More undeniable proof for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
All,

With my usual eye to a little tongue-in-cheek humor I was calling NTS on those historians who repeatedly deny the clear apologetics regarding birth date conflicts for Jesus in the gospels. That was done proactively because I was preparing for you to say the clear apologetics as to why there are no date conflicts were turned in by historians you consider too evangelical to be reliable!

And if we do have 800 more posts until you understand that Jesus was born in, say, 3 BCE and died in 30 BCW at 33.5 years old or so, will you convert? No! So, let's talk about something more germane.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 06:44 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
... and you think that would be a No True Scotsman fallacy if someone said that that the propositions of evangelical historians should not be considered? I would have maybe said the genetic fallacy[1] or more generically ad hominem[2]. But are people here really dismissing evidence solely because of the source or is it that they are not finding the evidence compelling because a simpler explanation could satisfy the evidence... one that requires fewer unproven assumptions?

[1] http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/
[2] http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 01:33 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(24-02-2015 06:44 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  ... and you think that would be a No True Scotsman fallacy if someone said that that the propositions of evangelical historians should not be considered? I would have maybe said the genetic fallacy[1] or more generically ad hominem[2]. But are people here really dismissing evidence solely because of the source or is it that they are not finding the evidence compelling because a simpler explanation could satisfy the evidence... one that requires fewer unproven assumptions?

[1] http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/genetic/
[2] http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/ad-hominem/

Thank you sincerely, but unfortunately many here have derided the credentials of all academics who oppose them--as we all know, occasionally the Christian/Jewish/Muslim staff and faculty of a university, the conservative ones at least, will take out a full page ad like "We love science and we love God and Creation" or what have you--and if I pulled out these 5,000 names from newspapers and microfiche around the world over time, someone would call NTScientist here...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 04:18 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
You mean they would say that a given scientist was speaking outside of their field of expertise? I have seen similar exercises in the past where the qualifications of the participants were indeed highly suspect with regards to the statement they were seeking to make. Did you have a particular instance in mind?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 10:21 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(25-02-2015 04:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  You mean they would say that a given scientist was speaking outside of their field of expertise? I have seen similar exercises in the past where the qualifications of the participants were indeed highly suspect with regards to the statement they were seeking to make. Did you have a particular instance in mind?

YES. 5,000 SCIENTISTS OR MORE WHO'VE MADE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONIES I'M TALKING ABOUT.

How dare you. Or do you really think there are ZERO legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation, or PhD historians who believe in Jesus Christ, etc. Really? REALLY?

It can only be the Bible is correct and you are currently experiencing spiritual, not merely logical or evidence, blindness. I think highly of you as an intelligent, thoughtful TTA member but you really might want to read my last few posts and then try again.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-02-2015, 10:34 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(25-02-2015 10:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 04:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  You mean they would say that a given scientist was speaking outside of their field of expertise? I have seen similar exercises in the past where the qualifications of the participants were indeed highly suspect with regards to the statement they were seeking to make. Did you have a particular instance in mind?

YES. 5,000 SCIENTISTS OR MORE WHO'VE MADE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONIES I'M TALKING ABOUT.

How dare you. Or do you really think there are ZERO legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation, or PhD historians who believe in Jesus Christ, etc. Really? REALLY?

It can only be the Bible is correct and you are currently experiencing spiritual, not merely logical or evidence, blindness. I think highly of you as an intelligent, thoughtful TTA member but you really might want to read my last few posts and then try again.

I would bet that the number of legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation is very close to zero.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
25-02-2015, 10:42 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(25-02-2015 10:21 AM)Delusion Boy Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 04:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  You mean they would say that a given scientist was speaking outside of their field of expertise? I have seen similar exercises in the past where the qualifications of the participants were indeed highly suspect with regards to the statement they were seeking to make. Did you have a particular instance in mind?

YES. 5,000 SCIENTISTS OR MORE WHO'VE MADE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONIES I'M TALKING ABOUT.

How dare you. Or do you really think there are ZERO legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation, or PhD historians who believe in Jesus Christ, etc. Really? REALLY?

It can only be the Bible is correct and you are currently experiencing spiritual, not merely logical or evidence, blindness. I think highly of you as an intelligent, thoughtful TTA member but you really might want to read my last few posts and then try again.

You can take your condescension and shove it up your Jeebus.

[Image: Condescension_HidesIgnorance400O.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
26-02-2015, 11:40 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(25-02-2015 10:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 10:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  YES. 5,000 SCIENTISTS OR MORE WHO'VE MADE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONIES I'M TALKING ABOUT.

How dare you. Or do you really think there are ZERO legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation, or PhD historians who believe in Jesus Christ, etc. Really? REALLY?

It can only be the Bible is correct and you are currently experiencing spiritual, not merely logical or evidence, blindness. I think highly of you as an intelligent, thoughtful TTA member but you really might want to read my last few posts and then try again.

I would bet that the number of legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation is very close to zero.

1. What would you like to bet? 2. Define "close to zero".

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 11:42 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(25-02-2015 10:42 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 10:21 AM)Delusion Boy Wrote:  YES. 5,000 SCIENTISTS OR MORE WHO'VE MADE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONIES I'M TALKING ABOUT.

How dare you. Or do you really think there are ZERO legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation, or PhD historians who believe in Jesus Christ, etc. Really? REALLY?

It can only be the Bible is correct and you are currently experiencing spiritual, not merely logical or evidence, blindness. I think highly of you as an intelligent, thoughtful TTA member but you really might want to read my last few posts and then try again.

You can take your condescension and shove it up your Jeebus.

[Image: Condescension_HidesIgnorance400O.jpg]

It's not condescending to say you know a fact and are in denial. Condescending would include me saying you're stupid and don't know the facts...

[Image: jackson_im_just_here_to_read_the_comments_72.jpg]

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 01:40 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(26-02-2015 11:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 10:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  I would bet that the number of legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation is very close to zero.

1. What would you like to bet? 2. Define "close to zero".

1. I said I would bet.
2. A tiny percentage.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: