Will creationists buy/play this game?

[CormacMacArt]

Pintello - I completely agree with you. Fortunatly, the Gospel makes no restrictions on a person's stance concerning evolution! C.S. Lewis would be a famous(?) person who belonged to your third group.

M@ni@c - CAN'T you come up with an easier handle to type!!!! I would be very interested in knowing what your source was, since I did not see this in any of the books that I read to do my paper on this subject. Also, if I were to take your statement as true, it would not change the fact that his assumptions are based on Biblical concepts.

SkeleTony69 - I have the same problem with AOL. I have started to write my replies in notepad and then paste them in.

Krusty - I have no idea. AOL on the other hand...

lemur866 - if an atheist subscribed to the Greek creation story, he/she would no longer be an atheist. What other options do Atheist s' have, other than evolution and still remain Atheist?

My assertion that YHWH created the universe is certainly outside the realm of science. I am not claiming it to be a "natural" event governed by the laws of Physics. History is not within the realm of science. Science is not an end-all. It is a tool to examine the universe and how it functions, it can only speak about the past by assuming that the laws that govern it today remained constant throughout the past. If at any point that was not true, science would take us in the wrong direction.

[The diplomat]

I will try to answer the question about why Pokemon is satanic.

Pokemon advocates that people should possess the pokemon dolls because they have powers to help and protect the owner. I know what a lot of you are going to say:"Come on, that is just a marketing tool to get little kids to buy as many of the dolls as possible." That might be true, but the premise that an inanimate object has supernatural powers to protect the owner, is occult and therefore satanic.




------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Bblue on 12-22-1999 02:34 PM

Science is based on logic:
Assumption: An all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s) creates a universe. Said deity(s) desires to make it look as if said universe is 'old' according to the 'natural laws' of that universe, said deity(s) don't want presense obvious.
Reasons: Unknown, no refrence frame for all-powerful, omnipotent deity(s)
Conclusion: universe looks 'old' and no scientific presense of aforementioned diety(s) discoverable (it's part of that all-powerful, omnipotent thing)

Science can NEVER PROVE or DISPROVE the 'reality' of an all-powerful diety(s); if that diety(s) exsists and if that diety(s) does not wish it's presence known. The whole damn arguement is moot! It is a question of faith.

[This message has been edited by Bblue (edited December 22, 1999).]

BBlue - my reply to your original post was more or less targeted on the last paragraph. What I was trying to get at is Science does not need to prove that the Judeo-Christianity god does not exist. The burden of proof for the existence of a personal god lies with those who make the assertion. The skeptics only need to show that their proof is indeed insufficient.

Disproving statements about the unknown is impossible, and indeed any statements Christians make about their god are statements about the unknown, thus cannot be disproved.

However, they also need to show that their god does exist before making such statements. The burden is with them.

I hope this makes my previous post clearer.

[CormacMacArt]

As a comment on the above statement: science deals in the realm of the natural, repeatable; that which is governed by laws. Now, unless a god is contained within this physical, natural universe (the Greek gods, for example), science has nothing to say on the subject. No field of science looks for gods. No field of science attempts to look beyond this physical existence and no field of science could, for we would have to be able to make objective measurements outside this physical universe, and unless there have been some changes lately, that cannot be done.

If you want to find evidence of a god, specifically the God of the Bible, I suggest that you look at Jesus. Now, every atheist reading this just rolled his/her eyes. Consider that the following are undeniable, historical FACTS:

1. the man Jesus existed, born ~6 B.C., died ~32 A.D.
2. He claimed to be the Yahweh of the Torah
3. He was crucified, and buried
4. Three days later, His tomb was empty, though guarded by a squad of Roman soldiers.
5. His disciples proclaimed His resurrection, even under torture and threat of death.

Now, while there are various explanations for these facts (one is that Jesus had an unknown twin brother, who stole His body and impersonated Him after His death - I bet his name was Lore), the most reasonable is that Jesus did rise from the dead. How reasonable is this? One of the world's leading Jewish theologians, Pinchas Lapide, agrees with this conclusion.

I think that we are already in the realm of "Off Topic", so I am going to stop here. If you want to talk with me more about it, my email is found on my home page, (which now works!).
[This message has been edited by CormacMacArt (edited January 13, 2000).]

[John-SJ]

"However, they also need to show that their god does exist before making such statements. The burden is with them."

As CormacMacArt has already stated, proving the existence of something that is outside the natural universe is impossible using science.

The "proof" of God's existence is a paradox. The unbeliever says, "Show me that God exists, then I will believe", but God says, "Believe in Me, and I will show Myself to you". *That* is what faith is all about.

Sorry, you can't always have things your own way. Just because you insist on being shown proof does not in any way obligate God to show you unless you meet His condition of faith.

John-SJ

[Pintello]

Hi CormacMacArt,

Yep C.S. Lewis does qualify, I just didn't think of him.

John-SJ,

Good and accurate response. That is also the problem with trying to argue with an Atheist.

Timothy Pintello

[Tolls]

I've been avoiding this, but I can resist no longer after Cormac's last post...

Of your 5 "Facts" I can count 1 that is generally considered an historical fact and that is number 1. Number 5 is pretty close as well...number 2 is contradicted in the 4 gospels...alot of the stuff, for instance the opening to Mark ("Son of God") is not in the earliest editions. Number 3 is far from a fact...as for the last one...nope...not historical fact in the slightest.

[CormacMacArt]

2. Only a gentile, reading the Gospels in english would see any "contradictions"
3. There is more evidence for this than for the EXISTANCE of Julius Ceasar
4. The testimony of an enemy is of the greatest reliability - the first century enemies of Christianity accused the disciples of stealing the body - testifying that the tomb was actually empty.

Please - create an off-topic thread or email me.

[John-SJ]

This line of discussion moved to Off-Topic. See http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum23/H...tml?date=12:05

John-SJ

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-12-2000 09:45 AM
As a comment on the above statement: science deals in the realm of the natural, repeatable; that which is governed by laws. Now, unless a god is contained within this physical, natural universe (the Greek gods, for example), science has nothing to say on the subject. No field of science looks for gods. No field of science attempts to look beyond this physical existence and no field of science could, for we would have to be able to make objective measurements outside this physical universe, and unless there have been some changes lately, that cannot be done.

I am not sure you are correct. Science might not be used to show the existence of the Judeo-Christianity god but it can be surely used to debuke the so called "evidence" and "facts" put forwarded by apologists, as you so kindly presented us.

Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-12-2000 09:45 AM
If you want to find evidence of a god, specifically the God of the Bible, I suggest that you look at Jesus. Now, every atheist reading this just rolled his/her eyes. Consider that the following are undeniable, historical FACTS:

1. the man Jesus existed, born ~6 B.C., died ~32 A.D.
2. He claimed to be the Yahweh of the Torah
3. He was crucified, and buried
4. Three days later, His tomb was empty, though guarded by a squad of Roman soldiers.
5. His disciples proclaimed His resurrection, even under torture and threat of death.

None of these "facts" are supported by extrabiblical evidence.

1. Is Jesus a historical figure? G.A. Wells thinks no and M. Martin supports his opinion. The only evidence of any weight could be found only in Flavius Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews, but the authenticity of that lone paragraph in Book 18 has been seriously questioned due to a number of factors: writing style, location of the paragraph, its non-existence in very early manuscripts, etc.

2. No extrabiblical evidence of this at all.

3. Not only there is no extrabiblical evidence of this but this is contradictory to Roman or Jewish laws of the time. Blasphemy was punished by death by stoning under Jewish law. It has nothing to do with the Romans.

