The universe had a beginning.

[sandorski]

For a person who claims to have been a pastor you pose a lot of questions that are plainly answered in the Bible.

Fern

What if those answers are just plain wrong?

 

[Retro Rob]

What if those answers are just plain wrong?

What if they're right?

 

[Fern]

What if those answers are just plain wrong?

Wut?

If he's asking Christians to answer those questions he must expect that their answers will be the ones found in the Bible. If he was really a pastor his training would have taught him those very same answers from the Bible. I.e., he's asking questions that he should already know the answers to. What the heck is the point of that?

He also seems to be posing those questions as if they are unanswerable. In effect, his actions are making me doubt his earlier claim.

Edit: And not to put too fine a point on it - the correctness, or lack thereof, has no bearing on whether he should know them (or expect Christian to know them).

Fern

 

[sandorski]

What if they're right?

Where's the Evidence? Some are Known to be wrong, some are so extraordinary that they require extraordinary evidence.

 

[sandorski]

Wut?

If he's asking Christians to answer those questions he must expect that their answers will be the ones found in the Bible. If he was really a pastor his training would have taught him those very same answers from the Bible. I.e., he's asking questions that he should already know the answers to. What the heck is the point of that?

He also seems to be posing those questions as if they are unanswerable. In effect, his actions are making me doubt his earlier claim.

Fern

Except that even Pastors can't agree on the answers. Also, you are discounting that questions being asked are not being asked out of curiosity, but in order to cause the asked to Think about the subject.

 

[Retro Rob]

Except that even Pastors can't agree on the answers.

So what? Disagreement among pastors doesn't reflect a failure of the Bible no more than disagreement among scientists reflect a failure of science.

 

[Fern]

Except that even Pastors can't agree on the answers. Also, you are discounting that questions being asked are not being asked out of curiosity, but in order to cause the asked to Think about the subject.

I wasn't aware that pastors disagreed about the answer. It's plainly stated in the Bible.

Think about the subject? Hhell I don't go to church and I know the answer.

Fern

 

[sandorski]

I wasn't aware that pastors disagreed about the answer. It's plainly stated in the Bible.

Think about the subject? Hhell I don't go to church and I know the answer.

Fern

What's "Plainly stated" has been in dispute forever. Even to the point of War.

 

[sandorski]

So what? Disagreement among pastors doesn't reflect a failure of the Bible no more than disagreement among scientists reflect a failure of science.

I don't see Scientists killing each other.

The Bibles' problem is that it is inconsistent. That leads to a balancing act that causes some to put more weight on one thing and another to do the same for something else.

 

[Retro Rob]

I don't see Scientists killing each other.

Correct. Disputes aren't handled as ignorantly and violently as with religion. But scientists criticize each other in books, debates, etc.. using ad-hominem attacks and so on depending on what they disagree about, and how polarizing it is.

 

[sandorski]

Correct. Disputes aren't handled as ignorantly and violently as with religion. But scientists criticize each other in books, debates, etc.. using ad-hominem attacks and so on depending on what they disagree about, and how polarizing it is.

These disagreements only exist on questions with little data. Other issues, such as Evolution, disagreements only exist on the details, not the Theory itself. IOW, Science and Scientists eventually come to an agreement. Science doesn't splinter off into permanent Camps, it is always moving forward towards where the Evidence leads it.

 

[Retro Rob]

These disagreements only exist on questions with little data. Other issues, such as Evolution, disagreements only exist on the details, not the Theory itself. IOW, Science and Scientists eventually come to an agreement. Science doesn't splinter off into permanent Camps, it is always moving forward towards where the Evidence leads it.

All I said was that they disagree, and it sometimes isn't pretty.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Where's the Evidence? Some are Known to be wrong, some are so extraordinary that they require extraordinary evidence.

Extraordinary Evidence Fallacy

[FONT=Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Sans-serif,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The statement he made that is supposed to stop us in our tracks is "an extraordinary event requires extraordinary evidence" if the event is to be believed. This has become somewhat of an axiom in the atheistic community. You will note how this Atheist adds "we both know," as if this is a self evident statement. There are several reasons why this has gained wide popularity: it is short, simple and easy to remember. At first glance it looks like a bit of sound reasoning. However, a systematic analysis of it will prove it to be nothing but smoke and mirrors.[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Extraordinary Evidence Fallacy

That isn't a fallacy.

 

[ThinClient]

That isn't a fallacy.

inplainsight.org is a known theistic-bias bullshit site anyway. He's not providing evidence, he's providing hearsay.

 

[ThinClient]

All I said was that they disagree, and it sometimes isn't pretty.

So why isn't god powerful enough to keep his message clear in the first place, to prevent his children from creating their own ambiguous sects of faith, resulting in them fucking killing each other?

 

[ThinClient]

For a person who claims to have been a pastor you pose a lot of questions that are plainly answered in the Bible.

Fern

The point is to get them to answer, forcing them to take a certain stance, to which I am already prepared to counter depending on which way they go.

This isn't my first fuckin rodeo. :whiste:

Too bad their cowardice prevents them from even attempting it.

 

[stormkroe]

What's "Plainly stated" has been in dispute forever. Even to the point of War.

I'm not sure what Pastoral claims were made, but as to the theology Fern is talking about, the percentage of theologians that agree is so high that it's easily labeled a consensus. I understand that the arguments stand out to someone outside the 'circle', for lack of better terminology, but the theology behind the fall of man and redemption-plan is VERY universal in protestantism.

Addressing the OP, the expanding universe that BEGAN 13.7 billion years ago is almost unquestionable at this point. These measurements are based on relativity, and we don't have a more exact science by many decimal places.
The reason why Eskimos doesn't get the 'gotcha' reward with his pointing out that Christians seem to blindly give God a pass is because, not only is it scientifically possible for God to get a 'pass', causality demands it. Causality only exists in a 1 directional time dimension. Put plainly, before time existed, there was no such thing as 'before', so no creator creator is required.
Despite what some people like Cerpin say, it is perfect logic. A great deal of info can pass both ways on this topic, the debate has been had by smarter people than any of us here. My main concern is clarifying what I consider 'my' side, as a Christian, because almost every time someone presents our views, it's horribly distorted or downright wrong.
Most of us are old earthers.
Most of us believe in some portion of evolution.
Most of us believe in a local flood.
Most of us believe The Ark had animals from the, then very local, 'world of man'.
The genesis creation 'days' mimic scientifically accepted formation events perfectly.

Of COURSE there are ways to misread and purposely distort things in the Bible, but ask yourself this question:
If, by turning your head 34 degrees to the right at 2:55 am on September 16th, the stars spelled out 'I Love You', you would undoubtedly know it was there on purpose, even though there are literally trillions of other ways and time combinations to look at the sky. Why should we then stick our heads in the sand with scriptures that are less lopsided by orders of magnitude?

 

[Retro Rob]

The point is to get them to answer, forcing them to take a certain stance, to which I am already prepared to counter depending on which way they go.

This isn't my first fuckin rodeo. :whiste:

Too bad their cowardice prevents them from even attempting it.

So basically you're looking to argue, which is the definition of trolling. At least you're admitting it this time.

You know, people like you spit their angry bullsh!t from a dark room because that's what the "enlightened" and "tough" do nowadays, hiding what they really are behind their keyboards.

I find it quite sad that the internet can serve as an outstanding reservoir of good information and discussion, but doubles as a safety net for degenerates and the "angry".

Welcome to the 21st century, I guess.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Addressing the OP, the expanding universe that BEGAN 13.7 billion years ago is almost unquestionable at this point.

...except for those that understand the reality of the evidence (or have at least bothered to read the whole thread).

On a side note, it amuses me the way people seem to think that writing a word in all capital letters somehow bolsters the truth of whatever claim they're making. It is a phenomenon I notice particularly of Christian theists, and even more notably of the creationist types. In fact it almost always seems to coincide with a contentious point for which the Christian claimant has very little to no supporting evidence or argumentation.

Funny, that.

Put plainly, before time existed, there was no such thing as 'before', so no creator creator is required.

When was this?

Despite what some people like Cerpin say, it is perfect logic.

It seems you wouldn't know much about what logic is, then. In order for reasoning to be logical, the propositions that describe it must be coherent.

A great deal of info can pass both ways on this topic, the debate has been had by smarter people than any of us here.

What meaningful "info" has "passed" from your direction to ours?

{snip}

Most of us believe in some portion of evolution.

There aren't "portions" of evolution. There is just evolution. It is a scientific fact, thru and thru.

{snip}

The genesis creation 'days' mimic scientifically accepted formation events perfectly.

Oh, this one I gotta hear. Please, do tell me all about it.

Of COURSE there are ways to misread and purposely distort things in the Bible, but ask yourself this question:
If, by turning your head 34 degrees to the right at 2:55 am on September 16th, the stars spelled out 'I Love You', you would undoubtedly know it was there on purpose, even though there are literally trillions of other ways and time combinations to look at the sky. Why should we then stick our heads in the sand with scriptures that are less lopsided by orders of magnitude?

Painting the target around the arrow -- a fallacy that seems to forever elude the simple minds of Christians. Such a pity.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

It's easy to see that ThinClient and CT are stupid and learn very slowly. It's often that they are too stupid and cannot comprehend the material, so they don't learn anything at all.

It's mostly a waste of effort to attempt to teach stupid idiots like ThinClient and CT so that they can understand. It is like trying to teach a kid with Down's Syndrome how to play chess well. It's not going to happen.

 

[JEDIYoda]

So basically you're looking to argue, which is the definition of trolling. At least you're admitting it this time.

You know, people like you spit their angry bullsh!t from a dark room because that's what the "enlightened" and "tough" do nowadays, hiding what they really are behind their keyboards.

I find it quite sad that the internet can serve as an outstanding reservoir of good information and discussion, but doubles as a safety net for degenerates and the "angry".

Welcome to the 21st century, I guess.

well said...if I may also add...

Who made up the rules....
It would appear as if all the rules have been made up to be lopsided in favor of the atheists without them needing to prove or disprove a damn thing!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Actually its obvious that TC and CT are just trolling these subjects.....

They have added no proof to back up anything they say is false.....
They are making up the rules of evidence as they go....
If they can`t disprove something they say it is the other person who has to come up with proof!

Yet -- Thin Client just admitted he was a troll.....
After all he has his mind made up already.
Basically he is here to have an argument!


Thin Client claims to be an ex-pastor which I find laughable at best!!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It's easy to see that ThinClient and CT are stupid and learn very slowly. It's often that they are too stupid and cannot comprehend the material, so they don't learn anything at all.

It's mostly a waste of effort to attempt to teach stupid idiots like ThinClient and CT so that they can understand. It is like trying to teach a kid with Down's Syndrome how to play chess well. It's not going to happen.

This kind of stuff also amuses me greatly. It sort of like those politicians and preachers that are the loudest critics of homosexuality, only to turn up soliciting sex from a man in an airport bathroom stall, or getting caught with a gay male prostitute. The simple-minded are often wont to viciously accuse others of that which they fear is most true of themselves.

 

[ThinClient]

So basically you're looking to argue, which is the definition of trolling. At least you're admitting it this time.

You know, people like you spit their angry bullsh!t from a dark room because that's what the "enlightened" and "tough" do nowadays, hiding what they really are behind their keyboards.

I find it quite sad that the internet can serve as an outstanding reservoir of good information and discussion, but doubles as a safety net for degenerates and the "angry".

Welcome to the 21st century, I guess.

Wrong. Again.

I'm looking to have a conversation that I've had a thousand times. I'm looking to discuss popularly misunderstood topics by the religious crowd in an effort to educate them and free them from their willing ignorance of religious oppression.

Just because I and others prepared while you are not does not mean that I am a troll. It means that I and others are the ones throwing you the life saving float with a rope attached so that you aren't lost in the sea of willful ignorance and bronze age myth.