Computer consultant, WordPerfect expert, musician, author (https://teapawt.net/t.co/IBclkdV0tq), Bible scholar, LDA, video editor, radio personality (https://teapawt.net/t.co/alnRFGx0dr)
Los Angeles, CA
Joined October 2014
- Tweets84.8K
- Following506
- Followers810
- Likes486
[1/3]
@sarahsalviander:
𝘖𝘬𝘢𝘺, 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘈𝘘. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘺 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘐’𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘵.
1. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘢 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵?
𝘠𝘦𝘴.
Do you? Many atheists describe atheism as ‘the disbelief in any gods,’ and some say atheism ‘it addresses and rejects the claim that a god exists,’ although atheism 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐨 𝐠𝐨𝐝𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭. I get the impression that you believe that God is Jesus Christ, who is not God, but the Son of God. I have interpreted your "yes" to mean that you no longer adhere to the claim that no gods exist.
2. 𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵?
𝘠𝘦𝘴.
Ok.
3. 𝘈𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵?
𝘕𝘰.
Ok.
4. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘎𝘰𝘥?
I noticed that you objected to this question as being illegitimate, rather than answering it.
The existence of an orderly universe containing life points to a Creator. That Creator is God, for just as “every house is built by someone, … the builder of all things is God.” (Heb. 3:4) Simple, but powerful logic. But there is no hypothesis, no theory, postulate that can be presented as scientific evidence for God.
If I had a video camera in my backyard that records the bunch of leaves I have raked together into a large pile being redistributed across the lawn during the two minutes I had stepped away to warn my neighbor, who has just parked her car at the curb in front of my house, that she needs to close her windows to ensure that her car's interior is unaffected by the water that will momentarily be coming from my water sprinklers, I can no more use that video to provide scientific evidence of the wind than I can provide scientific evidence of an invisible and immortal God. We could look around us and conclude that everything we see with our eyes constitutes evidence that that God exists.
5. 𝘌𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.
Sagan's "ECREE" opinion aside, to claim belief in God would be ordinary to those believing in God, but would be extraordinary were an atheist to claim he or she believes in God. I like your red car/flying red car analogy, but DeLorean time machines and warp speed are extraordinary and are things that are right up there with flying red cars. 😊
6. 𝘚𝘰, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘎𝘰𝘥?
The teleological argument and the Kalām Cosmological argument are philosophical arguments that I imagine have persuaded many to believe in God (even in Spinoza's God), but it is also logical to conclude that the scientific peinciples associated with a fine-tuned universe, the zygote stage to neonate stage to adult progression, blood clotting and consciousness, as well as the things one learns from a study of the Bible have convinced many others to believe in God.
7. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦’𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘎𝘰𝘥.
How are "near-death experiences" compelling evidence for God?
8. 𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘥?
𝘚𝘦𝘦 #6 𝘢𝘯𝘥 #7.
Including Christianity, the 12 major religions in the world are Baha'i, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islām, Jainism, Judaism, Shinto, Sikhism, Taoism and Zoroastrianism and there are an estimated 10,000 religions, but one's religion matters.
[cont’d]
[2/3]
9. 𝘚𝘰, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦?
The question isn't whether Genesis is literal and figurative in any context; just whether it is figurative and it isn't. The word "day" is a homonym used in Genesis chapters 1 through 3, and this word may not always refer to a 24-hour day. The word "day" is used at Gen. 1:5, 2:4, 2:17 and 3:8, but none of them are used to refer to a 24-hour day.
Similar to "day" is the word "light": "The morning light" (noun); "he used a match to light a fire" (verb); "the room was light and airy" (adjective); "the suitcase wasn't heavy at all, it was light" (adjective); "the lotion glistened because of her light skin" (adjective).
Each of the “days” in Genesis are epochs as proven by the fact that the Andromeda Galaxy, for example, is 15 quintillion (15 trillion million) miles away, so on the first creative “day” when God said “let there be light,” light from the Andromeda Galaxy to which Gen. 1:3–5 refers would have taken 2.537 mly to reach the earth. The second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth creative “days” were epochs, but not 24 hours in length.
Moses wrote the book of Genesis under the inspiration of God. What Moses wrote is based on fact and isn’t some guess based on Moses’ belief considering the fact that the odds of his being able to write down the correct order of events as he does in Genesis is 1 in 3,628 800!
Genesis lists the following major stages during the creation process and in this general order: (1) a beginning; (2) a primitive earth in darkness, enshrouded in heavy gases and water; (3) light; (4) an atmosphere; (5) large areas of dry land; (6) land plants; (7) sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and the beginning of seasons; (8) sea monsters, flying creatures; (9) wild and tame beasts, mammals; and (10) man.
Science agrees with this general order, so the science of mathematical probability says for anyone to just pick the numbers 1 to 10 randomly from a box and draw them in consecutive order (1:3,628,800) means that Moses didn't just happen to guess the right order correctly; this would be an unrealistic conclusion. Logically, Moses would had needed help from someone that was there at the time to write what he did, and I believe that "someone" is God.
10. 𝘐𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘥?
God is eternal and uncreated. It is not special pleading to state a scriptural fact. (1 Tim. 1:17) You wrote that "people believed the universe was eternal … until the 20th century, when … evidence began piling up showing the universe had a beginning" and how by "the 1960s, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the cosmic background radiation, the Big Bang theory had pretty much destroyed the idea of an eternal universe," but what does the Big Bang have to do with who created God? Only someone eternal could create the universe and the Bible indicates that God is uncreated. Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 AD, referred to God as “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” (See Prov. 30:4.)
An infinitely small point called a "singularity" exploded into the present universe, which inflated or expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light. What is supposed to have caused the big bang itself? What came before? If space-time did not exist then, how could everything appear from nothing? No one associated with modern cosmology is able to explain this singularity, where and when it began.
[cont’d]
[3/3]
I should add here that in his book, “The Intelligent Universe,” Prof. Fred Hoyle wrote about Ptolemy’s futile use of epicycles and said: “I have little hesitation in saying that as a result a sickly pall now hangs over the big bang theory. As I have mentioned earlier, when a pattern of facts becomes set against a theory, experience shows that it rarely recovers.”
—The Intelligent Universe (1983), page 186.
You wrote that it comes down to choosing to “believe in an infinite chain of causes … or an eternal something with the power to create. Which one makes more sense to you?” No. There is no need to guess: God is an uncreated being and he it was that created the universe.
11. 𝘏𝘰𝘸 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘲𝘶𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢 ‘𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥’ 𝘎𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘭𝘥?
We live in an orderly 13.7 byo universe with a 4.6 byo sun and moon, and a 4.5628 byo earth, which is not in conflict with Genesis.
12. 𝘋𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘱𝘢𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘎𝘰𝘥’𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦?
𝘕𝘰.
I have written many Bible-related posts featuring God's dealings with mankind since Adam's creation 6,051 years ago in 4026 BC.
13. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵 … 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥.
You wrote: "The law of parsimony (Occam's razor) applies here," but evolutionary biology is psuedoscience and is in conflict with the Bible, which does not teach phylogenetic trees or that mankind evolved, but they we are the offspring of Adam and Eve. We are all born with clean slates, so to speak, but no one is born an atheist.
14. 𝘙𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯, 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘧𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘺, 𝘦𝘵𝘤.
Not always. Some people learn their religion from missionaries that proselytize in their country.
15. 𝘞𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘨𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶.
I disagree; not all of us are atheists.
16. 𝘞𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘰𝘥𝘴 𝘥𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘺?
I believe in and worship the God of the Bible, whose name is Jehovah. (Exo. 6:3; Jer. 10:10, ASV; John 17:3)
17. 𝘈𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢 𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧.
No; atheism 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐧𝐨 𝐠𝐨𝐝𝐬 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭.
18. 𝘈𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘩𝘰𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘧.
The burden of proof (BOP) is on the individual that makes a claim. I believe in God; this is an affirmative (positive) statement. I am not obliged to prove my beliefs to anyone, but I'm always willing to share them with others. When the atheist makes a claim, the BOP is on the atheist to prove his or her claim that no gods exist.
[1/8]
@wendelltalks:
𝘈𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘮’𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘷𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴… 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴.
• 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 “𝘪𝘴” • 𝘓𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 “𝘩𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘥” • 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 “𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭” •𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 “𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵” • 𝘛𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 “𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘴”
@TherionWare:
𝘐’𝘮 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘞𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘭. 𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘨𝘦𝘵 "𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘺"?
You would be a rare atheist t𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬𝐧’𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞 𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐲 for the beliefs that some Christians hold. In the Bible, at Rom. 1:19-20, it states:
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
Now is this true? Absolutely! Certainly! 😊 God HAS made it plain to us the things that we need to know, the things that we can see and perceive indicate that God has eternal power, that He actually exists and that He is superior to all man-made things, and all other things on earth and in the material universe. Since there is an ample amount of evidence that could be presented, I won’t spend any time with this and will just move on.
𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐅𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐄 𝐁𝐀𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄
𝐂𝐀𝐔𝐒𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐄𝐅𝐅𝐄𝐂𝐓 [ tinyurl.com/3bxkh6dt ]
𝐁𝐈𝐁𝐋𝐄 𝐏𝐑𝐎𝐏𝐇𝐄𝐂𝐘[ tinyurl.com/3bxkh6dt ]
𝐒𝐏𝐀𝐂𝐄𝐓𝐈𝐌𝐄 𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍𝐒 [tinyurl.com/2wzbxc5z ]
𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐄 𝐃𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐌𝐄 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐍𝐎𝐍-𝐋𝐈𝐅𝐄 [ tinyurl.com/4ppydyj9 ]
𝐂𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐂𝐈𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐕𝐈𝐑𝐓𝐔𝐄 [ tinyurl.com/4ppydyj9 ]
𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐖𝐎𝐑𝐊𝐒 𝐖𝐄 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐂𝐄𝐈𝐕𝐄 [ tinyurl.com/4ppydyj9 ]
𝐎𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐑 𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐔𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒 [ tinyurl.com/4ppydyj9 ]
𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐑𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐀𝐍’𝐒 𝐁𝐄𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐅𝐒 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐁𝐄 𝐁𝐀𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐎𝐍 𝐄𝐕𝐈𝐃𝐄𝐍𝐂𝐄
Now there are some that adhere to their belief in God simply because of the belief of their parents or because they now happen to live where it is socially popular to be a Christian that believes Jesus to be both the Son of God and God. (FYI the Gospel of John at John 20:31 doesn’t say that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, but that he is “the Son of God.”)
However, the fact that one’s parents professed belief in God will not convince any atheist to believe that God exists, will it? Indeed, one of the reasons why many persons, even the children of some so-called Christians, become doubters of God’s existence is the inability of believers to convincingly explain their convictions, they having no idea what “faith” means. And, frankly, unless a person has been personally convinced to believe in God, that person is not likely to defend any of his or her religious beliefs when under pressure to do so. (See Rom. 12:2; Heb. 11:1)
A legitimate belief in God must be founded on facts that we intelligently determine to be true. But as a first century AD Bible writer wrote: “No man has seen God at any time.” (John 1:18) So to be convinced of God’s existence our belief must be based on the things we discern we observe in the material universe as well as our accumulated personal experience. Only then can we can develop an unassailable belief in God using our powers of reason.
[cont’d]
[7/8]
This establishes God's superiority, and clearly someone higher than man must supply these needs. Why does there exist a vast variety of food in the world? Not just vegetation, but the animals and the fish we eat? Whose idea was it to make the plants, the fish and the other animals we eat?
We can look at man's body. We can look at the marvelous systems. The doctors and scientists say, these systems are not unrelated. They say, each system in our bodies is related to the other systems: The circulatory system, the nervous system, the respiratory system, the cardiovascular system, the blood system, the digestive system. If one breaks down or falls down, the others will rally to its side to try to make that body work anyway. Who thought of that? Man? Not even his doctors understand this fully. Why does these systems in the human body so organized that they work this way? Whose idea was this? Who made man?
A prime example that proves God’s existence that comes to my mind is this: Water, which is our most essential fluid. Water has a remarkable property that shows the remarkable and the eternal power of God. Perhaps you’ve noticed this:
When water freezes, it expands, and gets lighter and floats. You know that because when you put an ice cube in your Pepsi, it doesn't sink to the bottom. It floats right there on the top. And you know, too, that it expands because when you fill your ice tray, you don't fill it up all the way to the top. You leave a little room, because you know that when you pull it out of the freezer, it's going to take up that extra space.
So because water, when frozen, expands, and gets lighter and floats, it keeps all of us from living, right here on this earth, in a refrigerator. Did you know that? How so? Well, now, consider this, for a moment there, how it is saving the whole world of mankind. Let's say just the opposite were true. Let's say water, when frozen, was like most other substances; they contract and get smaller. That's like that chicken in your freezer: When you pull it out, it has shriveled up a little. It has gotten smaller. See, that's how most things do when they freeze; not water. Well, that's saving us.
And I will add here that when we boil water; it becomes steam, but none of this was written to discuss the different properties of water, but to discuss the proof that God exists.
Let's say water did like most substances and when frozen became more dense, and instead of floating would sink. Well, during a cold winter, what would happen? All the water on top would freeze; lakes, rivers, ponds, all around the world, and since it wouldn't float, it would become more dense and would sink right to the bottom and there ice would be all winter.
Then when the summer came, the sun couldn't penetrate all the way through the water down to the bottom where the ice is and had not melted, so by the time winter came around again, you would still have much ice at the bottom of all the rivers and lakes and streams.
But then with winter that on top would freeze again and would sink toward the bottom, piling up on top of that other unmelted ice at the bottom that had been there from the previous winter. Can you see what would happen now? After a few winters, there wouldn't be a drop of water on this earth, all of it would be frozen and we would be in a refrigerator, except we wouldn't be here because, without our most essential fluid that God provides, then we just could not exist as humans on this planet.
Well, now, who thought of that? Who thought of making water the exception to most substances? Not man, although we do appreciate it and its properties. We live as a result of it. But it establishes the eternal power of God, and therefore the evidence all around us, visible and invisible collectively, constitutes proof that God exists.
[cont’d]
[8/8]
For an absolute certainty, it becomes clear by using, not the sense of hearing, but our four other senses of sight, smell, taste, and touch, that God exists.
𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐔𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒
@TherionWare:
𝘠𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘰𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘴𝘮𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦, 𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘴, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘪𝘷𝘦. 𝘐𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯’𝘵.
"𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸" 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳. 𝘐𝘵 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘯𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘵 𝘢 𝘥𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘦.
𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘰𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘈𝘯 𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘥𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥𝘭𝘺.
What “argument” is missing? Please be specific.
@Crypt0_Facts:
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘣𝘰𝘥𝘺 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦, 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘰𝘯.
𝘞𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴, 𝘸𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴.
𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵'𝘴 𝘢 𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨
I believe there is only one God, but you, as an atheist, assert a priori that all life on earth is the result of a common ancestor, and assumes that all animal and human behavior can be explained from a naturalistic point of view.
Dismissing the entire category of personal testimony a priori isn’t neutral skepticism; it is a presupposition that rules out the data before examining the pattern. However, testing the historical, circumstantial and testimonial evidence in the Bible for their authenticity, one can logically perceive that God’s existence is a fact.
Babies are born with blank slates as it were. By their third birthday, they may have learned to speak and understand one or more languages, but they do not and they cannot make the claim that gods do not exist.
However, as children get older, parents teach their children their ideology, their worldview, their religion, both the atheist and the non-atheist, to guide them in life, and by the time they become adults, they will have decided to embrace either their parents’ worldview or some other religion.
[1/2]
@wendelltalks:
𝘈𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺 “𝘐 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.”
𝘜𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰: • 𝘈 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘣𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 • 𝘍𝘪𝘯𝘦-𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 • 𝘖𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘯 • 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯’𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦
@JonHammond1701:
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯'𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘈𝘕𝘠 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴.
𝘐𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦, "𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦-𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨" 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘦, 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘮, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐𝘚 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘦.
Fine-tuning is false? No; it isn’t false.
Maybe you know (or maybe not) that there are four fundamental forces of nature, right? A Gravitational Force; a Electromagnetic Force; a Strong Nuclear Force; and a Weak Nuclear Force. Referring to just the Electromagnetic Force, a slight difference in this force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the Electromagnetic Force determines whether we live or not.
Equally vital is the intensity of the Electromagnetic Force in relation to the other three forces. For example, some physicists figure this force to be (10⁴⁰) times that of gravity. It might seem a small change to that number to add one more zero (10⁴¹). Yet that would mean that gravity is proportionally weaker, and a Professor of Mathematics and Physics at Oxford, Dr. Reinhard Breuer (“The Anthropic Principle: Man as the Focal Point of Nature”) made this interesting comment on the resulting situation:
“With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine.” Imagine this!
What if gravity were stronger proportionately, so that the number had one fewer zeros (10³⁹)? “With just this tiny adjustment,” continues Breuer, “a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.” And other scientists consider the fine-tuning to be even more precise.
Indeed, two remarkable qualities of our sun and other stars are long-term efficiency and stability. Consider a simple illustration. We know that to run efficiently, an automobile engine needs a critical ratio between fuel and air; engineers design complex mechanical and computer systems to optimize performance. If that is so with a mere engine, what of the efficiently “burning” stars such as our sun? The key forces involved are precisely tuned, optimized for life. Did that precision just happen?
@TalonXavier1973:
𝘌𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘺?
No, a resurrection by this means cannot happen. E.T. does nit and has never existed, except on the movie or tv screen or in a book.
@ThatAntiTheist1:
𝘈𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨.
I’m sorry. I understand you to be saying that all of what @wendelltalks said in his post is wrong, but specifically what exactly?
1. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯 [𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭] 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦.
To what evidence do you refer? I’m a scientist, so use as many words as you need to give me the cliff-notes.
[cont’d]
[2/2]
2. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘭𝘭-𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦? 𝘜𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘦.
Someone—not man—authored the anthropic principle, which includes the permittivity constant in Coulomb’s law and Planck’s constant, explains the fine tuning of our universe, and governs the natural cycles that gives to our planet the ability to support the abundance of life on it. Four questions:
Why does the permittivity constant in Coulomb’s law have the exact value of 8.85 x 10⁻¹² Coulomb per Newton-meter? Why is the electron charge to mass ratio exactly 1.76 x 10⁻¹¹ Coulomb per kilogram? Why is the speed of light 3 x 10⁸ meters per second? Why is Planck’s constant exactly 6.63 x 10⁻³⁴ Joules-seconds?
3. 𝘔𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵.
Subjective? Really? Why is it that people all over our planet share the same moral view on stealing? on murder? on lying? Tell me you intended to write “objective.”
4. 𝘞𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯'𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘯.
We ca actually see s person’s thoughts? Are you at least 21 years of age? I ask because I don’t think an adult would say such a thing.
𝘋𝘰 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘥𝘪𝘰𝘵.
𝘜𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘺𝘰𝘶'𝘳𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳.
I’m pretty sure that you aren’t smarter than I am when discussing the anthropic principle. I don’t believe there is anyone on this platform that is sporting a “look.” I mean, we can’t see it. One wonders why it was you decided to say this. Were you intending to be clever? If so, that’s fine, but please let me know that you’re not serious in the things you’ve said in your post.
[1/3]
@xonphused:
𝘈 𝘑𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘯𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 2,000 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘨𝘰, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺’𝘴 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩.
𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺?
𝘞𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘥𝘪𝘦. 𝘏𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴. 𝘐𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘯.
Yes, humans have committed atrocities in the past and they continue to do so, and innocent people still suffer injustices meted out to them by others because sin is in the world, but God will soon reverse the effects of these injustices, and will resurrect those that have died as a result of such atrocities.
𝘐 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘴𝘶𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯:
𝘐𝘧 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘭-𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘯𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯?
𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦?
𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘧 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴’ 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩, 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥?
I do not agree with this idea of yours about ‘Christians believing that salvation is spiritual and eternal.’ I have no idea what this idea even means, but no Christian believe such a thing. I will now go on here to answer these other questions.
Our original parents, Adam and Eve, were created perfect by God, but before any children were born to them they willfully did what God had commanded them not to do, and incurred a debt that constituted an unforgivable sin against God. True to his word, God sentenced them to eternal death as a consequence.
All of Adam’s offspring has inherited the consequences of Adam’s sin at birth, and just as Adam and Eve grew old and die, so we, too, suffer the wrath of God as well, which are the consequences of God’s perfect justice, that is, the indignity and misery of having become sinners with imperfect bodies that are not just vulnerable to the common cold, but to heart disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, dementia, Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson’s Disease, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and psoriatic arthritis to name just a few of the diseases that plague and affect our quality of life as we get older, as well as the knowledge that we, like our original parents, could not escape death on our own without divine help.
