Tracking back

I guess this is why some people hate track backs – it’s like a conversation of interlinked blog articles! Ah well.

Carl posted a reply to my entry “It was good” from a few days back. Matthew then posted a reply to both our entries…

I’ll start off with my thoughts from Carl’s entry.

I like most of his entry, and maybe there’s some truth in what he says about my “apology” at the start of it. However I read it like a warning rather than an apology, I at no point said “sorry” or the like for writing it, I merely wanted to inform people what the article was about before I launched into it.

Then, the main thing I want to comment on is this sentence:
“The problem arises when these people don’t appreciate that others don’t *have* to agree with them.”
Isn’t this a bit nonsensical? I mean, what he’s saying is that everyone should agree that we don’t have to agree. This, I see, is the biggest flaw in the post-modern view of the world — that it is, in fact, self–contradictory.

Another common one is saying “We must tolerate all people” but then when you did further into it, there is a hidden addition of “except those who are intolerant”. It’s a self-defeating argument and not even circular logic (of which Christians are somewhat understandably criticised, but that’s another issue, which I might go into if I’m in the mood in a bit). If everyone were tolerant, then there would be just be true anyway.

So I guess I’m the one “pointing out how [your] views are, in some way, ‘wrong'”. For being so predictable, I do apologise. :o) But of course, we don’t all have to agree on the fact that it’s OK to disagree, so this shouldn’t be a problem.

Now, onto Matthews entry…
The core of this article — that we are all broken — is very much at the centre of Christianity and our need for God. Interesting to see that Paganism also recognises this, but I guess any religion/faith that looks at the world around them must notice that it’s pretty broken.

Matthew’s comments on the feelings we have during an encounter with “God or Gods”, slightly worry me. I guess for me I’ve always seen it as a wholly spiritual thing that has physical symptoms, not a purely physical thing down to someone tickling the right part of my brain. One of the worries that comes from this (that applies to myself as much as to Matthew and to everyone) is how do we know that our buttons are being pressed by something good? I don’t know the pagan position on evil spirits and stuff, but if they have the ability to stimulate our lobes as well, then we could be walking on dangerous ground. I’m sure I had other stuff to say but then this happened…

Interestingly I’ve just had a couple of Jehovah’s witnesses come round, they agree on the brokenness thing too.

So now I’ve lost my track… ah well, that’ll do for now.

Author: Alex

I am X3JA

65 thoughts on “Tracking back”

  1. > how do we know that our buttons are being pressed by something good?

    By the fruit of having these buttons pushed?

  2. Just had this pointed out in what I said:
    “If everyone were tolerant, then there would be just be true anyway.”

    Probably best ignore that bit! I think what I meant was that if everyone were tolerant, then there’d be no need to try to get everyone to be tolerant. But as it is, because there is some intolerance, which isn’t tolerated, it all falls apart… or so I see it.

  3. Why’s agreeing to disagree a flaw?

    Isn’t agreeing to disagree a good thing in that you won’t just pointless bicker but rather you’ll get on with your lives/something better instead etc?

  4. I didn’t say that agreeing to disagree is a flaw. Or at least I didn’t intend to. Thinking about it, I can see how it could come across that way.

    Let me just state for the record: I do think it’s OK to agree to disagree, in the sense that we do all have to get along and if we let anything and everything get in the way of that, then it would make for a much worse world.

    I think I was reading in to what Carl was saying, and assuming he meant that we shouldn’t ever believe that someone else was wrong, but we should just accept that “that was their truth” or something, treating both beliefs as equally credible and equally true.

    It comes down to my belief in truth. I don’t believe it’s possible for Matthew to believe that there is a God and a Goddess, me to believe that there is just a God (in 3 parts), the Jehovah’s witnesses to believe there’s a God (just the one part) and Chris to believe there’s no higher power at all and for us all to be simultaneously right.

  5. So you say you think it’s ok to disagree with you and yet you think Matthew, Chris and anyone else that doesn’t agree with your view about the existence of god/gods is lying?

  6. For starters, I certainly did not imply that they were lying, which indicates intent (“the deliberate act of deviating from the truth” — WordNet) and I do not believe that they are purposefully deciding to not tell the truth. I believe that the beliefs they hold are based on their experiences and their reasoning and that they are perfectly entitled to hold those.

    Secondly, I think it’s OK to agree to disagree in that we don’t want to be arguing about all these things all the time and we need to respect each other’s opinion and beliefs. But I would not stretch respect so far as to say that I actually believe they are right. The respect I give them is that it is their right to hold whatever beliefs they wish (including believing I am wrong). The reality of life is that we’ll always live alongside people who don’t fully hold our beliefs, even within a particular faith or religion, so there is a place for diagreement, but not for pluralism. That’s how I see it anyway.

    Do you think that it’s possible for two people who hold obviously contradictory beliefs to both simultaneously be right? (Take “There is no God” and “There is a God” for instance…)

  7. Sounde pretty good to me, since it is taken from the Bible šŸ™‚

    Just to be vaguely argumentative, what happens when these are the fruits of an experience with nature (like Chris’ experience). What “pushed his button”? Himself? Nature? Some force he doesn’t believe in?

    Dunno, just a thought.

  8. Surely pluralism is a basis for tolerance which you seem to have been advocating previously.

    You’re presenting a very confused view Alex. Are you really sure you’re tolerant?

    Are you only tolerant of other people’s views as long as they accept your value system that there is one Christian god?

    The biggest problem I have with religious beliefs is the fact that no one can prove them. I don’t have a problem letting people hold views that they can’t prove though I tend not to believe them myself.

    But what you’re saying here is that there is room for disagreement in views but not for pluralism i.e. there can’t be more than one fundamental principle (and obviously you’ve chosen to advocate yours).

    It’s more of an extreme view than I thought you would take.

    Oh you asked a question to. Since I can’t prove either that there is or is not a god (and no one has proven it so far – I’ll dare to say no one can), I have no problem with two people who believe opposite views and think they are right. There’s not a lot you can argue with about that. I dislike the way people evangelise about things which they can’t substantively though.

  9. OK, we seem to have differing ideas of what “tolerance” is. I think the definition I’m closest to would be “The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions” (web1913)

    In that, I don’t see room for pluralism – it admits that you think the other person is wrong (objectionable or offensive) but means that you “endure” them for some reason. For me, that reason is because I respect them as an individual and maintain their right to hold any opinion they like.

    The definitions on WordNet are a bit different, so maybe they’re closer to what you believe; e.g. “a permissible difference; allowing some freedom to move within limits”.

    So the fact is that maybe I’m not tolerant in your book, and possibly not even fully tolerant in mine. But then I don’t believe tolerance is the ultimate goal, I believe truth is.

    (Saying things like “You’re presenting a very confused view Alex” never really helps a discussion progress – you know that it’ll only make me get defensive, so don’t, please.)

    “Are you only tolerant of other people’s views as long as they accept your value system that there is one Christian god?”
    No, I tolerate (as in put up with, endure) a much wider variety of world views than that one — in fact probably the majority of world views. The only ones I’d struggle to tolerate would be ones I see as murderous and exploitative (and maybe some others that don’t come immediately to mind). My intolerance towards those would mean that I would actively oppose anyone practising them. My tolerance towards other views (including Chris’, Matthew’s and Carl’s) would mean I won’t actively try to prevent them acting on their beliefs, but I might want to try and change their beliefs, since I believe they are misguided.

    You evaded the question I asked, or at least got distracted from answering it – the provability of the thing in consideration does not affect the question I asked. So I shall ask again, citing a couple of different examples. Do you believe it’s possible for two people to believe contradictory things and both be simultaneously right. e.g. “The cat is dead” vs “The cat is alive”, “The universe is infinite” vs “The universe is finite”, “ten plus two is twelve” vs “ten plus two is twenty” along with the original “There is no God” vs “There is a God”.

    Can both of any of those pairs of statements be true? Even before you prove if the cat is alive or dead, then at best one of the people is right and one is wrong (or they’re both wrong and “there is no cat”! hehe). Whether you can prove the outcome does not affect the fact that at most one of them can be right. OK, it’s a leap to claim that you’re right without proof, but that’s not what I’m talking about here. Think of the universe one – we can’t prove if the universe is infinite or finite (can we?) but the universe cannot be simultaneously both, can it? (Unless there’s some weird quantum physics thing about that, but that’s not my area really).

  10. I think I see where you’re coming from about tolerance now. You seem to be saying you don’t believe what they believe but you would tolerate them and accept that they exist and can have a view which is different to your own.

    If “provability” (is that a word?) doens’t affect the question then er, I’m stumped.

    You can’t prove god does or doesn’t exist. So neither of those two statements is true, nor is either false. Or if they are true or false to you then you’ve made a value judgement.

    So to ask if that pair can be true just doesn’t have any meaning for me.

    Personally (as you know) I don’t believe there is a higher power in any way, shape or form but that’s just me. I can’t prove that there isn’t but then no one can prove that there is either.

    I know this is a central part of your beliefs and I’m not attacking that – I don’t agree, but Christianity and indeed religion in general has a lot of good things going for it in its central values – but it’s just so tangential to my existence and my belief system that I don’t really care much whether there is or isn’t a higher power.

    I can’t solve the issue of you thinking that you, Maw and Chris can’t all be right and indeed I think that’s a flaw in religions in general. They all pretty much say “This is the one true way, all others are false idols/heathens/fools etc.”. Well except atheism and agnosticism.

    But you talk in terms of truth as if you can prove it. For me truth is something you can prove at least.

  11. > You can’t prove god does or doesn’t exist.

    Why not? (Seriously, I would like your justification for this statement)

    As far as I’m aware the only system in which you can say you can’t prove God exists is in a formal logic system, with a formalist definition of God. But these are only true for the system they are defined for, and most formalist claim that any connection their system has with the real world is purely coincidental.

    (And if you do argue that formal system can be valid about things which actually exist I think there is quite a nice formal proof of God’s existence.)

  12. Are the options mutually exclusive?

    If God is in control of all things, so if nature “pushed his button” it ultimately has God “pushing his button” behind it.

  13. Go on then Nick prove it šŸ™‚

    Christianity states your god is a metaphysical being. I don’t see how anyone could ever prove such a thing exists or doesn’t.

  14. You’ve got to answer my question first.

    Show me in your epistemology (general system of persuing knowledge) that the existence of God can’t be proved. Then I will attempt to prove in your system that God exists, (or that your system doesn’t work in the real world). If you don’t show me what you mean by prove it will be hard for me to prove something to you!

    PS. Christianity states my god came to earth as a physical being. (This could well play an important part in my proof once I have worked out what sort of system you want me to prove god’s existence in.)

  15. Look I don’t give a toss.

    It’s all a bunch of hippy crap.

    “in the real world”? God doesn’t exist in the real world!?! There is no mortal, physical being “god”.

    Sorry, thank you for playing.

    Have a nice life.

  16. …ignoring profanity…

    > “in the real world”?
    > God doesn’t exist in the real world!?!
    > There is no mortal, physical being “god”.

    This is where I am disagreeing with how you are defining God. Christianity quite clearly states God did exist as a mortal, physical being.

    Anyway, you asked for proofs of God’s existence. As you’re not going to help me decide which one to start with (there are 7 common ones (and many much more escoteric ones), try googling for ontological/cosmological/teleological/moral/mental/prophetic/Christological proof of God’s existence for more info). I’ll start with a sketch of the frameworh for the Christological proof. Mainly as it happens to be my favourite. (Apologies if this is rather a quick hash, it is morning and I have to get into work).

    Anyway, afew important assumptions:

    1) It is possible to know the truth about past events. (There are people who will argue that you can’t actually know anything about events which happened in the past. People who intellectually claim you can’t know about past events do not live their lives consitently with their claim).

    2) It is possible to know the truth based on the testimony of other people. (Again people will argue that you can’t know anything based on what other people tell you, because they always could be lieing. Again I do not think people who claim this do not actually live on the basis that you can’t learn truth from other people).

    3) When trying to decide if an account of past events is true we have to consider all possible explinations we can think of, compare them, and take the most reasonable explination as being true. (If we are agreed you can know the truth about past events, I don’t think there are any popular alternatives to this to know what happened)

    4) We look at historical accounts of events 2000 years ago.

    5) We come up with various explinations. (I’m not going to list all suggested explinations from the last two millenia. As there are way too many. I’ll just ask if you think you have a better explination, tell me what it is, and I will compare it with mine.)

    6) After considering alternative explinations we decide which one fits the evidence best.

    7) We find the best explination which fits the evidence is the Jesus is God (the Son).

    8) And conclude therefore there must be a god.

    Important points to note:

    1) this isn’t a proof in a mathematical sense of the word. It is a proof in the legal sense of the word.

