Bill Nye #2: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
782

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

BTW, Why did you include non contingency in the quote above. I agree, you’ve just never mentioned it before.[/quote]

I thought I’d mentioned it before.

I include it because I tend to find serious merit in the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” (in quotation because neither says a word about Christian doctrine).[/quote]

I have the same problem with getting my head around how you can get something from nothing, but I find that defaulting to a supernatural moral agent/creator is just as unsatisfying as some of the alternatives, like, for example, the possibility that there has always been “something”; or that we don’t fully understand what “nothing” is; or that true “nothingness” is in itself an impossibility as evidenced by the fact that there is something; or that our conception of time/infinity is simply inaccurate or too limited to get the full picture. Also, simply inserting a “supernatural” omnipotent being into the mix to “explain” the unexplainable doesn’t really explain where the supernal omnipotent being came from.

[/quote]

Agreed. When I say I find serious merit in the arguments, I don’t mean to imply that I find them to be entirely conclusive.

I will say, though, that the concept of an infinite regress is probably the most mind-boggling thing I’ve ever tried to understand.

783

A God who can command light, matter, time and space to exist from a nothing I also have no concept of is the most mind boggling thing I’ve ever given up trying to understand. Yet there He is. Lemme make one thing very clear. Anything I can persuade you of by logical argumentation is NOT the God I’m referring to. Again, Christianity is not the acquiescence to a set of propositions among competing options. It is the subjective supernatural resurrection from true death in sin to true life in Christ. Only someone already alive in Him will EVER buy what I’m saying. People ridicule me when nobody listens as if I expect that folks will say “aha, now I get it. I think I’ll become a Christian”. No. My job as an ambassador of Christ in the earth is to testify to what I know he’s done in me and why. Only the Holy Spirit can make somebody a Christian. And when He does. It’s a only a matter of time before the evidence of this new life will be apparent. Somebody who comfortably fits in in the world IS of the world still. Regardless of WHAT they may say to the contrary.

784

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Well, while deism acknowledges that something cannot come from nothing, it runs on the basic philosophy that God set everything into motion once and has not interfered since. Meaning that us sentient creatures with an apparent will are just following a predetermined script and hence have no will. Deism deals with the universe nicely, but it does not deal with the human element which is a complication.
[/quote]

I disagree here. Deism sets the stage and the rules. This universe’s laws require there to be cause and effect. Free will is represented by the choice to believe and follow or not believe and do what you please.
[/quote]
That’s definitely an interesting take and I suppose one could argue that freewill was rolled into the causal ‘package’. Where it becomes an issue, is that the nature of freewill is incompatible with a hands-off, non-interactive Necessary Being. There becomes an irreconcilable paradox where there is no way to remove for-ordination, with a non involved being that does not that is tacitly unconscious when it comes to it’s creation. Where as with an involved God there are ways to resolve the conflict. There is not that under a deistic motif.
Now, that’s not to say that it is just plainly a paradox, it very well could be. But logically, there are ways to resolve the conflict without having paradox. I will concede that it doesn’t mean those logical potentials are true. Just that there are ways to resolve the conflict with an actively involved God.

I like it, very Liebniz-ee. But still the above is not resolved by this. It may very well be the case that there are several trillion parallel Universes in play simultaneously. But the uninvolved being, still creates a paradox in this scenario. Avoiding paradoxes is preferred, if possible.

[quote]
We may be following ONE VERSION of that script…but that is because we made the choices that led us here.[/quote]

You may be following one, and I another and the world may look very different to us.

785

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

BTW, Why did you include non contingency in the quote above. I agree, you’ve just never mentioned it before.[/quote]

I thought I’d mentioned it before.

I include it because I tend to find serious merit in the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” (in quotation because neither says a word about Christian doctrine).[/quote]

I have the same problem with getting my head around how you can get something from nothing, but I find that defaulting to a supernatural moral agent/creator is just as unsatisfying as some of the alternatives, like, for example, the possibility that there has always been “something”; or that we don’t fully understand what “nothing” is; or that true “nothingness” is in itself an impossibility as evidenced by the fact that there is something; or that our conception of time/infinity is simply inaccurate or too limited to get the full picture. Also, simply inserting a “supernatural” omnipotent being into the mix to “explain” the unexplainable doesn’t really explain where the supernal omnipotent being came from.

[/quote]

Well forget about it being ‘supernatural’. I would argue that and Uncaused-cause is simply natural.
There is nothing hard to understand about ‘nothing’, literally, ‘it’ does not exist by definition.
It’s not an insertion, it’s a logical deductive necessity. It is not inserted because we could not think of anything else. Logic demands that it must be. And that’s the difference. That’s what separates it from any kind of ‘god of gaps’ methodology. It’s literally the only solution to the problem and there is no other. It’s mathematical. The series of premises the lead to it, demand that as a solution and the only one you can have without fallacy or logical inconsistency.

786

I agree. Obviously.

[quote]
It’s literally the only solution to the problem and there is no other. It’s mathematical. The series of premises the lead to it, demand that as a solution and the only one you can have without fallacy or logical inconsistency.[/quote]

The only solution to the problem. Yes.
But there is at least two other possibilities :

  1. the solution is still wrong and there is no solution at all.
    May be true if, for example, existence is NOT logic
  2. the problem is badly or wrongly formulated.
    May be true if, for example, causality doesn’t really exist objectively

Both are depressingly impractical but both are theoretically possible.

787

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

That this sentence concludes with the word “here” clearly implies that the said argument does in fact exist.

My question is (and has been for ages now, and I know that you’re aware of this): does it? And if so, can you please reproduce it?
[/quote]

Tiribulus–I don’t know if your last post was intended for me, but I have re-quoted the question I posed earlier. I truly want to know what your answer is.

788

[quote]smh23 wrote:

I will say, though, that the concept of an infinite regress is probably the most mind-boggling thing I’ve ever tried to understand.[/quote]

Nonsense! It’s turtles all the way down.

789

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

BTW, Why did you include non contingency in the quote above. I agree, you’ve just never mentioned it before.[/quote]

I thought I’d mentioned it before.

I include it because I tend to find serious merit in the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” (in quotation because neither says a word about Christian doctrine).[/quote]

I have the same problem with getting my head around how you can get something from nothing, but I find that defaulting to a supernatural moral agent/creator is just as unsatisfying as some of the alternatives, like, for example, the possibility that there has always been “something”; or that we don’t fully understand what “nothing” is; or that true “nothingness” is in itself an impossibility as evidenced by the fact that there is something; or that our conception of time/infinity is simply inaccurate or too limited to get the full picture. Also, simply inserting a “supernatural” omnipotent being into the mix to “explain” the unexplainable doesn’t really explain where the supernal omnipotent being came from.

[/quote]

Well forget about it being ‘supernatural’. I would argue that and Uncaused-cause is simply natural.[/quote]

Semantics aside (if it’s occurred in nature, it’s natural), the term “supernatural” here is generally intended to describe something not beholden to the laws of physics i.e. the laws of nature.

790

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

That this sentence concludes with the word “here” clearly implies that the said argument does in fact exist.

My question is (and has been for ages now, and I know that you’re aware of this): does it? And if so, can you please reproduce it?
[/quote]

