Is Philosophy of Religion becoming Theology?

[Deleted]

Jan 11, 2011 9:57:29 GMT jim_s said:

Sorry folks, Craig is an excellent philosopher. As evidence I point to the fact that he has been published extensively in numerous journals and by academic publishers which require very high standards and peer review. This doesn't mean that he's right: plenty of the great philosophers are dead wrong.

... The errors of great men are venerable because they are more fruitful than the truths of little men ... - Friedrich Nietzsche

[gymnopodie]

Matko wrote:

So in this case you're saying philosophy is completely impotent to give us reasons for theism? If yes, then why?

The short answer is: Philosophers do not agree that there is a god and there is no way to test any theory presented through philosophy. In the end, we don't have a god; we have faith. I was once a believer and then came to realize that there is no real evidence of a god. I am not saying there is no god or there can't be any god, but if there is, where is the tangible evidence?

[bjorn]

Jan 6, 2011 6:06:00 GMT davedodo007 said:

Keith Parsons says “I have to confess that I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory.”

www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/3853/a_philosopher_of_religion_calls_it_quits/

If Swinburne, Plantinga and lightweights like C S Lewis and William Lane Craig are found wanting while trying to put the case for theism. Isn't the Philosophy of Religion becoming Theology and/or Apologetics?

BTW, Feser is commenting on the Parson "non story" at edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/non-story-of-year.html

He is not ... quite impressed.

"Suppose Intelligent Design theorist Michael Behe announced that he was giving up biology. Or suppose the notorious catastrophist Immanuel Velikovsky had announced in the 1970s that he was “calling it quits” on astronomical research. Or suppose Einstein critic Petr Beckmann had announced before his death in the early 1990s that research in physics was no longer worth his time. Would academic blogs devoted to biology, astronomy, or physics have regarded these as “striking” developments, evidence that there might be something fishy about the disciplines in question? Obviously not. That someone whose views are radically at odds with those prevailing in his field decides to do something else instead is neither surprising nor noteworthy."

And he is not ... quite unrethoric about the rhetorics.

In general, philosophers who tend to shoot off their mouths about how breathtakingly bad the traditional arguments for God’s existence are demonstrably do not know what they are talking about, as we have seen here(edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/03/straw-men-and-terracotta-armies.html), here(edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/03/less-rey-knows-less-he-knows-it.html), and here(edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/warburton-on-first-cause-argument.html). And they are the sorts of people who rarely want to engage the actual arguments themselves in any depth anyway. They prefer to offer elaborate rationalizations for refusing to do so. “Come on, theistic arguments are really all about rationalizing preconceived opinions!” – said without a trace of irony – “Besides, did this Thomist whose work you recommend ever publish an article in The Philosophical Review? Did he teach in a PGR-ranked department?” That kind of thing. Shameless ad hominems and straw men coupled with a snarky, careerist conformism, all served up as a kind of higher philosophical method. Or, to call it by its traditional name, sophism. And now they’ve got a new “argument” to bounce around their echo chamber. It goes like this: “Even Keith Parsons says so!”

[gymnopodie]

gymnopodie said:

Of course the British aren't the only ones who have odd names for their pubs. Here's one in Basogne, Belgium called Le Nut's. Anyone care to venture a guess how it got that name?

i48.photobucket.com/albums/f221/terracops/IMG_5314.jpg

I may have a light touch on the 't' key since I spelled Bastogne, Basogne, but, never-the-less, no one ventured a quess as to how Le Nut's got its name.

The little restaurant with a bar at the back had murals painted on the walls of American paratroopers, tanks, planes, etc. There were lots of references to Band of Brothers.

This taken from wikipedia:
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:jaPtjEhKvWUJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Bastogne+bastogne+battle+of+the+bulge+nuts&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The most famous quote of the battle came from the 101st’s acting commander, Brigadier General McAuliffe. When confronted with a written request from German General Luttwitz for surrender of Bastogne, he replied “NUTS!” (the commander of the 327th GIR interpreted it to the German truce party as “Go to hell!”).[3] After the battle, newspapers referred to the division as the "battered bastards of Bastogne".

[davedodo007]

Jan 11, 2011 9:57:29 GMT jim_s said:

Sorry folks, Craig is an excellent philosopher. As evidence I point to the fact that he has been published extensively in numerous journals and by academic publishers which require very high standards and peer review. This doesn't mean that he's right: plenty of the great philosophers are dead wrong. But if you think he doesn't really count as a philosopher because he disagrees with you, you're asking people not to take you seriously.

Are you serious, I don't care where he has been published the man's a complete flake. I mean the Kalam Cosmological Argument Has been destroyed be Kant even before the casimir effect and radioactice decay were known about. A the very least and we are talking the very least it only supports a deist god and not Jesus's daddy. The empty tomb what!! apart from it's part of the same story therefore not evidence is the only creditably explanation for an empty tomb is that the previous owner came back to life, sheesh.

Though it's when he becomes a apologised for genocide that the scumbag beggars belief. William Lane Craig explaining how God was doing slaughtered Caininite children a favor by having his chosen people hack them to death has to be the most insane thing that I have ever heard from any believer. Also the tortuous and wholly obscene semantic gymnastics erected by William Lane Craig, when he seeks to assert that genocide is perfectly legitimate if his magic man in the sky orders it.

So might is right Craig. How can anyone rate this evil clown.

[Deleted]

I'd be happy to reply to you, but your writing verges on being illiterate, making it hard for someone to recognize your intended thoughts behind it. Please state it again more clearly, or there won't be any productive discussion.

[unkleE]

Jan 15, 2011 1:26:37 GMT davedodo007 said:

So might is right Craig. How can anyone rate this evil clown.

I'm no academic, and I haven't read any of his professional papers, but I have read Craig's book "Reasonable Faith" and I rate it very highly - I think the best and most comprehensive book on the topic I have read.

For the record, I have read only a few other books on the topic, including:

"God, reason & Theistic Proofs" - Stephen Davis. Very good. Also comprehensive and rigorous, and (unlike Craig's book) presented from as neutral viewpoint as one could expect.
"Arguing for Atheism" - Robin le Poidivin. Disappointing. Good in places, but its partisanship seemed (unlike Craig) to impair his judgment.
"Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins" by Keith Ward. Disappointing. A bit waffly and unconvincing.
"Is there a god?" - Richard Swinburne. This is Swinburne light, and OK, but not great. I think his larger works might be better.
"The reason for God" - Tim Keller. Conversational, practical and interesting, but lightweight philosophically.
CS Lewis of course. His work too is popular rather than rigorous, and a little dated - but still well worth reading!

I haven't read any books by Plantinga, but plenty of papers on the web, and I think dismissing his ontologial argument is only scratching the surface!!

So I reckon Craig has done as well as any other philosopher or populariser at explaining the philosophy of God at a popular level.

[davedodo007]

Jan 16, 2011 7:39:41 GMT unkleE said:

Jan 15, 2011 1:26:37 GMT davedodo007 said:

So might is right Craig. How can anyone rate this evil clown.

I'm no academic, and I haven't read any of his professional papers, but I have read Craig's book "Reasonable Faith" and I rate it very highly - I think the best and most comprehensive book on the topic I have read.

For the record, I have read only a few other books on the topic, including:

"God, reason & Theistic Proofs" - Stephen Davis. Very good. Also comprehensive and rigorous, and (unlike Craig's book) presented from as neutral viewpoint as one could expect.
"Arguing for Atheism" - Robin le Poidivin. Disappointing. Good in places, but its partisanship seemed (unlike Craig) to impair his judgment.
"Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins" by Keith Ward. Disappointing. A bit waffly and unconvincing.
"Is there a god?" - Richard Swinburne. This is Swinburne light, and OK, but not great. I think his larger works might be better.
"The reason for God" - Tim Keller. Conversational, practical and interesting, but lightweight philosophically.
CS Lewis of course. His work too is popular rather than rigorous, and a little dated - but still well worth reading!

I haven't read any books by Plantinga, but plenty of papers on the web, and I think dismissing his ontologial argument is only scratching the surface!!

So I reckon Craig has done as well as any other philosopher or populariser at explaining the philosophy of God at a popular level.

I'm no academic either, (who ever shouted obviously at the back, quiet you.) Though that should not stop us joining in the discussions. If they think were wrong about something and they give us the reasons why they think were wrong then fair enough.

We all have are own beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices but no one is entitled to their own facts. In the end apologetics, theology and philosophy (of religion and other things.) are just words. You can't logic or reason god/s into existence. They either exist or they don't. If god/s exist and interacts in this world their should be evidence of their interactions. According to all of the holy books god/s fingerprints should be all over this planet, there not, nothing, zilch. Some theist claim that god is beyond space and time, beyond mere human understanding well in that case how do we even know he exists let alone know what he thinks and what rules he wants us to follow.

[davedodo007]

Jan 12, 2011 9:52:32 GMT bjorn said:

Jan 6, 2011 6:06:00 GMT davedodo007 said:

Keith Parsons says “I have to confess that I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position—no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory.”

www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/3853/a_philosopher_of_religion_calls_it_quits/

If Swinburne, Plantinga and lightweights like C S Lewis and William Lane Craig are found wanting while trying to put the case for theism. Isn't the Philosophy of Religion becoming Theology and/or Apologetics?

BTW, Feser is commenting on the Parson "non story" at edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/01/non-story-of-year.html

He is not ... quite impressed.

"Suppose Intelligent Design theorist Michael Behe announced that he was giving up biology. Or suppose the notorious catastrophist Immanuel Velikovsky had announced in the 1970s that he was “calling it quits” on astronomical research. Or suppose Einstein critic Petr Beckmann had announced before his death in the early 1990s that research in physics was no longer worth his time. Would academic blogs devoted to biology, astronomy, or physics have regarded these as “striking” developments, evidence that there might be something fishy about the disciplines in question? Obviously not. That someone whose views are radically at odds with those prevailing in his field decides to do something else instead is neither surprising nor noteworthy."

And he is not ... quite unrethoric about the rhetorics.

In general, philosophers who tend to shoot off their mouths about how breathtakingly bad the traditional arguments for God’s existence are demonstrably do not know what they are talking about, as we have seen here(edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/03/straw-men-and-terracotta-armies.html), here(edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/03/less-rey-knows-less-he-knows-it.html), and here(edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/10/warburton-on-first-cause-argument.html). And they are the sorts of people who rarely want to engage the actual arguments themselves in any depth anyway. They prefer to offer elaborate rationalizations for refusing to do so. “Come on, theistic arguments are really all about rationalizing preconceived opinions!” – said without a trace of irony – “Besides, did this Thomist whose work you recommend ever publish an article in The Philosophical Review? Did he teach in a PGR-ranked department?” That kind of thing. Shameless ad hominems and straw men coupled with a snarky, careerist conformism, all served up as a kind of higher philosophical method. Or, to call it by its traditional name, sophism. And now they’ve got a new “argument” to bounce around their echo chamber. It goes like this: “Even Keith Parsons says so!”

Well it is evidently a story though the angle he is aiming for that it shouldn't be is fair enough and Parsons to his credit agrees with that point. Michael Behe is not a biologist but a chemist you wouldn't get far in biology without excepting the theory of evolution. Though I understand the point he was making.

Who cares if Parsons is a big wheel or not is his view valid or not is the only question that needs answering. “Come on, theistic arguments are really all about rationalizing preconceived opinions!” Does anyone argue the case for god/s unless they're already a believer? To be honest I have little interest in philosophy until it enters the god debate and then it peeks my interest. All the arguments for god/s have been refuted a thousand times but still they are clung to by the credulous, to use words like strawmen and ad hominems is just taking the words of your opponents and using then against them without any evidence to back them up. As for snarky well that's just a complaint about tone, the market place for ideas can get very rough but nobody gets hurt except for delicate flowers feeling, either man up or butt out, your choice. As for the charge of sophism when Parsons is doing the exact opposite, well you have completely lost me, though their lies the logic of the religious I suppose.

Anyway even Keith Parsons says so. Sorry couldn't resist.

[unkleE]

Jan 16, 2011 20:55:27 GMT davedodo007 said:

We all have are own beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices but no one is entitled to their own facts. In the end apologetics, theology and philosophy (of religion and other things.) are just words. You can't logic or reason god/s into existence. They either exist or they don't.

Are you saying that we can't know anything (epistemological scepticism), or just this question? I suggest we can only ever hope to "know" things probabilistically, i.e. with some uncertainty. And I suggest we can apply reason to the likelihood that God exists just as we can apply reasoning to the questions of whether the multiverse or free will or beauty or an ideal political system exist. And I think you have done just that when you said: "All the arguments for god/s have been refuted a thousand times but still they are clung to by the credulous" and similar statements. So if philosophy and uncertainty are good enough to say the argument are false and God doesn't exist, why aren't they good enough to say the opposite?

If god/s exist and interacts in this world their should be evidence of their interactions.

I wonder how you would support this statement? And what level of interaction you would expect? And how you would identify an interaction? Any thoughts?

Accordingto all of the holy books god/s fingerprints should be all over this planet, there not, nothing, zilch.

Same questions - what parts of the Bible, especially the NT, are you thinking of here? And why doesn't Jesus qualify as a "fingerprint" rather than as "zilch"

I'm interested in pursuing this further.

PS Since I'm asking some questions, perhaps you'd also like to justify your statement: "theKalam Cosmological Argument Has been destroyed be Kant even before the casimir effect and radioactice decay were known about" . I think it's very much still alive, and the attempted refutations I've seen can be shown to be invalid (IMO).

[davedodo007]

Jan 17, 2011 4:32:47 GMT unkleE said:

Jan 16, 2011 20:55:27 GMT davedodo007 said:

We all have are own beliefs, preconceptions and prejudices but no one is entitled to their own facts. In the end apologetics, theology and philosophy (of religion and other things.) are just words. You can't logic or reason god/s into existence. They either exist or they don't.

Are you saying that we can't know anything (epistemological scepticism), or just this question? I suggest we can only ever hope to "know" things probabilistically, i.e. with some uncertainty. And I suggest we can apply reason to the likelihood that God exists just as we can apply reasoning to the questions of whether the multiverse or free will or beauty or an ideal political system exist. And I think you have done just that when you said: "All the arguments for god/s have been refuted a thousand times but still they are clung to by the credulous" and similar statements. So if philosophy and uncertainty are good enough to say the argument are false and God doesn't exist, why aren't they good enough to say the opposite?

Look both you and me live in reality we can only know stuff if it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt. You can talk probabilistically all you want but the world is not going to become flat again just because it's not round but spheroidal. Philosophy and it's retarded offspring are not going to be able to answer questions that amount to abstract concepts. How could they and how would they go about it. As for the muliverse well if you want to lock horns with Steven Hawkings and his ilk well far from it to be me who warns you about the endeavour but as a mere biologist I got my ass handed to me on a silver plater last time I took them on. Still feel free to knock yourself out. As for free will well that's biologist territory but neurology and free will well that's where madness lies, Still again knock yourself out. Your other argument about the opposite? Well I just don't get it?

I wonder how you would support this statement? And what level of interaction you would expect? And how you would identify an interaction? Any thoughts?

Any would be nice, get back to me when you have found any!

Accordingto all of the holy books god/s fingerprints should be all over this planet, there not, nothing, zilch.

Same questions - what parts of the Bible, especially the NT, are you thinking of here? And why doesn't Jesus qualify as a "fingerprint" rather than as "zilch"

I'm interested in pursuing this further.

Well apart from Jesus never existed in the first place why would a lunatic claiming to be the son of god count anyway?

PS Since I'm asking some questions, perhaps you'd also like to justify your statement: "theKalam Cosmological Argument Has been destroyed be Kant even before the casimir effect and radioactice decay were known about" . I think it's very much still alive, and the attempted refutations I've seen can be shown to be invalid (IMO).

As for the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with Jesus and his daddy. If you want to take it beyond that feel free.

To take away for the negative I totally agree with your posting about the Alabama shooting on the feedback thread.

[unkleE]

Jan 19, 2011 8:03:22 GMT davedodo007 said:

Look both you and me live in reality we can only know stuff if it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt. <snip> Well I just don't get it?

I'm sorry Dave, I just don't get your point. You seem to want to argue that arguing is silly, that there is no evidence for what I believe while offering no evidence for your statements. I don't see how I can respond to that.

Any would be nice, get back to me when you have found any!

Are you genuinely interested in finding any? For there are many around. Just for example, check out Visions of Jesus (published by Oxford University Press, so it must have some credibility). In it Prof Phillip Wiebe reports on his interviews with 30 people who had visions of Jesus, then analyses the possible natural (psychological and neurophysiological) and supernatural explanations for these experiences.

Wiebe comments that "Christic visions are evidentially more common than is ordinarily believed". He concludes that these contemporary visions of Jesus may well represent genuine religious experiences of a mystical character, and suggests they merit further study and analysis.

Then you might like to consider this case of a man pronounced dead by an experienced specialist after a skilled and equipped emergency team had worked on him for 40 minutes and failed to get any signs of life, but who then fully recovered after the same specialist prayed for him.

There are many more such apparent interactions with God, but are you willing to consider them, or is your mind already made up?

Well apart from Jesus never existed in the first place why would a lunatic claiming to be the son of god count anyway?

So you wouldn't lock horns with Steven Hawking, but you will disagree with almost all of the thousands of ancient historians who conclude that Jesus did indeed exist? You might like to check out this page for a summary.

As for Jesus being a lunatic, how would you justify that conclusion with any evidence?

As for the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with Jesus and his daddy.

An argument that attempts to show that a personal, supernatural, powerful, creative being truly exists has nothing to do with God? How do you justify that statement?

To take away for the negative I totally agree with your posting about the Alabama shooting on the feedback thread.

[himself]

Jan 19, 2011 8:03:22 GMT davedodo007 said:

the Kalam Cosmological Argument Has been destroyed be Kant

Unlikely, as the argument had not been made in Kant's time. Also Kant's "destruction" was grounded in a metaphysics that would hardly compel acceptance today. That there is no universe is bad enough for (natural) science, but it borders on a pure Idealism. No one recalls that; only that he (somehow) refuted the greats.

Jan 19, 2011 8:03:22 GMT davedodo007 said:

As for free will well that's biologist territory but neurology and free will well that's where madness lies,

Fortunately, we don't need to take that seriously, as it was simply the reaction of some chemicals in the dave-brain, and if so has no more meaning that the sound of the wind blowing through the branches of the trees.

Jan 19, 2011 8:03:22 GMT davedodo007 said:

Accordingto all of the holy books god/s fingerprints should be all over this planet, there not, nothing, zilch

Fingerprints include:

• An objective universe exists.
  
• The universe is rationally ordered (There are natural laws, not chaos.)
  
• It is ordered "by number, weight, and measure."
  
• Its order is accessible to human reason.

None of these things are to be expected a priori, nor expected from a universe governed by a multitude of gods, nor expected from a universe of which the gods are simply inheritors.

Jan 19, 2011 8:03:22 GMT davedodo007 said:

the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with Jesus and his daddy.

General relativity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. So what?

[davedodo007]

Jan 19, 2011 21:17:48 GMT unkleE said:

Jan 19, 2011 8:03:22 GMT davedodo007 said:

Look both you and me live in reality we can only know stuff if it's been proven beyond reasonable doubt. <snip> Well I just don't get it?

I'm sorry Dave, I just don't get your point. You seem to want to argue that arguing is silly, that there is no evidence for what I believe while offering no evidence for your statements. I don't see how I can respond to that.

Since I wrote it while blind drunk you did well to even find it partly coherent. I was trying to say is I don't think philosophy can prove or disprove god/s existence. The arguments just don't stand up. More so for theology and apologetics. These arguments only convince the believers anyway so what's the point. Us skeptics can see them for what they are, just 'bait and switch moves' e.g. changing 'could' for 'is' with no justification, or changing the rules entirely as in everything has a cause then later on claiming that their god is the uncause cause (how does that work exactly.)

Are you genuinely interested in finding any? For there are many around. Just for example, check out Visions of Jesus (published by Oxford University Press, so it must have some credibility). In it Prof Phillip Wiebe reports on his interviews with 30 people who had visions of Jesus, then analyses the possible natural (psychological and neurophysiological) and supernatural explanations for these experiences.

Wiebe comments that "Christic visions are evidentially more common than is ordinarily believed". He concludes that these contemporary visions of Jesus may well represent genuine religious experiences of a mystical character, and suggests they merit further study and analysis.

Then you might like to consider this case of a man pronounced dead by an experienced specialist after a skilled and equipped emergency team had worked on him for 40 minutes and failed to get any signs of life, but who then fully recovered after the same specialist prayed for him.

There are many more such apparent interactions with God, but are you willing to consider them, or is your mind already made up?

Any atheist would be interested in any real evidence for god, you will find most atheist are more knowledgeable about the bible then any common or garden believer who just listens to their local holy man who then just cherry picks the good bits. Visions are subjective I bet people of other religions see visions of their gods and prophets. Jesus time would be better spent appearing to atheists and agnostics rather then his believers, funny how he doesn't bother.

There was a study in the US about prayer amongst hospital patients and showed no positive results for the people being prayed for who didn't know it was happening and a negative result for those that did know. I will happy dig it out if you can't find it on the internet.

So you wouldn't lock horns with Steven Hawking, but you will disagree with almost all of the thousands of ancient historians who conclude that Jesus did indeed exist? You might like to check out this page for a summary.

As for Jesus being a lunatic, how would you justify that conclusion with any evidence?

There is a bit of a difference in history and physics don't you think, anybody can read history (evaluating it is where the historians earn their corn.) I do have some sympathy with historians when evaluating minor historical figures though as it would be an anathema to treat Jesus differently to anybody else. Though considering that of all the people who claimed to be god this one is believed by two billion people and this has real world consequences. Please don't indulge in the argumentum ad populum.

I was just paraphrasing C S Lewis who said “either Jesus was the son of god or a madman.” Now I'm sober I wouldn't even go that far, I would say Jesus if he existed was delusional.

An argument that attempts to show that a personal, supernatural, powerful, creative being truly exists has nothing to do with God? How do you justify that statement?

I said the best the ontological argument could show was that a deist god could exist to link it to the bible is a bit of a stretch to say the least.

[davedodo007]

Jan 19, 2011 23:57:43 GMT himself said:

Jan 19, 2011 8:03:22 GMT davedodo007 said:

the Kalam Cosmological Argument Has been destroyed be Kant

Unlikely, as the argument had not been made in Kant's time. Also Kant's "destruction" was grounded in a metaphysics that would hardly compel acceptance today. That there is no universe is bad enough for (natural) science, but it borders on a pure Idealism. No one recalls that; only that he (somehow) refuted the greats.

The first cause argument was not only predicted by Buddha but refuted by him as well and this was 2,500 years ago! Whether Buddha existed is another matter but it was written about 2,500 years ago by a clever chap. I like the idea that Craig was pwned two and a half thousands years ago.

Fortunately, we don't need to take that seriously, as it was simply the reaction of some chemicals in the dave-brain, and if so has no more meaning that the sound of the wind blowing through the branches of the trees.

I was joking of course as I'm very interested into the neurological research into freewill what biologist wouldn't be. That our brain will produce an action then our conscious mind will rationalise that action as if we ment to do that in the first place. It's a amazing area of research but a mind-bender non the less.

Fingerprints include:

• An objective universe exists.
  
• The universe is rationally ordered (There are natural laws, not chaos.)
  
• It is ordered "by number, weight, and measure."
  
• Its order is accessible to human reason.

The universe exists yes but what's objective about it?

No not really, the so called natural 'laws' are a human construct to help us explain in what way matter behaves with other matter or non matter.

Sorry but this is just nonsensical.

This is due to methodological naturalism from an higher evolved ape nothing more. I see no god here.

None of these things are to be expected a priori, nor expected from a universe governed by a multitude of gods, nor expected from a universe of which the gods are simply inheritors.

Too many assumptions, the universe exist all the rest is speculation.

Jan 19, 2011 8:03:22 GMT davedodo007 said:

the Kalam Cosmological Argument has nothing to do with Jesus and his daddy.

General relativity has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. So what?

You have just made baby Einstein cry, I hope you're happy now.