Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bill Dembski offers some thoughts on the current state of Christian apologetics

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
William A. Dembski Biography, William A. Dembski's Famous Quotes - Sualci Quotes 2019
William Dembski

He asks, Is truth enough?: A look at the unfulfilled promise of Christian apologetics

A significant aspect of my work on intelligent design can be understood as falling under Christian apologetics, arguing that the science underlying design refutes atheism and agnosticism, and thus creates room for Christian theism. Moreover, as a professor at three seminaries, I often taught courses in apologetics, some even having that word “apologetics” in the course title. The non-apologetics courses that I taught were on the philosophy of religion, the relation between science and faith, rhetoric, logic, and critical thinking, all of which were also conducive to apologetics.

With this background, you might expect me to be an avid supporter of Christian apologetics, and so I am. But I give this talk as one who is also disappointed with the impact that apologetics has had to date and think that the discipline of apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded if it is to fulfill its promise, which is to reclaim for Christ the life of the mind (compare 2 Corinthians 10:5).

I say Christian apologetics needs to be expanded and upgraded rather than reconceptualized or reimagined. What Christian apologists have accomplished in this and the last generation has been admirable and even crucially important. Except for a John Warwick Montgomery challenging the god-is-dead theology of the 1960s, except of a Norman Geisler articulating and defending biblical inerrancy, and except for subsequent vigorous challenges by Christian apologists against the nihilism, relativism, scientism, skepticism, materialism, and the other isms ravaging the intellectual world, where would we be? Fideism, with its intellectual bankruptcy, would rule the day.

William Dembski, “What makes arguments for God convincing — or not?” at Mind Matters News (November 28, 2021)

Dembski: Christian apologetics has, in my view, mainly been in the business of playing defense when it needs to be playing offense.

Note: This is a serialized reprint from Dembski’s site. You can read the whole essay at once there.

You may also wish to read: How informational realism subverts materialism Within informational realism, what defines things is their capacity for communicating or exchanging information with other things. In substituting information for perception, informational realism is able to preserve a common-sense realism that idealism has always struggled to preserve.