Tiribulus–I don’t know if your last post was intended for me, but I have re-quoted the question I posed earlier. I truly want to know what your answer is.[/quote]It is not possible to advance this argument in a few sentences. I’m simply being honest. Here’s an couple old quote that will raise more questions than it answers. Intentional intelligent determinism. The theological terms are predestination and providence:[quote]Here is my epistemological/philosophical contention. Actually the bible’s epistemological/philosophical contention if prayerfully and carefully studied and surrendered to. Certainty is either comprehensive and universal or altogether impossible and the agnostics are correct. In other words to quote that great
yet utterly uneven thinker, the incomparable Pat of Atlanta, “To be certain about anything you’d have to
be certain about everything”.
Why? Because all knowledge is interdependent (check into the problem of the one and the many,
seriously). If one were to be in possession of absolutely every possible object of knowledge EXCEPT
one, that one unknown variable carries with it the potential to alter every last other object of knowledge
already possessed and certainty anywhere is impossible. This is why I keep pounding on the example
of 2+2 equaling 4. If that one elementary equation is uncertain? So is everything else and any assertion
about this or that scientific blah blah blah is ultimately meaningless. Our certainty derives from the one
true and living non contingent all governing God for whom nothing is uncertain because everything is
ultimately His will. Not one particle of reality exists or functions independently of His will and decree.[/quote]
The plurality of persons in the monotheistic Godhead as proclaimed by the old creeds. One God eternally existent in three persons. Neither confounding the person nor dividing the substance. A true plurality of persons and true singularity of being. This is the solution to the problem of the one and the many. Here is the single best declaration of the nature and being of the God of the bible I know of. From the Westminster confession of faith of 1646:

[quote]
CHAPTER II.
Of God, and of the Holy Trinity.

I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty.

II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.

III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.[/quote] I’m sorry, but it is simply not possible to do what you want. Not for me anyway. I hope some of this helps, but I doubt it.

791

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

BTW, Why did you include non contingency in the quote above. I agree, you’ve just never mentioned it before.[/quote]

I thought I’d mentioned it before.

I include it because I tend to find serious merit in the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” (in quotation because neither says a word about Christian doctrine).[/quote]

I have the same problem with getting my head around how you can get something from nothing, but I find that defaulting to a supernatural moral agent/creator is just as unsatisfying as some of the alternatives, like, for example, the possibility that there has always been “something”; or that we don’t fully understand what “nothing” is; or that true “nothingness” is in itself an impossibility as evidenced by the fact that there is something; or that our conception of time/infinity is simply inaccurate or too limited to get the full picture. Also, simply inserting a “supernatural” omnipotent being into the mix to “explain” the unexplainable doesn’t really explain where the supernal omnipotent being came from.

[/quote]

Well forget about it being ‘supernatural’. I would argue that and Uncaused-cause is simply natural.
There is nothing hard to understand about ‘nothing’, literally, ‘it’ does not exist by definition.
It’s not an insertion, it’s a logical deductive necessity. It is not inserted because we could not think of anything else. Logic demands that it must be. And that’s the difference. That’s what separates it from any kind of ‘god of gaps’ methodology. It’s literally the only solution to the problem and there is no other. It’s mathematical. The series of premises the lead to it, demand that as a solution and the only one you can have without fallacy or logical inconsistency.[/quote]

Pat, I confess I’m not as versed in the lingo and that I’m not 100% sure what you mean. But if I am understanding you, I just don’t think math or logic gets us very far. Example:

Premise 1:

  1. You can’t get something from nothing.

Premise 2:

  1. Something exists.

Conclusion:

  1. Something has always existed.

Do you agree that the above is logically true? If not, why not? In either event, where does this get us?

792

You are about to get a perfect example of what happens when somebody claiming to be a Christian reasons exactly like an unbeliever.

793

[quote]kamui wrote:

I agree. Obviously.

Existence is not logic, it’s a reality derived logically. Which begs the question, how did it get ‘there’ and why. Or on what does it depend.

Causality, in the form of cause and effect, no. But dependency, yes. We cannot know that say ‘something’ causes an atom to behave like it does. We we do know that you cannot have an atom with out protons, neutrons, and electrons. By definition, it must be true.

794

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

BTW, Why did you include non contingency in the quote above. I agree, you’ve just never mentioned it before.[/quote]

I thought I’d mentioned it before.

