Debate: Billy Carson vs. Christian Wes Huff on Jesus, the Bible, and Christianity

Raw ingredients do not cook gourmet meals of themselves; parts don't make Ferraris of themselves.

Intelligence is required.

And your science (based on a theory promulgated by a Catholic priest--you want to pretend that's not so...), does NOT rule out God.

It does however, rule out your nothing god, lord of unfathomable infinite fortuitous accidents, creator of everything.

It is you sir, who believes that nothing created everything.

I believe that God created everything.

Just like Fr. Lemaitre (father of the Big Bang Theory--for benefit of other readers, and for your denial of same).

 

Why do you do this to yourself? As evidenced by the idiocy below, he is NEVER going to debate in good faith. You're going to spend all this time making sound and logical arguments and he's just going to come back with this load of barf. Just go smash your head against a wall. It would probably accomplish more than debating with someone who only speaks in provocative rhetoric.

 

I really don't care if a Catholic priest was involved in formulating the big bang theory. Sounds like a smart guy and independent thinker, to me. On a related note, the last several Popes have given up on arguing against the big bang theory and evolution, and are now spinning it as :God is responsible for the big bang and evolution'... You should do a better job of keeping up with Catholic thought leadership.

 

The Pope at the time the BBT was pronounced, echoed and approved of it.



It was always and remains, consistent with Catholicism.

 

Seems to be a complete contradictory to Genesis, The world being 5,000 years old and created instantly, animals appearing almost immediately, humans existing since the sixth day (living with dinosaurs, I guess) ... Nope ... Not seeing it... But good for Catholics for acknowledging obvious truths. You should join them.

 

You're reading it literally.

The Catholic Church has long allowed for an allegorical reading of Genesis, and I have joined them for my entire life.

You should consider joining us, if you can ever shake you commitment to lord nothing, god of infinite fortuitous accidents, creator of everything.

In the meantime, I yield the last word to you.

/rabbit hole.

 

Awesome, we agree Genesis can't be taken literally....that opens the door wide for science to offer a true, serious, evidence based, explanation. But I have to wonder, If you think genesis isn't a fact based, accurate, explanation of the origin of life and the universe, then what exactly are you arguing about?

 

He likes to argue?

Also, HUGE fan of bullet points!

 

The show with Leonard Nimoy?

 

No, Indy found it in the Well of the Souls by using the Staff of Ra in the map room.

 

And he blames his creatures for everything wrong with his creation. It's everyone else's fault, he has done nothing wrong.

Say, maybe Donald Trump IS God.

 

Not THAT Ark! The other Ark, the one that floats!

 

I personally think that's the point of Jesus. To judge us as one of our own, not from on high. The good news? We won!

 

Notice in Genesis that the Sun is created on the fourth day. Genesis writer says, “D’oh!” That’s a huge typo!” and laments that it’s too late, text has already gone to to the printer.

 

You don't know that Ark couldn't float. It was in a wooden box and everything.

 

There is often conflation in these discussions between cosmogony, cosmology, abiogenesis, evolution versus creationism, debates about the supernatural and miracles generally, and even claims about the exclusive truth set forth in particular religious texts.

If we're talking about the beginning of existence itself, I feel like we get into an infinite regression: if everything must have a cause, what caused the first cause? My brain, at least, isn't sophisticated enough to tackle that puzzle whether I am considering natural or supernatural explanations. It just doesn't make sense to me either way. However, that's an entirely different discussion than whether a particular god or religious text contains exclusive and infallible truth. And I'm not sure that invoking a generic deity really gets us anywhere in terms of answering the things we care about such as morality, whether people have a personal relationship with god, whether god intervenes, the afterlife, etc.

 

This is why I generally ask atheists if there is a specific God they don’t believe in. In America it’s the God of the Bible of course. Then what follows is a laundry list of objections ranging from mean (or powerless) God to the miraculous. And what you discover is that they haven’t read the Bible, let alone understand it.

 

What about the Vedas? Definitely some real truths (concept of universe, solar system, etc) there (Upanishads) and it's the oldest by far. The fact they were thinking of these things before Christianity or Judeism were even created is pretty mind blowing. On that, I will say I'm intrigued by this idea of ancient truths, but not the idea of humanized deities.

 

Again, these kind of responses make me laugh ... "it must be supported by scientific method!" ... "evolutionary science is like believing in Santa Clause!" ... dude ... you are the one with beliefs that can't be verified. You are the one that believes in a version of Santa Clause -- someone that no one has ever seen, no evidence exists to support his existence -- but trust me, children, he rewards all the good boys and girls who believe! You have the belief with no scientific credentials or evidence. How can you not see that everything you wrote there applies more to religion than science?