What Really Matters

Thanks KF, much food for thought.,,, A couple of points I want to go back over. bornagain77

Sigh, Rosenberg. kairosfocus

Maybe I should clarify -- the Craig- Rosenhouse debate vid is now up here at UD as just linked. kairosfocus

BA, thanks, cf. here. KF kairosfocus

Youtube link: Is Faith in God Reasonable? FULL DEBATE with William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84 bornagain77

The Dr. Craig debate video is finally up: http://open.biola.edu/resources/is-faith-in-god-reasonable bornagain77

Box: Pardon, but I think that we must realise that there is a sharp difference between ordinary people who are Muslims and the radicalised under various IslamIST ideologies. (For instance, it is moderate Muslims from Algeria who developed the term Islamofascism, to describe what they faced and opposed.) Forgive me if I have not sufficiently made that clear above. (Cf the Declaration, here.) Islam as religion and civilisation is quite varied, but is prone to radicalisation by those who have lost a sense of proportion or common decency to the point where they imagine they do good by doing evil. "Let us do evil that good may come" makes no sense to the ordinary person, but the radicalised are a different matter, as, sadly, we saw at 9/11. This is not unfamiliar from various religious, cultural, intellectual or political traditions, including some fairly close to home. The issue is, that we must all first guard common decency and respect, then we must beware the corrupting influence of power and particularly power without transparency and accountability. My rule of thumb, on a survey of history, is that we must learn that we are finite, fallible morally struggling/fallen, and prone to be ill-willed. So, let us not be caught up in polarisation to the point of losing sight of the people on the other side. Even those who have done grave wrong are still in the same Image as we are, and should be treated as we would wish, were we in their shoes. That does not prevent the carrying out of justice and the defence of the civil peace, but it should temper how we act. Or we will become a mirror image of what we oppose -- as has happened in history more than once. As with a swinging pendulum, extremes provoke opposed extremes but the point of balance is the true opposite to all extremes. But, we also have a duty to learn from the 1930's, and open our eyes to rising threats, lest we find ourselves facing a terrible and horribly bloody challenge that could have been averted if resolute though unpopular measures had been taken only a few years earlier. KF kairosfocus

KF (171): But of course, I know any number of ordinary, decent people who are Muslim and do not act like this, they would be disappointed to see such behaviour.

It may be obvious but it has to be said. ‘Decent people who are muslim’ are decent people despite the murderous ideology called islam. Box

Box: basically, such declarations mean that he is here to deliver talking points, and does not expect to be challenged or questioned. Sad really. But inadvertently revealing -- a suggested name for the pivotal underlying problem is there, but I do not want to be incendiary; I simply say with Bob Marley, "who de cap fit, let 'im wear it . . ." Unfortunately, this sort of attitude is too often fairly common among the indoctrinated or radicalised in any number of ideologies. But of course, I know any number of ordinary, decent people who are Muslim and do not act like this, they would be disappointed to see such behaviour. I think this has to do with radicalisation and a power-push agenda. KF kairosfocus

JoeMorreale1187 (14): “Regarding the Muslim contribution to science and as a result the scientific revolution/Western civilisation I recommend : 1001 Inventions : Muslim Heritage in Our World”.

All taqiyyah. Read for instance this. Is there a name for the following aspect of JoeMorreale1187’s debating technique?

JM1187 (40): So as of now I will not respond to any comparative religious comments even if provoked.

JM1187 (47): I am not going to clear up anymore verses

JM1187 (50): I am not wasting anymore more time with you regarding this subject and I am going to try to resist the temptation to respond to your ignorance, distortions and provocations.

JM1187 (87)This is the very last comment of mine regarding the subject so I will be ignoring your replies .

JM1187 (81):Look I lied that i said it would be my last comment ! Big deal ah ?

JM1187 (88): I will not reply to anyone again regarding the subject.

JM1187 (122): I have decided that I won’t be answering and replying to your comments a anymore

JM1187 (159): I have realised its a waste of time commenting any further on this subject

Box

KN @167: Well said. ----- I would further point out:

. . . and how things are with the atoms determine how things are with the molecules, and so on — all the way up to cells, organisms, ecosystems, cultures, economies, political systems . . .

is not true, at least in the sense of atoms "just making up" molecules, molecules making up cells, cells making up organisms, etc. There is an informational aspect that is not limited to the physical and the material and which drives the entire process. That information can be discovered and studied by science and the scientific process, but there is nothing inherent in the matter or in scientific principle that would produce the information. Therefore, the information does not arise from any principle in science, only from (in Rosenberg's view no doubt) random, one-off, accidental particle collisions. There is little that is less scientific than such an assertion, which essentially amounts to "stuff happens." Eric Anderson

Mung, re denial of PSR: Yes, I see that. Incredible! And, he tried to use alpha decay to back it up! I think he confuses knowing SUFFICIENT causal conditions with knowing causal conditions. As I have repeatedly pointed out, necessary -- enabling/disabling or on/off switch -- factors are most definitely causal factors, as the fire tetrahedron shows: each and all of heat, fuel, chain reaction and oxidiser must be present for a fire to begin or be sustained. Knock out one and no fire or fire dies out. Just ask a fire fighter or experiment with a match. I submit that, once there are necessary causal factors in play, there are causes in play. In the case of a collection of U atoms, no atoms, no decay. In addition, if there had not been a certain balance of factors between electrostatic repulsion and strong force interactions, there would be no propensity to decay radioactively by alpha emission that moves towards stability by bringing about a balance of attraction and repulsion, in simple terms. After successive decays, we reach lead, and at that point stability sets in. So, in a given U atom we have a metastability and a radically contingent situation where from period to period each U atom has a certain likelihood of decay, a decay constant. The difference between the two atoms discussed is that one decays in the interval while the other has not yet decayed. So, we see where we can profitably discuss known causal factors and a resulting theory of decay chains, and where such end up. Yes, we do not have any reason to identify that U atom j will decay in the interval t1 - t2, and U atom k will not, but that just means we do not know the sufficient factors. We do know several necessary and contributory factors. So, I find talk of causeless events over the top. Then, to jump from this to onward assertions that therefore there is no problem with a whole universe popping into being is a blatant non sequitur. We may also use the necessary factors issue to understand necessary beings. That is, ask what happens if there are no on/off factors. The answer is that a serious candidate -- and spaghetti monsters or pink unicorns are obviously built up at least notionally of parts and are contingent, so not serious -- will either be impossible or will be in all possible worlds including the actual. The truth in 3 + 2 = 5 is a simple case in point. The PSR, in context is about this: if something is, we may ask and seek to answer why. If it begins or may cease it is contingent and caused. If not (and it is not impossible), it would be a necessary being. AR has not shown any reasonable falsification of PSR in a non-strawman form. KF kairosfocus

Actually, I should correct my (162) above. I think I actually hated Rosenberg's book more than what I've read of Craig. I think Craig is completely wrong, but his view is basically consistent, so far as I can tell. Rosenberg's view is internally incoherent, and here's why. On the one hand, Rosenberg claims that the sciences alone have any real epistemic significance. And on the other hand, he claims that the physical facts determine all the other facts: how things are with the fermions and bosons determine how things are with the atoms, and how things are with the atoms determine how things are with the molecules, and so on -- all the way up to cells, organisms, ecosystems, cultures, economies, political systems, and the metaphysical doctrines themselves. Now, here's the problem: the claim that the physical facts determine all the other facts is not itself a scientific claim. It is a metaphysical claim, an interpretation of the relevant sciences. But Rosenberg is also committed to the view that only the results of the sciences carry any epistemic significance. In other words, Rosenberg is committed to a criterion of epistemic significance according to which his very own metaphysical doctrine is nonsense. Here's an example: Rosenberg thinks that all meaningful questions are scientific questions. But he thinks that the question, "is biology reducible to physics?" has a perfectly good answer ("yes"). But that question is not itself a scientific question in any intelligible sense of "scientific" that I'm aware of. So he's committed to thinking that reductionism is both true and meaningless. Such is the fate of all attempts to combine Hume's empiricism and Spinoza's naturalism. Kantian Naturalist

JM: You are evidently a newbie, you do not know me, just as you patently did not know PJ and just as you do not seem to have any real acquaintance with the sorts of Missionaries I have known and known of, so I will issue one clear warning. I am a man who has risked career, reputation and more on matters of truth and right. Your false accusation of lying is out of order and is a personal attack. It is also clearly beyond the limits of civil discussion. Kindly, cease and desist; immediately. I would suggest that in future you distinguish disagreements, different viewpoints, even errors, and calculated deceit. (And, I put it to you, that it is quite clear above, that you have not fared well on the merits so have resorted to the "you irrationally hate and fear Muslims" talking point that has so often been used in recent years to try to smear and silence questioners and critics. FYI, I don't do intimidation, and I have excellent reason to see those who resort to false accusations as revealing an underlying incivility. You would also be well advised to understand the difference between an ideology and those who may be involved or caught up in it. If you look above, with an objective eye, you will see that I have specifically confined myself to commenting on ideology and rhetorical tactics. The above will further show why I continue to find the ideology and frequent tactics used by Dawah advocates seriously wanting, starting with not being able to soundly address basic and well established facts of history such as the death of Jesus of Nazareth by crucifixion, and the actual teachings of Jewish and Christian theology based on sound reading of the relevant scriptures. At no point have you given either the undersigned nor the astute and attentive onlooker any reason to revise the estimation that these are foundational and fatal errors in the system you wish to promote. The conspiracy theorism that emerged across the thread underscores the problem and points to serious defects in critical thinking and addressing the per-requisites of warrant.) If you have anything of real substance on merits of fact and logic, I would suggest you restrict yourself to such and bring forward a well-reasoned and cogent case; preferably on the main matter in this thread. However, if you have something substantial to say on the behalf of the cause you so obviously are pushing, that too should be brought forth now. Failing that, you are playing the role of a serial false accuser, empty repeater of already cogently answered and corrected talking points, purveyor of conspiracy theorism of a crankish variety, and indulger in general atmosphere poisoning. As, can be substantiated in detail from the thread above, for those who have not been following your track record over the past days. (Remember, you invited my intervention by making false accusations to dismiss another contributor to the thread.) Were I you, I would pause at this point, reflect carefully on what I have done and seek to make amends by making a positive contribution. A word to the wise . . . G'day GEM of TKI kairosfocus

Yes, I know, I read it. It's an extended version of his essay "The Disenchanted Naturalist's Guide to Reality". The comments on that essay are quite interesting. In both the essay and the book, Rosenberg proudly describes himself as "scientistic". I read it because I was fascinated to see a philosopher wear that term as a badge of honor. Rosenberg is severely critical of all attempts to reconcile moral realism with scientific realism. My philosophical 'heroes,' like Dewey and Sellars, are his philosophical opponents. But notice: this makes Rosenberg an interesting kind of object-lesson for theists, and Feser makes this connection explicit in his blog-posts about Rosenberg. This is one of those, "one person's modus tollens is another person's modus ponens" situations. Rosenberg and Feser agree that moral realism and scientific realism are incompatible -- the difference is that Rosenberg then goes on to reject moral realism, whereas Feser mitigates the impact of scientific realism, and saves moral realism, by re-interpreting both of them through Thomistic metaphysics. By contrast, someone who holds to the Dewey/Sellars tradition, like myself, opposes both Rosenberg and Feser because I think that moral realism (properly interpreted) and scientific realism (properly interpreted) are not only compatible, but that we can secure that compatibility without theism. "Moral realism and scientific realism without theistic realism" is as good a slogan for the view as any I've got. Kantian Naturalist

KN, Rosenberg said the title was forced on him by his publisher. His claim is that these are not entailments of atheism, but of science itself, that in order to reject these conclusions, we must reject science. Mung

JoeMorreale1187 Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that Muhammad misunderstood the doctrine of the Trinitarian God and, therefore, misrepresented it in the Koran. You report that you were once a Christian, but it seems evident that you are unfamiliar with one of its most basic teachings. StephenB

I read Rosenberg's The Atheist's Guide to Reality and hated it just as much as anything I've read by William Lane Craig. Kantian Naturalist

@JoeMorreale1187: To be fair, we shouldn't forget that the USA is the only country which tested the effects of their nuclear WMDs on civilians massacring 200.000 and injuring many more. It is the USA which shouldn't have any WMDs. JWTruthInLove

There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His Messenger JoeMorreale1187

KF: You are seriously deluded if you think that have corrected anything . You are just a jealous and lying spin doctor who belongs on CNN or the BBC. Anyway amongst my many comments there is more than enough truth for the objective and sincere persons on these threads to see where the truth is . You can thumbsuck in vain all you like about your convenient distortions of the Islamic concept of Taqiyya which a million websites have exposed and refuted . Alternatively you can simply go and ask your local Imam at the Mosque and get educated . I have realised its a waste of time commenting any further on this subject with jealous , malicious and wilfully ignorant individuals so I will conclude : There is no object worthy of worship and Muhammad saws is His last and Final Messenger , with the Quran he received being the LAST TESTAMENT . Good luck..... JoeMorreale1187

kf @140: Rosenberg was attacking the 'Principle of Sufficient Reason,' claiming that it is actually false. As a side note, does he even know what it takes to get to uranium from the initial "big bang"? Mung

Well, as long as geopolitical questions like 9/11 and Iran are on the table, Joe will not have to answer my theological question about Islam and abrogation. StephenB

BA77 @149: And they say Islam is not a danger. Mung

Dr. Craig, especially when he made the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and epistemological naturalism, and listed the 8 points crushing Rosenberg’s position, was simply devastating.

Yeah, I loved that segment. Mataphysical naturalism is absurd. Rosenberg's rebuttal? That doesn't mean atheism is absurd. Mung

F/N: Having corrected historical errors of a system, and having addressed issues of conspiracy theorism and failure to address basic warrant, I see that I am -- almost predictably -- being accused of irrational, hate-driven fears. Descent into ad hominems, which is of course where I first enetered the issue, when ad hominems were addressed to others, which have never been apologised for or retracted: falsely accusing PJ of fraud, accusing missionaries bearing witness to the gospel by doing good liars and spiritual bribers/seducers of the naive or the like, etc etc. JM, I think you need to do a lot of re-thinking about how you are operating. KF kairosfocus

Let's hope it will be embeddable. KF kairosfocus

At the site I listed as far as I know bornagain77

BA77: Will that be as a Youtube etc link? KF kairosfocus

“Is Faith in God Reasonable?” Brief Debate Review: Alex Rosenberg vs. William Lane Craig Posted by J.W. Wartick ? February 1, 2013 http://jwwartick.com/2013/02/01/rosenberg-craig/ Missed the #GODdebate last night? It will be online for on demand viewing by 2 pm EST at http://www.biola.edu/debate . "Is Faith in God Reasonable?" bornagain77

WOW 911 was the mother of all conspiracies. Pentagon was not bombed. Holocaust was self inflicted on the Jews by Jewish Zionist so they could get Israel. Iran is just a peaceful Nation that does not want to wipe Israel off the face of the map. Jesus did not really die on the cross,,, etc.. etc.. etc.. just WOW. bornagain77

JM: I think you have a lot to learn and deal with on your plate. BTW, Iraq had and used WMDs, and had a questionable nuke programme, start with the 10 years bought for the world by Israel at Osirak in 1981, which turned out to be vital c 1991; thereafter what we fundamentally had was material breach of armistice -- not peace, the legal state of war continued, as it continues in Korea to this day -- terms leading to renewal of active operations. On Iran and nukes, try here for just one recent sample, onlookers. As in, an embedded part of Islamic theology is Taqiyya, deception of outsiders as legitimate or even MANDATORY, with the Shia forms of Islam compounding that based on their own peculiar history; we have already seen enough of that from the talking points and sites put into play by JM. But then at this point, all of this is distractive, there is something substantial on the thread to be dealt with. KF kairosfocus

KF: You have also bought the propaganda about Iran's Nuclear program too?! Again look at history . Iran has not attacked and been the aggressor in any war in centuries and The U..S backed SADAAM'S Iraq against them. Ahmadinejad has been deliberately misquoted as having said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map when what he said instead that the Political Zionist State of Israel will not last much longer . Btw Israel has nuclear weapons although they refuse to make it official is not part of the Nuclear proliferation Treat while Israel is not . Furthermore even IF Iran had nuclear weapons intentions they have every right to have as they are surrounded by countries that do ! So Please throw your classic Western style propaganda which u are conveniently attached to in the bin. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are a jealous and malicious Islamaphobe. Whether you like it or not the religion of God Islam will be ruling the earth with Jesus as the ruler soon and it won't be happening at the hands of terrorists like the fearmongering propaganda would have it . JoeMorreale1187

KF: You have also bought the propaganda about Iran's Nuclear program too?! Again look at history . Iran has not attacked and been the aggressor in any war in centuries and The U..S backed SADAAM'S Iraq against them. Ahmadinejad has been deliberately misquoted as having said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map when what he said instead that the Political Zionist State of Israel will not last much longer . Btw Israel has nuclear weapons although they refuse to make it official is not part of the Nuclear proliferation Treat while Israel is not . Furthermore even IF Iran had nuclear weapons intentions they have every right to have as they are surrounded by countries that do ! So Please throw your classic Western style propaganda which u are conveniently attached to in the bin. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are a jealous and malicious Islamaphobe. Whether you like it or not the religion of God Islam will be ruling the earth with Jesus as the ruler soon and it won't be happening at the hands of terrorists like the fearmongering propaganda would have it . JoeMorreale1187

KF: You have also bought the propaganda about Iran's Nuclear program too?! Again look at history . Iran has not attacked and been the aggressor in any war in centuries and The U..S backed SADAAM'S Iraq against them. Ahmadinejad has been deliberately misquoted as having said that he wanted to wipe Israel off the map when what he said instead that the Political Zionist State of Israel will not last much longer . Btw Israel has nuclear weapons although they refuse to make it official is not part of the Nuclear proliferation Treat while Israel is not . Furthermore even IF Iran had nuclear weapons intentions they have every right to have as they are surrounded by countries that do ! So Please throw your classic Western style propaganda which u are conveniently attached to in the bin. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that you are a jealous and malicious Islamaphobe. Whether you like it or not the religion of God Islam will be ruling the earth with Jesus as the ruler soon and it won't be happening at the hands of terrorists like the fearmongering propaganda would have it . JoeMorreale1187

F/N, re JM: Onlookers, I invite you to review the link on the Gharqad tree hadith as already was given above, especially the video of the young child speaking it out with such fervour, then contrast JM's remarks and my own balancing 101 on the history of modern Israel in the wider context of the discussion on the children of Abraham that it is appended to. Also, look at the declaration made 10 years back, here and the 101 on Islam here. )Reference resources for details at book length were already given above.) Further, observe the raw video footage of CNN that day in 2001 -- not, editorial remarks, live footage they did not even realise they were capturing -- and the vid from that Fireman documentary. Understand from this the conspiracy thinking mindset that we are dealing with here, and please understand how widespread this sort of thinking is in the ME. Then, go back and look at the way the Quran text speaks of the very first minimal historical fact about Jesus of Nazareth, his crucifixion, and understand what we are up against here. Look at the discussion of the historical warrant for Jesus, here on. Then, understand what we are up against as Iran races to the nuke threshold and as Syria and Egypt spin out of control even as we have to look at our civilisation tearing itself apart over its foundations. KF kairosfocus

F/N: It seems there will be not only a Youtube end of month, but a forthcoming book. Looks like a PhD student who holds some sort of position at Purdue has done a good job setting this symposium up. Looks like that book is likely to go on the must-read list when it comes up. KF kairosfocus

JM: The name for that tactic, is the turnabout tactic, here multiplied by drumbeat repetition of a false narrative assertion of conspiracy. What you have to cogently address, but do not, is evidence on the merits. KF kairosfocus

@JoeMorreale1187: I'm no expert on the 9/11 attacks. Your site "answering-christianity" claimed that no plane-debries were found. Obviosly they are wrong. You might find the evidence unconvincing, but claiming there's no evidence is a mischaracterization of the facts. JWTruthInLove

PS: Q & A session is worth it also. Cf here. (Q 2 is on alleged causeless decay of U-atoms. He needs to know that unless you have the U-atoms, no decay is possible. And the comparison of two atoms that has one emit alpha the next none, without difference, fails to reckon with the property of the U atoms that makes them RA, i.e. there is a propensity to decay with a given probability per unit time in each, so the fact that one actually decays in that interval,has chased a red herring and strawman. AR proposes the universe popping into existence without a cause!) kairosfocus

I'm going out now and will deal with your replies later JoeMorreale1187

KF : its you that needs to be de programmed from your convenient attachment to the official conspiracy version of 9/11 and its subsequent illegitimate war on terror which has criminally seen the attack and invasions of two countries so far and the murder of many people for geo/political reasons and profits. Wake up, neither Islam or a few misguided criminal Muslims roaming about are your enemy . The enemy is on your doorstep my friend. You should abandon CNN, Fox News , Sky news and the BBC for your info and try out Press TV and Alex Jones JoeMorreale1187

JwTruth : Those image are convincing to You ?? Are u serious ? Where are the over 80 cameras immediately confiscated at the scenes gone? Please don't insult my intelligence . JoeMorreale1187

Folks I think the rebuttals exchange as summarised from WK is also useful: ___________ WLC: >> Dr. Rosenberg sketched the deductive argument from evil. Dr. Rosenberg presupposes naturalism. Naturalism is a false theory of knowledge: 1. It’s too restrictive: There are truths that cannot be proved by natural science. 2. It’s self-refuting: no scientific proof for naturalism exists. That’s why epistemological naturalism is considered false by most philosophers of science. But more importantly than that: Epistemological naturalism does not imply metaphysical naturalism. (E.g. – W. Quine) Dr. Rosenberg has to present arguments in favor of (metaphysical) naturalism, not just assume that (metaphysical) naturalism is true. Dr. Craig presented eight arguments against metaphysical naturalism taken from Rosenberg’s own book: 1. The argument from the intentionality (aboutness) of mental states implies non-physical minds (dualism), which is incompatible with naturalism 2. The existence of meaning in language is incompatible with naturalism, Rosenberg even says that all the sentences in his own book are meaningless 3. The existence of truth is incompatible with naturalism 4. The argument from moral praise and blame is incompatible with naturalism 5. Libertarian freedom (free will) is incompatible with naturalism 6. Purpose is incompatible with naturalism 7. The enduring concept of self is incompatible with naturalism 8. The experience of first-person subjectivity (“I”) is incompatible with naturalism Metaphysical naturalism is false: it is irrational and it contradicts our experience of ourselves. And epistemological naturalism is compatible with theism. Rebutting Dr. Rosenberg’s responses: 1. Contingency: no response 2. Cosmological: he mis-states the first premise to say every effect… when it is whatever begins to exist…, the origin of the universe was not from a vacuum, virtual particles come from a vacuum not nothing, there are interpretations of QM that are compatible with determinism. Rosenberg has to believe that the entire universe popped into being from non-being. 3. Mathematics: no response 4. Fine-tuning: the multiverse is refuted by empirical observations of the universe. Without fine-tuning, it’s not that we still have silicon to make life out of. It’s that we lose basic minimal things like chemical diversity, matter, stars, planets, etc. No life of any kind, not just no carbon-based life. 5. Intentionality: no response. 6. Moral argument: the answer to the dilemma is that you split the dilemma: God is the standard of good, and the commands flow from his unchanging moral nature. The commands are not arbitrary, and the standard is not external to God. Dr. Rosenberg is a nihilist and he cannot ground good and evil on his nihilistic view. 7. Resurrection: The Gospels are early eyewitness testimony. Mormonism and Islam have nothing to do with the minimal set of historical facts about Jesus agreed to by the majority of ancient historians across the ideological spectrum, general statements against eyewitnesses do not refute the specific eyewitness testimony in this case. 8. Religious experience: No response. >> AR: >> I wrote a book and you should buy it, because it got me invited to this debate. Let me repeat the title a few times for you. Please buy it. Dr. Craig is right, there are multiple interpretations of QM, not just the one I presented, including deterministic ones. All the disturbing implications of naturalism that Dr. Craig stated follow from metaphysical naturalism, and metaphysical naturalism is true. (Note: he equates science with metaphysical naturalism) Science proves that metaphysical naturalism is true, but I won’t say what specific scientific tests prove my philosophical assumption of metaphysical naturalism. I’ll pretend that the Big Bang (science) doesn’t disprove naturalism, like Dr. Craig said. Again. (covers ears) La la la, there is no Big Bang. We didn’t come here to debate epistemological naturalism and metaphysical naturalism. Let me explain the problem of intentionality since I’m so smart and no one knows what it means. There are many answers to this problem of intentionality. My answer is that most scientists are naturalists, therefore naturalism is true, regardless of the argument from intentionality of mental states. That’s how I would respond to one of the eight problems with naturalism that Dr. Craig raised. I won’t answer the other seven problems. It is an argument from ignorance to argue that the applicability of mathematics to the universe requires a designer, because there are non-Euclidean geometries. Craig’s argument, which he gets from people like respected physicists like Eugene Wigner, is bizarre. It is bizarre, therefore I refute Eugene Wigner and all the other scholars who make that argument. It is bizarre! Bizarre! Deductive problem of evil: there is no response to this argument, certainly not Alvin Plantinga’s free will defense. The deductive argument from evil has not been entirely abandoned at all! It’s not like arch-atheist J.L. Mackie himself admits that the deductive problem of evil doesn’t lead to a logical inconsistency between evil and God. Dr. Craig has to tell me why God allows evil or God doesn’t exist. It is offensive that Dr. Craig cannot tell me why God allows every evil and suffering that occurs. He literally said this: “I will become a Christian if Dr. Craig can tell me why God allowed EVERY EVIL THAT OCCURRED IN THE LAST 3.5 BILLION YEARS” >> WLC: >> We are not in a position to know why God allows specific instances of evil and suffering. God cannot force people to freely do anything – freedom is not compatible with determinism. Freedom is a good, but freedom opens up the possibility of moral evil. You cannot have the good of free will without allowing people to choose to do morally evil things. God can permit evil and suffering in order to bring more people into a relationship with him. The atheist has to show that God could allow less evil and achieve more knowledge of God in order to say there is too much evil. The purpose of life is not happiness, but knowledge of God. Dr. Craig quotes agnostic Paul Draper (Purdue) and Peter Van Inwagen (Notre Dame) to state that the deductive problem of evil is dead because of free will and morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil. 1. Contingency: no response. 2. Cosmological: QM does not apply, because the universe came from nothing, not a vacuum, and QM only works in a vacuum. 3. Mathematics: He mentions alternatives like non-Euclidean geometry, but we have to explain the structure of THIS universe. 4. Fine-tuning: ??? 5. Intentional states: intentional mental states proves that minds exist, which fits with theism better than it fits with atheism. 6. Moral argument: You need God to ground morality, and Dr. Rosenberg believes in morality. He needs God to ground objective moral values and duties. 7. Historical argument: He has to respond to the minimal facts supported by the consensus of ancient historians across the ideological spectrum. 8. The problems of naturalism: He says that you can’t have science without naturalism, but you can have science with EPISTEMOLOGICAL NATURALISM, and theists accept science and methodological naturalism. We don’t accept METAPHYSICAL NATURALISM because of the eight problems Craig presented, like intentionality, first-person, persistence of self, etc. You can believe in both science and theism, by embracing epistemological naturalism, while rejecting metaphysical naturalism. >> AR: >> Dr. Craig hasn’t answered many of my points, I won’t say which ones though. Debates don’t work as a way of deciding what’s true, so we should overturn the entire criminal justice system. The principle of sufficient reason is false because it is disconfirmed by quantum mechanics. [--> You are joking! Cf. here.] And quantum mechanics (vacuum and virtual particles that exist for a short time) is similar to the origin of the universe (nothing and entire universe and 14 billion years). We know that alpha particles come into being without cause all the time from a quantum vacuum for a tiny sub-second duration before going out of existence, so we can say that the entire physical universe came into being for 14 billion years from absolute nothing which is not a quantum vacuum. Peter Van Inwagen is the best metaphysician working today, and he says that my deductive argument from evil is not decisive, it’s not a successful argument. (Why is he undermining his own problem of evil argument????!) Dr. Craig invoked Plantinga’s free will defense to the deductive POE. Freedom allows us to do evil. God could have given us free will without evil and suffering. I won’t show how, but I’ll just assert it, because debates are such a bad forum for supplying evidence for my speculative assertions. If you answer the question 3 + 5 as being 8, then you don’t have free will – you are biologically determined if you answer 8, because everyone answers 8, and that means everyone is biologically determined with no free will. Why can’t God give us free will and then prevent us from making a free choice? No scholars date the gospels earlier than 60-70 AD, [--> WK comment, methinks:] especially not atheists like James Crossley who dates Mark to 40 AD. Therefore Jesus’ burial isn’t historical, [--> WK comment, methinks:] like the majority of scholars across the broad spectrum of scholarship agree it is. The original New Testament documents were written in Aramaic. [--> You gotta be kidding!] All New Testament scholars are orthodox Christians, [--> I think this is a snarky comment by WK:] like atheist Robert Funk for example. >> _____________ Remember, these are both PhD level philosophers. On balance, I am unsurprised on the votes. KF kairosfocus

KF : open up your eyes mate , 9/11 was a clearcut inside job and I don't care what Wiki says . Let those government agents at WIKI debate the likes of Webster Tarpley , Richard Gage and David Ray Griffin to name a few of the 9/11 Truth move,ent on MAINSTREAM TV . JoeMorreale1187

The Gharqad tree Hadith is referring to those Jews of a Zionist bent that have caused evil and mischief in the land which they undoubtedly have and still do or even it is true of Jews and Christians who have sided with the AntiChrist against Jesus pbuh and the Muslims. Look at overall history you muppet and see the difference between Muslim treatment of Jews and Christians! Islamic Spain being the biggest and longest example . The Jews were being persecuted by the goths in Spain and called for Muslim help which arrived . When Islamic Spain fell where did Jews go running to when they were being persecuted left and right in Europe ? Once again to Muslim Ottoman Turkey. But sadly a number of Jews are prone to treachoury all through History with the example against the Palestinian Muslim ( and Christian) Arabs the most recent example . JoeMorreale1187

JM: Did you see how carefully I have spoken regarding the place of Wikipedia? I have explicitly said one has to at least be able to answer to it on controversial matters; part of why I again took it up correctively on ID recently. Your sources do not come up to that level, I am afraid. Remember, that also implies addressing the source materials being alluded to, cited and linked. Which, here includes UBL's own admission at length. KF kairosfocus

JM: Given the ghastly Gharqad tree hadith, one cannot sever anti-Zionism from anti-semitism with a few clever words. Please, rethink what you believe is the history of modern Israel. I suggest here on in context as a start, with a collection of answers to common myths and talking points here. KF kairosfocus

The same Wiki that deliberately misrepresents and distorts what ID is about ? You clearcut hypocrite . You are also a liar too by trying to associate the myth of the Mufti with the Holocaust . What is definitely not a myth though is the hidden from public but well document fact that Zionist Jews collaborated with the Nazi's in the holocaust to achieve their dream of Palestine . They killed their own which is what evil people do just like the intelligent agencies of CIA,MI5 and Mossad (unholy trinity!) the real originators and maintainers of the 'war on terror' who are the real terrorists . JoeMorreale1187

That's not true:

...and the Pentagon hit by Boeng is false

There is good evidence that the pentagon was hit by a big plane that left debries and marks. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8 JWTruthInLove

Folks: Pardon someone who has had to help with deprogramming. Let's turn back to main focus. I am thinking WK's summary of opening arguments is a good place to look, to get a flavour for the general state of debates on naturalism and its influence on the "scientific" mindset that so shapes our age and so influences the way people think about spirituality, science, the mind and more: _____________ WLC: >> The topic: What are the arguments that make belief in God reasonable or unreasonable? First speech: arguments for reasonableness of belief in God Second speech: respond to arguments against reasonableness of belief in God Eight arguments: Contingency argument: God – a transcendent, personal being – is the explanation of why a contingent universe exists. Cosmological argument: God is the cause of the beginning of the universe, which is attested by physics and cosmology. Applicability of mathematics to nature: God is the best explanation for the applicability of mathematics to nature. Fine-tuning argument: God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe to permit life. Intentionality of conscious states: God is the best explanation of the intentionality of our mental states. The moral argument: God is the best explanation for the existence of objective moral values and duties. The resurrection of Jesus: God is the best explanation for the core of historical facts accepted by most ancient historians across the ideological spectrum. Religious experience: God is the best explanation of our immediate experience and knowledge of his existence.>> AR: >> First argument: The fallacy of ad hominem I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry Dr. Craig has said all of that before in other debates You didn’t need to come out on this cold night Craig’s arguments have all been refuted Dr. Craig just doesn’t listen Dr. Craig is not interested in getting at the truth Dr. Craig is just interested in scoring debate points The adversarial system is the wrong approach to decide truth Dr. Craig is very confident about his take of physics Second argument: The fallacy of arguing from authority 95% of members of the NAS are atheists Therefore Dr. Craig cannot use science Third argument: Effects don’t require causes I am going to pretend that Craig said that “every effect requires a cause” Quantum mechanics shows that some effects occur without causes A particle of uranium (which is not nothing, it is something) decays without a cause This uncaused effect is the same as the universe coming into being out of nothing uncaused Therefore the principle of sufficient reason is false Fourth argument: Silicon-based life and the multiverse If these constants had been different, maybe we would have other kinds of intelligent life, like silicon-based life Carbon-based life is not the only kind of life, maybe you can have other kinds of life, none of which have been observed There could be different kinds of life in other areas of the universe that we can’t see There are things we can’t see that disprove the current physics that we can see Quantum foam is evidence that a multiverse exists The multiverse would solve the problem of fine-tuning Fifth argument: The Euthyphro dilemma The moral argument is refuted by Euthyphro dilemma Dr. Craig is such a moron that he has never heard of the Euthyphro dilemma ever before This is found in the first and simplest of Plato’s dialogs Why is Dr. Craig so stupid that he has not read this simple dialog ever before? Evolution explains why humans evolve arbitrary customs and conventions that vary by time and place Alternative moral theories: utilitarianism, social contract, etc. that don’t require God Sixth argument: Mormonism undermines Dr. Craig’s three minimal facts about Jesus Why is Dr. Craig so stupid and ignorant to persist in pushing such an ignorant, stupid argument? Mormonism is a silly religion that is not historically well founded Therefore, Jesus was not buried Islam is a silly religion that is not historically grounded Therefore, the tomb was not found empty Scientology is a silly religion that is not historically grounded Therefore, the eyewitnesses didn’t have post-mortem appearances Eyewitness testimony is unreliable in some cases Therefore, eyewitness testimony was unreliable in this case Apparitions of Mary are bizarre Therefore, the majority of historians are wrong to think that the disciples saw post-mortem appearances Seventh argument: Deductive problem of evil Evil and suffering are logically incompatible with an all good, all powerful God Eight argument: God is not just to allow evil and suffering God cannot make the evils of this life right in the afterlife >> _____________ Notice Craig's emphasis on inference to best explanation. What are our thoughts? KF kairosfocus

William : Although it has been exploited ever since on a pychological level over the Palestine issue to Israel 's advantage because for example many people today are reluctant to criticise the illegitimate and criminal and terrorist secular State of Israel for being labeled anti-Semitic YES I believe the Holocaust happened. I want to make it clear that my problem is with the expansionist and ugly racist Political ideology of Zionism and not biblical Judaism and Jews. Illan Pappe 'The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine' and the works of Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky works like for eg the book on GAZA which he co-authored with Pappe provide ample and irrefutable proof of the truth regarding Palesrine. Btw by asking me the question of the Holocaust you are not trying to straw man me moonlanding's style are you? There is overwhelming and conclusive evidence 9/11 was an INSIDE JOB certainly the part that Twin Towers were controlled demolished and the Pentagon hit by Boeng is false and this is should start a new INDEPENDENT investigation which would then in turn look into the role of the hijackers / passengers if any on the plane seeing that part of the official story is in serious doubt too due to faked phone calls and no camera evidence of any hijackers boarding the planes and controversy surrounding the flight manifests. JoeMorreale1187

JM: A bit of advice. On, frankly, de-programming. At this point, you are coming across as failing to address matters on merits of evident fact and cogent reasoning, but instead falling into the trap set by the commonly encountered teaching that denigrates what non-Muslims say when they disagree with Muslims. Yes, I know, strictly it is only in courts where once a Muslim says differently, the word of a dhimmi or kaffir etc is discounted [the inference from Surah 9:29 ff being extended through the pact of Umar and the force of the Sharia etc and popular culture to discount their character], but that soon becomes a deep-set cultural prejudice. The Serbs etc know about that, the Oriental Jews too, and the Copts. Women know their testimony is worth only half that of a man, again reflecting a deep-set misogyny in foundational teachings and examples. And nowadays, thanks to Bat Ye'or -- yes, Daughter of the Nile [a pseudonym] -- we can read up all we need to on our intended fate, on dhimmitude. What I would advise you, is to actually look at the linked videos and see for yourself, someone filming firemen to make a story on that, when a plane roars overhead then hits the tower, and they race for the building on their own accord. Next, look at the live CNN footage as they are talking and as the second plane flies into the next tower; which they take some time to recognise. Then, learn a bit about what a plane made of Al, with full fuel tanks with jet fuel -- a fancy version of kerosine -- can do to a fire, in light of how the burning kero from an Exocet missile and Al superstructure that went alight, did to HMS Sheffield in the Falklands. All it takes to trigger the sort of pancake collapse we see, is softening the structural steel enough to get a collapse of the superincumbent 20 floors, then, piledriver wham, wham. Beyond this, note how Bin Laden ultimately admitted responsibility. The notion of UBL etc as Mossad agents triggering a desired US invasion of the ME fails the giggle test. The reference site you give cannot pass the Wikipedia test. (Given Wiki's domination, any serious argument on a controversial topic has to be better than that; and has to be informed in light of what Wiki has to say.) No wonder you are being further asked if you have been deluded into Holocaust denial. (And BTW, the Mufti was up to his eyeballs in the Holocaust. Have you done what I have, personally looked into the report on the trials of the major war criminals? hey, it is now online in PDF, cf. here.) Then, take time to ask yourself why it is (start with: criterion of embarrassment, and read 1 Cor 1:17 - 31, and multiply by multiple sources of competing viewpoints) the weight of scholarship across the spectrum accepts as a first minimal fact, the death of Jesus by crucifixion, and contrast this with the Quran-led concept of their imagining they were crucifying Jesus, but only succeeding in crucifying a substitute, Judas or whoever -- do you know, this is at root a C2 - 4 Gnostic myth? That such a myth is worked into the Quran, is fatal. Think through the implications of such a gross factual error. Then, blend in the sort of equally gross distortions of Jewish and Christian theology already documented. Then ask if the simplest explanation was that M simply thought and spoke that way, not knowing better. Then, ask yourself where this, and more [as already linked at book length], points. KF kairosfocus

KN said:

Look, y’all can go around and around this stuff all day and all night if that’s what you’re into, but Muslims and Christians and Jews have been debating and debating and debating for thousands of years, so don’t get your hopes up about changing anyone’s mind about anything.

Because in those thousands of years, nobody has had their mind changed through such debates? William J Murray

@JoeMorreale1187 bornagain77 already asked you this one and I repeat his question: Do you think the holocaust was real? JWTruthInLove

Dr. Craig, especially when he made the distinction between metaphysical naturalism and epistemological naturalism, and listed the 8 points crushing Rosenberg's position, was simply devastating. I will have to watch it again to catch the nuances, but it was clear Rosenberg got his intellectual clock cleaned by Dr. Craig in that portion of the debate! bornagain77

William Lane Craig debate with Alex Rosenberg is now over, and the voting results are in. Dr. Craig won the debate among all three voting groups. The official judges voted 4-2 in favor of Dr. Craig The Purdue audience voted Dr. Craig over Dr. Rosenberg by a count of 1390 to 303. Among the online viewers Dr. Craig received 734 votes & Dr. Rosenberg received 59 total votes. bornagain77

The fact that you believe that 9/11 was not an inside job and the fact that we ate supposed to give importance to the scientific method on these threads and yet deliberately ignore the scientific evidence out of pychological conveniences smacks of outright dishonesty to me. As a result it is clear that its your credibility KF 'pancake' and not mine that has been exposed and destroyed . I have decided that I won't be answering and replying to your comments a anymore because I realise that you are one of those malicious and jealous Christians of Islam and you disgust me. JoeMorreale1187

KF: Mossad was indeed involved in 9/11 as the evidence shows . Furthermore the evidence for 9/11 being an inside job is so overwhelming and the fact you and many others ignore it and won't accept it due to cognitive dissonance is very sad. The while false rhetoric of Islamic fanatics and the manufactured ' War on Terror' is one that you want to remain conveniently attached to. Quite frankly to me anyone that has researched the subject and has eyes to see and ears to hear with and trusts in the scientific method and yet refuses to accept the truth is wilfully ignorant and blind . 9/11 and 7/7 to name but a few are clearcut inside jobs so come to terms with it and get over it! I suppose I shouldn't be surprised because I am communicating at the end of the day hear with people who blindly believe that Jesus is God who died on the cross to save our sins even though the Bible is manifestly corrupt and despite this contradicted by countering evidence to church established doctrines. This is the mindset of the wishful thinking and you KF and Bornagain77 have made it clear that you are entrenched in such a mindset. I admit its a defect of my character of having little patience and tolerance for people who stick to their beliefs out of ignorance , convenience and maliciousness but and although this may come across as harsh I am disgusted with such wilful ignorance and dishonesty. JoeMorreale1187

PS: Correctives to AC by AI, here. For those who need specifics. kairosfocus

JM: You are still ducking and dismissing. Let's roll the summary again, from 108:

it should be clear by now that all you are able to do is put forth long since corrected misrepresentations. It is clear to any knowledgeable person, that to deny the first, ever so plainly grounded fact about Jesus, his death by crucifixion under Pilate et al, and to write that in claimed scriptures, is fatal. The garbled accounts of what Jews and Christians believe theologically, multiply the failure. In the case of those Muslims latching on to the “Paulianity” myth by way of attempted justification, the account in Ac, by Luke, who is a proved, habitually accurate historian, suffices to shatter the talking points. Just so you can see what I would not otherwise have had occasion to put on record. And I have given links to sources that will provide far more details. But, that is not my main purpose in this thread, you provoked me by accusing PJ of being a fraud, and by proceeding to smear missionaries broadscale as liars. I hope that one day you will wake up and realise what you have been led to do.

As for Answering Christianity, I could not but notice that here they assert: Indisputable Proofs that 9/11 was 100% an Israeli Mossad Operation! A site that -- as part of "Answering Christianity" -- adverts to such conspiracist rubbish in the teeth of the evidence we all have been able to see [this shows the only vid footage of the first plane heading into and exploding in the WTC tower and the very first fire responders going into action; also cf the raw CNN video from the day here, noting the live on-screen impact of the 2nd plane . . . where a plane impact and jet fuel-Al etc fire are sufficient to explain softening of steel in trusses etc then a collapse of one story [think of 20 stories of 1-acre footprint building falling 10 ft, which would be enough to trigger pancake collapse of the buildings as can be seen, onward leading to debris hitting ground at some 120 mph], and which is unable to face patent, well documented facts -- cf here -- on whodunit, where we actually have an open admission by Mr Bin Laden et al to that effect [cf. here, has no credibility. Period. Sorry, JM, but your credibility is all used up, and your sources cannot pass a basic face the facts test. Time to continue the focus on the main subject, and I think the Craig-Rosenberg debate may be a good pivot for that. KF kairosfocus

Yeah, I think Rosenberg really got off on the wrong foot. Lot's of scientists don't believe in God. Therefore, Craig's arguments based upon science are not valid. srsly? Mung

EA: Thanks, what are your onward thoughts? KF kairosfocus

UD: Thanks for the clip. I am especially taken with:

The key issue, namely that origins from scratch cannot be explained in the same way, is not dealt with at all.

Body plan origin has always been the key gap in the Origin's narrative and its successors to today, starting with the very first body plan, the one at the root of the tree of life. Sir Fred, as usual, puts his finger on the trouble-spot. KF kairosfocus

F/N: very appropriate to this thread (as in JL, are you listening or did you only mean to snipe and scoot), the Craig-Rosenberg debate on does God exist. Short summary here, audio here. HT BA77 & Mung. BTW, I am utterly appalled and saddened to see Rosenberg committing the fallacy of appealing to Q-mech as allegedly proving that effects happen without causes, cf the UD weak argument correctives here on. KF kairosfocus

KF @110: Well said. Eric Anderson

KF @ 97 Here's more of Hoyle cutting right to the point in the book Evolution from Space

In 1835 and 1837 Edward Blyth published two papers in which he considered the effects of natural selection. He argued that once species were adapted to their environment, natural selection would prevent them becoming disadapted. He argued closely along the lines of the quotation from Darwin given in chapter 4: 'On the average every species must have some number killed every year by hawk....' Blyth saw this argument clearly, long before Darwin wrote it in his notebook, but he felt that it could only improve the adaptation of an already adapted plant or animal. Getting the adaptation there in the first place remained a problem, and for this Blyth found it necessary to take a position not much different from Paley's. The problem of getting the 2000 necessary enzymes there in the first place remains to this day.... What Darwin, and also Alfred Russel Wallace, did nearly a quarter of a century after Blyth was to assert that natural selection would indeed get the adaptation there in the first place, a position which Blyth had considered and rejected. The assertion was without proof, although the scientific world has been persuaded into thinking exhaustive proofs were given in The Origin of Species (1859). What we are actually given in Darwin's book are very many changes of adaptation by already adapted species, of which there has never been any cause for argument since Blyth's papers in 1835 and 1837. The key issue, namely that origins from scratch cannot be explained in the same way, is not dealt with at all. The speculations of The Origin of Species turned out to be wrong, as we have seen in this chapter. It is ironic that the scientific facts throw Darwin out, but leave William Paley, a figure of fun to the scientific world for more than a century, still in the tournament with a chance of being the ultimate winner.

udat

Mung: You seem to misunderstand the way miracles work concerning the Prophets of God. They happen when they do not due to some independent and innate ability of the individual concerned but due to God's permission . It is God who accompanies the miracle for the Prophet as Signs to mankind and that is why Jesus in several places in the Bible said that the miracles he was doing were not his own but God's and only by God's permission . The same applies to Muhammad saws . AnsweringChristianity takes care of anything that comes out of your answeringislam website . Have a good weekend oh ! JoeMorreale1187

JL: Pardon, but with all due respect, it is clear that you are not paying close attention. If you are genuinely interested in the warranting grounds of the Christian faith, those will not be found above, all that has been done is to correct misrepresentations of basic historical fact and theology, compounded by improper accusations of fraud and lying; as I just had to summarise on at 108. If you do want to see what a grounds up worldview case for the Christian faith would look like, start here on. In the meanwhile, for the third time today, I have just refocussed the thread on the main subject from the original post; which I think is where a really profitable discussion can be had. KF kairosfocus

Folks: Again, the really focal issue, from 76 above: __________ >> I thought I should take up the focus at the head of this thread for a moment. As I do so, let me observe how CH definitely split his topic, raising and headlining the issue of scientific warrant and proper degree of certainty here, and then bridging elsewhere to a discussion that the priority spiritually is on sorting out ourselves. He is right to note that one can be a serious Christian and hold to common descent, up to and including universal common descent. For that matter, I understand that of the two generally acknowledged leading scientists in the design theory school of thought, one — Behe — believes in universal common descent, and the other — Dembski — has publicly stated here at UD that his view is a form of Old Earth Creationism, though he has not given any detailed particulars. And I suspect these two views take in a good slice of the adherents to design thought, through Young Earth Creationists, once they pull back from the debates over interpreting Gen 1 – 11, are also capable of looking through what we could call the Rom 1:19 – 20 lens. As to Genomicus’ question, I doubt that you will find a reliable survey on the subject but you can take the fact that the leading two scientific advocates for design theory split as above, as an indicator. I think the general breakdown is that in the US, some 15% of pop is now deeply secularised, and of the remaining 85% a bit less than half are YEC, and a bit over half are believers in an origin guided by God across a timeline as suggested by the various investigations. The former, I think take their pivot on Job 38, which warns us that we ought not to darken God’s counsel with words without knowledge, as we were not there when he laid the foundations of the world. Thus, they take their understanding of Gen 1 – 11 etc as a correct reading of the record by Him who was there, and hold that this should inform our science, even as respect for credible record is a part and parcel of general scientific investigations — as close as your friendly local lab or fieldwork notebook and what derives therefrom. Where also, of course, of the maybe 45% who take an old earth view, there would be some disagreement on the ways that the world without and our minds and consciences within point to the one who designed and made the world and us in it, but that split is I suspect not yet the subject of a serious and valid survey; at least, that I am aware of. I would guess that in Europe and elsewhere, the views of Christians, whether scientists or not, would tend to more of the same side, with YEC a distinct minority, save in zones where there is strong influence from the US. Sorry that I cannot give more exact numbers, but that is about what I can see. (Maybe someone out there has better knowledge of surveys. Though we should not put such on a pedestal, as though they answer to all things. Sometimes what we need is to understand a bit on why people think as they do.) Now, too, this pattern reflects the fundamental point that the Judaeo-Christian worldview and theology are capable of understanding God as working through secondary causes of his design, in the wider context that the fundamental view is much as cited earlier from Heb 1 above. Where, this C1 work from the Pauline School (I tend to agree with Nash in The Gospel and the Greeks that the patterns best fit Apollos as author) is at once the most militantly Hebraic NT document, and also the one that most directly engages the sorts of Judaic-Greek philosophical speculations that seemed to have run rife in Alexandria and spread from there. Let us cite again, vv 1 – 4, with a different emphasis:

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He [= the Eternal Son, not a child of the sort spoken of in the silly pagan legends of the gods and pretty girls] is the radiance of the glory of God [--> "Light of Light" in the NC] and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins [--> a cleansing, i.e. the atonement], he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. [ESV, note the Johannine echo from Jn 1:1 – 12]

Col 1:15 – 20 is very similar. Let me set it in context, for the benefit of those who that will help to understand where Christian Theology and the creeds that summarise it, are coming from:

Col 1:9 . . . from the day we heard [of the church in Colossae], we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks[d] to the Father, who has qualified you[e] to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. The Pre-eminence of Christ 15 He [= Christ --> the prophesied messiah, anointed of God in the OT] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [--> Notice how the theology of redemption is so closely connected tot both the launch and purpose of the church, and the underlying eternal Sonship and status as active agent of creation and holding together the cosmos. This dovetails with the Johannine view in Jn 1:1 - 12, in which the same is described as the LOGOS, reason and communication himself, without whom was not anything made that was made. This is a part of the context in which Christians expected a world ordered by intelligible Divine law, which is reflected in our Law of nature terminology. That in turn is a big part of the story of the rise of modern science as a self-sustaining project rooted in the practical outworking of that expectation. As in, thinking God's creative and self-sustaining thoughts after him, in the terms used by Boyle.] 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind [--> Notice the allusion to worldviews hostile to the above picture, and the onward tie-in to responding to the gospel that pivots on the theology of the passion, death on the cross -- and yes, the NT explicitly states that he became a curse that we in exchange may take his blessing, and was raised up by God in vindication of his Sonship, raised up as Lord and eternal Judge before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord to the glory of the Father, a daring echo of Isa 45:18 - 23 and Dan 7:9 - 14 . . . ], doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation[g] under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. [ESV]

Remember, the pivotal warrant for this, is the prophesied death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, with 500 witnesses, unstoppable witnesses. From Ac 17, we may see that this is the offer of warrant that is put on the table by the Christian faith, announced as God’s demonstration to all men, now manifest in resurrection power at work in the hearts of those who respond to the gospel. That is important to observe, as in a day when there is ever so much debate over origins, that is apt to be forgotten. I think that in part that is what CH sought to echo in his plea to put all of this in perspective. Now, let us zoom in on the “certainty” issue and the often encountered notion that the macroevolutionary, blind watchmaker thesis universal common descent by purposeless, unintelligent chance and mechanical necessity working through sheer raw differential reproductive success of varieties in ecological niches, is a “fact” on the level of the law of gravity or the roundness of the earth, etc. Some time back, I scooped a Wiki clip on that subject:

. . . When scientists say “evolution is a fact” they are using one of two meanings of the word “fact”. One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then “evolution” is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. Another way “fact” is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. [["Evolution as theory and fact," coloured emphasis added. Acc: Aug. 7, 2010.]

Pardon, but with all due respect, this is rubbish, no true scotsman [scientist] rubbish. Rubbish that ignores and implicitly disqualifies those who disagree with the alleged universal consensus from the ranks of “true scientists,” and which then goes on to make a gross category error. For, patently, the evolutionary, universal common descent explanatory model of the deep past of origins is a proffered explanation, not a directly observed fact. Job 38 is right in its key observation that we were not there in the past of origins, and so we do not know beyond possibility of correction. Where, even in cases of sciences that observe and infer explanatory models in the present, we have faced repeated scientific revolutions that have overturned the hitherto consensus view. Explanatory scientific knowledge claims are only capable of the weak form, inherently provisional degree of warrant, that so far this is the best explanation and it is per empirical resting, reliable. When it comes tot he blind watchmaker thesis evolutionary models, on objective facts, the degree of warrant that is possible is weaker still. When we deal with remote reaches of space and time, where we have no generally accepted record and where we can make no direct observation, we are forced to rely on a comparison of traces from the remote reaches with the more immediately observed causal processes we can see here and now, and their consequences and more or less characteristic signs. That is what Newton spoke of when he laid out his four rules of reasoning. So, we are in effect saying that we observe traces — light from the sun and stars, rock minerals with radioactive elements a, b, c, a fossilised bone, a dinosaur bone that has not fossilised and has in it soft tissue and blood vessels with blood cells, etc. — of the remote past of origins. On this, we have over time constructed a model timeline with various explanatory models, each with its own particular degree of warrant and of limitations. In that context, I would suggest that the sort of stellar lifetime model based on the Hertzprung- Russell plot of inferred absolute magnitude vs spectral patterns/ temperature gives us a “gold standard” for such models. We have known physics, we have a relationship of mass of a H-ball and the implied or at least plausible stellar life cycle, we have H-R plots of clusters that show branching off to the post-main sequence giants stage which is linked in the models to the lifespan so far, etc etc. This is multiplied by the overall cosmological model that has come to be known as the Big bang theory, rooted in turn in evidence of a cosmological expansion rooted in a stretching out of the very thinness of space itself, giving an estimate for the age of the cosmos timeline to date, of some 13.7 BY. Indeed, so impressive is the overall framework that in recent years, Vardimann and Russell Humphreys, noted YEC physicists, have worked on a model in which there is a 15 BY or so cosmos as a whole in which through a sort of time freeze effect we can have an earth of age about 10,000 or so years. (Yes, such a model can be constructed.) In that context, t he models advanced for origin of life and origin of body plans simply do not have anything near that level of empirical warrant on close comparison to observed processes tracing to known causal factors today. The origin of cell based life in some sort of plausible prebiotic stew and environment, pond, comet, moon of gas giant, etc, is simply not well grounded on evidence of spontaneous formation of a metabolic automaton with built in information based von Neumann self replicating mechanism, using complex information rich polymer nanomachines. The textbook illustrations and smooth words that give a different impression simply do not have good warrant. This means, there is no credible root for the blind watchmaker Darwinist tree of life, in a context where, no roots, no shoots or branches. the only known and observed cause of code-storing and executing machinery that shows functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, is design. Going beyond, there is no empirical observational basis of novel body plans originating by spontaneous blind chance and necessity processes. Yes, there have been textbooks that have tried to give the impression that reconstructed fossils on reconstructed timelines (that often run into various circularity problems as in the link above on timelines) are an observation of the “fact” of macroevolution, but this is grossly fallacious. (That BTW, is the root reason why over the past four months and counting, the 6,000 word darwinist challenge essay has sat without a satisfactory submission.) What, then, is driving the school of thought? Johnson has a sobering answer, one that needs to be heeded:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

We need to think again, very, very carefully indeed. Where, of course, the cosmological evidence points to such a multidimensional fine tuning, that we are left much as the noted astrophysicist and life long agnostic, Sir Fred Hoyle, put it long since:

The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn’t give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem – the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn’t convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes – by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.

No wonder, in that same talk, Hoyle also added:

I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]

There is a lot of food for thought in the substance of this thread. >> ___________ kairosfocus

The apologetics for Christianity and Islam sound exactly the same in this thread. I would assume it’s the same for Judaism too. Everything from cosmology, teleology, history, miracles, prophecy, reliability, archaeology, theology, after-life. It’s all the same arguments but just a different guy. They can’t both be right unless there really are multiple paths to the same God. Both sides claim evidence for their belief and refutations for everyone else. It sounds like you guys may be giving credence to the atheist canard “once you understand why you dismiss all other gods, you’ll understand why I dismiss yours.” Any Jews, Hindus or Buddhists want to join? JLAfan2001

JM: it should be clear by now that all you are able to do is put forth long since corrected misrepresentations. It is clear to any knowledgeable person, that to deny the first, ever so plainly grounded fact about Jesus, his death by crucifixion under Pilate et al, and to write that in claimed scriptures, is fatal. The garbled accounts of what Jews and Christians believe theologically, multiply the failure. In the case of those Muslims latching on to the "Paulianity" myth by way of attempted justification, the account in Ac, by Luke, who is a proved, habitually accurate historian, suffices to shatter the talking points. Just so you can see what I would not otherwise have had occasion to put on record. And I have given links to sources that will provide far more details. But, that is not my main purpose in this thread, you provoked me by accusing PJ of being a fraud, and by proceeding to smear missionaries broadscale as liars. I hope that one day you will wake up and realise what you have been led to do. Now, I will again put on the table the matters that are properly focal for the thread. KF kairosfocus

It is the rather explicit teaching of the Quran that Muhammad performed no supernatural, verifiable miracles apart from the inspiration that he received. The Quran in several places emphatically negates the idea of Muhammad performing physical feats such as raising the dead, healing the sick, opening physically blind eyes etc. We present those citations here in order for our readers to see for themselves the Quran’s outright denial that Muhammad was able to perform the miraculous.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Azmy/mhd_miracles.htm Mung

Anyway guys I am busy this weekend and will reply to your comments on Sunday. There is no object worthy of worship but Allah and Muhammad is His Servant and Final Messenger JoeMorreale1187

JM1187: I take seriously your claim that Christianity is based on a lie (that Jesus died, was buried, and raised from the dead). It's a shame you can't take me seriously. Oh well. Mung

Mung: In my generosity I going to help you out. As Muslims we rightly boast of the Quran as the best and provable living miracle today but Muhammad saws actually performed hundreds of miracles which unlike the Bible have been reliably recorded and authenticated via the unrivalled Isnad / chain of transmission hadiths. I recommend you read a book by Mustafa Zayed ( who wrote a devastating page for page refutation of the vile John spencer) called 'The Prohecies of Muhammad ' If its miracles you are after my son that should satisfy you but sadly I suspect rather that it will be inconveniencing you instead..... JoeMorreale1187

Mung: Sorry mate , can't take you seriously ! JoeMorreale1187

KN:

Look, y’all can go around and around this stuff all day and all night if that’s what you’re into, but Muslims and Christians and Jews have been debating and debating and debating for thousands of years, so don’t get your hopes up about changing anyone’s mind about anything.

This is why Christians preach. We don't change people's minds. (But we are instructed to be able to give reasons.) http://utmost.org/not-by-might-nor-by-power/ Mung

KN #95 Thank you, now I understand you better. - Gr. Gregory

...Allah tells us Muslims to demand of them proof of their claims which they mistakenly believe their scriptures provides and they blatantly don’t .

Is that why Muhammad performed no miracles? Or is proof of claims only required from non-muslims? Mung

@JoeMorreale1187:

After all Satan and his army of Jinn/ Demon spirits deceive many people.

Is it possible, that Satan deceived Mohammed? JWTruthInLove

KF: You are apologising as if what you are saying has refuted what I said let alone hurt me. You can twist, turn and spin all you like the fact remains despite the Bible not being reliable and corrupt and even though there are remnants of truth in there there is more than enough to show that the Paulinian/Church/s doctrines of trinity , original sin , crucifixion and atonement etc etc are not only very badly supported but down outright contradicted ! And all this from the NT which were carefully selected as the canonical scriptures from the Council of Nicea onwards deemed as the best ones to support their pagan man made trinitarian doctrines ,crucifixion etc. The other hundreds of Gospels and epistles considered 'apocryphal ' that were gotten rid of and/or locked away in the Vatican library, what did they contain that was so inconvenient I wonder ??? No wonder the Quran boldly says to the Jews and Christians who boast of their claims and that salvation is only with them that this is vain wishful thinking on their part, Allah tells us Muslims to demand of them proof of their claims which they mistakenly believe their scriptures provides and they blatantly don't . You guys cannot defend your scripture and that is why Christians often resort to subjective experiences and emotional arguments of the 'have you experienced the Holy Spirit/Jesus in your life?' JoeMorreale1187

F/N: to help return focus, let me clip from 76: ____________ >> I thought I should take up the focus at the head of this thread for a moment. As I do so, let me observe how CH definitely split his topic, raising and headlining the issue of scientific warrant and proper degree of certainty here, and then bridging elsewhere to a discussion that the priority spiritually is on sorting out ourselves. He is right to note that one can be a serious Christian and hold to common descent, up to and including universal common descent. For that matter, I understand that of the two generally acknowledged leading scientists in the design theory school of thought, one — Behe — believes in universal common descent, and the other — Dembski — has publicly stated here at UD that his view is a form of Old Earth Creationism, though he has not given any detailed particulars. And I suspect these two views take in a good slice of the adherents to design thought, through Young Earth Creationists, once they pull back from the debates over interpreting Gen 1 – 11, are also capable of looking through what we could call the Rom 1:19 – 20 lens. As to Genomicus’ question, I doubt that you will find a reliable survey on the subject but you can take the fact that the leading two scientific advocates for design theory split as above, as an indicator. I think the general breakdown is that in the US, some 15% of pop is now deeply secularised, and of the remaining 85% a bit less than half are YEC, and a bit over half are believers in an origin guided by God across a timeline as suggested by the various investigations. The former, I think take their pivot on Job 38, which warns us that we ought not to darken God’s counsel with words without knowledge, as we were not there when he laid the foundations of the world. Thus, they take their understanding of Gen 1 – 11 etc as a correct reading of the record by Him who was there, and hold that this should inform our science, even as respect for credible record is a part and parcel of general scientific investigations — as close as your friendly local lab or fieldwork notebook and what derives therefrom. Where also, of course, of the maybe 45% who take an old earth view, there would be some disagreement on the ways that the world without and our minds and consciences within point to the one who designed and made the world and us in it, but that split is I suspect not yet the subject of a serious and valid survey; at least, that I am aware of. I would guess that in Europe and elsewhere, the views of Christians, whether scientists or not, would tend to more of the same side, with YEC a distinct minority, save in zones where there is strong influence from the US. Sorry that I cannot give more exact numbers, but that is about what I can see. (Maybe someone out there has better knowledge of surveys. Though we should not put such on a pedestal, as though they answer to all things. Sometimes what we need is to understand a bit on why people think as they do.) Now, too, this pattern reflects the fundamental point that the Judaeo-Christian worldview and theology are capable of understanding God as working through secondary causes of his design, in the wider context that the fundamental view is much as cited earlier from Heb 1 above. Where, this C1 work from the Pauline School (I tend to agree with Nash in The Gospel and the Greeks that the patterns best fit Apollos as author) is at once the most militantly Hebraic NT document, and also the one that most directly engages the sorts of Judaic-Greek philosophical speculations that seemed to have run rife in Alexandria and spread from there. Let us cite again, vv 1 – 4, with a different emphasis:

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He [= the Eternal Son, not a child of the sort spoken of in the silly pagan legends of the gods and pretty girls] is the radiance of the glory of God [--> "Light of Light" in the NC] and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins [--> a cleansing, i.e. the atonement], he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. [ESV, note the Johannine echo from Jn 1:1 – 12]

Col 1:15 – 20 is very similar. Let me set it in context, for the benefit of those who that will help to understand where Christian Theology and the creeds that summarise it, are coming from:

Col 1:9 . . . from the day we heard [of the church in Colossae], we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks[d] to the Father, who has qualified you[e] to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. The Pre-eminence of Christ 15 He [= Christ --> the prophesied messiah, anointed of God in the OT] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [--> Notice how the theology of redemption is so closely connected tot both the launch and purpose of the church, and the underlying eternal Sonship and status as active agent of creation and holding together the cosmos. This dovetails with the Johannine view in Jn 1:1 - 12, in which the same is described as the LOGOS, reason and communication himself, without whom was not anything made that was made. This is a part of the context in which Christians expected a world ordered by intelligible Divine law, which is reflected in our Law of nature terminology. That in turn is a big part of the story of the rise of modern science as a self-sustaining project rooted in the practical outworking of that expectation. As in, thinking God's creative and self-sustaining thoughts after him, in the terms used by Boyle.] 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind [--> Notice the allusion to worldviews hostile to the above picture, and the onward tie-in to responding to the gospel that pivots on the theology of the passion, death on the cross -- and yes, the NT explicitly states that he became a curse that we in exchange may take his blessing, and was raised up by God in vindication of his Sonship, raised up as Lord and eternal Judge before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord to the glory of the Father, a daring echo of Isa 45:18 - 23 and Dan 7:9 - 14 . . . ], doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation[g] under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. [ESV]

Remember, the pivotal warrant for this, is the prophesied death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, with 500 witnesses, unstoppable witnesses. From Ac 17, we may see that this is the offer of warrant that is put on the table by the Christian faith, announced as God’s demonstration to all men, now manifest in resurrection power at work in the hearts of those who respond to the gospel. That is important to observe, as in a day when there is ever so much debate over origins, that is apt to be forgotten. I think that in part that is what CH sought to echo in his plea to put all of this in perspective. Now, let us zoom in on the “certainty” issue and the often encountered notion that the macroevolutionary, blind watchmaker thesis universal common descent by purposeless, unintelligent chance and mechanical necessity working through sheer raw differential reproductive success of varieties in ecological niches, is a “fact” on the level of the law of gravity or the roundness of the earth, etc. Some time back, I scooped a Wiki clip on that subject:

. . . When scientists say “evolution is a fact” they are using one of two meanings of the word “fact”. One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then “evolution” is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. Another way “fact” is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. [["Evolution as theory and fact," coloured emphasis added. Acc: Aug. 7, 2010.]

Pardon, but with all due respect, this is rubbish, no true scotsman [scientist] rubbish. Rubbish that ignores and implicitly disqualifies those who disagree with the alleged universal consensus from the ranks of “true scientists,” and which then goes on to make a gross category error. For, patently, the evolutionary, universal common descent explanatory model of the deep past of origins is a proffered explanation, not a directly observed fact. Job 38 is right in its key observation that we were not there in the past of origins, and so we do not know beyond possibility of correction. Where, even in cases of sciences that observe and infer explanatory models in the present, we have faced repeated scientific revolutions that have overturned the hitherto consensus view. Explanatory scientific knowledge claims are only capable of the weak form, inherently provisional degree of warrant, that so far this is the best explanation and it is per empirical resting, reliable. When it comes tot he blind watchmaker thesis evolutionary models, on objective facts, the degree of warrant that is possible is weaker still. When we deal with remote reaches of space and time, where we have no generally accepted record and where we can make no direct observation, we are forced to rely on a comparison of traces from the remote reaches with the more immediately observed causal processes we can see here and now, and their consequences and more or less characteristic signs. That is what Newton spoke of when he laid out his four rules of reasoning. So, we are in effect saying that we observe traces — light from the sun and stars, rock minerals with radioactive elements a, b, c,a fossilised bone, a dinosaur bone that has not fossilised and has in it soft tissue and blood vessels with blood cells, etc. — of the remote past of origins. On this, we have over time constructed a model timeline with various explanatory models, each with its own particular degree of warrant and of limitations. In that context, I would suggest that the sort of stellar lifetime model based on the Hertzprung- Russell plot of inferred absolute magnitude vs spectral patterns/ temperature gives us a “gold standard” for such models. We have known physics, we have a relationship of mass of a H-ball and the implied or at least plausible stellar life cycle, we have H-R plots of clusters that show branching off to the post-main sequence giants stage which is linked in the models to the lifespan so far, etc etc. This is multiplied by the overall cosmological model that has come to be known as the Big bang theory, rooted in turn in evidence of a cosmological expansion rooted in a stretching out of the very thinness of space itself, giving an estimate for the age of the cosmos timeline to date, of some 13.7 BY. Indeed, so impressive is the overall framework that in recent years, Vardimann and Russell Humphreys, noted YEC physicists, have worked on a model in which there is a 15 BY or so cosmos as a whole in which through a sort of time freeze effect we can have an earth of age about 10,000 or so years. (Yes, such a model can be constructed.) In that context, t he models advanced for origin of life and origin of body plans simply do not have anything near that level of empirical warrant on close comparison to observed processes tracing to known causal factors today. The origin of cell based life in some sort of plausible prebiotic stew and environment, pond, comet, moon of gas giant, etc, is simply not well grounded on evidence of spontaneous formation of a metabolic automaton with built in information based von Neumann self replicating mechanism, using complex information rich polymer nanomachines. The textbook illustrations and smooth words that give a different impression simply do not have good warrant. This means, there is no credible root for the blind watchmaker Darwinist tree of life, in a context where, no roots, no shoots or branches. the only known and observed cause of code-storing and executing machinery that shows functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, is design. Going beyond, there is no empirical observational basis of novel body plans originating by spontaneous blind chance and necessity processes. Yes, there have been textbooks that have tried to give the impression that reconstructed fossils on reconstructed timelines (that often run into various circularity problems as in the link above on timelines) are an observation of the “fact” of macroevolution, but this is grossly fallacious. (That BTW, is the root reason why over the past four months and counting, the 6,000 word darwinist challenge essay has sat without a satisfactory submission.) What, then, is driving the school of thought? Johnson has a sobering answer, one that needs to be heeded:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them “materialists employing science.” And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

We need to think again, very, very carefully indeed. Where, of course, the cosmological evidence points to such a multidimensional fine tuning, that we are left much as the noted astrophysicist and life long agnostic, Sir Fred Hoyle, put it long since:

The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn’t so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn’t give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it’s easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem – the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn’t convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes – by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.

No wonder, in that same talk, Hoyle also added:

I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]

There is a lot of food for thought in the substance of this thread.>> _____________ kairosfocus

Thanks for the link mung! bornagain77

And when I was in Hebrew school, we were taught that Islam and Christianity are both based on fundamental misunderstandings of the Law. :) Look, y'all can go around and around this stuff all day and all night if that's what you're into, but Muslims and Christians and Jews have been debating and debating and debating for thousands of years, so don't get your hopes up about changing anyone's mind about anything. Kantian Naturalist

The reason for Jesus’ body not being found is very simple . God spared him the humiliation and death of the cross and raised him up to Himself where soon he will return to defeat the anti-Christ .

According to Islam, Christianity is a lie. Christianity just is the confession that Jesus died, was buried, and rose again. That was Paul's message as well. Islam denies that Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead. That's why they must claim that Paul invented Christianity. But that hardly explains who Paul was out persecuting before his conversion. Or is that account of his life yet another lie? Of course, if Islam's claims about Jesus are false, then Islam itself is based upon a lie. Ibn Warraq Mung

G; Pardon, but with all due respect, you need to pause and address the strawmen you have set up in your definitions that you would force-fit on others. Then, there can be a reasonable discussion, as has been pointed out in thread after thread. G'day. KF kairosfocus

JM: With all due respect, you are now simply repeating talking points, which lack cogency and have been long since corrected. I again speak for record, mainly for the onlooker, but also in hope that you may pause and begin to question your programming. Let me clip some of the answered objections from the previously linked discussions, that speak to your just above remarks, in further exposure for the onlooker. It is plain that only pain will serve to teach, and after this it should be plain that the talking points you keep on adducing are without merit, coming from a source that cannot even get what it objects to straight.. Clipping:

OBJ 9: Paul distorted the original teachings of Jesus and created a new Christianity -- which should be called "Paulianity" instead. As a part of that distortion, he invented the doctrine of Jesus as Son of God. ANS 9: And the C1 historical evidence for such a distortion is? Ans: nil. In fact, from the record in Acts and elsewhere, Paul persecuted the early Christians precisely becaue they were teaching that Jesus was the promised Messiah and end of days Son of Man of Daniel 7:9 - 14 who would sit at the Right Hand of God, and would be given Authority as Judge and ruler of the eternal Kingdom of God. It is noteworthy, therefore, that at the trial, the first Christian martyr, Stephen: Ac 7:55 . . . [Stephen,] full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56 And he said, “Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” 57 But they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at him. 58 Then they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their garments at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And as they were stoning Stephen, he called out, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 And falling to his knees he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep. This is of course exactly the claim that had led the High Priest to tear his robes in declaration of blasphemy and led the controlling faction of the Sanhedrin to conclude that Jesus was thus worthy of death. The resurrection, therefore -- just as Paul asserts in Rom 1:1 - 5 -- is thus a direct Divine response to that accusation, a vindication of Jesus' claim to be the Son of Man. But, there is more. It is the ascended Christ who arrests Paul on the road to Damascus in Ac 9, and who tutors him in Arabia for three years. Then, when Paul had returned from his first Missionary Journey, a challenge was made to how he did not compel Gentiles to become Jews in order to become Christians. So, in Ac 15, the assembled apostles and elders in the First Jerusalem Council did not rebuke Paul for distorting the message of Jesus, but received, approved and commended him. Going further back, when we look in Mark 2:1 - 12, we see where Jesus claims a Divine prerogative, the power to forgive sins, and backs it up by healing the paralytic man who had been let down through the roof. Among many other things, such as declaring in Jn "before Abraham was, I AM." Then, as both Peter and Paul faced martyrdom in Rome in the 60's, Peter's final epistle, 2 Peter 3:16, speaks of Paul's writings as being subject to being wrenched by the unstable and unlearned, just as is so with "the other Scriptures." In short, the "Paulianity" claim is little more than wishfully dismissive thinking. OBJ 10: The leading Christian Theologians themselves tell us -- including in bestsellers! -- that we need not listen to fundamentalist, Bible-thumping claptrap and proof texts. The Bible as we have it is not trustworthy, or a serious source of knowledge about God, much less the absurd, incomprehensible doctrine of a Trinity. The only sensible approach is to glean from the wreckage what reasonable insisghts and advice we can, then dismiss the rest as outdated anti-scientific, unreliable supernaturalistic myths and speculation. ANS 10: This objection turns on an indirect attack against the scriptures and the associated Christian worldview. The main response is thus to point to the historic foundations of the Christian faith, and to the worldview foundations of same. However, in summary, there is no good reason (dismissive prejudices and anti-supernaturalistic question-begging do not count) to dismiss the basic accuracy of the NT as history, or to brush aside the fact of predictive prophecy, especially in Isa 52:13 - 53:12. On the strength of that, we have good grounds to take the Scriptures and their teachings seriously, as well as the testimony and experience of the millions of Christians over the centuries who have met God for themselves in the face of Christ, through trusting those same Scriptures. As for the modernist theologians, perhaps Eta Linnemann -- a former Bultmannian who discarded her own publications in the rubbish on coming to actually meet and be transformed by Jesus -- has most directly set the record straight: Theology as it is taught in universities all over the world . . . is based on the historical-critical method . . . . [which] is not just the foundation for the exegetical disciplines. It also decides what the systematician can say . . . It determines procedure in Christian education, homiletics and ethics . . . . Research is conducted ut si Deus non daretur (“as if there were no God”). That means the reality of God is excluded from consideration from the start . . . Statements in Scripture regarding place, time, sequences of events and persons are accepted only insofar as they fit in with established assumptions and theories . . . . Since other religions have their scriptures, one cannot assume the Bible is somehow unique and superior to them . . . . It is taken for granted that the words of the Bible and God’s word are not identical . . . the New Testament is pitted against the Old Testament, assuming that the God of the New Testament is different from that of the Old, since Jesus is said to have introduced a new concept of God . . . . Since the inspiration of Scripture is not accepted, neither can it be assumed that the individual books of Scripture complement each other. Using this procedure one finds in the Bible only a handful of unrelated literary creations . . . . Since the content of biblical writings is seen as merely the creation of theological writers, any given verse is nothing more than a non-binding, human theological utterance. For historical-critical theology, critical reason decides what is reality in the Bible and what cannot be reality; and this decision is made on the basis of the everyday experience accessible to every person [i.e. the miraculous aspect of Scripture, and modern reports of miracles -- regardless of claimed attestation -- are dismissed as essentially impossible to verify and/or as merely “popular religious drivel”] . . . . Due to the presuppositions that are adopted, critical reason loses sight of the fact that the Lord, our God, the Almighty, reigns. [Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology? (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1993), pp. 83 – 88 as excerpted. Emphases in original; parenthetical notes in square brackets.] OBJ 11:"Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with him; but He forgiveth anything, else to whom He pleaseth; to set up partners with Allah is to devise a sin most heinous indeed." With: "Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) an Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is One Allah: glory be to him: (for Exalted is He) above having a son . . . " [Quran, An Nisa, Surah 4:48 & 171, Yousuf Ali]. And also: "Allah will say "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, `worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah"? He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." [Q, 5:116] ANS 11: This is clearly predicated on a misunderstanding of the Trinity. Jesus is not the biological son of God, but the Eternal Son who was incarnate by a miracle. he is not to be worshipped as a god, but acknowledged as the Living Lord, risen from the dead by God's power, in vindication of that Sonship. And, while Mary is indeed a fellow human being who in the Magnificat speaks of God as her Saviour, there simply is no orthodox Christian Creed that has ever held that she is to be regarded as a god[dess] alongside the Creator of all Worlds. It is unfortunate that there has been in some quarters an excessive reverence for her, which does in some cases look far too close to idolatry to be proper, but that error has been staunchly corrected for many hundreds of years. Those who persist in such activities, should reflect soberly on the consequences, including as was just cited. OBJ 12: ". . . they uttered against Mary a grave false charge. (156) That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";? but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not.? (157) Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (158)." [Q, 4:156 - 158.] ANS 12: This is of course a direct denial of the consensus historical record of C1, across the Christians, Jews and Romans, that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate, and was crucified, and died as a consequence of being so executed. The onward implication, of course is that the core substance of the gospel in 1 Cor 15:1 - 11 -- recorded c 55 AD -- is denied and dismissed, and that on the blanket claim that the reciter of the Quran was a prophet of God. It is enough to contrast the recorded testimony of the over 500 eyewitnesses, most of whom were alive when the record was made: 1 Cor 15: 3 . . . I [Paul] delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. [ESV] So, in sum, it is indeed possible to object to and even dismiss the Christian teaching of the triune God, but it is not possible to responsibly dismiss this as not being historically rooted in the C1 Christian witness, testimony, life, worship, thought and experience. And, in particular, as Paul records from an early Creedal hymn, we are counselled: Phil 2: 5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, 2 being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, 10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. [ESV]

There is more at the linked, and if the onlooker needs it, why not go to one of the sources and see what happened in the McDowell-Gilchrist vs Deedat debate, here, at book length. (I have already given a link to the Nehls-Eric primer on dealing with typical Dawah talking points. Ex Muslims speak for themselves here.) Now, JM, this is enough to show that you have not properly done your homework before repeating talking points. Until you can explain why the founder of Islam speaking in the name of the voice that spoke to him could not get basic facts straight about the Christian faith and Judaism, the Bible and Christian theology, etc, as well as explaining the sorts of issues already outlined or linked, not to mention 9/11 conspiracy theorism, it is clear you have nothing to seriously add to a discussion on the matter of inappropriate claims of warrant for evolutionary materialistic assertions, and the issue that it is possible to accept universal common descent while being a Judaeo-Christian Theist. I regret having to be so direct, but you have insisted, in the teeth of gentle hints. It is now time to return this thread to the proper focus, so I point back to my comment at 76 above. KF kairosfocus

This thread displays Steve Fuller's intellectual superiority to any current living Big-ID/IDM proponent. Check out his 'anthropic worldview' (2006), which speaks in unison of the Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity, Islam. "So to you your Religion and to me mine." - JoeMorreale1187 Of course, Big-ID advocates on this site will easily admit that this has *nothing* to do with Big-ID theory. And because most Big-IDists here are (closet or open) evangelical Christians, they will press their belief that 'Big-ID' has *nothing* to do with Islam. But Islam accepts a single 'Designer' just as does (3-in-1) Christianity. My Turkish students aren't awed by the 'creationist' fantasy of Harun Yahya. But at least Yahya wisely distanced himself from Big-ID! CH may have a point in the OP: "some form of evolution is nonetheless true." You folks live under the yolk of collectively expressing that truth. So far communicative babel has been the trend... Gregory

Joe I am not being hostile to you personally, and am sorry if you take it that way, but am merely challenging your the truthfulness of your claims fro Islam. I sincerely don't see how anyone can justify believing in a religion that advocates suicide bombers and lying as a means of advancing their religion! bornagain77

HMMM Joe, quoting out of context is sure becoming a pattern with you isn't it: For instance the full context of Romans 3:7 reads: 7 Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8 Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is just! Sort of changes the whole meaning of the verse from what you wanted to convey doesn't it Joe? So Joe, all scriptures aside, do you personally think it is OK to deceive people into believing a religion as Islam says it is OK? bornagain77

Regarding what you said About Islam I have referred to several books above so no need to waste my time with that. You can add to that the works of non Muslims Karen Armstrong and John Esposito. I did not join these threads to do dawah. I had to identify myself as a Muslim because people were and would of continued to assume and address me as if I was a Christian. Then Bornagain77 start testing and goading me with how one can come right with God and sin bla , bla, bla and that is how it got going. As a result I was led naturally on the defensive . Due to the hostility I have received by some I mean it when I say I will not reply to anyone again regarding the subject. At the end of the day no one will manage to shake my faith and lead me to go backwards to the Trinitarian worship of Jesus as God who died on the cross for our sins. So to you your Religion and to me mine. JoeMorreale1187

Paul - The real founder of Christianity A man who never met Jesus pbuh and was not one of his disciples and in conflict with the early church particularly James the brother and then claimed to have seen the risen Christ on the road to Damascus and receiving inspiration from there onwards. Can his testimony be trusted ? Acts 9:7 And the men who journeyed with him STOOD SPEECHLESS, HEARING A VOICE but seeing no one. Acts 22:9 "And those who were with me indeed saw the light and were afraid, but they DID NOT HEAR THE VOICE of him who spoke to me." Acts 9:7 .......Stood speechless Acts 26:14. ........WE ALL HAD FALLEN TO THE GROUND...... II Corinthians 11:14-15 Paul says " ........SATAN himself transforms himself into an angel of light . Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness ......" SO WHO WAS PAUL TALKING TO ? AN ANGEL OF LIGHT OR SATAN?! Perhaps some big clues are in the fact that Jesus came to FULFILL the LAW OF MOSES and Paul taught new doctrines contrary to that . After the alleged vision Paul continued to make havoc with the Church ( James n co) but this time from WITHIN. Paul says its okay to LIE for the glory of God ( and Bornagain77 quotes the reliance of the travel to me?!) Romans 3:7 " FOR IF THE TRUTH OF GOD HATH MORE ABOUNDED THROUGH MY LIE UNTO HIS GLORY ;WHY YET AM I ALSO JUDGED A SINNER". Paul himself invited criticism of the Crucifixion of the mysteries constructed thereabout. He says I Corinthians 1:22-23. " For Jews request a SIGN , and Greeks WISDOM; but we preach Christ crucified , to the Jew a STUMBLING BLOCK and to the GENTILES FOOLISHNESS." Or In other words " We preach something without signs and without wisdom - who is with us?! Paul 's tactics in preaching I Corinthians 9:19-23 "For though I am free with respect to all , I have made myself a slave to all so that I might win more of them; To the Jews I became as a Jew , in order to win Jews . To those under the Law ( though I MYSELF am not under the Law) so that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one OUTSIDE the Law ( Though I am not free from GOD'S Law but am under CHRIST's law ) so that I might win those outside the Law. To the weak I have become weak so that I might win over the weak . I HAVE BECOME ALL THINGS TO ALL PEOPLE , THAT I MIGHT BY ALL MEANS SAVE SOME." Some inspiration this guy was under ah?! History and logic shows that Paul's version of Christianity came to dominate because the large following he got from amongst the Pagan Gentiles who found his doctrines appealing. The political and military might of the Roman Empire and the infamous Council of Nicea then did the rest...... So do as I do and follow Jesus and not Paul and the Pagan Roman/Greek Churches that were built around him. As a result you it should lead you to Islam. JoeMorreale1187

JM: I am sorry. You are now spewing all sorts of accusations, and don't seem to be willing to be accountable and civil. In fact, I am now wondering whether you are a very familiar figure to me, a sent Islamist Dawah -- folks, literally, call to surrender on ultimate pain of attack by Jihad -- advocate, maybe someone who has been won as a convert and then trained [indoctrinated] to some extent and sent out as a footsoldier in the information and communication media battlespace. I tried to hint to you yesterday that you would run into problems if you kept on in the lines you were coming with, and it seems you refuse to do so. Very well, you will need to feel some pain in order to learn to back off and think again. I will therefore raise a few points, not by way to pulling this thread off track again, but to make it fairly clear that spewing false accusations about fraud and lies etc, is not the right way to deal with people who are informed. So, For record and reference: 1 --> Most people do not know what the Quran actually teaches about Jesus, so here goes, snipping from a 101 here that is known to be accurate based on review by former Muslims and practicing Christian ministers, not just from reading and researching then compiling notes, i.e. this has been peer reviewed by people RAISED AS MUSLIMS who are also converts to the Christian faith and trained in theology as practicing Christian ministers of the gospel:

As Surah 4:156 – 158 records, the Quran specifically denies the crucifixion of Christ: “they killed him not, nor crucified him . . . . Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself.”[41] Thus, the Quran’s message is explicitly incompatible with the core gospel message: “on which [we Christians] have taken [our] stand. By this gospel [we] are saved if [we] hold firmly to the word . . . . that Christ died for our sins [--> in context, on the cross at the order of Pilate with the connivance of the corrupt Judaean elites who schemed his death after he cleansed the temple in Jerusalem that had been sacrilegiously abused by turning part of it into a marketplace for religious items] according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures . . . . And if Christ has not been raised [from the dead], our preaching is useless and so is [our] faith . . . [we] are still in [our] sins.” [1 Cor. 15:2 – 5, 14, 17.]

2 --> thus, in its central scriptural document, Islam declares itself against the historicity of the gospel, and particularly the crucifixion, which is about as well attested a fact of history as can be expected, cf here on. 3 --> In short, The prophet of Islam had a basic problem with historical facts, and here speaking in the name of God proclaims an assertion that is patently historically unjustified. So, any time an Islamic Dawah advocate comes calling, understand that he has not got a factual leg to stand on regarding the first minimal fact of the gospel, accepted by the overwhelming majority of critical scholarship. So, he is forced to fly in the face of quite evident facts. 4 --> turning the tables, such a person should be made to address the findings here and the issues with Islamic talking points here, presented by well-known researchers Nehls and Eric. these include the historical context of Islam, the account of the founder, the issues connected thereto and more. I should note that a particularly striking point I noticed in dealing with ordinary Muslims, was the story of Aisha, taken as bride at 6 years, and with marriage consummated at about age 9. While this seems to have been in accord with the custom for powerful men in Arabia at the time, it seems an obvious point that ought to have been reformed and it points to a much broader problem in how M dealt with women. At least, on his behalf it can be said that Aisha became his favourite wife, and that he reportedly died with his head in her lap when she was about 18. 5 --> We must turn to the Islamic rejection of the Christian triune, complex unity understanding of God. Surah 4:48 and 171, and 5:116 lead to the false accusation of "shirk," which functions as a serious bit of well-poisoning. Shirk is viewed as the most deadly of all sins, 4:48 describes it as unpardonable: “Allah forgiveth not that partners should be set up with Him; but He forgiveth anything else.” (The incoherence of calling for repentance from a sin defined as unpardonable is obvious.) 4:171:

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. [--> that is, we have here a silly accusation of God fathering Jesus in the sense that a human male becomes a father, at least as commonly understood. In short, whoever Allah is and whoever Mohammed was, they profoundly misunderstood the Christian teaching of the tri-unity of God. Such a basic misrepresentation is severely disqualifying.] To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs.

6 --> However, the Islamic view on the Trinity reflects Muhammad’s encounters with heretical sects in Arabia rather than the biblically rooted orthodox Christian understanding of the Tri-unity of the Godhead. [Especially see Heb. 1:1 – 14, John 1:1 – 14, Phil. 2:5 – 11, 1 Cor. 12:2 – 6, Acts 5:3 - 4.] The historic Christian teaching [read on down to deal with objections and issues] asserts that God is One, a complex unity: a unity of Eternal being, integrated with a diversity of personal manifestation: Father, Son and Spirit. (It bears noting that Son, here, is not used in the physical sense; the incarnation is not at all parallel to the pagan tales of gods and their proclivities for pretty girls.) Thus, the tension between unity and diversity in the cosmos finds its resolution in the inherent nature of the Godhead. This is mysterious, but it is not contradictory, for even water, ice and steam share a common nature while being vastly diverse as to manifestation. More profoundly, “God is Love” [1 John 4:8] — an interpersonal, relational concept — is viewed by Christians as integral to the essential nature of God. 7 --> Notice, in this context, what 5:116 puts in the mouth of Jesus:

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

8 --> This is so grossly inaccurate as to be incredible. Let us cite the Johannine prologue, just to get a reasonably clear view of what he Christian faith has understood since C1:

Jn 1:1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God [b]Himself. 2 He was present originally with God. 3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being. 4 In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men. 5 And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it]. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came to witness, that he might testify of the Light, that all men might believe in it [adhere to it, trust it, and rely upon it] through him. 8 He was not the Light himself, but came that he might bear witness regarding the Light. 9 There it was—the true Light [was then] coming into the world [the genuine, perfect, steadfast Light] that illumines every person. 10 He came into the world, and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him [did not know Him]. 11 He came to that which belonged to Him [to His own—His domain, creation, things, world], and they who were His own did not receive Him and did not welcome Him. 12 But to as many as did receive and welcome Him, He gave the authority (power, privilege, right) to become the children of God, that is, to those who believe in (adhere to, trust in, and rely on) His name— 13 Who owe their birth neither to [c]bloods nor to the will of the flesh [that of physical impulse] nor to the will of man [that of a natural father], but to God. [They are born of God!] 14 And the Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us; and we [actually] saw His glory (His honor, His majesty), such glory as an only begotten son receives from his father, full of grace (favor, loving-kindness) and truth. 15 John testified about Him and cried out, This was He of Whom I said, He Who comes after me has priority over me, for He was before me. [He takes rank above me, for He existed before I did. He has advanced before me, because He is my Chief.] 16 For out of His fullness (abundance) we have all received [all had a share and we were all supplied with] one grace after another and spiritual blessing upon spiritual blessing and even favor upon favor and gift [heaped] upon gift. 17 For while the Law was given through Moses, grace ([d]unearned, undeserved favor and spiritual blessing) and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No man has ever seen God at any time; the only [e]unique Son, or [f]the only begotten God, Who is in the bosom [in the intimate presence] of the Father, He has declared Him [He has revealed Him and brought Him out where He can be seen; He has interpreted Him and He has made Him known]. [AMP]

9 --> Put that with Heb 1 , Col 1, Phil 2:5 - 11 etc etc etc and you will see what we are dealing with here as the data on which the Christian understanding of the Christ event has been built. 10 --> But our concerns do not stop there, we must at least pause to understand the declarations in the sword verse and the verse of tribute that are in the last or next to last Surah of the Quran, thus that which abrogated that which went before -- the more irenic Meccan verses:

9:5 -- Sword -- And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah [a specific alms], let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. [--> this has been used far and wide including by UBL as the prime text calling to Jihad by the sword to establish Islam as a global hegemony, to be fulfilled through the Mahdi and aided by Isa in latterday form. It is in this context that Muslims in the hadiths already alluded to -- traditions of M passed on and collectively second only tot he Quran -- are exhorted with the account of the gharqad tree latt6erday genocide of Jews, which is in the Hamas Covenant Article 7, and are called in the black flag army from the direction of Khorasan hadith to crawl over ice and snow when they see the black flag army arising, for Mahdi is among them. Al Qaeda and the Taliban use this hadith and the pervasive symbolism of black flags is about this alleged all conquering army that will subjugate the ME and from the ME Mahdi will rule the world to the E and the W. Cf here for some details and the onward links as well. In that sort of apocalyptic ferment, we should understand how the Iran rush to nukes and the rising tide of Islamism just now look in many Muslim eyes.] 29 -- tribute -- Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture [--> this is generally taken to refer to subjugation of Jews and Christians, and the following vv, show part of why] - [fight] until they give the jizyah [an impoverishing poll-tax imposed on subjects as a price of toleration, renting their lives so to speak] willingly while they are humbled. 30 The Jews say, "Ezra is the son of Allah " [--> Another gross blunder of M claiming to speak in the voice of God]; and the Christians say, "The Messiah is the son of Allah ." [--> note the context already given that turns this into a gross accusation] That is their statement from their mouths [--> words twisted into utterly different meaning, a familiar problem in dealing with Islamist advocates]; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved [before them]. May Allah destroy them; how are they deluded? 31 They have taken their scholars and monks as lords besides Allah [--> this does speak to a real problem of abuse by ecclesiastical elites, one that is always a challenge in any system] , and [also] the Messiah, the son of Mary [--> implied, as opposed to the Eternal Son of God, incarnate as Saviour and Lord]. And they were not commanded except to worship one God; there is no deity except Him. Exalted is He above whatever they associate with Him. [--> Accusation of shirk, effectively a form of idolatry] 32 They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths [--> notice the accusation of ill intent6ion against the voice and light of God, which directly echoes the false accusation against missionaries above, as liars], but Allah refuses except to perfect His light, although the disbelievers dislike it. 33 It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it. [--> this is in effect a promise of hegemony, in Islamic eyes]

__________ Enough for the moment. I trust this will provide some context. KF PS: I suggest that anyone adhering to conspiracy theories on 9/11 simply read the Wikipedia articles on the Sept 11 2001 attacks, including the one on how the attackers were identified, as a starter. If you are going to construct an alternative narrative, you had better come better than Wiki. kairosfocus

Joe again I encourage you to take StephenB up on his challenge if you are so confident Islam is correct. In my opinion, He is very clear and meticulous in his logic in all topics he broaches. He is about the best I've seen on Uncommon Descent,,,, If you are correct about Islam what have you to fear? But if you are wrong why would not want to know? As to this comment of yours: "Christian Missionaries all over the world with their lies and deception trying to win people over by enticing them with money and medicine." So healing sickness and relieving poverty are evil in Islam? That's a key difference between Islam and Christianity. In Christianity one tries his best to relieve suffering and to win converts through love (something I fall way short of): Ignorance Isn't Bliss: What Every College Student Should Know About Religion - Mary Poplin at Reed - video (Mother Teresa - miracle when the bombing stopped) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5gUogbTKbVg&feature=player_detailpage#t=579s And in Islam, well in Islam suicide bombers go to heaven. bornagain77

JoeMorreale1187- Most people have their minds made up about Islam and you ain't going to change it. For me it took a trip to the Mideast, along with long talks with Islamic Clerists, before I "got it". Just sayin' Joe

G:

On another site (EvC forum), I was asked if I could estimate the number of ID proponents who are not creationists (i.e., who accept common descent).

Tell them it is irrelevant because universal common descent is unscientific- it can't be objectively tested. Tell them to stick to science, if they can. But knowing that ilk I know that they can't. Joe

To get the correct picture of Islam and have all your misconceptions and distortions media propaganda style refer to the books I recommended . Good luck son. JoeMorreale1187

Lying ? Christian Missionaries all over the world with their lies and deception trying to win people over by enticing them with money and medicine. No surprise there , how else can they be convinced of non sensical Trinitarian mysteries and a man God having to die for your sins even though none of humanity following Adam and Eve participated in anyway to their sin/ mistakes ?! Look I lied that i said it would be my last comment ! Big deal ah ? Game Over. JoeMorreale1187

Joe, I certainly encourage to critically think through Islam more carefully. I'm certainly not persuaded in the least that you have made any coherent case for Islam. StephenB has offered to go through any questions you have in meticulous detail and he is, in my opinion, well equipped to answer any questions you have and to show you foundational flaws in Islamic logic. If you are a sincere seeker of truth you should take him up on his challenge so as to either prove yourself right or to see if you are wrong. bornagain77

Joe you state in regards to personal experience of Christ: "After all Satan and his army of Jinn/ Demon spirits deceive many people." If you a so adverse to those who would deceive you then why are you not equally shocked that 'deceiving' allowed in Islam?

“Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory… it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression…[2] Reliance of the Traveler, p. 746 – 8.2 (Shaffi Fiqh) http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lying_and_Deception_in_Islam#Muslims_scholars_and_companions_of_Muhammad_on_Taqiyyah

Deception as a weapon for proselytizing religion? Well this bible verse certainly comes to mind from what I can see of Islam so far, with it's suicide Bombers that go to heaven and rubber stamping lying...:

John 8:44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

bornagain77

Bornagain77: My friend I already told you that I used to be a Christian and the answer and truth does lie in moving from Christian sect to another and relying on pychological and subjective experiences for After all Satan and his army of Jinn/ Demon spirits deceive many people. What you do is be more scientific and intellectual by letting the scriptures speak for themselves and then draw your conclusions and that is what led to me to Islam. In fact the Bible led me to Islam! That is why I highly the recommend to you the book by an ex atheist Dr Laurence Brown: 'The First and Final commandment ' which examines the Abrahamic scriptures and draws conclusion. This is the very last comment of mine regarding the subject so I will be ignoring your replies . I do not want to spoil the threads for anybody and want to stick to the topic titles . To be worthy of mercy and deserving of Allah's Guidance one must drop his emotional and cultural attachments , conveniences etc etc and be sincere and objective in seeking Him and the truth . May Allah guide you to the Religion of Submission and peace which all the Prophets/Messengers followed which is Islam. JoeMorreale1187

JoeMorreale1187, I noticed earlier that you dismissed PeterJ's testimony as

"Interesting story but is subjective so let’s move on from the classic ‘have you felt Jesus / Holy Spirit in your life?’ Sayings shall we"

Yet to echo Dr. Hunter's post:

Give Jesus a chance.

Joe, from my perspective you have nothing to lose and everything to gain by asking Jesus to make Himself known to you personally. i.e. Give Jesus a chance! bornagain77

Folks: I thought I should take up the focus at the head of this thread for a moment. As I do so, let me observe how CH definitely split his topic, raising and headlining the issue of scientific warrant and proper degree of certainty here, and then bridging elsewhere to a discussion that the priority spiritually is on sorting out ourselves. He is right to note that one can be a serious Christian and hold to common descent, up to and including universal common descent. For that matter, I understand that of the two generally acknowledged leading scientists in the design theory school of thought, one -- Behe -- believes in universal common descent, and the other -- Dembski -- has publicly stated here at UD that his view is a form of Old Earth Creationism, though he has not given any detailed particulars. And I suspect these two views take in a good slice of the adherents to design thought, through Young Earth Creationists, once they pull back from the debates over interpreting Gen 1 - 11, are also capable of looking through what we could call the Rom 1:19 - 20 lens. As to Genomicus' question, I doubt that you will find a reliable survey on the subject but you can take the fact that the leading two scientific advocates for design theory split as above, as an indicator. I think the general breakdown is that in the US, some 15% of pop is now deeply secularised, and of the remaining 85% a bit less than half are YEC, and a bit over half are believers in an origin guided by God across a timeline as suggested by the various investigations. The former, I think take their pivot on Job 38, which warns us that we ought not to darken God's counsel with words without knowledge, as we were not there when he laid the foundations of the world. Thus, they take their understanding of Gen 1 - 11 etc as a correct reading of the record by Him who was there, and hold that this should inform our science, even as respect for credible record is a part and parcel of general scientific investigations -- as close as your friendly local lab or fieldwork notebook and what derives therefrom. Where also, of course, of the maybe 45% who take an old earth view, there would be some disagreement on the ways that the world without and our minds and consciences within point to the one who designed and made the world and us in it, but that split is I suspect not yet the subject of a serious and valid survey; at least, that I am aware of. I would guess that in Europe and elsewhere, the views of Christians, whether scientists or not, would tend to more of the same side, with YEC a distinct minority, save in zones where there is strong influence from the US. Sorry that I cannot give more exact numbers, but that is about what I can see. (Maybe someone out there has better knowledge of surveys. Though we should not put such on a pedestal, as though they answer to all things. Sometimes what we need is to understand a bit on why people think as they do.) Now, too, this pattern reflects the fundamental point that the Judaeo-Christian worldview and theology are capable of understanding God as working through secondary causes of his design, in the wider context that the fundamental view is much as cited earlier from Heb 1 above. Where, this C1 work from the Pauline School (I tend to agree with Nash in The Gospel and the Greeks that the patterns best fit Apollos as author) is at once the most militantly Hebraic NT document, and also the one that most directly engages the sorts of Judaic-Greek philosophical speculations that seemed to have run rife in Alexandria and spread from there. Let us cite again, vv 1 - 4, with a different emphasis:

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He [= the Eternal Son, not a child of the sort spoken of in the silly pagan legends of the gods and pretty girls] is the radiance of the glory of God [--> "Light of Light" in the NC] and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins [--> a cleansing, i.e. the atonement], he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. [ESV, note the Johannine echo from Jn 1:1 - 12]

Col 1:15 - 20 is very similar. Let me set it in context, for the benefit of those who that will help to understand where Christian Theology and the creeds that summarise it, are coming from:

Col 1:9 . . . from the day we heard [of the church in Colossae], we have not ceased to pray for you, asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding, 10 so as to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing to him, bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God. 11 May you be strengthened with all power, according to his glorious might, for all endurance and patience with joy, 12 giving thanks[d] to the Father, who has qualified you[e] to share in the inheritance of the saints in light. 13 He has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. The Pre-eminence of Christ 15 He [= Christ --> the prophesied messiah, anointed of God in the OT] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be pre-eminent. 19 For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. [--> Notice how the theology of redemption is so closely connected tot both the launch and purpose of the church, and the underlying eternal Sonship and status as active agent of creation and holding together the cosmos. This dovetails with the Johannine view in Jn 1:1 - 12, in which the same is described as the LOGOS, reason and communication himself, without whom was not anything made that was made. This is a part of the context in which Christians expected a world ordered by intelligible Divine law, which is reflected in our Law of nature terminology. That in turn is a big part of the story of the rise of modern science as a self-sustaining project rooted in the practical outworking of that expectation. As in, thinking God's creative and self-sustaining thoughts after him, in the terms used by Boyle.] 21 And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind [--> Notice the allusion to worldviews hostile to the above picture, and the onward tie-in to responding to the gospel that pivots on the theology of the passion, death on the cross -- and yes, the NT explicitly states that he became a curse that we in exchange may take his blessing, and was raised up by God in vindication of his Sonship, raised up as Lord and eternal Judge before whom every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord to the glory of the Father, a daring echo of Isa 45:18 - 23 and Dan 7:9 - 14 . . . ], doing evil deeds, 22 he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, 23 if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation[g] under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. [ESV]

Remember, the pivotal warrant for this, is the prophesied death, burial and resurrection of Jesus, with 500 witnesses, unstoppable witnesses. From Ac 17, we may see that this is the offer of warrant that is put on the table by the Christian faith, announced as God's demonstration to all men, now manifest in resurrection power at work in the hearts of those who respond to the gospel. That is important to observe, as in a day when there is ever so much debate over origins, that is apt to be forgotten. I think that in part that is what CH sought to echo in his plea to put all of this in perspective. Now, let us zoom in on the "certainty" issue and the often encountered notion that the macroevolutionary, blind watchmaker thesis universal common descent by purposeless, unintelligent chance and mechanical necessity working through sheer raw differential reproductive success of varieties in ecological niches, is a "fact" on the level of the law of gravity or the roundness of the earth, etc. Some time back, I <a scooped a Wiki clip on that subject:

. . . When scientists say "evolution is a fact" they are using one of two meanings of the word "fact". One meaning is empirical, and when this is what scientists mean, then "evolution" is used to mean observed changes in allele frequencies or traits of a population over successive generations. Another way "fact" is used is to refer to a certain kind of theory, one that has been so powerful and productive for such a long time that it is universally accepted by scientists. When scientists say evolution is a fact in this sense, they mean it is a fact that all living organisms have descended from a common ancestor (or ancestral gene pool) [8] even though this cannot be directly observed. [["Evolution as theory and fact," coloured emphasis added. Acc: Aug. 7, 2010.]

Pardon, but with all due respect, this is rubbish, no true scotsman [scientist] rubbish. Rubbish that ignores and implicitly disqualifies those who disagree with the alleged universal consensus from the ranks of "true scientists," and which then goes on to make a gross category error. For, patently, the evolutionary, universal common descent explanatory model of the deep past of origins is a proffered explanation, not a directly observed fact. Job 38 is right in its key observation that we were not there in the past of origins, and so we do not know beyond possibility of correction. Where, even in cases of sciences that observe and infer explanatory models in the present, we have faced repeated scientific revolutions that have overturned the hitherto consensus view. Explanatory scientific knowledge claims are only capable of the weak form, inherently provisional degree of warrant, that so far this is the best explanation and it is per empirical resting, reliable. When it comes tot he blind watchmaker thesis evolutionary models, on objective facts, the degree of warrant that is possible is weaker still. When we deal with remote reaches of space and time, where we have no generally accepted record and where we can make no direct observation, we are forced to rely on a comparison of traces from the remote reaches with the more immediately observed causal processes we can see here and now, and their consequences and more or less characteristic signs. That is what Newton spoke of when he laid out his four rules of reasoning. So, we are in effect saying that we observe traces -- light from the sun and stars, rock minerals with radioactive elements a, b, c,a fossilised bone, a dinosaur bone that has not fossilised and has in it soft tissue and blood vessels with blood cells, etc. -- of the remote past of origins. On this, we have over time constructed a model timeline with various explanatory models, each with its own particular degree of warrant and of limitations. In that context, I would suggest that the sort of stellar lifetime model based on the Hertzprung- Russell plot of inferred absolute magnitude vs spectral patterns/ temperature gives us a "gold standard" for such models. We have known physics, we have a relationship of mass of a H-ball and the implied or at least plausible stellar life cycle, we have H-R plots of clusters that show branching off to the post-main sequence giants stage which is linked in the models to the lifespan so far, etc etc. This is multiplied by the overall cosmological model that has come to be known as the Big bang theory, rooted in turn in evidence of a cosmological expansion rooted in a stretching out of the very thinness of space itself, giving an estimate for the age of the cosmos timeline to date, of some 13.7 BY. Indeed, so impressive is the overall framework that in recent years, Vardimann and Russell Humphreys, noted YEC physicists, have worked on a model in which there is a 15 BY or so cosmos as a whole in which through a sort of time freeze effect we can have an earth of age about 10,000 or so years. (Yes, such a model can be constructed.) In that context,t he models advanced for origin of life and origin of body plans simply do not have anything near that level of empirical warrant on close comparison to observed processes tracing to known causal factors today. The origin of cell based life in some sort of plausible prebiotic stew and environment, pond, comet, moon of gas giant, etc, is simply not well grounded on evidence of spontaneous formation of a metabolic automaton with built in information based von Neumann self replicating mechanism, using complex information rich polymer nanomachines. The textbook illustrations and smooth words that give a different impression simply do not have good warrant. This means, there is no credible root for the blind watchmaker Darwinist tree of life, in a context where, no roots, no shoots or branches. the only known and observed cause of code-storing and executing machinery that shows functionally specific complex organisation and associated information, is design. Going beyond, there is no empirical observational basis of novel body plans originating by spontaneous blind chance and necessity processes. Yes, there have been textbooks that have tried to give the impression that reconstructed fossils on reconstructed timelines (that often run into various circularity problems as in the link above on timelines) are an observation of the "fact" of macroevolution, but this is grossly fallacious. (That BTW, is the root reason why over the past four months and counting, the 6,000 word darwinist challenge essay has sat without a satisfactory submission.) What, then, is driving the school of thought? Johnson has a sobering answer, one that needs to be heeded:

For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter. [[Emphasis original] We might more accurately term them "materialists employing science." And if materialism is true, then some materialistic theory of evolution has to be true simply as a matter of logical deduction, regardless of the evidence. That theory will necessarily be at least roughly like neo-Darwinism, in that it will have to involve some combination of random changes and law-like processes capable of producing complicated organisms that (in Dawkins’ words) "give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." . . . . The debate about creation and evolution is not deadlocked . . . Biblical literalism is not the issue. The issue is whether materialism and rationality are the same thing. Darwinism is based on an a priori commitment to materialism, not on a philosophically neutral assessment of the evidence. Separate the philosophy from the science, and the proud tower collapses. [[Emphasis added.] [[The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, 77 (Nov. 1997), pp. 22 – 25.]

We need to think again, very, very carefully indeed. Where, of course, the cosmological evidence points to such a multidimensional fine tuning, that we are left much as the noted astrophysicist and life long agnostic, Sir Fred Hoyle, put it long since:

The big problem in biology, as I see it, is to understand the origin of the information carried by the explicit structures of biomolecules. The issue isn't so much the rather crude fact that a protein consists of a chain of amino acids linked together in a certain way, but that the explicit ordering of the amino acids endows the chain with remarkable properties, which other orderings wouldn't give. The case of the enzymes is well known . . . If amino acids were linked at random, there would be a vast number of arrange-ments that would be useless in serving the pur-poses of a living cell. When you consider that a typical enzyme has a chain of perhaps 200 links and that there are 20 possibilities for each link,it's easy to see that the number of useless arrangements is enormous, more than the number of atoms in all the galaxies visible in the largest telescopes. This is for one enzyme, and there are upwards of 2000 of them, mainly serving very different purposes. So how did the situation get to where we find it to be? This is, as I see it, the biological problem - the information problem . . . . I was constantly plagued by the thought that the number of ways in which even a single enzyme could be wrongly constructed was greater than the number of all the atoms in the universe. So try as I would, I couldn't convince myself that even the whole universe would be sufficient to find life by random processes - by what are called the blind forces of nature . . . . By far the simplest way to arrive at the correct sequences of amino acids in the enzymes would be by thought, not by random processes . . . . Now imagine yourself as a superintellect working through possibilities in polymer chemistry. Would you not be astonished that polymers based on the carbon atom turned out in your calculations to have the remarkable properties of the enzymes and other biomolecules? Would you not be bowled over in surprise to find that a living cell was a feasible construct? Would you not say to yourself, in whatever language supercalculating intellects use: Some supercalculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule. Of course you would, and if you were a sensible superintellect you would conclude that the carbon atom is a fix.

No wonder, in that same talk, Hoyle also added:

I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. [["The Universe: Past and Present Reflections." Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12]

There is a lot of food for thought in the substance of this thread. KF kairosfocus

On another site (EvC forum), I was asked if I could estimate the number of ID proponents who are not creationists (i.e., who accept common descent). Any thoughts on that? Genomicus

"Serendipitously" this was my Bible reading today: Galatians 4:21-31 Hagar and Sarah 21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. 24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written: “Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labor; because more are the children of the desolate woman than of her who has a husband.”[a] 28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”[b] 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman. bornagain77

as to Islam's "obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory',,, Here is a better reference from no less than wikiislam:

"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible (N:i.e. when the purpose of lying is to circumvent someone who is preventing one from doing something permissible), and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory... it is religiously precautionary in all cases to employ words that give a misleading impression...[2] Reliance of the Traveler, p. 746 - 8.2 (Shaffi Fiqh) http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Lying_and_Deception_in_Islam#Muslims_scholars_and_companions_of_Muhammad_on_Taqiyyah

bornagain77

Joe Morreale1187

what I will say about abrogation is that according to the Bible or the Christians interpretation of it is that virtually the whole of the New Testament due to Paul and not Jesus who clearly said He came to uphold and fulfil the Law abrogated the Old Testament!

My question persists. What is your position on the Islamic principle of abrogation as it is taught in the Koran? It has nothing at all to do with the relationship between the Christian's Old Testament and New Testament. I don't know why you would even bring up bible unless you are reacting defensively to my question. Just so that you will know, the moral law in the Old Testament was NOT abrogated, as is clear in Jesus' statement that He "came to fulfill the law, not to destroy it." St. Paul was not speaking of the moral law, a point I will be happy to explain and defend if you are interested.

I didn’t join these threads to incur hostility am engage in comparative religious debates which should be and are best done elsewhere.

The theme of this thread is tied to the relationship between evolutionary theory and the Christian faith. Dr. Hunter exhorted his listeners to "give Jesus a chance." I support his call and celebrate his right to extend it. In keeping with that theme, I made the following relevant comment:

Transformation in Christ is the only evolution that matters.

You responded by saying this:

As a Muslim I don’t agree with that but although in a different way to you I believe in Jesus Christ pbuh and the Muslim and Christian world combined make up half of the worlds population.

When you gratuitously introduced the topic of Islam, I assumed that you wanted to put that subject on the table since your faith in its teachings influenced your response to my comment. There are a great many threads on this site that deal with the unreasonableness of evolution and the reasonableness of design from a religiously neutral position. You avoided those venues and chose this venue with its religious theme, and it was in that context that you broached the subject of Islam. You rightly perceive my question to you as a challenge because your response to my comment was a challenge. The difference, though, is this: I can provide a rational defense for any Christian teaching you want to discuss. I don't think you can provide a rational defense for the Islamic teaching of abrogation. StephenB

Now this is interesting: Besides encouraging murder, the Koran also encourages lying for the sake of furthering Islam: ,,,the Unholy Alliance - October 23, 2012 Excerpt: It is significant to note that lying about being a Muslim in a majority non-Muslim country is allowed under Islam.,,,, in Islam, lying for the purpose of jihad in Islam is also not only allowed, but an obligation to be proud of. One is even encouraged to blame the enemies of Islam for one’s lies. Sharia law states: “Lying is obligatory if the purpose is obligatory.” Muslim clerics have no problem lying not just to the non-Muslim world but even to the Muslim masses since Islam also allows Muslims to lie in order to bring Muslims together in harmony and friendship. http://frontpagemag.com/2012/nonie-darwish/obamas-allegiance-to-the-unholy-alliance/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=f58c47bf21-Mailchimp_FrontPageMag As a Christian, and even as a human with basic moral precepts as to how humans should act towards his fellow humans, I consider it a self evident refutation for any supposed holy book of the world to encourage murder, violence, and even lying, against those who don't believe as you believe. To re-post a very informative video: The History Of Jihad Told In Detail by William Federer (Part1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3SWgMfbizQ bornagain77

Over here in Europe islam is on the rise. The lights are going out all over Europe. Do NOT let this happen in the USA. Box

BA: I take your point. KF kairosfocus

KF, have you read the rest of Dr. Hunter's post? bornagain77

JM: I assure you, you are reading grossly out of context, and in light of an externally imposed frame of thought. I have already pointed you to the first chapter of the work in question, as a first corrective, so I will carry on no farther. It is high time that this thread returns to a serious focal issue from the OP which is well worth addressing in its own right. KF kairosfocus

KF, "What really matters" is this: "If you are an evolutionist, please do not peg yourself to atheism, pantheism, Gnosticism, or any other belief that rejects the truth and saving grace of Jesus Christ, merely because you are an evolutionist. There are a great many Christians who are evolutionists. You can be an evolutionist and a Christ follower. So do me one favor. Give Jesus a chance. You may think creationists are ignorant and evolution is compelling, but give Him a chance. Here’s a suggestion, read one of the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John). Read a page a day and it will require only a month or two. It will make you more knowledgeable of what is, after all, the most influential book ever written. Shouldn’t you have some knowledge of what that book actually says? Don’t make more out of evolution than what it is. Jesus died for our sins and without Him we have no hope." bornagain77

KF, And you are going to get somewhere with Christianity with someone who buys into the 911 conspiracy theory just to save his Islamic faith from shame, how? You have more hope than I have that is for sure mon! :) bornagain77

F/N: After some 62 posts, let me remind all of the actual focal issue:

I believe there are big problems with evolution. But I could be wrong. Or perhaps I’m right but some form of evolution is nonetheless true. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are much more certain and there is a never-ending drum roll of high truth claims from their camp. These truth claims are unwarranted and it is them, rather than the theory itself, that are the problem. So I’m not so much concerned about the theory itself as I am about the certainty with which it is presented.

This is a question on scientific warrant, inductive logic and issues of rhetorical exaggeration and question begging. Kindly, let us address them. KF kairosfocus

KF: HEBREWS 5:7 is clear and whatever follows from that verse looks out of place and does not make sense . Btw the site you referred to has its response in AnsweringChristianity website I apologise for having played my part in derailing this thread but I am not the only one and I will try my best to stick to the topic of the titles from now on . JoeMorreale1187

PARDON, somehow posted by accident . . . ++++++++ ... taken up in the Nicene Creed:

Heb 1:1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He [= the Eternal Son, not a child of the sort spoken of in the silly pagan legends of the gods and pretty girls] is the radiance of the glory of God [--> "Light of Light" in the NC] and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins [--> a cleansing, i.e. the atonement], he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. 5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? 6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.” 7 Of the angels he says, “He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.” 8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” 10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; 11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, 12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed.[a] But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” 13 And to which of the angels has he ever said, “Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”? 14 Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

. . . and has as main theme, the Atoning work of Christ, in fulfillment of the explicit and implicit prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures. In short, JM, you have not been given a true and fair view of the C1 teachings of the NT. Yes, these are radically different from the teachings of Islam, and they are astonishing by any measure, but we should address them on their own terms, not the imposed framework of another system. (That is explored in the already linked site if you wish to see why for crude instance we are not saying 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, nor are we saying that we elevate "partners" alongside the one true God, i.e. the accusation of shirk is wrong, and its context is wrong, inaccurate to the actual teachings.] I do not have polemical intent, just to provide a balance on a selective point, and to call for understanding the Christian faith on its own terms. Now, can we put this thread on track, to discuss the actual focal matters in the OP? KF kairosfocus

What Americans need to know about Islam - part 1 of 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvoLg8KQmXs bornagain77

The History Of Jihad Told In Detail by William Federer (Part1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3SWgMfbizQ bornagain77

Folks: This is what I was warning about in comment no 32, a death spiral down and away from the proper focal issue in the thread. I suggest a time out to address the proper focal issue, and that if you want to enter into debates on Islam, a much better forum would be in the context of this site at a forum that discusses these matters. And JM, pardon, but you are not dealing with naifs. Before you try to dismiss the Nicene Creed I suggest you examine what was already linked in 32 above, in light of the general warrant in the same site that is onward linked. (Just note, the Creed is made up in the main part from the earliest historical reference to Christ and his status as Messiah, 1 Cor 15:1 - 11, dating to AD 55 and recording the C1 church's official testimony and main witnesses [about 20 being specifically identifiable], dating to 35 - 38 AD. To this, a Biblically based prefix is attached, and a similarly based suffix.) Going beyond, I found it sadly astonishing to see your blatantly out of context misreading of say Heb, which begins with remarks like this . . . which BTW are directly taken up in the Nicene Creed:

. . . and has as main theme, the Atoning work of the said Christ. kairosfocus

I would like to conclude for tonight and remember in the meantime that: There is no object worthy of worship but Allah (The God) Semitic name including the ARAMAIC , not Greek or Latin for God that Jesus pbuh used ) And that Muhammad saws is His servant and Final Messenger Ciao for now oh! JoeMorreale1187

is that the government affiliated NIST That has been caught Lying and contradicting itself along with Popular Mechanics which have been thoroughly exposed and devastatingly refuted by the likes of Richard Gage at AE9/11Truth and David Ray Griffin that you are talking about? Wikipedia ? The same Wikipedia that deliberately distorts and misrepresents Intelligent Design? Mate , you are seriously wasting my time . Whether you like it or it is convenient you or not academic and intellectual honesty and objectivity demands that you change your mentality. JoeMorreale1187

Unscientific??? The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the technology magazine Popular Mechanics have investigated and rejected the claims made by 9/11 conspiracy theories.[14][15] The civil engineering community accepts that the impacts of jet aircraft at high speeds in combination with subsequent fires, not controlled demolition, led to the collapse of the Twin Towers.[16] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories bornagain77

Btw just before I conclude on this particular thread I would like to point out as further and conclusive proof that you are guided in your opinions by convenience and not the truth by the example of you not accepting that 9/11 was an inside job. To hold this view clearly means you having to be unscientific. JoeMorreale1187

So basically Joe, you have no archeological evidence to support the early years of Islam (though you denied it) You have no positive Near Death Experiences to point to in the Muslim culture. (You denied they matter). You said that Jesus did not really die on the cross (which is laughable, even Christ's enemies admitted that he died and the tomb was empty and the Shroud testifies that he had indeed died before his resurrection). Then when confronted with clear evidence of violence by Muslims (for instance the Trade Center) you deny Muslims did it and say I'm a joker? (denialism and Ad hominem). You then try to deflect the inherent violence within Islam by saying that Jesus incited violence, (which is just plain false) ,,, Then you call me ignorant, etc... Save for the topic under discussion Joe, this conversation has gone pretty much like the hundreds upon hundreds of debates I've had with atheists on the internet. bornagain77

My point that you conveniently lap up the bad examples of Muslims that the media like to portray . Anyway you are clearly ignorant , wilfully ignorant I must add so good luck to you. You can take the horse to the water but...... JoeMorreale1187

You are a clearcut joker . The verse is describing letting the non-Muslims listen to the Quran and NOT COMPELLING them to accept Islam. They are free to go and they were as this verse was describing a battle at that time . Btw so Muslims are not allowed to take non Muslims for friends but are allowed to marry Jews and Christians though!! JoeMorreale1187

Joe "Your latest comment has just proved my point!" What point? That the guy had his hand amputated for daring to speak out against Islam? That's the reality of Islam Joe. Look closely at the picture Joe, his hand is GONE because of Islamic law! That's your religion which you claim I misunderstand. bornagain77

I am not wasting anymore more time with you regarding this subject and I am going to try to resist the temptation to respond to your ignorance, distortions and provocations. JoeMorreale1187

"Those verses I mentioned regarding Jesus are in the NT which shows that when necessary taking arms is legitimate and I am sure you are aware of them and there is no getting away from them ." Really? The verses seem to slip my mind right now,,, Can you please help me and cite the exact verses where Jesus says it is OK to take up arms against your enemy and kill him? As to: ,GIVE HIM PROTECTION UNTIL HE LISTENS TO THE WORD OF ALLAH Joe, if he 'listens to the words of Allah' he is OK???, but what if he, like me, continues to think that Islam is a false and violent religion and refuses to listen? Is it OK for a Muslim to kill them then??? I really want to get the details down so I don't misinterpret you! :) bornagain77

Your latest comment has just proved my point! JoeMorreale1187

Those verses I mentioned regarding Jesus are in the NT which shows that when necessary taking arms is legitimate and I am sure you are aware of them and there is no getting away from them . Regarding 9:5 once again totally divorced from its context. EXCEPT THOSE OF THE POLYTHEISTS WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A TREATY, AND THEY WERE NIT DEFICIENT IN FULFILLING THE TREATY WITH YOU, AND DID NOT BACK ANY ONE AGAINST YOU. SO FULFILL THE TREATY WITH THEM UO TO THEIR TERM . Then verse 5 kicks in! Then verse 6 says SURELY ALLAH MOST FORGIVING, MERCIFUL .AND IF ANYONE OF THE POLYTHEISTS SEEK YOUR PROTECTION ,GIVE HIM PROTECTION UNTILL HE LISTENS TO THE WORD OF ALLAH , THEN LET HIM REACH HUS PLACE OF SAFETY ; THAT IS BECAUSE THEY ARE A PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW Ignorance is one thing but you are making it obvious that you are conveniently clinging to outdated images of Islam which the media like to portray. This is intellectual dishonesty on your part and I am not going to clear up anymore verses for. Read the book/s and educate yourself on Islam JoeMorreale1187

Joe, I wonder if the Muslims that amputated this guy's hand need to read the book you referenced explaining that the Koran does not incite violence? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1885052.stm bornagain77

HMMM Joe, so I just misunderstand the context when the Koran states something like this: [9.5] When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. Joe you claim Jesus incites 'physical' violence and murder??? REALLY??? Actually Joe it is quite the opposite, Jesus said that if you even hate your brother you have already committed murder! Many verses could be cited supporting that position, but to give you a clue as to what kind of 'warfare' Jesus is talking about: John 18:36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." bornagain77

I will give you an example started with the first verse which STARTS at 190: FIGHT IN THE CAUSE OF ALLAH THOSE WHO FIGHT YOU BUT DO NOT TRANSGRESS LIMITS; FOR ALLAH LOVETH NOT THE TRANGRESSORS....... Please do yourself a favour and buy on kindle the 'Islam: Silencing the Critics' book and go to the contents where it says The 'violent' verses in the Quran that deals with every single verse that you have quoted and more. JoeMorreale1187

And I did not come here claiming superiority for Islam. in fact I have even made positive comments about Christian contribution to science and said we share a common enemy in secular and atheistic ideologies . It was you that tried to make out that you can only come right by God via the Christian perspective on sin etc etc..... JoeMorreale1187

EVERY single verse you have mentioned comes with a context leading to the verse and/or after which you have due to ignorance or convenience left out . And that is why I have recommended several books to you that deal with every single one of them. If you are honest you will make an effort to read them. Now do you really want me to get started with the Old Testament??? Even Jesus according to the New Testament says that he did not come to bring peace but division and spoke about taking arms like swords when necessary . When he rode into Jerusalem again according to the NT he says that those who do not obey him should be brought to him and be slayed!! JoeMorreale1187

Now, Now, Joe, this thread is dedicated to Christianity and you are the one coming on here claiming Islam to be superior, don't back out now that it's getting juicy. So 911 was an inside job??? really??? Was the holocaust real or not??? You also claim that Islam does not incite violence against Christians and Jews? Really Joe???? Okie Dokie Joe let's go through the particular Koran verses and you tell me which ones are not in the Koran: 1) [2.191] And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. 2) [3:28] Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. 3) [3.151] We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they set up with Allah that for which He has sent down no authority, and their abode is the fire, and evil is the abode of the unjust. 4) [4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great. 5) [4.76] Those who believe fight in the way of Allah, and those who disbelieve fight in the way of the Satan. Fight therefore against the friends of the Satan; surely the strategy of the Satan is weak. 6) [5.51] O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people 7) [8.12] When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them. 8) [8.69] Eat then of the lawful and good (things) which you have acquired in war, and be careful of your duty to Allah; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 9) [9.5] When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. 10) [9.5] When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. 11) [9.14] Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing people. 12) [9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah (Jews and Christians), nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax (jizya) in acknowledgment of (Islamic) superiority and they are in a state of subjection. 13) [9.30] And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away! 14) [9.33] He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions, though the polytheists may be averse. 15) [9.123] O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil). 16) [22.39] Permission (to fight) is given to those upon whom war is made because they are oppressed, and most surely Allah is well able to assist them. 17) [33.61] Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering. 18) [47.4] So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners 19) [48.28] He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness. 20) [48.29] Muhammad is God’s apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another. 21) [61.9] He it is Who sent His Apostle with the guidance and the true religion, that He may make it overcome the religions, all of them, though the polytheists may be averse. 22) [62.6] O ye who are Jews! If ye claim that ye are favoured of Allah to the exclusion of all mankind, and then long for death (as believers do) if ye are truthful. Dear Brother and Sisters, did you know that there are 123 verses in the Quran concerning fighting and killing for the cause of Allah? Here are but a few passages are sent herewith for your kind information:- 1) Regarding infidels (unbelievers), they are the Muslim’s “inveterate enemies” (Sura 4:101). Muslims are to “arrest them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere” (Sura 9:5) for them. They are to “seize them and put them to death wherever you find them, kill them wherever you find them, seek out the enemies of Islam relentlessly” (Sura 4:90). “Fight them until Islam reigns supreme” (Sura 2:193). “Cut off their heads, and cut off the tips of their fingers” (Sura 8:12). 2) If a Muslim does not go to war, Allah will kill him (Sura 9:39). He is to be told, “the heat of war is fierce, but more fierce is the heat of Hell-fire” (Sura 9:81). 3) They should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides. (Koran 5:33) 4) Muslims are to be “ruthless to unbelievers” (Sura 48:29). 5) Muslims are encouraged to be wholly occupied (Sura 2:273) with fighting for Allah’s cause. 6) Muslims are encouraged to be wholly occupied (Sura 2:273) with fighting for Allah’s cause. 7) I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them. (Koran 8:12) 8) Slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush. (Koran 9:5) 9) Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him. Sahih Al-Bukhari (9:57) 10) Anyone who fights against Allah or renounces Islam in favor of another religion shall be “put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off alternative sides” (Sura 5:34). 11) Allah loves those who “fight for his cause” (Sura 61:3). 12) A Muslim should “enjoy the good things” he has gained by fighting (Sura 8:69). 13) Muslims must make war on the infidels (unbelievers) who live around them (Sura 9:123). 14) A Muslim can kill any person he wishes if it be a “just cause” (Sura 6:152). 15) Allah will give “a far richer recompense to those who fight for him” (Sura 4:96). 16) A Muslim must “fight for the cause of Allah with the devotion due to him” (Sura 22:78) 17) Take him and fetter him and expose him to hell fire. (Koran 69:30-37) Read more: Difference Between Islam and Christianity | Difference Between | Islam vs Christianity http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-islam-and-christianity/#ixzz2JaPpc28I bornagain77

I didn't join these threads to incur hostility am engage in comparative religious debates which should be and are best done elsewhere . I joined for the reason that this is an excellent website that exposes and refutes Neo Darwinian Evolution and makes a compelling and in my opinion conclusive case for Intelligent Design. So as of now I will not respond to any comparative religious comments even if provoked. Whoever wants to debate me can do so on yusufsalahuhdin@googlemail.com JoeMorreale1187

Stephen B: what I will say about abrogation is that according to the Bible or the Christians interpretation of it is that virtually the whole of the New Testament due to Paul and not Jesus who clearly said He came to uphold and fulfil the Law abrogated the Old Testament! JoeMorreale1187

Islam the untold story has been exposed for its fallacy on article and video which you can catch on Hamza Tzortzis and IERA website. They even claim that Mecca didn't exist at the time of Prophet Muhammad saws!! I don't know if its genuine ignorance or convenience on your part but regarding the Quran and violence I recommend you read 'The Lies about Muhammad: How you were deceived into Islamaphobia ' by Mustafa Zayed and 'Islam:Silencing the critics' for a page for page refutation of the misconceptions, distortions and outright lies regarding Islam. I think you should abandon getting your information from CNN, Fox News , Sky and the BBC. The Quran's authenticity in doubt as you claim but the Bible is not? Are you serious??? I have already said that religious experiences real or not happen to all types religious and non and our subjective and not concrete proof for truth claims. I'm an Italian and ex Roman Catholic Sadly I notice that many Christians go outside scripture to 'prove' their beliefs and claims and appeal to subjective experiencess and emotional arguments. This is hardly intellectual or scientific. Speaking about science and the scientific method: Has not the ewes that 9/11 was an inside job reached you yet? JoeMorreale1187

Joe Morreale1187, what is your position on the Islamic doctrine of "abrogation," (if two moral directives are in conflict, the one written later cancels out the one written earlier). StephenB

Here is a post listing many verses from the Koran that incite violence and murder against non-believers in general and against Christians and Jews in particular: http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/difference-between-islam-and-christianity/comment-page-1/#comment-159800 As a sidelight to this, it is interesting to note that unlike Christianity (and Judaism) which each have stunning archeological confirmation backing up the historicity of each, the accuracy of the historicity of Islam, particularly its origin as told in the Koran, is in severe doubt when it comes to archeological confirmation. The following video reveals the poverty of archeological evidence backing up Islam's historicity: Islam, the untold story - video http://apostates.weebly.com/islam-the-untold-story.html bornagain77

Joe as to this particular comment of yours:

I believe in near death experiences but unless You are a genuine Martyr or Prophet /Messenger of God nobody is shown Paradise until the Day of judgement

So the Muslims, that slammed those airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, were they martyrs to you or did they commit egregious evil? i.e. Are they in paradise now because of what they did in your belief system? bornagain77

KF: The Nicene Creed? Sorry but do you really want to be going there ? JoeMorreale1187

Although I am a fan of W Lane Craig in his debates against atheism I don't agree with you that he refutes Jamal Badawi. I definitely don't think he beats Shabir Ally in his debates with him either in my opinion. As regards the crucifixion it is not at all as solid as many think. Matthew 10:24 ' A disciple (Paul had never met Jesus so was not even that,). Is not above his teacher , nor a servant above his master" (1) Blood sacrifice is not needed. Hosea 6:6, Matthew 9:13 and 12:7 (2) Sign of Jonah Matthew 12: 38-40 Jonah's miracle was that he was expected to die but lived . Jesus being saved from the cross also! Jesus also declared this Sign as the 'only' above all the other miracles that he had shown. (4) the word risen is consistently used instead of Resurection which is different. Risen from the dead is never from the lips of Jesus himself (5) The Turin Shroud: ' The Jesus Conspiracy' by Holger Kersten and Elmar shows that whoever was wrapped in the shroud did not die, and that the organised Church has made extensive effort to including falsifying carbon dating tests ) to discredit the authenticity of the shroud and hence perhaps the reason to their continul rejection to independent testing. One has to wonder why? (6) Deuteronomy 22:23 " .. He who is hanged ( crucified) is accursed of God. Jesus cursed? I don't think so. (7) HEBREWS 5:7 "In the days of his flesh , Jesus offered up prayers and SUPPLICATIONS , with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to SAVE FROM DEATH, and he was HEARD because of his reverent submission. heard meaning his prayers were ANSWERED as at no time is God deaf is he? (8) Judas the traitor and this would be more logical and just could be the one that was placed on the cross instead because the Bible writers don't seem to be sure of his whereabouts or ending and death as Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 contradict each other (9) There are many contradictions regarding before and the aftermath of the alleged crucifixion at the tomb scene . (10) Many early Christian groups like the Corinthians , Basilidians , Paulinians and the Carpocrations. Paul who claimed to have seen and receiving revelation from the risen Christ was in opposition to Jesus' disciples particularly his brother James. From a choice between Jesus , his closest disciples including family members and Paul it is obvious who one should choose..... JoeMorreale1187

JM: Pardon, with all due respect, I would suggest hesitating before dismissing another participant here as in effect a fraud; the direct implication of your words above. We do not need to go down that road. FYI, I have taken time to look at PJ's extended testimony, and I rather doubt that he is inclined to fabricate stories. FYFI, I think you will find that we also know a bit on the difference between the Jesus of the NT and the early reports as discussed in a recent UD thread, and the Prophet Isa including the eschatological forms joined to Mahdi, the Gharqad tree hadith and the hadith of the black flag army used by Islamists, as well. As in, we know full well that Christians who take something like the Nicene Creed seriously and understand Jesus in these terms -- which are provably pretty directly derived from the NT (which is authentically a C1 collection tracing in many respects to eyewitness testimony) -- would be viewed by many Muslims as guilty of Shirk, with certain Quranic texts being pretty direct support for that. In addition, someone who has been influenced by the sort of Islamic polemics emanating from several well known and widely publicised individuals such as Deedat, could very well summarise his view on the Jesus Christians believe in in the terms described. Finally, there is a fairly widespread movement of now former Muslims who have had revelatory dreams in which Jesus has appeared to them and has provided guidance through the gospel. Indeed, joined with the likes of Fr Boutros' work, there is a definite and strong movement across the ME and Africa, of Muslims becoming Christians. Cf. collection of testimonies here. So, please, let us keep this on balance. KF kairosfocus

In the Christian West you also have many more Christians who are nominal and not practicing beyond celebrating Christmas and Easter and few other festivals . I believe in near death experiences but unless You are a genuine Martyr or Prophet /Messenger of God nobody is shown Paradise until the Day of judgement . So what these people are experiencing is a 'taste' of the Unseen realm of the Hereafter. As to to why very few Muslims according to you experience NDExperiences the answer in my opinion is that it is the West that atheism, skepticism, materialism etc etc reigns supreme so God in His Mercy helps those people out. No such doubts in the Hereafter exists amongst Muslims so as a result we don't reassurances ! JoeMorreale1187

Hi Joe, I appreciate what you are saying, in reagrds to how you regard Jesus, but I'm fairly positive that is what he said. I have thought about this myself many times, although on the few occsaions i have seen him since I have not mentioned it, but from what i could make out in our conversation that evening, not all Muslims regard Christ in a postive manner. Perhaps there are those, like my old school friend, who grow up with a hatred for Him. I really don't know? What I do know is that not long after he told me of his expereince he left a group who were meeting in a room at the back of an Indian restaurant becuase he no longer felt comfortable with what they preached. What I have told you is true. PeterJ

Joe, the Islamic contention that Jesus did not really die on the cross is laughable. The Shroud itself tells that that Christ was dead and the moment when the image was formed on the Shroud by a burst of light emanating from the body: Here a forensic pathologist examines the Shroud: Forensic evidence of the Shroud of Turin – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYG6wETAxjI Here is a recent paper testifying as to the intensity of the light coming from the body to form the image on the Shroud: Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html Here Dr. William Lane Craig takes, in my opinion, a Islamic scholar apart on the death and resurrection of Jesus: William Lane Craig vs Jamal Badawi Debate (HQ) 1/11 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h51YwIMxtrQ As well Joe, perhaps you can help me with a little problem. You see Joe, in the Christian west, we have millions upon millions of people who have had near death experiences where they say they have gone through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension and experienced paradise with unspeakable love and joy,, etc.. etc..,,, Such as this example: Coast to Coast - Vicki's Near Death Experience (Blind From Birth) part 1 of 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e65KhcCS5-Y My problem is that I can't seem to find any Muslim Near Death Experiences that speak of Muslims going to such a wonderful higher dimension. In fact, in spite of my spending a few hours on the web searching for positive Muslim Near Death Experiences, I found only one, a young teenage boy, that could be termed pleasant but it did not have the tunnel or 'the Being of Light' as is common in the Judeo-Christian Western NDE's. Why is this Joe? bornagain77

Peter J: Having read your comment again I'm a little suspicious that its fabricated . It is an article of faith for us Muslims to love and believe in Jesus whom we are waiting and looking forward to his return so the what does the ' man who we despised' rubbish supposed to mean? So If your friends 'vision' is genuine it sounds not like Jesus that came to him but some evil jiin/demon spirit...... JoeMorreale1187

Peter J: Interesting story but is subjective so let's move on from the classic 'have you felt Jesus / Holy Spirit in your life?' Sayings shall we JoeMorreale1187

The reason for Jesus' body not being found is very simple . God spared him the humiliation and death of the cross and raised him up to Himself where soon he will return to defeat the anti-Christ . Sadly the majority of the Jews back then and since mistakenly and gloatingly believe they managed to kill/crucify Jesus which to them as per Old Testament would have meant he was cursed and therefore proof that he was not the genuine article . The Quran refutes this vain wishful thinking on their part by clearly stating that they failed in this mission. At the same time also annulling the concept of Original Sin / sacrifice atonement doctrine of the Church/s. Btw next to the Prophet Muhammad's pbuh grave a space has deliberately been left by the Muslims because that is where Jesus pbuh will be buried after his mission is over on his return...... JoeMorreale1187

Bornagain, the Islamic viewpoint on the 'problem of evil' is detailed on a good website of Hamza Tzortzis. We believe tha botht Adam and Eve not out of maliciousness but forgeffullness after a long time ( the Bible gives the impression that after a literal 24 hour 6 day creation and then only a few days after they were tempted by Satan) made a mistake and sinned allowing themselves to be deceived by Satan . As a result God expelled them from Paradise to earth and that was sufficient punishment for them. We do not accept that the concept of Original Sin which their progeny thereonwards inherited as a curse and stain awaiting its liberation by the alleged sacrife by man/God Jesus on the cross according to Church/s. Every individual is responsible for their own sins and no one comes along to pay the price for them . It is illogical in my opinion that for eg in a classroom full of bad kids the only one that gets killed/sacrificed or punished is the teachers son who is good!! God the Self Sufficient and inimitable Creator knows our every thoughts and how we feel and does not need to become like an element of His own creation I.e human like Jesus to understand us . If you manufacture a DVD player do you need to BECOME the DVD player to know how it works??? Obviously not , you simply give an instruction manual to go along with the product. God''s instruction manuals are His chosen one a prophets and Messengers who's guidance we should do our best to follow in the hope of attaining success in the Hereafter. if ones insists that Jesus died on the cross does that mean you believe that the eternal God died?! JoeMorreale1187

Hi BA77, I would just like to add a little testimony here if i may. For almost 25 years of my life I was a drug addict, dealt drugs to feed my habbits as well as comitted various other crimes. At the age of 38 however, after a failed suicide attempt I found myself in a Christian rehab where after giving my life to Jesus I experienced a miracle and was completely set free. This was almost 7 years ago and I have recently published a book about this called 'Design for Life'. However, plugging my book was not the aim of this post but to share a testimony, so I better get on with it! In 2008, almost 2 years after leaving the rehab, to celebrate my 40th birthday, I decided to attend a school reunion in my home town of Lerwick (shetland Isles). When I was there I was approached by an old school friend, who I hadn't seen since leaving school, a man of Pakistani origin. A year before this event there had been an article in The Shetland Times telling my story 'Addict cured at Papa Stour', and in that article I shared my expereince of Jesus appearing to me in a dream and talking with me. My friend told me that he'd read it and wanted to find out a little more so I told him as much as i could. When I'd finished he looked at me and with tears in his eyes began to tell me of how his life had been. Although he had become a succesful buisinessman there was a period in his life where he had suffered great loss, his wife had suffered terribly in an accident, and various other things had gone wrong for him. He told me that although he had great faith in Allah, being a Muslim, he had felt there was nothing else for him to do but take his own life, until ... like me he had a dream. 'Peter' he said 'For weeks I had cried out to Allah to help us, but nothing ever came, and just when I thought it was over I had a dream in which this Christ you talk about came to me and spoke to me, just like wrote in that article, and he told me that everything was going to be okay' His life changed at that point. He didn't take his life, and sure enough, over the years things began to improve. He now firmly believes in Jesus. I will never forget that conversation, especially when he added 'it wasn't Muhammed who came to me, but the very man who we despise' Make of that what you will! PeterJ

Joe, moreover, we have assurance that Jesus paid the penalty of death on our behalf by the fact that Jesus rose from the dead. The fact is that, as I've heard said by many preachers before, you can go to the graves of all the other founders of all the other major religions of the world and find the remains of a body,

Muhammad's grave lies within the confines of what used to be his wife Aisha's and his house. During his lifetime it adjoined the mosque, which was expanded during the reign of Caliph al-Walid I to include his tomb.[3] Muhammad is buried next to the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar. Umar was gifted a spot next to Muhammad by his wife Aisha, which she had intended for herself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burial_places_of_founders_of_world_religions#Islam

yet, as the Shroud of Turin stubbornly testifies despite many attempts by atheists to refute the Shroud’s authenticity, if you go to the tomb of Jesus (i.e. the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) you will not find the remains of a body because Jesus has risen from the dead. i.e. The penalty of death has been paid! bornagain77

JoeMorreale1187, as to this comment:

earning good deeds that over balance the bad but ultimately it is still by the mercy of God

Joe, you don't seem to grasp the severity of 'the problem',,,

Is God Good? (Free will and the problem of evil) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfd_1UAjeIA

Man, in his free will, sinned against Almighty God who is infinitely just and infinitely holy,,, And the penalty for sinning against Almighty God is separation from God and thus the penalty of sinning against God is death. Thus the only way for true reconciliation of man, who is under the penalty of death, to be accomplished with Almighty God is by God Himself, since only He had/has the moral perfection necessary to pay the penalty of death on our behalf.,,, Heaping up 'good works', as Muslims, and as Buddhists, do (karma), hoping they will be enough to outweigh the bad deeds in your life when God judges the deeds of each man, is to seriously underestimate the gravity of the situation. bornagain77

I realise that from your point of view you believe that only Jesus was perfect and this is probably due to the fact that falsities and erroneous behaviour are attributed to the Old Testament Prophets. As a Muslim we don't believe and accept that because the Quran rejects this and logically speaking and thinking the purpose behind God choosing His Prophets / Messengers is so that they are perfect role models for humanity to follow. This is what distinguishes them from the common folk. Their behavioural example combined with the accompanied miracles from God make them very easy to recognise as the genuine article. JoeMorreale1187

The Bible Series - Part 1 - video - "The Bible," an epic 10-hour-five-part film that will premiere Sunday, March 3 at 8pm ET on History Channel - Mark Burnett (Producer of The Voice, The Apprentice, and Shark Tank) and Roma Downey (Touched By an Angel) are here (on 100Huntley) to talk about their project "The Bible" premiering March 3 on History Channel. Roma Downey & Mark Burnett - Executive Producers, "The Bible" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrOEcyxS4Js The Bible Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBLLrIp-OnU "The Bible," an epic 10-hour-five-part film that will premiere Sunday, March 3 at 8pm ET on History Channel - official site http://www.bibleseries.tv/ bornagain77

Bornagain77 In Islam salvation is attained by the correct creedal belief followed by a life striving to be righteous and earning good deeds that over balance the bad but ultimately it is still by the mercy of God that we are entered into Paradise. The Quran makes it clear that God's Prohets and Messengers as His chosen ones were morally perfect human beings who's Guidance should be followed as they are perfect role models that we should do our best to imitate because in so doing we please God and can hope to achieve salvation JoeMorreale1187

JoeMorreale1187, if you don't mind me asking, how is a right relationship with Almighty God restored in Islam? Is it through our own limited efforts? In Christianity it is God who makes propitiation on our behalf. Falling Plates - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfEBfLhKktQ G.O.S.P.E.L. – (the grace of propitiation) poetry slam – video https://vimeo.com/20960385 In Islam, much like in Judaism, I see a legalistic system that is based on the works and efforts of sinful man instead of being based on the work of God, and I don't see how it is logically possible for complete restoration (propitiation) to be made for sinful man, in the eyes of a perfectly good and just God, in such a legalistic system: The problem is this. – Despite what is commonly believed, of someone being 'good enough', 'working hard enough', to go to heaven, in reality both Mother Teresa and Hitler fall short of the moral perfection required to meet the perfection of God’s objective moral code. Top Ten Reasons We Know the New Testament is True – Frank Turek – video – November 2011 (41:00 minute mark) http://saddleback.com/mc/m/5e22f/ Thus it follows since moral perfection is impossible for man to achieve through his own efforts then reconciliation for fallen, sinful, man must be achieved by God. bornagain77

OK, let me rephrase that: Actually the only thing that really matters is the reality behind our existence, ie how did we really get here? And thanks JoeMorreale1187, I am well aware of the Muslim contribution to the world's knowledge. It's too bad it seemed to have peaked and then virtually stopped many years ago. And thanks again bornagain77- but perhaps you should ease up on the caffiene :) But in all fairness I knew someone was going to hammer me with the "truth". :cool: Joe

JoeMorreale1187, welcome! bornagain77

Apologies , that was £1:92 on Kindle JoeMorreale1187

Thanks Joe There is an absolutely brilliant book by an ex atheist Laurence Brown 'the First and Final Commandment: A search for Truth in Revelation within the Abrahamic Religions' For only £1.92 Regarding the Muslim contribution to science and as a result the scientific revolution/Western civilisation I recommend : 1001 Inventions : Muslim Heritage in Our World The Hidden Debt to Islamic Civilisation - S.E Al Djazairi Science in the name of God - Dr Kasem Khaleel When you then add to that what Christian scientists then achieved following on from that the historical documented record makes it clear that Religious Theistic believers in God founded modern Science . Sadly and tragically then came along in the last 150 years the false and ugly fairy tale theory of goo to you by way of the zoo blind , unguided and purposeless theory of NDE..... JoeMorreale1187

Welcome, JoeMorreale1187! You said:

As a Muslim I don’t agree with that...

Ask your Muslim friends to join in! UD needs fresh perspectives to broaden the focus of ID science beyond sectarian Christianity. After all, science is science and Islam has made signal contributions to scientific progress. Daniel King

Joe as to:

"Actually the only thing that really matters is the truth, ie the reality, behind our existence."

To which it is natural to ask:

John 18:38 "What is truth?" Pilate asked. With this he went out again to the Jews and said, "I find no basis for a charge against him.

Joe, to varying degrees everyone looks for truth. A few people back in the 60's, such as the Beatles, have traveled to distant lands seeking gurus in their quest to find “Truth”. People are happy when they discover a new truth into the mysteries of life. People who have deep insights into the truth of how things actually work are considered wise. In the bible Jesus says “You will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” So, since truth is considered such a good thing, let us look for truth in a common object; a simple rock. Few people would try to argue that a rock is not real. Someone who would argue that it is not real could bang his head on the rock until he was satisfied the rock is real. A rock is composed of three basic ingredients; energy, force and ‘truth’. From Einstein’s famous equation (e=mc2) we know that all matter (all solids, liquids and gases) of the universe are ultimately made up of energy and therefore the entire rock can “hypothetically” be reduced to energy.

E=mc²: Einstein explains his famous formula - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CC7Sg41Bp-U

This energy is “woven” by various complex, unchanging, transcendent, universal forces into the atoms of the rock. The amount of energy woven by these complex interactions of various, unchanging, universal forces into the rock is tremendous. This tremendous energy that is in the rock is clearly demonstrated by the detonation of nuclear bombs.

Atomic Bomb Explosion - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-22tna7KHzI 6.4 mg of mass converted to energy in Hiroshima A-bomb 4,400,000 Hiroshima A-bombs equivalent to one ounce of mass 1 drop of water equivalent to 10 Hiroshima A-bombs Entire energy consumption of America, for 1 year, equivalent to 1 bowling ball 52 X 10^55 Hiroshima bombs equivalent at ‘Big Bang’ Big Bang After its (The Big Bang's) initial expansion from a singularity, the Universe cooled sufficiently to allow energy to be converted into various subatomic particles, including protons, neutrons, and electrons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

This woven energy is found in each and every individual “particle/wave” of every atom, in the trillions upon countless trillions of atoms in the rock. While energy can be said to be what gives “substance” to the rock, energy in and of itself is a “non-solid” entity. In fact, it is the unchanging, transcendent, universal constants/forces, which are 'unseen', that tell the energy exactly where to be and what to do in the rock, and are what can be said to be the ONLY solid, uncompromising “thing” in the rock. The last part of this following video, starting at the 5:09 minute mark, has some excellent photographs of atoms that gets this 'non-solid' point of the energy/matter of a rock across as well as giving a tiny glimpse of where the universal constants come into play.

Uncertainty Principle – The ‘Uncertain Non-Particle’ Basis Of Material Reality – video and article http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172

,,,Yet there is another ingredient which went into making the atoms of the rock besides the universal constants/forces and matter/energy. An ingredient that is often neglected to be looked at as a “real” component of the rock. It is the transcendent and spiritual component of truth. If truth did not exist the rock would not exist. This is as obvious as the fact that the rock would not exist if energy and/or unchanging force did not exist. It is the truth in and of the logical laws of the interrelated unchanging forces of the universal constants that govern the energy in the rock that enable the rock to be a rock in the first place. Is truth independent and dominant of the energy and force? Yes of course, there are many philosophical truths of reason that are not dependent on energy or force for them to still be true. Yet energy and unchanging force are precisely subject to what the unchanging “truth” tells them they can and cannot do in the rock. To put it another way, the rock cannot exist without truth yet truth can exist independently of the rock. Since truth clearly dictates what energy and/or unchanging force can or cannot do, it follows that truth dominates energy and unchanging force. Energy and unchanging force do not dominate truth. It is also obvious that truth is omnipresent in this universe. That is to say, the truth that is in the rock on this world is the same truth that is in a rock on the other side of the universe on another world. Thus, truth is present everywhere at all times in this universe (Indeed, Science would be extremely difficult, to put it very mildly, if this uniformity of truth, for all of nature, were not so). It has also been scientifically proven, by quantum non-locality, that whenever something becomes physically “true” (wave collapse of entangled electron, photon) in any part of the universe, this “truth” is instantaneously communicated anywhere/everywhere in the universe to its corresponding “particle”.

Light and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some of the Characteristics Of God - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4102182

Thus, truth is “aware” of everything that goes on in the universe instantaneously. This universal, instantaneous, awareness of a transcendent truth also gives truth the vital characteristic of being omniscient (All knowing). This instantaneous communication of truth to all points in the universe also happens to defy the speed of light; a “truth” that energy and even the unchanging force of gravity happen to be subject to (I believe all fundamental forces are shown to be subject to this “truth’ of the speed of light). This scientific proof of ‘instantaneous’ quantum non-locality also proves that truth is not a “passive” component of this universe. Truth is actually scientifically demonstrated, by quantum non-locality (and quantum teleportation), to be the “active” dominant component of this universe. Thus, truth is not a passive set of rules written on a sheet of paper somewhere. Truth is the “living governor” of this universe that has dominion over all other components of this universe and is not bound by any of the laws that “truth” has subjected all the other components of the universe to. Truth is in fact a tangible entity that enables and dictates this universe to exist in a overarching non-chaotic form so as to enable life to exist. This "Truth", which is shown not to be subject to time in any way, shape, or form, by quantum non-locality, has also demonstrated foresight and purpose in the extreme fine-tuning for this temporal universe and, as such, can be said to be “alive” from the fact that a “decision” had to be made from the timeless/spaceless dimension, that ‘Truth’ inhabits, in order for this temporal reality to become real in the first place.

“The Big Bang represents an immensely powerful, yet carefully planned and controlled release of matter, energy, space and time. All this is accomplished within the strict confines of very carefully fine-tuned physical constants and laws. The power and care this explosion reveals exceeds human mental capacity by multiple orders of magnitude.” Prof. Henry F. Schaefer – What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI

i.e. ‘Truth’ is a major characteristic of the necessary Being, “uncaused cause”, the Alpha, that created all reality/realities. Moreover, that a photon would actually be destroyed upon the quantum teleportation of its "information" to another photon, is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics, and provides yet another direct line of evidence that ‘Truth’ is the foundational entity of this universe that gives rise to everything in this universe. Well, lets see what we have so far; Truth is eternal (it has always existed and will always exist); Truth is omnipresent (it is present everywhere in the universe at all times); Truth is omnipotent (it has dominion over everything else in the universe, yet is not subject to any physical laws); Truth has a vital characteristic of omniscience (truth is apparently aware of everything that is happening in the universe); and Truth is alive (Truth has created a temporal universe from a reality that is not subject to any physical laws of time or space for the express purpose of creating life; (fine-tuning) Surprisingly, being eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, and alive are the foundational characteristics that are used by theologians to describe God. Thus, logically speaking, spiritual/transcendent truth emanates directly from God and is coexistent with the Character of His Being. So in answer to our question “What is Truth?” we can answer that ‘Truth’, as far as the scientific method is concerned, is God. Now to bring all this into the focus of the Christian perspective, Jesus says that He is “The Truth, the Way and The Life”. And in regards to what is currently revealed in our scientific knowledge, I would say that this is a VERY, VERY fantastic claim to make! If Jesus is speaking the truth, which I believe He is, then by the rules of logic this makes Jesus equivalent to God Almighty. Well,,, Is Jesus God??? Well, believe it or not, there actually is now some fairly strong scientific evidence that gives a very credible, and very persuasive, indication that the number one problem in physics and mathematics today, of reconciling General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics into a 'Theory of everything', finds a very credible resolution in the resurrection of Jesus Christ,, and In my book, if Christ is the "Theory of Everything" that means that Jesus Christ is God i.e. The Jesus Christ is "The Truth" just as He claimed to be!

The Center Of The Universe Is Life - General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and The Shroud Of Turin - video http://vimeo.com/34084462 Centrality of Each Individual Observer In The Universe and Christ’s Very Credible Reconciliation Of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics - notes https://docs.google.com/document/d/17SDgYPHPcrl1XX39EXhaQzk7M0zmANKdYIetpZ-WB5Y/edit?hl=en_US

Verse and Music:

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Natalie Grant - Alive (Resurrection music video) http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=KPYWPGNX Lyric from song: "Death has lost and love has won!"

bornagain77

Actually the only thing that really matters is the truth, ie the reality, behind our existence. Joe

As a Muslim I don't agree with that but although in a different way to you I believe in Jesus Christ pbuh and the Muslim and Christian world combined make up half of the worlds population. JoeMorreale1187

Transformation in Christ is the only evolution that matters. StephenB

There is a great book 'The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist case for the existence for the Soul' by Mario Beauragard and Denyse O'Leary which I highly recommend . JoeMorreale1187

Even our own dreams show us that the body has a Soul . JoeMorreale1187

It's been proven that NDE cannot account for the origin of information and neither of its increase and continuation. This is not Religion but the scientific evidence that has demonstrated this . JoeMorreale1187

There is massive problems with the myth and fairy tale theory of natural selection acting on random mutations NDE. Its false and its about time over 150 lie and disgrace is made public and official. JoeMorreale1187

corrected link: The Science of Heaven - Nov 18, 2012 - Dr. Eben Alexander http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/11/18/the-science-of-heaven.html bornagain77

Of related note: Dr. Eben Alexander: Heaven Is Real - video The neurosurgeon and author of Newsweek's recent cover story on heaven talks with Tina Brown about his near-death experience - and journey to the afterlife. http://www.thedailybeast.com/videos/2012/10/26/answers-from-heaven.html I think Dr. Alexander did an excellent job of 'scientifically' defending his Near Death Experience against his critics in Newsweek: The Science of Heaven - Nov 18, 2012 - Dr. Eben Alexander Excerpt: I am as deep a believer in science, and the truth-respecting values that created it, as I ever was. As such, I want to affirm again—not just to my fellow scientists but to everyone—that there is a larger, more real world out there. Those who have experienced it are neither deluded nor dishonest, but they are hampered by the limits of language to convey the sheer exponential vastness of what they encountered. This world of consciousness beyond the body is the true new frontier, not just of science but of humankind itself, and it is my profound hope that what happened to me will bring the world one step closer to accepting it. Here is the original article in Newsweek that created so much controversy for Dr. Alexander Heaven Is Real: A Doctor’s Experience With the Afterlife - Dr. Eben Alexander - Oct 8, 2012 Excerpt: One of the few places I didn’t have trouble getting my story across was a place I’d seen fairly little of before my experience: church. The first time I entered a church after my coma, I saw everything with fresh eyes. The colors of the stained-glass windows recalled the luminous beauty of the landscapes I’d seen in the world above. The deep bass notes of the organ reminded me of how thoughts and emotions in that world are like waves that move through you. And, most important, a painting of Jesus breaking bread with his disciples evoked the message that lay at the very heart of my journey: that we are loved and accepted unconditionally by a God even more grand and unfathomably glorious than the one I’d learned of as a child in Sunday school. http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/10/07/proof-of-heaven-a-doctor-s-experience-with-the-afterlife.html A proof of heaven - November 2, 2012 - video Dr. Eben Alexander shares his thoughts on whether science can explain that heaven really does exist. http://video.msnbc.msn.com/the-cycle/49665334#49665334 Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species (or origin of life), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html "A recent analysis of several hundred cases showed that 48% of near-death experiencers reported seeing their physical bodies from a different visual perspective. Many of them also reported witnessing events going on in the vicinity of their body, such as the attempts of medical personnel to resuscitate them (Kelly et al., 2007)." Kelly, E. W., Greyson, B., & Kelly, E. F. (2007). Unusual experiences near death and related phenomena. In E. F. Kelly, E. W. Kelly, A. Crabtree, A. Gauld, M. Grosso, & B. Greyson, Irreducible mind (pp. 367-421). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Of related note: The following evidence provides a viable mechanism for Dr. Alexander's 'pure consciousness' Near Death Experience that was different from 'typical' NDEs Quantum Entangled Consciousness - Life After Death - Stuart Hameroff - video http://vimeo.com/39982578 Dr. Alexander's NDE was rather unique from typical NDEs in that he had completely lost brain wave function for 7 days while the rest of his body was on life support. As such he had what can be termed a ‘pure consciousness’ NDE that was dramatically different from the ‘typical’ Judeo-Christian NDEs of going through a tunnel to a higher heavenly dimension, seeing departed relatives, and having a life review. His NDE featured his ‘consciousness’ going outside the confines of space/time, matter/energy altogether to experience ‘non-locally’ what he termed ‘the Core’, i.e to experience God. It is also interesting to note that he retained a ‘finite sense of self-identity’, as Theism would hold, and did not blend into the infinite consciousness/omniscience of God, as pantheism would hold. A Conversation with Near Death Experiencer Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander III, M.D. with Steve Paulson (Interviewer) - video http://www.btci.org/bioethics/2012/videos2012/vid3.html supplemental note: Oprah & Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander: Proof of Heaven — Full Episode - video was loaded 5 days ago http://www.oprah.com/own-super-soul-sunday/Oprah-and-Neurosurgeon-Eben-Alexander-Proof-of-Heaven-Full-Episode bornagain77

Jesus Saves. Evolution Doesn't. If you are going to believe in something, believe in Jesus. Mung

Apocalypitca - Nothing Else Matters - music http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSMXMv0noY4 Strange But True - Miracle Testimony It was in the summer of 1993, I was down and out in Ft. Myers, Florida. This was about the second year that I was homeless. I was staying at the Salvation Army in Ft. Myers working temporary day labor and paying 8 bucks a night to stay at the homeless shelter. Once again I had come up with yet another grand plan to defeat the destructive desires for drinking and using that had kept me bound to the street. I was going to read the Bible cover to cover. Surely, this would cure me once and for all. Every night before I would go to sleep I made sure that I would read though at least 30 minutes worth of the Bible. This was done in my bunk in the open dormitory of the salvation army. Well, after a month or 6 weeks of this, I was getting pretty far into the Bible and had pretty much established myself, among the guys staying there, as some sort of Jesus Freak. One evening a man, who like me wasn't fairing to well in this world, comes up to my bunk, as I was reading the Bible, and angrily says this to me," Where Is God? Just where is God ? If I knew where God was my life would be alright." So I told him the truth "Well I know that it may sound strange, but sometimes when I really need it, God speaks directly to me from the Bible. I believe that He may speak directly to you since you seem to be in a bad spot." Then I closed the Bible and handed it to him. Then he asks me “Do you mean like this?” and he just randomly opens the Bible up, but instead of gently reading the first words his eyes landed on, as I thought he would do, he went and stabbed his finger down onto the page that the Bible had fell open to. Then, he looks over to me and asks "Like That?" I nervously said, in spite of my reservations of the brazenness of his act, "I guess that will work". Well his brazenness paid off for his finger landed right on top of Job 23:3 which says "Oh, that I knew where I might find God, that I might come to His seat!" Well, needless to say, we both were in awe about God revealing Himself to him in the Living Word that clearly, so we went to the chaplain of the Salvation Army and got him his very own Bible. Let me end this by saying that I believe God speaks to all people in many different ways. Don't be upset if God doesn't speak in this certain way to you. He very well could be speaking to you in ways that He doesn't speak to other people in. He could speak through your dreams, or visions, or He could speak to you through other people. He could be in that still small, intuitive, voice that speaks warnings to you every so often, or T.V., or radio, or the clouds, or even a lightning bolt could express His feelings and guidance to you, or etc... etc... . The point I'm trying to make clear is this. I'm firmly convinced that God does indeed desire to speak to each and every one of us, His children! BUT, we have to open our minds up enough to allow the possibility that God, the Father of all creation, might actually care enough for us, His children ,to actually want to speak intimately to each of us. Think about it. What parent doesn't talk personally to each one of their very own children every once in a while? I truly believe it is a very powerful thing to have the Lord speak into our lives, more powerful than we can possibly understand right now. My reasoning for this is this: He who speaks living words into the voids of our life, Is the very same One who spoke living words into the void of the night and brought the entire universe into existence out of the infinity of the glory of his Being. John 3:3-8 Jesus answered and said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?” Jesus answered, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again' The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the spirit.” DC Talk - Jesus Freak- song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jDnVpCNlyY A few more notes on 'serendipity'; From the former producer of Good Morning America, When God let’s you know He’s thinking of you; SQuire Rushnell Good Morning America "GodWinks" - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYJRddhzFG4 Miracle Testimony - One Easter Sunday Sunrise Service - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3995314/ I like this 'message from above' that SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) received SETI - Search For Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence receives message from God,,,,, Almost - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007753 Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” bornagain77