VIDEO: The Feb 1, 2013 Craig- Rosenberg debate: “Is Faith in God Reasonable?”

_{kairosfocus

February 2, 2013

Philosophy, Video, worldview}

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

Thanks to Bornagain 77’s diligence, we are able to bring to UD’s readership, this important debate on the reasonableness (or otherwise) of theistic faith in an era dominated by Science, with Scientism an influential worldview rooted in the prestige of science:

[youtube bhfkhq-CM84]

(NB: The debate proper begins at 4 10 mins 27 48 seconds in, with the moderator’s introduction.)

Let us watch, let us reflect, let us discuss. END

PS: I have also put up the Dawkins-Williams Jan 31st 2013 debate here. (HT: SG.)

PPS: I think it worthwhile to add this David Wood video on the argument from reason:

[youtube xKX-QtEo2fI]

Comments

When one looks at the 4-D space time of relativity, and the centrality of conscious observation in quantum mechanics, a very interesting ‘anomaly’ pops out:
The Galileo Affair and the true “Center of the Universe” Excerpt: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its ‘uncertain’ 3-D state is centered on each individual observer in the universe, whereas, 4-D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3-D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe: Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit
The following is another very ‘spiritual’ finding from mathematics:
The Scale of The Universe – Part 2 – interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features) http://htwins.net/scale2/?bordercolor=white
The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle; Here is another finding from mathematics that has very strong ‘spiritual’ implications: There is also a very mysterious ‘higher dimensional’ component found in life:
The predominance of quarter-power (4-D) scaling in biology Excerpt: Many fundamental characteristics of organisms scale with body size as power laws of the form: Y = Yo M^b, where Y is some characteristic such as metabolic rate, stride length or life span, Yo is a normalization constant, M is body mass and b is the allometric scaling exponent. A longstanding puzzle in biology is why the exponent b is usually some simple multiple of 1/4 (4-Dimensional scaling) rather than a multiple of 1/3, as would be expected from Euclidean (3-Dimensional) scaling. http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/~drewa/pubs/savage_v_2004_f18_257.pdf “Although living things occupy a three-dimensional space, their internal physiology and anatomy operate as if they were four-dimensional. Quarter-power scaling laws are perhaps as universal and as uniquely biological as the biochemical pathways of metabolism, the structure and function of the genetic code and the process of natural selection.,,, The conclusion here is inescapable, that the driving force for these invariant scaling laws cannot have been natural selection.” Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, What Darwin Got Wrong (London: Profile Books, 2010), p. 78-79
Though Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini rightly find it inexplicable for ‘random’ Natural Selection to be the rational explanation for the invariant scaling of the physiology, and anatomy, of living things to four-dimensional parameters, they do not seem to fully realize the implications this ‘four dimensional scaling’ of living things presents. This 4-D scaling is something we should rightly expect from a Intelligent Design perspective. This is because Intelligent Design holds that ‘higher dimensional transcendent information’ is more foundational to life, and even to the universe itself, than either matter or energy are. This higher dimensional ‘expectation’ for life, from a Intelligent Design perspective, is directly opposed to the expectation of the Darwinian framework, which holds that information, and indeed even the essence of life itself, is merely an ‘emergent’ property of the 3-D material realm.
Earth’s crammed with heaven, And every common bush afire with God; But only he who sees, takes off his shoes, The rest sit round it and pluck blackberries. – Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Music and verse:
YOU ARE GOD ALONE, Philips, Craig and Dean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OICArFHAa9c Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
bornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

But the mystery of the Schroedinger equation goes even deeper to reveal 'the spirituality of mathematics'.
Wheeler's Classic Delayed Choice Experiment: Excerpt: Now, for many billions of years the photon is in transit in region 3. Yet we can choose (many billions of years later) which experimental set up to employ – the single wide-focus, or the two narrowly focused instruments. We have chosen whether to know which side of the galaxy the photon passed by (by choosing whether to use the two-telescope set up or not, which are the instruments that would give us the information about which side of the galaxy the photon passed). We have delayed this choice until a time long after the particles "have passed by one side of the galaxy, or the other side of the galaxy, or both sides of the galaxy," so to speak. Yet, it seems paradoxically that our later choice of whether to obtain this information determines which side of the galaxy the light passed, so to speak, billions of years ago. So it seems that time has nothing to do with effects of quantum mechanics. And, indeed, the original thought experiment was not based on any analysis of how particles evolve and behave over time – it was based on the mathematics. This is what the mathematics predicted for a result, and this is exactly the result obtained in the laboratory. http://www.bottomlayer.com/bottom/basic_delayed_choice.htm
Moreover,
Wheeler's Delayed Choice Experiment - 2010 Excerpt: The Delayed Choice experiment changes the boundary conditions of the Schrodinger equation after the particle enters the first beamsplitter. http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/TermPapers/WheelerDelayed.pdf
But why should a mathematical equation even care when I decide to implement boundary conditions to look at a particle? Mathematical equations can't care about anything! Only God can care if and when I decide to look at any particular particle! Moreover in quantum teleporation, mathematics, conscious observation and 'free will choice', can be coordinated in such a way as to accomplish the instantaneous teleportation of atoms to another place: The role of each conscious observer, and the free will choice(s) of each conscious observer, and the specific operations of logic, used to achieve quantum teleportation in the teleportation experiment are summarized on the following site:
Quantum Teleportation - A summary Excerpt: Assume that Alice and Bob share an entangled qubit ab. That is, Alice has one half, a, and Bob has the other half, b. Let c denote the qubit Alice wishes to transmit to Bob. Alice applies a unitary operation on the qubits ac and measures (i.e. consciously observes) the result to obtain two classical bits. In this process, the two qubits are destroyed. Bob's qubit, b, now contains information about c; however, the information is somewhat randomized. More specifically, Bob's qubit b is in one of four states uniformly chosen at random and Bob cannot obtain any information about c from his qubit. Alice provides her two measured classical bits, which indicate which of the four states Bob possesses. Bob applies a unitary transformation which depends on the classical bits he obtains from Alice, transforming his qubit into an identical re-creation of the qubit c.,,, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation#A_summary summary of logical operations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_teleportation#The_result Ions have been teleported successfully for the first time by two independent research groups Excerpt: In fact, copying isn't quite the right word for it. In order to reproduce the quantum state of one atom in a second atom, the original has to be destroyed. This is unavoidable - it is enforced by the laws of quantum mechanics, which stipulate that you can't 'clone' a quantum state. In principle, however, the 'copy' can be indistinguishable from the original (that was destroyed),,, http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/Issues/2004/October/beammeup.asp Atom takes a quantum leap - 2009 Excerpt: Ytterbium ions have been 'teleported' over a distance of a metre.,,, "What you're moving is information, not the actual atoms," says Chris Monroe, from the Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park and an author of the paper. But as two particles of the same type differ only in their quantum states, the transfer of quantum information is equivalent to moving the first particle to the location of the second.
A few more notes on the ‘spirituality of math’: It is interesting to note that ‘higher dimensional’ mathematics had to be developed before Einstein could elucidate General Relativity, or even before Quantum Mechanics could be elucidated;
The Mathematics Of Higher Dimensionality – Gauss and Riemann – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/6199520/ Centrality of Earth Within The 4-Dimensional Space-Time of General Relativity – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8421879 Dr. Quantum – Double Slit Experiment & Entanglement – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4096579 The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences – Eugene Wigner – 1960 Excerpt: We now have, in physics, two theories of great power and interest: the theory of quantum phenomena and the theory of relativity.,,, The two theories operate with different mathematical concepts: the four dimensional Riemann space and the infinite dimensional Hilbert space, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
bornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:31 PM
7
07
31
PM
PDT}

I would like to draw attention to this 'new' argument that Dr. Craig made in the debate:
Mathematics and Physics - A Happy Coincidence? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/9826382 The Applicability of Mathematics http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-applicability-of-mathematics
This applicability is much more mysterious than Dr. Craig let on in that short snippet: To give some background, an atheist claimed, in response to my observation that mathematics must ultimately be based in God, that:
"maths just is"
Well, contrary to this commonly held belief that 'maths just is', the belief that 'maths just is' is now demonstrably false. First to be noted, and as Dr. Craig has pointed out in the video, there is a profound epistemological mystery as to why our minds should even be able to grasp and understand reality through the enterprise of mathematics in the first place:
Epistemology – Why Should The Human Mind Even Be Able To Comprehend Reality? – Stephen Meyer - video – (Notes in description) http://vimeo.com/32145998 "You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or as an eternal mystery. Well, a priori, one should expect a chaotic world, which cannot be grasped by the mind in any way.. the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for example, is wholly different. Even if a man proposes the axioms of the theory, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the 'miracle' which is constantly reinforced as our knowledge expands." Albert Einstein - Goldman - Letters to Solovine p 131. The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960 Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,, It is difficult to avoid the impression that a miracle confronts us here, quite comparable in its striking nature to the miracle that the human mind can string a thousand arguments together without getting itself into contradictions, or to the two miracles of the existence of laws of nature and of the human mind's capacity to divine them.,,, The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. We should be grateful for it and hope that it will remain valid in future research and that it will extend, for better or for worse, to our pleasure, even though perhaps also to our bafflement, to wide branches of learning. http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/MathDrama/reading/Wigner.html
Second, in the last century, Godel showed mathematics to be 'incomplete':
Kurt Gödel – Incompleteness Theorem – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/8462821 THE GOD OF THE MATHEMATICIANS - DAVID P. GOLDMAN - August 2010 Excerpt: we cannot construct an ontology that makes God dispensable. Secularists can dismiss this as a mere exercise within predefined rules of the game of mathematical logic, but that is sour grapes, for it was the secular side that hoped to substitute logic for God in the first place. Gödel's critique of the continuum hypothesis has the same implication as his incompleteness theorems: Mathematics never will create the sort of closed system that sorts reality into neat boxes. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/07/the-god-of-the-mathematicians Taking God Out of the Equation – Biblical Worldview – by Ron Tagliapietra – January 1, 2012 Excerpt: Kurt Gödel (1906–1978) proved that no logical systems (if they include the counting numbers) can have all three of the following properties. 1. Validity . . . all conclusions are reached by valid reasoning. 2. Consistency . . . no conclusions contradict any other conclusions. 3. Completeness . . . all statements made in the system are either true or false. The details filled a book, but the basic concept was simple and elegant. He summed it up this way: “Anything you can draw a circle around cannot explain itself without referring to something outside the circle—something you have to assume but cannot prove.” For this reason, his proof is also called the Incompleteness Theorem. Kurt Gödel had dropped a bomb on the foundations of mathematics. Math could not play the role of God as infinite and autonomous. It was shocking, though, that logic could prove that mathematics could not be its own ultimate foundation. Christians should not have been surprised. The first two conditions are true about math: it is valid and consistent. But only God fulfills the third condition. Only He is complete and therefore self-dependent (autonomous). God alone is “all in all” (1 Corinthians 15:28), “the beginning and the end” (Revelation 22:13). God is the ultimate authority (Hebrews 6:13), and in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3). http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n1/equation#
In other words, the truthfulness of any given mathematical equation is not found within the equation itself, but the truthfulness of any given mathematical equation, and indeed of all of math, must be derived from a source outside of the equation(s). Moreover, being that mathematical equations are completely transcendent of any space-time constraints, (i.e. mathematical equations are always true no matter what part of the universe you are in, and they are true regardless of whatever year it happens to be in the universe), then this outside source (cause) that guarantees the truthfulness of any mathematical equation must also be transcendent of any space-time constraints. Also of note, Godel's incompleteness theorem is hardly the only line of argumentation in this line of thought:
Not Understanding Nothing – A review of A Universe from Nothing – Edward Feser - June 2012 Excerpt: A critic might reasonably question the arguments for a divine first cause of the cosmos. But to ask “What caused God?” misses the whole reason classical philosophers thought his existence necessary in the first place. So when physicist Lawrence Krauss begins his new book by suggesting that to ask “Who created the creator?” suffices to dispatch traditional philosophical theology, we know it isn’t going to end well. ,,, ,,, But Krauss simply can’t see the “difference between arguing in favor of an eternally existing creator versus an eternally existing universe without one.” The difference, as the reader of Aristotle or Aquinas knows, is that the universe changes while the unmoved mover does not, or, as the Neoplatonist can tell you, that the universe is made up of parts while its source is absolutely one; or, as Leibniz could tell you, that the universe is contingent and God absolutely necessary. There is thus a principled reason for regarding God rather than the universe as the terminus of explanation. http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing
But of more interest as to drawing out the 'spirituality of mathematics', and refuting the 'maths just is' conception of mathematics, it is worthwhile to focus in on the Schroedinger equation:
Finely Tuned Big Bang, Elvis In The Multiverse, and the Schroedinger Equation – Granville Sewell – audio http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4233012
At the 4:00 minute mark of the preceding audio, Dr. Sewell comments on the ‘transcendent’ and ‘constant’ Schroedinger’s Equation;
‘In chapter 2, I talk at some length on the Schroedinger Equation which is called the fundamental equation of chemistry. It’s the equation that governs the behavior of the basic atomic particles subject to the basic forces of physics. This equation is a partial differential equation with a complex valued solution. By complex valued I don’t mean complicated, I mean involving solutions that are complex numbers, a+bi, which is extraordinary that the governing equation, basic equation, of physics, of chemistry, is a partial differential equation with complex valued solutions. There is absolutely no reason why the basic particles should obey such a equation that I can think of except that it results in elements and chemical compounds with extremely rich and useful chemical properties. In fact I don’t think anyone familiar with quantum mechanics would believe that we’re ever going to find a reason why it should obey such an equation, they just do! So we have this basic, really elegant mathematical equation, partial differential equation, which is my field of expertise, that governs the most basic particles of nature and there is absolutely no reason why, anyone knows of, why it does, it just does. British physicist Sir James Jeans said “From the intrinsic evidence of His creation, the great architect of the universe begins to appear as a pure mathematician”, so God is a mathematician to’.
i.e. the Materialist is at a complete loss to explain why this should be so, whereas the Christian Theist presupposes such ‘transcendent’ control of our temporal, material, reality,,,
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Of note: 'The Word' in Greek is Logos. Logos is the root word from which we derive our modern word 'logic'.bornagain77_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:27 PM
7
07
27
PM
PDT}

