{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
8/25/2015 5:43:08 AM
2
Actually you can
I can like a dozen articles proving the Big Bang happened and so did evolution.
English
-
Oh you mean creationism?
-
Neither one of those come close to disproving God.
-
Because of apologetics
-
Because I understand what science and the bible teach about creation. The problem is that my worldview can accommodate God and evolution whereas your worldview demands that you reject God. I can look critically at all evidence yet by default you must deny any evidence that could possibly suggest that God exists. The creation account in Genesis chapter 1 is written in a poetic style, it is espousing literal truth, but written in a less detailed, easily understandable, flowing prose. Contrast it with the book of Numbers (both written by Moses) and you'll see what I mean.
-
No, my view on creation doesn't require or even state that there is no god. Don't attempt to tell others what they believe. That's your hubris and arrogance speaking. Your viewpoint requires the belief of a God and you will use that confirmation bias to support God no matter what. Even if it outright disproved him. Youre stubborn and will never call into question your faith, and as such, you will never truly attain any notable level of intellect
-
Lol you turn around and do what you condemn me for doing. I'm a Christian precisely because I question my beliefs. And I wouldn't hold to my belief no matter what. Paul says if Christ didn't rise from the dead then our faith is in vain.
-
I condemned you for nothing, merely stated your bias and hubris. Nice try deflecting it back to me, but it's utterly useless. Your faith is based off of what? You have no proof of God, Jesus rising from the grave (Turin shroud was debunked) and only have the words of others before you, so why do you believe in the assumption of God?
-
Yep, lack of a body, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, dying for what they claim to have seen(not a belief, but what they saw).
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2157217/The-Turin-Shroud-fake-Eminent-historian-claims-40-similar-cloths-originated-1-300-years-AFTER-crucifixion.html Even the church knows it's a fake
-
Um... I never mentioned the shroud of Turin. I've known it was fake since I was a kid.
-
[quote]lack of a body[/quote] When [i]I[/i] brought up the Turin shroud. Soooo, either you're lying and are backtracking or know you're bs'ing
-
The lack of Jesus' body being in the grave has nothing to do with the shroud.
-
Ofuk, that's ALL that mattered! The lack of a body and yet a shroud was THE evidence for Jesus and the Resurrection!
-
No, sorry. The empty tomb and no trace of his body anywhere is the evidence. We don't need a shroud to determine that. That's why I never mentioned it.
-
Omfg you just restated nearly verbatim what I said and said I was wrong. It's not even like you fuсking changed any logic of it, you just added an easily falsifiable tidbit "All whole numbers can be square rooted!" "Not negative!" "Yes, they can" "Nu uh, because [i]i[/i] isn't a number"
-
You are talking nonsense. You said I mentioned the shroud of Turin, which I didn't. Then you said that the shroud of Turin is the evidence for the resurrection, which it isn't.
-
I never said you mentioned it! I said I referenced it and so when you said stuff that related nearly perfectly with the Turin shroud, it was something to me!
-
Nothing I said was even remotely close to the shroud.
-
[quote]Yep, lack of a body, trustworthy eyewitness accounts, dying for what they claim to have seen(not a belief, but what they saw).[/quote] Body I was talking about the Turin shroud when you commented. Obvious to see why I assumed. Dying Idk if people died to halt science, but wouldn't be surprised. Happened before. Claim to have seen Claim to have seen...the shroud of Jesus? Makes sense in the context of my subject
