What Really Matters

_{Cornelius Hunter

January 29, 2013

Intelligent Design}

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

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. Read more

Comments

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:44 AM
7
07
44
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
06:58 AM
6
06
58
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

@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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:31 AM
3
03
31
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

I'm going out now and will deal with your replies laterJoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:29 AM
3
03
29
AM
PDT}

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 JonesJoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:28 AM
3
03
28
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:13 AM
3
03
13
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:09 AM
3
03
09
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:03 AM
3
03
03
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

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=YVDdjLQkUV8JWTruthInLove_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:58 AM
2
02
58
AM
PDT}

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? KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:49 AM
2
02
49
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:47 AM
2
02
47
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
02:41 AM
2
02
41
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
01:54 AM
1
01
54
AM
PDT}

@JoeMorreale1187 bornagain77 already asked you this one and I repeat his question: Do you think the holocaust was real?JWTruthInLove_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
01:53 AM
1
01
53
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
01:45 AM
1
01
45
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT}

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_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
12:11 AM
12
12
11
AM
PDT}

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_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
11:53 PM
11
11
53
PM
PDT}

PS: Correctives to AC by AI, here. For those who need specifics.kairosfocus_{February 1, 2013
February
02
Feb
1
01
2013
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 … 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply