Noah's Ark Found?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]They have no Idea where it came from, why it appeared, They "Think" it came from Black Holes. They don't know where those black holes came from, they believe we came from something that was cooled. How did Life forms come to be then? IF we were formed from a Burning rock and then cooled? Surely that would kill anything.Snipes_2

OK, honest question: are you actually interested in learning about the scientific method?

The scientific naturalists always try to lump the pseudo science of the speculations about origins, with practical, operational science in an attempt to bestow credibility on the wild speculations often put forth by the scientists that wear the cloak of metaphysical shamans, speculaing about origins. Their common mantra is "We don't know how it happened but don't worry, God didn't do it."

Great, they found remains of an old boat. Obviously Noah ark was the first boat ever built. GettingTired

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

OK, honest question: are you actually interested in learning about the scientific method?

blackregiment

The scientific naturalists always try to lump the pseudo science of the speculations about origins, with practical, operational science in an attempt to bestow credibility on the wild speculations often put forth by the scientists that wear the cloak of metaphysical shamans, speculaing about origins. Their common mantra is "We don't know how it happened but don't worry, God didn't do it."

I love how some people think everything is a huge conspiracy against religion and God. Why? The truth is that there are scientists who have accepted that the two could go hand-in-hand and co-exist.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Why doesn't it need proof? While they are trying to explain how we came to be, why couldn't they figure out how the universe came to be as well?GabuEx

If I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Not at all. That is why current discoveries regarding the complexity of life at the cellular and genetic level, as well as in the field of astrophysics are increasing revealing that scientific naturalism requires more faith than Christianity.

"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use." Robert Griffiths

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or rather Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?" George Greenstein

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]Why doesn't it need proof? While they are trying to explain how we came to be, why couldn't they figure out how the universe came to be as well?blackregiment

If I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Not at all. That is why current discoveries regarding the complexity of life at the cellular and genetic level, as well as in the field of astrophysics are increasing revealing that scientific naturalism requires more faith than Christianity.

"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use." Robert Griffiths

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or rather Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?" George Greenstein

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="789shadow"]

*bangs head against a wall* For the last damn time. The Big Bang theory is not about how the singularity came to be, but about how that singularity formed the Universe as we know it.

clubsammich91

At one time science was the search for truth, wherever it may lead. The founders of almost every modern scientific discipline were people of faith. They studied nature to gain a deeper understanding of our Creator. In recent decades, the scientific academy has redefined science to include only consideration of natural causes based on the pre-supposition that all that exists is the natural world. While practical. operational science has led to many positive benefits to humanity, the speculations of the pseudo science of origins has been "bundled"with practical, operational science under the same umbrella, "science" in an attempt to give those speculations credibility.

[QUOTE="clubsammich91"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] I know, I just said if they can explain that, why can't they explain how our universe came to be? Did we just materialize out of nowhere?blackregiment

At one time science was the search for truth, wherever it may lead. The founders of almost every modern scientific discipline were people of faith. They studied nature to gain a deeper understanding of our Creator. In recent decades, the scientific academy has redefined science to include only consideration of natural causes based on the pre-supposition that all that exists is the natural world. While practical. operational science has led to many positive benefits to humanity, the speculations of the pseudo science of origins has been "bundled"with practical, operational science under the same umbrella, "science" in an attempt to give those speculations credibility.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Answer the question, please.

GabuEx

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

And if someone sees the words, "I love you" written in the wet sand on the beach, do I need to be able to tell you who wrote it for you to know that it did not occur by natural causes, that it was written by an intelligent agent?

And when we look at the complex code written in DNA including the newly discovered sub-routines embedded within, a code that Bill Gates claims is far more sophisticated than any computer code written by intelligent man, are we to assume that complex code wrote itself through unintelligent natural causes by random chance?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Your question is basically asking if I believe in the Big Bang Theory? You don't need to explain how something came to pass, just how it's here now?blackregiment

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

And if someone sees the words, "I love you" written in the wet sand on the beach, do I need to be able to tell you who wrote it for you to know that it did not occur by natural causes, that it was written by an intelligent agent?