    2) Haven’t made any attempt to point out what the historical evidence to support claims of Jesus’s divinity is. If it is agreed that at least the framework of the proof is reasonable, and that truth can be learnt based on historical evidence then can start to flesh out what that evidence might be. Of course there is little point in that if you don’t think we can learn truth based on past events.

  17. Bit of a leap of faith really eh?

    I love your second important point though. You’ve not given any evidence but you’ve already put the conclusion into your framework of logic.

    I guess that just sums up the viewpoint of those with faith. You know what your conclusion is already and you’ll do everything to make the facts fit it.

    (ps it’s “explanation”)

  18. And you seem so willing to share your unbiased framework of logic don’t you Simon?

    (P.S. it’s “P.S.”)

  19. I haven’t shared a “framework of logic” at all.

    I’m not sure I know what one is really. I could probably have a stab at what mine is but it certainly hasn’t been contributed here Alex.

    Back in your box, laddy.

    If you mean that my thoughts are biased well duh, of course they are šŸ˜‰

  20. Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear. The framework is points 1-6.

    Points 7 and 8 are an indication of the how I would apply this framework to reach conclusions about the problem at hand.

    The second important point indicates what I will need to do to reach those conclusions.

    So, just so we can make progress could you tell me if you are happy to work within the framework of points 1-6. As if you are not there is little point of moving onto explinations for the historical evidence.

  21. Sorry, do I need to explicitly indicate when I’m being sarcastic? I thought you’d just expect that from me.

    So go on then, have a stab, I’d be interested to see…

  22. Actually, points 1,2,3,5,6 are a framework.

    4,7,8 are an application.

    And I’ve just realised I’ve spelt explanation wrong again!

    The main point I’m trying to get at with the framework is can we only know something is true if we can see it for ourselves, or can we trust the witness of other people.

  23. I don’t think you understand Nick. I know god doesn’t exist.

    But I don’t care enough to argue about it.

    You might need to jump through 2000 year old hoops to justify your beliefs but I don’t need to do that to justify mine.

  24. So your justification is that you “know god doesn’t exist”? Or did I miss some other justification somewhere?

  25. > I know god doesn’t exist.
    But from what I understand, you don’t actually think that is true!?!?

    “I can’t prove that there isn’t but then no one can prove that there is either.”
    “For me truth is something you can prove at least.”

    > But I don’t care enough to argue about it.
    Well you did ask me to prove it. What were you hoping for. Three lines of algebra, with a nice little QED at the end??!?

    > You might need to jump through 2000 year old
    > hoops to justify your beliefs but I don’t
    > need to do that to justify mine.
    So how do you justify your beliefs? Or do you just make it up as you go along?

  26. I don’t feel the incessant need for justification that people in need of an emotional crutch of religion and other cults need. So I don’t need to go on a crusade to prove myself. I’m quite happy where I am thanks.

    I can’t prove it but then I think it’s harder to prove the absence of something.

    I guess when I say I know I mean “I’m firm in my belief that”.

  27. The key element here is that no one can prove which is right here. You are simply dealing with belief systems. No one is right or wrong, it’s just a case of which makes your life more comfortable to live by.

    If you can convince yourselve to take comfort in an afterlife with an Omnipotent and Omnipresent God then all fair and well. And if you are willing to live your life for yourself and friends instead of living it for something else then all fair and well.

    I have problems with many aspects of Christianity, but then then I have many problems, but that’s secondary to the arguement.

    At the end of the it the most important thing is, no one Knows(TM), and shan’t know until it’s too late to do anything about it. At the end of the day, it comes down to doing what makes your life more worthwhile. Personally, for me, that comes down to living my life for those around me, not for a God.

  28. So when you say: “You might need to jump through 2000 year old hoops to justify your beliefs but I don’t need to do that to justify mine.”, you mean that you don’t need to justify yours at all?

  29. “No one is right or wrong”

    What if my belief system says that I believe everyone else is wrong? Am I wrong to believe that?

  30. Then that is your belief system. And, as I am not a member of your belief system I am free to go “well, that’s your view, you’re intitled to it, but I don’t agree.”

    I think that whatever happens it will come down to how you have lived your life. If after all my life I turn out to be wrong (I don’t think I will, but I may well be) I shall argue the point that I lived my life in a manner that hurt as few people as possible, brought the most happiness to as many people as I could, did the minimal damage to those around me and in some way tried to make the world a better place.

