In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Thanks Shane. I'm a big fan of Hovind on the Creation side of things. On the presuppositional side I've been influenced by Van Til, Tim Keller, and Gregory Koukl. I haven't heard Brugencatte but a cursory glance of him online looks very intriguing. Ours is the argument from truth, and I'm thankful that God has shown me the error of my previously held positions.
South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.
Premise 1 as stated by goodnews - If you can't see the whole journey, then you cannot logically say that you truly understand any of it.
Premise 2 - The being known as goodnews is not an all powerful being with all knowlege to see the whole journey.
Conclusion - Since goodnews is not an omniscient being that knows everything, this means that he can not understand anything, so there is no reason to listen to him
Even if goodnews defers to some magical being with all power and knowlege, this being cannot transfer all knowlege to goodnews. So, goodnews still knows nothing.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by OmegaBuckeye 2 years ago
On the edit. So is something true because it is objectively true or is it true because god wills it to be true?
This post was edited by OmegaBuckeye 2 years ago
I'm not reading all this nonsense. I'd just ask Morgan Freeman this....if we invented God, who invented us? I'm not a Christian, Jew, Muslim....I consider myself a Deist for one very simple, very logical reason. Everything comes from something. We didn't just appear out of thin air and neither did our beginnings. Someone, or thing, had to create the very first building blocks of our universe so I believe more in a creator than a God. When I say this I usually get asked, "well then who created God?" I don't know but that question doesn't negate the fact that we came from somewhere. Science? Evolution, you say? Where did the building blocks of evolution come from? Again, nothing just appears out of thin air...logically, I can't help but believe in a creator. No idea who or what that is or if there's a Heaven or any kind of after-life and I won't pretend to know.
If God doesn't need a creator then neither does the universe. You are just moving the problem one step further out.
You've ignored the question, "who created God". Saying that we 'came from nowhere' is really no different than saying, 'we came from god who came from nowhere' in terms of adhering to your assumption that we had to have come from somewhere.
Thanks for your post Cuba and welcome to the discussion. In a previous post I quoted Hebrews 11 which teaches us that we have a very reasonable faith. he Bible says tha faith, the Biblical notion of faith, isn't a "hope so" type of faith, but a faith based on reason. Blind faith would be the faith of the atheist, for example. There's no philosophy more reasonable than the biblical one. The thing is the Biblical teaching also delves into things that are beyond our ability to understand and thus also requires a degree of faith. No other philosophy/religion dares clain what the Bible does.
I love your allusion to my reasoning being flawed when your's is steeped in it. One thing that scientists know about the sun is that it will eventually go away. In our limited knowledge of the workings of the world and the universe the one constant is that we've been wrong about many things. Many mainstays throughout history have faded. My analogy was right on considering the point I was trying to make. I can reword it for you if you wish. "Facts" obtained by fallible creatures with a very limited frame of reference do require faith whether we believe it or not. It is the height of arrogance and foolishness to think we know much of anything w/o having the benefit of knowing everything and being able to vet one thing against everything else. If we cannot see the whole picture (and we're not even close) then a little bit of humility epitomizes wisdom. Unless, we know the One who does know everything. And then humility before that Being epitomizes wisdom. There are so many things that we assume and rely upon that are quite beyond our control or understanding As to your analogy of other religions, I've only found one that covers all the bases and then some unexpected ones. Jesus is the bonified truth. You mentioned non-religious concepts. If we were part of a dream or a compuer program then we'd be a part of a plan of a personal/reasonable being who made us on purpose. It stands to reason then that being would share with us why. At the end of the day there's boo coo's of rational/philosophical/scientific evidence for my point of view. Not much for yours. Your notion that all living doesn't require faith is the crazy and irrational one. You made more than one statement of faith in your post b/c much of what you said cannot be fully substantiated.
1. Quoting the bible to support the notion that christianity is reasonable is like me quoting Harry Potter to support the fact that people can do magic.
2. Because science has been wrong, it will be wrong again is your logic here. And it's a blatant, false exaggeration.
That's like me saying, "because early christians likely practiced human sacrifice (source below), modern christians are likely to do the same thing".
3. False. Facts obtained by people with a limited frame of reference will be limited to what they can observe within that frame of reference. For example, we can't know the exact details about certain galaxies billions of light years away, since we aren't able to observe it accurately. We CAN know details about this world, since we can observe it.
4. It is the height of arrogance and foolishness to presume to know everything about what happens after we die despite not having a scrap of evidence.
5. We don't know if the is a 'one who does everything', much less who he is.
6. Humility before something you don't know to exist empitomizes insanity.
7. How can you know this? After all, you will freely admit to not being able to know anything until you know everything.
This is just a sanctimonious, condescending, self-contradicting lecture designed to muddy the waters and distract people from the issue that you have no logic nor evidence to support your position.
8. You position can't be substantiated AT ALL. Literally. There is 0 evidence to support your position.
It is the height of intellectual dishonesty to invalidate the facts of science by saying that the people who generate them are not omniscient, when you have no facts nor proof that the being which generated your religion is omniscient.
What an excellent post! You've got it! You have proven my case for me. Now you're thinking w/o your blinders on and instead deferring to reason. Since none of us are omniscient it's ridiculous to find all the science/history/philosophy books that proport to have a vast understanding of things w/o once mentioning God. We can know nothing in that scenario. The only thing we can reasonably know is that we need help in understanding anything. You have quite outdone me in succinctly and yet cogently helping us to see. The only place you've fallen short in in your last clause. I never said we couldn't be rational on our own. God made us quite rational. Probably for the purpose, among other things, of being able to communicate with Him and understand Him to a certain extent. What He didn't make us is omniscientt, and therefore we're very much dependent upon His explananation of things.
Thanks again for making my position look so good.
Reasonable post, thanks.
I finally get it now. Thank you. You have converted me.
Glad to see that your love of the self proclaimed victory is still there. I'm sure you're a legend in your own mind. I'm convinced you mean something else than the rest of humanity when you use the terms reason and logic
"We can know nothing in that scenario. The only thing we can reasonably know is that we need help in understanding anything"~goodnews
Make up your mind. Either we can know nothing, or we can know something.
You still haven't demonstrated that there needs to be a being that knows everything in order for us to know anything. You have only proved that if your premise is true, then you know nothing. Unless of course you are saying that, in your conversations with the magic man, he gives you all his knowlege so that you know everything.
So far, my personal favorite contradiction of his is that god made humanity:
2. Incapable of knowing anything
He won't see that contradiction even if you beat him over the head with it. I guess his rationality doesn't require him to have any knowlege.
He doesn't understand that by his own argument, he is saying that he knows nothing about his magic man. After all, he can't know anything about his diety unless he knows everything about him, right?
That's not what I said, that's your understanding b/c you don't want to see the airtight logic. We're rational. But, since we don't have the full frame of reference to help us understand things correctly we need more than we can provide ourselves. You can have a concept of a football but you can't really know it's purpose until someone shows you a football field, goal posts, explains the rules, etc.
This post was edited by goodnews 2 years ago
I haven't proclaimed anything Omega. I should probably apologize to you. My sarcasm was untoward, so my apologies. You just set yourself up so beautifully. At least have to fortitude to admit it.
Oh give it up goodnews. Your logic is anything but airtight. Even with just the football there is knowlege. There is the aerodynamic shape, the texture, weight, laces, color. So even though I have a limited understanding on what it is used for, I still can try and come to some conclusions on how it is used. Sure, it might not be a complete picture at first, but I can make some REASONABLE guesses on what it is used for. Maybe initially I think it is used as a pillow for when I am laying down on the ground. (wrong conclusion, but consistant with the facts I have on hand) Then one day I see some people throwing it back and forth to each other. Guess what?!??! New information has been discovered. I revise my initial assessment to it being an object used for a game of catch between two people (closer to the real use). Then another day I find 6 people playing a game using the ball with 3 people on each side. One side is trying to advance the ball, and the other is trying to stop them from advancing. Guess what?!??! New information has been discovered. I revise my initial assessment to being a game played with teams with one side advancing the ball while the other tries to stop them. This keeps going on and on to even the more complex levels where we are talking positions, strategies, tactics, etc... . As you can see we go from having no knowlege of a subject to having more knowlege. We do it all the time. We had no trouble at all knowing things about football while not understanding the entire game of football (does anyone to this day "KNOW" everything there is to know about football, if not then no one knows anything about football right?)
Again, you can't win the argument so you resort to a personal attack on my fortitude, as if that was the reason your argument holds no water.
Of course there's all of those things. We can reasonable understand something about most things w/o God. I never said any different. What I've been saying, that you'd undersand if you weren't so desperate to be right, is that to fully understand the football, and it's purpose beyond the leather, laces, etc, we would need someone with a full frame of reference. It's not a perfect analogy, but hopefully it'll get you there. You cannot, regardless of how much you want it to be otherwise, FULLY and TRULY understand anything unless you know everything. That is airtight.
Nom I apologized, genuinely, and encouraged you to do the right thing in the spirit of good debate.
There it is. You can admit that it is possible to know things without knowing everything. You just moved from your postion that we can not understand anything unless we understand everything to, we can reasonable understand something about most things w/o God. BIG position change. Even if you don't admit that you are changing positions at least you realize that your original position was untennable.
The fact of the matter is that you can not 'fully' and 'truly' understand football because it is always changing.
You have repeated in this thread that you can't know anything unless you know everything. Make up your mind.
EDIT: Should have read Omega's posts. Good to see you backed down from that absurd stance.
This post was edited by ramssuperbowl99 2 years ago
I don't know why it's so difficult to understand. Of course you can know a little bit about most things all by yourself. Water is wet, for instance. However, my point (c'mon guys, you're taking away all the fun) is that we really can't FULLY and TRULY (notice the all caps for emphasis) understand anything unless we understand everything. It's not that complicated, and it's airtight. You keep asserting semantical points w/o actually addressing the real proposition. I'm sorry if my analogies have fallen short, but I haven't changed any position. You just don't seem to understand the point, and I'm not sure why. Please stop the emotional need not to be wrong and to high five each other and think for yourselves.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports