Quote:
|
. You absolutely cannot change the context of an argument and expect to deliver a cogent debate. What I believe isn't at issue here.
|
Only what I believe is?
Science dictates that matter can not be made or destroyed, therefore is everlasting. Yet you say my argument is mega lame because it says the cause of the universe is everlasting. I'm saying, your explanation is not much different then mine.
Quote:
|
This is A) a claim that you're going to need to support with evidence
|
He parted the red sea according to the Bible. I think he can break the rules of physics according to Christianity.
Quote:
|
B) something that most apologists would disagree with you on when it comes to what's logically possible
|
Again, it may be logical, but beyond us. Consider the same argument concerning where energy came from. Using our logic, we say energy always existed, thought that really can't be true. Nothing always existed except a vacuum.
Sigh. I think your taking this too seriously Zhavric. Religion is not science. It never should pretend to be. Unless you have an experience of some kind, it is going to seem like a tremendous cop out. I can't help that, but it's what it is (though a tremendous cop out isn't illogical. Just dumb looking)
Quote:
|
Nope. You're wrong. Religious claims of this nature ("God exists and created the universe") are scientific claims.
|
The faith part is what separates its self from science. Therefore It uses a different system of analysis. Logically, this means that the "hypothesis" would have repercussions, but the hypothesis is incomplete. It doesn't claim to know God's motives, nor does it endow absolute knowledge onto it's believers. That's why it's seperate.