We were given the ability to observe, study and carry out experiments in order to gain a better understanding of our environment, our future, ourselves, and God. Unfortunately the Lab Coatauthoritarians have hijacked out system for study. We must take back the process to discover our environment. Seek God and you will find the truth, seek truth and you will find God.
The presuppositions of the secular scientific community are obvious and sad when faced with truth. They will twist the truth to fit their belief structure no matter how contorted the truth looks afterwords.
The Privileged Planet has a beautiful and compelling argument why we are exactly here, in this exact spot, for the exact reason to be able to study our universe. Imagine the odds? (Acts 17:24-26,Psalm 115:16,1 Corinthians 15:41)
Dan, you wrote: "The secular scientific community has presuppositions that are obvious and sad when faced with truth. "
ReplyDeleteI don't think you're using the word, "presuppositions" correctly. Did you mean, "assumptions"?
Kaitlyn,
ReplyDeletePresuppositions is the word that all apologists use-whether right or wrong. Dan is a sheep. Listen to him bleet.
That was a wasted 90 minutes... Thanks, Dan.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, if anyone else sits through the entire thing, you will note that the video is discontinuous -- section 6 seems to cut off approximately one third of the way through, missing out on ~5 minutes of IDiotic musings, I'm sure.
Aside from that, the whole thing was question-begging nonsense. During the third section, a list of 13 items were listed (at least, 13 were listed before the occulted by the earth) which ostensibly show that the universe was designed and/or fine-tuned. The list included items such as the size and type of star, the "correct mass" (of the planet, I'm assuming -- whatever that is supposed to imply), the existence of plate tectonics, both the galactic and circumstellar "goldilocks" zones, etc.
What went unsaid alongside these assertions of design inference are the following facts:
1. We exist.
2. We (carbon-based earthlings) aren't necessarily the only forms of life possible.
3. Many of these factors could be tweaked in a number of ways without preventing the continuance of life, or without preventing its formation.
4. It may be that some of these factors have to be tweaked to allow life to continue to develop.
5. Life is assumed to be of the variety we experience, and not any other possible variety.
6. The entire argument is one from ignorance -- we don't see other forms of life, therefore there aren't any.
At one point, the video depicts the disastrous effect earth-based life would feel if the planet were moved closer to a smaller-type star (to remain in the "goldilocks" zone, if the star were smaller), yet strangely the opposite scenario goes untreated, and in the course of this "example," the earth's mass and size remained apparently fixed. It stands to reason that a scale model of our solar system would behave in much the same way as the one in which we find ourselves...
Later, [Guillermo Gonzalez -- the speaker was not directly identified] said:
All of these factors have to be met at one place, and time in the galaxy, if you're going to have a planet as habitable as the earth, which you need for complex, and even technological life. (emphasis in audio)
This statement is patently false. While it is self-evidently true that the various factors present favor the type of existence we experience, it does not follow that these factors -- at their current values -- are necessary "for complex, and even technological life" in general. This sort of complex, technological life, perhaps, but not necessarily life in general. Additionally, the fact that we are ignorant of other possible environments which may be favorable to life does not mean that this environment is the 'bestest' one. Indeed, few would argue that an earth which was entirely, pleasantly tropical, devoid of disease, predators, parasites, and pests would be less desirable than this one... Of course, if that were our environment, we'd all miss talking to Dan... (Yes, Dan, I know, the change in the environment is a result of a fallen creation, blah, blah, blah).
Jay Richards, yet later, referred to the "fine-tuning of the laws of physics." Bullshit. The laws of physics are observations, and they are descriptive only. If the universe operates uniformly, then these "laws" will necessarily appear "fine-tuned" to one who prefers to think of them in such a manner. This does not mean anything, except that the proposer of such an outlook is both ignorant and prone to question-begging.
It's as though I looked at a perfect circle (on a plane) and noted that its circumference was larger than its diameter by exactly a factor of pi. ZOMGWTFBBQ Haxorz!!!111!one! Teh surcl iz deezind!!!111eleven!!!1
Sorry, it's not "deezind," it's defined.
Heh. I just coined a new term to counter "Intelligent Design": Intelligently Defined™. The inference of design in the universe is a result of definition. The proposal of this "theory" is a result of ignorance to that fact.
Anyway...
Despite being an interesting subject, I found the time spent on solar eclipses wanting. A solar eclipse event is amazing, the video contends, because the moon so perfectly covers all but the sun's chromosphere. (ZOMG haxorz1!) Of course, due to the moon's continuous recession from the earth, in the past, a solar eclipse would have obscured all of the sun (chromosphere included), and likewise, in the future, the moon will fail to cover the sun so "perfectly."
This reminds me of an earlier point, regarding the "moderate rate of rotation" of the earth, which they claimed was a requirement to facilitate roughly equal temperature (read: wind currents to transport heat). While it is true that a "moderate rate of rotation" is very useful, it is not true that the earth has always had such a thing, or that it will continue to have such a thing. Eventually, the earth will find itself in resonance with the moon, such that a particular side of the earth always faces a particular side of the moon (note the moon already exhibits this behavior), and as the moon recedes, it "steals" rotational energy from the earth, resulting in longer days. I haven't done a calculation to find out just how long an earth-day will be in 50 billion years, but treating the earth-moon system as a single body, even it would cease to rotate after sufficient time has passed -- thus, the day-length is only currently relevant, and not a constant factor in the equation of life.
In the same manner, at one point the earth spun much more quickly, when the moon was far closer. This again shows that the suggestion that the earth's current rotational speed is only currently relevant.
Now, I must say that in watching the credits, I noted that there were precisely two persons listed as "scientific consultants": Guillermo Gonzalez (warning: links to DI) and Jay Richards (also links to DI) -- you know, the two authors of the book on which the video was loosely based.
What's that, you say? Richards isn't a scientist? Oh. I see. He has various degrees in philosophy and theology, but no science degree listed. Granted, this says nothing of the validity of his arguments (I'm not pulling ad hominem), but it does question his qualification as a "scientific consultant." He probably should've been a "philosophical consultant," or, even better, the two should've been listed as "authors peddling their book." How this video could be viewed as anything other than a propaganda piece is beyond me.
--
Stan
One last thing:
ReplyDeleteRichards was especially fond of noting that we are situated in the perfect place to exist, and the perfect place to make scientific observations (and Gonzalez undoubtedly agrees), but he seemed completely oblivious to the fact that if the solar system were moved, relative to the center of the Milky Way, a half-parsec counter-clockwise, 5 milli-arcseconds closer to the galactic plane, and three megaparsecs radially outward from the galactic center, our position would be even more perfect.
--
Stan
Dammit. Another last thing...
ReplyDeleteThe video mentioned the fact that our atmosphere is "transparent" as being a magical coincidence, but this is absurd. Human eyes (read: mammalian eyes, and the more biologically inclined among us may expand that even further as appropriate) have evolved in such a way that they view our atmosphere as transparent, but for different positions on the spectrum, our atmosphere is not transparent.
The whole argument is absurd, really. The notion that our environment is so well-suited to our existence, and that our location is so well-suited for observation, ignores the facts that a) our existence is well-suited for our environment, and b) any location is suited for observation of a particular variety. In the case of (b), if we found ourselves in the midst of an "opaque" atmosphere, we'd likely have developed eyes uniquely suited to allow for spatial awareness in it, and we'd still have developed tools such as radio telescopes, infrared optics, etc. Furthermore, just as we do today, we'd apply "false color" to whatever sort of images we produced via these instruments so that we could make sense of them.
Even if we assume "goddidit," we are guilty of hubris for the mere suggestion that our atmosphere is transparent, and thus suited to us. Could god not provide us with an eye capable of seeing through an "opaque" atmosphere? Since we cannot see "dark matter," which comprises 22% of the energy density of the universe, or detect "dark energy," which comprises 74% of the energy density of the universe, shouldn't we conclude that we aren't suited for viewing the majority of "creation"?
--
Stan
The obvious reason why Earth is such an ideal environment for us is so simple, we evolved in its environment. This is why periods are monthly.
ReplyDeleteIt's ridiculous to think God put the moon in a monthly phase to coincide with women having their period.
It's equally ridiculous to think that God made the salt-water oceans the same as our own salt-water makeup because he wanted the oceans to be like human blood.
Give me a break. The reason we are mostly saline solution is because we evolved out of the oceans, and the reason many of our hormonal cycles are linked with seasons and months is because the information for evolution comes directly from the environment.
Intelligently Defined™
ReplyDeleteCute. I like it. I would buy that t-shirt. That is why you cannot account for anything without God. You are a good presuppositional apologist Stan.
We evolved to fit into our environment, the environment was not designed to fit around us.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I wonder if Dan would want to answer Stan's query. Is the fact that the ratio of a circle's circumference and it's diameter is pi designed or defined?
Dan explain this: "All fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals carry within their veins the elements of sodium, potassium, and calcium in almost the same proportions as the oceans."
ReplyDelete- http://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/factsheets/salt.html
Why would God design the ocean to have the same proportions of sodium, potassium, and calcium as we carry in our body?
Dan,
ReplyDeleteYou do know what "secular" means, do you?
Or not? You know there are non-secular atheists too? I don't like those guys, by the way. Just like I don't like non-secular theists.
They like to ram 'absolute truths' and 'presuposionalism' (just another word for dogmatic thinking) through my throat.
Do you understand, Dan, that secularism is just the mechanism that the state should not dictate the belief system of people.
And yes, Dan, I can easily account for the universe without God. It's what I'm living in. It's what scientist have been studying and found other stuff than what's in the bible. It's what non-secular theists always have prosecuted them for, for telling us the earth is not in the middle of the universe, that it's round, that the earth needed more than 6 days to form.
Get awake, Dan.
You don't need cynical rhetorical lawyerism tricks to see presupposionalism is more of the same prosecution of honest scientists.
At least, get honest. You've been unable to answer my questions, unable to "debunk" me.
Because if there is a God, he would surely be a secular scientist.
Dan says,
ReplyDelete" You are a good presuppositional apologist Stan."
I'm calling Freudian slip on that one.
Dan is using a term that some fundies use to describe themselves (Sye/Dan) as a perjoritive against others.
There is a lot of meaning behind that Dan, only you don't understand what you have done.
No search for the truth ever proceeds as
ReplyDeleteTruth ---> Search.
Imagine home schooling your kids by that methodology. "Ok junior, we know that X, now let's go find the evidence for it".
That's not a search, Dan - and you know it. Thanks for debunking at least one Christian in this thread...
Dan did blather They will twist the truth to fit their belief structure no matter how contorted the truth looks afterwords.
ReplyDeleteClassic / textbook example of both "projection" and "irony".
How can you sleep at night, knowing that you're accusing people of the very thing you struggle to do every time your beliefs are shown to not comply with reality?
I find it difficult not to project myself as well. Even though I make every effort to try to understand opposing viewpoints, I still find myself accusing others of the way I think.
ReplyDeleteI suppose it's just human nature to project onto others, and I very much don't blame Dan for doing so. One thing that fundamentalist religion teaches you is that certain thoughts are wrong and you shouldn't think them. God will punish you for thought crimes although it's usually explained in a much more gentle manor.
Dan is just filtering the secular world through the context of dogma. How else could Dan view people who hold, in his opinion, opposing religious views?
From a secular and scientific perspective, we know that evolution, geology, etc... are all well-founded and distanced from dogma / religion. However, if your entire life is dominated by religion, how can you not see deeply held beliefs in science as a fundamentalist religious belief. After all, you and I believe in evolution with greater certainty than most Christians believe in the ressurection and Noah's flood.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteIn your side-bar you have a link to 'The 10 Best Evidences for Creation'.
Number 1 is this;
"1. The Fossil Record.
The fossil record provides evidence for a complex, instantaneous creation. Why?
A: The lower geologic layers reveal a sudden proliferation of complex life forms with every phyla represented. This Cambrian Explosion or “Big Bang” of life is preceded by no simpler forms.
B: Today’s living forms show no change from their supposed ancient ancestors.
C: There are large and systematic gaps between the different kinds of fossils rather than gradual, evolutionary changes."
I'm just wondering if you stand by this as one of the 10 best evidences for a Creator?
Thanks in advance.
Kaitlyn, you wrote two things that I want to respond to. First:
ReplyDeleteI find it difficult not to project myself as well. Even though I make every effort to try to understand opposing viewpoints, I still find myself accusing others of the way I think.
I'm asking as sincerely as possible: have you ever seen me do this? I can't think of a single example - but I may be biased. heck, I'll even Dan too: have I ever accused someone of thinking the way I (appear to) do?
Secondly:
you and I believe in evolution with greater certainty than most Christians believe in the ressurection and Noah's flood.
I don't think that's true. The only certainty I feel is that the ToE is the best explanation we have at this point, and that it may change. Beyond that, currently theories are provisional. If the Christian is faithful, however, they've got more certainty in their beliefs than I have in mine.
Just my 2 cp
Matt,
ReplyDeleteNumber 1 is this;
"1. The Fossil Record.
I'm just wondering if you stand by this as one of the 10 best evidences for a Creator?
I would take the list in it's entirety instead of an order of importance. If that were the case then I would put the last first and the first last. (Matthew 19:30) The number one would be "and God Said It!"
These are indeed evidences of a Creation but none of these examples are necessary for a belief in a Creator. Grace is all we can hope for in order for that to happen.
I take it you cannot even grasp the Anthropic Principle?
Also the list in incorrect in one aspect that I noticed.
6. Chicken or Egg Principle
They claim "The logical explanation is that they were both created."
I would say that isn't so because the answer is in Genesis 1:21, God says the chicken came first.
Wem,
ReplyDeleteThe only certainty I feel is that the ToE is the best explanation we have at this point, and that it may change.
You basically you are a slut for popular information. Whatever(man) sounds best, then you will go with that path. In other words you are a thermometer. In celebration of black history month, I will break out a MLK classic.
"Christians should not be a thermometers that merely record and reflect the temperature of popular opinion.
Christians should be like thermostats, responsible for transforming and setting the temperature or standards of society" (Thank God free at last!)
BTW ToE is not the best explanation we have. Your presups will not allow for the truth. Now, that is a shame.
Dan blurted out BTW ToE is not the best explanation we have. Your presups will not allow for the truth.
ReplyDeleteMore projection.
It would be sad if it wasn't so gosh darned predictable.
"I take it you cannot even grasp the Anthropic Principle?"
ReplyDeleteYou're in a bit of a foul mood today, eh?
When did I say that I didn't understand any of the 10 points raised? Nor did I imply that there was an 'order of importance'. I merely asked if you stood by the first of the listed 10.
I'll take your response as a 'yes' (with the caveat that you believe none of these are necessary to believe in Creation), ok?
"A: The lower geologic layers reveal a sudden proliferation of complex life forms with every phyla represented. This Cambrian Explosion or “Big Bang” of life is preceded by no simpler forms."
I'm not sure if any scientists refer to the Cambrian Explosion as a 'Big Bang' as it happened over a period of many millions of years. The statement that "...is preceded by no simpler forms" is demonstrably wrong - I have one of the preceding, simpler forms on my desk!
Also, as far as I know, there are no birds in the Cambrian Explosion - these are described in the Biblical Creation, so they should be there, no?
"B: Today’s living forms show no change from their supposed ancient ancestors."
A chihuahua shows no change from it's wolf ancestor?
"C: There are large and systematic gaps between the different kinds of fossils rather than gradual, evolutionary changes."
Define 'systemic', define 'kind'. If they're talking about punctuated equilibrium then what's the problem?
Do you really think this is one of the '10 best evidences of Creation'? Because it's a bit rubbish, if you think about it. I'm sure others could effectively debunk all 10 without breaking a sweat.
Cheers,
I finally got it!
ReplyDeleteThe "Debunking" in the blog title is actually a participial adjective, making it similar in meaning to "Atheists that debunk"!
The disconnect between the title and blog content suddenly evaporates!
Matt,
ReplyDeleteYou're in a bit of a foul mood today, eh?
Meh, not at all.
The statement that "...is preceded by no simpler forms" is demonstrably wrong - I have one of the preceding, simpler forms on my desk!
Fine you believe we "evolved" from plant life. And you consider my beliefs far fetched? Um, OK.
Also, as far as I know, there are no birds in the Cambrian Explosion - these are described in the Biblical Creation, so they should be there, no?
Should be there? Well, if they are not then no.
"B: Today’s living forms show no change from their supposed ancient ancestors."
A chihuahua shows no change from it's wolf ancestor?
Now we have been round and round about this subject. Within there "kind," yes there are changes. All people are not only fat, short, tall, black, or Asian either. I think we all understand the difference between macro and micro evolution. According to your theory there should be a wolf/flower monophyletic group out there somewhere. I would love to see that. Oh that's right you are all taking on faith for now until you find evidence for it.
BTW, yes I am playfully joking and poking fun at you. I understand all about the tree of life. Oops that was wrong also, what is it now, the Web of life right?
If they're talking about punctuated equilibrium then what's the problem?
Even scientist cannot agree to the various theories. So if your god Dawkins signs up to punctuated equilibrium then you do? Phyletic gradualism and/or Uniformitarianism is not even possible to you? Is Creation possible to you? Can you be sure about anything?
Because it's a bit rubbish, if you think about it. I'm sure others could effectively debunk all 10 without breaking a sweat.
This whole discussion is rubbish. Even if I am completely wrong about the universe. Hypothetically, even if evolution were true and that is how God caused things to happen. It would not one bit, affect/effect my salvation. I would still be saved by God's Grace. Whereas you, no matter what you believe, if God does exist you will be spending eternity in hell.
Please reconsider your position,
Dan
henwli,
ReplyDelete"Atheists that debunk"!
Cute but unfortunately that is an impossibility since atheists cannot be sure of anything really. Nothing is absolute according to the atheistic worldview. Atheists therefore cannot debunk anything, they can merely postulate.
I will ask how it is possible for you to know anything. You see, if you can’t know anything, then you have no basis for evaluating any answer I give, or whether or not I have even given one. Also, what is the justification for the universal, abstract, invariant laws of logic you wish to use to evaluate my answers.
If you claim that you can know things by your ‘senses and judgement,’ then how do you know them to be valid?
Apparently, Dan's criterion for understanding is surety.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder he clings to dogma which ensures it.
Dan, maybe you forgot, but Stephen Law was nice enough to explain the many problems with presuppostional arguments for God. They don't hold any water, and from my own perspective, it doesn't seem as though you and Sye understand what you are trying to argue.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit like watching Grandpa Simpson talk about "ninteen dicky two."
Dan spake thusly:
ReplyDelete[Birds] Should be [in the Cambrian]? Well, if they are not then no.
Heh. Now that's funny shit. Especially considering Whateverman's earlier statement:
How can you sleep at night, knowing that you're accusing people of the very thing you struggle to do every time your beliefs are shown to not comply with reality?
...which Dan has evidently here confirmed quite explicitly.
Also, Dan regurgitated Sye's vomit:
If you claim that you can know things by your ‘senses and judgement,’ then how do you know them to be valid?
Are you sure you want to play that game, rookie? Perhaps you'll then answer the question Sye has been ignoring:
Since there are obviously those who believe they are certain (due to revelation), who are not certain (as they are wrong), how do you know you are not one of these people?
Oh, and lest I forget, Dan also provided the following gem:
Whereas you, no matter what you believe, if God does exist you will be spending eternity in hell. (emphasis Dan's)
Funny, and here I thought Dan's position was that it does matter what we believe, and that it is indeed at the very core of his position...
Dan's Freudian slip notwithstanding, his little speech here also seems an awful lot like gloating, and I'd be remiss to ignore his blatant question-begging. Not "if God does exist," but 'if Dan's god does exist,' or 'if an insignificantly different god does exist.'
Funny, to the last.
--
Stan
Dan said:
ReplyDelete"The presuppositions of the secular scientific community are obvious and sad when faced with truth. They will twist the truth to fit their belief structure no matter how contorted the truth looks afterwords."
LOL...somewhere a pot and a kettle are in discussion about who is more black! :-D
Creation 'scientists' admit that they must make all available data conform to the bible. It is they who twist the truth to fit their belief structure no matter how contorted the truth looks afterwords.
e.g. they claim that the speed of light was 300 times faster in the past because 6,000 years is not enough time for light to get to Earth from even the nearest galaxies.
They first assume that the universe is 6,000 years old and then twist the truth to fit their belief structure no matter how contorted the truth looks afterwords.
Same with pretty much every claim from the creation 'science' community...
Dan said "This whole discussion is rubbish. Even if I am completely wrong about the universe."
ReplyDeleteNo, Dan, it is certainly not. Insight in the mechanics of nature are essential to tackle medical and ecological problems. Undermining science might lead to the loss of life.
Dan said "Hypothetically, even if evolution were true and that is how God caused things to happen."
It would, at the one hand you speak of a "perfectly tuned" planet, no further divine intervention needed, on the other hand you would see "God" dabble in his creation to destroy and recreate species. Earth not destined for humans after all, without dabbling?
The irony!
Dan said "It would not one bit, affect/effect my salvation."
It wouldn't? Calling hard-working, honest scientists (some Christians, like Darwin himself) liars, calling them childish names (labcoat-authoritarians) and sometimes outright evil (as in evilution) would not affect your salvation?
Did you forget about Matthew 7:1-5 and Matthew 5:22, now?
Even worse, by your own judgement you would be a liar, Dan. Ninth comandement?
Dan said "I would still be saved by God's Grace. Whereas you, no matter what you believe, if God does exist you will be spending eternity in hell."
So, what you are telling me here is that I should be a hypocrit, no? You are telling me that God would punish me for not believing "He" would actually live the wet dream of any psychopath dictator: being able to eternally inhumanly torture those who don't adore the 'right' doctrine.
And by the way, Muslims telling me the same thing about me and you. See, they say that you have an idol besides God (first commandment, remember), called Christ. And me of course, because I dare to shake my head and say "oh my, oh my, what are they thinking?"
Sorry, Dan, I understand why you say such things (and a possible infinite creator would understand the both of us as well), but there are no safe bets in the cynical worldview of a hell-wielding God.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteI only asked if you were in a bad mood because I asked you a very simple question about whether or not you agreed with that particular evidence from the website and you retorted, among other things;
"I take it you cannot even grasp the Anthropic Principle?"
Which seemed a bit irrelevant and unnecessary.
In fact, all your replies to me seem a bit, well, rantish!
For instance, I said nothing that should have lead you to reply;
"Fine you believe we "evolved" from plant life. And you consider my beliefs far fetched? Um, OK."
As has been pointed out, your comment;
"Should [birds] be there [Cambrian Explosion]? Well, if they are not then no."
Is patently absurd when you've just agreed with the website's claim that the Cambrian Explosion is evidence of sudden Creation - as far as I know, there's only one Creation in the Bible, so this should be it. Is there a reason why, if the Cambrian Explosion is a record of the Creation, no birds (or livestock for the that matter) are found there? If there's no good reason, then how is this a good evidence for Creation?
I'm just trying to understand your position on this.
"I think we all understand the difference between macro and micro evolution."
What IS the difference between micro and macro evolution? Other than time, there is no difference that I know of.
It's like asking what the difference is between inches and miles.
"According to your theory [it's not MY theory! We weren't celebrating ExPatMatt Day last week, you know?] there should be a wolf/flower monophyletic group out there somewhere. I would love to see that. Oh that's right you are all taking on faith for now until you find evidence for it."
You say all this, which sound like fundie-crap of FSTDT proportions, and then append this comment to it;
"BTW, yes I am playfully joking and poking fun at you. I understand all about the tree of life. Oops that was wrong also, what is it now, the Web of life right?"
Which make me think you don't actually want to commit to a serious potion on this matter; one wonders why you are so defensive...
I'll just ignore the stuff about Dawkins being my god, it makes you look childish.
"This whole discussion is rubbish."
I'm not playing anymore! You smell! I'm telling my dad!
"Even if I am completely wrong about the universe. Hypothetically, even if evolution were true and that is how God caused things to happen. It would not one bit, affect/effect my salvation. I would still be saved by God's Grace."
So what do you have to lose by accepting the evidence and where it leads?
"Whereas you, no matter what you believe, if God does exist you will be spending eternity in hell."
You are correct. If the god you believe in is real then, according to your theology, I go to Hell. At least I'll go honestly.
But still, I am just trying to understand your position on, what you endorse as, one of the 10 best evidence for Creation. I won't hold my breath.
Matt
henwli wrote The disconnect between the title and blog content suddenly evaporates!
ReplyDeleteThat made me laugh out loud.
Sadly, though, the deist never gets debunked, nor apparently, any of the debunking :(
Can someone please email me when Dan actually debunks an atheist?
ReplyDeleteclostridiophile@gmail.com
Thanks
I emailed you the newest post Clos to honor your wish. :)
ReplyDeleteThe Case For/Against God
Oh, I'm sure this one will do it....
ReplyDelete