4. This is easily the least reliable "fact." Even the gospels are contradictory on this point.

5. So? Other religions have their own martyrs. Does that make them real?
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited January 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited January 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited January 18, 2000).]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by John-SJ on 01-12-2000 10:24 AM
As CormacMacArt has already stated, proving the existence of something that is outside the natural universe is impossible using science.

Nowhere did I request you to show the existence of your god by science. It can be easily done by supernatural means.

Originally posted by John-SJ on 01-12-2000 10:24 AM
Sorry, you can't always have things your own way. Just because you insist on being shown proof does not in any way obligate God to show you unless you meet His condition of faith.

John-SJ

That is just a religionist way of saying "I don't know but I am not going to concede, so I am just going to make up something unknownable."

Your statement is also begging the question by simply assuming what needs to be proved true. Since proof of your god is required, you cannot just say that it is the case so. It is a logical fallacy.

Of course you could say, "To hell with logic."

But then you are simply stating that you have no recourse of proving your own correctness.

But why should I be surprised?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The diplomat on 01-11-2000 09:10 AM
I will try to answer the question about why Pokemon is satanic.

Pokemon advocates that people should possess the pokemon dolls because they have powers to help and protect the owner. I know what a lot of you are going to say:"Come on, that is just a marketing tool to get little kids to buy as many of the dolls as possible." That might be true, but the premise that an inanimate object has supernatural powers to protect the owner, is occult and therefore satanic.

So are you saying that the cross is satanic? Many Christians seem to think that the cross is embedded with power to ward off or even combat evil.
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited January 18, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited January 18, 2000).]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-13-2000 09:48 AM
2. Only a gentile, reading the Gospels in english would see any "contradictions"
3. There is more evidence for this than for the EXISTANCE of Julius Ceasar
4. The testimony of an enemy is of the greatest reliability - the first century enemies of Christianity accused the disciples of stealing the body - testifying that the tomb was actually empty.

Please - create an off-topic thread or email me.

2. Why is this so? What difference would the English translation or a "gentile" reading make?

3. I must plead my ignorance. Would you be so kind as to share your evidence with the rest of the world?

4. Where did you get this?

------------------
If I can't believe in my own eyes, whose eyes can I believe? Yours?!

[This message has been edited by Urban Ranger (edited January 18, 2000).]

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CormacMacArt on 01-06-2000 01:25 PM
Responce: This is what is called "evasion". You have not responded to what I said, but simply added more data to the argument. The FACT is that if Newton had been a Muslum, Hindu or an Atheist, he would not have made the following assumptions:
1. The universe is governed by Laws and is not random
2. Those Laws are UNIVERSAL in scope
3. Those Laws are apprehendable by humans
Sir Isaac Newton made those ASSUMPTIONS because he believed in the God described in the Bible and knew that it was in the nature of that God to create a universe where those three assumptions would be true.

So you are saying that scientists of other beliefs don't hold these assumptions to be true? Are you saying that a Buddhist biologist would think that this world is not comprehensible to humans, say? I must surmise there is a humongous hole in your statement.

Furthermore, so what if Newton was a Christian? Does it alter anything at all if he wasn't? Would he not be able to discover his Laws of Physics?

What about other scientists? Einstein formulated the theory of relativity but he wasn't a Christian (if you think otherwise, read his own work Out of My Latter Years).

What about mathematics? Modern mathematics is based on the Arabic system which in turn had gotten the concept of zero ("0") from the Indians. What does it mean?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by John-SJ on 01-05-2000 01:01 PM
SkeleTony69:
Don't fool yourself. The fact that you have rejected the existence of God (an athiest) is a bias in and of itself. ALL of us are biased in one direction or another. For one to say they are unbiased is about as logical as claiming to be non-human because you have no brothers or sisters.

John-SJ

Why is rejecting the Judeo-Christianity god a bias? Does it mean it is not a bias to accept this god? If so why? If it is also a bias to accept this god, how could both rejecting or accepting this being be biases?