Theistic evolution, what is it ?

[Bent Radar]

Exactly!! So to make a claim that miracles and magic occur one must provide some evidence right? You simply avoid this task and claim the 'burden of proof' is on the one who doesn't believe such claims?? You may want to revisit the terms you use to try and avoid providing proof and how they are used properly..........

A claim must first be made, and I haven't made one here. There's a difference in a dispute and simply pointing out fallacious reasoning. I could actually claim the same conclusion as happyjoy and still point out errors in their logic.

By the way, burden is not either/or, and I think that claiming that miracles can't happen incurs a great burden.

Unfortunately I'm leaving right now and I'll be out of town without a PC until next week. Thanks for the discussion so far.

 

[seekandlisten]

By the way, burden is not either/or, and I think that claiming that miracles can't happen incurs a great burden.

I don't think the statement was made that miracles can't happen but rather that to claim they do happen needs some evidence to back up said claim.

I can agree with you that to say anything absolutely can't happen would entail a great burden to prove. It's like making the claim God doesn't exist as opposed to saying there is sufficient evidence supporting not believing in said religion's God.

Unfortunately I'm leaving right now and I'll be out of town without a PC until next week. Thanks for the discussion so far.

No problem maybe we can do it again another time.

cheers

 

[Mike]

seekandlisten, if you watch theistic debates (I do a lot) you know both sides claim the burden of proof to be on the opposing argument. Atheists say it's the Christian's. The Christian claims it's the atheist's.

I find in any debate when the 'burden of proof' argument is used without providing any evidence to your side of the argument, there really is no evidence for said side of argument. If there was, its not to hard to provide the evidence for such claims. If one chooses to not accept said evidence, well then they are inclined to provide evidence as to why they don't. That is how a rational argument works. If people just want to argue opinions on matters based on bias alone and who's right and who's wrong well then you'll see 'burden of proof', 'begging the question', 'logical fallacy', etc. come up.

S&L, seriously? All of the thought leaders on both sides of the issue virtually always start their debates with this premise. (from Desuza to Dawkins) The object is to make the other side prove something is or isn't true. From a theistic point of view, I see miracles that someone from an atheistic point of view dismisses. You could claim that I'm making false assumptions that it couldn't happen without God, and I would say that you are blindly ignoring proof of Him.

We could say, "There's your miracle!" And you would say, "Bleh!" Now, we're back at impasse we've been at. You've stated that you are an atheist who's all but come out and made that statement.

"But show me something that couldn't have happened outside of nature.", you say. Okay, given the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, I submit the universe. Matter doesn't come from no matter, and that's consistent with nature. To say it didn't would be outside of it. I see this miracle as the most sound reason to believe in the origin of the universe, much more so than through unguided occurrences that defied a number of laws. And you say, "Bleh!"

Impasse.

We'll show miracles, and you'll deny them. And yes, I do believe the onus changes when you decide to join a Christian board. Some may disagree with certain ones, may be all of them. But by and large, Christians accept that miracles happened...and do happen.

 

[happyjoy]

Really I should prove that magic doesn't exist? Well I guess I am just not smart enough to prove that there aren't children who live in an alternate dimension that ride broomsticks and go to a special witches and wizards school.

If adults what to believe this type of stuff is real then I can't help them.

 

[Luci]

Were the authors of the gospels lying when they wrote about Jesus' miracles, and yet before the gospels were written, were the apostles lying when they were preaching about Jesus and his resurrection? If they were, how can you know that the rest of the message about Jesus' life and teaching is authentic then?

 

[seekandlisten]

S&L, seriously? All of the thought leaders on both sides of the issue virtually always start their debates with this premise. (from Desuza to Dawkins) The object is to make the other side prove something is or isn't true.

Well if you haven't figured it out, Dawkins is pretty much your fundamental Athiest. I can respect what he has to say on matters of science, the Greatest Show on Earth is highly informative, and his reasons for believing the way he does, but then he takes it one step further and thinks others should convert to Athiesm. In the debate of whether God exists, the result is not attainable to either side of the debate so they must come up with terms to make it look like its the other who doesn't have the evidence. Reality and common sense says that proving God exists or doesn't is a futile task.

From a theistic point of view, I see miracles that someone from an atheistic point of view dismisses. You could claim that I'm making false assumptions that it couldn't happen without God, and I would say that you are blindly ignoring proof of Him.

What each of us claim doesn't make it automatically become truth. There should be evidence to support our claims. Now I would assume you believe miracles happened because the Bible says so and your religion believes that every word in the Bible is absolute truth. Am I right? So why not just say that? Why pretend like you have proof of miracles that others should accept? I can respect your religious beliefs. If you want to pretend like they are an observable fact I may be more critical of said belief.

I think we both can agree that the 'proof' that God either exists or doesn't is non-existant

We could say, "There's your miracle!" And you would say, "Bleh!" Now, we're back at impasse we've been at.

Yet if I showed sources of followers of Sai Baba claiming eyewitness accounts of him performing miracles, which included bilocation, exorcisms, curing the incurably sick, and reading the minds of others, you would be inclined not to believe them right? So if the same criteria you use to believe in your miracles as recorded by Jesus followers isn't good enough when applied to someone else then it isn't a logical and rational argument that I should believe in your religions miracles. Just say that you believe in the miracles recorded in the Bible as that is your religious belief, it's that simple.

You've stated that you are an atheist who's all but come out and made that statement.

I made no such statement so now you are being deceptive. I clearly believe in 'God' so how can I be an Athiest as that is it's definition? Just because we don't share the same definition of 'God' doesn't make me anymore an Athiest then you. Now if your definition of an Athiest is one that doesn't believe in a 'defined' God then yes I would be an Athiest. I believe the correct term, the one I told you in a previous conversation that your are misrepresenting me on, is that I would be considered an Agnostic. Does that change the facts we have to observe and that you don't accept the same criteria when it's applied in a religion that is not your own?

"But show me something that couldn't have happened outside of nature.", you say. Okay, given the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, I submit the universe. Matter doesn't come from no matter, and that's consistent with nature. To say it didn't would be outside of it.

Whose making that claim that something came from nothing?? Isn't that what YE creationists claim.

I see this miracle as the most sound reason to believe in the origin of the universe, much more so than through unguided occurrences that defied a number of laws. And you say, "Bleh!"

Hmmm.....me thinks you are making stuff up that just isn't there.

We'll show miracles, and you'll deny them.

No more than you'll deny miracles that don't pertain to Jesus and expect evidence to be shown.

And yes, I do believe the onus changes when you decide to join a Christian board. Some may disagree with certain ones, may be all of them. But by and large, Christians accept that miracles happened...and do happen.

Which is fine when you say you accept them as part of your religious beliefs not as observable fact.

cheers

 

[Mike]

Reality and common sense says that proving God exists or doesn't is a futile task.

True enough. That's why it's called faith. In the end, we can't prove either side.

I made no such statement so now you are being deceptive. I clearly believe in 'God' so how can I be an Athiest as that is it's definition?

This was taken from the "Athiest vs. Agnostic" thread:

I personally don't believe in religion in general but I do study some as they have formed the history of our world we live in and agree with certain aspects, again applying to the 'eastern religions more than the big 3. I see a progression from believing in many gods to believing in one god to believing in no gods. I look at the overwhelming belief of gods in general through history, but question the need to fit God into one small picture. I don't know, I think I'm beginning to ramble so I'll stop. Any thoughts on any of this or is it just not being able to let go of my religious influence of my parents choice to raise me in a religious setting(church, christian school, youth group, any other strictly christian event, separation from the real world) that keeps me from coming to terms with being an athiest by definition? Any opinions or thoughts are welcome, I'm not looking for a debate on what I said but another perspective in regards to these questions I have.

Did I misinterpret? Sorry if I did.

 

[seekandlisten]

I made no such statement so now you are being deceptive. I clearly believe in 'God' so how can I be an Athiest as that is it's definition?

This was taken from the "Athiest vs. Agnostic" thread:

I personally don't believe in religion in general but I do study some as they have formed the history of our world we live in and agree with certain aspects, again applying to the 'eastern religions more than the big 3. I see a progression from believing in many gods to believing in one god to believing in no gods. I look at the overwhelming belief of gods in general through history, but question the need to fit God into one small picture. I don't know, I think I'm beginning to ramble so I'll stop. Any thoughts on any of this or is it just not being able to let go of my religious influence of my parents choice to raise me in a religious setting(church, christian school, youth group, any other strictly christian event, separation from the real world) that keeps me from coming to terms with being an athiest by definition? Any opinions or thoughts are welcome, I'm not looking for a debate on what I said but another perspective in regards to these questions I have.

Did I misinterpret? Sorry if I did.

Your first underlined statement taken in the right context is an observation of mine in my studies of religions through the histories. The second phrase you underlined, I was in the process of throwing out random thoughts as to what others thought in regards to my findings and beliefs I tend to agree with.

Now if you remember from the Agnostics and Athiests thread we had a conversation in I had said this.(I just picked the points relevant)

I honestly don't see the point of 'labeling' myself but can understand if one is going to talk to another on matters of beliefs and religions that it makes it easier for the other person to have a general idea of where you are coming from.

I have considered the majority of my beliefs would fall along the lines of an agnostic pantheist, but at the same time could be misleading as they also are not a full description. On the other hand I could be considered an athiest as I don't believe in the definitions of 'God' that people hold.

In looking at the terms athiest and agnostic and how they would apply to myself it becomes confusing. On one hand I believe in an 'unknowable God' which is essentially saying I don't believe in any 'described' God's as a 'definition of God', which in turn is really no different than not believing in any God(s) but not ruling out the possibility of a 'God'. I also look at the point that, for example, a Christian doesn't believe in any Gods but their own which technically makes them an atheist in terms of other religions Gods does it not? So then if I look at it that way well I guess I would be an athiest in ruling out the Christian God along with the others one would think?

If someone asks now I just say I'm an agnostic in that I question God and believe that if such a being exists I will be shown if I am to believe.

So yes you did misrepresent me, but I can kind of see how that mistake could have been made.

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

you are by no means a christian in that thinking. i hate to say that. if Jesus is not the son of God, and did not those miracles, then God is a liar. and no person is saved and all that there is opinions. and we have a lot of that here. and upon death poof nothing.

they have been quite a few false fossil evidence of evolution, yet you cling to that. God can heal the lost limbs, but he chooses not to.

Oh Jason. You don't get to decide what a Christian is. I am one, and I don't have to believe in magic to be one. You say God can heal lost limbs, but it isn't just lost limbs, or burn victims, or downs, or mental retardation. There is no magic happening at all.

I encourage you to reassess your hard angry stance on this. Those who are steeped in superstition are much more likely to be taken advantage of by con men.

so, you claim to be a follower of christ.

the apostles were called that, why?

they believed those fairly tales, you dont...

they died believeing that they will see the messiah,

what do you believe? no magical resurrection. no God. nothing.
i am not stating this from my opinion, take note even though i dont agree with barbarian i am not calling him on this, only you why. for everything that jesus embraces you dont.

he calls sin sin, and asks for repentence,.

you say that theres nor moral ablsolute.

we both die, then what, i loose nothing, what do you have to gain if i'm wrong.

but if i am right then what. i lived my convictions, and have nothing to loose. for my life has been far better then before christ.

 

[jasoncran]

happyjoy do honestly believe that you are only here but some luck, and that all those feelings and intellect and what is you and only is via mutations and your parents surviving via statistal probalbites.

that all that is around you is this, nothing did it and nothing is the reason i read and admire nature.

when you loose your granddads to alzaheimers , as i have and watch one die slowly, forget who you are. and almost my mom and uncles. Does that you make think that there must be something more to this vanity, then just naturalism.

we tell kids God makes no junk, yet when that same kid learns the truth from mr. evolutionist. he is animal with nothing special about him or her. and that he is really junk for his body isnt designed but rather random mutations that happen to survive the natural selection process.

i am glad that you arent counselor, for if i was on my death bed or thinking of suicide i certainly wouldnt want no mention of naturalism. nor any false hope given.


i have faced death and by god's grace i made it. i lived seeing death each day, and i'm thankful that it wasnt my time to die.

 

[Mike]

So yes you did misrepresent me, but I can kind of see how that mistake could have been made.

It was an honest mistake. We have a lot of differences, but I don't want to further them through misunderstandings.

 

[Mike]

Honestly, in all of my life, I've never dealt with someone as lost and flailing in the wind as happyjoy

This is honest concern for you, happyjoy. You spend a lot of time here disagreeing with people of faith. I don't know where your motivation comes from.

 

[seekandlisten]

So yes you did misrepresent me, but I can kind of see how that mistake could have been made.

It was an honest mistake. We have a lot of differences, but I don't want to further them through misunderstandings.

No worries.

cheers

 

[Bent Radar]

I don't think the statement was made that miracles can't happen but rather that to claim they do happen needs some evidence to back up said claim.

Wrong. happyjoy was foolishly attempting to dismiss miracles a priori.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Just to make this clear, there is already an identical topic of this (made earlier than this one) right here... http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=47474

 

[seekandlisten]

I don't think the statement was made that miracles can't happen but rather that to claim they do happen needs some evidence to back up said claim.

Wrong. happyjoy was foolishly attempting to dismiss miracles a priori.

Okay, but the conclusions one will come to once the arguments are presented will still be the same. Do you have any evidence other then the biblical account of these miracles? Do you accept the evidence that supports that Sai Baba performed miracles as recorded by his followers?

It's the same as saying that Jesus turning water into wine and walking on water is evidence that he had 'special powers'. Maybe it happened maybe it didn't, but there are far more important aspects of the story to look at. I've seen Criss Angel walk on water and turn water into beer and I don't think he's the savior of the world. There is no need to believe in magic to understand what Jesus taught.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

seekandlisten,

jesus isnt buddha or a philosopher.

if the lord is who he says he is the bible, then he the truth, and so on.but if not then the jesus needs to be ignored as he is liar and loon.

why would one knowingly call oneself the son of god,knowing that it meant death by claiming that?

 

[seekandlisten]

if the lord is who he says he is the bible, then he the truth, and so on.but if not then the jesus needs to be ignored as he is liar and loon.

I don't consider him a liar and a loon? He claims to be the son of God in the bible and I don't think he was lying. I don't deny the claim that he was the Christ either so I'm unsure of what you are refering to here?

why would one knowingly call oneself the son of god,knowing that it meant death by claiming that?

That's an interesting question. When standing before a 'council' would you deny that you are a 'son of God' even if it meant death? I remember a saying that once stated something along the lines of 'if you don't have something worth dying for, you have nothing worth living for.'

cheers

 

[jasoncran]

I don't consider him a liar and a loon? He claims to be the son of God in the bible and I don't think he was lying. I don't deny the claim that he was the Christ either so I'm unsure of what you are refering to here?
because you claimed that he did "magic"

why would one knowingly call oneself the son of god,knowing that it meant death by claiming that?

That's an interesting question. When standing before a 'council' would you deny that you are a 'son of God' even if it meant death? I remember a saying that once stated something along the lines of 'if you don't have something worth dying for, you have nothing worth living for.' because by lying and know that he isnt the son of god he would be dying for that lie.

if the miracles arent real then what was jesus?

 

[seekandlisten]

I don't consider him a liar and a loon? He claims to be the son of God in the bible and I don't think he was lying. I don't deny the claim that he was the Christ either so I'm unsure of what you are refering to here?

because you claimed that he did "magic"

Yet I didn't make that claim, you did. I presented another scenerio about whether you would believe the miracles of another presented in the same way. You have neglected to answer yet.

why would one knowingly call oneself the son of god,knowing that it meant death by claiming that?

That's an interesting question. When standing before a 'council' would you deny that you are a 'son of God' even if it meant death? I remember a saying that once stated something along the lines of 'if you don't have something worth dying for, you have nothing worth living for.'

because by lying and know that he isnt the son of god he would be dying for that lie.

Who said he died for a lie? I believe it was 'us' that killed him. We wanted Barabas.

if the miracles arent real then what was jesus?

Are the miracles what made him important?

cheers