And when we look at the complex code written in DNA including the newly discovered sub-routines embedded within, a code that Bill Gates claims is far more sophisticated than any computer code written by intelligent man, are we to assume that complex code wrote itself through unintelligent natural causes by random chance?

At one time science was the search for truth, wherever it may lead. The founders of almost every modern scientific discipline were people of faith. They studied nature to gain a deeper understanding of our Creator. In recent decades, the scientific academy has redefined science to include only consideration of natural causes based on the pre-supposition that all that exists is the natural world. While practical. operational science has led to many positive benefits to humanity, the speculations of the pseudo science of origins has been "bundled"with practical, operational science under the same umbrella, "science" in an attempt to give those speculations credibility.

blackregiment

Sigmund Freud would have a field day with this stuff.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]At one time science was the search for truth, wherever it may lead. The founders of almost every modern scientific discipline were people of faith. They studied nature to gain a deeper understanding of our Creator. In recent decades, the scientific academy has redefined science to include only consideration of natural causes based on the pre-supposition that all that exists is the natural world. While practical. operational science has led to many positive benefits to humanity, the speculations of the pseudo science of origins has been "bundled"with practical, operational science under the same umbrella, "science" in an attempt to give those speculations credibility.

_Tobli_

Sigmund Freud would have a field day with this stuff.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

If I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

jalexbrown

Not at all. That is why current discoveries regarding the complexity of life at the cellular and genetic level, as well as in the field of astrophysics are increasing revealing that scientific naturalism requires more faith than Christianity.

"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use." Robert Griffiths

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or rather Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?" George Greenstein

Your premise is incorrect. I do not have a "grudge" against practical operational science at all. I love science. The problem is the pseudo science of origins that masquerades as science while making metaphysical claims that are mere speculations of man. Dawkins is a good example of this type of pseudo scientist. Science has been defined by the science academy as limited to the study of the natural world. The assumption is that all that exists is the natural world, yet these pseudo scientists like Dawkins make metaphysical, based on their worldview, about the supernatural. Many of their speculations require a leap of faith far greater than faith in the resurrected Christ.

I always wondered... In Noah and his family were the only people left alive after the flood... How did they reproduce?

EDIT Actually, nevermind that. I just read the discovery was made by "Noah's Ark Ministries International research team". Yeah, that's a completely unbiased source...

Anyways, why are they so sure it's not just an old house?

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"][QUOTE="blackregiment"]

Not at all. That is why current discoveries regarding the complexity of life at the cellular and genetic level, as well as in the field of astrophysics are increasing revealing that scientific naturalism requires more faith than Christianity.

"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn't much use." Robert Griffiths

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or rather Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being?" George Greenstein

blackregiment

Your premise is incorrect. I do not have a "grudge" against practical operational science at all. I love science. The problem is the pseudo science of origins that masquerades as science while making metaphysical claims that are mere speculations of man. Dawkins is a good example of this type of pseudo scientist. Science has been defined by the science academy as limited to the study of the natural world. The assumption is that all that exists is the natural world, yet these pseudo scientists like Dawkins make metaphysical, based on their worldview, about the supernatural. Many of their speculations require a leap of faith far greater than faith in the resurrected Christ.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]At one time science was the search for truth, wherever it may lead. The founders of almost every modern scientific discipline were people of faith. They studied nature to gain a deeper understanding of our Creator. In recent decades, the scientific academy has redefined science to include only consideration of natural causes based on the pre-supposition that all that exists is the natural world. While practical. operational science has led to many positive benefits to humanity, the speculations of the pseudo science of origins has been "bundled"with practical, operational science under the same umbrella, "science" in an attempt to give those speculations credibility.

_Tobli_

Sigmund Freud would have a field day with this stuff.

How appropriate that you would mention the atheist, Sigmund Freud, in a discussion of pseudo science. :D

"Sigmund Freud was born 150 years old this week, and his stock has never been lower. Almost no intellectual or character fault has not been ascribed to him. It is now as fashionable to revile him as it once was to revere him; he is regarded as little better than a charlatan who would have been more accurately named Fraud than Freud." source, Times Online. "Freud on the Couch" by Dr Anthony Daniels

If only the scepticism some theists place on science were equally applied to their own beliefs.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] Okay...so science requires faith. Christianity requires faith. I don't see what your grudge is with science then.jalexbrown

Your premise is incorrect. I do not have a "grudge" against practical operational science at all. I love science. The problem is the pseudo science of origins that masquerades as science while making metaphysical claims that are mere speculations of man. Dawkins is a good example of this type of pseudo scientist. Science has been defined by the science academy as limited to the study of the natural world. The assumption is that all that exists is the natural world, yet these pseudo scientists like Dawkins make metaphysical, based on their worldview, about the supernatural. Many of their speculations require a leap of faith far greater than faith in the resurrected Christ.

That is a straw man. No one has suggested that practical, operational science, "close up shop". Why do you continue to lump historical, origins science with practical, operational science, under the umbrella of "science"?

If only the scepticism some theists place on science were equally applied to their own beliefs.

ADF_Game

If only the skepticism some non-believers place on the revealed truths of Christianity were equally applied to the speculations of the scientific naturalists in the science academy. :)

[QUOTE="ADF_Game"]

If only the scepticism some theists place on science were equally applied to their own beliefs.

blackregiment

If only the skepticism some non-believers place on the revealed truths of Christianity were equally applied to the speculations of the scientific naturalists in the science academy. :)

If only you looked at your own religion as critically as you do with every other religion you have personally decided is false. In terms of scientifically looking at religion, there is nothing really to look at outside of "invisible man dun it wid magic".

If I wanted proof of variation over generations; I would simply have to turn to what selective breeding has done to the wolf. Of course in nature selective breeding is based on who is the most successful in a given environment, allowing successful traits to be passed on, causing the gradual variation over many generations that we call evolution.

With religion the "evidence" they offer they themselves would never accept from anyone else for anything.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"] Your question is basically asking if I believe in the Big Bang Theory? You don't need to explain how something came to pass, just how it's here now?blackregiment

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

And if someone sees the words, "I love you" written in the wet sand on the beach, do I need to be able to tell you who wrote it for you to know that it did not occur by natural causes, that it was written by an intelligent agent?

And when we look at the complex code written in DNA including the newly discovered sub-routines embedded within, a code that Bill Gates claims is far more sophisticated than any computer code written by intelligent man, are we to assume that complex code wrote itself through unintelligent natural causes by random chance?

God is not God (Addendum)

Rest of Series

Have fun.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="ADF_Game"]

If only the scepticism some theists place on science were equally applied to their own beliefs.

ADF_Game

If only the skepticism some non-believers place on the revealed truths of Christianity were equally applied to the speculations of the scientific naturalists in the science academy. :)

With religion the "evidence" they offer they themselves would never accept from anyone else for anything.

The fact that somone may not be aware of,e or have examined the evidence for themselves, does not equate to a lack of evidence.

Thomas Arnold (Professor of modern history at Oxford): "No one fact in the history of mankind is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort" than the fact that "Christ died and rose from the dead."

Bishop B.F. Westcott: "Indeed, taking all the evidences together it is not too much to say that there is no historical incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ."

"Dr. Greenleaf, the Royal Professor of Law at Harvard University, was one of the greatest legal minds that ever lived. He wrote the famous legal volume entitled, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, considered by many the greatest legal volume ever written. Dr. Simon Greenleaf believed the Resurrection of Jesus Christ was a hoax. And he determined, once and for all, to expose the "myth" of the Resurrection. After thoroughly examining the evidence for the resurrection — Dr. Greenleaf came to the exact opposite conclusion! He wrote a book entitled, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. In which he emphatically stated:

"it was impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead. . . ."
(Simon Greenleaf, An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice, p.29).

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of ancient history!

And not only that, Dr. Greenleaf was so convinced by the overwhelming evidence, he committed his life to Jesus Christ!" Source: Evidence That Demands a Verdict.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No, my question is asking what it says: if I see a footprint in mud, do I need to be able to tell you who it was that walked through there in order to first tell you that someone did so?

Yes or no?

Pat_McGrion

And if someone sees the words, "I love you" written in the wet sand on the beach, do I need to be able to tell you who wrote it for you to know that it did not occur by natural causes, that it was written by an intelligent agent?

And when we look at the complex code written in DNA including the newly discovered sub-routines embedded within, a code that Bill Gates claims is far more sophisticated than any computer code written by intelligent man, are we to assume that complex code wrote itself through unintelligent natural causes by random chance?

God is not God (Addendum)

Rest of Series

Have fun.

You have fun too!

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

[QUOTE="Pat_McGrion"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

And if someone sees the words, "I love you" written in the wet sand on the beach, do I need to be able to tell you who wrote it for you to know that it did not occur by natural causes, that it was written by an intelligent agent?

And when we look at the complex code written in DNA including the newly discovered sub-routines embedded within, a code that Bill Gates claims is far more sophisticated than any computer code written by intelligent man, are we to assume that complex code wrote itself through unintelligent natural causes by random chance?

blackregiment

God is not God (Addendum)

Rest of Series

Have fun.

You have fun too!

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Anything specific you want me to look at?

BTW, did you watch the videos. There about about how intelligent design is self refuting since intelligence is expressed through simplicity, not complexity.

I would try to explain this myself instead of linking videos, but this guy does a way better job.

[QUOTE="Snipes_2"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"] What, in case I missed something, is "the truth" about the Big Bang Theory?jalexbrown

-snip for size-

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of ancient history!

blackregiment

Ignored most of my post I see, then didn't really say much in relation to the part you did decide to quote. What I said was the evidence people would use to argue for their religion; they wouldn't accept as proof from any other religion. The popular Christian claim that just looking at the world was enough evidence for God wouldn't accept the same argument for evidence of Allah.

But your counter for this was to quote people that think Christ's resurrection is a historical fact; when in fact most of the world would disagree on that. If people considered someone coming back from the dead was a verified historical fact; I think most people would notice. This verified historical incident wouldn't happen to be this would it? The one with four different versions of the same event? Very accurate.

Honestly... so many one true religions who all have verified evidence and all have faith they are right, none of them with a hint of irony when they say "but ours is the one true god".

[QUOTE="xaos"][QUOTE="mattisgod01"]

Do people actaully believe Noah's ark existed? is it the same ark that had 2 of every species?

MushroomWig

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

-snip for size-

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of ancient history!

ADF_Game

Ignored most of my post I see, then didn't really say much in relation to the part you did decide to quote. What I said was the evidence people would use to argue for their religion; they wouldn't accept as proof from any other religion. The popular Christian claim that just looking at the world was enough evidence for God wouldn't accept the same argument for evidence of Allah.

But your counter for this was to quote people that think Christ's resurrection is a historical fact; when in fact most of the world would disagree on that. If people considered someone coming back from the dead was a verified historical fact; I think most people would notice. This verified historical incident wouldn't happen to be this would it? The one with four different versions of the same event? Very accurate.

Honestly... so many one true religions who all have verified evidence and all have faith they are right, none of them with a hint of irony when they say "but ours is the one true god".

The very idea of a "one true religion" is equal parts frightening and has only proven itself to be a catastrophic idea. You get terrorists whom attack other countries for not believing in their one true religion; how are Christians really that different from the terrorists if they're threatening me with eternal hell for not believing in their one true religion? So many of the world's conflicts could be resolved if people rose above this idea of "one true religion".

I find it interesting how Biblical stories somehow "need" to be proven historically accurate, despite their entire value laying in the intrinsic moral lesson.

I find it interesting how Biblical stories somehow "need" to be proven historically accurate, despite their entire value laying in the intrinsic moral lesson.

foxhound_fox

Are there any exterior pictures of this structure that suggests that it is actually a boat, because I don't trust "evangelical explorers" from the Noah's Ark Ministries International.

I find it interesting how Biblical stories somehow "need" to be proven historically accurate, despite their entire value laying in the intrinsic moral lesson.

foxhound_fox

It is not that the "need" to be proven historically accurate. There have been hundreds of archeological discoveries that confirm peopl, places, and events listed in the Bible and not a single one that disproves a person place or event in the Bible.

What I find interesting is that non-believers often claim there is no evidence for the accuracy of the Bible and when one starts a thread that simply tells about a possible discovery, the charge is laid that "Bible stories somehow need to be proven".

Which is it? Do you want to hear about potential evidence or not? You can't have it both way.

Here is an observation I have made over the years.

The evidence bounds, one just has to look for it. Why do many non-believers, refuse to consider any evidence presented. A confirmation for this is the response from many non-believers to any evidence supplied. Often, with virtual 100% certainty, when one presents a non-believer with any evidence whatsoever, the vast majority of non-believers immediately discount it, refuse to consider it, and immediately begin to attempt to discredit it. I can honestly say that in years of debates with non-believers I can count on my fingers, and I am not sure I would even need to go past one hand, the number of times a non-believer has responded with even the slightest acknowledgement that an evidence presented was even in the slightest way compelling.

On the other hand, they are often quick to accept as truth the unproven "fact" that the universe, all matter, energy, space and time, created itself from a singularity that occupied no dimension in space since space did not even exist. They are quick to accept the "truth" that black holes exist based on mathematical formulas and observations of their alleged effect on their surroundings because science sys they exist. Or they are quick to accept that all that exists is the natural world because science has proclaimed that. And they are quick to believe that life formed from non-living chemical by chance. The amazing thing is that for anything in this world, for example, in a criminal trial, there exists evidence of guilt and evidence of innocence that is considered by the jury in reaching their decision. Yet in the minds of many non-believers, any evidence for the existence of God is in never acknowledged as even a remote possibility worthy of consideration.

This leads one to wonder if a non-believer that refuses to consider any evidence are searching for the truth, or just attempting to just comfort themself by justifying their non-belief.

[QUOTE="ADF_Game"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

-snip for size-

Greenleaf concluded that according to the jurisdiction of legal evidence the resurrection of Jesus Christ was the best supported event in all of ancient history!

jalexbrown

Ignored most of my post I see, then didn't really say much in relation to the part you did decide to quote. What I said was the evidence people would use to argue for their religion; they wouldn't accept as proof from any other religion. The popular Christian claim that just looking at the world was enough evidence for God wouldn't accept the same argument for evidence of Allah.

But your counter for this was to quote people that think Christ's resurrection is a historical fact; when in fact most of the world would disagree on that. If people considered someone coming back from the dead was a verified historical fact; I think most people would notice. This verified historical incident wouldn't happen to be this would it? The one with four different versions of the same event? Very accurate.

Honestly... so many one true religions who all have verified evidence and all have faith they are right, none of them with a hint of irony when they say "but ours is the one true god".

The very idea of a "one true religion" is equal parts frightening and has only proven itself to be a catastrophic idea. You get terrorists whom attack other countries for not believing in their one true religion; how are Christians really that different from the terrorists if they're threatening me with eternal hell for not believing in their one true religion? So many of the world's conflicts could be resolved if people rose above this idea of "one true religion".

In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was not raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .

They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead., if they had stolen the body.

A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.

Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?

Also needing explanation is the dramatic conversion of Saul, later know as Paul, from a persecutor of Christians to follower of Christ and the greatest evangelist of all times.

Also, one would have to impair the credibility of the over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ that are listed in Scripture.

Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Pat_McGrion"]

God is not God (Addendum)

Rest of Series

Have fun.

Pat_McGrion

You have fun too!

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

Anything specific you want me to look at?

BTW, did you watch the videos. There about about how intelligent design is self refuting since intelligence is expressed through simplicity, not complexity.

I would try to explain this myself instead of linking videos, but this guy does a way better job.

The whole Bible. Start with the book of John.

I browsed through the videos but wasn't impressed. It sounded like he was reading a script.

[QUOTE="Pat_McGrion"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

You have fun too!

http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Psa 118:8 It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.

blackregiment

Anything specific you want me to look at?

BTW, did you watch the videos. There about about how intelligent design is self refuting since intelligence is expressed through simplicity, not complexity.

I would try to explain this myself instead of linking videos, but this guy does a way better job.

The whole Bible. Start with the book of John.

I browsed through the videos but wasn't impressed. It sounded like he was reading a script.

So you're gonna just dismiss it based on how the guy speaks?

I guess I cant blame you since I stopped going to church because I wasnt "impressed" with mass. Probably because they were reading from a script(ure).:P

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Pat_McGrion"]

Anything specific you want me to look at?

BTW, did you watch the videos. There about about how intelligent design is self refuting since intelligence is expressed through simplicity, not complexity.

I would try to explain this myself instead of linking videos, but this guy does a way better job.

Pat_McGrion

The whole Bible. Start with the book of John.

I browsed through the videos but wasn't impressed. It sounded like he was reading a script.

So you're gonna just dismiss it based on how the guy speaks?

I guess I cant blame you since I stopped going to church because I wasnt "impressed" with mass. Probably because they were reading from a script(ure).:P

I didn't dismiss it because of that. It was just an observation. I dismissed it because after years and years of recearch, I believe differently. I don't have the time to write posts to go over his points and refute them one by one. If you want to take the time to do it, I will adress them for you.

[QUOTE="Pat_McGrion"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

The whole Bible. Start with the book of John.

I browsed through the videos but wasn't impressed. It sounded like he was reading a script.

blackregiment

So you're gonna just dismiss it based on how the guy speaks?

I guess I cant blame you since I stopped going to church because I wasnt "impressed" with mass. Probably because they were reading from a script(ure).:P

I didn't dismiss it because of that. It was just an observation. I dismissed it because after years and years of recearch, I believe differently. I don't have the time to write posts to go over his points and refute them one by one. If you want to take the time to do it, I will adress them for you.

Ok, What about the idea that intelligent design is self refuting, because intelligence is expressed through simplicity not complexity.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="Pat_McGrion"]

So you're gonna just dismiss it based on how the guy speaks?

I guess I cant blame you since I stopped going to church because I wasnt "impressed" with mass. Probably because they were reading from a script(ure).:P

Pat_McGrion

I didn't dismiss it because of that. It was just an observation. I dismissed it because after years and years of research, I believe differently. I don't have the time to write posts to go over his points and refute them one by one. If you want to take the time to do it, I will address them for you.

Ok, What about the idea that intelligent design is self refuting, because intelligence is expressed through simplicity not complexity.

First of all, I am a creationist. In my opinion, that point is irrelevant and is simply speculation on his part with no causal link and in many cases disproven in nature. He builds his whole case on a limited definition of intelligence.

Right off the bat, one must borrow from the Christian worldview that man is created in God's image with the ability to reason to have a basis for intelligent thought. Without that assumption, if scientific naturalism is the basis, there is no assurance that one's synapses are firing correctly to create accurate thought regarding reality.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]

[QUOTE="ADF_Game"]

Ignored most of my post I see, then didn't really say much in relation to the part you did decide to quote. What I said was the evidence people would use to argue for their religion; they wouldn't accept as proof from any other religion. The popular Christian claim that just looking at the world was enough evidence for God wouldn't accept the same argument for evidence of Allah.

But your counter for this was to quote people that think Christ's resurrection is a historical fact; when in fact most of the world would disagree on that. If people considered someone coming back from the dead was a verified historical fact; I think most people would notice. This verified historical incident wouldn't happen to be this would it? The one with four different versions of the same event? Very accurate.

Honestly... so many one true religions who all have verified evidence and all have faith they are right, none of them with a hint of irony when they say "but ours is the one true god".

blackregiment

The very idea of a "one true religion" is equal parts frightening and has only proven itself to be a catastrophic idea. You get terrorists whom attack other countries for not believing in their one true religion; how are Christians really that different from the terrorists if they're threatening me with eternal hell for not believing in their one true religion? So many of the world's conflicts could be resolved if people rose above this idea of "one true religion".

In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was not raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .

They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead., if they had stolen the body.

A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.

Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?

Also needing explanation is the dramatic conversion of Saul, later know as Paul, from a persecutor of Christians to follower of Christ and the greatest evangelist of all times.

Also, one would have to impair the credibility of the over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ that are listed in Scripture.

Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.

So basically what this all boils down to is that a bunch of people died for their beliefs, and you want to me to explain why. Well...probably because they believed. Some Muslims believe Jehova wants them to attack free countries and die in the process. Do they think their deaths are pleasant? You're not displaying any evidence at all, as far as I'm concerned; you're just showing how illogical people are when they have faith in something that may or may not be real.

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]

The very idea of a "one true religion" is equal parts frightening and has only proven itself to be a catastrophic idea. You get terrorists whom attack other countries for not believing in their one true religion; how are Christians really that different from the terrorists if they're threatening me with eternal hell for not believing in their one true religion? So many of the world's conflicts could be resolved if people rose above this idea of "one true religion".

jalexbrown

In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was not raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .

They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead., if they had stolen the body.

A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.

Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?

Also needing explanation is the dramatic conversion of Saul, later know as Paul, from a persecutor of Christians to follower of Christ and the greatest evangelist of all times.

Also, one would have to impair the credibility of the over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ that are listed in Scripture.

Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.

So basically what this all boils down to is that a bunch of people died for their beliefs, and you want to me to explain why. Well...probably because they believed. Some Muslims believe Jehova wants them to attack free countries and die in the process. Do they think their deaths are pleasant? You're not displaying any evidence at all, as far as I'm concerned; you're just showing how illogical people are when they have faith in something that may or may not be real.

You are missing one important point. The Apostles died for something they were eyewitnesses to and therefore knew was true. That is a big difference from the example you used.

You are free to think that is no evidence yet you ignored most of my post and offered an invalid comparison to the reasons the Apostles were willing to die rather than recant their faith.

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was not raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .

They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead., if they had stolen the body.

A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.

Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?

Also needing explanation is the dramatic conversion of Saul, later know as Paul, from a persecutor of Christians to follower of Christ and the greatest evangelist of all times.

Also, one would have to impair the credibility of the over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ that are listed in Scripture.

Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.

blackregiment

So basically what this all boils down to is that a bunch of people died for their beliefs, and you want to me to explain why. Well...probably because they believed. Some Muslims believe Jehova wants them to attack free countries and die in the process. Do they think their deaths are pleasant? You're not displaying any evidence at all, as far as I'm concerned; you're just showing how illogical people are when they have faith in something that may or may not be real.

You are missing one important point. The Apostles died for something they were eyewitnesses to and therefore knew was true. That is a big difference from the example you used.

You are free to think that is no evidence yet you ignored most of my post and offered an invalid comparison to the reasons the Apostles were willing to die rather than recant their faith.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.

blackregiment

[QUOTE="jalexbrown"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

In order for one not to believe that Jesus is God, that He was not raised from the dead, which therefore proves that God exists, they would have to deny the truth of the empty tomb and the Resurrection. In addition, they would have to deny the fulfillment of hundreds of prophecies in Christ. .

