Search results

No, that isn't how science (or sound reason) works. Theories are perfectly valid aspects of science and of clear thinking in general. You're effectively back to asking them to disprove God's existence again. Evolution is, by its very nature, a naturalistic theory. In other words, the...

Yeah, well there are people here who claim to not ever sin anymore, too! So... Would believe what; that there's no need to reconcile the two? Well, there's confusion on that point anyway, right?

I don't understand the point of the question here. So what if it was written in the present tense?

I don't think that this much is in dispute, is it? Isn't it a main feature of the argument presented in favor of Paul's authorship the idea that since it was written to the Hebrews, that there's no need to reconcile what it teaches to the Hebrews with that which Paul taught to the Gentiles? In...

I'm not so sure that "strong reasons" is accurate but they are reasons and what I love about this post is that it makes an actual argument! I don't have to persuaded to appreciate when people actually engage with something intelligent and substantive. I'd have to say that this is the first time...

So what? That's no surprise, right? You can't prove the false to be true. Did you mean to say, "...any more than they can prove God IS NOT real."? If not then, why would they be concerned about not being able to prove that God IS real? I guess I just don't get the point you're making here.

It might be good for our morale but then again, they can't prove that striped flamingos don't exist, either. Precisely! And so where is the profit in telling them to prove that God doesn't exist? How is not the same? If failing to disprove that the resurrection happened isn't proof that it did...

That's utter stupidity, bordering on outright insanity. Establish that idiotic claim! You won't even try, you idiotic fool! What the Hell am I doing here! This website is 1000% a waste of time!

Welcome to my ever growing ignore list.

Well, then you've got to read it! In fact, I'm going to read it again myself. God bless you, JR! Clete

I agree! That, however, is a different question! The only point with which I disagree is when you tell them that they have to prove that God doesn't exist. They do not have to prove that.

It is not relevant whether they are Catholic! So far as I understand the gospel, there is no requirement to reject Catholic errors, or any other errors for that matter, so long as those errors do not have as a consequence the denial of any of those six points. On what basis do you suggest that...

When did Satan ever confess with his mouth, the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. openly acknowledge his need of a savior and that He is that Savior) and believe in his heart that God raised Him from the dead? When did he ever do such a thing, Hoping? NEVER! That's when! He not only didn't, but hasn't...

First of all, I reject your premise. This is an appeal to consequence fallacy*. Who gets included and who doesn't has nothing to do with determining what is and what is not the gospel. I'd love to debate what should and should not be included in that list of doctrines! Also, if you want to...

For those of you who think Skeeter's point about asexual reproduction accounting for less speciation was a good one... First all at it wasn't a good point from ANY perspective. He completely ignored the fact that there has been an e coli experiment running continuously since 1987! That's coming...

👋

"Supposedly" being the key word there! Evolutionists would never use the term "married" but who knows what they claim? It seems to change on an annual basis. There isn't any such real thing as Neanderthals, by the way. (You probably already knew that.)

The seminar is amazing but the book is better! If you'd like a copy of the book, tell Connie to give you one and to charge to me. She's got my number if she wants to confirm or I can just call her.

So delusional liars are producing what sort of fruit? Hmm :unsure: Once again, you can defend - let me be clear - YOU, HOPING, can defend ANY DOCTRINE WHATSOEVER with the way you handle scripture. Pick any wacko nut job idiotic doctrine you care to name. Want to defend indulgences? You can...

You don't get to disagree and maintain a leg to stand on, Marke! Sound reason is not a matter of opinion. We theists are the ones making the claim that God exists. A God whom we claim that "no one can see and live" (Exodus 33:20) and who "hides himself" (Isaiah 45:15). It is therefore OUR...