Autumn Reading for Jerry and friends

_{Vincent Torley

October 20, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Japanese maple leaves.

Over at Why Evolution is True, Professor Jerry Coyne has been busy at work. He has not only outlined a scenario that would convince him of God’s existence, but he has written an article entitled On P. Z. Myers on evidence for a god with a point-by-point rebuttal of P. Z. Myers’ assertion (backed up by eight supporting arguments) that there was no amount of evidence that could convince him of the existence of any kind of God. I believe in giving credit where credit is due, so I would like to congratulate Professor Coyne. Let me hasten to add that Professor Coyne is still a convinced atheist. As he writes: “To me, the proper stance is, ‘I haven’t seen a smidgen of evidence for God, so I don’t think he exists. But I suppose it’s a theoretical possibility.'” In the final paragraph of his post, Coyne declares: “I’m writing this post simply to continue a conversation that I don’t think has yet run its course…”

Well, Professor, I’m something of a magpie. I collect good articles. The 200 or so articles I’ve listed below are the “creme-de-la-creme” so to speak, of what’s available on the Web. Taken together, they make a strong cumulative case, on philosophical and empirical grounds, that God does indeed exist, and that the benefits of religion vastly outweigh the multitude of harms inflicted in its name. (There’s even a case where an amputee gets healed! Curious? Thought you might be.) I’ve also included some good articles on God, morality and evil, which will interest you. The arguments for the immateriality of the mind are also significant: they serve to undermine the materialist argument that there can never be a good argument for the existence of an immaterial Intelligence, since all the minds we know of are embodied and complex. Interested? Please read on.

Table of Contents

Section 1 – Philosophical Arguments for God’s existence
Section 2 – Miracles
Section 3 – The Attributes of God
Section 4 – God, Morality, Goodness and Evil
Section 5 – Arguments for the Immateriality of the Mind
Section 6 – Mysteries of the Christian Faith (The Trinity, the Incarnation and the Atonement)
Section 7 – Religion: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

For the list of articles, click here.

Enjoy!

Comments

CannuckianYankee, Michael Egnor has responded to P.Z. Myers: New Atheist Atheology http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/11/if_nature_abhorred_a_vacuum_ne039891.htmlbornagain77_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Molch: Could you please put up a short summary of the key warranting argument of your worldview, or simply a link? (Such would probably take no more effort than one of your usual posts.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
01:20 PM
1
01
20
PM
PDT}

Below is an except from the Wikipedia article about T.B. Joshua: Reported miraculous activities Healing and health-related events Instantaneous baby deliveries,[20] healing of cancerous sores, the HIV/AIDS virus,[21] barrenness, and raising from the dead,[22] all through prayer in the name of Jesus Christ, are among the reported miraculous activities taking place at the SCOAN. In September 2008, it was reported that a man who had been mentally ill for 14 years was restored to sanity and reunited with his family.[23] Spiritual healing at The SCOAN has been mentioned by Time magazine.[24][25] Thousands from across Africa attend his monthly healing services.[26] Many also testify to being healed through 'anointing water' from the SCOAN.[27][28] It's amazing that not many people even in Africa are aware of this man and the miracles associated with him. Yet Monthly at his church feats that defy logic and science occur.roundsquare_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
10:46 AM
10
10
46
AM
PDT}

CY: (Capitalization mine): “Your premise is based on a faulty assumption that the person who believes in reincarnation cares that there is the kind of evidence for reincarnation as the Christian cares that there is evidence for the resurrection. Such is not NECESSARILY the case.” The capitalized word is the crucial word that shows where your argument fails. Of course that is not NECESSARILY the case. In fact, as you correctly point out, there are lots of Christians, just like there are lots of Hindus, etc. ”who have more of an experiential than an evidential form of faith.” But just like you again correctly point out that is not true for EVERY Christian, it likewise does not allow you to categorically claim that this is the case for EVERY non-Christian and EVERY non-Christian truth claim, as you indeed do. There are plenty of people in this world whose core world-view, e.g. re-incarnation, is indeed evidence-based, who feel just as justified to say this: “If a belief in Christianity did not exist and reincarnation did, reincarnation would still be true based on evidence. It doesn’t become less truthful because there are other truth claims that oppose it.” …as you feel justified to say this: “If a belief in reincarnation did not exist and Christianity did, Christianity would still be true based on evidence. It doesn’t become less truthful because there are other truth claims that oppose it.” I said: “For so far completely unexplained reasons, you claim that this statement is uniquely justifiable if y is a god, as opposed to any other concept in any other world-view.” You replied: “I claim the statement is justifiable for the reasons I and others here have already explained.” No. Explaining why you think your belief in the Judeo-Christian god is supported by good evidence does absolutely nothing to justify either the claim that beliefs in other world-views are categorically NOT based on evidence, or alternatively, that the uncounted pieces of evidence for the uncounted varieties of other world-views are categorically less valuable than your pieces of evidence without you ever having to look at them. “it is really meaningless for you to charge a failure in justification without providing us with evidence” You still don’t seem to understand that I don’t charge a failure in justification of your world-view. What I AM doing is criticize YOUR charge of failure in justification of ANY non-Christian world-view claiming that their justifications CATEGORICALLY fail. MY evidence is completely irrelevant to this argument. The most important part of YOUR argument is that MY evidence, just as everybody else’s arguments and pieces of evidence are IRRELEVANT, remember: “I have no evidence that x occurs. I have no evidence that it does not. I have evidence that y is true, and x is incompatible with that truth” YOU SAID: “That is exactly correct.” But you still fail to justify why only a Christian should be allowed to say this.molch_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

KF "We owe it to the ghosts of millions to watch these grim videos." I watched the video yesterday and read all the literature provided on this incident. I tried to find information on it from Wikipedia, and could find none - kind of sad, really. Tito's biography there shows him to be rather mild.CannuckianYankee_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT}

Sure wish we could edit here: "who's lump of jelly..."CannuckianYankee_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
06:33 AM
6
06
33
AM
PDT}

KF, I thought my last two posts might spark some further evaluation. I have seriously considered Siberia. At the rate our freedoms are being limited, it doesn't seem that far off. Liberators often see themselves as better than the regimes they're liberating others from. With that belief, the Soviets liberated Eastern Germany at the end of WWII. Democracy is not something that is derived apart from a recognition of human freedom and dignity. The secularists have failed to demonstrate that such a concept can be established on materialistic grounds, and they have the witness of history to contend with. Even the author of that magnificent atheistic manifesto I quoted from acknowledged that atheism "provides no understanding of the nature of the universe; it is simply a denial of the existence of God and it is essentially useless as a contribution to our understanding of the world." And he clearly understands that atheism provides no moral guide; yet he declares that we instinctively know what is right and wrong without a need for such a moral guide. Tell that to the victims of Milosovic, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Castro, Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Amin and a host of others. I just wonder whose lump of jelly is going to determine the freedoms of the next generation.CannuckianYankee_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

RS: The fact that I am alive, that I can sit up to type, that I have the breath to type are all the result of miraculous answers to prayer. Most of all, the prayer of release to God when my mother, having nursed me through the night with asthma, at dawn surrendered me to God, as my suffering was too great to bear. That was the day that on errors we walked out of Oxford med centre, right into the door of the open taxi with the driver who said: Asthma, I know just the doctor to take him to. That saved my life. And, when asthma resurged in the aftermath of the volcano here, I was called up for prayer by name while in Barbados; in my second home church. That is the point where the asthma went back under control. I recall the workplace checkup doctor later, who on hearing the report, smiled and said that this was no surprise. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT}

By the way TB Joshua has an article dedicated to him on Wikipedia, its an interesting article I would urge anyone to read it to get a basic understanding of who be is.roundsquare_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
04:37 AM
4
04
37
AM
PDT}

F/N: Documentation from one of those "Onlookers" at UD. Thanks, Cita. We owe it to the ghosts of millions to watch these grim videos. Gkairosfocus_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

This is a very fascinating thread, awash with a wealth of exciting arguments that the average believer can use to bolster his personal faith, defend it, and spread it more effectively to his skeptical friends and family members. For me one of the best evidences that God is real comes from the occurence of miracles. There are numerous miracles being reported every month from all around the world, aids and deadly cancers are being cured daily, blindness is being reversed, and so the list goes on. I live in Africa where faith healing is like an industry on its own, it's a part of everday life for many Africans. Perhaps not all of these healings are authentic, but some certainly are. I have been to churches were genuinly sick people make up the prayer lines, not actors wearing makeup, I can assure you these people are truly sick, suffering from a variety of illnesses, aids, TB, cancer, blindness paralysis. I have seen people with full blown aids, bony people who do not have half the strength to support their little weight brought into churches on mattresses and exit the church on their feet and return a week or month later healthy and well-fed with incredible testimonies. These aren't once off events they happen commonly. I would refer any interested readers to the following website: WWW.scoan.org, this website belongs to a church headed by one pastor TB Joshua, an endless list of documented healings have occurred at this church and continue occuring, instant births, kidney stones and other objects have come out of people at the command of TB Joshua. Just visit the site better yet visit the church in Lagos Nigeria. On one occasion TB Joshua asked a skeptic in the congregation to pray for a lame woman, to everyones amazement the lame woman stood up and started walking. GOD can use any tool for his glory even the hands of a skeptic. Besides healings TB Joshua has made numerous prophecies all are available on his website above. The amazing thing about this prophecies is the fact that they are aired live to many parts of the world before the events they describe becomee actual. A recent prophecy which I believe hasn't yet taken place states that a president will lose his son in a plane accident, TB Joshua gave the propbecy at least a month ago, and he said that he would expand on this prophecy in the future. Another pastor who even evens out uneven leg lenghts and prays for fill-blown Aids victims is known prophet Kobus Van Rensburg, his church Spirit Word Ministries is located in Klerksdorp South Afica. Both these pastors capture their healings on video.roundsquare_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

