natewood3

I haven't read all of the posts, but I do have a question that I would like to find the answer to....some have seemed to imply that murder is wrong in an atheistic universe simply because it would take away the happiness of others, etc. In other words, an immoral thing is something that detracts from the greatness happiness of the greatest number of people, and since murder does this, murder should be considered immoral, as well as any other thing that someone does that takes away the happiness of other people.My question is this: WHY should anyone follow such standards? Why should I not do th

ricker,would you say that Christianity is true then?

crowTrobot,You said: Everything you just said is pure nonsense then. There is no point in me even responding to it, because you must be skeptical of everything you have just said to me, otherwise, you are inconsistent. In fact, you must be skeptical of the supposed fact that you are skeptical of everything. Skepticism is self-refuting and self-contradictory. Until you can show me how being skeptical about all things is not self-contradictory, then everything you say or have said or will say is simply nonsense. There is no point in even debating, because you are obviously skeptical of every c

crowTrobot,You might have to refresh this convo, but I figured I would reply even if it took me 6 days. On what basis do you know that the "possibility of the christian god being real so low that for practical purposes it is the equivalent of zero"? Atheists make claims like this, but I see no way, given that you admit that the Christian God may possibily exist, how you can say that this possibility is next to nothing. If the Christian God does in fact exist, you are simply ignoring and supressing the truth about God in your conscience and around you so that you will NOT admit that He exists

Are you sure that are you almost 100% sure that He doesn't exist then?You are right that logic and evidence is what is needed to make an assertion; without logic and rationality, there is no intelligibility. Do you think that the laws of logic are universal and immaterial? Could you prove the statement: "The reason it has these numbers is not because of evidence supporting it, but because it's an ancient idea which plays off human's desire to be secure and uncover the unknown (ie, gives them hope for the afterlife)."You said nothing in life is certain. Is that statement itself certain? How do

Explain.

I did not argue Pascal' Wager, as if it is better for you to just believe in God since He may exist. I did, however, ask how it is you know know anything at all for sure since you don't even know the answer to the question, "Does God exist?" Non-Christians criticize Christians for not "proving" that He does exist, while all the while they cannot prove that He doesn't. The problem is for unbelievers is that if they cannot prove for certain that He does not exist, then everything they do in life may be wrong and in opposition to God. Hence, you cannot do one thing without having to wonder if you

If you cannot prove that God does NOT exist, then it is impossible, as a non-Christian, to be sure of anything. You cannot be sure that ANY decision you are making is right, because it may be that you are living your life in opposition to your Creator. If you consistently reject the God of the Bible while not being able to prove that He does not exist, then it is possible, even within your worldview, that you may die and go to hell. It is possible that you don't know all the facts. It is possible that God does exist and that you are accountable to Him. Hence, how can you be sure that anything

Can the non-existence of God be proven? Can you who do not believe in God prove that He does not exist?Just a question...

This may have already been answered, but for those arguing for free will, what exactly is free will? What is the definition of the sovereignty of God?If everything is based on chance, then I am not sure how anything at all can be known? If everything going on is by chance, then what you are thinking is the result of chemical reactions in your brain, so that it is by "chance" that you are thinking what you are thinking. There is no basis for knowledge. How can there be any causal relationship between any events at all if everything is random and by chance?

What is the point in even debating then? Your statement is self-refuting. You cannot be sure that nobody can be 100% sure of anything either. It is inherently self-contradictory. However, if nobody can't know anything for sure, I do not see why you are here debating about anything, especially the existence of morals or God. If you cannot be sure of anything, how do you know God doesn't exist? If it is a possibility that God exists, then how do that any decision you make is the correct decision, since it may be the case for you that God DOES exist, and you are going to hell if you continue to r

Jerry,brvheart posted the exact verses that I was going to post, especially since you are trying to understand the Christian worldview. God is infinitely just and righteous. For God to remain righteous and just, He must love and seek to glorify that which is infinitely valuable, namely, Himself. If God did not seek to glorify Himself, He would not be God, for it is right to glorify and magnify that which is infinitely valuable. Therefore, He created a world in which He would ultimately get the most glory and exaltation. If He created a world without sin, many parts of God's nature would be nev

To be honest, I have not read all of these posts, but I have read alot of them. Monty,Do you believe that those who have never heard the Gospel, but are sincerely seeking God will be saved? What are the conditions for someone never hearing the Gospel to be saved? What if someone DOES hear the Gospel, but blatantly rejects it; will they be saved?Just some questions...

Silent Snow,example- we always know that in a right triangle a^2 + b^2 = c^2, but we have to scientifically measure the triangle to see if it really is 90 degrees and the logic applies. this doesnt mean that logic isnt universal; its just not always useful in a particular situation. i mean that not every logical statement is immediately obvious. mathematicians spend countless hours discovering more obscure logical truths.I see and I agree.there is only one law of morality and it is unchanging- take into account every entity that is affected by a decision and weight them accurately(a more commo

Copernicus,presuppostions are formed based on experience. At some point one has had no prior experience to form those opinions. Eg. when I began my religious education at around age 4 or 5 I had no basis to prejudge..I came to it with an open mind/blank slate, however you would like to characterize it.If you started with a blank slate, it would be impossible. Without knowledge that comes apart from experience, observation itself can make no sense or communicate that information. One man said (paraphrase), "If your mind is a blank slate, you don't even have mental categories such as, time, spac

Silent Snow,i think crowtrobot is somewhat off regarding logical laws. they are absolute, and must follow from the premises, but it is a matter of observation whether they apply to the "real world". i think logic is unchanging, but we can still "discover" lesser known axioms, or decide that one type of logic describes part of the world better than a previous type.What do you mean it is a "matter of observation" if the laws of logic apply to the "real world"? If they are universal, they always apply, othersise how are they universal? A is never not-A at the same time or in the same sense. What

Copernicuswhy do you assume the he or any other non-theist ruled anything out in advance? I studied religion with an open mind and concluded that there is no evidence for divine inspiration for the Bible.I don't see it to be possible to get rid of presuppositions. Neutrality is a myth. I have presuppositions, and so does everyone else about what can or cannot be true. Everyone has basic assumptions that governs their world and life view. my worldview will allow me to accept anything as fact if there is direct or indirect evidence. I will not layer an assumption that has no basis on top of que

You believe that the laws of logic, such as the law of contradiction, are simply results of our brain and subjective and changing? I don't know if I understand that or not. Can you explain how logic evolved into what it is now? Is logic unchanging and universal in your worldview?Can you explain to me how an impersonal force, such as chance or fate, can bring about universal laws that humans are to follow?Can you explain to me how there is order in the universe?Can you actually prove to me that evolution occurred? Could you explain how you believe the universe came to be?I am asking honest ques

There have been many objections to the Bible already, as well as to God. "Where did God come from?" "How can we really trust the Bible as fact or inerrant?" I could go on. The problem is these things don't make sense in your worldview, not mine. Your presuppositions rule out in advance the biblical claim to inspiration. You formulate arguments that already presuppose the impossibility of what you are arguing against (known as begging the question)! The fact that God is eternal is consistent with my worldview, as is the fact that the Bible is inspired and inerrant. Your worldview will not allow

So you are saying that it takes no faith to believe in whatever you believe? "What you consider evidence is not evidence." That is awesome. I said the problem is NOT with the evidence; the problem is with how we interpret it. Hence, your assumptions will not allow you to interpret anything in such a way as to be "evidence" for God, yet I see no reason why I should follow your assumptions...it seems somewhat arbitrary just to say, "Your 'evidence' isn't really evidence."If the Bible is not evidence, there is no reason to trust any ancient writings at all. It is a fact that there are over 5,000

I am not sure why it is a leap of faith to believe in God. I see evidence of God all over, so my faith is not a blind faith, but it is based upon evidence. The problem is not with the evidence or proof for God's existence; the problem is with how we interpret the evidence.I see much evidence that we are created by an absolute personal God, who has revealed Himself in the Bible. One of the things I have noticed is that non-believers do not consider the Bible evidence at all...

The question is not whether or not scientists should affirm these things. They MUST in order to do science. However, these assumptions, as stated at the end are "philosophical in nature or “brute givens" which cannot themselves be verified by science." The contention is that only the Christian worldview can explain these assumptions...

I am definitely not an agnostic. I believe that God is the foundation of all knowledge, and the beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord. I believe in Christ are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. Without God, there is no knowledge. Without God, there is no intelligibility. I believe the only way there CAN be knowledge is if the Christian God exists, meaning the God of the Bible.My contention would be that all other worldviews make knowledge impossible, because all reject the God of the Bible as the foundation of knowledge. You say there seems to be an objective reality accessabl

You have just said that actual truth does not exist, so why does any of this even matter? I am right, you're right. So God exists, and God doesn't exist. If you are going to resort to simply subjective truth, there is no reason in even discussing anything at all, ever.

So scientists assume certain things at the outset and believe them because they make successful testable predictions? That makes no sense to me...you just believe them because you believe them or because their helpful? That makes them true or right? Here is a list of assumptions of scientists:1. The human senses are reliable and capable of giving accurate information about a “mind-independent” physical world (and not merely information about successive sense impressions).2. Science must assume some uniformity of nature in order to justify induction. (Uniformity is critical when researchers a