Regardless, the Flat Earth Theory is based on conspiracy not factual evidence. It more or less dismisses anything contrary to their beliefs as Jesuit deception.
From the Ancient Greeks to Modern-Day Astrophysics we see time and time again there is evidence for a round earth, however talking about these things to a Flat-Earther is impossible.
http://www.popsci.com/
http://www.smarterthanthat.
Ill just start out with this
I became saved at the morning of April 27, 2015 after struggling for months prior with porn. After being saved I studied Creation vs Evolution and started with the understanding you have. I strengthened my arguments as time progressed. Then I wanted to make sure my beliefs were as biblical as possible. I used various study's/subjects such as Sociology to understand about the culture of the Hebrews and the surrounding peoples around them. Over the course of time I have changed my opinions on somethings for example the major sins of Sodom was greed and pride not homosexuality
Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.
Or that Matthew 7:1-6 was talking about hypocritical judgement
Matthew 7:1-6
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Regardless I haven't said any direct profanities against you. Just minor criticism at the worst.
Yes he talked about the depraved human heart he is also talking about their pagan society.
Here I will define what I mean by "I am against the social aspect of homosexuality especially dealing with the family construct". We have biological roles the mothers is to care and nurture the child while the fathers is to shape the child and forming the child's ideology. In my opinion, with two fathers or two mothers you will never get both sides of the coin. Like I said as long as I am not forced to marry them, forced to serve them, or persecuted by them I could care less about their actions. Even if I was to say it was a sin I wouldn't directly say that first I would give them the good news and do one of two things 1. let them figure it out 2. directly tell them after they researched the bible. You do realize you can be Christian and not care about homosexuality. I do not need to go with picket signs preaching God hates fags (which he doesn't) to go to heaven. To reiterate from what I see Paul is talking about Romes paganism, their sex rituals, and orgies.
Yes I do care about what the Bible says about sin. Go ahead give me all of the scriptures of what the Bible says about Homosexuality and we will debate them. No I am not in some kind of spineless sect who cares about political correctness to be frank I don't care about political correctness in fact, it needs to be abolished so we can have honest conversations not play kiss-ass trying not to say something that falls under hate speech. No I use NIV, NET, and KJV not just NIV. I chose Einstein cause I liked his work and theory.
I didn't necessarily slander Baptists just gave some general objections about their reputation. And sure I will take a look at those books. Just some questions. What defects do the Calvinist denomination have? How am I insulting John The Baptist by commenting on just the denomination? How does the act of baptizing which is a major enrollment for most denominations only restrictive for Baptists in the sense of Christ's baptism? If Jesus was a baptist would he slander the other denominations even though most of them follow his word correctly? Keep in mind I do not intend to slander any denomination.
No problem word it however you wish unless you commit equivocation or other fallacies. I was expecting general objections to the Teleological Argument such as the Multiverse. You ask what does Dr. Craig mean by chance? I would have to say the definition of chance using the video and logic is the probability of all the quantities and constants being FT themselves without design or physical necessity present or in place.
And yes I believe we will both find this productive and regardless of who wins we will both learn some more objections to strengthen our arguments in the future.
How can I explain it I am a follower of Christ who believes he can defend God with logic and reason with kind words to help people come to Christ and accept him. I mainly do this by breaking down some Atheist objections and showing them that Jesus was who he said to be. Without God I am nothing. So how can I explain why i think i can justify my own life would be the same answer as you without God we can't.
He was judging their actions and beliefs. I try not to simply read between the lines but try to understand the actual context of what Jesus was implying. I don't hate anyone especially not Christians. On what logical basis would I hate you on?
No I don't "hate Baptists" because of some false not biblical doctrines of certain churches such as Faithful Word or Westboro. Homosexuality was used as a practical example. My point was Baptists reputation isn't the best. Main arguments Baptists use for God calling homosexuality a sin is Leviticus, Romans, and Corinthians. However I will address these in chronological order. The Levitican Law was abolished after Jesus' death when he atoned for our sins. In other words he paid the price with his life which there is no more need for the law. Romans was mainly referring to Romes sex rituals and paganism. Corinthians was referring to their lifestyle and their culture for example Boys as young as 9 were sold as sex slaves to men. Last thing as long as the sin(s) are not intruding on me or my family I couldn't care less. For clarity I am against the social aspect of homosexuality especially dealing with the structure of the family. On the flip side if men like fudge packing or if women prefer carpet munching as long as I am not persecuted or intruded upon I don't care. If you want to know what I am for or against ask me.
I don't know if you are experienced in Philosophy or not but what I will do to start is give a link to an explanation of the FTA (Teleological Argument). I am doing this because I am limited with my time. Anyway what I am expecting you to use is either the multiverse theory or the Poker argument.
Teleological Argument
Personally I think this is a straw-man. Who baptized you doesn't imply demonic intent. Yes there is no doubt John the Baptist baptized but he didn't create Baptist's (denomination). Jesus just used Johns way of baptism cause that is how God wanted it. Methodist doctrine from what I have seen is ok. If you are baptized you belong to God not the Methodist church (considering a Methodist gets baptized). This doesn't make Baptism the true denomination or most biblical. Methodist and Baptist doctrines are for the most part biblical. The only bad side of the Baptist denomination is its reputation for having un-biblical doctrines such as god hates fags, Jew', and the world (Westboro) or still believe in the Levitican Law even though Jesus's atonement abolished it (Faithful Word).
Even though I haven't seen everything he said what I will say is this. Jesus allows us to judge other beliefs, ideologies, and religions. However from my knowledge I haven't found any scripture that supports judging the person himself. To reiterate you can judge a persons actions, beliefs, ideology, or other religions. In contrast you cannot judge the person or use hypocritical judgement (judging somebody for something you are already guilty of).
If you watch videos by Ken Ham or Answers In Genesis after the debate or if you read Inside The Nye Ham Debate by Ken Ham & Bodie Hodge Ham addresses Nyes arguments and refutes them. The main thing Ken Ham did during the debate was explain his point of view while very rarely answering Nyes arguments. Nye didn't obliterate Ham! He gave already answered and weak arguments for evolution. Regardless if you want Ken Ham to be destroyed give him a topic with a bare amount of plausibility and a decent and well experienced PhD Atheist Philosopher or Scientist and Ken Ham wouldn't stand a chance. Unfortunately he had an ill-prepared ex dancer (Bill Nye). Anyway from watching it I saw no plausible argument that Bill Nye uttered.
On some things I would generally agree it is stupid, however since terms are not clearly defined properly in your post I would be forced to stay on the it is not.
My Position Regarding Post: The micro changes to genetic information via Mutation and Natural Selection that decrease genetic information that Observable Evolution is 100% Fact 0 Disagreement with it, Undeniable, however the Theorized Evolution that we all came from one cell 3-3.8 bya then during the Cambrian Explosion multi-celled organisms arose, etc. I generally have disagreements as there is not much evidence to support this. Even though Kent Hovind had some good points in my opinion he wasn't that qualified he could have described how vestigal organs like the Appendix, Tailbone, and others alike are not Vestigal at all, but I will stay neutral on this.
Trying to call hypocrisy does not mean that i have not read the Bible. And to be fair that was wrong on me and to be honest there was a whole range of things I could have said but i was conservative with any insults. If i remember correctly the only thing i said was "this just shows how ignorant you are" which is not really terrible I just called him out on it. By the way the Bible says "Be angry but sin not" and I didn't judge him as a person I judged his words at the very slightest. Your argument is quite invalid heck even if i was wrong (judging him as a person) the conclusion would not be that i am ignorant of the Bible as a whole it would have been i am ignorant of Matthew 7:1 which if you read the whole chapter allows judging a belief in a sensible matter as long as you are not judging the people who are believing. Also if you look at what he dishes at my throat and compare it with my reply. He basically uses religious satire while i correct in a mostly kind manner while offering advice along the way. So to reiterate I am not ignorant of the Bible, neither am I ignorant of how to debate (i actually argue without insulting unless necessary and even then it is mild) if anything you should have repackaged your words and sent it over to the other guy cause based on your description he does insult others, and finally yes i have researched the "contradictions" and there are none.
For start (even though I realize you are a troll) it states "Are there any good arguments for Gods existence" it is not being specific. Second you presuppose evolution is fact and religion is mere myth. "Not even a scientilla of evidence" I have to ask a question Do you even examine both sides of the arguments or are you just an atheistic troll who goes on websites dedicated to religious satire whose owners are either ignorant of the religion itself or take the verse/verses out of context? If troll then you are that closed-minded. I'm religious not because I am a delusional closed-minded jesus freak. I have examined both sides of the arguments and came out a theist. I researched which religion is true and I came out a Christian and am one because of evidence. Research it yourself unbaisedly and you will probably become a Christian
In most of the holy texts I would agree with you. However the Bible has no contradictions in it. At the most there were some justified grammatical errors but not from the original manuscripts. If you want more information on contradictions in the Bible look up Answers In Genesis contradiction scripture index where all of the supposed contradictions are very well answered. Pertaining to how there are no good arguments I will give one due to lack of time. The Teleological Argument (Fine Tuned Argument) argues that all of the quantities and constants of the universe were finely tuned for life to exist because the quantities and constants are in a life permitting range and if altered by the slightest margins no physical interactive life could exist anywhere. For example if the expansion rate of the universe were altered in one part in 10^55 then either no galaxies would form (if larger) or the universe would have collapsed before stars began to form (if smaller). According to the argument there are only 3 explanations for the discovery either physical necessity, chance, or design caused this to occur. Physical necessity is expunged immediately since it is more likely that the fine tuned quantities to be impossible more than possible. And the probably of all this happening by chance is so infinitesimal that it would not occur, the last explanation design is the most plausible. Or in other words God Exists.
