I am a Christian and I eat kosher...............stupid 50 character maximum
For me, at least the existence of objective moral values and the existence of non physical things is evidence enough that we are not merely chemical accidents, but i would also need irrefutable evidence to change my belief system.
If there was irrefutable evidence that was directly contradicting my worldview, i would examine it and accept the truth, whatever it was.
No, considering the triunity of god it is translated as singular God, a plural one if you will, here is an example:
Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear o Israel, The Lord is our God, The Lord is one, Blessed be the name of his glorious kingdom for all eternity.
Now lets look at this in hebrew:
Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad, Baruch Shem kvode alchuto la-olam va-ed.
The hebrew for one is echad, a plural one, such as a cluster of graped or a branch full of leaves, a singular one is yechad.
Facts would convince me. If you can provide me with HARD evidence of anything other than judaism/christianity, than i will see no reason to believe it. But until i see hard eveidence, creation and God makes the most sense.
In the beggining was the word (Jesus) and the Word was with God and the Word was God, he existed in the beggining with God.
We see here, in John 1:1 that Jesus is with God and he IS God. The word Elohim is reffering to the trinity. Also when esed with singular verbs and nouns elohim is a singular noun.
NONE of the variations among the translations affect important doctrines, plus we have very old manuscripts such as the deas sea scrolls, so their is no reason to believe that out modern Bible is any different than the original.
Science does not have a basis for these rules. Sorry if i have a problem with that.
This is a faulty argumet from you only taking the last senrance of my argument. Read and digest all of it.
Humanism, worship of self, the belief in man as the final authority, is essentially a religion and crutch in and of itself.
It requires false gods to exist. Therefore with your logic it nerds to explain those false gods.
Ok then. It does explain them. The bible claimes that some of his created beings (angels) of lower status than him and not true gods
Disobeyed him and were cast down to earth where people started to worship them.
It doesn't need to explain the origin of things we know exist just because it needs it to work. Does logic exist? Yes. So evolution works.
Right but without something upholding it, it could not exist.
This makes no sense.
No, according to the biblical worldview God created the rule of nature that things with beginnings must have causes, if God was defined by a rule he created he would have had to have come about after that law existed and therefor could not have created it.
It does not make sense to say God would hav had to have been created.
No, this is faulty logic. The definition of a contradiction is "A and B at the same time in the same relationship." This is "A and B at the same time and in a different relationship. So no contradiction.
Isaiah fifty-seven does not seem vague to me, to name one instance...
No my point is that God as creater would cease to be the creator if he was defined by his creation. It would not even make logical sense for him to have been creates. He has to be infinite.
That isn't true :http://chnm.gmu.
I fail to see where this article addresses uniformity.
It was written by former Jews about the Messiah that was not recognized by the Jews, and therefore became a separate religion.
First of all the writers of the New Testament were not "former" Jews, they stayed Jews, their is no biblical statements that say otherwise. The church has strayed from what christianity was meant to be, fulfilled Judaism. Jews do not have to stop being Jewish to become christians, they just have to eccept their own religion, i say this as a Jewish believer in Jesus (Yeshua).
Which is the very problem I am referring to. It is essentially theft, taking concepts that you did not create and passing them off as your own (not you personally, you as an abstract reference).
The point is that the biblical worldview gives an explanation for this, we have no record of this concept earlier that the Bible, so their is no reason to believe otherwise.
No. When the Old Testament was written (before it was referred to as such) it was a book of Judaism, but when the Bible was compiled (the Old and the New Testaments) it was Christian.
The New Testament was written by Jews about the Jewish messiah prophecied about in the Old testemant, it is still jewish.
Again, neither the Big Bang or Evolution claim to explain them, yet explanations for it exist without a god being present.
Please state them, because i have not heard any explanations for it apart from God that make sense.
Of course it does. I am saying that said issue is not addressed by anyone on either side of this. The difference is that Creationists claim to have an answer, where as "evolutionists" don't (seeing as how Evolution does not make claims about abiogenesis).
The creation worldview does address it wherease the evolutionary worldview does not, it is necessary for any theories existence, so it must be explained in a worldview.
And we are back to circular reasoning. "I believe god exists, therefore existence is proof that god exists".
This is not circular reasoning. Circular reasoning would be
Logic exists from God and God exists from, logic however logic is not the reason that God exists, it just attests to his existence.
That is simply untrue. Our concept of evolution could be true today and untrue tomorrow, the processes of evolution could change, etc. Some things in this existence appear to have uniformity, so far as we can tell, and other things do not. Our observations of existence most certainly do not have uniformity. As for the world, it is random and sporadic, and our understanding of it is far from complete. Other worlds, which do not appear to be random or sporadic (again, only to our understanding) are unfit for survival.
See, here is one of the main ways in which our arguments differ: I believe humans are inherently fallible, and thus any answer we try to create is fallible. To that extent, I do not believe we could possibly know if a God or Gods exist, and I certainly believe (though I do not know) that our attempts to explain God/God's have been wrong (see: Religions). I believe that most reasonable and responsible approach is to continue the scientific method, something that is more than happy to accept when we have been wrong and change our understanding of things based on new evidence. If legitimate evidence is found that evolution does not exist and we were divinely created, I would believe it. But simply trying to poke holes in our current understanding of evolution does not prove creation.
You must be confused as to exactly what uniformity i am talking about. I believe in the underlying uniformity which defines everyone, without this uniformity the scientific method would not even be possible, i do not believe in absolute uniformity which it seems as though you're assuming.
Wooow. Yea you are definitly reading into my question as i never stated that shakespear was God, was using him as an example to get a point across.
But if his nose stays the same then his statement will have been a lie.
LOLOL i think you're right!
Thatis the best answer i've heard
Microevolution is a scientific law
Macroevolution is an unconfirmed hypothesis.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."-Galatians 3:28
Context is key, this is reffering to the kingdom of heaven.
"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet."- 1 timothy 2:11-12
This is talking about the kingdom of earth
What did he not fulfilled. As far as i am concerned he has fulfilled every single prophecy.
