A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-08-2012, 08:02 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(20-08-2012 11:52 PM)aurora Wrote:  
(20-08-2012 10:49 PM)ddrew Wrote:  okay Erxomai is on time out for the next 10 posts! .. go sit in your corner.. go!

Well done ddrew. Several times I've had to say, "Erx, park uranus in the naughty chair!"

That doesn't work; he likes the naughty chair.Yes

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
21-08-2012, 08:07 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 02:02 AM)cufflink Wrote:  By the way, did you ever ask yourself why places like Biola have "Apologetics" departments--academic units devoted to defending the faith against critics? I wonder why MIT and CalTech don't have similar departments to help future scientists defend the principles of physics and chemistry and biology and astronomy. Smile

Many universities have science studies programs in their philosophy or sociology departments that study science. Some of these are pretty good; too many have been taken over by postmodernists. But that's another thread.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 08:17 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 07:58 AM)Jeff Wrote:  I'm happy to see this get addressed. Occam's razor is, at best, a philosophical "law," not a scientific law or theory. It has no value as the basis for a scientific argument.

It's a principle (not a law) of rational, deductive thought and argument; useful and pragmatic.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
21-08-2012, 08:50 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Thanks for the posts on the first few pages, I almost peed myself laughing.

That being said, welcome to our board, TrueReason. I can but hope that you won't turn out to be a second William Lane Craig. Thumbsup

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
21-08-2012, 09:11 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Welcome to the board, TrueReason! Love the username! Yes

Interesting, how similar your reply to Kingschosen's 5 questions were to the description of Jehovah's Witnesses. Blink

[Image: 3d366d5c-72a0-4228-b835-f404c2970188_zps...1381867723]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 09:23 AM (This post was last modified: 21-08-2012 09:28 AM by Vosur.)
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(20-08-2012 09:11 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  I am an old earth creationist who leans towards a literary understanding of the Genesis account rather than a literal chronological account of the creation account. It is essential that we look at Old Testament through the eyes of those to whom it was written, rather than the idiosyncratic, scientifically precise world in which we live. By this I mean that the Genesis account is only a small sliver of everything that occurred at the beginning of time, and that it shouldn't be read like a scientific account of what entirely occurred. What is most important is that there was a Creator who created this universe.

[Image: 25292626.jpg]

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
21-08-2012, 10:04 AM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
Thanks for answering my questions.

If you wish, we can discuss theology in a different topic. Don't want to derail and inundate your intro thread.

[Image: vjp09.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2012, 01:55 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(20-08-2012 09:18 PM)TrueReason Wrote:  I assure you that if you could present a viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of the universe that I would strongly consider leaving Christianity. I haven't seen such proof, and thus I remain a theist.

Your name and your words suggest that you come at this from a place of reason, but I doubt that that's true. For example, the quote above suggests that theism is your default condition. That suggests that you began with belief, and then used pseudo-reason to support a position you already held.

Why is your quote above specific to Christianity?

Also, what is your viable naturalistic explanation for the origin of God?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeff's post
21-08-2012, 02:01 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 08:17 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-08-2012 07:58 AM)Jeff Wrote:  I'm happy to see this get addressed. Occam's razor is, at best, a philosophical "law," not a scientific law or theory. It has no value as the basis for a scientific argument.

It's a principle (not a law) of rational, deductive thought and argument; useful and pragmatic.

It's a general truism at best, and tells us nothing about any specific case.

In any case, an honest Occam's shaver would conclude that there is no god, since it's simpler to explain the creation of an infinite universe rather than explaining the creation of an infinite god AND the creation of an infinite universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeff's post
21-08-2012, 02:19 PM
RE: A future Pastor and Christian Apologist
(21-08-2012 12:35 AM)morondog Wrote:  I'd like to know, what do you think of
a. abortion ?
b. being gay ?
I believe abortion is murder. I believe homosexual acts are sinful, and I do not support gay marriage because it fails to recognize the implicit heterosexuality connected to the word marriage. This is a free country, so I don't care if folks really want to shack up. I'm fine with giving them benefits as well, as long as others who live together in a non-sexual way can have those benefits as too. Just don't call it marriage, because that is not what the word marriage means.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: