ex-preacher

I'm sorry you feel that way. Would you abandon Mormonism and embrace the Church of Christ if it were proved to you that some congregations used the C of C name before 1830?

<strong> The moon rock analogy is crumbling by now. An actual physical specimen is not the only type of evidence that exists.

But to belabor the analogy:
Tell us, moonman, how to build a rocket so we can go to your moon and get a moonrock.

Autonemesis

But the others reading this thread don't. Would you care to take up a new thread on this topic, since it's a little off-topic for this thread? Or would merely acknowledging the content of any such discussion be enough to invoke the penalties on you? That'd be a real mess, wouldn't it?

If you don't want to, or can't, then I may post a topic for everyone else to participate in. But having a Mormon participate would be far more interesting.

Kent Stevens

Naturalism is the default position of people until there is convincing evidence that God or small demons exist. Of all the scientific explanations given not one involves a supernatural agent. Supernatural agents are not used because they are not detected. If people could see them on a regular basis like cell structures can be seen through a microscope, science would change to accomodate them.

To those that prefer supernatural explanations consider the possibility that they were constructed by a horde of small demons. These small demons determine what you want to do. What you say that you do not believe in hordes of small demons, because I offer not a shred of evidence for them. Well, this is only because you are indoctrinated in naturalism, not because you want proof.

I think that everyone would reject naturalism here, if there was good physical evidence of one God, fairy, monster, ghost, or demon. This is because we believe in the use of reason above everything else. But until there is any physical credible evidence of supernatural entities we have naturalism as a default belief.

Thomas Metcalf

That is indeed a good question. Apologists would respond that God's omnipotence is not limitless power. Rather, there are some things God wants that He can't strongly actualize, but must instead use some kind of instrumental state of affairs to get what He wants.

Devilnaut

That sounds very similar to the UPD defense. God can do anything, but takes a roundabout route to actualizing his wants, because God works in mysterious ways. It doesn't strike me as overly powerful. Either God is omnipotent, or he is simply "very powerful". Personally, from what I've read of the bible, it seems to me that it depicts God as being clearly not omnipotent, nor omniscient..

Typhon

Andrew_theist is heard to remark:

"blah...blah...blah...(shuffles the burden of proof while he thinks no one is looking) blah…blah...blah."



Sigh.

This is just the same old tired tune which he always cranks out like a crazy wind-up monkey. Because Andrew is unable to show any good evidence that would justify belief in god or gods, let alone the silly Christian one that he personally believes in, he has been futilely trying to shift the burden of proof now for years.

I guess he hopes we'll just lose sight of the pea as he tries to shuffle those walnut shells yet again. Perhaps he thinks we'll fail to notice he's not been able to provide any sort of support for his illogical and implausible beliefs.

Unfortunately for Andrew, there is ample evidence in support of naturalism, and exactly zip, zilch, zero for donkeys that talk, people who fly, and for a man named Jesus who lives up in the sky.

I'll break it down for you Andrew, since you seem to have trouble with this very basic equation:

For gods: Zip, zilch, zero

For a naturalistic world that neither requires nor suggests the presence of gods: Ample

Zip, zilch, zero

Ample

Zip

Ample.

OK, now tell us again, for the umpteen time, why if you don't have any credible evidence for this god fellow you keep jabbering on about, you expect us on the other hand to post to you the reams of data (which you can go get yourself btw, from either the forum library, talkorigins, or any decent library with a science section) which do a damn good job of explaining the universe and don't have any fanciful gods in them at all. When we have, you just seem to ignore the facts anyway, or dismiss them out of hand.

Don't look at us, the burden of proof for your silly beliefs isn't our problem. Shifting the burden doesn't mean that your superstitions are correct. I don't know why doing so would make you feel one whit better about them anyway.

Well, while you're thinking (or more likely running from the question), I think I'll go get myself a cup of tea. I suspect I'll be waiting a looooooong time.

There, now you can go back to your Hiding Your Head in the Sand From Atheism page and enjoy saying the same things over and over and over and over again to your captive audience. Just pretend like we didn't already hand you the answers and your hat again, like we have so many times before.

Cheers,

.T.

"Religion is a shell game, without the pea."

daemon

This is incorrect. Genesis 3:22 states that Adam would live forever only if he ate of the Tree of Life. Adam and Eve were ejected from the Garden to prevent that from happening.

MrDarwin

So should we read Genesis literally, or shouldn't we? Because I've checked several different translations of Genesis 3 and none of them have "seed" translated with that parenthetical "Christ". "Seed" simply means "offspring", "progeny", or "descendants", as with the serpent's seed (again, consistent with a snake, but not making much sense with reference to Satan).

RogerLeeCooke

As others on this thread have pointed out, Christians are also naturalists, most of the time. When they serve on a jury, they don't weigh seriously the possibility that an evil spirit committed the crime and is trying to frame the defendant with miraculously forged evidence. (On the other hand Pat Robertson has been heard to say he'd like to have a panel of "Christian men"---no women need apply, I suppose---to adjudicate claims that a murder was committed under orders from the Holy Spirit. Convince these guys, and you are home free, that is, until you come up against the penalty for blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, which I'm told is very severe. But that's all post-mortem stuff.

Thomas Metcalf

It does indeed confirm that God cannot truly do "anything." In my experience, theists have never offered a completely coherent definition of "omnipotent" that will apply to God.