August 10, 2011
Open Air Preaching
Pastor Dustin Segers Slams it home, speaking to Atheists and other false religions, in less then 10 minutes! We all should be "Open Air Preaching" like this, presuppositionally. Well done Pastor!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sociable
"We all should be 'Open Air Preaching' like this, presuppositionally."
ReplyDeleteWhy? So that everyone can be convinced that christianity is nothing more than hot air? Is it more of the hope of "ha ha, you missed out"?
Every town should have a manic street preacher, although other street performers are available.
ReplyDeleteSo Dan just loves that circular reasoning. Sheesh. Well, I guess that shows just how badly the evidence route worked for them, that apologists can only come up with god if they start with him in the first place.
ReplyDeleteYou have that backwards Reynold
ReplyDelete"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~goo.gl/eXHT1
No Dan, you're just pulling stuff out of your ass again. Or more precisely, Bahnsen's ass. You people don't have evidence on your side, so you pretend that no amount of evidence would have convinced us anyway and you use that as justification for chasing your own tails in circles.
ReplyDeleteWhat would work? Actual fulfilled prophecies. Actual scientific foreknowledge. The bible accurately describing the physical world around us. Ex) If the universe was only 6000 years old, then we should only see stars that are only 6000 light years away.
ReplyDeleteDone, done, and done. That wasn't hard.
ReplyDelete>>If the universe was only 6000 years old, then we should only see stars that are only 6000 light years away.
If the universe expanded or is expanding, were the stars ALWAYS too far to see or reach earth? Was the universe expanding faster then the speed of light?
"If the universe expanded or is expanding, were the stars ALWAYS too far to see or reach earth? Was the universe expanding faster then the speed of light? "
ReplyDeleteI guess what you are trying to say is that the the stars used to be less than 6000 light years away but are now further away? The problem with that is, we are not observing the stars as they currently are, we are observing them as they were at the time the light left them. If they appear to be greater than 6000 light years away, that was the distance at the time the light left, they may have since moved even further away due to expansion of the universe.
Or to answer your question directly the answer is yes to the first question. Any star that appears further than 6000 light years was that distance at the time the light left it, so it could not have reached us yet if the universe was only 6000 years old.
ReplyDeleteMax,
ReplyDeleteThe point of my questions were not to be answered, or addressed, but to help you stop and realize not everything is what it appears on the onset. I am not here to help you place God on the docket to be judged by you, the criminal. Do you have ALL the variables to make a conclusion? Who cares, you are still the criminal. That was my point. Apparently, you are making some assumptions that needs to be addressed before being able to make a claim. I remember, back when I was an evidentialist, an article by AIG long ago that posed, and addressed, some of those assumptions. These days though, I get to the core of the issues in a more Biblical manner. My YEC belief is a consequence of my accepting Biblical authority. Its a healthier understanding. Today, my blade is a little more sharp and I try to reveal "what will work" as evidence of God is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
Wow Dan, that's a great article. Who would have thought that making up a new time zone would solve the issue, without even needing to address the distance of stars or speed of light.
ReplyDeleteI tried looking all over the internet for a definition of cosmic local time. Found nothing. They certainly don't define what it is or what its purpose is in the article. It's almost like they just made it up.
Its a good thing stopped being an evidentialist because the evidence is not on your side. As the concluding section of the article says, the only explanation, in your worldview, is to throw out all evidence and science, and assume a supernatural cause. Since God is free to change any laws of physics he wants, no science or any predictions can ever be trusted in your worldview.
I understand completely, Dan. You consider your entire stated belief system to be criminal and so you don't want it on the docket to be judged. You know what the proper judgement is; and you want to avoid it. Despite your claims, you are the one saying (to the judge) that you are not here to put your actions on the docket and that he is the criminal.
ReplyDeleteRight, Dan..."what will work", for example the bible explains how galaxies are seen in space to be colliding with each other, a process that takes millions of years, but THE BIBLE takes precedence and IT says that the universe is only six thousand years old.
ReplyDeleteTheir "gravitational well" uh, hypothesis is pure bullshit, since they assume that only our solar system is "is located near the center of a finite distribution of galaxies" so that time would flow more slowly on earth than in elsewhere in the universe...guess what? That could be said of the systems in many galaxies. There are a lot of sodding galaxies. Even galaxies that are a few galaxies over from our own would be close to this hypothetical (without any evidence) center of a "finite distribution of galaxies".
Holy shit...it's amazing the lengths that bibliophiles will go to to try to twist the observational evidence to fit what they're already decided is the truth. If the plain observations of nature contradict dogma, just make a bunch of assumptions and make up shit to try to fit the observations into the conclusions, as opposed to using the observations themselves to FORM the conclusions as any reasonable person does.