Enoch2021 Posted March 15, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 ================================================================================= Why would one need "Faith" if absolute evidence existed? Well because Jesus lived/died/resurrected in the PAST..."absolute evidence", Eye Witnessing today, is Non-Sequitur. You need to take a look @ the definition of SUBSTANCE one more time. One need distinguish between blind faith and reasoned faith yet what remains is faith, yet what remains is faith You're attempting to equivocate again. MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between "Blind" faith and "Reasoned" Faith Hebrew 11:1 creates a contrast/paradox in whatever translation - You need to Re-Read----------SUBSTANCE again. And Unseen doesn't mean Unknowable or Unprovable.... it means Faith, not proof. There is an element of Faith. It's enough PROOF for me. (see BMW example) Combine that with you only have 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design GOD!! We're into Slam Dunk Territory “Specific Complexity" is the Overwhelming Compelling Factor in the Matter ... naturalistic explanation "Naturalistic Explanation" ?? So you think that a "Sand Dune" and a "Sand Castle" are conceptually the same? Bible -With Historicity and Prophecy that is UNCHALLENGEABLE!! ... Circular Argument No it's not LOL. How? And the Apostles that were killed for their belief ....False dichotomy Possibly. But accumulative (with the Metric Ton of other SUBSTANCES) for me personally. All arguments whether cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, etc. have their refuted counterpoints ALL Refuted counterpoints.... Well people can refute the sky is blue...happens with every other post on this forum. The Real Question is....do they have a Planck Length of Legitimacy? Go ahead and POST the "BEST" All time counterpoints.....hold one while I sharpen my axe.......OK, Ready. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 15, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 One of the more interesting of the 4 Proofs that hasn't been touched on to this point is the Increased Speed of the Ions over vast distances; and not only Increased speeds, but Increasing Speeds...... In the Above Bar Graph, the bars to the left show the speed of Ionized Particles (Hydrogen and Oxygen) beginning on the Surface of the Sun, then----->Mercury------->Venus---->Earth. How In The World are they SPEEDING UP?? It's tantamount to throwing a baseball 90 mph then the ball continually speeds up the farther away it gets. Any guesses? Is it..... A. Each Purchased (4 Gear) Nuclear Powered Jet Packs on the Surface of the Sun B. Hitched A Ride on Dark Matter C. Gravity Waves (Gravitons) D. Magic (Redundant; = to B and C) E. All The Above I'll be gone for most of the day tomorrow. It's Enoch Family Day So go ahead and Talk Amongst Yourselves Still waiting ........................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted March 15, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 15, 2014 (edited) Well because Jesus lived/died/resurrected in the PAST..."absolute evidence", Eye Witnessing today, is Non-Sequitur. You need to take a look @ the definition of SUBSTANCE one more time. We believe in the resurrection of Jesus but you can’t prove it, another circular argument. As was pointed out, Hebrews 11:1 is a descriptive of Faith and it is done by use of contrast. You need to look up the definition of Faith. Paraphrased it might read - we believe in the “substance” because of our “hope” even though the evidence is “unseen”. Belief in “substance” is not proof of substance, but it is what faith is all about. You're attempting to equivocate again. MASSIVE DIFFERENCE between "Blind" faith and "Reasoned" Faith Again and again you throw around “equivocate” recklessly, as I noted one must distinguish between the two. Reasoned implies rational arguments for belief, and blind implies without rational thought. You need to Re-Read----------SUBSTANCE again. No need, as stated above the clear reading creates sufficient impetus to understand the use as a descriptive for faith by contrast. There is an element of Faith. It's enough PROOF for me. (see BMW example) There is more then an “element” of Faith involved. The BMW example is simply a rephrasing of Paley’s watch but it actually relates to the implied “design” of the universe, earth, and life. It is an illustration of a known man-made item to extrapolate to a designer for all things in the natural world. Combine that with you only have 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design GOD!! We're into Slam Dunk Territory Bifurcation/false dilemma –Perhaps life arose from extra terrestrials who visited earth at some point in the past. Perhaps there are many gods, and they divided up the universe, the god who received this part made all life on earth. We could be in that computer simulation. There are other possibilities. "Naturalistic Explanation" ?? :huh:So you think that a "Sand Dune" and a "Sand Castle" are conceptually the same? You are confusing the argument as noted above. The teleological arguments have to do with “nature” not with obvious man-made items. Further, because you don't accept naturalistic explanations doesn't mean that they don't exist. Bible -With Historicity and Prophecy that is UNCHALLENGEABLE!! ... Circular Argument. No it's not LOL. How? God exists How do you know? It says so in the Bible How do you know that the Bible is true? Because it is God’s word.... Circular Argument! ALL Refuted counterpoints.... Well people can refute the sky is blue...happens with every other post on this forum. The Real Question is....do they have a Planck Length of Legitimacy? I don’t believe anyone is attempting to refute that the sky is sometimes blue. Though you are dismissive all arguments for God’s existence can be supportive but not conclusive...we arrive once more at Faith. And quantum physics really has nothing to do with faith as concerns Heb. 11:1 .....hold one while I sharpen my axe.......OK, Ready. No need to sharpen your axe, if you choose to redefine Faith by your own terms be my guest. However the biblical definition of Faith stands firm...proof renders faith ineffective. Edited March 15, 2014 by Tolken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 15, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 ================================================================================== We believe in the resurrection of Jesus but you can’t prove it, another circular argument. No, we believe it based on the Integrity of GOD'S WORD. It goes something like this......"GOD SAYS", then........ROGER!!! Paraphrased it might read - we believe in the “substance” because of our “hope” So you believe in substance because of hope of something??....in a vacuum (which you are ascribing in this instance), it's patently absurd? Please don't Paraphrase. "Faith IS the Substance" Substance = See definition. Faith = the accumulation of the Substance (See metric tons previously) Again and again you throw around “equivocate” recklessly, as I noted one must distinguish between the two. Yes, you sorta covered yourself with "distinguishing" between the two but then you fell right back in the equivocation (See bold/increased font below) of "Blind Faith" and "Reasoned Faith". I've noticed you do this often but this time you anticipated me catching it. Here it is, lets review: "One need distinguish between blind faith and reasoned faith yet what remains is faith" See it? There is more then an “element” of Faith involved. The BMW example is simply a rephrasing of Paley’s watch but it actually relates to the implied “design” of the universe, earth, and life. It is an illustration of a known man-made item to extrapolate to a designer for all things in the natural world. Thanks for the summary. "Extrapolate"....I would say more like Child-Like Intuition, IMHO God exists How do you know? It says so in the Bible How do you know that the Bible is true? Because it is God’s word.... Circular Argument! The Textbook Definition of a Strawman! So you provide your own conjured circular argument then you call it a Circular Argument Try this: Combine that with you only have 2 choices as to HOW we are here: Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design GOD!! We're into Slam Dunk Territory Bifurcation/false dilemma No it's not. See Full discussion and Comprehensive Refutation Here: Perhaps life arose from extra terrestrials who visited earth at some point in the past. All you did was change the Location. All choices will be either : Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design GOD. Any further "choices" will be "Sub-Categories" under the two I outlined. Perhaps there are many gods, and they divided up the universe, the god who received this part made all life on earth. There can only be "ONE" CREATOR....by definition (think about it). More than One is Logical Absurdity. We could be in that computer simulation. There are other possibilities. Well your first point doesn't Preclude the Fact that HE IS. There are no other possibilities....SEE "Sub-Categories" above .....hold one while I sharpen my axe.......OK, Ready. No need to sharpen your axe, if you choose to redefine Faith by your own terms be my guest. Another Strawman. Please stay on topic. This challenge was directly related to this comment..... "All arguments whether cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, etc. have their refuted counterpoints." However the biblical definition of Faith stands firm. Yes it does. SEE Again Definition for Substance This has been interesting but....... Back to the OP, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tolken Posted March 15, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted March 15, 2014 Enoch2021 - This has been interesting but....... Back to the OP, thanks Yes, a bit off topic ... but perhaps this would be a good topic to open a new thread with at some point. Your interpretation of Faith is quite unusual... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 15, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 Enoch2021 - This has been interesting but....... Back to the OP, thanks Yes, a bit off topic ... but perhaps this would be a good topic to open a new thread with at some point. Your interpretation of Faith is quite unusual... =================================================================================== Yes go ahead. Have my namesake review it "EnochBethany" I think he posted some "Faith" discussions in the past. Yes, my definition comes from the Bible and it hovers around: Key Word SUBSTANCE. It's not the Bumper Sticker Refrigerator Posty Note definition of the Term. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted March 15, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 15, 2014 All you did was change the Location. All choices will be either : Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design GOD. Any further "choices" will be "Sub-Categories" under the two I outlined. you categories are off. The dichotomy is this...everything came from nothing or everything came from something. That is the only true dichotomy in this situation. Once one chooses which of the only two choices they will pick they then move on from there. You choose the latter and then you set about the determine what the "something" was. You have determined that something was the God of the Bible. I agree with your choice but there is no dichotomy in this, there are multiple possible choices one could pick. It some choose the god of the Koran,some choose Ra, some choose Brahmā.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 15, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 All you did was change the Location. All choices will be either : Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design GOD. Any further "choices" will be "Sub-Categories" under the two I outlined. you categories are off. The dichotomy is this...everything came from nothing or everything came from something. That is the only true dichotomy in this situation. Once one chooses which of the only two choices they will pick they then move on from there. You choose the latter and then you set about the determine what the "something" was. You have determined that something was the God of the Bible. I agree with your choice but there is no dichotomy in this, there are multiple possible choices one could pick. It some choose the god of the Koran,some choose Ra, some choose Brahmā.... =========================================================================== Wrong. Maybe on the surface it appears that way..... but not when you follow through. Any Choices besides: (Random Chance "nature" or Intelligent Design "GOD") are merely SUB- Categories by simple logic. Step 1. Now if you wish to put the god of the Koran, god of the gnomes, or god of pancakes; They are still under the Intelligent Design Category....even though you can have any number of choices under that Category. And you still have "nature". Step 2. Now follow the thought through....There can only be "ONE" CREATOR by definition. Step 3....Pick your GOD and Prove it. If not god of the pancakes...back to Step 1. ******* Any comment on the ION SPEED? You know...this Topic Has BIGGER Ramifications than I originally thought. E=m/c2 does not account for the Energy from Stars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted March 16, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 Since none of the proofs have been even remotely challenged much less refuted, I guess we can put the Fallacious Thermo-Nuclear Reactor to Bed. Something else that is quite Interesting..... Why in the World does the Equatorial Plane Rotate Faster than the Poles?? ps. I have no idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted March 16, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted March 16, 2014 Since none of the proofs have been even remotely challenged much less refuted, I guess we can put the Fallacious Thermo-Nuclear Reactor to Bed. Something else that is quite Interesting..... Have you tried asking this question on a science forum vice a Christian one? Just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts