Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

Refutation

Missing possibilities
The main problem with Pascal's wager is that it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation. It only calculates with two options when there are, in fact, at least four alternatives: The christian God and afterlife, some other god and afterlife, atheism with afterlife, and atheism without afterlife. Therefore Pascal's wager is invalid as an argument.
Avoiding the wrong hell problem
Because of the multitude of possible religions, if any faith is as likely as the other, the probability of the christian being right is P=1/n where n is the number of possible faiths. If we assume that there is an infinite amount of possible gods (i.e. ideas of gods), the probability of you being right is infinitely small.


Sourse and more Refutations

You don't have to make any assumptions about the God myth to see how flawed Pascals Wager is, just a little sound reasoning will do it

Well said. I would rather spend eternity without a bunch of pompous unaware "Christians" like Stanj than with them. Eternity with them is a hell to me. So perhaps we all get exactly what it is we desire. Pompous jerks like Stanj get to spend eternity with other pompous jerks. And I can spend eternity with people who are humble and actually have a clue.

 

[everready]

Well said. I would rather spend eternity without a bunch of pompous unaware "Christians" like Stanj than with them. Eternity with them is a hell to me. So perhaps we all get exactly what it is we desire. Pompous jerks like Stanj get to spend eternity with other pompous jerks. And I can spend eternity with people who are humble and actually have a clue.

Seems you have a preconceived idea about eternity, but then most do.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


everready

 

[StanJ]

Missing possibilities
The main problem with Pascal's wager is that it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation. It only calculates with two options when there are, in fact, at least four alternatives: The christian God and afterlife, some other god and afterlife, atheism with afterlife, and atheism without afterlife. Therefore Pascal's wager is invalid as an argument.
Avoiding the wrong hell problem
Because of the multitude of possible religions, if any faith is as likely as the other, the probability of the christian being right is P=1/n where n is the number of possible faiths. If we assume that there is an infinite amount of possible gods (i.e. ideas of gods), the probability of you being right is infinitely small.
Sourse and more Refutations
You don't have to make any assumptions about the God myth to see how flawed Pascals Wager is, just a little sound reasoning will do it

It's not about picking apart the wager, it's about the probabilities in it and would only apply to who it is applicable to, given the parameters of it.
RationalWiki also picks it apart, but of course from an Atheistic perspective.
A denial is NOT a refutation.

 

[StanJ]

I simply don't agree, apologetics is done by those who want what they already believe to be true to be seen in the best possible light. I don't believe that apologetics exists to establish the real truth because it already presupposes what the real "Truth" is.
If you have evidence which verifies that the Bible is a factual historical narrative then that would be something else and by all means do present it.

NO, that would be eisegesis, apologetics is showing that God's Word and the Christian belief is viable, even though many will still deny the facts of the apologetic itself.
Seems a certain science does the same thing with evolution? It starts with the basis that it is fact, when indeed it is still a THEORY, then move on accordingly. How can subsequent events to a theory be considered facts?

The reason that nature is often harsh and cruel is imo because it is probably entirely natural, un-designed, it is what it is naturally, there is no reason to blame anyone.
We derive quite a few modern expressions from the past and use them figuratively.

I get that, and yes it is your opinion, but in mine, it is because sin entered the world and corrupted ALL life, including nature.
I understand that as well, but it still denotes a mindset that is anti-God.

Dogmatism seems to replace the need to engage brain for some people.

Yep...seems, but Christians are not the only dogmatic people on this issue.
At least you are civilized about it, so I commend you for that.

How exactly do you know who wrote G.John, how do you verify it?
Did Jesus make a speech to Pilate or not?
There are imo enough notable inconsistencies or variations I could highlight within the synoptic gospels to detect an individual agenda for a particular audience, given that they were probably written at different times but based around the same source material.
Are you able to verify their authors too?

I study the Bible and the scholars who know a lot more than I do.
You are welcome to try, but maybe you should start a new thread?
Most authors have been verified, and I can point you in the right direction if you really need me to, but somehow I think you are more than capable of finding this info on your own, IF you really want to.

 

[noguru]

Seems you have a preconceived idea about eternity, but then most do.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


everready

No more than you do.

My statement was hypothetical based on how people like you behave now. I sure hope in eternity all this lack of blood, sweat and tears makes people like you more reasonable.

 

[Sealeaf]

I do not know if this thread is still about evolution but if it is this post, originally from another thread, needs to be here. If the thread has passed beyond this issue, just ignore it.

Evolution really is easy to refute.

It rests on a few assertions. Disprove any one of them and evolution crumbles.

1. Like begets like. Offspring are like their parents. Living things display,as offspring, the characteristics of their parents. Chicken eggs hatch out chickens, not turtles.

2. Number one is not a perfect process. Freaks happen. Children do not look exactly like their parents. Variation happens.

3 Not everything that is conceived survives to have offspring of its own.

4 If the characteristics a living thing inherits from its parent cause it to not reproduce or live to maturity, then those characteristics will not be passed on by that living thing to its offspring. If your grand father died childless , so will you.

There it is. Really, that's all there is to evolution. You don't have to demonstrate that they are all untrue. Just one of them. Go for it.

 

[alwight]

NO, that would be eisegesis, apologetics is showing that God's Word and the Christian belief is viable, even though many will still deny the facts of the apologetic itself.
Seems a certain science does the same thing with evolution? It starts with the basis that it is fact, when indeed it is still a THEORY, then move on accordingly. How can subsequent events to a theory be considered facts?

Christian apologetics is basically a defence of that which is presupposed and assumed to be true. It would never be used to find fault, only to promote and defend.

You have a very faulty understanding of science if you think that it presupposes conclusions and then looks for ways of supporting them. Science is led by the evidence to produce conclusions and then it tries to find fault with them, but apologetics is only led by a perceived need to defend Christianity, not to find fault with it.
If Darwinian evolution is wrong then it can surely be falsified by evidence and by its testable claims. Apologists don't tend to make any falsifiable and testable statements about Christianity.

I get that, and yes it is your opinion, but in mine, it is because sin entered the world and corrupted ALL life, including nature.
I understand that as well, but it still denotes a mindset that is anti-God.

I'm not anti-God, I may reject unsubstantiated religious beliefs but I can assure you that I am completely neutral about the existence of any real divine entities.

Yep...seems, but Christians are not the only dogmatic people on this issue.
At least you are civilized about it, so I commend you for that.

Do you not agree then that a dogmatic belief in an inerrant literal Bible, come hell or high water, regardless of science, is not exactly using the grey matter that I presume you think God gave us?

I study the Bible and the scholars who know a lot more than I do.
You are welcome to try, but maybe you should start a new thread?
Most authors have been verified, and I can point you in the right direction if you really need me to, but somehow I think you are more than capable of finding this info on your own, IF you really want to.

But the thing is Stan that it is one thing to find deeper meaning within Biblical scripture and an arguably better interpretation, but it's another to be able to verify it as factual and true. I'm quite sure that the Qur'an also has many scholarly people currently engaged in a deeper understanding of it.
I suspect however that you study the Bible cocooned within belief and that you have no interest in empirically verifying it just in case that leads to doubts, and you are not allowed to doubt, right?

 

[Hedshaker]

It's not about picking apart the wager, it's about the probabilities in it and would only apply to who it is applicable to, given the parameters of it.
RationalWiki also picks it apart, but of course from an Atheistic perspective.
A denial is NOT a refutation.

The wager is childish and fails massively for rational reasons posted on that link I provided. If you don't like it that's your problem... :loser:

Only a total plonker would convert to Christianity because of Pascals Wager

 

[everready]

No more than you do.

My statement was hypothetical based on how people like you behave now. I sure hope in eternity all this lack of blood, sweat and tears makes people like you more reasonable.

Do i behave anything like this?

I Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

I'm nothing without Christ.


everready

 

[noguru]

Duplicate.

 

[noguru]

Do i behave anything like this?

I Corinthians 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

28 And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:

29 That no flesh should glory in his presence.

30 But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

31 That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.

I'm nothing without Christ.


everready

You have no courage over the flesh. You are a coward who thinks that hiding from reality makes you spiritual. You are a fraud.

You give courageous Christians a bad name. You will be spit out of His mouth.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Refutation

Missing possibilities
The main problem with Pascal's wager is that it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation. It only calculates with two options when there are, in fact, at least four alternatives: The christian God and afterlife, some other god and afterlife, atheism with afterlife, and atheism without afterlife. Therefore Pascal's wager is invalid as an argument.
Avoiding the wrong hell problem
Because of the multitude of possible religions, if any faith is as likely as the other, the probability of the christian being right is P=1/n where n is the number of possible faiths. If we assume that there is an infinite amount of possible gods (i.e. ideas of gods), the probability of you being right is infinitely small.


Sourse and more Refutations

You don't have to make any assumptions about the God myth to see how flawed Pascals Wager is, just a little sound reasoning will do it

Dear Hedshaker,

The only reason I said what I did was because I was unfamiliar with what Pascal's Wager was. That is all. I was speaking about a sincere relationship with God, not a convenient one.

Cheerio,

Michael

:angel: :angel: :cloud9:

 

[MichaelCadry]

Refutation

Missing possibilities
The main problem with Pascal's wager is that it suffers from the fallacy of bifurcation. It only calculates with two options when there are, in fact, at least four alternatives: The christian God and afterlife, some other god and afterlife, atheism with afterlife, and atheism without afterlife. Therefore Pascal's wager is invalid as an argument.
Avoiding the wrong hell problem
Because of the multitude of possible religions, if any faith is as likely as the other, the probability of the christian being right is P=1/n where n is the number of possible faiths. If we assume that there is an infinite amount of possible gods (i.e. ideas of gods), the probability of you being right is infinitely small.


Sourse and more Refutations

You don't have to make any assumptions about the God myth to see how flawed Pascals Wager is, just a little sound reasoning will do it

Dear Hedshaker,

There is only One God!

Michael

:carryon:

 

[MichaelCadry]

An "act of God" in legal terms regarding tort law is simply a way of saying that "no human or group of humans has liability for damages from the event".

A good example would be say if I rented a house in Kansas. Filled it with my belongings. Then a tornado destroyed the house along with all my belongings. The landlord would not be held responsible for replacing my belongings or any monetary compensation due to the damages from the tornado.

Dear noguru,

Thank you for explaining it more clearly. Yes, that's what I meant. Where would they come up with Acts of God, unless they believed there was really a God? Interesting, I think!

Get On The Peace Train!!

Michael

:doh:

 

[MichaelCadry]

If God exists then why not sue Him for damages, culpable negligence? :think:
Fact is that an "act of God" in law means that no one can be blamed, therefore the legal system doesn't believe that there is a god, legally speaking God does not exist.

Act of God

No Alwight,

That is not what it means. It doesn't mean that there is no God. Legally speaking, God does exist. And He is not Mother Nature. It is God who brings the tornadoes, heavy winds, hurricanes, pouring rain, hail, snow, etc. Be sure of that. Your video is just a made-up comedy.

Much Love, In Christ,

Michael

:cloud9: :angel: :angel: :angel:

 

[noguru]

Dear noguru,

Thank you for explaining it more clearly. Yes, that's what I meant. Where would they come up with Acts of God, unless they believed there was really a God? Interesting, I think!

Get On The Peace Train!!

Michael

:doh:

It is metaphorical. It is a way of saying that "nature (which for theists and deists was created by God) is the author of that destruction". Rather than an artificial (human) source of destruction. It is really rather simple, Michael. I have no idea why you always complicate things and make them more confusing than they need be. You really need to stop blindly following these very confused YECs on this site.

 

[MichaelCadry]

Well said. I would rather spend eternity without a bunch of pompous unaware "Christians" like Stanj than with them. Eternity with them is a hell to me. So perhaps we all get exactly what it is we desire. Pompous jerks like Stanj get to spend eternity with other pompous jerks. And I can spend eternity with people who are humble and actually have a clue.

Dear noguru,

StanJ is hardly a pompous jerk. He is a true Christian whom you could learn from. You won't get exactly what you desire. Because you are the one who is being pompous.

Michael

:help:

 

[noguru]

Dear noguru,

StanJ is hardly a pompous jerk.

Yes, he is.

He is a true Christian whom you could learn from.

No, he is a fraud and a coward.

You won't get exactly what you desire.

So you think your beliefs are not an attempt to get exactly what you desire?

You do not desire to be in the presence of God for eternity?

Because you are the one who is being pompous.

How am I being pompous?

 

[MichaelCadry]

Seems you have a preconceived idea about eternity, but then most do.

Revelation 21:3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


everready

Thanks everready,

Yes, Heaven is for those who are truly humble! I can hardly wait to be there!!

God Be With You!!!

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9:

 

[noguru]

Thanks everready,

Yes, Heaven is for those who are truly humble! I can hardly wait to be there!!

God Be With You!!!

Michael

:cloud9: :cloud9:

You have no idea what humility is. Humility is having the courage to honestly admit when one is wrong. Now while you may put on a facade of doing that on the surface. The real test is to admit when you do not know, or you were wrong.