Evangelize me!

[Deborah K]

I behave as though everything comes from something else and leads to something else though, from observation.

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[robert68]

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

The egg.

 

[Dr.3D]

What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Everybody knows the rooster came first.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The egg.

What fertilized the egg? So not only did the astronomically impropable event of the evolution of an egg occur, but another absolutely improbable event occured, the evolution of an organism that could perfectly fertilize the egg. This evolution improbably happened at the exact same time too.

Evolution is the dumbest fairy tale ever devised.

 

[robert68]

What fertilized the egg? So not only did the astronomically impropable event of the evolution of an egg occur, but another absolutely improbable event occured, the evolution of an organism that could perfectly fertilize the egg. This evolution improbably happened at the exact same time too.

Evolution is the dumbest fairy tale ever devised.

Is microevolution "dumb" too?

 

[otherone]

What fertilized the egg? So not only did the astronomically impropable event of the evolution of an egg occur, but another absolutely improbable event occured, the evolution of an organism that could perfectly fertilize the egg. This evolution improbably happened at the exact same time too.

Evolution is the dumbest fairy tale ever devised.

No one ever wins the lottery...odds are way too low. Or gets hit by lightning. Of course, the chances of getting hit by lightning are greater in 200000 years as opposed to 6000.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

Is that how you think that we know e^(i*pi)+1=0? By observing it with our senses?

I don't know what that is or why you think that "we" know this...lol

But if it = 0 I bet it is something pretty readily observable, because that means that elements (whatever e and i are) are interacting, and yet nothing remains of this interaction after.

But math is just extension of thought obviously- symbolically rendered sense-interactions of bodies or forces other than our own (like stars or particles or whatever)- they are still moving in space and doing things in reality as determined by sense impressions and affects.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

Everybody knows the rooster came first.

I get it! Hahahaha Hiyo!

Deb why would you imagine that I would have a claim to knowing? You quoted me about only accepting that things have origins and directions, not what those origins and directions are.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

{do animals have faith?}

Here we would need to agree on what we mean by faith and belief. But using your definition, of believing something without proof, then yes, absolutely, animals do have such knowledge. It is not the case that they begin their lives as blank slates that go on to have no knowledge other than what they acquire by their senses.

What I am saying is that the way in which you know that you have an arm is what you are calling "such knowledge" that "animals do have."

 

[Deborah K]

I get it! Hahahaha Hiyo!

Deb why would you imagine that I would have a claim to knowing? You quoted me about only accepting that things have origins and directions, not what those origins and directions are.

So, if you accept that which you do not know, then why is having faith in something you have no proof of such a stretch for you?

 

[Natural Citizen]

{do animals have faith?}

They don't reason. They simply react. This is a natural phenomenon. Of course, reason is something dependent upon what one has heard or been told and relative to no particular scope. Usually to solicit further conformity to a given narrative, state of being or other endeavor. Artificial constructs of the mind...

 

[erowe1]

I don't know what that is or why you think that "we" know this

You don't know Euler's equation. This is first-semester Calculus. You don't know what e and i are. These are more basic than that. You don't know what begging the question is. This is basic logic. And then you want to try to make assertions about these topics on the pretense that you understand them. A review of all the parts of a sentence, by the way, is also in order.

You made the OP, as if you were making some kind of intellectual challenge. But you're not in the slightest bit prepared for one. With each post you make it becomes more clear that your OP was an insult to the whole forum's intelligence.

 

[robert68]

They don't reason. They simply react. This is a natural phenomenon. Of course, reason is something dependent upon what one has heard or been told and relative to no particular scope. Usually to solicit further conformity to a given narrative, state of being or other endeavor. Artificial constructs of the mind...

Merely "reacting" doesn't get a rat through a maze.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

(debora KSo, if you accept that which you do not know, then why is having faith in something you have no proof of such a stretch for you?

I don't accept what I don't know...I said that I do know from experience that all things have an origin and a direction. I just said I don't know whether an egg or a chicken came first...Obviously all chickens and all eggs have origins though.

(erowe)You don't know Euler's equation. This is first-semester Calculus.

lol OH IN THAT CASE...

But you didn't answer my question. If the product of the equation (interaction of more than one element) is 0, then isn't that likely evident to the senses, since before the equation, there were all of these factors, and after their interaction, there was nothing?

You don't know what e and i are. These are more basic than that. You don't know what begging the question is. This is basic logic.

No; all of those are labels for things. I don't know mandarin either, but if a chinese person were to speak about love, that is not to say that I have no idea what love is. Just never heard their words for them.

And then you want to try to make assertions about these topics on the pretense that you understand them. A review of all the parts of a sentence, by the way, is also in order.

Aren't you the one that doesn't accepting the sensation of having an arm as proof that you have an arm...? (I could actually be confusing you with Sola-Fide, as many are debating with me simultaneously)

You made the OP, as if you were making some kind of intellectual challenge.

spiritual, actually.

But you're not in the slightest bit prepared for one.

lol were you trying to make me a christian? Fail.

I don't understand what any of your arguments have to do with jesus anyway- saying, "There are ways to know truth" cannot possibly lead to, "therefore obviously the Bible is written by god."

 

[erowe1]

But you didn't answer my question. If the product of the equation (interaction of more than one element) is 0, then isn't that likely evident to the senses, since before the equation, there were all of these factors, and after their interaction, there was nothing?

Because there are other things in the equation that are not evident to the senses, like i. I didn't answer because you clearly don't even understand what you're asking about.

I don't understand what any of your arguments have to do with jesus anyway- saying, "There are ways to know truth" cannot possibly lead to, "therefore obviously the Bible is written by god."

These arguments have to do with some of your own barriers that you put up between you and God (or at least pretend to). The idea that we should only believe in what we can directly perceive with our senses is one of the most common, and easily demolished, excuses people give for their enmity against God.

I was attempting to get you to set aside that silliness before showing you how God has revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ.

There's also the prerequisite that you actually be willing to listen. Jesus did not come to save the righteous, like you, but sinners.

 

[BetterCallSaul]

Who sin according to a handbook written by shepherds 3000 years ago. Maybe they were just wrong though?

 

[Sola_Fide]

Who sin according to a handbook written by shepherds 3000 years ago. Maybe they were just wrong though?

Huh?

 

[Dr.3D]

Huh?

I believe that was in response to the last sentence to the post above.

Because there are other things in the equation that are not evident to the senses, like i. I didn't answer because you clearly don't even understand what you're asking about.



These arguments have to do with some of your own barriers that you put up between you and God (or at least pretend to). The idea that we should only believe in what we can directly perceive with our senses is one of the most common, and easily demolished, excuses people give for their enmity against God.

I was attempting to get you to set aside that silliness before showing you how God has revealed himself to us in Jesus Christ.

There's also the prerequisite that you actually be willing to listen. Jesus did not come to save the righteous, like you, but sinners.

Who sin according to a handbook written by shepherds 3000 years ago. Maybe they were just wrong though?

What if they were right?

 

[robert68]

Who sin according to a handbook written by shepherds 3000 years ago. Maybe they were just wrong though?

The human grapevine is the most accurate message delivery system there is, and the longer it is the more accurate. That’s why the wisest and most powerful being in the universe uses it and it alone to communicate messages to all of humanity. You better believe that, btw, because if you don’t, you may go to He-double toothpick.

 

[Danan]

How do you expect to be moved by what the Bible says if the Holy Spirit hasn't convicted you of your sin and opened up your mind to the truth of God's Word?

Your description of your indifference to the Bible is an indication of God's judgement on you right now. That you would speak so carelessly about it or even brag about it should be very troubling to you indeed....

Yeah but God made him say that. Or to put it differently, God created the universe knowing that it would eventually come to his God-denying existence and there is nothing he could do about it. Isn't that what you believe?