CY: The problem has been well-known since 360 BC, when Plato wrote The Laws, Bk X: ________________ >> Ath. . . . [[The avant garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and earth and air [[i.e the classical "material" elements of the cosmos], all exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art, and that as to the bodies which come next in order-earth, and sun, and moon, and stars-they have been created by means of these absolutely inanimate existences. The elements are severally moved by chance and some inherent force according to certain affinities among them-of hot with cold, or of dry with moist, or of soft with hard, and according to all the other accidental admixtures of opposites which have been formed by necessity. After this fashion and in this manner the whole heaven has been created, and all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and chance only. [[In short, evolutionary materialism premised on chance plus necessity acting without intelligent guidance on primordial matter is hardly a new or a primarily "scientific" view!] . . . . [[Thus, they hold that t]he Gods exist not by nature, but by art, and by the laws of states, which are different in different places, according to the agreement of those who make them; and that the honourable is one thing by nature and another thing by law, and that the principles of justice have no existence at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at the time at which they are made.- [[Relativism, too, is not new.] These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might, and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions, these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is, to live in real dominion over others, and not in legal subjection to them. >> __________________ Nor is this just a dusty remark in an old, all but forgotten work -- as 100 million ghosts from the last century moan out a grim warning. In his recent USA Today article, professor Coyne [the very same addressed by VJT in the OP] does not seem to be aware of the implications of his fulminations that:
Atheist books such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith have, by exposing the dangers of faith and the lack of evidence for the God of Abraham, become best-sellers. Science nibbles at religion from the other end, relentlessly consuming divine explanations and replacing them with material ones. Evolution took a huge bite a while back, and recent work on the brain has shown no evidence for souls, spirits, or any part of our personality or behavior distinct from the lump of jelly in our head . . .
In short, he here first cheers on the outrageous slanders of the Neo-Atheists against not only God but religious believers, falsely portraying believers in God as a menace to society and to freedom. Where was the national and international outcry against such blatant bigotry and hate speech? Chirping crickets. Going on, when you reduce BEHAVIOUR -- which includes cognitive, volitional and moral behaviour -- to lumps of jelly in skulls, you fall into the trap long ago outlined by Haldane:
"It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms." [["When I am dead," in Possible Worlds: And Other Essays [1927], Chatto and Windus: London, 1932, reprint, p.209.]
This is the very same trap Crick fell into in his The Astonishing Hypothesis of 1994:
. . . that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules. As Lewis Carroll's Alice might have phrased: "You're nothing but a pack of neurons." This hypothesis is so alien to the ideas of most people today that it can truly be called astonishing.
Such materialism is immediately self-defeating, as Haldane pointed out and as I detailed here in my recent UD post. In a nutshell, once thoughts, decisions etc are physically caused and/or psycho-socially determined, one has implied that reason is delusion, and that mechanical necessity and accidental circumstances determine thought, choice and action. Including those of the very materialists themselves. Reductio ad absurdum. The implications for morality, though are even more dangerous. For instance, let us excerpt the Provine 1998 Darwin Day lecture at U Tenn [yes, as in the state of the Scopes trial 80-odd years ago]:
Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent . . . . The first 4 implications are so obvious to modern naturalistic evolutionists that I will spend little time defending them . . .
And so, who controls the keys to the institutions will determine, based on their own power, just who need to be locked up and rehabilitated in the prisons and wards for the insane. As happened in the Soviet Union. [And this is in direct response to Provine's naive remark nearly a decade after that atheistical tyranny collapsed: "Without free will, justification for revenge disappears and rehabilitation is the main job of judicial systems and prisons."] 1984 is arriving a little late . . . Will Hawthorne is devastating:
Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [= evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from 'is'.
That chill wind you feel is special delivery from Siberia. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

10 --> Shifting to the broader generic case for theism, we can briefly point to the evidence of design in our world, and of our world.
a: It is now notorious that there are no counter-examples to the observation that digitally coded, linguistically or algorithmically functionally specific, complex information -- whenever we directly see the source -- comes from intelligence. b: Nor is there credible reason to suppose that chance and necessity acting on the gamut of our observed cosmos, can produce 500 - 1,000 + bits worth of such dFSCI, the relevant subset of complex, specified information. c: So, we are inductively entitled to infer that dFSCI is a reliable signature of intelligently directed configuration, i.e. design. Thus, the living cell with its algorithmically functional dFSCI is evidence of the design of life. (Nor do we see any credible, empirically well-warranted spontaneous abiogenesis on chance + necessity model.) d: The same obtains for explaining the origin of the 10's of mega bits or more worth of additional dFSCI to account for embryologically feasible novel body plans, dozens of times over, starting with the Cambrian life revolution. (The evolutionary materialistic answer is not to provide evidence, but as we have repeatedly shown, to a priori rule out design of life or biodiversity by what amounts to a power coup in the instittutions of science.) e: The cumulative case gets stronger when we multiply by the recognition that the physics of our observed cosmos sits at a finely tuned operating point that facilitates C-chemistry, cell based life. f: This points to a super-powerful extra-cosmic super-intellect who in Hoyle's words, "monkeyed" with the physics to set such up. best candidate fort such a designer of the universe who set it up for life then put life in it: God. (Which is why such an inference on empirical evidence is so stoutly resisted by the committed materialists.) g: But, clearly, evidence of such design is evidence that, at worldview alternatives level, to the unprejudiced mind plainly and strongly points to God.
11 --> Evidence of strawman distortion can be seen from comparing a genuine version of the cosmological argument with the above typical skeptical caricature, courtesy CY:
SKEPTICAL CARICATURE: COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I) (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. (2) I say the universe must have a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (4) Therefore, God exists. GENUINE (as previously linked; remember, this is one component of a cumulative case on inference to best explanation): B. Cosmological: (NB: This appears out of the classical order, as IMHO it makes A far more clear if this is done, by distinguishing and rationalising "contingent" and "necessary" beings. This is an example of a cumulative argument.) 1. Some contingent beings exist. (E.g.: us, a tree or a fruit, an artifact, the planets and stars, etc. -- anything that might not have existed, i.e. is caused.) 2. Contingent beings do not exist by themselves – that is in part what “contingent” means - so they require a necessary being as their ultimate cause. 3. If any contingent being exists, then a necessary being exists. _______________________ 4. Thus, there exists a necessary being, the ultimate cause of the existence of the many contingent beings in the cosmos.
12 --> Notice how the principle of causality is caricatured and projected as though it were an egotistical question-begging. Can skeptics produce a case where an effect occurs without a cause, where we recognise that causes can be contributory, necessary, or sufficient, or even necessary and sufficient? That is, what is the evidence that something can and does come form nothing or anything, anytime, with no constraints? Plainly, no and none respectivley. (Even quantum effects like radioactivity and the photo-effect come form antecedent circumstances and are constrained -- they are examples of physical order, not chaos.) 13 --> So, on widely supported induction, we are entitled to the principle of causality, and it is those who object who have a burden of proof to explain and justify themselves. 14 --> So, the attempt to dismissively assert "I say . . . " is an exercise in illegitimate burden of proof shifting, and ducking the implication that the denial of causality is tantamount to accepting a chaos not a cosmos as reality -- undercutting the key premises of science and even of reason itself. 15 --> Amplifying the last, the denial of causality [especially, refusal to recognise that a necessary causal factor is a causal factor] leads to a reductio to absurdum by undercutting science and rationality. 16 --> Now, we live in a world of many contingent beings, and a world that on general scientific opinion had a datable beginning, typically estimated at 13.7 BYA. So, that world -- remember, one that has physics set at a finely tuned operating point that supports C chemistry, cell based life -- credibly requires an adequate cause. 17 --> Going beyond, in addition to the category of contingent beings, it is logically possible that we have necessary beings, which do not need causes as they did not come to be nor do they depend on any particular circumstantial order to continue to exist. That is such a being would be self-explanatory and sufficient in itself. 18 --> this is the basis for the point that if a world of contingent beings exists, and in an observed cosmos that is also contingent, then -- by logical necessity -- these beings depend for their existence on a higher order of being. (This is a big part of why Hawking et al want to suggest that our universe emerged by fluctuation from a higher order cosmos. In the old days, the observed cosmos was thought to be in a steady state of matter creation from the vacuum, but that ran into difficulties, leaving he big bang as the most credible explanation, which has a beginning. So, the hunt has been on for a begin-ner.) 19 --> At least one of those higher order beings will need to be not only logically necessary but ontologically necessary. That is, without beginning and not dependent on any other being for its existence. 20 --> That is, "there exists a necessary being, the ultimate cause of the existence of the many contingent beings in the cosmos." 21 --> It is on other evidence, that cumulatively, we can identify the best candidate for that necessary being as God. But, by suppressing or similarly caricaturing that wider context,and by refusing to put the alternative assumptions on the table for a comparative difficulties exercise, the argument can be made to sound weak. 22 --> For instance, a great many people have experience of meeting and being transformed in life by God. Similarly, that we find ourselves morally obligated -- implied by skeptics when they appeal to the reality of evil -- implies that there is a foundational is for the cosmos that so intrinsically embeds good, that OUGHT is grounded in that IS. Also, the implied reality of evil entails that there is a world beyond material reality, and that we are morally bound by the grounding reality of that world 23 --> To deny these, skeptics are forced to first imply -- on consistency -- that he mind is so prone to delusion that all rationality and experience are open to question. 24 --> Similarly, evolutionary materialism has in it no is that grounds ought, so the appeal to the repulsiveness of evil begins to look like manipulative rhetoric that plays on the delusional emotions that we should be fair to one another and should steward our common world. The resulting world of amoral might makes right is its own refutation. 25 --> Of course, a world in which chaos reigns, so that things happen without causal constraint or control, is a world that cannot be intelligible, and rationality -- thus, Science -- would evaporate. ____________ Apart from the likes of a Nietzsche -- whom such are ever wont to distance themselves from -- one looks in vain for a frank self-driven, full and fair facing of the comparative difficulties challenges of such skeptical atheism grounded on naturalistic evolutionary materialist premises. But even more plainly, the mantra: there is no evidence, is revealed as a rhetorical gambit based on question-begging dismissal of the evidence that is there for all who are but willing to see and take it seriously. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

CY & SB (and onlookers, and Molch et al): You have neatly summarised how ever so much of Neo-Ahteism is a case of selective hyperskepticism in action. It is worth pausing to excerpt Simin greenleaf's rearks fromt he just linked:
The error of the skeptic [i.e. selective hyperskepticism] consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt about their truth . . . . [27] . . . . In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated:
A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.
By competent evidence, is meant such as the nature of the thing to be proved requires; and by satisfactory evidence, is meant that amount of proof, which ordinarily satisfies an unprejudiced mind, beyond any reasonable doubt [as opposed to UNREASONABLE doubt]. . . . . If, therefore, the subject is a problem in mathematics, its truth is to be shown by the certainty of demonstrative evidence [SG was almost 100 years too early to know the limitations of Mathematics established by Godel in the 1930's]. But if it is a question of fact in human affairs, nothing more than moral evidence can be required, for this is the best evidence which, from the nature of the case, is attainable. Now as the facts, stated in Scripture History, are not of the former kind, but are cognizable by the senses, they may be said to be proved when they are established by that kind and degree of evidence which, as we have just observed, would, in the affairs of human life, satisfy the mind and conscience of a common man. [Testimony, Sections 26, 27, emphases added.]
(Onlookers, observe how at no point whatsoever above, has M or any other member of his ilk seriously addressed the incoherence of either radical or selective hyperskepticism as exposed in the above linked. Nor have they appreciated the point that a worldview is a matter of a cumulative case that like a rope draws overall strength from bringing its components together, in a context where much of the substance has to be assessed on induction and comparison of alternatives, per our experience of the world as conscious, intelligent, reasoning, enconscienced creatures and the authenticated record of history, not deduction from some mythical set of axioms accepted by all rational creatures.) The declaration that there is "no evidence" for theism, apart from what skeptics love to denigrate piecemeal as "fallacious arguments" -- instead of recognising that worldviews have to be assessed through comparative difficulties in light of self-evident first principles of right reason. In particular, by spending time on the attack instead of seriously and fairly assessing alternatives, they distract themselves and others from those of naturalistic, scientism-based evolutionary materialism. The Saganian form of the self-refuting Cliffordian evidentialism is a particular favourite and is the root of today's ever so fallacious skeptical mantra:
extraordinary claims require ~~extraordinary~~ ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE evidence
Greenleaf plainly anticipated just this sort of error in the excerpt above, by a century. What makes a claim "extraordinary"? Simple: it cuts across our expectations, which in turn are driven by our underlying worldview commitments on first plausibles, indoctrination and particular experiences. So, the Sagan aphorism is little more than an assertion that if something does not accord with his preferred secularist, naturalistic evoilutionary materialist atheism, he would only accept it if it amounted to a sort of level of proof that not even mathematics nowadays can claim; full-bore deductive certainty on indisputable axioms. Cleverly packaged question-begging, selectively hyperskeptical Lewontinian-style a priori materialism, in short. Worse, the exaggerated form "there is no evidence for god" is an outright willful inexcusable lie by suppression of easily accessible truth one knows or should know: 1 --> MILLIONS of people across history and in the current world, testify to having come to meet and have a living, life transforming relationship with God, in the face of the risen Christ. 2 --> Such is personal testimony on personal experience, backed up by transformation of life and impact on the course of civilisations. And, it is simply arrogant contempt to sweep it all away as delusion. 3 --> Worse, if it is all delusion, that if it were true, it immediately implies that the human mind is so prone to delusions driven by accidents of genetic inheritance and psycho-social conditioning that we have no good grounds for trusting any testimony or reasoning. Including evolutionary materialistic reasoning. 4 --> Next, Starting with a circle of 500+ eyewitnesses, in the 30's AD, the Christian faith has testified to the impact of the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth in fulfillment of prophecies then centuries old, and against extreme odds, has prevailed. That core testimony was so confidently held that, on trial for his life, this is what the leading C1 Missionary (and former leading persecutor of the Christian faith, who testified to being personally arrested by the risen Christ right there in the course of his testimony) had to say, c. 60 AD, in the very jurisdiction where the events happened, and where that ever so eloquently empty tomb stood:
Acts 26:8 Why should any of you consider it incredible that God raises the dead? . . . . 19 “So then, King Agrippa [having recounted the story of his encounter with the risen Christ and commission as a messenger], I was not disobedient to the vision from heaven. 20 First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and then to the Gentiles, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and demonstrate their repentance by their deeds. 21 That is why some Jews seized me in the temple courts and tried to kill me. 22 But God has helped me to this very day; so I stand here and testify to small and great alike. I am saying nothing beyond what the prophets and Moses said would happen— 23 that the Messiah would suffer and, as the first to rise from the dead, would bring the message of light to his own people and to the Gentiles.” 24 At this point Festus interrupted Paul’s defense. “You are out of your mind, Paul!” he shouted. “Your great learning is driving you insane.” 25 “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26 The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner. 27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? [alludes to Is 52:13 - 53:12 etc, hundreds of prophetic messianic references altogether] I know you do.” 28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?” 29 Paul replied, “Short time or long—I pray to God that not only you but all who are listening to me today may become what I am, except for these chains.”
5 --> Remember, this is the former leading persecutor of the Christians. If there were decisive facts against the Christian testimony, he would have known them, and he would have been immune to any claims to the contrary. But plainly, that eloquently empty tomb and its surrounding circumstances spoke, as did those who had been healed, liberated and transformed by the power of that resurrection. 6 --> On trial for his life, and with the very leaders of his nation as his opponents in court, what does he do? HE CALLS THE KING AND JUDGE HIMSELF AS HIS CHIEF WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE THAT WHAT HE SAYS IS TRUE AND REASONABLE, HAVING FIRST DEMANDED AN EXPLANATION FOR THE SKEPTICAL DENIAL OF THE POSSIBILITY THAT GOD SHOULD RAISE THE DEAD. 7 --> And, the judge is unable to dismiss the truth, but plays the usual politically correct evasion, trying to change the subject. 8 --> And, the record of this (made within a few years) has been authenticated and comes from good chain of custody. There is no good reason to dismiss it because it is inconvenient. 9 --> Historical and living experience of a Miracle-working, life transforming God, skeptics, is evidence (and is often decisive). [ . . . ]kairosfocus_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

stephenB, KF, molch, others, I found this article from http://secweb.infidels.org/article823.html It's basically the author's praise for his own book: "Paul Young is the author of The Nature of Information, a philosophy book that defines information and the fundamental creative force in the universe in entirely mass-energy terms, and mind and consciousness as wholly material phenenomena, thereby solving, conceptually, the mind-body/brain-mind problem." A few quotes (not from the book but from the author's article about the book): "But for those of us who do not or cannot believe in a god, no comparable worldview [to theism] exists to enable us to understand the ultimate nature of the universe and our place in it. Atheism is not a worldview and provides no understanding of the nature of the universe; it is simply a denial of the existence of God and it is essentially useless as a contribution to our understanding of the world." [ ] mine Really? I agree with the whole statement with the exception of this: "Atheism is not a worldview." But he waxes on about atheism as if it is a world-view: "In my book, The Nature of Information, I describe a mechanism by which 'information' can be seen to be an entirely physical or material process, resulting not only in the natural unification of matter and mind, thereby solving, conceptually, the mind-body or brain-mind problem, but identification of the fundamental creative and control mechanism immanent in the universe by which physical systems generate and regulate their organization and behavior, obviating the need for any metaphysical or supernatural element, ingredient, or force, to explain them. In this worldview, the idea of God is a concept for which there actually is no place or role, because the creative and control functions of the universe are immanent in the system." Ok, so far, so not-so-good. But then there's the utopian vision of a world without theism towards the end: "Among the prime consequences of a materialist worldview such as this are concerns that we live in a meaningless universe, one with no moral or social core, no absolute values and nothing to prevent us from killing one another or simply doing whatever we feel like because there's no price to pay to God—the scourge of moral relativism. This is part of the barrier that prevents our evolving from theologically inclined people to scientifically inclined people, and a glaring example of the paternalistic approach to humans that is the core and hallmark of belief in gods. We are children and need the Father, the Lord, someone to tell us what to do, how to behave, and give us rewards and punishments when we behave well or badly. This is the essence of a parent-child relationship. We need someone to tell us what to do because we don't know, can't figure it out for ourselves, and are apparently too uncivilized to create our own rules of conduct and morality. Thus, we need commandments." He then goes on a diatribe describing theism as a need for parenting, which we as adults are no longer in need of. We don't need commandments, because we already instinctively know what is right and wrong, and we can figure things out on our own. Commandments are for children, whereas choices are for "grownups." Yes, he uses that term. Children don't need choices? Adults don't need rules? But I love the last part where he cites the United Nations "Universal Declaration of Human Rights--:" http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml --as the new universal guide for human behavior because it contains "no commandments." Really? "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law," In other words: "Thou shalt respect the rights of others". If this guy ever becomes influential (apparently he is not because I couldn't find him on Wikipedia, nor his book on Amazon - and for that I'm thankful) :) we ought to pack our bags and run. What sort of choices is his atheist utopia going to provide us? Incidentally, the UNUDOHR dictates religious freedom and the freedom of conscience. How can we have freedom of conscience in an atheist utopia where the conscience is alleged to not exist? The Marxists had very lofty ideas about freedom and choice too. In fact the Soviet Union was a prime example of those Marxist freedoms - freedom to be an atheist OR ELSE!, freedom to not be burdened with land ownership, freedom to stand in long lines for scarce food and become acquainted with your other comrades, freedom to write in newspapers and report on radios what the state wants you to write and report, freedom of the government to spy on you if they think you're out of line, freedom to live where the government assigns you to live, freedom to vacation at the gulag for no apparent reason, freedom to go to a church (now a museum) dedicated to the defeat of religion by the state, and greatest of all, freedom to not have to bother voting. Are these secularists the new Marxists? ScaryCannuckianYankee_{November 2, 2010
November
11
Nov
2
02
2010
01:41 AM
1
01
41
AM
PDT}

stephenB, others, "They assume that reason’s foundations, far from reflecting a non-negotiable, self-evident truth about reality, constitute little more than arbitrarily conceived conventions. So, when I explain to them that nothing can begin to exist without a cause, which is nothing less than the law of non-contradicition in action, they insist that there is no reason why they should conform to MY rules of right reason [which is the equivalent of characterizing the law of causality as "If I say it must have a cause, it must have a cause]. They actually believe, or claim to believe, that they can create their own rational foundations and remain rational." While I can imagine the impact this sort of thinking might have on science in 40-50 years or perhaps quite sooner, my main concern is how it will further and more significantly impact our culture and society.CannuckianYankee_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

---CannuckianYankee: "Anyone care to analyze and clarify what they’re not getting right?" Well, CY, I am sure that I am not telling you anything you don't already know, but the erroneous reasoning of the atheists that you cite in your examples resembles the approach of those who visit this site. They assume that reason's foundations, far from reflecting a non-negotiable, self-evident truth about reality, constitute little more than arbitrarily conceived conventions. So, when I explain to them that nothing can begin to exist without a cause, which is nothing less than the law of non-contradicition in action, they insist that there is no reason why they should conform to MY rules of right reason [which is the equivalent of characterizing the law of causality as "If I say it must have a cause, it must have a cause]. They actually believe, or claim to believe, that they can create their own rational foundations and remain rational. Of course, like molch, they never get around to sharing those principles with us becuase, in truth, they have none. How could one ever come up with an alternative to the law of identity or the law of causality? There are no alternatives or substitues. That is why they grow silent when we ask them to explain the methods by which they arrive at their conclusions. They are bluffing and they know it. One either chooses to be reasonable or not to be reasonable. Frankly, this kind of irrational skepticism is a historical curiosity. Even David Hume, the Godfather of skeptics and critic of causality, admitted that he would never assert anything so ridiculous as the proposition that something could begin to exist without a cause. Yet todays atheists are so irrational that they try to make this principle of causation subjective and arbitrary. Thus, they are impervious to the reason-based evidence for God's existence because they reject reason-based evidence in principle. Naturally they would say there is no reason-based evidence in this particular case because they have already decided that there is no such thing as reason based evidence in ANY CASE.StephenB_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
09:19 PM
9
09
19
PM
PDT}

molch and others. I have already contended that the atheist bases his/her world-view on the alleged absence of evidence for the existence of God, for which I supplied one example. From a cursory look at websites, which defend atheism, the following is what I found: "The question "Why don't you believe?" is a request for justification from the nonbeliever; the response "I haven't seen any good reason to bother believing" returns the need for justification back where it belongs: with the believer. Too often, believers fail to realize that their position is the one needing defense and this response may help them understand that." http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/a/NoGoodReason.htm "I’m an atheist about all gods because there's no reliable evidence for any god, or even for Jesus." http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm "in the 1990s philosophers developed a flurry of atheological arguments; arguably the most famous of such arguments is the argument from reasonable nonbelief (also known as the argument from divine hiddenness)." http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/arguments.html "For example, atheists have argued that a lack of evidence casts doubt on important doctrines of Christianity," http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/martin.htm What we need to sort out beforehand is the position of atheists (or at least the majority of them) on the existence of gods and the truth merit of religions. This can be defended, as “what atheists think”, far less awkwardly. "This attempt is probably not definitive, but here goes: the atheist position is that there is no available, substantive evidence for the existence of any god. Therefore it’s likely that there isn’t one." http://asktheatheist.com/?p=231 "After millennia of trying to come up with arguments for the existence of God, all theologians and philosophers have been able to produce are lame logical fallacies. No credible evidence has ever been found for the existence of a god. Of course, it is impossible to prove conclusively that gods don't exist just like its impossible to conclusively prove that Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn don't exist. However, it is irrational to believe in fanciful creatures for which there is no evidence. As Carl Sagan said, 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.' In the case of theism, not only do we not have extraordinary evidence, we don't have any credible evidence at all. There is simply no valid reason whatsoever for believing in the existence of God." http://freethought.freeservers.com/reason/rationalview.html And from the same: "Not only are there no sound arguments indicating that a god exists, there are several sound arguments indicating that God does not exist. This article introduces some of these arguments and provides links to other articles which discuss the arguments more thoroughly. Lack of Evidence The fact that there is no valid reason to believe that a god exists justifies weak atheism (lack of belief in gods), but not strong atheism (belief that there are no gods). Lack of evidence for a proposition ("God exists" in this case) is, in and of itself, not evidence that the proposition is false. However, lack of evidence for a proposition combined with the expectation that if that proposition were true that evidence would be available does constitute evidence that the proposition is false. As an example of this reasoning, suppose someone claimed that there is a herd of invisible two-ton elephants stampeding through your living room. If such a claim were true there would be plenty of evidence in the form of broken furniture for example. Now you examine your living room and find no evidence for stampeding elephants. It is, of course, rational to believe that the elephant claim was false. Now lets consider the gods of the dominate theistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Each of these religions postulate a god that is concerned with human welfare and that performs miracles. If such a god exists, there should be ample evidence of the miracles that he works whenever human suffering is present. But human suffering certainly exists and there is no evidence of the theists' god. This constitutes evidence that this god does not exist." Of course these websites present other arguments than that evidence simply does not exist; such as the problem of pain, and the alleged lack of cohesion of theistic arguments. However, these are based primarily on an emphasis of a lack of evidence. Some even claim that theists require the provision of a justification for belief squarely in their corner, since atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Theists have provided the evidence in question. Theists have also provided coherent defenses of those arguments in response to the rejection of them by atheists. Yet atheists still maintain that there is no evidence - and in some cases, no evidence "whatsoever." Furthermore, in order to justify the charge that the theist arguments are fallacious, those arguments are often reframed, such that there is no substantial premise. The following website contains a list of such reframed theistic arguments: http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm Here is their example of the cosmological argument reframed: COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT, a.k.a. FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT (I) (1) If I say something must have a cause, it has a cause. (2) I say the universe must have a cause. (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause. (4) Therefore, God exists. Anyone care to analyze and clarify what they're not getting right?CannuckianYankee_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
06:39 PM
6
06
39
PM
PDT}

molch, "'atheism, for which I pointed out, HAS NO EVIDNETIAL POINT OF REFERENCE other than that there is no evidence for the existence of God.' Right there is were your argument is wrong. As I have pointed out numerous times." You have pointed this out; however you have failed to provide evidence, which backs up your pointing it out. I provided evidence that this is what atheists say about the existence of God - that there is no evidence. Do you dispute that? Then show us.CannuckianYankee_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

molch, “I have no evidence that x occurs. I have no evidence that it does not. I have evidence that y is true, and x is incompatible with that truth” That is exactly correct. However, "For so far completely unexplained reasons, you claim that this statement is uniquely justifiable if y is a god, as opposed to any other concept in any other world-view." I claim the statement is justifiable for the reasons I and others here have already explained. You, however, have still failed to provide us with any justification whatsoever for your world-view. We are justified in our world-view because it is faith based on reason and evidence. If your world-view fits in that same category, it is really meaningless for you to charge a failure in justification without providing us with evidence, which will determine its non-justification, and why yours is more justified.CannuckianYankee_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
04:41 PM
4
04
41
PM
PDT}

"in the same way that a person can believe in the law of gravity without understanding all the evidential detail contained in the evidence, which makes it a law." Let me rephrase that: in the same way that a person can believe in the law of gravity without understanding it's evidential basis.CannuckianYankee_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT}

molch, Your premise is simply false. If a belief in reincarnation did not exist and Christianity did, Christianity would still be true based on evidence. It doesn't become less truthful because there are other truth claims that oppose it. A person can have a valid world-view based on the evidence for Christianity without examining the truth claims of other competing views. Furthermore, a person can have a Christian world-view based on the claims of Christianity without even examining the evidence for Christianity. A mentally retarded person who doesn't understand the concepts of validity and verification, for example, can have a valid Christian world-view. Developing a world-view, then is not necessarily predicated upon examining evidence even if such evidence exists. A person can have a perfectly valid and justifiable world-view without understanding its validity, in the same way that a person can believe in the law of gravity without understanding all the evidential detail contained in the evidence, which makes it a law. Your premise is based on a faulty assumption that the person who believes in reincarnation cares that there is the kind of evidence for reincarnation as the Christian cares that there is evidence for the resurrection. Such is not necessarily the case. Hinduism, for example, as many Hindus will tell you, is not defined, but experienced. It is a collection of esoteric faiths, which do not seek evidential, but experiential basis'. Many other faiths, which incorporate reincarnation into their beliefs are quite similar to this; including Sikhism, Kabbalah, and Rosicrucianism. They are esoteric, non-evidential based faiths. In fact you will find that they emphasize faith as belief without evidence, but with good reason. Christianity, on the other hand emphasizes faith based on reason and evidence. In fact, there are some who claim Christ as Savior, who have more of an experiential than an evidential form of faith, and they are quite vocal, particularly in the US. This phenomenon, I believe has contributed to the materialist's overall contention that faith is belief without evidence; but this is not the kind of faith expounded on in Judeo-Christian scripture.CannuckianYankee_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
04:10 PM
4
04
10
PM
PDT}

To clarify even more, let's generalize this: In a generalized form, you say: "I have no evidence that x occurs. I have no evidence that it does not. I have evidence that y is true, and x is incompatible with that truth" For so far completely unexplained reasons, you claim that this statement is uniquely justifiable if y is a god, as opposed to any other concept in any other world-view.molch_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
02:11 PM
2
02
11
PM
PDT}

hit the button too soon, add to previous sentence: You deny re-incarnationist X the right to say that...without looking at their evidence.molch_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

CY (captalizations mine): "Other THEISTIC world-views can be based on evidence as well;" And: "atheism, for which I pointed out, HAS NO EVIDNETIAL POINT OF REFERENCE other than that there is no evidence for the existence of God." Right there is were your argument is wrong. As I have pointed out numerous times. "I have no evidence that reincarnation occurs. I have no evidence that it does not. I have evidence that Christianity is true, and reincarnation is incompatible with that truth;" Here is what re-incarnationist X will say: "I have no evidence that the Christian god exists. I have no evidence that he does not. I have evidence that re-incarnation is true, and the Christian god is incompatible with that truth." You deny re-incarnationist X the right to say that.molch_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

molch, Regarding reincarnation; I have no evidence that reincarnation occurs. I have no evidence that it does not. I have evidence that Christianity is true, and reincarnation is incompatible with that truth; since scripture points out that humans live once, and after that there is resurrection and judgment. Reincarnation suggests that the living soul is placed in the body of another after death. There is some truth to that in that reincarnation accepts that the soul never dies. However, what is incompatible with Christianity is that the soul is placed in the body of another. Christian scripture states that our bodies are resurrected and our souls remain in them.CannuckianYankee_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

F/N: Molch, if you are going to dismiss the resurrection as described in the AD 55 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 (underlying official testimony is traceable as official summary to 35 - 38 AD) and as predicted in the 700 BC Is 52:13 - 53:12, you will need to address the issues summarised at introductory level here. Gkairosfocus_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

molch, "Well, you finally clarified why you hold your position: you postulate that everybody’s world-view that is NOT Christian is “a priori”, and not based on evidence. Of course, this conclusion of yours is obviously “a priori”, since you conveniently omitted addressing my point I exemplified on re-incarnation and/or Hinduism:" Not at all. I claimed that my world-view is based on evidence. In that I did not claim anything regarding other world-views with the exception of atheism, for which I pointed out, has no evidential point of reference other than that there is no evidence for the existence of God. Such a claim is not evidential. It is an assertion and so is a priori. Other theistic world-views can be based on evidence as well; for example, Judaism, Islam; even Mormonism. I contend, however, that Christianity is more complete than those world-views. I would not be a Christian if I believed otherwise. Christianity makes absolute claims over beliefs which conflict with it. However, I believe there is enough evidence to solidly establish those claims, and I mentioned what that evidence is. I stated that my beliefs are based on a falsifiable foundation - namely, the resurrection. It is therefore on you to show that the resurrection did not occur in order to show that my beliefs are a priori. If the resurrection occurred, my beliefs are on a firm foundation.CannuckianYankee_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT}

PS: Pardon a reminder, but we still have yet to see a summary or a link on your -- apparently atheist-naturalist (thus entailing evolutionary materialism) -- worldview's core warrant that led you to "conclude" as you did. Such would be welcome.kairosfocus_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

Molch: I am not CY, but I can speak for him, as you have twisted his words into pretzels (which sounds all too regrettably familiar to the undersigned from your comments in recent days and how you used my words). He was responding to your evident position, and to its a priorism, as I cited from your earlier remarks. Which remarks sound uncomfortably like Lewontinian a priori imposed materialism. If the cap does not fit, could you kindly explain, and it would be interesting to see the way you handle the implications of your worldview positions such as those taken to reject the cluster of arguments pointing to God. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{November 1, 2010
November
11
Nov
1
01
2010
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply