"What if you're wrong?" - Richard Dawkins

[Statler Waldorf]

So why does a God make what we see and observe empirically any more or less true? It doesnt.

…but He does! That’s the whole point; just take the reliability of your senses for example. You must assume your senses are reliable before you can learn anything through observation, and yet if we lived in a purely natural universe we have no reason at all to believe our senses are generally reliable. Now if I am a creation of a rational God who desires for us to gain knowledge about Him it makes sense for our senses to be reliable enough to gain knowledge through studying scripture and nature.

[JackFinfan]

Really? Why? I think the same thing about people who think the earth is 4.3 Billion years old.

Sorry, your opinion doesn't outweight 99% of scientists. Hell, even most churches don't agree with you. All the evidence points towards an old Earth, not a 6000 year old Earth. Care to explain fossils? How about the various dating methods we use?

Funny thing about you after reading through all your arguments, if 1 piece of evidence supports your argument you take it and run, but when piles of evidence contradict your beliefs you choose to ignore them completly.

I have no dog in the fight. 4.3 billion or 6000 years, it really doesn't matter to me. If evidence supported your side, I'd gladly change my mind.

[tylerdolphin]

…but He does! That’s the whole point; just take the reliability of your senses for example. You must assume your senses are reliable before you can learn anything through observation, and yet if we lived in a purely natural universe we have no reason at all to believe our senses are generally reliable. Now if I am a creation of a rational God who desires for us to gain knowledge about Him it makes sense for our senses to be reliable enough to gain knowledge through studying scripture and nature.

Well thats the thing...I do have reason to believe my senses are reliable. Science understands how my eye works. I know that what I am seeing is actually light reflecting off things. They know how hearing works. They know how smell works. being that science understands this, why cant I trust it? I need God in order to understand and know for certain that a sharp knife is dangerous? My eyes and sense tell me that.

[Statler Waldorf]

Sorry, your opinion doesn't outweight 99% of scientists. Hell, even most churches don't agree with you. All the evidence points towards an old Earth, not a 6000 year old Earth.

Wait a second, I thought you were supposed be more knowledgeable about science than me, if that’s the case then why are you making an appeal to majority opinion among scientifsts? You should know that scientific fact has never been and will never be determined by majority opinion. You’re starting to make it look like I am not the one who is actually ignorant when it comes to such matters.

Care to explain fossils? How about the various dating methods we use?

What would you like to know about fossils? Which dating methods are you referring to? You’re going to have to be a bit more specific.

Funny thing about you after reading through all your arguments, if 1 piece of evidence supports your argument you take it and run, but when piles of evidence contradict your beliefs you choose to ignore them completly.

Huh? Please point to one instance where I have used an evidential argument. My argument is far stronger than mere empirical evidence; it argues that the very idea of evidence is meaningless without God’s existence. My argument is a logical one, not an evidential one.

I have no dog in the fight. 4.3 billion or 6000 years, it really doesn't matter to me. If evidence supported your side, I'd gladly change my mind.

You keep referring to evidence and yet I have seen you provide nothing aside from some faulty argument about majority opinion amongst scientists. So you’re really not giving me much to work with here.

[Statler Waldorf]

Well thats the thing...I do have reason to believe my senses are reliable. Science understands how my eye works. I know that what I am seeing is actually light reflecting off things. They know how hearing works. They know how smell works. being that science understands this, why cant I trust it? I need God in order to understand and know for certain that a sharp knife is dangerous? My eyes and sense tell me that.

How do you have any idea what science tells you? Or that light exists? Or that your eyes and ears even exist? Did you hear that somewhere? Or maybe did you see that in a textbook somewhere? So you really just appealed to your senses in order to justify why you should trust your senses- seems a bit circular to me. With God’s existence I have a logical reason as to why I can trust my senses, because I was created by a perfect being that cannot lie so that my senses can accurately depict reality which was also created by Him.

[tylerdolphin]

How do you have any idea what science tells you? Or that light exists? Or that your eyes and ears even exist? Did you hear that somewhere? Or maybe did you see that in a textbook somewhere? So you really just appealed to your senses in order to justify why you should trust your senses- seems a bit circular to me. With God’s existence I have a logical reason as to why I can trust my senses, because I was created by a perfect being that cannot lie so that my senses can accurately depict reality which was also created by Him.

It makes sense to you...YOU being the key word. I have no idea what you are even trying to accomplish here. The statement that we need God to know something simply isnt true however you slice it.

Right off the bat, you have no idea if there really is a God or not, so your premised is flawed from the get go. But Ill grant you God. Lets say he is real. That in itself does not even prove that we can only know because of God. the logic doesnt add up. We know because we experience things and use our brains to deduce what is happening. God isnt needed. Lets say there is a God, but he is not a loving or caring God. he just put us here and called it a day. Why wouldnt we be able to deduce perfectly logical things? Lots of animals can do that and they certainly have no use for a God and God doesnt have an interest in saving them.

[tylerdolphin]

Basically your argument is:

1. I know things
2. I can only know things if there is a God
3. Therefore christian God is real.

You dont have any clear, logical way to join 1 to 2 and 2 to 3. You are simply making opinionated statements (which is fine) and wording and pushing them as facts (which is not fine).

[Locke]

Basically your argument is:

1. I know things
2. I can only know things if there is a God
3. Therefore christian God is real.

You dont have any clear, logical way to join 1 to 2 and 2 to 3. You are simply making opinionated statements (which is fine) and wording and pushing them as facts (which is not fine).

Step 1: I know things
Step 2: I know things because of God
Step 3: ????????
Step 4: Profit

This thread has given me quite a few laughs. Love it...

[JackFinfan]

Wait a second, I thought you were supposed be more knowledgeable about science than me, if that’s the case then why are you making an appeal to majority opinion among scientifsts? You should know that scientific fact has never been and will never be determined by majority opinion. You’re starting to make it look like I am not the one who is actually ignorant when it comes to such matters.

? Did I speak of my knowledge at any time in here, I think you're reaching now. I just stated that I give far more weight to what almost all respectable scientists say over your belief. Also, I never said that science is determined by majority opinion, once again you're making up arguments that don't exist. Science is all about skepticism. The fact that no credible argument can be made against the world being billions of years old from a reputable scientist is pretty convincing.

[JackFinfan]

You keep referring to evidence and yet I have seen you provide nothing aside from some faulty argument about majority opinion amongst scientists. So you’re really not giving me much to work with here.

Radiometric Dating is just 1 example. We have dated various rocks and minerals in various locations with independent dating methods all yielding similar results. Please provide me credible sources debunking radiometric dating. I'll even let you choose which dating methods to debunk.