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.
I will start out with just one to allow other opinions to flow in.
The Moral Argument "Can man be good without god"
To get this average response I do not mean can you be good without believing in god (the answer is an obvious yes) I mean be good without him at all. So 0 commandments, 0 laws, 0 foundations for governments, etc. Without God there is no Objective Morality just differing opinions. This debate I will not intervene at all nor will I leave a link to strengthen my argument. Good Luck to both sides!
If you look at the historical role of the church at the time they were mainly in control and wanted to keep it that way. They also disliked new ideas. Your claim that Religion has actually halted scientific progress over the years is quite far from the truth. The link I will leave talks about several scientists throughout history who were religious and caused scientific progress with their innovations.
I gave you a website of supposed "contradictions" in the Bible if you had at least a decent bit of curiosity you would have investigated and most likely come out with the conclusion that the Bible has no contradictions. To answer one of your claims "Like how the earth was made" you are referring to Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Genesis 1 gives the creation of the universe while Genesis 2 refers to The Garden Of Eden. If you are going to make a claim at least investigate both sides and not presuppose that Atheism is true and Christianity is false with only a secular site as evidence. If you want to destroy Christianity this is one good way of doing it sadly all who have tried failed. And one last thing assuming the Bible is just "a collection of fables and myths" just shows how ignorant you are. Research the Bible (not only Genesis 1-13, or Job) from both sides and I can almost assure that your opinion will change. The link I will give you answers the Jesus Genealogy's "Contradiction". Good Day
Ill keep it Divided for my answer the last 2 competitors remaining is Christianity and Atheism but I do think recent evidence and the main arguments make it more reasonable for Christianity. As always I will leave my arguments open to debate Good Luck!
The Bible has no contradictions. I will leave my opinion at that so others can put their 2 cents in. I will finally leave a link to a website that talks about all the "contradictions" in the Bible.
I think from a medical perspective on the topic they do have a mental disorder because biologically males cannot become females and vice versa and our bodies operate differently from each other. We think and act different, we possess and release different amounts of hormones, etc. Even with all the hormone therapy and a sex change they are still are miles away in the case of becoming exactly like the opposite sex for example women who try to change cannot release sperm naturally or think like a man, men who attempt to become a women cannot get pregnant, give birth naturally, give a baby milk, or think as a woman would. To further elaborate these people have Gender Identity Disorder which causes the individual to have a 44-54% suicide rate. Kids that possess this naturally get through it without any help 96% of the time. My advise on the issue is let the person resolve it out themselves accept in the case which they can't or if the individual has both reproductive organs. In that case you could just open him/her up to observe which reproductive system they possess and make the decision that way.
I would have to disagree with the second question about Creationism contradicting modern science. Both Creationists and Evolutionists use and agree on the observational science however their differing worldviews cause them to interpret the science differently.
Depending on what is meant by Evolution the answer varies. If you mean the Evolution that we see today (micro changes that occur due to Natural Selection and Mutations) than yes it can. If you mean Darwinian Evolution, Neo-Darwinian Evolution, or Modern Day Evolutionary Theory than no they cannot exist together because they theorize and predict different things. For example: Evolution predicts the Origin Of Life occurred between 3-3.8 billion years ago. The Biblical Theism claims that a Global Flood occurred between 2350 BCE-2349 BCE. Or another example Evolution claims that a meteor strike during the Late-Cretaceous Period caused the Dinosaurs to mostly be extinct and caused an Ice Age that finished them off. Biblical Theism claims that God created the Universe in 6 Days (I know some will disagree with me on this). These views if examined are worlds apart from co-existing.
I am mainly Pro-Life because I believe that women take advantage of Abortion Clinics. I can definitely understand having an Abortion in cases of Rape, but from a recent statistic that is very rare. Some of the reasons in my opinion are nearly immoral if not immoral I will leave the statistic as a link and you guys can interpret it however you please.
Just to clarify the decent bit of evidence for Christians I was pertaining to valid evidence such as Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, 0 Contradictory Statements Throughout The Bible, 300 Prophecies for Jesus' Prediction of Deity, etc.
Depends on the belief/religion itself. My view is if the religion has at least a decent bit of evidence such as Judaism and Christianity the person is not delusional for believing in that god because the evidence led to him. Now if the religion is something like Polytheistic Paganism and Pastafarianism than the person is most likely delusional because there is no evidence their physical gods or drawings are real and exist outside the physical realm. In Conclusion Christians and Jews are not delusional, however Polytheists and the Flying Spaghetti Monster Advocates are most likely delusional.
Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. This has already been achieved and women as a result are doing better than men. If Feminist' want to attack a region for not granting women rights they should attack the Middle East. Anyway that is my 2 cents how about you guys?
Racism is normally defined as believing that a race is inferior to a race or believing your race is superior to another. The people who talk in "racist slang" are normally trolling others to seek attention kind of like Keemstar (in a way). I highly doubt anybody on this site is an actual racist.
The Argument from Change
The Argument from Efficient Causality
The Argument from Time and Contingency
The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
The Design Argument
The Kalam Argument
The Argument from Contingency
The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
The Argument from Miracles
The Argument from Consciousness
The Argument from Truth
The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
The Ontological Argument
The Moral Argument
The Argument from Conscience
The Argument from Desire
The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
The Argument from Religious Experience
The Common Consent Argument
Pascal's Wager
These are 20 arguments that show god is the most plausible option to Atheism.
Website:http://www.peterkreeft.com/
The answer is both yes or no depending on what you mean by evolution if you mean sub-species variation like Darwin's experiments of course it is science it is what we observe it is fact now the theory of evolution itself making claims such as the origin of life and the species-species or genus-genus evolution cannot be observed and lies under historical science to be debated. Now theories can be scientific however evolution does not provide bedrock penetrating arguments for its factual claim. If you want to find the truth for yourself go search and be open minded you will find it. I first came in an Evolutionist and came out a Creationist. Good luck!
