How? And how come they don't even agree with each other? Cue no true Scotsman fallacy...
How do we know the truth?
It was handed down by those who received it from... do I need to say... John 1:14, 17; 7:16, 17; 8:31, 32
Who don't agree? People who read the Bible?
Scientists don't agree. Politicians don't agree. Why should people who read the Bible, or mention God, or Christ agree?
I can tell you that
those who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, - which is what I said - agrees.
John 8:31, 32 “
If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
John 13:35 . . .
By this all will know that you are my disciples - if you have love among yourselves.
Does everyone who read the Bible follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Then how could they agree?
Imaging working in a company where many don't follow the companies policies. Some actually work against them.
Does that mean the company does not do what it says it does? No.
It's not reasonable to think that everyone who says they are Christian, must be.
If you research Christian, I think you will find that anyone is a Christian, simply by saying the words, 'I believe in Jesus Christ."
Is that what a Christian really is?
Why even Donald Trump is a Christian.
You didn't base an argument on what you saw and knew - unless you regularly watch universes being created. Accusing people of wishful thinking for following reasoning and evidence is somewhat ironic.
What reasoning and evidence tells you the human brain and intelligence evolved?
Here is what we know.
It takes a designer to design.
I don't have to sit and watch anything being constructed, in order to know, it required a builder - even if some processes are ongoing after construction.
The reason we breathe in oxygen, and release carbon dioxide, is why?
I never seen anything build itself. Have you?
Wishful thinking, is what again?
The irony increases. I've read the bible and it's an incoherent, often self-contradictory, mess.
We must not be reading the same thing.
Either that, or we are not seeing the same thing.
I suppose that happens even when two people listen to one person, and both come away hearing different things.
What do you suppose is the problem there?
I say one isn't listening, and by listening, I don't mean they can't hear the words.
I'm sure lots of people in the past have known lots of things that are true but "The Truth" about how and why everything exists - no. I don't think anybody ever has or probably ever will. I see no merit at all in the incoherent myths of the bible.
Notice.
"
I'm sure lots of people in the past have known lots of things that are true but...
"The Truth"
about how and why everything exists - no. I don't think anybody ever has or probably ever will
"
So basically, yes, people in the past have known lots of things that are true,
but you don't think anyone knows the truth, or never will... probably.
So you are just skeptical - you doubt... don't believe. Why, may I ask. What are your reasons?
I notice you didn't actually address any of the points I made - ho hum.
I addressed what I understood.
If you think I missed something important, then perhaps you might need to reword it a bit. Sorry.
The part I did understand, which I did not respond to, was because I never said anything such as you were suggesting, nor do I believe anything of the sort - namely.
It is also an argument from personal incredulity or ignorance (a fallacy): you don't personally see how the world could have come about without a designer, so it couldn't.
Yes. I agree it is ignorant. I also think it is ignorant to believe that anyone says that.
So I might have overlooked the later part, as I didn't see how it applied to what I had said.
Let me address it now...
You said:
Then, it's not actually an explanation for the existence of the world, it's a childish just-so story that actually leaves you with more to explain than you started with. If the world is complex, amazing, and in need of a designer, so too would anything that created and designed it. We would then have to arbitrarily decide that the designer was magically free from the need of any explanation to avoid an infinite regress.
I don't normally use the "complexity argument" either, however, let me ask you...
Must there have been a beginning?
If there is a beginning, would the beginning have had a beginning?
If the beginning is able to plan, must the beginning also be intelligent?
Do you believe the universe is intelligent, and had no beginning?
Why would the beginning need an explanation? Who can possibly explain it? Does it seem reasonable to argue that there was is beginning, unless someone can explain it?