-
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.
I've always known that from conscious thought and its effects is where every problem humanity face arises. Every person cognates uniquely, so, one Christian person will come to particular conclusions about the meaning within a piece of scripture where another may come to different conclusions. Which, by itself is not necessarily an issue. But the frequency of propagation that my spiritual conclusions are the only possible spiritual conclusions seems to directly correlate to frequency of controversy.
For instance, you said 'you believe God is never wrong' and I immediately thought it would have been more accurate if you'd said 'you believe your interpretation of the bible is never wrong'. And now I'm correcting your cognitive process. Ironic.
Food for thought.
For instance, you said 'you believe God is never wrong' and I immediately thought it would have been more accurate if you'd said 'you believe your interpretation of the bible is never wrong'. And now I'm correcting your cognitive process. Ironic.
Food for thought.
Last edited:
If I presuppose that light travels straight in a vacuum, it allows me to set up an experiment to find the evidence. Now, I cannot physically tell light to be different than what it is, so, if my experiment leads me to the conclusion that light is straight, then light is straight.
I speculated that light was straight and proved it. Presupposition isn't the same as speculation.
I speculated that light was straight and proved it. Presupposition isn't the same as speculation.
Nah Fred Flintstone is just a fictional cartoon made to entertain, placate, and manipulate the older generations.
I was moreso thinking along the lines of Kubilai Khan and his chariots drawn by dragons as recorded by Marco Polo in the book Travels of Marco Polo is proof of dinosaurs. Or perhaps Pliny the Elder's analyses of various dragon species around the world in his book Natural History. Among other ancient writers, again both Christians and non-Christians, so this is not a case of religious bias.
I was moreso thinking along the lines of Kubilai Khan and his chariots drawn by dragons as recorded by Marco Polo in the book Travels of Marco Polo is proof of dinosaurs. Or perhaps Pliny the Elder's analyses of various dragon species around the world in his book Natural History. Among other ancient writers, again both Christians and non-Christians, so this is not a case of religious bias.
Correct. That is why presuppositions must be based on first principles which are self evident. Romans 1:20 states that it is self evident that God created the universe. If that is true, and I believe it is, then any presuppositions which deny this self evident fact could lead to conclusions which are inconsistent with reality.
Yep. It's not a given that every Christian believes the creation account is literal, thus it's possible that it's not literal - if we are to base the validity of scriptural interpretation on the interpretations that exist within the entire Christian faith, that is. Of course, then we end up with this one respondent who will say 'creation is literal, I know it to be true', as opposed to to the other Christian who might say 'creation is not literal, I know it to be true', then we have the atheist scientist who says to himself 'I'm fed up of this, both think they're right based off belief, none have evidence, so I'm gonna make everything in my life evidence based'.
Neither of those three people like the idea of uncertainty, though.
Neither of those three people like the idea of uncertainty, though.
T
I wasn't taught the literal 6 day creation in the first place. When I read the Bible, that's what it recorded. You have to bring outside beliefs into the Bible to read anything like millions or billions of years.
No, I'm not scared. The Bible is true and evolution is false, that's it. Yes, evolutionary beliefs and the Christian faith absolutely contradict each other. I've read countless resources about such things (from both sides of the coin), I've thought through my beliefs and the evidence presented critically. I think revelation and reason go hand-in-hand. But not humanity's understanding of reason but reason informed by God's Truth, the Bible. You have more faith in scientists than God who was there! In every instance where Christians have compromised in their beliefs (whether it's evolution or the framework hypothesis or day-age or whatever) they always show that they don't have a high regard for God's Word as the final authority. And they especially don't know how to teach the book of Genesis, which is foundational to the Christian faith. Can a Christian be a theistic evolutionist? Sure. Can the Christian faith and evolutionary beliefs truly be reconciled? Heck, no!
No, I'm not scared. The Bible is true and evolution is false, that's it. Yes, evolutionary beliefs and the Christian faith absolutely contradict each other. I've read countless resources about such things (from both sides of the coin), I've thought through my beliefs and the evidence presented critically. I think revelation and reason go hand-in-hand. But not humanity's understanding of reason but reason informed by God's Truth, the Bible. You have more faith in scientists than God who was there! In every instance where Christians have compromised in their beliefs (whether it's evolution or the framework hypothesis or day-age or whatever) they always show that they don't have a high regard for God's Word as the final authority. And they especially don't know how to teach the book of Genesis, which is foundational to the Christian faith. Can a Christian be a theistic evolutionist? Sure. Can the Christian faith and evolutionary beliefs truly be reconciled? Heck, no!
1. If you always beg the question, you will always eventually reach a point in which we do presuppose. Always, whether it comes to science, religion, or philosophy. How do we know that all the experiments we have ever performed were not the result of a computer program and we're all just coding inside a computer with only the perception of consciousness? But, if you want to specify the very "point" in which scientists do presuppose, please point it out. I'll gladly explain how throwing out that presupposition would also require us to throw out ALL science, not just the theory of evolution.
2. Epistemology is a broad philosophy with varying different branches. If you conclude, through epistemology, that knowledge can only be obtained from a creator, then you're merely accepting one particular branch. To act like epistemology only comes to a single conclusion is to reveal your own misunderstandings of the subject.
This statement would work if something I said actually simplified to this argument. But nothing I said does simplify to this argument. You're merely misrepresenting my position.
Actually, a basic understanding of both science and logical fallacies is the reason the evidence is seen as flawed. Creationist "proofs" aren't theories. They generally can't even be considered hypothesis!