It all boils down to a choice: The personal God of Christianity who offers hope, love and salvation or the god of BUC (blind unguided chance)- offering nothing. For most the choice is an obvious one.
"Christianity" and "atheism" are not the only options, obviously. That being said, I agree that it does come down to a choice -- and that there is nothing irrational or unreasonable about choosing a life in which all the hope, love, and forgiveness that there is, is to be found in relationships with other people and with oneself.Kantian Naturalist_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT}

It all boils down to a choice: The personal God of Christianity who offers hope, love and salvation or the god of BUC (blind unguided chance)- offering nothing. For most the choice is an obvious one.buffalo_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT}

He only mentioned silicon and germanium, right below carbon in the periodic table. The mistake he made there was this: he suggested that if the physical constants were different, there could have been silicon-based life. But if the basic physical constants were different, we simply have no idea what elements would have been possible. A difference in the physical constants could produce (for all I know) an entirely different periodic table, and who knows whether life could be made out of those unknown elements? In fact, although silicon has similar properties to carbon, it's much heavier, and that makes it harder to assemble into molecules that can react easily with hydrogen and oxygen. But life, as we know it, involves not just a nice convenient carbon matrix, able to form four nice stable bonds, but also it has to be able to dissolve in water. The nice thing about water is that it has a very slight electrical current, and that allows it to do all sorts of interesting things. Even if Varela and Prigogine and Kaufman are all correct, and we're able to come up with a purely formal specification of what it is for something be alive, I really don't see any way of instantiating that formal specification, under the laws of physics that we have in this universe, without using a lot of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. My guess is that all the life out there in this universe is going to use those elements, and whether there is life in other universes is completely unknowable.Kantian Naturalist_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

KN, it must have been further in then, but he did make an appeal to the possibility of non carbon-based life.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT}

Mung @ 12:
1. Because a multiverse that spins out universes that give rise to life would itself have to be fine-tuned. 2. The multiverse is not itself eternal and needs an explanation.
I don't see why the multiverse would have to be either fine-tuned or contingent. It could just be an "eternal" quantum foam that produces infinitely many universes, one of which just happens to have the physical constants and laws that ours has. The question could arise, "but why is the multiverse the way it is?", but I just shrug my shoulders at that one. Not everything has an explanation. There could be just be 'brute facts'. In re: roundsquare @ 13 I stopped about an hour in, so I didn't hear anything about carbon atoms, but there was a bit about the radioactive decay of uranium. It was unclear, but here's where I think Rosenberg was going. There's no explanation for why some particular uranium atom emits this particular alpha particle at this particular moment. It's just a brute fact that it did -- a fact with no explanation. Notice: there is an explanation as to why uranium atoms in general emit alpha particles, but not about why, some particular uranium atom, an explanation as to why it does or doesn't at any particular moment. Likewise, so the argument might go, the existence of the universe as a whole could be a brute fact -- the sort of thing that just doesn't have an explanation.Kantian Naturalist_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

@13 Actually his claim was bizarre. All life as we know it is carbon based. He asserted that any of a number of other chemicals would have sufficed. Pure bluff.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
06:03 PM
6
06
03
PM
PDT}

