not only more reasonable than all other belief systems, but is indeed more rational than unbelief itself.
The need to believe in a god-thing is itself irrational.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lucas
With conviction and clear thinking, Geisler and Turek guide readers through some of the traditional, tested arguments for the existence of a creator God.
I'll bet they gloss over any discrepancies with great haste and muddled thinking. I'm sure their entire array of "arguments" are all predicated on logical fallacies.
OP, if you are using Geisler and Turek's book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" as your arguments of "proof", it's already been shown several times that their arguments don't hold water. Circular reasoning and subjective arguments are not good enough for rational thinkers.
Speaking of biblical accounts, the account of the cities destroyed by the Israelites during Exodus has been proven as untrue.
Three of the alleged cities weren't even inhabited at the time they were claimed to have been destroyed/captured.
And when they dug up bones around those sites and bring in the genealogists, they discovered something else - the Israelites are the Canaanites. Actually they are slightly less than 100% certain of that, so theists put that theory on shakier ground than a book written around 750 BC about events taking place roughly 1200-1500 years earlier.
What I'm saying is, some atheists seem to have an absolute refusal of even the possibility of Intelligent Design. There are many logical arguments for it, particularly when one considers the complexity of DNA and so on and so forth. At least some agnostics claim they don't know.
Mind you, I'm talking about the absolute refusal to even accept the possibility that Intelligent Design, let alone biblical accounts, are true.
No there are not many logical arguments for Intelligent Design, especially if you add in a specific god other than the nature god of Deism. Please read the actual science that supports evolution.
Underpinning the argument is the fact that it is a misunderstanding of the word theory as used in science to characterize evolution as a theory in the sense of the word as used by lay people.
Quote:
It is important to realize at the outset that evolution is not "just a theory." It is, again, a theory and a fact. Although non-scientists often equate "theory" with "hunch" or "wild guess," the Oxford English Dictionary defines a scientific theory as "a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts." In science, a theory is a convincing explanation for a diversity of data from nature. Thus scientists speak of "atomic theory" and "gravitational theory" as explanations for the properties of matter and the mutual attraction of physical bodies. It makes as little sense to doubt the factuality of evolution as to doubt the factuality of gravity.
What I'm saying is, some atheists seem to have an absolute refusal of even the possibility of Intelligent Design. There are many logical arguments for it, particularly when one considers the complexity of DNA and so on and so forth. At least some agnostics claim they don't know.
Mind you, I'm talking about the absolute refusal to even accept the possibility that Intelligent Design, let alone biblical accounts, are true.
So let me get this straight. You're arguing that the rejection of one particular religious doctrine, referred to by its adherents as intelligent design, proves that those who reject it are closed minded.
No. There is absolutely no evidence for creationism, which you prefer to call intelligent design, that is not equally or better explained by a non-theistic, non-designer world view. If you want to see someone be open minded, maybe you should consider the evidence for the indisputable fact of evolution.
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.