Comments
Bornagain77: Contrary to Darwinists constantly trying to distance Darwin’s theory from the concept of randomness whenever the concept randomness itself comes under scrutiny, Randomness is literally the foundational bedrock upon which the entirety of Darwinian theory rests! I was not trying to 'distance' Darwin's theory from randomness. Perhaps you and Origenes could have a discussion since they understand the distinction but, for some reason, choose not to correct your mistakes.JVL
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
Origenes: To Darwin’s credit, the winnowing process, natural selection, is nonrandom. Why is it that you NEVER call out fellow ID supporters when then make mistaken statements about unguided evolutionary theory? You gladly vilify those you disagree with but you NEVER correct those you generally agree with. Why is that?JVL
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
07:19 AM
7
07
19
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: It’s okay for you to carry out something you know to be false — because others are doing it too. I don't think it is false, that's why I say what I say. I take responsibility for my choices. I did not say my opinion are someone else's responsibility. I reported what I think the semiotic researchers think and you tried to blame me for that. Perhaps you should just get used to the idea that a lot of very intelligent people disagree with you including almost every biologist on the planet and the members of the semiotic society. Perhaps you should stop demonising people who disagree with you.JVL
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
CD, snide rhetoric does not answer to the only empirically warranted and resource plausible source of functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information [FSCO/I] beyond 500 - 1,000 bits. As a direct result, the alphanumeric coded algorithmic information in the cell points to language use and goal directed stepwise processes requiring execution machinery -- the information in itself, in the sequencing of distinct bases is not dynamically active [D/mRNA serves as memory store] -- thus to intelligently directed configuration. AKA, design. Rhetorical bluster and stunts do not change that. But they do point to the root problem, ideological commitment to a priori evolutionary materialism imposed on science and begging huge questions. KFkairosfocus
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
. Chuck, 1. Why not use the terms and language used by the polymath John Von Neumann? He used them for a reason - they mean something (which you avoid). 2. You didn't answer the question. You avoided it to protect yourself from documented facts. - - - - - - - - - - - Chuck, aaRS proteins are the constraints that establish the genetic code. They are synthesized from genetic memory. That means there was once a time in the history of earth when the first ever aaRS protein was synthesized from memory. At that point in history, how many of the other aaRS constraints had to be in place?Upright BiPed
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Chuck @ 141 Dawkins & co want you to believe that evolution is nonrandom WRT to finding biological novelties. As I have pointed out (#138) evolution is random WRT finding biological novelties. So, these ppl who you are quoting criticizing evolution are entirely correct.Origenes
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT
Now that Bornagain has chimed in, I realize I forgot one: evolution is pseudo-science. As to Upright BiPed. I candidly admit that most of the time I have no idea what he or she is talking about. For example, instead of using "quiescent" why don't you simply say "latent" or "dormant"? Instead of using "design inference" why don't you use "nonsense."chuckdarwin
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
06:17 AM
6
06
17
AM
PDT
#138 Origenes Perhaps not as common as you claim given the plethora of postings such as "evolution doesn't exist" or "evolution is not science" or "evolution is a 'just so story'" or "evolution is religion" or "evolution can't explain 'macroevolution,'" ad nauseum. I do, however, love the ID talking point, though. How about this one: "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."chuckdarwin
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
06:04 AM
6
06
04
AM
PDT
JVL, "Evolutionary processes are NOT random except for the mutations." Perhaps you should, as the old quip about miracles goes, "be a little more explicit here". Contrary to Darwinists constantly trying to distance Darwin's theory from the concept of randomness whenever the concept randomness itself comes under scrutiny, Randomness is literally the foundational bedrock upon which the entirety of Darwinian theory rests!
“It necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, and of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free but blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among many other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact. And nothing warrants the supposition - or the hope - that on this score our position is ever likely to be revised. There is no scientific concept, in any of the sciences, more destructive of anthropocentrism than this one.” Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology
Moreover, "Barely constrained randomness", as Carl Zimmer put it via Harvard Biovisions, is also now, empirically, shown to be a (blatantly) false assumption that Darwinists have erroneously made in regards to explaining the foundation of biological life.
Flailing Blindly: The Pseudoscience of Josh Rosenau and Carl Zimmer – Jonathan Wells - April 17, 2014 Excerpt: The new animation (like the old) also includes a kinesin molecule hauling a vesicle, but this time the kinesin’s movements are characterized (in Zimmer’s words) by “barely constrained randomness. Every now and then, a tiny molecule loaded with fuel binds to one of the kinesin “feet.” It delivers a jolt of energy, causing that foot to leap off the molecular cable and flail wildly, pulling hard on the foot that’s still anchored. Eventually, the gyrating foot stumbles into contact again with the cable, locking on once more — and advancing the vesicle a tiny step forward. This updated movie offers a better way to picture our most intricate inner workings…. In the 2006 version, we can’t help seeing intention in the smooth movements of the molecules; it’s as if they’re trying to get from one place to another. In reality, however, the parts of our cells don’t operate with the precise movements of the springs and gears of a clock. They flail blindly in the crowd.” But that’s not what the biological evidence shows. In fact, kinesin moves quickly, with precise movements, to get from one place to another. A kinesin molecule takes one 8-nanometer "step" along a microtubule for every high-energy ATP molecule it uses, and it uses about 80 ATPs per second. On the scale of a living cell, this movement is very fast. To visualize it on a macroscopic scale, imagine a microtubule as a one-lane road and the kinesin molecule as an automobile. The kinesin would be traveling over 200 miles per hour! https://iconsofevolution.com/flailing-blindly/ Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
bornagain77
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
05:57 AM
5
05
57
AM
PDT
Finally, someone who actually gets evolution. It’s about time…
No! It should be:
Finally, someone who actually gets genetics It’s about time…
Mutations are about genetics not Evolution. If you or anyone else disagrees, then present your case.jerry
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
05:24 AM
5
05
24
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin @136 Not a spectacular insight. Here it is common knowledge that evolution is both random and nonrandom. The fuel is blind random genetic variation. To Darwin's credit, the winnowing process, natural selection, is nonrandom. However, as scientists have recognized for more than a century, the insurmountable problem for Darwinism is that the non-randomness of natural selection only helps with the “survival” not the “arrival” of biological novelties.Origenes
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
05:17 AM
5
05
17
AM
PDT
. Chuck, One of the predicted markers required to confirm the design inference was that the genetic code would be established by a “quiescent” (Von Neumann) description of its interpretive constraints. Is the genetic code established by description?Upright BiPed
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT
#134 JVL
Evolutionary processes are NOT random except for the mutations.
Finally, someone who actually gets evolution. It's about time...chuckdarwin
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
.
Your argument is with them not with me.
That’s right JVL. Absolution is the key. It’s okay for you to carry out something you know to be false — because others are doing it too. If what I do is false, it’s their fault.Upright BiPed
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
03:49 AM
3
03
49
AM
PDT
Bornagain77: then, obviously, proteins must be finding their final folded form by some ‘non-random’, i.e. non-Darwinian, method. Evolutionary processes are NOT random except for the mutations.JVL
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
02:37 AM
2
02
37
AM
PDT
Upright BiPed: I've really got nothing else to say. It's clear that the semiotic community has not come out in support of the design inference. I think, in fact, they disagree with the design inference. Your argument is with them not with me.JVL
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
02:35 AM
2
02
35
AM
PDT
ET: That is because they don’t know what to look for. Well, perhaps you should do that then. There would definitely be a Nobel prize if you were successful. Interestingly enough, no ID researchers seem to be looking for the stuff you claim must be there. The Discovery Institute has money and a lab but that's not what they're pursuing.JVL
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
02:32 AM
2
02
32
AM
PDT
Origenes: I'm sorry you find my replies frustrating. I am not an expert in the pertinent subjects but I am trying to honestly answer your queries as best I can. When I'm not sure or don't want to say more than I know then I admit it. I have also consistently pointed to two easily obtainable books written for a general reader which explain the 'no blueprint' idea much better than I can. And, of course, those books would have references to other materials which would go into things more in depth. I don't know what more you want from me? I don't have the time to learn all the complicated chemistry and biology to explain things at a deeper level but you can find that information if you wish.JVL
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
02:23 AM
2
02
23
AM
PDT
Origenes, complete metamorphosis is real and shows that different body plans are possible on one genome. Worse at the intermediate stage, the first form dissolves into a soup, so the second plan can only come from what is in the cells; sort of like after fertilisation where one cell develops into the body form. We don't understand it yet, but that's of the gaps reasoning if you have to go there to evade the obvious import of coded, complex, algorithmically functional information in D/RNA already, decisive already. Another clue came from plugging one type of nucleus into different zygotes, BA77 may help find this, development to the point of incompatibility then death. KFkairosfocus
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
02:07 AM
2
02
07
AM
PDT
UB, yup. At this stage, we are down to the psychology of denial or evasion, driving the obvious ideologically driven selective hyperskepticism. Cognitive dissonance and associated defences. KFkairosfocus
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
WJM,
By “gene” I’m assuming you mean a chemically bonded molecules that react with other molecules in a manner generated entirely by the physics/chemistry involved at each relevant juncture/level.
Which neatly leaves out the alphanumeric code sequence, the functional, algorithmic information. The evasiveness/ dismissiveness on this we have seen so many times is a signature of cognitive dissonance. Those who talk like that need to look at Crick's letter to his son on his discovery, March 19, 1953. Right from the beginning, the significance of code was recognised. And, in a Tanenbaum style layer cake info system framework, the physical layer enables the informational ones riding on it, it does not replace them. KFkairosfocus
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
I think is pretty simple about the centre of command for body shape: -When specifically start the construction site of the body? -Where specifically are analyzed /synthetized all internal stimuli from organs that are built ? Where? -What exactly needs that "centre of command" for body shape ? Computing power. -Where exactly in an animal body could be found something that do computations? Scientists "brainwashed" all the people by focusing all the attention on DNA because was the simplest code found in cell and they ignored " the nervous system code" that is too complicated so all discussions are around DNA,4 letters ,20 a.a. . Centre of command for body shape can't be INSIDE the cell because is a trans/supra-cell "organisation".Lieutenant Commander Data
December 2, 2021
December
12
Dec
2
02
2021
12:17 AM
12
12
17
AM
PDT
Summary of a frustrating discussion: Are you saying that a particular set of genes lead to one particular body shape? Hmm . . yeah, something like that. There is problem with that, since millions of species express radically different body shapes during different stages of their life, for example A, B, C, D, ….. Yeah, many life forms share similar genes and genomic sequences. But not their complete genome. No that’s not what I mean. I’m talking about one organism who expresses radically different body shapes at different stages of its life, for example …. (multiple examples) Ah, like a caterpiller you mean? That is a good example. Yeah I have no comment. A bit miraculous. Especially miraculous when you hold that a particular set of genes lead to one particular body shape. Which is my point: one particular set of DNA does not lead to one particular body shape. But a caterpillar is just one example, so it doesn’t really count. I have provided you with other examples and in fact as I have said there are millions of species who express radically different body shapes during different stages of their life. So it really does refute your idea that a particular set of genes lead to one particular body shape. I’m not sure that is exactly what I said!! Origenes
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
07:28 PM
7
07
28
PM
PDT
JVL:
So far no one has found it. And cells have been pretty thoroughly explored now.
That is because they don't know what to look for.
As I said Dr Dawkins and Dr Shubin present a lot of evidence showing there is no hidden programming or information.
That is not true. Dawkins doesn't know jack about developmental biology. And Shubin is a paleontologist. Neither one has demonstrated any knowledge of what makes an organism what it is. And the peer-reviewed paper "On the Problem of Biological Form" means more than anything they spew. Genetics researchers have weighed in. They know more about this than those two. There isn't any evidence that biological form is reducible to physics and chemistry.ET
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
.
JVL: I think there is a design hypothesis but I don’t think it’s been validated. I just don’t think that hypothesis has been substantiated.
JVL, the use of language in a system of symbols was predicted to be the primary organizational requirement for autonomous open-ended self-replication. That fact alone provide us with some sense of orientation, at least to the extent that we should not be particularly surprised if we indeed find it to be the primary organizational requirement of autonomous open-ended self-replication. However, if the use of language in a system of symbols was discovered inside the cell, and the use of language in a system of symbols is a universal correlate of intelligence, then the design inference is valid. If we say that the nature of scientific truth is the property of being universally supported by evidence without contradiction, then we now know three things that are scientifically true. a) The use of language in a system of symbols was predicted to be the primary organizational requirement for autonomous open-ended self-replication. b) The use of language in a system of symbols was discovered inside the cell. c) The use of language in a system of symbols is a universal correlate of intelligence. The scientific inference to design in biology is therefore valid. If you intend to be scientifically-minded and hold a favor for logical continuity, then the only thing you can do with that scientific fact is integrate it. You can say “Yes it's valid” and it indicates an unknown intelligence behind the origin of life on this planet, or you can say “Yes it's valid” but I believe that one day we will find otherwise. But what you cannot do is say is “No, it is not valid”. That statement is demonstrably false.Upright BiPed
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Well, my theory is that God made people smart, Darwin made them dumb. :)bornagain77
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
02:46 PM
2
02
46
PM
PDT
Bornagain77: JVL, in order to understand how an organism might achieve it overall form, perhaps you can start with something simple. Like, for instance, understanding exactly how a ‘simple’ protein finds its final folded form. I'd like to respond but a) it's late where I live now and b) according to Origenes I must be an idiot or a liar so I doubt you'd really want to hear my responses.JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
Origenes: This has been a very frustrating “discussion” with someone who is either disingenuous or moronic. Thanks. I spend my time, trying honestly and sincerely answering your questions and that's your response? I'm not sure why I bother. Let me ask you: is that what you think about everyone who disagrees with you? You can't be wrong so they must be a liar or a lunatic?JVL
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT
JVL, in order to understand how an organism might achieve it overall form, perhaps you can start with something simple. Like, for instance, understanding exactly how a 'simple' protein finds its final folded form. As the following article states, “when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe.”
The Humpty-Dumpty Effect: A Revolutionary Paper with Far-Reaching Implications – Paul Nelson – October 23, 2012 Excerpt: Anyone who has studied the protein folding problem will have met the famous Levinthal paradox, formulated in 1969 by the molecular biologist Cyrus Levinthal. Put simply, the Levinthal paradox states that when one calculates the number of possible topological (rotational) configurations for the amino acids in even a small (say, 100 residue) unfolded protein, random search could never find the final folded conformation of that same protein during the lifetime of the physical universe. Therefore, concluded Levinthal, given that proteins obviously do fold, they are doing so, not by random search, but by following favored pathways. The challenge of the protein folding problem is to learn what those pathways are. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/a_revolutionary065521.html
