Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 00:21:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
432 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Culberson writes:
> David Eaton wrote:
> >
> > Do you believe in Quazmon? Would you dispute the truth that Quazmon is the
> > one true God, even though you don't like him (I'm guessing)? Or doesn't it
> > just kinda go against your judgement as to what God could or should be? My
> > point is that there's NO PROOF. There's evidence (almost ALWAYS if not
> > always) in personal form, but NONE in physical form-- but at some level it
> > comes down to how much you trust your judgement to choose the right thing.
> > And your logic and experience tell you that Quazmon is NOT right in some
> > way. And MY logic and experience tell me that the example of God I gave,
> > which is what I think Jon was arguing for, also isn't right in some way.
>
> I argue first and foremost that the Creation we see all around us is
> evidence of God's existence (as is mentioned in the Bible).
A-ha! Your judgement tells you that such evidence supports the existence of
God, yes? Mine doesn't.
> I also
> argue that scientific evidence supports the Creation theory.
I shall correct you by saying that scientific evidence does not contradict
creationism, just as it does not contradict evolution. Neither theory is
invalid. But given the evidence, I think (according to MY judgement) that it
points to evolution. You think it points to creationism.
> Of course
> there's no proof, then there would be no need for faith. After that the
> greatest physical form of evidence is the Bible itself.
Ok, but if you're going for the 'evidence' argument, then what about the
Koran? Is that not evidence of Allah? Why accept the Bible and nothing else?
> You are making a
> blatantly false statement by saying "There's evidence...but NONE in
> physical form".
Ah, but not really. The evidence that exists physically allows for other
explanations. Like evolution. Metaphysical evidence doesn't do that
necessarily. I'll argue that the metaphysical evidence that's out there
(I.E. your personal experience) provides the evidence you're looking for,
and obviously (trusting in your judgement) does not allow for a scientific
explanation. Almost no matter what physical evidence you present will allow
for an atheistic argument. And that 'almost' is pretty darn thin. There are
very few things that'll get in under that line, none of which I've ever
heard of as being offered, and any of which I ever heard of I'd be
phenomenally skeptical of.
> Beyond my personal judgement I look at the vast number
> of other people who also have executed personal judgement and realized
> the truth of the Bible.
And have ignored those who have embraced science? Does that make what you
believe any more true? People used to believe the world was flat... was it
true because lots of people thought so?
> > Who gave you the right to disrespect Quazmon? (I'm assuming you do, but I
> > think that's a safe assumption)
>
> To continue my above statement....I have NO _proof_ OR _evidence_ of
> Quazmon.
And you have no proof or evidence of God INSTEAD of Quazmon.
> > From my own personal judgement-- and I would argue that you did the same,
> > and concluded in agreeance with Christianity. I don't. And as soon as you
> > can prove that my judgement is faulty, let me know. Meanwhile, because I'm
> > unable to show the same for you, I'm content to say that neither of us is
> > 'really' right, but that we're only right for ourselves.
>
> I believe that is what you call circular reasoning. "I judge what God
> should be like from which I can logically deduce that God has in fact
> decided that is what he'll be like"
Ah yes! Which is why I say it's so prone to error. But I'll ask you again.
Why do you NOT believe in Quazmon, and DO believe in God? Evidence? Isn't
evidence only conclusive when our judgement is applied? And are you so sure
of yourself as to assume your judgement is infallible?
> That is indubitably what I would argue. I believe humans have only two
> choices - believe in God (as defined biblically) or reject God (as
> defined biblically).
Then indeed I shall argue right back at you. Human beings have two options:
to believe in Quazmon, or deny his existence. Isn't that statement true? In
what way does it validate Quazmon?
> It's not whether I think you're right or wrong, it's whether the Bible
> says you're right or wrong - in which case it is clear that your
> unbelief is wrong.
You seem truly to be passing off the question. But again, I'll play your
part: It's not whether I think you're right or wrong, it's whether the Book
of Quazmon says you're right or wrong. Who are you to question the Book of
Quazmon? What gives you the insight to see its failings? How do you know the
Book of Quazmon is wrong and the Bible is right? Is that not your own
judgement examining your own experiences?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I argue first and foremost that the Creation we see all around us is evidence of God's existence (as is mentioned in the Bible). I also argue that scientific evidence supports the Creation theory. Of course there's no proof, then there would (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
