Concerning Creation

[martin frobisher]

I think nebula can speak for herself.

Irrelevant. The fact is, you misinterpreted the text of Romans 1:19-20. Whether she tells you, or I do. It is truth, nonetheless

Truth? Fact?

Such a dogmatic assertion needs to be proved - are we still playing by the same rules that one has to prove ones assertions? Or are we now on your rules?

I'm confused.

which is why your approach is flawed.

Since in NT times they couldn't study creation in the same way as we can know, they took it on faith that creation reflected God's glory.

They might have been able to study creation in terms of the details we can today, but that does not mean that what can be observed would not be reflective of the creator

Ignoring the apparent typo, you're missing the point. When you don't understand how the universe works, everything seems wondrous.

Now we can study God's creation, it will be self-evident as to whether creation is orderly or not. We don't have to surmise as you have that creation must be orderly because God is! It's been clearly posted.

Actually what I said is that it is not surprising that creation has the order it does primarily because God is a God of order, and not a God of confusion

Not so. You said "So we expect the universe to operate in a logical manner because God is logical, consistent and omnipresent." Cart before the horse, our observations should be this because God is like this.

It is you that has brought up the question of contradiction, that was not my line of argument....

No, you have continued to make the oft repeated assertion that I am contradicting myself. I simply asked for you to for you to show me where the contradictions lie in my posts. You have failed to do so. Therefore, your assertion possesses no merit

Not on this thread actually Shiloh. I always forget on a particular thread whether we have to prove our own assertions or disprove the others' assertions? Remind me again?

[martin frobisher]

Your line of reasoning is very confused.

No, you are trying to manufacture confusion where none exists

Care to prove your assertion?

You are essentially saying that the possibility of scientific thought (which by definition tends to exclude the study of supernatural phenomenon that disobey the normal rules) must prove the existence of a creator. It's a non sequitur.

No I am not essentially saying that at all. I never said that the possibility of scientific thought must prove a creator. That is a value you are assigning to me

No, it's a summation of what you have said, whether you acknowledge it or not.

What I am saying is that creation is reflective of its creator

Which certainly is a contradiction! See above for details.....

What I have said is that science depends on a universe of design and order

...and I have explained the problems with that approach ad nauseum

Even if scientists choose to reject the designer, they do science as if the universe is designed

Care to prove that assertion?

[traveller]

Martin - stop telling Shiloh what he's saying. He knows better than you what it is that he's saying.

Shiloh - stop defending yourself. Everyone else understands your point.

Now - lets get back to the OP and leave the back and forth stuff off, ok? Contention doesn't belong here.

Well I am pointing out the implications of what he's saying - the fact it may not be apparent to you is all the more justification for pointing it out.

Stick to your own posts maybe rather than tell others what to post?

As a moderator of this forum I am at liberty to make sure the members stick to the OP instead of covering the same ground ad nauseum. Care to disagree?

[martin frobisher]

I do indeed care to disagree if I'm allowed to. And surely an apologetics forum needs contention to be a true apologetics forum?

I am pointing out the flaws in Shiloh's approach, and if I'm allowed to pursue my points to their conclusion, you will see the flaws too.

Edited July 5, 2009 by martin frobisher

[lekh l'kha]

I do indeed care to disagree if I'm allowed to. And surely an apologetics forum needs contention to be a true apologetics forum?

I am pointing out the flaws in Shiloh's approach, and if I'm allowed to pursue my points to their conclusion, you will see the flaws too.

Why so much confrontation, martin?

If your brother doesn't agree with your point of view, hey, you never know, maybe he's right

[traveller]

I do indeed care to disagree if I'm allowed to. And surely an apologetics forum needs contention to be a true apologetics forum?

I am pointing out the flaws in Shiloh's approach, and if I'm allowed to pursue my points to their conclusion, you will see the flaws too.

Many good things and ideas have come from heated discussions. However, this one isn't productive martin. It's circular. Besides, people can reasonably discuss the things of God without resorting to one upmanship. You seek to prove him wrong instead of showing yourself correct.

Take a different approach. There are possibly others that wish to dialoge here, but will not do so with a push and shove match going on.

[Guest shiloh357]

This is really going nowhere. I have really said all I can say, and up to this point, the substance of my posts has never been addressed. The debate is not about whether I can prove anything I say. The debate is not about any style of argumentation. Unfortunately, one poster wants to make it about style instead of substance and that is too bad because this thread had a lot of potential.

[martin frobisher]

It's unfortunate that you won't address the points being made Shiloh. They are very substantial, indeed fundamental, so why are you so evasive?

[Guest shiloh357]

It's unfortunate that you won't address the points being made Shiloh. They are very substantial, indeed fundamental, so why are you so evasive?

Because all you are doing is accusing me of weak logic, contradictions, "cart before the horse" and so forth. You have yet to address the substance of the information I provide, nor do you actually provide any support for your allegations of "weak logic" and so forth, even though I and others have invited you to produce such support.

You are wanting a one-sided debate where you call all the shots and you refuse entertain questions, while expecting everyone else to answer yours.

This is not a courtroom and I am not on trial and I am under no obligation to you despite what you think. No one else reading this thread is at all impressed with your tactics, and so far all you have done is produce fruitless debate about style of argumentation and have ignore the arguments completely.

As I said, this thread is going nowhere and I really don't see any reason to continue with you. You appear to have a personal agenda, as you have completely ignnored the OP and have instead tried to make the thread about me.

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

This thread is closed.

Peace,

Dave