KiwiChristian Posted September 10, 2017 Group: Members * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 176 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 870 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 330 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/23/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/22/1968 Share Posted September 10, 2017 8 hours ago, Kevinb said: God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day. And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? The LIGHT seperates them. Why do you not trust the Bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 47 minutes ago, one.opinion said: Not only are you again incorrect about what I think of Jesus and Genesis, you are bringing up days-old posts that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote to @Kevinb. I don't think it is an incorrect assessemnt at all. You have consistently tried to diminish the connection between Genesis 1-3 which you do not believe is even historical with the plan of redemption. Quote You believe this and I believe this, but I maintain that there is not evidence to the point of proof (read prior to formulating objections). There is evidence that is suggestive of a Creator. It's more than suggestive. Design screams for a designer. Quote What Kevin has questioned is how we know that it is the Christian God that created. This is a legitimate question that is insufficiently explained by evidence in nature. Nature is the general revelation of God. It tells us that not only that there is a creator, but that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and every where present. It speaks to a Creator who is many, many times more intelligent than the most intelligent human being. What's more is that He is sustaining and keeping the natural world in order. Even Scripture in Romans 1 says that those who reject God are without excuse based on the witness of nature. Quote This is why I propose that the existence of Jesus Christ and evidence for His resurrection is absolutely critical, and a great starting point for bringing others into faith in Him. It is absolutely critical. But for the average skeptic, who doesn't believe Genesis 1-11 is history, who doesn't believe Jonah and the great fish is history, why should they believe that anything the Bible says about Jesus is true. If the Bible gets it wrong coming out of the gate, why would they believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Why would they believe that Jesus is God? If Genesis can't be trusted, and man didn't fall in the Garden, then how can they believe the Bible got it right about sin and their need for Jesus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Kevinb said: I don't understand that. Photons are light. God is photons? Do you have evidence God is light? What do you mean? God is the source of the light on the fourth day. He separated that light from darkness. How did He do that? He is God. God can do things like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted September 10, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,808 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, one.opinion said: This does not require that any lines of evidence are false. I think individuals simply vary in what they find convincing and what they don't. Imagine a courtroom case -- attorneys provide multiple lines of evidence in the hopes of convincing a judge or jury that their conclusion is the correct one. The attorneys are (hopefully) presenting all factual material, but some lines of evidence are simply more or less convincing to the individuals listening to the case. I did not say that it requires it to be false. They could all be true. What I said is that you must assume that it might be false. Maybe it is. Maybe it is not. Like in a magnetic field, it does not matter if some vectors point in the wrong direction, if all the others point in the same direction. It is obvious. If each one of them were conclusive, then you would not need the others. The whole apology rests on a set of inconclusive pieces of evidence that are nevertheless pointing in the same direction. It is, de facto, proof by average. So, suppose that a fellow believer believes in a God different from yours (because of the same process): how would you convince him that he is right on the rest, but wrong about the evidence for his God? And how would you intend to do that, without conclusive, clear-cut evidence about your God that would make the rest of the arguments superfluous? siegi Edited September 10, 2017 by siegi91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiChristian Posted September 10, 2017 Group: Members * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 176 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 870 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 330 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/23/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/22/1968 Share Posted September 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kevinb said: I don't understand that. Photons are light. God is photons? Do you have evidence God is light? What do you mean? Its ok not to understand. We dont have to understand everything, just believe what God says. No, i cannot explain HOW God IS God. Like i said to 4 mormons in my living room, if we could understand how God is God we would BE God. "I am the light of the world". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted September 10, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,808 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 20 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said: God is light. If God is light and God created light (day 1), does that entail that God created God on day 1? I have no clue on the subject, but is sounds sort of strange. At least, logically. siegi Edited September 10, 2017 by siegi91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiChristian Posted September 10, 2017 Group: Members * Followers: 8 Topic Count: 176 Topics Per Day: 0.07 Content Count: 870 Content Per Day: 0.35 Reputation: 330 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/23/2017 Status: Offline Birthday: 01/22/1968 Share Posted September 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: I don't think it is an incorrect assessemnt at all. You have consistently tried to diminish the connection between Genesis 1-3 which you do not believe is even historical with the plan of redemption. I have no idea what you are going on about. It's more than suggestive. Design screams for a designer. Of course. the creation proves there is a creator. I never said anything to the contrary, all i said was that the earth is around 7,000 years old. I dont know how you can extrapolate that to me believing there is no creator. Nature is the general revelation of God. It tells us that not only that there is a creator, but that he is all-powerful, all-knowing and every where present. It speaks to a Creator who is many, many times more intelligent than the most intelligent human being. What's more is that He is sustaining and keeping the natural world in order. Even Scripture in Romans 1 says that those who reject God are without excuse based on the witness of nature. Amen! I totally agree with that. I do not reject God. 4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: It is absolutely critical. But for the average skeptic, who doesn't believe Genesis 1-11 is history, who doesn't believe Jonah and the great fish is history, why should they believe that anything the Bible says about Jesus is true. If the Bible gets it wrong coming out of the gate, why would they believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Why would they believe that Jesus is God? If Genesis can't be trusted, and man didn't fall in the Garden, then how can they believe the Bible got it right about sin and their need for Jesus? I wont address this because i do believe in God and in creation. Look, lets get back on topic. Prove to me the earth is millions of years old, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegi91 Posted September 10, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 12 Topic Count: 35 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,808 Content Per Day: 1.19 Reputation: 249 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/04/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted September 10, 2017 4 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said: Amen! I totally agree with that. I do not reject God. I wont address this because i do believe in God and in creation. Look, lets get back on topic. Prove to me the earth is millions of years old, please. The earth is not millions years old. It can be easily proven that it is not the case. siegi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 15 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said: Amen! I totally agree with that. I do not reject God. I wont address this because i do believe in God and in creation. Look, lets get back on topic. Prove to me the earth is millions of years old, please. I was not responding to you. I was responding to one.opinion's post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevinb Posted September 10, 2017 Group: Seeker Followers: 4 Topic Count: 5 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 423 Content Per Day: 0.16 Reputation: 70 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/18/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) 33 minutes ago, KiwiChristian said: 9 hours ago, Kevinb said: God creates light and separates light from darkness, and day from night, on the first day. Yet he didn't make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day. And how could there be "the evening and the morning" on the first day if there was no sun to mark them? The LIGHT seperates them. Why do you not trust the Bible? Are we on the same page here? Essentially I'm saying the bible asserts God created day and night on day 1 but stars and the sun on day 4. This conflicts with science. What evidence is there for a day and night days before a sun? Trust the bible? Why don't I just trust the quran or the Hindu religious book or any other creation claims? I'll have a trust proportional to evidence. So how can I check the validity of the bible in this case? Ie the day and night days before a sun? Whats the mechanism to dismiss other religions claims and accept the Christian one? If all i have to accept the day night prior to sun is the bible that's a logical fallacy called an argument from authority. From my point of view it's worse as there is no evidence and all I'd have is faith. Positions of faith is why we've had so many religions in our history. Edited September 10, 2017 by Kevinb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts