Which means Romans 1 explains why people like Russell deny the truth.Unsupported.
A transparent rationalization that doesn't show Russell to have been wrong. Again, disagreeing with him isn't to refute him. Romans 1 merely advocates a design argument. Russell explains why such arguments are mistaken.
Theories are ideas that are lacking evidence to be declared factual truthAnd the one does not become the other. Theories explain facts. Highly successful theories like evolution explain a lot of facts.
The law of heredity is contradictory to macro evolution and refutes it completelyEvolution does not deny heredity, and in fact requires it. Mutation is also a source of novel traits.
The things you list arise from evolution and socio-cultural development. There's no reason to think a supernatural being was ever involved.
But this isn't really the place to debate evolution, so if you're going to challenge Russell's point that evolution undercuts the design argument,
I will agree that religion and corrupt counterfeit christianity impedes the progress of societythen I'll just note that this move further supports his other point about how religion impedes progress.
As I said meeting those requirements is meaningless as Muslims might meet those requirementsIt is relevant and you did confuse them.
Russell said you can't be a Christian without meeting certain requirements. This is about what is necessary for being a Christian.
You and RCM are saying meeting those requirements isn't enough for being a Christian. That is about what is sufficient for being a Christian.
I can assure you I have never posted as Noemail and I am not Noemail.Which again is a point about sufficiency, not necessity, so you are repeating the same mistake.
You were Noemail here before, right?
How is Russell wrong? I don't see how you're addressing the dilemma.
Okay, thanks for clarifying.I can assure you I have never posted as Noemail and I am not Noemail.
You've already agreed that his requirements are necessary. That they are not sufficient is irrelevant because Russell is not talking about sufficiency.But as that could be a Muslim, Russell's argument is neither sufficient nor necessary.
Then you need to show that there is a third option, or theology is in trouble.Euthyphro's dilemma,
(1) God loves X because it is good in which case morality is independent of God (This view is contrary to Biblical Theology)
(2) X is good because God loves it in which case morality is arbitrary (This view is contrary to Biblical Theology, read Psalm 14, Romans 3)
Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?Russell wasn't arguing that evil and suffering disproves God, so this response falls wide of the mark. His point was that injustice in this world isn't evidence for justice in the next.
I'm pretty sure I didn't.Do you realize you just contradicted yourself?
I don't see how that follows. I think he's rather saying that God and His next-world justice might not exist, given that actual-world injustice doesn't prove they do exist.If Russell claims that injustice in this world doesn't necessitate Biblical justice in the next, then he is calling God a liar
That's not what 'theory' means in the context of science. Theories are systems of laws, principles, mechanisms, and explanations that explain certain facts and phenomena. They do not transmogrify at any point into facts, as that would be a category error.Theories are ideas that are lacking evidence to be declared factual truth
What exactly is it that you mean by 'law of heredity' then?The law of heredity is contradictory to macro evolution and refutes it completely
So rain can only form puddles and never lakes.Macro evolution is dead in the water
Not really. There's a separate forum for evolution and I'm not going to debate it here. Note instead that Russell's point was rather that the widespread acceptance of evolution has robbed the design argument of much of its former power for most people. That should not be controversial.Since we are debating Russell and since his belief in evolution was foundational for his atheistic beliefs this is as good of place to discuss it as any
But if your faith is leading you to reject settled science, then it may be putting you into the former camp rather than the latter.I will agree that religion and corrupt counterfeit christianity impedes the progress of society
However, true Christianity is good news and hope for a world that is lost and broken
Not in my summary, but they're there in the essay. See Matt 10:23 & 16:28
I love to bring this up. Romans 1 describes three things that trip man up, and your Russell fella cannot escape.I doubt it. Russell wasn't what we could call a pagan, but they're in view in Romans 1.
I don't understand your question, I'm afraid. But Romans 1 is certainly no general indictment of 'the unbeliever' in our sense of the term.I love to bring this up. Romans 1 describes three things that trip man up, and your Russell fella cannot escape.
Not thankful to God
Refuse to give God glory
Don't consider God's words as worthy to remember and follow.
This is the indictment of the unbeliever. Can you fight it?