24 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsHe didn't. I wanted to see how he handles the kind of strawmen that he uses all the time (and then blames me for sidetracking the conversation).
I don't recall a claim by sonship that J. P. Moreland knows everything.
I certainly was not claiming he knows everything.
Then why respond at all?
The claim I make is that he is highly educated in his field of study.
Who cares? I never asked about whether he was highly educated as it is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion. If he has good points to make, I am happy to listen to them whatever his education. I do however think that there are flaws in his arguments in the youtube video as I have pointed out already.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by twhiteheadI responded to point out that knowing everything is not a requirement for citing someone as a source of knowledge on a certain subject. The normal requirement is that the person cited has sufficient education and knowledge on that specific subject being discussed.
He didn't. I wanted to see how he handles the kind of strawmen that he uses all the time (and then blames me for sidetracking the conversation).
[b]I certainly was not claiming he knows everything.
Then why respond at all?
The claim I make is that he is highly educated in his field of study.
Who cares? I never asked about whether he was ...[text shortened]... think that there are flaws in his arguments in the youtube video as I have pointed out already.[/b]
You are free to question and disagree with the views of the authority presented. However, it is more convincing if you present the views of your own authorities.
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloCertainly I am not qualified to make a scientific argument for the existence of God, or not, but that is irrelevant to the debate, except for the fact that you use the scientific method to discount Gods existence, therefore even you are not qualified to say one way or the other that a creator exists, because no scientist has ever provided an irrefutable argument for or against the existence of any God or gods.
You're clearly not qualified to muse on what "[my] science" says, and you only succeed in making yourself look dim when you attempt to do so. Like I already said, your argument that one needs "faith" in order to make contact with the plausibility of eternal life or God's existence or whatever-else-have-you is self-defeating, since the whole point of plau ...[text shortened]... n my study of the rational arguments for and against the proposition that such an entity exists.
My argument is from a strictly rational perspective. It is irrational to assume that all that exists came into existence without a cause, and that that cause is by design.
Not saying I don't sound like an idiot doing it though! 😉 I can live with that! I can't wait to read what you have to say to it all! I'm confident I can wear you down and win you over eventually. I'm confident that the probability of eternal life will eventually appeal to your sense of reason and rightness.
It's irresistible.🙂
24 Apr 14
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, we all know that so you wasted your time.
I responded to point out that knowing everything is not a requirement for citing someone as a source of knowledge on a certain subject.
The normal requirement is that the person cited has sufficient education and knowledge on that specific subject being discussed.
Its not even a requirement if the argument is good. I only care about sufficient education when statements are made without any form of argument, then I want to know if they are talking with authority, or just making wild guesses. But even if someone has sufficient education, I prefer to follow up any claims to see if there is an argument behind them as even highly educated people are known to make ridiculous claims.
You are free to question and disagree with the views of the authority presented. However, it is more convincing if you present the views of your own authorities
I can make my own arguments thank you. If you are not convinced by them then it is either my presentation (flawed arguments or poorly presented) or your comprehension that is at fault, not my lack of authorities to back them up.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
26 Apr 14
4 edits
I didn't know where to place this video. I think it fits well here because it is an extrapolation of Paul's words in Romans 1 about the Creator and creation in terms in that people can appreciate in 21rst century terms.
Condulations to any Atheist who can sit through just 75% of this presentation.
Evolution: Modern Myth (100 ways to kill Darwin's Evolution) From A Theory of Everything
27 Apr 14
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipEven if they do, they will not pay attention. They will be asleep in about 10 minutes.
I didn't know where to place this video. I think it fits well here because it is an extrapolation of Paul's words in Romans 1 about the Creator and creation in terms in that people can appreciate in 21rst century terms.
Condulations to any Atheist who can sit through just 75% of this presentation.
[b]Evolution: Modern Myth (100 ways to kill Darwin's Evolution) From A Theory of Everything
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE[/b]
Here is one that is much shorter and also simple enough that an atheists can understand if he takes his head head out. It eliminates all the time necessary for evolution to take place.
Age of the earth (Evolution is a Fake Science)