Sunday, December 14, 2003

How did I know I'd get this...?
I'm a Christian!



Which Enemy of the Christian Church Are You?

Take More of Robert & Tim's Quizzes
Watch Robert & Tim's Cartoons



...heh..

is that meant to discourage me?..

Too little, too late :p. Not even a very original or backed up argument of why I'm foolish to believe what I do.

There are so many things they didn't even mention- and they wouldn't have budged me either.

Little do some of you guys realise that when you put down my faith for it being proofless, you are only putting down your belief that man came to be by purely scientific means.

However you can not even tell me how that came to be. There is not a scientifically possible method by which man could come to be, which is known.

"EVOLUTION! EVOLUTION!"

Yeah.. but in order for something to evolve something must be there to begin with. And no-one can give a working mechanism by which this could have happened. Only theories to do with the climate which we can not even begin to prove.

What is my point here?.. well it's this. There is such a thing as objective truth. Gravity is a force which accelerates two bodies towards each other, in inverse proportion to their mass.

We know this to be true- it is objective. Anyone who has watched anything on earth will know that things gravitate towards the ground.

The subjectiveness comes in when we put our own slant on it. Is it 9 metres/second squared, or is it 30 feet/second squared. Actually they're both exactly the same, but in different perspectives. Then there's the question of how does it work- this in't proven thus it is subjective.

You can argue all you like about how evolution over a long time from a cell to a man is proven but at the end of the day all you have is a sketchy fossil record. You know that certain species existed at certain times, not what happened in between.

You have no intermediary species, which ought to be there if evolution is to be true.

Still, evolution may be true- this isn't the actual point- the point is this. Even if despite your lack of necessary evidence of full-scale macro evolution, it turns out true, you lack one vital thing. You can not explain how a cell can come about in the first place.

Don't be under the impression that atheism is a new thing and that science has only recently been used as a means for disproving God's hand in creation. In fact it has been around far longer than you think, and it was far less proven back then.

Your whole argument against God as creator rests on one thing, and that is the assumption that God had nothing to do with it.

When you take away either assumption- that either God was involved or wasn't, you end up with a messy set of results which it's impossible to draw either conclusion from. That means that they don't prove God's existence either.

My point here is not to prove God, but merely to let you know a little of the assumptions you are already making. Assumptions that your idea is true, which when applied to the results make it true, but without the assumption there is nothing.

You want to play "Your faith is based on assumption, not on proof"- fair enough, but remove your own assumptions first and I guarantee you will find you have as little grounding.

Your own faith on assumptions astounds me. Not that I see that as a bad thing, I just wish you'd realise it sometime.
Comments (2)