And yet, since proteins are obviously not taking the lifetime of the entire universe to randomly find their final folded form.
Levinthal’s paradox Excerpt: The “paradox” is that most small proteins fold spontaneously on a millisecond or even microsecond time scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levinthal%27s_paradox
,, then, obviously, proteins must be finding their final folded form by some ‘non-random’, i.e. non-Darwinian, method. And in the following article, the authors found that the long standing mystery of exactly how a protein is able to find its final folded form so quickly can be easily explained if protein folding is allowed to be a “quantum affair” where the “protein could ‘jump’ from one shape to another without necessarily forming the shapes in between.”,,,.
Physicists Discover Quantum Law of Protein Folding – February 22, 2011 Quantum mechanics finally explains why protein folding depends on temperature in such a strange way. Excerpt: First, a little background on protein folding. Proteins are long chains of amino acids that become biologically active only when they fold into specific, highly complex shapes. The puzzle is how proteins do this so quickly when they have so many possible configurations to choose from. To put this in perspective, a relatively small protein of only 100 amino acids can take some 10^100 different configurations. If it tried these shapes at the rate of 100 billion a second, it would take longer than the age of the universe to find the correct one. Just how these molecules do the job in nanoseconds, nobody knows.,,, Today, Luo and Lo say these curves can be easily explained if the process of folding is a quantum affair. By conventional thinking, a chain of amino acids can only change from one shape to another by mechanically passing through various shapes in between. But Luo and Lo say that if this process were a quantum one, the shape could change by quantum transition, meaning that the protein could ‘jump’ from one shape to another without necessarily forming the shapes in between.,,, Their astonishing result is that this quantum transition model fits the folding curves of 15 different proteins and even explains the difference in folding and unfolding rates of the same proteins. That’s a significant breakthrough. Luo and Lo’s equations amount to the first universal laws of protein folding. That’s the equivalent in biology to something like the thermodynamic laws in physics. http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423087/physicists-discover-quantum-law-of-protein/
Moreover, exactly as the preceding researchers anticipated, in the following 2015 paper entitled, “Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules” it was found that “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” and the researchers further commented that “finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,,
Quantum criticality in a wide range of important biomolecules – Mar. 6, 2015 Excerpt: “Most of the molecules taking part actively in biochemical processes are tuned exactly to the transition point and are critical conductors,” they say. That’s a discovery that is as important as it is unexpected. “These findings suggest an entirely new and universal mechanism of conductance in biology very different from the one used in electrical circuits.” The permutations of possible energy levels of biomolecules is huge so the possibility of finding even one (biomolecule) that is in the quantum critical state by accident is mind-bogglingly small and, to all intents and purposes, impossible.,, of the order of 10^-50 of possible small biomolecules and even less for proteins,”,,, “what exactly is the advantage that criticality confers?” https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552
And as this follow up article in 2018 stated, “There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,,”
Quantum Critical Proteins – Stuart Lindsay – Professor of Physics and Chemistry at Arizona State University – 2018 Excerpt: The difficulty with this proposal lies in its improbability. Only an infinitesimal density of random states exists near the critical point.,, Gábor Vattay et al. recently examined a number of proteins and conducting and insulating polymers.14 The distribution for the insulators and conductors were as expected, but the functional proteins all fell on the quantum-critical distribution. Such a result cannot be a consequence of chance.,,, WHAT OF quantum criticality? Vattay et al. carried out electronic structure calculations for the very large protein used in our work. They found that the distribution of energy-level spacings fell on exactly the quantum-critical distribution, implying that this protein is also quantum critical. There is no obvious evolutionary reason why a protein should evolve toward a quantum-critical state, and there is no chance at all that the state could occur randomly.,,, http://inference-review.com/article/quantum-critical-proteins Gábor Vattay et al., “Quantum Criticality at the Origin of Life,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 626 (2015); Gábor Vattay, Stuart Kauffman, and Samuli Niiranen, “Quantum Biology on the Edge of Quantum Chaos,” PLOS One 9, no. 3 (2014)
What is so devastating to the materialistic presuppositions of Darwinian evolution with the finding of pervasive quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement within molecular biology, is that quantum coherence and/or quantum entanglement is a non-local, beyond space and time, effect that requires a beyond space and time cause in order to explain its existence. As the following paper entitled “Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory” stated, “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”
Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012 Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,” http://www.quantumlah.org/highlight/121029_hidden_influences.php
In short, in order to be able to explain how any organism achieves its basic overall form, it is necessary to appeal to a 'beyond space and time' cause. Christians just so happen to have one.:
Psalm 139:13-14 For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother's womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
bornagain77
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
This has been a very frustrating "discussion" with someone who is either disingenuous or moronic.Origenes
December 1, 2021
December
12
Dec
1
01
2021
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 8

Leave a Reply