-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Percepi, How do you know that trust that is backed by proof is more reliable than trust not backed by proof?
Can you prove that statement?
And have you admitted that you cannot prove your other pontifications, like the below?
Originally Posted by Percepi
Math is an applied concept. It's a concept that's applied to reality. A single object is given a name, one.
What is your proof of that?
What does it have to do with the questions I asked?
With two ones, we obtain a different one, we call it two.
Proof? How can there be different ones?
And if you're going to ask
There is no need to speculate as to what I am going to ask. I already asked, and here it is again.
You said, "That's not how science works."
So again I ask:
Science is human knowledge. Now how does human knowledge work???
Is it proper that men find it self-evident that 1 + 1 = 2?
Or does it need proof?
If so, what is the proof?
Can you prove that statement?
And have you admitted that you cannot prove your other pontifications, like the below?
Math is an applied concept. It's a concept that's applied to reality. A single object is given a name, one.
What is your proof of that?
What does it have to do with the questions I asked?
With two ones, we obtain a different one, we call it two.
Proof? How can there be different ones?
And if you're going to ask
There is no need to speculate as to what I am going to ask. I already asked, and here it is again.
You said, "That's not how science works."
So again I ask:
Science is human knowledge. Now how does human knowledge work???
Is it proper that men find it self-evident that 1 + 1 = 2?
Or does it need proof?
If so, what is the proof?
C
Okay, no problem. Happens to all of us.
I've denied this every time you've brought it up. You're trusting evolutionary scientists, and dismissing creation scientist a priori. You continually refer to the scientific majority.
Correct. The Bible does not teach that faith, in and of itself, has any value. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. Faith in the wrong god or savior will do nothing for you.
And this is the trust/faith the Bible advocates. God has left us a remarkable written testimony, with no rivals. There is no greater witness of antiquity than the scriptures. And when Christ came to earth, he performed countless miracles, and even raised Himself from the dead. This has confounded skeptics for centuries and caused countless conversions to christianity.
Remember, Christ said you are to love God with all your heart, soul and mind. (Matt. 22:37) Bind faith is not a biblical concept.
I've denied this every time you've brought it up. You're trusting evolutionary scientists, and dismissing creation scientist a priori. You continually refer to the scientific majority.
Correct. The Bible does not teach that faith, in and of itself, has any value. Faith is only as good as the object in which it is placed. Faith in the wrong god or savior will do nothing for you.
And this is the trust/faith the Bible advocates. God has left us a remarkable written testimony, with no rivals. There is no greater witness of antiquity than the scriptures. And when Christ came to earth, he performed countless miracles, and even raised Himself from the dead. This has confounded skeptics for centuries and caused countless conversions to christianity.
Remember, Christ said you are to love God with all your heart, soul and mind. (Matt. 22:37) Bind faith is not a biblical concept.
Yeah, Sarfati is another of your Answers in Genesis/ Creation Ministries International clones.
Here is some interesting info on Sarfati:
Dr Jonathan Sarfati
Here is some interesting info on Sarfati:
Dr Jonathan Sarfati
Let’s revisit the argument here, in case some have lost track.
You are saying that Job 40:15 (“Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.” KJV) refers to a dinosaur (sauropod).
In addition to that I believe that you have said:
1. Dinosaurs (even T. rex) ate no meat until after 6,000 (or 10,000) BC.
2. Dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
3. There was no death whatsoever, of anything, until after 6,000 (or 10,000) BC.
Is that correct so far?
Your brief answer like “Yes” or “No” is preferred to more links from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International.
You are saying that Job 40:15 (“Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.” KJV) refers to a dinosaur (sauropod).
In addition to that I believe that you have said:
1. Dinosaurs (even T. rex) ate no meat until after 6,000 (or 10,000) BC.
2. Dinosaurs coexisted with humans.
3. There was no death whatsoever, of anything, until after 6,000 (or 10,000) BC.
Is that correct so far?
Your brief answer like “Yes” or “No” is preferred to more links from Answers in Genesis or Creation Ministries International.
Here's an interesting proposal. At the end of each description of a particular activity, God adds AND the evening and morning were the ___ day. The word AND indicates that we have added something. When God completed each part of the creation, he added an important day (1 to 7) to indicate completion. We can use the seventh day to confirm this. God put Adam and Eve into the Garden of Eden, with nothing to do but rest and enjoy the creation. How long were they there?
The creation story's importance is to show man that even when he is placed in a perfect paradise, he will sin. When he sins, he is cast out of paradise. I don't think that God is concerned about whether we believe in a young Earth, middle aged Earth, or A very old Earth. He is concerned with our sins. I'll let you take it from here.
The creation story's importance is to show man that even when he is placed in a perfect paradise, he will sin. When he sins, he is cast out of paradise. I don't think that God is concerned about whether we believe in a young Earth, middle aged Earth, or A very old Earth. He is concerned with our sins. I'll let you take it from here.
Re: What Good R Pontifications w/out Proof?
What is proof?
A preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
The Bible?
If so, you have different interpretations of a particular verse.
For example, Genesis 1 regarding the interpretation of "yom" and the transliteration of "behemoth" (KJV) in Job 40:15.
