A million philosophical debates…
None bring us closer to the truth.
YouTube says, “Debate with postmodernists effectively,”
Like the Postmodernists were a group of organized defectors.
Rather, I would not debate a postmodernist, because you cannot.
Any truth would be pushed aside by their all consuming desire
To not understand a sentence.
For, that is what postmodernism is, is rejecting the meaning of what someone said,
And then circumventing it with sophistic remarks dismissing the truth claim.
Same with an atheist, who uses Science.
It must be logically positive.
Never to see the religion they are criticizing,
Having done the simple rudimentary thing
That Grass came before sunlight…
This makes them lose faith.
How? I don’t know…
I believe in an all powerful God.
Can God lie?
Is it a lie to paint the grass in the painting before the sun?
Or is it at all pertinent that an author never edit their work?;
Any writer can understand that.
What kind of picture does it present,
To be morally outraged at God because of science?
Furthermore, why are Christians obsessed with this “Worldview” nonsense?
Everything is “Worldview” and “Worldview.”
They’ve neatly categorized everyone within a “Worldview”.
My worldview is that God exists, and He is Jesus.
Must I stop believing in evolution?
If I must, I will.
For, it seems that all evolution is is mortal combat
A giant race to the bottom,
And blood and monkeys.
I do not ascribe to it because it is far to depressing.
But, atheists squandor that fact,
By going around in circles providing evidence for morality
When their evidence is that there is no morality.
Then they call modus ponen a circular argument…
When in fact, their definition for morality is weak
And is indeed circular.
For, the definition of morality is what morals are,
That is someone’s beliefs.
Some people’s morals are to cook an infant in turtle soup.
I don’t know if you know this,
But I don’t find that all too moral.
And then blatantly, we know morals exist
And are not subjective…
But, they twofold prove their ignorance by saying,
“Morals are Subjective, therefore they exist.”
Quite the contrary, morals are not subjective.
Observing a roach frozen with liquid nitrogen
Is not, what we could call, natural.
But it is possible.
Same thing with a man’s morals,
Which are far more paramount,
Because the moral state of human beings leads to disastrous consequences.
Our current moral state being the evidence I have.