Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:59AM, 57 wrote:

Amcolph, it has been logically verified.  You can't become something from nothing.  You can't be and not be at the same time.  Unless you can present a line of logic to suggest otherwise....you must change your conclusion.

You don't get it--logical conclusions cannot bind reality.

Reading your post I see you really don't understand BB "theory".  But, I'm not here to address that issue. 

If the change has always existed...then why did it do this change thing you mentioned, whatever it is... for eternity past, then really change 17BY's ago (using old age times)?  What caused that? 

Thanks.  That's got to be the laugh of the day.  It reminds me of the time you accused us of not understanding the theory of evolution because we didn't agree with your bogus straw-man version of it.

Where is the biblical support for that concept you claim Christians to this day believe in?

Where is it ruled out?

Why do you think atheists will be convinced by 'biblical support' anyway?

 

Jul 7, 2012 -- 12:20PM, 57 wrote:

You don't get it--logical conclusions cannot bind reality.

I see the need for you to change your conclusion.

No, I see the need for you to justifiy your assumption that logic binds reality.

Thanks.  That's got to be the laugh of the day.  It reminds me of the time you accused us of not understanding the theory of evolution because we didn't agree with your bogus straw-man version of it.

More handwaving amcolph?  Come on, really?

I see no harm in pointing out that you don't seem to know any more about what the"Big Bang" theoryactually says than the misinformation about it handed out by Creationist ministries. It would be easy enough to prove me wrong.

I put it to you that your assertion that the Big Bang theory requires that the singularity existed unchanged from eternity cannot be found in any legitimate statement of that theory.

Furthermore, since the expansion of that singularity is still continuing you have no grounds for stating that a different order of change was required to begin the expansion unless you can show that the singularity was initially in a stable state--which is not part of the real Big Bang theory, either.

Where is it ruled out?

Answer my question amcolph...one of your buddies already tried the reversal answer. 

 

If it is not specifically ruled out by the Bible, why should a Christian not believe it?

Jul 7, 2012 -- 10:52AM, 57 wrote:

For example, watch the Atheist responces to this thread as they try to reply to the topics.

OK.

 1)  Is the earth as old as the atheist claim?   Here's proof that it is indeed young.

Even if the Earth was proved to be young (presumably, between 6,000 and 10,000 years old) rather than old, that would not be proof of a God, and certainly would not be proof of the Abrahamic God or the particular Christian Trinitarian version of this Abrahamic God. All that would prove is that we were wrong about the age of the Earth.

 2) Life is so complex there is absolutly no way a natural process could have brought it about.

I can't watch videos on my old computer (the computer freezes up and I have to restart), but even if life on earth was so complex that it had to have been created, why should we assume that life was created by the Abrahamic God? It would make much more sense that a group (a "pantheon") of designers created life, like what we see going on in a large industrial factory, than think that all of this apparently complex and diverse life was the creation of one solitary designer. And since I'm not a scientist but a literature scholar, I'll let those who are actually trained in the sciences, particularly in evolutionary biology, explain why the so-called "complexity" of life, from viruses to dinosaurs, does not have to have been created by a supernatural deity or a pantheon of deities.

 3) There are over 300 prophetic prophecies fulfilled that show the bible divine origin.  The book Evidence that demand a verdict closes the door on atheist.  You can visit the site and get a sample of the book.

And how many of those so-called prophecies, or the particularly-Christian interpretation of them, would Jews also reject, because these so-called "prophecies" supposedly prophecy the Man from Nazareth (Yeshu ben Pantera)? There are many scriptures and many prophecies from around the world. 57, do you believe in the prophecies of Nostradamus, or the explicitly Catholic prophecies known as the Secrets of Fatima? How about the prophecies concerning Wovoka and the Ghost Dance? I've read the section of Evidence That Demands a Verdict that discusses the so-called Jewish, Greek, and Roman non-Christian extra-canonical references to the Man from Nazareth, and I was not impressed, even when I was still a Christian.

 4) Because we, stuff, the universe is here...there has to be a God. There are 3 possibilities.  Two which can be ruled out.
a) The universe self created...which is ruled out because you can't be and not be at the same time.
b) The universe always existed....in this case the Atheist must then admit something existing from eternity past is possible, but run into problems when change (big bang) was required.  Something had to cause the change.  That would be God.
c) God created the universe.  The only available option left.

Or, the GODS created the Universe. Or the Universe created God and/or the Gods. Why are you so certain there is only one God, and that that God is the God which you worship?

 4 examples are enough for a start.......have at it my Atheist friends.  I presented examples from geology, biology, prophecy and philosophy. 

Here's the rules:
No handwaving.
No mockery. 

Refute God.

I did. Personally, I really don't care about evidence from geology, biology, prophecy, or philosophy. None of the things you have provided are what I consider evidence for God. Really, the only evidence I will accept is Unverified Personal Gnosis. As a Catholic, I accepted an old earth and evolution, I accepted the general accuracy of the Scriptures in narrating the story of God's dealings with Jews and Christians (though I also understood much of it, especially the first 11 chapters of Genesis, to be unhistorical though instructive myth), and I accepted that many people had experiences of God, though I did not. If I wanted so-called "evidence" for God, I could easily have accepted the Prophecies of Fatima and a whole host of other Catholic-inspired evidence, including the interesting and insightful texts from the European Middle Ages.

But did I ever have a personal experience of God? No. God never spoke to me with an audible voice; Jesus never appeared to me visibly; no angel visited me and no demon tormented or tempted me; no Saints spoke to me as they spoke to Joan of Arc; the Virgin Mary never appeared to me as she has appeared to so many people throughout history. If the Doubting Thomas needed to put his hands into the wounds of Jesus before he would believe, and wouldn't even trust the so-called experience and evidence of his fellow Apostles, I don't see why it should be so unreasonable or so terrible of me to expect the same kind of experience and evidence of the divine if I am going to believe as I once did at the age of 6.

Jul 7, 2012 -- 11:44AM, amcolph wrote:

Jul 7, 2012 -- 10:52AM, 57 wrote:

4) Because we, stuff, the universe is here...there has to be a God. There are 3 possibilities.  Two which can be ruled out.

a) The universe self created...which is ruled out because you can't be and not be at the same time.

It may be possible to rule it out, but not by logic.  Logical conclusions can be taken as valid only if they can be empirically verified.

b) The universe always existed....in this case the Atheist must then admit something existing from eternity past is possible, but run into problems when change (big bang) was required.  Something had to cause the change.  That would be God.

The suggestion that the universe in some form has always exised does not rule out the possibility that change has always been present in it.  Your idea that "Big Bang" cosmolgy requires that the singularity from which the present universe arose existed unchanged from eternity past is bogus and not any part of the theory.

In any case, the notion that God created the present universe from eternally co-existent matter (creation ex materia) is a perfectly respectable theological proposition and still believed by some Christians to this day

c) God created the universe.  The only available option left.

 

Your options are not logically independent.  Your reasoning fails.

Really, 57, dragging this kind of nonsense into the light for atheists to scoff at only embarasses the rest of us.

Truthfully, Am, I am not impressed with this line of "argument" and quickly concede there are much stronger and more logical defenses of theism than the 3rd grade science cited here. And I suspect other non-believers would agree.

This stuff hardly merits ridicule. Only the posting of it as serious argument.

Acting like this "argument" merits a serious answer says more about Trib. than it does about the "faith" in general.

57's big problem is that he thinks everyone who rejects his twaddle is an atheist.  Not true.