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.
... But in all his writings, and there are over 100,000 pages of journals, letters and so forth, only once is Jesus Christ found; he used "Providence" which is vague.
It took me by surprise that anyone does not know what Providence means.
I attend meetings and functions with groups where the phrase 'Providence' is used regularly. It seems odd to me that someone would consider it as 'vague'.
Quote:
... divine providence, or simply providence, is God's intervention in the Universe. The term Divine Providence (usually capitalized) is also used as a title of God. A distinction is usually made between "general providence", which refers to God's continuous upholding of the existence and natural order of the Universe, and "special providence", which refers to God's extraordinary intervention in the life of people. Miracles and even retribution generally fall in the latter category.
How in the heck do I know how anyone worships deity.
I merely site the historical record. Draw your own conclusions.
In other words, you don't know which god they believed in but because you want it to be a Christian nation, you presented the Declaration of Independence as evidence, asserting that since "god" and "creator" were mentioned one time each means that they must be referring to the Christian god.
And I did draw my own conclusions. Which is, the "god" and "creator" in the Declaration of Independence isn't referring to the Christian god, or to any other specific god. This is because they knew that the people living in the colonies weren't all Christians, including some of them. I also looked at other things to see if there's other evidence. The first amendment is another piece of evidence that indicates that the US wasn't meant to be a Christian nation.
Some of them were Deist. 3 or 4 of them practiced deism or so it is said.which I believe is God created the world but doesn't get involved in any othe way.The world is enough to prove Gods existence.No devine revelation.
Deism was growing in those days.
Why do you believe that the world is enough to prove God's existence?
It has been my understanding that from the first World War, any one not Muslim, Hindu Buddhist ect, was Christian.
Many Americans visiting Europe then used that denotation for the lack of a better description of them selves, hoping to indicate a more honorable lifestyle.
By the 1960s that denotation was lost realizing people lie, a lot.
It has been my understanding that from the first World War, any one not Muslim, Hindu Buddhist ect, was Christian.
Many Americans visiting Europe then used that denotation for the lack of a better description of them selves, hoping to indicate a more honorable lifestyle.
By the 1960s that denotation was lost realizing people lie, a lot.
It seems right to me. Growing up in India, all my siblings and me, and all my friends, attending catholic schools all our lives, did not think of the nuns (all Irish) who ran the school and also taught, as anything other than Christian. The various denominations were lost on us, we had no idea there were varieties of Christians. They all pray to Jesus and go to Church.
Why do you believe that the world is enough to prove God's existence?
Generally, when you think deeply about existence it is the only conclusion that makes sense. Of course, that excludes those thinkers using glib oneliners like "affirming the consequent." Given the inherent motivation of life, it is hard to imagine dead lifeless "processes" ever acquiring (or "emerging") a motivation of any kind. Atheists do seem comfortable with such a weird existence despite their own myriad motivations. Its attendant purposelessness is even creepier, IMO. But perhaps the most incomprehensible of all is our unique capabilities, thoughts, interests, motives, and agendas that aspire to "something" higher. I guess to an atheist, "It just IS."
Generally, when you think deeply about existence it is the only conclusion that makes sense.
Except it does not make sense, it fails for the common reason that when the argument is also applied to the god did it hypothesis, you once again get an eternal chain of creator gods. If existence requires a god, then the existence of that god requires another god, and that god, ... ad infinitum. And the flawed Kalam's special pleading mantra does not refute the problem, it just pretends to answer it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Of course, that excludes those thinkers using glib oneliners like "affirming the consequent."
That you need to dismiss a valid objection as 'glib oneliners' is evidence you have no valid arguments for your position, therefore you need to rely, as usual, on an ad hominem. A PhD should not need to use methods cranks use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Given the inherent motivation of life, it is hard to imagine dead lifeless "processes" ever acquiring (or "emerging") a motivation of any kind.
Then do not imagine, think rationally. Any life form that does not have any type of motivation will die out. Only those with any attribute that 'motivates' it to survive will do so. It is hard to imagine life NOT acquiring motivation when one thinks rationally. We can explain how evolution works in the science section.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Atheists do seem comfortable with such a weird existence despite their own myriad motivations. Its attendant purposelessness is even creepier, IMO. But perhaps the most incomprehensible of all is our unique capabilities, thoughts, interests, motives, and agendas that aspire to "something" higher.
That is because we understand the basics of evolution, and do not need to dismiss it as "emerging" with irrelevant quote signs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I guess to an atheist, "It just IS."
Yet theists (including you) are happy their god just IS. Thank you for your classic example of applying your own argument to your hypothesis and seeing your hypothesis also fail, because you argument IS that bad.
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.
