Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: I thought that was kinda the discussion..
No sir your just straw maning. :-s :?

My argument it's not that evolution happened.

My argument is that you have a flaw in the way you ask for evidence.


For_The_Kingdom wrote: Bringing forth the hypothesis that reptiles evolved into birds, would contradict admitting for sake of argument that evolution did not happen.
Show me evidence that it occurred at all before we talk about how long it takes to occur.
Dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, snakes/snakes. I don't see any evidence contrary to these observations...and if you have evidence, I am here.
Um, no. I would ask for evidence that God exists at all, before I go about asking whether or not this yet to be proven God gets involved in human affairs.
See how that works? I don't put the cart before the horse. That is how we (Christian apologists) actually do apologetics...we build a cumulative case for Christian theism..first, we prove that God exists...and THEN we prove how/why we believe that this recently proved God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ.
See how that works?
All of that is irrelevant, considering your analogy does not mirror how I think/operate. So, your analogy was useless and a waste of time; is what I am trying to say
Again my argument is not about evolution, but about you.

Q: Why is it so hard to comprehend?

It's like I am talking with monkeys.:))

Let's try again:

We have two people: subject A and subject B.

Subject A brings forth the hypothesis: "Over millions of years reptiles evolve into birds".

Subject B then asks for a specific kind of evidence: "Do you have direct evidence, can it pass the" eyeball test"?

Subject A then responds: No I don't. No it can't. It's impossible for a human to witness this for it lives only a few decades and this event takes millions of years.

Subject B then responds: Ha! Then I don't believe it happened.

Q: Is it not stupid/dishonest for subject B to make that request? (Yes/No question)

Q: Is it not stupid/dishonest for subject B to conclude it did not happen because there is not direct evidence, because it did not pass the "eyeball test"?(Yes/No question)

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Sigh* It isn't an inconsistency, it is a different methodology altogether (3rd time saying it).
The inconsistency is that you have a different methodology.

Q: Why? :-s :?
For_The_Kingdom wrote: I have what I believe to be convincing evidence that God exists, which is more than I can say about EVOLUTION.
You have 2000 years old bogus testimonial evidence for Yahweh-Jesus.

You can find better testimonial evidence(from people that are alive) for myriads of magical things like: reincarnation(testimony of previous lives), Sathya Say Baba miracles, Yeti, Lock nest monsters, alien abductions, ghosts, strigoi and so one.

Comparing your weak testimonial evidence with to the countless empirical evidence from countless scientific fields: geology, biology(molecular biology, ecology, ethology/ behavioral biology), biochemistry, agriculture, wildlife and pest management, genetics, paleontology, astronomy, physics, medicine(virology, bacteriology) is laughable.

Answer the question:

Q: Can you not make experiments to prove God’s interventions in the universe? Can you not ask God for direct evidence(“eye ball test�)? (Yes/No question)
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

alexxcJRO wrote:
No sir your just straw maning. :-s :?

My argument it's not that evolution happened.
Well, that is my argument, based upon the lack of convincing evidence.
alexxcJRO wrote: My argument is that you have a flaw in the way you ask for evidence.
If you have a problem with the way that I "ask for evidence", then that sounds like a personal problem. I am simply asking for observational evidence based on a methodology which is based on "observation".

I will also gladly accept any indirect evidence for it as well, and I can't even get that much.

So either way, like I said, the evidence is lacking.
alexxcJRO wrote: Again my argument is not about evolution, but about you.

Q: Why is it so hard to comprehend?

It's like I am talking with monkeys.:))
Why is it so hard to comprehend that dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish? Once that becomes easy to "comprehend", we wouldn't be having such discussions.
alexxcJRO wrote: We have two people: subject A and subject B.

Subject A brings forth the hypothesis: "Over millions of years reptiles evolve into birds".

Subject B then asks for a specific kind of evidence: "Do you have direct evidence, can it pass the" eyeball test"?

Subject A then responds: No I don't. No it can't. It's impossible for a human to witness this for it lives only a few decades and this event takes millions of years.

Subject B then responds: Ha! Then I don't believe it happened.

Q: Is it not stupid/dishonest for subject B to make that request? (Yes/No question)

Q: Is it not stupid/dishonest for subject B to conclude it did not happen because there is not direct evidence, because it did not pass the "eyeball test"?(Yes/No question)
Subject A (you) is fallaciously begging the question. "It takes millions of years" is exactly what needs to be proven. Subject A just throws it out there as if it is a 100% fact that it occurs, when Subject B is still waiting on evidence that the phenomena in question can/does/will occur in the first place.

"It takes millions of years to occur" is based upon the unproven theory that it actually occurs, which is why Subject B has stated "first prove to me that macroevolution is true, before we begin to talk about how long it takes to occur".

Subject B is careful about putting the cart before the horse, even when others aren't so careful.
alexxcJRO wrote:
The inconsistency is that you have a different methodology.

Q: Why? :-s :?
It is simple. You don't need stupid ole me to break it down to wise ole you, do you?

As I said; the methodology is different. Here is what I mean; Abe Lincoln was assassinated, correct? Now, how can we "prove" that the President was assassinated?

No one living today was there to "observe" it, so obviously, we have to use a different methodology (way of determining what is true) as it relates to historical claims than we use when it comes to scientific claims...right?

Do you see the difference? Now, science is based on observation (what we see), experimentation (what we can test), and prediction (what we think will occur under certain circumstances).

Now, the claim is that reptiles evolved into birds..

1. Observation: This claim fails the observation test, obviously

2. Experimentation: There is no experiment that you can conduct which will give you results which will corroborate the claim

3. Prediction: You can certainly "predict" whatever you want, but you will do so based on speculation, as you have no observation nor have you conducted any experiment which would led you to believe the claim is true.

So, the claim "reptiles evolved into birds" is currently an unscientific claim, regardless of how strong you guys (evolutionists) believe that it occurred.

There is no direct/indirect evidence for it and to believe it is to rely on faith, not science.

Now, when it comes to belief in God, theists (not just Christian theists) have been providing evidence for the existence of God for centuries, without having "observed" God doing ANYTHING...because if belief in God was based on observation, obviously there wouldn't be many believers.

So obviously, we use a different methodology to prove the existence of God...and many of us (including myself) do a good job of doing so...without having observed God doing anything.
alexxcJRO wrote:
You have 2000 years old bogus testimonial evidence for Yahweh-Jesus.
I don't even have one year of ANY testimonials about folks who saw a reptile evolve into a bird. So Christianity still comes out on top.
alexxcJRO wrote: You can find better testimonial evidence(from people that are alive) for myriads of magical things like: reincarnation(testimony of previous lives), Sathya Say Baba miracles, Yeti, Lock nest monsters, alien abductions, ghosts, strigoi and so one.
Well, considering the fact that Christianity is the #1 religion in the world in terms of followers, I think it is clear as to which testimonial evidence is reigning supreme and to whom.
alexxcJRO wrote: Comparing your weak testimonial evidence with to the countless empirical evidence from countless scientific fields: geology, biology(molecular biology, ecology, ethology/ behavioral biology), biochemistry, agriculture, wildlife and pest management, genetics, paleontology, astronomy, physics, medicine(virology, bacteriology) is laughable.
None of those fields of science conclusively proves that a reptile evolved into a bird some x-million years ago.
alexxcJRO wrote: Answer the question:

Q: Can you not make experiments to prove God’s interventions in the universe?
No.
alexxcJRO wrote: Can you not ask God for direct evidence(“eye ball test�)? (Yes/No question)
Yes.

User avatar
brunumb
Guru
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by brunumb »

[Replying to post 210 by For_The_Kingdom]

The theory of evolution is actually the product of accumulated evidence. All of the observations relating to the diversity of life on earth lead irrevocably to the theory of evolution as an explanation. On the other hand there is a handful of ancient anonymous stories suggesting that some god, or gods depending on which stories you are reading, made it all but there is absolutely nothing to support that contention.
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Well, that is my argument, based upon the lack of convincing evidence.
If you have a problem with the way that I "ask for evidence", then that sounds like a personal problem. I am simply asking for observational evidence based on a methodology which is based on "observation".
I will also gladly accept any indirect evidence for it as well, and I can't even get that much.
So either way, like I said, the evidence is lacking.
Why is it so hard to comprehend that dogs produce dogs, cats/cats, fish/fish? Once that becomes easy to "comprehend", we wouldn't be having such discussions.
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings born out of either chronic stupidity(one can not understand someone‘s argument after repeated explanations) or dishonesty(one cannot bring counter argument and creates a straw-man).

Q: Sir do you understand that my argument is not that evolution happened?! :-s :shock: :?

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Subject A (you) is fallaciously begging the question. "It takes millions of years" is exactly what needs to be proven. Subject A just throws it out there as if it is a 100% fact that it occurs, when Subject B is still waiting on evidence that the phenomena in question can/does/will occur in the first place.
"It takes millions of years to occur" is based upon the unproven theory that it actually occurs, which is why Subject B has stated "first prove to me that macroevolution is true, before we begin to talk about how long it takes to occur".
Subject B is careful about putting the cart before the horse, even when others aren't so careful.
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings born out of either chronic stupidity(one can not understand someone argument after repeated explanations) or dishonesty(one cannot bring counter argument and creates a straw-man).:-s :shock: :?

You still don't understand my argument.
Fighting a straw man.

Again: My argument is that is illogical/moronic/stupid/dishonest to ask for evidence that can’t be brought forth.

Like is it is illogical/moronic/stupid/dishonest to ask for evidence that a deist god intervenes in the universe after ones makes the claim that a deist god exists, is also is illogical/moronic/stupid/dishonest to ask for direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) that “reptiles evolved into birds over millions of years� after ones makes the claim that it happened.

Like it’s logically impossible for one to bring evidence that a deist god intervenes in the universe, is also logically impossible to bring direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) that “reptiles evolved into birds over millions of years�.

It’s like asking for evidence of a married bachelor or asking one to draw a 4 angle triangle.

Q: Why do you ask for logical impossiblities? What is wrong with you? :o :?
For_The_Kingdom wrote: It is simple. You don't need stupid ole me to break it down to wise ole you, do you?
As I said; the methodology is different. Here is what I mean; Abe Lincoln was assassinated, correct? Now, how can we "prove" that the President was assassinated?
No one living today was there to "observe" it, so obviously, we have to use a different methodology (way of determining what is true) as it relates to historical claims than we use when it comes to scientific claims...right?
Do you see the difference? Now, science is based on observation (what we see), experimentation (what we can test), and prediction (what we think will occur under certain circumstances).
Now, the claim is that reptiles evolved into birds..
1. Observation: This claim fails the observation test, obviously
2. Experimentation: There is no experiment that you can conduct which will give you results which will corroborate the claim
3. Prediction: You can certainly "predict" whatever you want, but you will do so based on speculation, as you have no observation nor have you conducted any experiment which would led you to believe the claim is true.
So, the claim "reptiles evolved into birds" is currently an unscientific claim, regardless of how strong you guys (evolutionists) believe that it occurred.
There is no direct/indirect evidence for it and to believe it is to rely on faith, not science.
Now, when it comes to belief in God, theists (not just Christian theists) have been providing evidence for the existence of God for centuries, without having "observed" God doing ANYTHING...because if belief in God was based on observation, obviously there wouldn't be many believers.


So obviously, we use a different methodology to prove the existence of God...and many of us (including myself) do a good job of doing so...without having observed God doing anything.

alexxcJRO wrote:

Answer the question:

Q: Can you not make experiments to prove God’s interventions in the universe?


No.
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings born out of either chronic stupidity(one can not understand someone argument’s) or dishonesty(one cannot bring counter argument and creates a straw-man). :-s :shock: :?

Sir my argument was not about the bible/the ancient manuscripts.

My argument was about the claim: your personal God intervenes in the universe: listens to prayer, heals humans, bring calamities over others and so one.

This claim is empirical therefore experimentation could be made to prove this intervention.

Q: So again why the different methodology when we have two empirical claims?

For_The_Kingdom wrote: I don't even have one year of ANY testimonials about folks who saw a reptile evolve into a bird. So Christianity still comes out on top.
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings born out of chronic stupidity. :-s :shock: :?


It is impossible to have direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) from Homo Sapiens Sapiens for an event that place before there were any Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Even if Homo Sapiens Sapiens would have existed during this event it is still impossible to have direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) from Homo Sapiens Sapiens because the event took millions of years and humans only live a few decades.

So the fact that there is no direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) it's irrelevant.


For_The_Kingdom wrote: None of those fields of science conclusively proves that a reptile evolved into a bird some x-million years

ago.
If one is suffering from chronic stupidity, maybe.
For_The_Kingdom wrote: Well, considering the fact that Christianity is the #1 religion in the world in terms of followers, I think it is clear as to which testimonial evidence is reigning supreme and to whom.
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings devoid of any logic born out of chronic stupidity. :-s :shock: :?

Argument add populum.
“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

The fact that the majority of believers are Christians or that many are Christians does not make the Christian belief true over Muslim beliefs, Hindu beliefs.
Therefore you still have a problem sir. 8-)

For_The_Kingdom wrote: alexxcJRO wrote:
Can you not ask God for direct evidence(“eye ball test�)? (Yes/No question)


Yes.

Q: So why are more leaning with God? Why not ask God for direct evidence(“eyeball test�) as you obsessively do with humans? Why the inconsistency, huh? :-s
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 24774
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by Zzyzx »

.
:warning: Moderator Warning
alexxcJRO wrote: Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings born out of either chronic stupidity(one can not understand someone‘s argument after repeated explanations) or dishonesty(one cannot bring counter argument and creates a straw-man).
This is NOT acceptable. Debate the topic without personal remarks.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
.
Non-Theist

If you stop claiming knowledge of invisible, undetectable unicorns, I will stop challenging your claim. Same goes for gods

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

For a quick tutorial on science vs. religion, compare modern internet weather radar to ancient religious beliefs and superstitions about weather

"Demand money with the threat of violence and you'll get arrested. Do it with the threat of eternal damnation and it's tax deductible"

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1916
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

alexxcJRO wrote:
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings born out of either chronic stupidity(one can not understand someone‘s argument after repeated explanations) or dishonesty(one cannot bring counter argument and creates a straw-man).
Call it whatever you want to call it, brethren.
alexxcJRO wrote: Q: Sir do you understand that my argument is not that evolution happened?! :-s :shock: :?
Well, regardless of what your argument is..this is my argument; evolution never happened.
alexxcJRO wrote:
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings born out of either chronic stupidity(one can not understand someone argument after repeated explanations) or dishonesty(one cannot bring counter argument and creates a straw-man).:-s :shock: :?

You still don't understand my argument.
Fighting a straw man.
No, it's not irrelevant. Your main point was "it (evolution) takes millions of years to occur", and on more than one occasion I attacked that unproven statement head-on; and you've yet to deal with what I said.
alexxcJRO wrote: Again: My argument is that is illogical/moronic/stupid/dishonest to ask for evidence that can’t be brought forth.
Again: You can call it whatever you want to call it, but the fact still remains; I see no convincing evidence (direct/indirect) for the theory that reptiles evolved into birds.

Point blank, period.
alexxcJRO wrote: Like is it is illogical/moronic/stupid/dishonest to ask for evidence that a deist god intervenes in the universe after ones makes the claim that a deist god exists, is also is illogical/moronic/stupid/dishonest to ask for direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) that “reptiles evolved into birds over millions of years� after ones makes the claim that it happened.

And you can call/it/what/you/what/to/call/it. Whatever. I will continue to stress the fact that I see no observations in nature that would led me to the conclusion that macroevolution is true.

I don't believe in your religion, no.
alexxcJRO wrote: Like it’s logically impossible for one to bring evidence that a deist god intervenes in the universe, is also logically impossible to bring direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) that “reptiles evolved into birds over millions of years�.

It’s like asking for evidence of a married bachelor or asking one to draw a 4 angle triangle.

Q: Why do you ask for logical impossiblities? What is wrong with you? :o :?
Actually, what is wrong with you? Because apparently you don't know the difference between what is "logically impossible", and what is "scientifically impossible".

I would explain it to you, but since this is my last post to you regarding this conversation, I choose not to waste my time.
alexxcJRO wrote:
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings born out of either chronic stupidity(one can not understand someone argument’s) or dishonesty(one cannot bring counter argument and creates a straw-man). :-s :shock: :?
Yup. I am chronically stupid, and I am proud :D
alexxcJRO wrote: Sir my argument was not about the bible/the ancient manuscripts.
Yet, nothing about the Bible and ancient manuscripts was mentioned. SMH.
alexxcJRO wrote: My argument was about the claim: your personal God intervenes in the universe: listens to prayer, heals humans, bring calamities over others and so one.

This claim is empirical therefore experimentation could be made to prove this intervention.

Q: So again why the different methodology when we have two empirical claims?
You can't scientifically prove divine intervention. SMH.
alexxcJRO wrote:
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings born out of chronic stupidity. :-s :shock: :?

It is impossible to have direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) from Homo Sapiens Sapiens for an event that place before there were any Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Even if Homo Sapiens Sapiens would have existed during this event it is still impossible to have direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) from Homo Sapiens Sapiens because the event took millions of years and humans only live a few decades.
Ahh yes. "It takes millions of years" is never to far from the evolutionist's fingertips (or mouth).
alexxcJRO wrote: So the fact that there is no direct evidence(eye witness testimony-“eyeball test�) it's irrelevant.
Everything about macroevolution is irrelevant.
alexxcJRO wrote:
If one is suffering from chronic stupidity, maybe.
I am suffering.
alexxcJRO wrote:
Nonsensical irrelevant ramblings devoid of any logic born out of chronic stupidity. :-s :shock: :?

Argument add populum.
“In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
This type of argument is known by several names,[1] including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to democracy, appeal to popularity, argument by consensus, consensus fallacy, authority of the many, bandwagon fallacy, vox populi,[2] and in Latin as argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), fickle crowd syndrome, and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect. The Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger" concerns the same idea.�

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

The fact that the majority of believers are Christians or that many are Christians does not make the Christian belief true over Muslim beliefs, Hindu beliefs.
Therefore you still have a problem sir. 8-)
Actually, it is you with the problem. If you read and are able to comprehend what I said, I never said nor implied that "because Christianity is the #1 religion in the world in terms of followers, therefore, Christianity is true".


I don't even agree with the statement, so I would never make the statement in truth. Take a look at what I said, and what I was responding to, and gain the proper understanding.

Or, continue with more improper understandings and set yourself up for more failed "gotcha" moments in the future, such as the one above.
alexxcJRO wrote: Q: So why are more leaning with God? Why not ask God for direct evidence(“eyeball test�) as you obsessively do with humans? Why the inconsistency, huh? :-s
I already addressed this and I refuse to do so again. You can have the last word here, btw.

I got bigger fish to fry. :D

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am

Re: Bad Math Used in Apologetics

Post by alexxcJRO »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Well, regardless of what your argument is..this is my argument; evolution never happened. 
So you bring contra-arguments to arguments never brought forth.

That’s stupid.

I say A. You talk about B.

Q: Why? :-s


For_The_Kingdom wrote: No, it's not irrelevant. Your main point was "it (evolution) takes millions of years to occur", and on more than one occasion I attacked thatunproven statement head-on; and you've yet to deal with what I said. 
My argument was not that it is a proven statement sir. Therefore i don't have to prove anything.

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Again: You can call it whatever you want to call it, but the fact still remains; I see no convincing evidence (direct/indirect) for the theory that reptiles evolved into birds. 
And you can call/it/what/you/what/to/call/it. Whatever. I will continue to stress the fact that I see no observations in nature that would led me to the conclusion that macroevolution is true. 
It’s irrelevant what that you “see no convincing evidence (direct/indirect) for the theory that reptiles evolved into birds.� or that “see no observations in nature that would led me to the conclusion that macroevolution is true� it is still illogical/moronic/stupid/dishonest to ask for evidence that can’t be brought forth.

Actually, what is wrong with you? Because apparently you don't know the difference between what is "logically impossible", and what is"scientifically impossible". 
Maybe that was too extreme of me to say. :P

But you still have a problem.

Humans would have to time travel to the past and live for millions of years.

Q: Why are you asking for a scientifically impossible things? What is the matter with you?

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Yet, nothing about the Bible and ancient manuscripts was mentioned. SMH. 
Sir you said: “we have to use a different methodology (way of determining what is true) as it relates to historical claims than we use when it comes to scientific claims...right?�

Q: Did you talked here about the gospels? About the ancient documents/ manuscripts that lead to the creation of the bible? Did not meant of them as evidence for your God? :-s

For_The_Kingdom wrote: You can't scientifically prove divine intervention.
Q: Says who? You?:))

Scientific studies have been done to show whether intercessory prayer works or not.
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
Everything about macroevolution is irrelevant.
Sir "macroevolution" is evolution.

Q: What stops "microevolution"-small changes to become "macroevolution"-big changes over very long periods of times(million of years)?

Q: Can you point the mechanism by which this happens?

For_The_Kingdom wrote: Actually, it is you with the problem. If you read and are able to comprehend what I said, I never said nor implied that "because Christianity is the #1 religion in the world in terms of followers, therefore, Christianity is true".


I don't even agree with the statement, so I would never make the statement in truth. Take a look at what I said, and what I was responding to, and gain the proper understanding.

Or, continue with more improper understandings and set yourself up for more failed "gotcha" moments in the future, such as the one above.
So if don't believe so then you know it's irrelevant how many believe in Christianity.

Therefore my point from below still stands.

You believe Christianity to be true because of some bogus 2000 years old testimonial evidence.

There is better testimonial evidence from people who are alive for a myriad of magical and incredible things like reincarnation, miracles of Sathya Say Baba, strigois, yeti, ghosts, alien abductions.

Yet you don't believe in these things.

Q: If the testimonial evidence for these things does not prove them to be true why would for your Christian claim, huh? :-s
“It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.�
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.�

Post Reply