Faithful
06-19-2009, 11:45 PM
Relativism rejects the absolute nature of truth. Relativism is one of the most self-defeating beliefs known to man. Relativism defined: "All truth is relative."
If all truth is relative, as soon as you make that assertion, it either includes itself or excludes itself. Right?
If it includes itself, that means that statement is not always true either-that statement itself is relative and thus, a pointless or mindless contradiction.
If it excludes itself, it is making the possibility of absolutes in some instances, then it is implying that particular statement is an absolute while denying absolutes actually exist. This is called a double standard or self-centered statement.
Objective truth is assumed even when one says all truth is relative. You come to the conclusion, why make the statement to begin with that all truth is relative since it is a contradiction? It is to reject reality and conscience in some way, even Christ.
----------------
Bertrand Russell said, God did not give him enough evidence.
Scientists say, "no matter how large the environment, life cannot have had a random beginning."
There are about 2000 enzymes required for the complexity of a living form. The chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only 1 part to the 10^20 x 2000 = 10^40,000. All the atoms that have ever existed in the universe is only to 10^80. Are atheists using faith or evidence?
An outrageously small probability even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems can not it in argue be generated by what are often called natural processes. For life to have originated on earth, it would be necessary that quite explicit instructions should have been provided for its assembly.
Naturalism is handcuffed when trying to explain the origins of the universe.
-------------------
David Hume said, unless something is mathematical or scientifically proven, it is of no value.
But his statement itself is contradictory, because the statement itself is neither mathematical nor scientific. It's just his own subjective opinion. His double standard is by faith.
-------------------
In the Bible, Jesus, the temple torn down and raised up 3 days later, comes to live in believers by the Holy Spirit, and believers take the temple with them wherever they go. But in the pantheon of other religions, people have to go to a physical temple to worship or practice outwardly Deepak Chopra physical techniques.
Deepak Chopra believes something quite different in The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success:
"On the material level both you and (a) tree are made up of the same recycled elements: mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements in minute quantities. You could by these elements in the hardware store for a couple of dollars. The real difference between the two of you is in the energy and the information. Your body is not separate from the body of the universe, because at quantum mechanical levels, there are no well-defined edges. You are like a wiggle, a wave, a fluctuations, a convulsion, a whirlpool, a localized disturbance in the larger quantum field. the larger quantum field - the universe - is your extended body."
You're just a disturbance or convulsion? Therefore, you are not intrinsic value to God, but just debased and denigrated to instrumental value of evolution that magically never reaches heat death. How is that for myth? Where does this kind of thinking come from, but from a disturbance or a convulsion of error in a man who is so caught up in his sin nature, self, and self-aggrandizement he doesn't realize he is going to spend an eternity in Hell.
One of the dumbest things I ever heard someone say was when Deepak Chopra on ABC Nightline Face-Off Debates (Does Satan Exist?) said the reason why heat death doesn't occur is because [magically] evolution always stays ahead of it. Crazy stuff eh? http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
I should point out, in these debates, Mark Driscoll and the Kirk Cameron squad are Calvinists, so they are not born-again; in other words, they believe they were irresistibly regenerated without the choice, made to repent and believe in their Christ. To be truly saved, you first need to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated (OSAS Arminian). God only wants fellowship and to be in the New City with those who receive genuine salvation. No facsimile's or counterfeit salvations, baptisms of the evil spirit or Satanic grace.
If all truth is relative, as soon as you make that assertion, it either includes itself or excludes itself. Right?
If it includes itself, that means that statement is not always true either-that statement itself is relative and thus, a pointless or mindless contradiction.
If it excludes itself, it is making the possibility of absolutes in some instances, then it is implying that particular statement is an absolute while denying absolutes actually exist. This is called a double standard or self-centered statement.
Objective truth is assumed even when one says all truth is relative. You come to the conclusion, why make the statement to begin with that all truth is relative since it is a contradiction? It is to reject reality and conscience in some way, even Christ.
----------------
Bertrand Russell said, God did not give him enough evidence.
Scientists say, "no matter how large the environment, life cannot have had a random beginning."
There are about 2000 enzymes required for the complexity of a living form. The chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only 1 part to the 10^20 x 2000 = 10^40,000. All the atoms that have ever existed in the universe is only to 10^80. Are atheists using faith or evidence?
An outrageously small probability even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup.
The enormous information content of even the simplest living systems can not it in argue be generated by what are often called natural processes. For life to have originated on earth, it would be necessary that quite explicit instructions should have been provided for its assembly.
Naturalism is handcuffed when trying to explain the origins of the universe.
-------------------
David Hume said, unless something is mathematical or scientifically proven, it is of no value.
But his statement itself is contradictory, because the statement itself is neither mathematical nor scientific. It's just his own subjective opinion. His double standard is by faith.
-------------------
In the Bible, Jesus, the temple torn down and raised up 3 days later, comes to live in believers by the Holy Spirit, and believers take the temple with them wherever they go. But in the pantheon of other religions, people have to go to a physical temple to worship or practice outwardly Deepak Chopra physical techniques.
Deepak Chopra believes something quite different in The Seven Spiritual Laws of Success:
"On the material level both you and (a) tree are made up of the same recycled elements: mostly carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other elements in minute quantities. You could by these elements in the hardware store for a couple of dollars. The real difference between the two of you is in the energy and the information. Your body is not separate from the body of the universe, because at quantum mechanical levels, there are no well-defined edges. You are like a wiggle, a wave, a fluctuations, a convulsion, a whirlpool, a localized disturbance in the larger quantum field. the larger quantum field - the universe - is your extended body."
You're just a disturbance or convulsion? Therefore, you are not intrinsic value to God, but just debased and denigrated to instrumental value of evolution that magically never reaches heat death. How is that for myth? Where does this kind of thinking come from, but from a disturbance or a convulsion of error in a man who is so caught up in his sin nature, self, and self-aggrandizement he doesn't realize he is going to spend an eternity in Hell.
One of the dumbest things I ever heard someone say was when Deepak Chopra on ABC Nightline Face-Off Debates (Does Satan Exist?) said the reason why heat death doesn't occur is because [magically] evolution always stays ahead of it. Crazy stuff eh? http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
I should point out, in these debates, Mark Driscoll and the Kirk Cameron squad are Calvinists, so they are not born-again; in other words, they believe they were irresistibly regenerated without the choice, made to repent and believe in their Christ. To be truly saved, you first need to repent and believe in Christ to be regenerated (OSAS Arminian). God only wants fellowship and to be in the New City with those who receive genuine salvation. No facsimile's or counterfeit salvations, baptisms of the evil spirit or Satanic grace.