They would have to believe that the Apostles and early Christians made up the resurrection account. This would require a rational explanation for why the Apostles and early Christians would willingly endure persecution and death for something they knew was a lie? The Apostles and early Christians, many of whom were eyewitnesses to the resurrection, were stoned, beheaded, boiled in oil, imprisoned, crucified, scourged, fed to lions, clothed in animal skins and then torn apart by wild beasts, tarred and lit on fire, disemboweled, burnt at the stake, etc., rather than recant their faith.

A rational explanation would be required as to why the Jewish Priests and Roman authorities that wanted so much to stamp out early Christianity, as evidenced by their persecution of Christians, chose not to display Jesus' body to disprove the claims of the followers of Christ that he had arose from the dead., if they had stolen the body.

A rational explanation would be required for the dramatic change in the Apostles' behavior. They scattered and even denied knowing Jesus when He was arrested. After His death, they were crushed, in hiding, their Messiah put to death like a common criminal. Suddenly, after Jesus appeared to them there was a dramatic change. They began to openly preach the Gospel in the Temple in Jerusalem, the very city where Jesus was crucified. The very city where there were living eyewitnesses to the events that would have refuted them if they were lying. They were told to stop but defied the authorities. The endured persecution and ultimately death rather than recant their faith because they believed they saw, touched, and fellowshipped with the resurrected Jesus.

Also needing rational explanation would be why the Apostles were bold enough to preach the resurrection in Jerusalem, the very city where Christ was crucified, to crowds that lived during those events and could have easily disputed the resurrection claims publicly. If they were spreading a lie, why did they not go to some remote area where there were no eyewitnesses to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ that could disputed their claims if they were lying?

Also needing explanation is the dramatic conversion of Saul, later know as Paul, from a persecutor of Christians to follower of Christ and the greatest evangelist of all times.

Also, one would have to impair the credibility of the over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrected Christ that are listed in Scripture.

Finally, one would need to explain why the early Church grew so quickly in a pagan world, especially when it was under intense persecution. Even today, in countries like North Korea and China, where Christians are under the most intense persecution, the Church is growing faster than in areas with less persecution.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying that you are not entitled to your beliefs, far be it to impose on your free will, but personally, when one rationally considers the evidence, the reasonable and rational belief is in the truth of Christianity.

blackregiment

So basically what this all boils down to is that a bunch of people died for their beliefs, and you want to me to explain why. Well...probably because they believed. Some Muslims believe Jehova wants them to attack free countries and die in the process. Do they think their deaths are pleasant? You're not displaying any evidence at all, as far as I'm concerned; you're just showing how illogical people are when they have faith in something that may or may not be real.

You are missing one important point. The Apostles died for something they were eyewitnesses to and therefore knew was true. That is a big difference from the example you used.

You are free to think that is no evidence yet you ignored most of my post and offered an invalid comparison to the reasons the Apostles were willing to die rather than recant their faith.

[QUOTE="Pat_McGrion"]

[QUOTE="blackregiment"]

I didn't dismiss it because of that. It was just an observation. I dismissed it because after years and years of research, I believe differently. I don't have the time to write posts to go over his points and refute them one by one. If you want to take the time to do it, I will address them for you.

blackregiment

Ok, What about the idea that intelligent design is self refuting, because intelligence is expressed through simplicity not complexity.

First of all, I am a creationist. In my opinion, that point is irrelevant and is simply speculation on his part with no causal link and in many cases disproven in nature. He builds his whole case on a limited definition of intelligence.

Right off the bat, one must borrow from the Christian worldview that man is created in God's image with the ability to reason to have a basis for intelligent thought. Without that assumption, if scientific naturalism is the basis, there is no assurance that one's synapses are firing correctly to create accurate thought regarding reality.

So I need to have faith first to understand?

Can you give an example of how his point is disproven in nature?

Again?xaos

I thought Noahs ark was like one of those fictional parable stories in the bible...