I dunno how you arrived at your conclusions, you don't care to share, so your accusations about Mr. Enyart are just going to hang there.
It's your belief.
It's your belief.
It's mine as well, Ninevah. Bmyers cited the two main motifs apparent in Enyart's writing. Here's evidence.I dunno how you arrived at your conclusions, you don't care to share, so your accusations about Mr. Enyart are just going to hang there.
It's your belief.
BE: We Know God Exists: because:
1. the universe could not always have been here, nor could it have made itself from nothing
2. even the basic functions of biological life are irreducibly and wildly complex and could not originate by the laws of physics
3. consciousness, that is, self-awareness is non-physical and could not arise from atoms and molecules[/quote}
So says Bob !.. self awareness is a result of having a large enough brain. Even Cats and Dogs are self aware.. they know it themselves in the mirror. Our consciousness is just a result of an evolutionary process that provided us with high intelligence. Why is God implied by it ?
4. only a moral God can account for absolute right and wrong and the human conscience
Absolute right and wrong are human invented concepts .. just like God. I always find it just a little hilarious when morals are attributed to a God instead of man.. when man made up the God in the first place.
5. the laws of physics cannot account for broad and extraordinary features of the solar system
Yes they can.. we just need to learn them all. The ridiculous “coincidences” in the Solar system don’t even line up exactly like Bob declares they do.. his “extraordinary” features are full of ALMOST ½ and NEARLY 40 % etc etc. As we find out more about other Solar systems it seems there are perfectly natural explanations for solar system shape and formation and features.
6. even if evolution were possible, apart from supervision, even the simplest proteins would each require trillions of years to form
Bob thinks this because of his failed attempt at mathematics. No wonder he dropped out of his course. Time and time again I have told him he fails to take into account no of iterations and the locking in place of beneficial results.
7. human behavior indicates the existence of the soul and spirit and the real existence of ideas indicate the existence of a non-physical reality
Human behvious indicates and intelligent being who has empathy for fellow humans and strives to understand or provide reasons for natural happenings. When reason aren’t forthcoming humans have generally opted for Gap Gods.
8. higher biological functions like sight, flight, and echo-location are so wildly and irreducibly complex they could not evolve in stages
I fully explained how all these functions not only occurred naturally but how we still have intermediate forms in existence today of all the necessary steps.
9. apart from the existence of God, logic and reason have no foundation, and thus leading atheists deny the objective nature of the laws of logic
Logic and reason are human concepts formed by our large intelligence as tools to explain our universe. Again it is ironic that a human could claim that a human invention implies a God (which is another human invention) exists !
10. God has revealed Himself uniquely in the Bible and confirmed its claims through scientific statements, prophecies, and many other wonderful proofs that God became flesh in Jesus Christ, who was crucified by Pontius Pilate, and rose from the dead on the third day, according to the Scriptures, and that those who trust in Him will have everlasting life.
God is written about in the Bible and a hundred other religious mythologies. He is written about by MAN who is making up stories. Most of us stopped believing fairy tales after kindergarten. The need for “everlasting” life is what drives man to fall prey to the fantasy of a God !
Especially noteworthy is my observation that Hilston does indeed respond too indepth, only not quite as he put it, he rips apart the meaning conveyed by cutting up your precept upon precept into oblivion. I think it is rather convenient for him to suddenly disappear, and also rude to drop out of his own thread with ongoing discussions without even saying why. I guess if you are not well suited up with truth and understanding, critical confrontation can be unpleasant. I hope Hilston will get better soon....
Knight then writes: "Is it within you to be responsive to others?"
Anyone who reads my posts knows (and many have complained) that my problem is NOT a lack of response, but rather that I respond TOO much, to nearly each and every point, dissecting line-by-line. Knight knows this is true, but he intimates otherwise by his question. Is there any excuse for his behavior? Why would Knight imply such a lie by this question?
Knight then builds himself up, against all evidence to the contrary, and says, "I patiently answer your questions."
He doesn't. I can prove it. Anyone who reads our debates can see for themselves. Knight is evasive. Knight is a hypocrite. Not only does he NOT patiently answer questions, he is NOT patient when it comes to waiting for a reply. His most recent post to me is a perfect example.
Knight then calls me rude for answering a question with a question. It is noteworthy that Jesus did the same thing (Mk 11:27-30).
Don’t get too close, you might get some on you. – 1Way
So, Knight, after all we've been through together, I come to this conclusion: You make me sick. :vomit: I now know that I should no longer get my hopes up whenever you jump into a discussion. It might start out interesting, but you never fail to disappoint me. I've gotten to the point that getting an e-mail notice of response from Knight just makes me groan before I even read your response. You make me sick. :vomit: It doesn't even seem to concern you that you don't understand the view you so vehemently oppose, misrepresenting well-established theological thought on the subject. There is so much out there to read that you could actually have an accurate view of what you oppose. But instead, you seem content to simply misrepresent those views; there really is no excuse for you. "Closed theist"? Do you often just invent terms willy nilly to call your imaginary opponents? You create straw men, you misrepresent the views of members of your forum, you deliberately sow discord, you spew hypocritical admonitions, and you blatantly lie. You make me sick. :vomit: Poly chimes in and makes this month's prize-winning inane comment, and you agree with her. Why? I suspect it was because it was said against me. She could have said, "Hilston looks like a goober because of his silly blonde hairdo," and I wouldn't have been surprised if you responded, "Yeah! Right on, Poly. What a blonde-headed goober!" You've done this several times before. The pinnacle example was when 1Way posted one of his most fatuously illogical responses to me, and it was deemed Post of the Day by you! I had to re-read it to see what I had missed, and the fact is, he was failing to understand the points he was arguing against, contradicting himself several times in the process. Post of the Day?!?! You make me sick. :vomit: It wasn't post of the day because of lucid argument and compelling logic. I suspect it was post of the day because it was anti-Hilston. And before you accuse me of thinking "it's all about me", or that I'm just being paranoid or self-important, look at your signature, hypocrite. The worst part of all is I think you actually know this. You actually know that your charges and accusations against me are false. You liar. You hypocrite. You make me sick. :vomit:
As to that response I was going to send tonight, this replaces it. And I won't ask you any more questions, Knight. And did I mention that you make me sick? You really do. You make. me. sick.