Total Posts:70|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

A painting has a painter.

Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 9:42:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

It's an unfair extrapolation. We have experience with words and paintings and threads. We know these things from experience usually don't come about by themselves. However, we have zero experience with universe creation. We have no idea what is or isn't possible.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2013 9:59:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 9:42:21 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

It's an unfair extrapolation. We have experience with words and paintings and threads. We know these things from experience usually don't come about by themselves. However, we have zero experience with universe creation. We have no idea what is or isn't possible.

You think you speak for the rest of God's people when you say these things but that's because you have no experience that us saints have. I know exactly how everything was created but it takes knowledge to understand it. If you're not willing to listen how everything was created, then you lack the knowledge of patience to sit and listen to me explain creation to you. You don't know how to listen to another person and learn what it is they know about. So if you do have patience and a listening ear, you will learn a lot from the knowledge I possess about how we were created.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 5:55:16 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 9:59:26 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:42:21 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

It's an unfair extrapolation. We have experience with words and paintings and threads. We know these things from experience usually don't come about by themselves. However, we have zero experience with universe creation. We have no idea what is or isn't possible.

You think you speak for the rest of God's people when you say these things but that's because you have no experience that us saints have. I know exactly how everything was created but it takes knowledge to understand it. If you're not willing to listen how everything was created, then you lack the knowledge of patience to sit and listen to me explain creation to you. You don't know how to listen to another person and learn what it is they know about. So if you do have patience and a listening ear, you will learn a lot from the knowledge I possess about how we were created.

I am, and have been willing to listen to how you think everything was Created.

However, I then look at the evidence and discovered how you think the world was created is not possible and does not match the evidence for a number of reasons. I then do what every human normally does when they are told a story that doesn't match what they can see around us: discard the story.

Moreover, what I "Learn" from such accounts is not very much. It doesn't explain anything and provides no useful or interesting insights that I can use for other things simply providing no intellectual revelation.

I can, for example listen to the story of Jesus feeding the 5000, or curing lepers which are nice religious stories .

However, compared to the "scientific" story of how the Haber process is currently responsible for feeding 2bn people on this planet, and modern scientific medicine is now curing more types of illness than could possibly be imagined it sort of starts to summarise how naturalism and the scientific approach actually works, and makes peoples lives better compared to stories.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 7:05:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

Who created God?
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:12:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

These arguments are even made by the super Apologist William Lane Craig. There has to be the presupposition that its a god, and that god has to be their god.

This is reason enough that theists should reject this idea. However, when there is no proof theists will cling to anything.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:38:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 5:55:16 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:59:26 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:42:21 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

It's an unfair extrapolation. We have experience with words and paintings and threads. We know these things from experience usually don't come about by themselves. However, we have zero experience with universe creation. We have no idea what is or isn't possible.

You think you speak for the rest of God's people when you say these things but that's because you have no experience that us saints have. I know exactly how everything was created but it takes knowledge to understand it. If you're not willing to listen how everything was created, then you lack the knowledge of patience to sit and listen to me explain creation to you. You don't know how to listen to another person and learn what it is they know about. So if you do have patience and a listening ear, you will learn a lot from the knowledge I possess about how we were created.

I am, and have been willing to listen to how you think everything was Created.

However, I then look at the evidence and discovered how you think the world was created is not possible and does not match the evidence for a number of reasons. I then do what every human normally does when they are told a story that doesn't match what they can see around us: discard the story.

Moreover, what I "Learn" from such accounts is not very much. It doesn't explain anything and provides no useful or interesting insights that I can use for other things simply providing no intellectual revelation.

I can, for example listen to the story of Jesus feeding the 5000, or curing lepers which are nice religious stories .

However, compared to the "scientific" story of how the Haber process is currently responsible for feeding 2bn people on this planet, and modern scientific medicine is now curing more types of illness than could possibly be imagined it sort of starts to summarise how naturalism and the scientific approach actually works, and makes peoples lives better compared to stories.

Science has no evidence of how we were created. They still believe this world is real.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:41:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 7:05:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

Who created God?

That's a good question but no one in this world has ever had the knowledge to know beyond the mind of our Creator. I speak from His mind but He gives me the words to speak or write since I was only created as His voice.

Does your mouth know what it will say before the thoughts are given to you in your mind first?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 9:38:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 8:38:50 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 5:55:16 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:59:26 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:42:21 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

It's an unfair extrapolation. We have experience with words and paintings and threads. We know these things from experience usually don't come about by themselves. However, we have zero experience with universe creation. We have no idea what is or isn't possible.

You think you speak for the rest of God's people when you say these things but that's because you have no experience that us saints have. I know exactly how everything was created but it takes knowledge to understand it. If you're not willing to listen how everything was created, then you lack the knowledge of patience to sit and listen to me explain creation to you. You don't know how to listen to another person and learn what it is they know about. So if you do have patience and a listening ear, you will learn a lot from the knowledge I possess about how we were created.

I am, and have been willing to listen to how you think everything was Created.

However, I then look at the evidence and discovered how you think the world was created is not possible and does not match the evidence for a number of reasons. I then do what every human normally does when they are told a story that doesn't match what they can see around us: discard the story.

Moreover, what I "Learn" from such accounts is not very much. It doesn't explain anything and provides no useful or interesting insights that I can use for other things simply providing no intellectual revelation.

I can, for example listen to the story of Jesus feeding the 5000, or curing lepers which are nice religious stories .

However, compared to the "scientific" story of how the Haber process is currently responsible for feeding 2bn people on this planet, and modern scientific medicine is now curing more types of illness than could possibly be imagined it sort of starts to summarise how naturalism and the scientific approach actually works, and makes peoples lives better compared to stories.

Science has no evidence of how we were created. They still believe this world is real.

Some scientists wear white coats.

As we can now both agree that saying random things after the other speaks doesn't actually address their original comments, I draw your attention back to my previous post.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 10:32:04 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 9:38:18 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/4/2013 8:38:50 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 5:55:16 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:59:26 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:42:21 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

It's an unfair extrapolation. We have experience with words and paintings and threads. We know these things from experience usually don't come about by themselves. However, we have zero experience with universe creation. We have no idea what is or isn't possible.

You think you speak for the rest of God's people when you say these things but that's because you have no experience that us saints have. I know exactly how everything was created but it takes knowledge to understand it. If you're not willing to listen how everything was created, then you lack the knowledge of patience to sit and listen to me explain creation to you. You don't know how to listen to another person and learn what it is they know about. So if you do have patience and a listening ear, you will learn a lot from the knowledge I possess about how we were created.

I am, and have been willing to listen to how you think everything was Created.

However, I then look at the evidence and discovered how you think the world was created is not possible and does not match the evidence for a number of reasons. I then do what every human normally does when they are told a story that doesn't match what they can see around us: discard the story.

Moreover, what I "Learn" from such accounts is not very much. It doesn't explain anything and provides no useful or interesting insights that I can use for other things simply providing no intellectual revelation.

I can, for example listen to the story of Jesus feeding the 5000, or curing lepers which are nice religious stories .

However, compared to the "scientific" story of how the Haber process is currently responsible for feeding 2bn people on this planet, and modern scientific medicine is now curing more types of illness than could possibly be imagined it sort of starts to summarise how naturalism and the scientific approach actually works, and makes peoples lives better compared to stories.

Science has no evidence of how we were created. They still believe this world is real.

Some scientists wear white coats.

As we can now both agree that saying random things after the other speaks doesn't actually address their original comments, I draw your attention back to my previous post.

The random things I speak comes directly from our Creator's mind. I could care less if you understand Him or not.

Your posts aren't worth reading because they're all lies.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 2:14:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/3/2013 9:59:26 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:42:21 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

It's an unfair extrapolation. We have experience with words and paintings and threads. We know these things from experience usually don't come about by themselves. However, we have zero experience with universe creation. We have no idea what is or isn't possible.

You think you speak for the rest of God's people when you say these things but that's because you have no experience that us saints have. I know exactly how everything was created but it takes knowledge to understand it. If you're not willing to listen how everything was created, then you lack the knowledge of patience to sit and listen to me explain creation to you. You don't know how to listen to another person and learn what it is they know about. So if you do have patience and a listening ear, you will learn a lot from the knowledge I possess about how we were created.

I have listened and read through everything you have posted in response to me. I may not believe it, but if you wrote it, I saw it.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 2:45:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 2:14:23 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:59:26 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:42:21 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

It's an unfair extrapolation. We have experience with words and paintings and threads. We know these things from experience usually don't come about by themselves. However, we have zero experience with universe creation. We have no idea what is or isn't possible.

You think you speak for the rest of God's people when you say these things but that's because you have no experience that us saints have. I know exactly how everything was created but it takes knowledge to understand it. If you're not willing to listen how everything was created, then you lack the knowledge of patience to sit and listen to me explain creation to you. You don't know how to listen to another person and learn what it is they know about. So if you do have patience and a listening ear, you will learn a lot from the knowledge I possess about how we were created.

I have listened and read through everything you have posted in response to me. I may not believe it, but if you wrote it, I saw it.

It's hard to believe in something you can't see so don't worry about it. God hid from His people for the reason to reveal Himself through the mind of His invisible servant in the flesh called prophets and saints.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 2:47:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago

It's hard to believe in something you can't see so don't worry about it. God hid from His people for the reason to reveal Himself through the mind of His invisible servant in the flesh called prophets and saints.

You continue to assert and assert knowledge. Where is the evidence for this? Where is anything to back up any of your claims?
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 2:54:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 2:47:23 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

It's hard to believe in something you can't see so don't worry about it. God hid from His people for the reason to reveal Himself through the mind of His invisible servant in the flesh called prophets and saints.

You continue to assert and assert knowledge. Where is the evidence for this? Where is anything to back up any of your claims?

I have more knowledge about who we are and how we're created than all the combined knowledge of men put together. This is not something I thought up. This comes directly from our Creator who gave me the words to speak for Him.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 2:56:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Nobody takes Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort seriously. If you want to do a service to Atheism, then take out William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga and their arguments.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 3:31:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 2:56:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody takes Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort seriously. If you want to do a service to Atheism, then take out William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga and their arguments.

No man can be trusted in this world because they're all liars. We saints speak for our Creator so we always speak the Truth, unless we're telling stories about our flesh experiences in this world.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 3:33:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.


This is precisely the argument that I make, although I have never read or heard a word from Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, or William Lane Craig. I do not seek to prove the Christian God with the argument: I seek to prove intelligent design by something or someone - no more and no less. To me, it's just a hurdle.

The greatest arguments in favor of the Christian God are in the realm of prophesy which are inexplicable unless they were written after the fact. If they were in fact written after the fact, then we have the grandest conspiracy ever concocted by men unrelated by time, convictions, politics, etc.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 3:39:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 3:33:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.


This is precisely the argument that I make, although I have never read or heard a word from Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, or William Lane Craig. I do not seek to prove the Christian God with the argument: I seek to prove intelligent design by something or someone - no more and no less. To me, it's just a hurdle.

The greatest arguments in favor of the Christian God are in the realm of prophesy which are inexplicable unless they were written after the fact. If they were in fact written after the fact, then we have the grandest conspiracy ever concocted by men unrelated by time, convictions, politics, etc.

No Christian has ever understood the prophecies about our future. Most of the prophecies have to do with the destruction of this world on the last day of this age and the eternal age afterwards.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 3:47:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 3:39:55 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 3:33:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.


This is precisely the argument that I make, although I have never read or heard a word from Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, or William Lane Craig. I do not seek to prove the Christian God with the argument: I seek to prove intelligent design by something or someone - no more and no less. To me, it's just a hurdle.

The greatest arguments in favor of the Christian God are in the realm of prophesy which are inexplicable unless they were written after the fact. If they were in fact written after the fact, then we have the grandest conspiracy ever concocted by men unrelated by time, convictions, politics, etc.

No Christian has ever understood the prophecies about our future. Most of the prophecies have to do with the destruction of this world on the last day of this age and the eternal age afterwards.

You are a disgrace.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 4:25:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 3:33:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.


This is precisely the argument that I make, although I have never read or heard a word from Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, or William Lane Craig. I do not seek to prove the Christian God with the argument: I seek to prove intelligent design by something or someone - no more and no less. To me, it's just a hurdle.

The greatest arguments in favor of the Christian God are in the realm of prophesy which are inexplicable unless they were written after the fact. If they were in fact written after the fact, then we have the grandest conspiracy ever concocted by men unrelated by time, convictions, politics, etc.

I have one question. If you wanted to create a religion, or were trying to get a much lesser event to become extrapolated quickly amongst the Jews, and you see prophecies sitting right there in the old testament, wouldn't it make sense to try to match up the story with the prophecies? I am not saying that this is necessarily true, just that it is a possibility.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 4:26:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 2:54:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 2:47:23 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

It's hard to believe in something you can't see so don't worry about it. God hid from His people for the reason to reveal Himself through the mind of His invisible servant in the flesh called prophets and saints.

You continue to assert and assert knowledge. Where is the evidence for this? Where is anything to back up any of your claims?

I have more knowledge about who we are and how we're created than all the combined knowledge of men put together. This is not something I thought up. This comes directly from our Creator who gave me the words to speak for Him.

Again you assert that you have knowledge. I fail to see any evidence or backing for this claim.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 5:21:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 2:56:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Nobody takes Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort seriously. If you want to do a service to Atheism, then take out William Lane Craig or Alvin Plantinga and their arguments.

I place Craig in the same class as Comfort. He make presuppositions about his God, the difference he actually is smart. Thats why his arguments seems so good, but essentially they are no different to all other apologists.

I will check out Alvin Platinga, never heard that name before.
bulproof
Posts: 25,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 6:26:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
In a return to topic.
The theist claims to recognise design by comparing it to not designed, maybe one of them could explain this for me?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 10:13:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 8:41:18 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:05:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

Who created God?

That's a good question but no one in this world has ever had the knowledge to know beyond the mind of our Creator. I speak from His mind but He gives me the words to speak or write since I was only created as His voice.

Does your mouth know what it will say before the thoughts are given to you in your mind first?

My mouth and my mind are a part of me; they don't exist, independently, from me. In fact, they help make me that which I am.

If you are the mouth of God, then, you are a part of who God is. You don't exist, independently, from God. In fact, if God doesn't exist, then, neither do you. Being from God, you share one thing in common with God: as long as God has existed so have you. In other words, you weren't taken from nothing; you were taken from God; and, seeing you weren't taken from anything other than God, you weren't created; and, therefore, God is not your creator. If you want to say God is your creator in the same way the ocean creates a wave, I don't have a problem with that. The problem I see is when it is creationists want to convey the notion God created the Universe from nothing other than oneself yet say the Universe exists, separately, from God.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 9:41:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 3:47:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/4/2013 3:39:55 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 3:33:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.


This is precisely the argument that I make, although I have never read or heard a word from Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, or William Lane Craig. I do not seek to prove the Christian God with the argument: I seek to prove intelligent design by something or someone - no more and no less. To me, it's just a hurdle.

The greatest arguments in favor of the Christian God are in the realm of prophesy which are inexplicable unless they were written after the fact. If they were in fact written after the fact, then we have the grandest conspiracy ever concocted by men unrelated by time, convictions, politics, etc.

No Christian has ever understood the prophecies about our future. Most of the prophecies have to do with the destruction of this world on the last day of this age and the eternal age afterwards.

You are a disgrace.

I AM the Truth, and the only way to everlasting Life.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 9:43:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 4:26:15 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/4/2013 2:54:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 2:47:23 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

It's hard to believe in something you can't see so don't worry about it. God hid from His people for the reason to reveal Himself through the mind of His invisible servant in the flesh called prophets and saints.

You continue to assert and assert knowledge. Where is the evidence for this? Where is anything to back up any of your claims?

I have more knowledge about who we are and how we're created than all the combined knowledge of men put together. This is not something I thought up. This comes directly from our Creator who gave me the words to speak for Him.

Again you assert that you have knowledge. I fail to see any evidence or backing for this claim.

You fail because you're blind to our invisible existence.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 9:57:31 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 10:13:28 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/4/2013 8:41:18 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 7:05:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 12/3/2013 9:34:06 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/3/2013 8:48:12 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
The argument of "a painting has a painter, so a creation has a creator" often made by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is false for several reasons.

A. It is a false extrapolation

First of all, this entire argument is false. The reason we know that paintings have a painter, is because we have experience with paintings. We have seen them be painted, and we have never seen a painting just pop out of no where. We have no experience with creation of universes. People often say that it is "too perfect". Well, there could be an infinite amount of universes with different laws of physics. We can't live on one with different laws of physics, so the fact that we are here, shows only that this universes laws are suitable for our type of life.

B. You have assumed it is a "creation"

Already, this statement assumes that there is already some creative force behind the universe. It's not that important, I just wanted to point out the bias in the wording that Ray uses.

C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.

Without a painter, there would be no paintings to observe by other people. Without a writer, written words wouldn't exist. Without a mouth or tongue, spoken words wouldn't be necessary. Without retina's, visible things would be senseless. Without food, stomachs wouldn't be needed. Without you, there wouldn't be any stupid threads like this one.

Without a Creator, nothing would exist.

Who created God?

That's a good question but no one in this world has ever had the knowledge to know beyond the mind of our Creator. I speak from His mind but He gives me the words to speak or write since I was only created as His voice.

Does your mouth know what it will say before the thoughts are given to you in your mind first?

My mouth and my mind are a part of me; they don't exist, independently, from me. In fact, they help make me that which I am.

If you are the mouth of God, then, you are a part of who God is. You don't exist, independently, from God. In fact, if God doesn't exist, then, neither do you. Being from God, you share one thing in common with God: as long as God has existed so have you. In other words, you weren't taken from nothing; you were taken from God; and, seeing you weren't taken from anything other than God, you weren't created; and, therefore, God is not your creator. If you want to say God is your creator in the same way the ocean creates a wave, I don't have a problem with that. The problem I see is when it is creationists want to convey the notion God created the Universe from nothing other than oneself yet say the Universe exists, separately, from God.

It appears you haven't read any of my posts. I know who I AM and who My Voice is. It's you who don't know who you are, yet.
Lordgrae
Posts: 666
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 4:18:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 9:43:22 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 4:26:15 PM, Lordgrae wrote:
At 12/4/2013 2:54:34 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 2:47:23 PM, Lordgrae wrote:

It's hard to believe in something you can't see so don't worry about it. God hid from His people for the reason to reveal Himself through the mind of His invisible servant in the flesh called prophets and saints.

You continue to assert and assert knowledge. Where is the evidence for this? Where is anything to back up any of your claims?

I have more knowledge about who we are and how we're created than all the combined knowledge of men put together. This is not something I thought up. This comes directly from our Creator who gave me the words to speak for Him.

Again you assert that you have knowledge. I fail to see any evidence or backing for this claim.

You fail because you're blind to our invisible existence.

I have given up on you. I can't deal with someone who fails to make an argument.
Birth Name: Graesil s'h'u Aln s'de Alanai'u s'se Saeron
Name: Grae
Titles: Lord, x'Sor Linniae (the false king), Elven War Chief, Heir to Aln
Class: Melee Archer/ Orator
Main Stats: Charisma, Dexterity
Weilds: Bladebow, Elven Slim Sword
Skills: Oration, Double Shot, Backstab, Snatch, Overwhelm Mind, Dominate, Parley, Restorative Sleep
Personal History: Born as the second of triplets, he was wed at an early age to a Dryad. He escaped several times, and on the last was captured and enslaved
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
Posts: 720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2013 5:07:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/5/2013 9:41:51 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 3:47:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 12/4/2013 3:39:55 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 12/4/2013 3:33:16 PM, annanicole wrote:
C. Deism vs. theism

Both Ray and Kirk, the main pushers of this argument are Christians. However, they never seem to supplement this argument for proof of Christianity over other religions. If they truly believed in the arguments they made, and not just making excuses about their belief, they would be deist. Not only must the theist provide evidence for a god, the must provide evidence for their god. This is something that their entire arguments, not just this one, lacks.


This is precisely the argument that I make, although I have never read or heard a word from Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron, or William Lane Craig. I do not seek to prove the Christian God with the argument: I seek to prove intelligent design by something or someone - no more and no less. To me, it's just a hurdle.

The greatest arguments in favor of the Christian God are in the realm of prophesy which are inexplicable unless they were written after the fact. If they were in fact written after the fact, then we have the grandest conspiracy ever concocted by men unrelated by time, convictions, politics, etc.

No Christian has ever understood the prophecies about our future. Most of the prophecies have to do with the destruction of this world on the last day of this age and the eternal age afterwards.

You are a disgrace.

I AM the Truth, and the only way to everlasting Life.

kind of bit like Jesus then?