Is the website Answers in Genesis a reliable source?
Are YEC spokespersons like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind reliable sources?
What is proof?
A preponderance of the evidence? Beyond a reasonable doubt?
The Bible?
If so, you have different interpretations of a particular verse.
For example, Genesis 1 regarding the interpretation of "yom" and the transliteration of "behemoth" (KJV) in Job 40:15.
Is the website Answers in Genesis a reliable source?
Are YEC spokespersons like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind reliable sources?
Just an observation. There was only one thing that was a sin in the Garden. Two people traded paradise for the unknown (death) by doing that one thing. Sin nature/very good with a measure of free will. Are we splitting hairs? Do you believe that Adam never sinned again after he was thrown out of the Garden? I guess that if the only sin was to eat of the fruit of tree of knowledge, maybe he didn't, but if we replace the word eat with partake, he lived in continuous sin.
Here's my parallel to the creation story today. There is only one thing that we have to do to escape the bonds of sin and enter paradise. Yet man refuses to abandon sin for paradise by doing it. As with the Adam and Eve, we choose sin.
Here's my parallel to the creation story today. There is only one thing that we have to do to escape the bonds of sin and enter paradise. Yet man refuses to abandon sin for paradise by doing it. As with the Adam and Eve, we choose sin.
C
No, because he experienced a nature change after he sinned. This is illustrated by the fact that he intrinsically understood he was naked after he ate. Prelapsarian Adam did not have the same nature as postlapsarian Adam. He became mortal and a slave to sin, just as we his descendants are slaves to sin. But Adam was not created a slave to sin, he was created very good, and was given the ability to choose. You and I cannot choose not to sin anymore. If we say we have no sin, we deceive yourselves and the truth is not in us.
Creation science is not science. It does not rely on the scientific method at all. It looks at the evidence, provides an explanation, then calls it proof. These same scientists them argue that this is how we conclude evolution as well, when it isn't. There's a lot more testing that happens in the study of evolution than you may be aware.
All we have are "witness" testimonies, none of which were written during Christ's life. It is more reasonable to believe the Christ story is legend than fact. Skeptics aren't confused at all, because it's easy to understand how the Bible came to exist s it is. We don't know everything about the Bible, but we have a good idea of who copied who and when many of the authors were alive.
All we have are "witness" testimonies, none of which were written during Christ's life. It is more reasonable to believe the Christ story is legend than fact. Skeptics aren't confused at all, because it's easy to understand how the Bible came to exist s it is. We don't know everything about the Bible, but we have a good idea of who copied who and when many of the authors were alive.
C
Which you take on faith, based on what you've been told.
Which is the case with all ancient narratives. Percepi have you ever studied manuscript evidence. Can you name a document of antiquity that has more evidence than the New Testament? We actually have thousands of corroborating manuscripts, which is unheard of with any other ancient texts. You can read more about this here.
Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability
And here's something you may not have known. Amazingly, even if we had no manuscripts at all for the new testament, but only quotes from the early church fathers, we could put an entire Bible together just from those quotes. And that Bible would be virtually identical to what we have today.
I realize this is all faith shaking info for you, but do you want to know the truth, or just hold onto your faith?
Which is the case with all ancient narratives. Percepi have you ever studied manuscript evidence. Can you name a document of antiquity that has more evidence than the New Testament? We actually have thousands of corroborating manuscripts, which is unheard of with any other ancient texts. You can read more about this here.
Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability
And here's something you may not have known. Amazingly, even if we had no manuscripts at all for the new testament, but only quotes from the early church fathers, we could put an entire Bible together just from those quotes. And that Bible would be virtually identical to what we have today.
I realize this is all faith shaking info for you, but do you want to know the truth, or just hold onto your faith?
K
No that's what evolution does. It digs some crap out of the ground and say's oh this came from a mouse, when it weighs 5,000 pounds and has teeth like a shark.
We have written documentation dating back over 5,000 years where is yours and where can you show that evolution has happened. bring proof and not speculation.
K
I will ask you one more thing Percepi. Have you ever witnessed evolution? My guess is no. Then why challenge 100's of thousands of people who have had their life changed by the cross.? Drunks set free, cocaine users turned around, Families fixed by the power of God, Cancer healed, brain tumors disappear, the dead raised. My witnesses out way yours because you have none, only speculation and stupidly educated guesses.
It's not based on faith. It's based on the definition of science.
Actually, most reliable documents are written during the life of the person they describe. Having a bunch of manuscripts written after the fact isn't nearly as impressive, especially when many of those manuscripts are influenced from prior manuscripts.
It would be amazing if you could prove this instead of state it in a matter of fact manner.
Furthermore, the Bible isn't nearly as accurate as apologists argue. But before we go into how accurate it is or isn't, how can rely on something that's so internally inconsistent?
http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf
BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized
I'll admit, the inconsistencies listed may not actually be inconsistencies and they may have a valid explanation - each and every single one of them. But if this is the case, then I'm either ignorant of those explanations or haven't been persuaded by the explanations. Clearly, my skepticism isn't baseless. Wrong? Possibly, but it's not based off nothing.
I'm not relying on faith. You are. And it's evident that you're projecting your faith onto me. I challenge the validity of faith, so your response is to claim I have faith as a means of voiding my argument against you. Please, stop projecting. And stop saying I have faith when I don't. How many times do I have to repeat myself?
Imagine if I kept saying, "You believe in God because you're insecure." You would probably respond with, "I'm not insecure and that's not why I believe in God." I could then end every single statement I make with, "I know you don't want to change your views because of your insecurities" or "Due to your insecurities..." or "Your insecurities blind you..."
This is proof you have no idea how scientists dictate the age and species derived from fossils.
You don't have to witness everything first hand to determine its validity. We've concluded evolution to be true due to the evidence that supports it, the evidence you deny and clearly misunderstand or refuse to understand. The fact people's lives have been changed for Christianity isn't proof that it's any more true or reliable because there are numerous religions out there that change lives and life styles. And even if Christianity is the only religion that changes lives, it still wouldn't be evidence since it's possible for lies or misconceptions to mislead millions of people.
1. Many people are able to sober up without accepting Jesus as their savior.
2. If Christianity is false, would it be impossible for people to sober up believing it to be true? Answer: No.
3. Many people who accepted Christ as their savior don't overcome their drinking problems or sometimes develop drinking problems.
See above
See above
1. No scientific proof.
2. Being unable to explain how someone's cancer healed seemingly by itself may be a mystery, but isn't proof of God any more than it's proof of Vishnu.
See above
1. No evidence this has ever happened unless you refer to doctors who helped start a beating hart after it stopped for a few minutes to even a few hours in very special, heavily monitored, cases. Of course, we understand how this happened without needing God to explain it.
2. Stories in which people claimed to be dead woke up in a black bag have never been verified and even if they were wouldn't be proof of God any more than Vishnu or any other gods.
1. Having an answer doesn't mean you're any close to the truth.
2. I do have answers and they aren't educated guesses. Your completely ignorant of how evolution is verified and since your views on creationism play such an important role in defining who you are, means I highly doubt you'll ever accept what evolution REALLY is and how it REALLY works. I know evolution has been explained to you before and yet you show literally no improved understanding of it at all - meaning you completely ignored what others have told you.
Actually, most reliable documents are written during the life of the person they describe. Having a bunch of manuscripts written after the fact isn't nearly as impressive, especially when many of those manuscripts are influenced from prior manuscripts.
It would be amazing if you could prove this instead of state it in a matter of fact manner.
Furthermore, the Bible isn't nearly as accurate as apologists argue. But before we go into how accurate it is or isn't, how can rely on something that's so internally inconsistent?
http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf
BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized
I'll admit, the inconsistencies listed may not actually be inconsistencies and they may have a valid explanation - each and every single one of them. But if this is the case, then I'm either ignorant of those explanations or haven't been persuaded by the explanations. Clearly, my skepticism isn't baseless. Wrong? Possibly, but it's not based off nothing.
I'm not relying on faith. You are. And it's evident that you're projecting your faith onto me. I challenge the validity of faith, so your response is to claim I have faith as a means of voiding my argument against you. Please, stop projecting. And stop saying I have faith when I don't. How many times do I have to repeat myself?
Imagine if I kept saying, "You believe in God because you're insecure." You would probably respond with, "I'm not insecure and that's not why I believe in God." I could then end every single statement I make with, "I know you don't want to change your views because of your insecurities" or "Due to your insecurities..." or "Your insecurities blind you..."
This is proof you have no idea how scientists dictate the age and species derived from fossils.
You don't have to witness everything first hand to determine its validity. We've concluded evolution to be true due to the evidence that supports it, the evidence you deny and clearly misunderstand or refuse to understand. The fact people's lives have been changed for Christianity isn't proof that it's any more true or reliable because there are numerous religions out there that change lives and life styles. And even if Christianity is the only religion that changes lives, it still wouldn't be evidence since it's possible for lies or misconceptions to mislead millions of people.
1. Many people are able to sober up without accepting Jesus as their savior.
2. If Christianity is false, would it be impossible for people to sober up believing it to be true? Answer: No.
3. Many people who accepted Christ as their savior don't overcome their drinking problems or sometimes develop drinking problems.
See above
See above
1. No scientific proof.
2. Being unable to explain how someone's cancer healed seemingly by itself may be a mystery, but isn't proof of God any more than it's proof of Vishnu.
See above
1. No evidence this has ever happened unless you refer to doctors who helped start a beating hart after it stopped for a few minutes to even a few hours in very special, heavily monitored, cases. Of course, we understand how this happened without needing God to explain it.
2. Stories in which people claimed to be dead woke up in a black bag have never been verified and even if they were wouldn't be proof of God any more than Vishnu or any other gods.
1. Having an answer doesn't mean you're any close to the truth.
2. I do have answers and they aren't educated guesses. Your completely ignorant of how evolution is verified and since your views on creationism play such an important role in defining who you are, means I highly doubt you'll ever accept what evolution REALLY is and how it REALLY works. I know evolution has been explained to you before and yet you show literally no improved understanding of it at all - meaning you completely ignored what others have told you.