For The Sake Of Truth

[ananomyx]

We should whenever possible, show them by scripture. An open Bible is the best policy. Then they aren't taking your word for it. When a Bible is not at hand, they can be encouraged to write down the scripture references and check out everything discussed with the word of God to see if the things that were said are so. I often carry tracts in my purse to hand out.

yes but we have to remember some people dont view the word of God as inspired by God. They view it as a book written by a bunch of people. Thats how I use to view it. Each individual is somewhere else in their faith. We must meet them were they are at and be able to answer any of their questions. If they dont believe in God then it wouldnt make sense to argue from the scriptures because they dont view them as anything special. We need to be like Paul and meet them where they are at individually. If they dont believe in God then I explain why belief in a God is necessary for there to be a universe. I explain how Universe had a real beginning according to science and explain how there has to be a god, using logic and reason, then I progressively lead them to the Christian view of God, and how it is valid and true using science and history so they are able to see that it is true objectively. That is how I came to faith. I use to laugh when people would talk to me about God without being able to defemd their views with facts outside the bible, it wasnt until someone approached me and was able to truly answer my questions beginning with whether or not truth really existed and moving to whether or not a God existed, then to proving that God is the one that is revealed in the Bible and He is the one who gave us the bible. To underatanding that in order for their to be an objective reference point in morality, we need a guide to show us what good and evil really is (The Bible) But we must be able to answer anyones questions and objections according to 1Peter 3:15, and thats what I love to do, and I encourage others to do likewise There is a website believerationally.com which helps in answering those common quesrions unbelievers have if you want to check it out. And also carry tracts with me for those people who believe already in a God, and are just wondering more about who He is, but before I like explaining the authenticity of the bible, and Gods ability to provide us with One guide (not many), to help us while we are here on earth, if He is really All loving, all powerful, and all knowing. Thanks for your time.

 

[chrysostom]

They view it as a book written by a bunch of people.

translated by a bunch of people
interpreted by a bunch of people
wrested by a bunch of people

unto their own destruction

 

[Hedshaker]

What's your answer?

That there is no evidence of any kind that the universe was supernaturally created. God-of-the-gaps aside, what caused the Big Bang event is not known or what was the state of existence preceding the Big Bang event. Nothing at all wrong with "don't know" when knowledge is not in evidence.

 

[Hedshaker]

Hey. Maybe you aren't aware but Faith in GOD doesn't require a lack of scientific belief. Nor does science refute a watchmaker, or Creator. At a bare minimum, you cannot refute something based on not having experienced it.

Straw man. I didn't say any of that. Indeed, you can be a theist and a scientist but science does not concern itself with none-falsifiable claims. Therefore, theist scientists should leave their gods and supernatural beliefs at the lab door.

Science is great. But all is of God, including man and his derived means of observation and knowledge acquisition.

Argument from cherished belief. If that's not a logical fallacy then it should be.

You don't have to want the love of God. You don't have to be hateful either though.

I do not love or hate what I do not believe exists. That would be silly.

You can act like your unique existence and potential as it pertains to all other existence is just a matter of chance, I guess. But that could lead to a very underwhelming existence. Not to mention that even If you think everything came to be from dust, something made that dust. Something cause it to be, and, or caused the things that caused it to be.

Then by that same argument something must have caused God. It's your argument you just make an exception for your God.

No matter what; existence is something. Something cannot come from literally nothing at all.

What, not even God? Your logic is sound, except when it isn't The universe may have had a beginning but that doesn't speak for existence itself, about which there is still much to learn. Maybe, just maybe there never was "nothing at all"? Just a thought not a claim.

There is a creative force. It is much more than that as well, but now's not the time.

You are free to believe whatever you wish

Thanks. Good luck.

And good luck to you as well

Regards

 

[Right Divider]

That there is no evidence of any kind that the universe was supernaturally created.

Said the blind man.

God-of-the-gaps aside, what caused the Big Bang event is not known or what was the state of existence preceding the Big Bang event. Nothing at all wrong with "don't know" when knowledge is not in evidence.

Even the "Big Bang" far from self evident. That is why there are other theories in the arena. All of these "scientific" theories of the origin of the universe have their problems, so to claim these as evidence against the Biblical account is poor "science".

 

[Hedshaker]

Originally Posted by Hedshaker View Post
That there is no evidence of any kind that the universe was supernaturally created.

Said the blind man.

Got any?

Even the "Big Bang" far from self evident. That is why there are other theories in the arena. All of these "scientific" theories of the origin of the universe have their problems, so to claim these as evidence against the Biblical account is poor "science".

Nor is the "Biblical account" science. Science does not take into account none falsifiable claims.

 

[Right Divider]

Got any?

Milk?

The evidence is all around you and yet you refuse to see it.

Where would someone begin with you?

Nor is the "Biblical account" science. Science does not take into account none falsifiable claims.

The actual word 'science' simply means knowledge.

The actual operational science that we are all familiar with (the kind that allows us to build computers, for example) can only explain the way things are and NOT how they got to be that way.

 

[Hedshaker]

Milk?

The evidence is all around you and yet you refuse to see it.

Where would someone begin with you?

Right, so... there is a universe therefore God must have done it? I see..... moving swiftly on-----

The actual word 'science' simply means knowledge.

The actual operational science that we are all familiar with (the kind that allows us to build computers, for example) can only explain the way things are and NOT how they got to be that way.

science
ˈsʌɪəns/
noun
noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
"the world of science and technology"
synonyms: branch of knowledge, body of knowledge/information/facts, area of study, discipline, field
"the science of criminology"
a particular area of science.
plural noun: sciences
"veterinary science"
a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
"the science of criminology"

To be clear: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

 

[Right Divider]

Right, so... there is a universe therefore God must have done it? I see..... moving swiftly on-----

I said NO such thing. But you want to believe it that way.

It's clear that you've rejected God and you're left with your own self made opinions about stuff.

To be clear: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Yes, that is someone's definition.

I'm sure that you think that science means philosophical materialism since it's all that you have.

 

[Hedshaker]

I said NO such thing. But you want to believe it that way.

Then what do you mean by "the evidence is all around you?"

It's clear that you've rejected God and you're left with your own self made opinions about stuff.

My self made opinions are as good as yours. Better IMHO since they make no assumptions. I don't know what caused the formation of the universe and neither do you, though, of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

Yes, that is someone's definition.

I'm sure that you think that science means philosophical materialism since it's all that you have.

Don't know does not = philosophical materialism. But it's true I reject none falsifiable supernatural claims.

 

[Right Divider]

Then what do you mean by "the evidence is all around you?"

Please explain the non-material nature of information. Thanks,

My self made opinions are as good as yours. Better IMHO since they make no assumptions. I don't know what caused the formation of the universe and neither do you, though, of course, you are free to believe whatever you wish.

You make assumptions, you just don't even realize it (apparently).

Don't know does not = philosophical materialism. But it's true I reject none falsifiable supernatural claims.

Sure.

 

[Hedshaker]

Please explain the non-material nature of information. Thanks,

That's a question not an answer. You answer my question first.

You make assumptions, you just don't even realize it (apparently).

What assumptions do I make. Try hard not to straw man anything I have said. Thanks.

Sure.

Thank you. Your honesty is appreciated.

 

[gcthomas]

Please explain the non-material nature of information.

Could you supply an example of non-material information, please, so that we have something to discuss? I assume you have something specific in mind.

 

[Hedshaker]

Could you supply an example of non-material information, please, so that we have something to discuss? I assume you have something specific in mind.

I'm suspecting DNA etc but we'll see

 

[gcthomas]

I'm suspecting DNA etc but we'll see

I'll take a punt, and hazard a guess that if you took away all the material atoms and interatomic bonds, there wouldn't be much in the way of information left immaterially.

:idunno:

 

[Hedshaker]

I'll take a punt, and hazard a guess that if you took away all the material atoms and interatomic bonds, there wouldn't be much in the way of information left immaterially.

:idunno:

Yep, when it comes right down to it they got nothing. But the evidence is all around you apparently.

 

[Right Divider]

Could you supply an example of non-material information, please, so that we have something to discuss? I assume you have something specific in mind.

Information itself is non-material.

 

[Right Divider]

That's a question not an answer. You answer my question first.

Information.

What assumptions do I make. Try hard not to straw man anything I have said. Thanks.

Your assumption seems to be that there is no Creator and no need for one.

Thank you. Your honesty is appreciated.

You're welcome.

 

[gcthomas]

Information itself is non-material.

And yet you can't give me an example of information that doesn't involve the material. Hmmmm.

Can you define 'information itself' for me in a way that doesn't require material to be involved?

 

[Hedshaker]

Information.

What use is information without the material medium on which it exists?

Your assumption seems to be that there is no Creator and no need for one

.

I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of an invisible, disembodied mind that created the universe, but even if I thought there is one I would be wondering where it came from. I don't buy the always existed apologetic. I'm also sceptical of supernatural claims and ghost tales, the paranormal, astrology, magic, the occult, psychic ability..... I could go on and on. I don't buy a word of it, and I'm not alone by a long chalk. I'm a sceptic and make no apology for it and I don't see why that should bother you. Horses for courses, right?