    Of course, under the Christian ethic of love and benevolance, because I didn’t Believe I would then be sentanced to eternity in Purgatory, but hey, I can hope.

    It would be wrong of me to take the view of the person who doesn’t believe, but decides to because it covers all bases. The “Well, what have I got to loose” brigade, because ultimately I wouldn’t be being true to myself.

    Religion as a whole brings comfort to millions, and for those it doesn’t bring anything to, they find it elsewhere. It’s not right, or wrong to believe either way. If it makes your world a better place, please take it to your heart and the principles that it encompasses. But for those of us that it offers little comfort to, accept this and allow us to try and live our lives in what would way we find bring comfort to us. Just because we don’t believe, doesn’t mean we’re not trying to be good people in our day to day lives.

  31. I think all we’ve really proved is that MT is a really sucky way to discuss things šŸ™‚

  32. > I don’t feel the incessant need for
    > justification that people in need of an
    > emotional crutch of religion and other
    > cults need.
    1) I don’t have an *incessant* need for justification. But if someone makes rash statements like “you can’t prove or disprove God’s existence” I do feel it is reasonable to correct them, or at least to ask you to justify them. And if they then ask me to prove God’s existence I’m happy to oblige.

    2) I think you will find people involved cults have superficial justifictions which can easily picked apart. Mainly as their leaders do not encourage them to think for themselves as that would lossen their leaders control over them. I hope you are not suggesting that this is the state I am in.

    > So I don’t need to go on a crusade to prove
    > myself. I’m quite happy where I am thanks.
    I’m not asking you to go on a crusade, I am curious though to know on what basis you decide things or whether all your decisions arbitary.

    > I can’t prove it but then I think it’s harder
    > to prove the absence of something.
    Urghhhhh. Depends on definition of prove. In a scientific framework. It is a scientific statement that the thing doesn’t exist, rather than it does and we just haven’t see it yet. But that’s another discussion.

    > I guess when I say I know I mean
    > “I’m firm in my belief that”.

    Just thought people might find this interesting for discussion about knowledge/belief/justification/truth.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

  33. Yes. On a side note, I’ve actually been writing a discussion system at work. Based in cocoon, so everything is XML based, and all actions XSLT.

    It’s a nightmare to debug but actually seems to work quite nicely.

    Can support nice things like poly-hierarchies, merging of threads, and nice dynamic workflows. (with a cool thing to convert the XML workflow to SVG so can draw pretty pictures of who has to approve/edit/messages etc before they get published)

  34. > And if they then
    > ask me to prove
    > God’s existence
    > I’m happy to oblige.

    But you can’t!

    Go on then!

    It’s a belief, it’s not factual.

  35. > Go on then!
    That’s where we were just a few messages up. Remember, framework points 1,2,3,5,6. If that sort of framework is one you can work with, then I will start to prove things on that basis.

    We need to agree some common ground from which to start proving things from.

    I’m hoping that we have the common ground that it is at least possible to know the truth about what happened in the past.

    If you are not happy with that sort of starting, then clearly you are going to just respond “Oh. But that was 2000 years ago, we can’t possibly know what actually happened” irrelavent of what evidence I present. I which case I would have to present a different arguement instead.

    Of course, if you claim to have some sort of nihilistic worldview that we can’t possibly know or prove anything, that will make things harder, as I would first have to start by demonstrating nihilism sucks.

  36. > You are simply dealing with belief systems.
    > No one is right or wrong

    But that’s nonsense. A belief system is the starting point for making sense of the world around us.

    We can quite easily demonstrate that a belief system is wrong by testing it against the world we see around us. If I believe that “if I jump out of the window next to me I will not fall, but will fly” I can quite clearly be shown to be wrong.

    Interestingly enough, I would probably agree that you can’t directly show that a belief system is right. The only thing you can do is find a belief system which you cannot show to be wrong. This would be an important reason for me trusting the Bible. It has stood firm against intellectual attempts to discredit it, despite a good few millenia of people trying. And no one has presented to me anything better than the God described in it.

    I should say that I do consider this to be a valid type of proof. To consider all suggested belief systems, see what they tell us about what we see around us, chuck out the ones which are clearly wrong, and see what we have left.

  37. At least this particular blog has threading — it’s been really helpful in making this discussion make sense and stuff.

    Apparently there are MT plugins for people to subscribe to replies to their comments and stuff, too. At which point we’ve just about finished reimplmenting usenet or something I guess.

  38. >But that’s nonsense. A belief system is the
    >starting point for making sense of the world
    >around us.

    >Interestingly enough, I would probably agree
    >that you can’t directly show that a belief
    >system is right. The only thing you can do is
    >find a belief system which you cannot
    >show to be wrong.

    There are many elements of Christianity which I accept to be right, but then these are common to the majority of world religions. The thoughts of love, equality and tolerance.

    Where I see things to be wrong in Christianity is that those that don’t believe are instantly condemned, and this in a belief system which teaches tolerance and equality? Surely you should be judged on what you do with your life, and how you live it, rather then the beliefs you held while doing it?

    What of those people who are gay? Are they condemned because they choose to love people of the same sex?

    What I’m saying is that it’s a case of “Okey, go out, love people, tolerate people, but do it our way” It’s conditional. And conditional love in these things seem at odds with everything that people would claim to be Christian.

  39. “Oh. But that was 2000 years ago, we can’t possibly know what actually happened”

    I think you need more than that. You are after all saying you can prove that god *exists* now and presumably has done since forever.

    Yet you only have small amounts of evidence from 2000 years ago.

    How does that work? Did he exist a bit and then disappear? Where’s the evidence after that point?

  40. INTOOO THE FRAAAY AND oh it’s over.

    But as an aside.
    Huggie – just because we can’t prove something exists, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Things don’t pop into being as we discover them, they’re there all the time.

    So (random example) there could be an asteroid somewhere which contains a solid chunk of ice, while the others don’t. Even though we never discover that chunk of ice, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.

    Similarly, just because we can’t touch/see/taste/smell/hear a god, that has no bearing on whether or not said god exists. If you’re waiting for someone to prove to you that a god exists – while at the same time violently reacting against any attempts to do so – then you may find at the end of it all that there is no god and you’re fine, or you may find that there was one and you weren’t prepared to find out about said god.

    Anyway, watch the Passion film, see what you think. Looks like a gentle relaxing romantic comedy to me.

    Patrick Moore – I tend to run away from people who capitalise the words omnipotent and omnipresent.

  41. OK, how do I set up alt.discuss.x3ja or something then? I remember I set up alt.(something).juddians.bbb for Bring Back Boyce campaign, hehe!

  42. > Where I see things to be wrong in Christianity
    > is that those that don’t believe are instantly
    > condemned, and this in a belief system which
    > teaches tolerance and equality?
    > Surely you should be judged on what you do with
    > your life, and how you live it, rather then the
    > beliefs you held while doing it?

    Let’s get this clear what Christianity actually teaches about condemnation. Yes we are judged on what we do with out life compared to God’s standards, but on the basis of this we are *all* (Christian/non-Christians/gays/straights/everyone) found guilty and deserving of condemnation.

    So yes there is equality in judgement.

    If you think you should be judged on the basis of what you do with your life, where would put the cut-off point? Slighly below the level at which you live you life? So that 50% of people pass? Where?

  43. > You are after all saying you can prove that
    > god *exists* now and presumably has done
    > since forever.

    I kind of hoped that if I could prove god existed at any point in time it would be accepted as a direct corollary that he always existed, by definition of who god is (ie. that god is eternal).

    > Yet you only have small amounts of evidence
    > from 2000 years ago.

    There is evidence from 2000 years ago (whether it is a small or large amount is fairly irrelevant unless you would like to specify what the required amount of evidence is). The question is what is the best expl*A*nation which can be come up with to explain this body of evidence.

    They obvious comparison for evidence from a long time ago is the evidence to support evolution. If you have a high threshold for historic evidence which evidence from 2000 years ago would not be sufficient for I would have to ask if you consider the evidence for evolution to be sufficient. Then I might decide an arguement from design would be one from which we have better common ground to start from.

    > How does that work?
    > Did he exist a bit and then disappear?
    > Where’s the evidence after that point?

    I’m guessing from your comments it would appear that you do not consider historical evidence sufficient to inform us of the truth. Is this correct? If so, could you confirm that the same is true of the evidence for evolution.

    Oh dear, I think I may be repeating myself

Comments are closed.