Without a just basis, God cannot forgive Adam’s sin or forgive our sins. If God were to reverse the death process without the payment of a ransom in satisfaction of Adam’s debt, he would be untrue to his word that “the wages of sin is death.” (Rom. 6:23) No imperfect man could satisfy this debt and deliver us from this penalty by ‘giving to God a ransom for the life of any sinner that would grant to the individual the right to live forever.’ (Psa. 49:7-9; Rom. 7:24)
[cont’d]
[2/3]
Gratefully God provided the legal basis whereby he could justify and give to mankind forgiveness of their sins, which would free us from the penalty of eternal death. This God did by sending Jesus from heaven to be born as a perfect human, so that he could give his life as a ransom for all of Adam’s children. Jesus’ resurrection is not any victory over death for us. By his resurrection, Jesus himself was restored to life again, but by his death we have the ransom that provides atonement for the sins of those that exercise faith in its value to them by obeying Jesus.
How the ransom works can be likened to Adam’s having deprived all of his offspring of their rightful inheritance, their savings—which he did!—which resulted in his being sentenced to life imprisonment, leaving us, the innocent victims of his corruption, impoverished and destitute with no money and no way to get out of our circumstances, that is, until a kind benefactor stepped in and relieved us of our debt and restored to us our rightful inheritance.
God has arranged for Jesus to redeem us and cancel the debt of sin that Adam owed to God by having Jesus provide the ransom that “takes away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) We have now been relieved of our debt, but we continue to be impoverished and destitute until the wrath of God comes, and our sins are purged and death is finally abolished.
Unlike Adam, Jesus “committed no sin” (1 Pet. 2:22), so that because he died with the potential for fathering a perfect human race, he could adopt Adam’s sinful descendants as his children, and make it possible for those drawn into a relationship with God on the basis of (1) faith in the value of Jesus’ ransom sacrifice, (2) getting baptized in Jesus’ name and (3) obeying him could escape God’s wrath and receive eternal life. (John 3:36; Rom. 3:24)
By our willingness to make changes in our life as we await the coming of God’s wrath, we strive to bring our lives into harmony with God’s will through ‘repentance and turning back’ from the pursuit of an ungodly course and we take appropriate action to do the things that are pleasing to God so that the sins we commit “may [finally] be blotted out.” (Acts 3:19) In the meantime, those who are baptized are freed from a guilty conscience and obtain “a good conscience” toward God. (1 Pet. 3:21)
𝘐’𝘮 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘐’𝘮 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘢 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘤, 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵.
𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴’ 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮?
There’s nothing wrong with your questions, even if were your goal here to disprove the legitimacy of Christianity, but no one is expected to accept Christianity and pursue a godly course apart from a fair reading and study of the Bible. (Eph. 4:20-32) With so many things that could distract us in the world, pursuing godliness isn’t an easy thing to do. As the saying goes, you cannot know what you don’t know.
But without God’s providence in sending his son Jesus to earth so that by his death and the sacrifice of his life “as a propitiation by [Jesus’] blood for our sake his righteousness could be impugned to those of us exercising faith in the ransom, God could not demonstrate his divine forbearance in passing over former sins, and we would not be justified and would continue to die for an affliction we inherited even though our sins are by no means “like the transgression of Adam.” (Rom. 3:24-26; 5:14) Consequently, faith in Jesus and his ransom is the only means by which we can be saved.
[cont’d]
[3/3]
@Carlton3ru:
𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵'𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴.
𝘚𝘰 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵'𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 [𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦] 𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘢 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰 […] 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴.
𝘎𝘰𝘥 [𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘴] 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 [𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘪𝘯] 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘺?
1. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴, 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵.
2. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴 [𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘪𝘯] 𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘦, [𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳] 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘋𝘐𝘌.
𝘕𝘰𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘬𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘦𝘳 [𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘴] 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 [𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧𝘴], 𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘰𝘴𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵.....𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘺.
@Slickid007:
𝘎𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘬𝘦𝘥 , 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘸𝘢𝘵𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘯𝘰 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘮𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘸𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴; 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘭𝘪𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 .
As someone that professes to be a Christian, I will typically any and all questions that pertain to the gospel of the kingdom of God. Your anti-Christian taunt is not just false, but makes IMO what you say in your post foolish. I’m not asking, but I’m sure there are some that are reading this thread that wonder why you would make such a bombastic statement knowing that what you stated wasn’t representative of all Christians.
@Carlton3ru
𝘐 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺.
No, actually, IMO you 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧’𝐭 satisfactorily answer any of the OP’s questions; I suspect that you didn’t know how. I did notice that you paraphrased Rom. 6:23, which was good. Take a moment though and read my response to @xonphused’s post.
[1/2]
@SandersLam69990
𝘌𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘣𝘪𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘺.
What makes you say this? I speak as an scientist and an academic in pointing out to you that evolutionary biology is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 the foundation of modern biology, not even a branch of science, but is a subfield of biology.
Contrary to what you have been persuaded to believe, evolution is pseudoscience at best since evolution is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 an empirically verifiable scientific theory, and is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 settled science.
𝘐𝘯 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘢 "𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘰𝘳𝘺" 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘨𝘶𝘦𝘴𝘴; 𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭-𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥, 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘩𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦.
But evolution is not a scientific theory.
𝘖𝘷𝘦𝘳 98% 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘦𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘴, 𝘧𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘭𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦.
Over 98% of scientists believe in this fairy tale? I’ve heard you, but this is false. I’ll repeat here what I wrote in a previous post that you may still find it difficult to comprehend:
First, with respect to the ToE, it isn’t possible to observe the past. Observation is an activity that utilizes the senses to collect data in the present. We cannot use the senses to collect empirical data about past events. While it is possible to examine past events in the present, a degree of interpretation and inference will always be required to establish how such past events occurred.
Second, it’s not possible to design experiments to determine what happened in the past. Controlled observations/experiments may determine whether an event is possible in a specific situation, but the exact conditions that existed in a past moment in time can never be replicated. Conclusions about the past cannot be reached through inductive reasoning. Such conclusions or explanations are made through abductive reasoning.
Third, as I’ve already stated, it’s not possible to predict the past. Science predicts FUTURE events arising from certain situations based on CURRENT observations of nature. It is not used to make predictions of what happened in the past based on general observations of nature. Nor can it be used to establish the past events that led to the current observations—this would be the remit of abduction.
Using the scientific method, one observes what happens and then, based on those observations, postulate a theory as to what might be true, test this theory by making further observations and by conducting experiments; observe what results to see if predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.
The ToE is said to involve observed frequency changes in alleles, but these frequency changes are PRESUMED, for such changes have NOT been observed, and, as Sir Karl Popper has pointed out, that while natural selection is a testable hypothesis, the ToE isn’t subject to the possibility of empirical falsification, which means that whatever one thinks evolution to be, WHAT IT ISN’T is a legitimate scientific theory. I call the ToE narrative pseudoscience. Geology is a branch of science. Physics is a branch of science. Chemistry, Astronomy, Mathematics, Botany, Zoology and Genetics are each branches of science. Evolutionary biology is a subfield of biology, but, again, it is NOT a branch of science.
You like to talk, but you’ve never attended college and have no degree, which is what makes it difficult for you to appreciate how foolish your pushback sounds. You clearly do not understand the things I’ve been saying to you here, which I imagine a high school graduate should be able to understand. Be that as it may, below I’ve added the following remarks that were posted by @darwintojesus:
[cont’d]
[2/2]
Evolution isn’t that hard to understand, animals change gradually over time as random genetic mutations are selected for on account of their giving some kind of survival advantage. Those genetic advantages are then spread through the populations. It’s not hard to understand, and most theists had to learn it in school and we’ve been constantly inundated with evolutionary propaganda. It’s not that we “don’t get it,” it’s that you* don’t get the problems with it. Here’s a few:
1. Most, if not all mutations are harmful. Imagine trying to write code for a video game using something that nearly always distorts what’s already there rather than adding something good or meaningful, and then thinking you’d get a great game this way. That makes no sense.
2. Like it or not, you need abiogenesis for evolution to work as a naturalistic theory that explains life. You need some way to go from no life to life, before you can meaningfully posit evolution… and the more we learn about life the more insane that prospect looks.
3. There’s no evidence that tiny changes over time can create the kind of complexity we see in living organisms. The chasm between a bird’s beak changing length and something like an organ forming from a non-organ is enormous. Atheists conflate these things, but imagine saying the sand on the beach changes slightly every day so that’s what makes the sand castle. Small changes are just that, small changes. You need something that can create insane feats of engineering (like the wing) from scratch. The cause posited by evolution is an insufficient explanation.
4. Naturalistic evolution is also absurd. If it was actually true you’d have to say a heart isn’t for anything, it just happens to pump blood. A lung isn’t for breathing, that’s just what it happens to do. Feet aren’t for walking, feet happen to be used for walking. Nothing is FOR anything. There’s no design, no intention, no telos. In other words, no proper function. If people really believed that you could kiss medicine goodbye.