Can anyone well-informed in chemistry explain Rosenberg's claim about the carbon atoms, which he used to show that the big bang was fortuitous.roundsquare_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
05:40 PM
5
05
40
PM
PDT}

KN @9: 1. Because a multiverse that spins out universes that give rise to life would itself have to be fine-tuned. 2. The multiverse is not itself eternal and needs an explanation.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT}

The Multiverse theory which is nothing more than speculation and wishful thinking on the part of atheists / materialists in a desperate attempt to GIVE CHANCE A CHANCE! And the answer remains the same which is NO CHANCE!JoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT}

@KF With regard to mr. Christopher Hitchens JoeMorreale1187 is just being a decent muslim.
Q98:6 "The unbelievers among the people of the book and the pagans shall burn forever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures. (98.6)"
Box_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
05:20 PM
5
05
20
PM
PDT}

I don't understand why a belief in a transcendent Creator is supposed to be a better solution to the fine-tuning problem than belief in a multiverse is. Not that I really care one way or the other.Kantian Naturalist_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

I listened for about an hour before I just couldn’t handle it anymore.
It's not too bad if you're coming from Craig's pov. :) In his opening he sets out 8 reasons belief in God is reasonable. In his first response he sets out 8 reasons why metaphysical naturalism is absurd. I thought he stated his position cogently.Mung_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
05:04 PM
5
05
04
PM
PDT}

I listened for about an hour before I just couldn't handle it anymore.Kantian Naturalist_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT}

So without wanting to participate in spoiling anymore threads if you want to debate me you can email me on yusufsalahuhdin@googlemail.comJoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

And your envy is evident due to the fact that although Muslims believe and love Jesus and are eagerly awaiting his return you from a religious point of view still side with the Jews against Muslims even though Christians know they rejected , insult Jesus and his mother Mary in the Talmud , betrayed him and according to you killed him on the cross by which per Old Testament they believe him to be cursed. Your problem is that Islam being the Final revealed religion of God exposes and refuted the Man made distorted Paulinian Church version of Jesus's message and is telling to stop worshipping Jesus and believing that he was crucified for your sins and you can't take this .JoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

KF: Please if you don't don't tell me what to do because although you are very good at articulating the case for Intelligent Design which is the right and noble thing to do you have revealed yourself to be one among the 40-50 million blind and deluded Christian Zionist Islamaphobes of America. Your ignorant or rather convenient misconception of Islam and Muslims has proven your malice and envy so can you do me a favour and quit addressing me because quite frankly u disgust me? _________ JM, you have here AGAIN resorted to personal attack. This shows a major problem of attitude on your part, and a failure to do homework. I am not an American, and am not in America. I have done my own research and have formed my views on Islam in light of history and other relevant evidence. I make no apologies for seriously objecting to the global ambitions of IslamISM, which I distinguish from the views and behaviour of ordinary people who happen to be Muslim. I also can show on serious history that there are serious sins of the Islamic civilisation across history that have never been adequately faced and resolved. Going beyond that, as I have shown in outline, I have specific reasons to object to the theology and claims of Islam, including claims made about my own faith that are grossly inaccurate and tend to have dangerous consequences, as 1400 years of history has shown, per Jihads and Dhimmitude, with for instance the current plight of the Coptic Christians of Egypt -- cf. current case here -- and the Christians and Animists of Sudan, the Buddhists etc of Thailand, and the Christians of Nigeria etc in witness, not to mention Jews everywhere. That, FYI, is my right in light of responsible scholarship. It is not a reflection of base motivation but of responsible conviction and action on the right of fair and responsible comment; in defence of my civilisation and faith. That you cannot seem to process the reasons for differences and concerns but reduce such to accusations of fraud, lying and envy etc -- which you should recall is the reason why I intervened in response to your earlier behaviour towards PJ and others -- speaks volumes and you need to pay close attention here, to see if this can help you correct serious problems with how you are thinking and operating. KFJoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

JM: Please, tone. KFkairosfocus_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT}

No wonder the dyed in wool secular establishment mascot Dawkins stays way clear of him.JoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

William Lane Craig is a great debater against atheists . He really takes them to town . My favourite debate of his is the one against the odious Hitchens who is now having the taste of Hell in his grave that he deservedly has coming.JoeMorreale1187_{February 2, 2013
February
02
Feb
2
02
2013
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 5 6 7

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply