Rats!!
Where's the PICTURE??
Posted on 05/13/2007 6:15:45 PM PDT by Clemenza
Edited on 05/13/2007 6:29:30 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Wednesday night on ABC-TV, two televangelists took on nonbelievers from the Rational Response Squad in a bid to prove the existence of God (see "Nightline Face Off" on ABCNews.com).
The TV polemics come in the wake of a rash of bestselling books by atheists challenging religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Our job is to point out what their 'freedom' will finally get them.
There does come a time when one can no longer keep a child from playing in the street.
When one adds all the snippets together, you get a big example of circular logic.
Or, if a snippet can’t be supported, why worry about the whole?
And now here we are, trying that same with the LDS organization:
A Christian can't prove that the Golden Plates ever existed, no one can. The logical burden of proof lies with those who claim that the plates did exist.
EVERYone likes toys to play with!
You are right.
I took the unbelief in a god, and extrapolated it (incorrectly) to mean unbelief in ANYTHING.
My error.
Or, if a snippet can’t be supported, why worry about the whole?
I have to redact this post, for I answered not YOU, but someone else I was thinking about!
Let me try again...
If God can just always exist without a creator, then fundamental particles can just always exist without a creator.
You seem to be assuming certain things about GOD as well as things about particles, and then comparing them.
I do not believe you are knowledgeable enough in either area to do so.
(I know that I am not!)
You are absolutely correct, Elsie. The burden of proof always lies with those making the claims and the wilder claims require more evidence.
14. If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.
15. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.
I am surprised at you Elsie. Cursing your neighbors isn't very neighborly. How would you like it if I called down the vengeance of Zeus upon your head? ROFLOL meter (--------I--)
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Your question was very well put. I have your answer, but I am going to use it somewhere else. I think you have the answer too, but refuse to see it. Hmmm, didn't the Israelites have that same problem?
I have no idea; but what I BELIEVE is that merely dust would be a good thing for an unbeliever after death; but the Book says otherwise.
But God is not in a hurry a zap anyone:
NIV Ezekiel 18:23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
NIV Ezekiel 18:32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live! (Which includes atheists; too! ;^)
2 Peter 3
Romans 141. Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters.
2. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables.
3. The man who eats everything must not look down on him who does not, and the man who does not eat everything must not condemn the man who does, for God has accepted him.
4. Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
5. One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.
6. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.
Where's the PICTURE??
Hi LeGrande! Can I buy a clue?
OK, I’ll also try again. I did not state that God cannot have always existed without beginning or end. That’s why I asked you to read the whole thing. I am expressing my frustration with those who observe the universe, find themselves puzzled, then postulate that their puzzlement proves that God must exist since they have no other explanation. In other words all things must have a cause, we can’t immediately see the cause, therefore God must be the cause. At the same time, God is exempted for needing a cause. This is circular logic, or no logic at all. If anything can exist without a cause, God included, then why can’t something else exist without a cause. Even stating that God is not material and doesn’t need a cause is invalid. How do you know he is not material? How do you know the universe is material for that matter? I say again to all theists, the fact that you are puzzled does not prove the existance of God.
Nope, you are too smart. It is going to be the punchline for something I am righting. It was one of those duh moments.
Thank you again ^_^ Have you ever considered writing koans? You would do good.
Hi LeGrande! Please be sure to ping me to your "punchline!"
That does not follow. Each particle is not Ipse Esse (Being Itself). Otherwise, there could not be more than one of them, for there would be nothing to differentiate them. Therefore each particle receives its being from something other than itself.
But God is Ipse Esse. That is why He is necessarily the source of all other being, and why He alone is the Uncaused Cause.
-A8
Of course ^^
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.