Please stay away from personal attacks in a debate.
You will forgive my ad hominem, I didn't intend for it to sound like that.
Ah. I see what you're saying.
I miss spoke.
I better thing to say would be, prove to me the evolution/old world theories, thus making it illogical to believe in God.
Nowhere in any scientific theory does it state that God does not exist, please keep that in mind. It would be foolish to base a theory on the credibility of something which we know almost nothing about empirically.
I think you're confusing "resting" with "sleeping." God did not sleep. He rested.
I believe this is the definition of the word rest being used.
What I'm getting at is that an all powerful being shouldn't have to rest. It just seems illogical to have to rest if you're omnipotent, be it physical recuperation or mental recuperation.
Free will vs. predestination is a very debatable topic! If you want to start a thread, I'll debate it with you there. I believe in free will.
This is why:
Adam and Eve were able to sin in the Garden of Eden. Thus, God does not control what we do.
I'm not really in the mood for debating about free will right now - I'm content to debate in this topic.
As for Adam and Eve, it is the standpoint of most people to accept that Adam, Eve and the Garden of Eden are all metaphorical terms, so it is hard to interpret them and say directly what happens. Because of this, it doesn't really hold much sway in the topic of free will.
It depends how you access the situation. It would make me mentally stronger, and more appreciative of everyday things.
It does indeed depend on the way one would assess the situation, but this works in different ways for each person. Some people may become paranoid after such an incident. Others may seek revenge, and so on. Suffice to say where there is good there is also evil.
God's jealousy is not the same as "man, I really want my friend Bob's car!"
God's jealousy is "man, I wish I could take care of Bob's kids. Bob beats them, and I don't want that for them!"
That isn't necessarily jealousy, though. It is more of a feeling of empathy and agape` love.
In your post, the answer was right below where you said this.
I believe in a young earth.
Let's assess the situation from your point of view.
X planet is young. Because X planet is young, Y deity exists.
Do you see any shred of logic in that? I don't.
No, I am saying that most scientific evidence is based on too many assumptions.
Not really. Initially assumptions are made, but research is then conducted to provide evidence for those assumptions. Most scientific theories take decades or even centuries to refine, and take a LOT of experimentation. Yes, theories are initially hypothetical in most cases, however the reason we consider them theories is because they have sufficient evidence to classify them as such.
I have. And I found none. Please point out a few contradictions in my arguments.
I'll re-examine this later. I've just gotten home from school so I need time to unwind
It was an early form of pornography. The statue was nude.
I was born without clothes on. My parents should be charged with child abuse and witnessing child pornography because I was naked.
Not to mention the fact that tithing is not mandatory. At least, not at my church, and I do not believe it should be.
What I'm getting at is it used to be mandatory.
Tithing is not mandatory at my church.
I was referring to past practices of the church.
I have. And I think that one doesn't need to use literary devices to get their point across in a debate. All you need is facts and logic.
Literary devices are not required, but they are
effective when executed correctly. Not everything needs to be as cut and dried as you seem to think should be.
Once again, the personal attacks just take credibility from your argument. It is foolish to use them.
I was pointing out that you need to understand that methods such as the employment of sarcasm in the right situations can influence the way your argument is received majorly. Using satire and the like isn't a bad thing, it just needs to be well executed.
Nothing other than I believe in God.
I suppose your argumentative split would be "Society and individual", then? You're taking the social viewpoint and saying "I believe in X so it is true."
Forgive the ad absurdem, but I really do believe in psychic pink ravens.
I already have in an above post. Evidence that the world is young.
With a young world, Creation is the only logical theory for the origin of the world.
That was from a biased source, hence it is not reliable for hard fact. You haven't examined any other scientific reports on the matter, nor have you looked at it from any other point of view. What you've done is taken one source (biased, taking away a lot of credibility) and based an entire argument on it. You've hardly done any research at all, and as such this "proof" is not reliable.
Creation is also not the "only logical answer", assuming this world is actually young. Because X theory has not yet been thought of does not mean the concept doesn't exist.
I don't think you were missing anything, and it's a good question. I wish I knew more about it.
