why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and other?s

[Timer]

[ QUOTE ]

The reason I argue against God on this forum is that:

I don't want Two Plus Twoers to be morons.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ergo: Those who belive in God are idiots. Then how do you explain the fact that I still make my 5/BB/100?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Look at your own statement: you want proof of what originated the big bang, but accept the origin of God as eternal and "just there" with zero proof. And you don't see that???

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh
It goes like this
1. Acceopt that God is the Creator of the universe.
2. Accept that Jesus was His son.
3. Accept that Jesus rose from the dead, thus proving he was God.
4. Since #3 is the central point of christianity, and if you get to the point that you believe that,then you can accept that The Bible was devine rather than human in origin. Thus making it the infalible word of God.

The intelligent design movement is trying to prove #1. If not by hard proof yet maybe through logical inference(which you use everyday in all kinds of situations so please don't start on that). After #1 the rest come easier.

I wonder about my phrasing of #4 but I'm at work and it's the best I can think of now.
Flame Away,
Jeff [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

P.S. How do you get through all these steps? Many other posts in many other threads, but they can be done logically- even if your smart!

[/ QUOTE ]

That's funny. So your rebuttal to the fact that your burdens of proof are different is just to "accept all of it." And you have the gall to *sigh* at my post.

[The Yugoslavian]

[ QUOTE ]

The meaning of life is:

Topless dancers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, DS injects profundity into an otherwise pedestrian thread. This honestly could be the answer to ~50% of the questions posed in this forum...too bad no one ever seems to be listening.

Yugoslav

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont see how chez possibly wins this pot. First, he misunderstands Jeff's burden of proof point in his second sentence. Also, he fails to address either of Jeff's questions about the origin of the big bang or microevolution. I dont even think chez wins the tiny side pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I didn't understood, that's why I said I was confused and asked for clarification, I don't see how I win anything or fail to do anything either.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Don't you think that whatever burden of belief is appropriate it should apply equally to all believers?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It just seems that evolution is a forgone conclusion- see OOO:'s posts, and a believer is put in the position of defense too often.

I believe I should be able to defend my faith with sound intelligent arguments. I also feel the same for evolutionists. Not just the blanket statement -evolution is a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, so are you saying that the reason for belief need to be sound arguments? (logically sound or just convincing to the believer?)

chez

[ QUOTE ]
It just seems that evolution is a forgone conclusion- see OOO:'s posts, and a believer is put in the position of defense too often. I believe I should be able to defend my faith with sound intelligent arguments. I also feel the same for evolutionists. Not just the blanket statement -evolution is a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's odd. Because when I wrote that you accepted God as eternally there and you wanted prrof of the origin of the Big Bang, you wrote:

"It goes like this
1. Acceopt that God is the Creator of the universe.
2. Accept that Jesus was His son.
3. Accept that Jesus rose from the dead, thus proving he was God."

So, in other words, you wanted your version simply accepted as fact without supporting evidence. Yet here you are complaining that evolution is just accepted.

Again we are back to your double standard of proof.

"

[Jeff V]

The sigh was because again you are mis reading me. I never said to accept The Bible as just fact.

[Jeff V]

I supose that's subjective. Hopefully logical.

[ QUOTE ]
The sigh was because again you are mis reading me. I never said to accept The Bible as just fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

You claim that the Big Bang theory has a hole: what originated it? So, to be fair, what originated your God? Oh, he was just "always there"? Well, then if you accept things just always being there, what again was your beef with the Big Bang?

Incidentally, I am not saying the universe was just "always there" as a singularity or repeatedly expanding/collapsing. I have no evidence beyond the universe to make such claims. You, however, apparently have the evidence to say God was always there, or you just accept that claim on faith (but won't accept other universe theories on faith).

[Jeff V]

Why do you keep puting words in my mouth?
Seriously.

"The intelligent design movement is trying to prove #1. If not by hard proof yet maybe through logical inference(which you use everyday in all kinds of situations so please don't start on that). After #1 the rest come easier."