What do Christians folks think about NWO ?? - Page 8

I agree.  I think he will be our last Pope.

Lol @vk4,

You are full of yourself.

Well that's where your argument leads, work on it so it makes sense and have another try.


i call checkmate on that round.


c ya next round.

Maybe vk4 needed assistance what I meant by my last remark.
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080126153742AA99BXd

LOL@Shtal

The self declared checkmate was a kicker. I just love watching a good narcissist working it with all they got.

@Beetree

Speaking of the self declared checkmate.......lol...Vk4 resembles Geri's Game.

Check it out!!!!

Shtal you are yet to provide any evidence for your claims. evading the questions is not evidence .


do you try deceive intentionally.

VK4 wrote: Shtal you are yet to provide any evidence for your claims. evading the questions is not evidence. do you try deceive intentionally.

 

The biggest problem with 'evidential' type arguments and especially with you Vk4 is that if used improperly they leave man as the judge over God, rather than God as the judge over man. You see, even if one is convinced by an evidential type argument, the ultimate authority of that person could very easily remain their own ability to reason, and not God.

A common misconception is that the Christian and unbeliever as “yourself Vk4” are on common philosophical ground, but the Christian “as my-self” just believes a few things extra that the professed miserable unbeliever does not believe. If this were the case, it would make perfect sense to try to reason with you Vk4, and present evidence so that they too could use their unaided reason to come to that extra belief. The problem is, the minute I use traditional arguments, I grant you; you can use logic and reason to assess them. You lend credence to a worldview that does not support logic or reason.

The Bible teaches that everyone knows God but those who deny Him are 'suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.' Apologetics is not about giving evidence to the ignorant, but it is about bringing to light the foolishness of suppressing the truth. 'Evidential' arguments end up showing that God 'very likely,' or 'most probably' exists, but you VK4 fall short of the biblical teaching that God's existence is inescapable.

When I first planned to preach here, I had studied what I felt were the best arguments for the existence of God. As a Christian, I really enjoyed the truth and power of these. Using these 'evidential' arguments however I found made very little impact on those who claim that they do not believe that God exists. Sure, God can use these arguments to bring people to Him, (as I trust He has), but we must make sure that our arguments are consistent with Scripture. Thankfully when I spoke in the past on this forum shown the 'presuppositional' approach which I feel accomplishes this task. What Christians need to do is challenge the 'presuppositions' of other worldviews and, in the most loving way possible, reduce them to absurdity just like I have accomplish that with you Vk4. Christians presuppose (take for granted) that God exists, and therefore we have a basis for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws. We need to ask the materialist, for example, how, based on their presupposition that the universe is entirely made of matter, they can account for such laws.

I used to try to explain away, with evidence in the past on this forum, the reasons for evil and suffering in our universe, to 'unbelievers' who say it is not possible for an all good God to exist in such a universe. Now I challenge the presuppositions of those who deny the existence of God. How, according to their worldview, can they justifiably distinguish good from evil? They can only do so by being inconsistent with their basic beliefs. They must borrow ideas about right and wrong from the Christian worldview even to state their objection; I spoke about this before on this forum.

Still, for Christians, evidential arguments can be wonderful in lending confidence to what they already believe. My favorite evidential argument I spoke on this forum before is the 'Cosmological,' or 'first cause' argument. Basically stated, 'everything which begins to exist must have a cause.' For arguing that the universe must have begun to exist, I like the argument of the impossibility of an absolute infinite past. If the universe had an infinite past, we could never have gotten to a 'now.' I will illustration as example of an 'eternal, cosmic video camera. Imagine if you will, that everything that ever happened in the universe, was recorded on some sort of eternal, cosmic, video machine and you wanted to watch the tape from the beginning to see how you got to be sitting in front of your computer. Unfortunately, since this tape is of an infinite past, with no beginning, once you hit the rewind button, the machine would never stop. You would get to see nothing because an infinite past would have no future. I imagine the only suitable snack for such a viewing would be a bowl of just-popped-into-existence-corn. The creation of the universe must have been by an entity which is beyond time, or eternal, exactly how the Bible describes God. It is compelling reasoning for Christian, but not to be used in a way that leaves the professed miserable unbeliever as judge over God.

I have to be honest with you; sometimes I do get carried away at times which I believe I said that before, but with you I can’t have intellectual honest discussions because you are an A** and therefore I will never be able to have proper dialogue that needed in discussion.

Shtal.

 

 

...... leave man as the judge over God, rather than God as the judge over man.

what god, you have evidence for this god?

 

 

You see, even if one is convinced by an evidential type argument, the ultimate authority of that person could very easily remain their own ability to reason, and not God.

 

yes evidence and reason and not god, correct, unless you can provide evidence for god then i will have a reason to believe you

 

A common misconception is that the Christian and unbeliever as “yourself Vk4” are on common philosophical ground,

not really into philosophy sorry, a misconception on your part.

 

but the Christian “as my-self” just believes a few things extra

yes you beleive a magical man made the universe by...magic, that is quite a big few things lol

 

that the professed miserable unbeliever does not believe.

can you name which miserable unbeliever has professed to you that they believe they are misreable and that they don't believe, did you believe their belief in unbelief?

 

If this were the case,

yes if that was the case but you better name the person that this is the case for, it certainly is not me.

The problem is, the minute I use traditional arguments,

skip the arguments then if it is a problem, i never asked you for one, you keep giving them but i just want evidence

 

I grant you; you can use logic and reason to assess them.

dam straight, thank you

 

You lend credence to a worldview that does not support logic or reason.

that is the only worldview i give credence to

The Bible teaches that everyone knows God

what about a muslim child that has never read the bible, or a remote villager that has never read the bible or met a missionary, there were thousands of people that lived before the bible was written

but those who deny Him are 'suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.'

hear say

Apologetics is not about giving evidence to the ignorant, but it is about bringing to light the foolishness of suppressing the truth.

no it is trying to make the completley nonsensical, scientifically incorrect and contradictory bible appear to make sense so xians don't look completely stupid, but it fails cos apologetics makes xians look even stupider.

'Evidential' arguments end up showing that God 'very likely,' or 'most probably' exists,

what evidence?

but you VK4 fall short of the biblical teaching that God's existence is inescapable.

i fall short of believing something that you have not provided sufficent evidence to validate your claims

When I first planned to preach here, I had studied what I felt were the best arguments for the existence of God.

hands up all the people you have converted......crickets

As a Christian, I really enjoyed the truth and power of these.

you have been told by about everyone here at one time or another including mods that your preaching is not appreciatted, we have all enjoyed teaching you to write better tho.

Using these 'evidential' arguments however I found made very little impact on those who claim that they do not believe that God exists.

what evidence?? 

and "those" ... that would be me, in fact you have taken me from an agnostic position to a pro-active anti-theist. if you preach long enough nobody will beleive in god anymore

Sure, God can use these arguments to bring people to Him, (as I trust He has),

god preaches on dog forums as well? or do dogs preach on god forums?  you trust god? how do you know he exists, how do you know "he" is a he?

 

but we must make sure that our arguments are consistent with Scripture.

scripture is inconsistent without itself many thousand fold.

Thankfully when I spoke

who that you preach to has thanked you?

in the past on this forum shown the 'presuppositional' approach which I feel accomplishes this task. What Christians need to do is challenge the 'presuppositions'

no xians just need to supply evidence and evryone will convert, but you can't, cos you do not have any or you would.

of other worldviews and, in the most loving way possible, (my bold)

like calling them tares,  anti-christ, miserable, telling thy are going to hell, other cuss words i will not repeat.

reduce them to absurdity just like I have accomplish that with you Vk4.

in your mind, you have not come close to providing a single argument that you can respond to a retort from, evrything you have supplied has been shown to be deliberate lies by people that are not very sophisticated, eg all of hovind's pseudo-science your answers in genesis psuedo-science...not a single argument you have supplied has any verifiable truth

Christians presuppose (take for granted) that God exists, and therefore we have a basis for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws.

great basis, they presuppose that what they are trying to prove exists actually exists, man you are not smart that is a perfect circular argument, and the only argument you have. at least you admit it.

We need to ask the materialist, for example, how, based on their presupposition that the universe is entirely made of matter, they can account for such laws.

we cal those laws science and they have built the computer you are on and the cars, planes, phones, medicine etc etc, none of that came out of the bible lol

...Now I challenge the presuppositions of those who deny the existence of God. How, according to their worldview, can they justifiably distinguish good from evil?

not much of a challenge good is good and evil is evil - what retard needs that expalined, a sociopath perhaps

They can only do so by being inconsistent with their basic beliefs.

no inconsistency, good is good, bad is bad. it is the xian that condones rape, slavery, genocide, murder....

They must borrow ideas about right and wrong from the Christian worldview even to state their objection;

i reject totally the xian world view that condones rape, slavery, genocide, murder....

Still, for Christians, evidential arguments can be wonderful in lending confidence to what they already believe.

only if they do this in your words;  "Christians presuppose (take for granted) that God exists, "

My favorite evidential argument I spoke on this forum before is the 'Cosmological,'......

yadada gibberish about movies...

 

The creation of the universe must have been by an entity which is beyond time, or eternal, exactly how the Bible describes God.

no its an argument from ignorance, the bible decsibes god as someone who condones rape, slavery, genocide, murder....

It is compelling reasoning for Christian,

yes because as you said and i repeat; "Christians presuppose (take for granted) that God exists, "

but not to be used in a way that leaves the professed miserable unbeliever as judge over God.

i have provided actual data that shows xians are the main criminals in america and that they have more relationship break ups, you ignored the data so another argument from ignorance

, but with you I can’t have intellectual honest discussions

because you are not honest and not intellectual, you just "presuppose (take for granted) that God exists, "

because you are an A**

more of the loving way you talk to people with different world views you mention here "in the most loving way possible"

and therefore I will never be able to have proper dialogue that needed in discussion.

so why do you keep discussing, just provide some evidence??

Mods interesting i get a threat of a ban for using cuss words but shtal uses them freely

 @ vk;  ROFL.