Why can't some Christians explain thier faith with out quoting the bible? (paradise, soul)
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.
Then why don't you start another thread here and produce this scientific evidence you claim exists?
There is no evidence of a 'creation'. Like all creationists, you note that the universe exists and immediately jump to the unfounded conclusion that there MUST have been a time when it didn't exist and therefore, had to be created. When you can produce verifiable evidence of a time when there was 'NOTHING', you will perhaps be able to claim a 'creation'.
There is no verifiable evidence ANYWHERE of a historical 'Jesus The Christ'.
This kind of ignorance doesn't warrant a response.
Yes it does! Perhaps you could start with your claims for 'a historical Jesus The Christ' and then we could move on to your claim that .... "Modern science has provided very compelling evidences for an intelligent Being being the cause of our universe, sustaining it, and making it so fine tuned to provide for human life..."
...and the evidence that these 'predictions' came to pass can be found ...where?
Greenleaf died 165 years ago. In those days, doctors insisted that bleeding patients would cure them of illness. Things have changed somewhat since then.
No, we have verifiable evidence to confirm it. No faith required.
No. The verifiable, objective evidence tells us that 99.9% of the time, motorists behind us DO stop in time. Again...no faith is required. Our belief that motorists behind us will, in most cases, stop in time is based on verifiable evidence, not on 'faith'. Faith is only required when there is no evidence for something.
Again no! The verifiable, objective evidence proves that 99.9% of the time, aeroplanes DO NOT crash before reaching their destination. Again...no faith is required. Our belief that aeroplane do not normally crash can be verified by the available evidence not 'faith'. Faith is only required when there is no evidence for something.
Not true. In fact, very little of our lives are based on 'faith'. For many of us, faith does not exist at all in our lives.
What is preventing you from admitting that everything around you and IN you doesnt look like the product of blind random chances from non intelligent without a shred of purpose ?
We don't deny that it does LOOK like that, for the perspective of ...what do theist deniers of science say...'limited human perception'...but better understanding of the way things work show that this is a human misperception and delusion. Why can't YOU accept that?
What is preventing you from admitting that everything around you and IN you doesnt look like the product of blind random chances from non intelligent without a shred of purpose ?
...but I do admit that everything around me is not "blind blinkered chance". Evolution is not "blind blinkered chance"
I'm not trying to pick on Christians here & I don't want this to become a big fight. I really would like to know. However I never never understood why some can't defend thier faith without mentioning the bible. If your strong in your faith then why not use your own words?
They can't defend it without the bible because they couldn't have it without the bible. The bible is the the advertisement for buying into Christianity. It lead consumers away from Judaism.
IMO, is the reason for all religious text. It would be silly for some to dismiss the very text that was used in convincing them to buy the product. Not saying some won't try, but, it won't be the norm. These texts are simply the old fashioned billboards of today. Humans are consumers and can be swayed to buy anything if advertised enough. They knew that then, and we know that now.
Can someone prove they like toothpaste without advertising it? Yes, by word of mouth, but that simply lacks a large audience and to be honest they usually just quote what the commercial said to lure them into using the toothpaste. To really advertise effectively you need to reach a lot of people. Hence the religious texts that most all religions use in some form or another.
Advertisement is used in all religion, not just Christians. There are hundreds. Why, because it works. Before technology it was simply written advertisement, before written advertisement it was spoken. But the intent was the same and it was used the same way we do now. To sell a product or an idea. To gain popularity, to make importance out of something that on it's own would not be.
...but I do admit that everything around me is not "blind blinkered chance". Evolution is not "blind blinkered chance"
What is preventing you from rebutting my post?
In the macro evolutionary THEORY, there is no intelligent selection going on...it is based on random accidents which are mutations . So again : When you look around , do you see all the incredible Order, Precision, Specified complexity in things, many independent systems working in unison to accomplish a specific outcome, etc.... as coming from NON intelligence and design ? (I cant see where i have not rebutted your posts. I hope you will elaborate on your answer to this post)
We don't deny that it does LOOK like that, for the perspective of ...what do theist deniers of science say...'limited human perception'...but better understanding of the way things work show that this is a human misperception and delusion. Why can't YOU accept that?
Why do you think Theists are automatic 'Deniers of Science' ? We are not. We are people who see real modern science as confirming the Theistic Worldview in every direction One looks . Even the Leader of the Human Genome Project stated such...that 'there is no incompatibility between Science and The Bible (theism)' .
It is abundantly clear to everyone who has an unbiased mind that a supernatural personaL intelligent Entity (A Person will a will and intellect and incredible power to pull it off) was responsible for the many personal/intelligent realities that abound. For instance, if you dont believe that over 150 extremely narrow scientifically defined Physics Constants and LIfe Enabling Constants to our cosmos/solar system/earth which all work in perfect harmony and in some cases...to the 120th decimal point critical accuracy ... were NOT from a willful intelligent Designer, then you would have to believe that a far far less example of complexity such as a Bicycle could come about fully formed and fully functioning given the right explosion of materials , allotted time, with mega chances . Do you think there is ANY possibility of say 20 parts of a Bicycle being assembled in this fashion for a very specific purpose ? Why or why not ? Would you think a simple basketball could be constructed in the same manner as 'atheists' propose for the origins of our Universe and accidental One celled Pond Protozoa ?
What is the 'chance' that some People just dont want to admit to a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) existing, thereby making him the owner of everything within the cosmos including Us , out of sheer pride and arrogance because they want to be the god of their own life , dont desire ultimate moral accountability , and refuse to surrender to anyone but Self ... just as the Bible explicitly states ?
I trust you will give answer to each point above elaborating as much as you care to since you see logic in an atheistic worldview .
Why do you think Theists are automatic 'Deniers of Science' ? We are not. We are people who see real modern science as confirming the Theistic Worldview in every direction One looks . Even the Leader of the Human Genome Project stated such...that 'there is no incompatibility between Science and The Bible (theism)' .
I didn't say 'All theists'. The idea I had in mind was those theists who come to the stage of choosing between the evidence of science and what they prefer to believe and opt for the latter. Then they very often try to argue that science could be mistaken, which is why I quoted the 'limited human perception' line used by the kind of theists who deny science -just where it conflicts with their faith, mind, they trust it implicitly, otherwise and even hold up science facts (even if they are misunderstood or misrepresented ) as gospel truth, if it seems to support their beliefs.
Quote:
It is abundantly clear to everyone who has an unbiased mind that a supernatural personaL intelligent Entity (A Person will a will and intellect and incredible power to pull it off) was responsible for the many personal/intelligent realities that abound. For instance, if you dont believe that over 150 extremely narrow scientifically defined Physics Constants and LIfe Enabling Constants to our cosmos/solar system/earth which all work in perfect harmony and in some cases...to the 120th decimal point critical accuracy ... were NOT from a willful intelligent Designer, then you would have to believe that a far far less example of complexity such as a Bicycle could come about fully formed and fully functioning given the right explosion of materials , allotted time, with mega chances.
It is abundantly clear to any any unbiased person with a reasonable grasp of the evidence that such a conclusion is by no means correct. I cannot believe that you haven't seen explanations that the 'physical constants' argument is back to front, and the bicycle formed by an explosion is ignoring the physical process that cause combinations of materials and is not in any way comparable with the action of an explosion or whirlwind or any of the other invalid analogies employed by 'some' science - denying theists.
Quote:
Do you think there is ANY possibility of say 20 parts of a Bicycle being assembled in this fashion for a very specific purpose ? Why or why not ? Would you think a simple basketball could be constructed in the same manner as 'atheists' propose for the origins of our Universe and accidental One celled Pond Protozoa ?
No, because that is a completely inaccurate analogy of the theories about cosmic origins and abiogenesis. The processes involved are happening today all the time and are known. This is not to say that some kind of 'god' is ruled out. I am not as sure (not to use the term 'biased') as you are. I actually see the evidence as making more sense without a god being involved and am willing to argue it -but on scientific grounds, not religious.
Similarly there are some workable theories of abiogenesis and some evidence. That is not proof, of course, but it means that a creating mind is far from as 'abundantly clear to everyone who has an unbiased mind' as you would like to suppose. In fact I am unbiased enough (not totally )to see the case for a creating mind whereas you not only do not see the counter case but clearly do not want to see it. The bias is clearly shown by your digging up of an award wining scientist who believes the Bible and ignoring the equally celebrated ones that don't.
Quote:
What is the 'chance' that some People just dont want to admit to a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) existing, thereby making him the owner of everything within the cosmos including Us , out of sheer pride and arrogance because they want to be the god of their own life , dont desire ultimate moral accountability , and refuse to surrender to anyone but Self ... just as the Bible explicitly states ?
Considerably less than those who cannot, on rational grounds, honestly believe in a personal theistic creator - particularly the one depicted in the Bible, and moreover cannot believe that the stories in the Bible are true and thus neither are the god - claims. It is vanishingly less than those who look around and do not see a 'personal theistic creator' at work in human affairs. They then may accept that a creative mind is possibly behind it - I cannot logically rule it out myself - but so what? It simply doesn't matter other than academically, so I and they can afford to be agnostic about it and that means infinitely less than your chance of just not wanting to admit to a 'personal theistic creator'.
Quote:
I trust you will give answer to each point above elaborating as much as you care to since you see logic in an atheistic worldview .
I do indeed. In fact I see that an unbiased mind would consider that the evidence (for any sorta 'god') is so slender and arguable that belief either way is illogical and so the default unbelief (based on not knowing for sure - it's called 'agnosticism') is not only logically sound but logically mandatory.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-23-2012 at 10:14 AM..
Reason: believe rather than accept.
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.
) as gospel truth, if it seems to support their beliefs. 
)to see the case for a creating mind whereas you not only do not see the counter case but clearly do not want to see it. The bias is clearly shown by your digging up of an award wining scientist who believes the Bible and ignoring the equally celebrated ones that don't.