I include it because I tend to find serious merit in the cosmological and from-contingency proofs of the existence of “God” (in quotation because neither says a word about Christian doctrine).[/quote]

I have the same problem with getting my head around how you can get something from nothing, but I find that defaulting to a supernatural moral agent/creator is just as unsatisfying as some of the alternatives, like, for example, the possibility that there has always been “something”; or that we don’t fully understand what “nothing” is; or that true “nothingness” is in itself an impossibility as evidenced by the fact that there is something; or that our conception of time/infinity is simply inaccurate or too limited to get the full picture. Also, simply inserting a “supernatural” omnipotent being into the mix to “explain” the unexplainable doesn’t really explain where the supernal omnipotent being came from.

[/quote]

Well forget about it being ‘supernatural’. I would argue that and Uncaused-cause is simply natural.
There is nothing hard to understand about ‘nothing’, literally, ‘it’ does not exist by definition.
It’s not an insertion, it’s a logical deductive necessity. It is not inserted because we could not think of anything else. Logic demands that it must be. And that’s the difference. That’s what separates it from any kind of ‘god of gaps’ methodology. It’s literally the only solution to the problem and there is no other. It’s mathematical. The series of premises the lead to it, demand that as a solution and the only one you can have without fallacy or logical inconsistency.[/quote]

Pat, I confess I’m not as versed in the lingo and that I’m not 100% sure what you mean. But if I am understanding you, I just don’t think math or logic gets us very far. Example:

Premise 1:

  1. You can’t get something from nothing.

Premise 2:

  1. Something exists.

Conclusion:

  1. Something has always existed.

Do you agree that the above is logically true? If not, why not? In either event, where does this get us?
[/quote]

You cannot derive that conclusion from those premises. It makes to many assumptions, for instance, it assumes the object of time is a given, when it actually falls under the category of existence.

795

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

That this sentence concludes with the word “here” clearly implies that the said argument does in fact exist.

My question is (and has been for ages now, and I know that you’re aware of this): does it? And if so, can you please reproduce it?
[/quote]

Tiribulus–I don’t know if your last post was intended for me, but I have re-quoted the question I posed earlier. I truly want to know what your answer is.[/quote]It is not possible to advance this argument in a few sentences. I’m simply being honest. Here’s an couple old quote that will raise more questions than it answers. Intentional intelligent determinism. The theological terms are predestination and providence:[quote]Here is my epistemological/philosophical contention. Actually the bible’s epistemological/philosophical contention if prayerfully and carefully studied and surrendered to. Certainty is either comprehensive and universal or altogether impossible and the agnostics are correct. In other words to quote that great
yet utterly uneven thinker, the incomparable Pat of Atlanta, “To be certain about anything you’d have to
be certain about everything”.
Why? Because all knowledge is interdependent (check into the problem of the one and the many,
seriously). If one were to be in possession of absolutely every possible object of knowledge EXCEPT
one, that one unknown variable carries with it the potential to alter every last other object of knowledge
already possessed and certainty anywhere is impossible. This is why I keep pounding on the example
of 2+2 equaling 4. If that one elementary equation is uncertain? So is everything else and any assertion
about this or that scientific blah blah blah is ultimately meaningless. Our certainty derives from the one
true and living non contingent all governing God for whom nothing is uncertain because everything is
ultimately His will. Not one particle of reality exists or functions independently of His will and decree.[/quote]
The plurality of persons in the monotheistic Godhead as proclaimed by the old creeds. One God eternally existent in three persons. Neither confounding the person nor dividing the substance. A true plurality of persons and true singularity of being. This is the solution to the problem of the one and the many. Here is the single best declaration of the nature and being of the God of the bible I know of. From the Westminster confession of faith of 1646:

Thanks for taking the time to produce these quotes.

As has been the case for some time, your argument on evidential and logical uncertainty–and the absolute, transcendent entity requisite to certainty–is convincing. I’m not sure why you decided to re-post that argument in light of the fact that I’ve accepted it and challenged you to make a different case (a case which you’ve hinted at but hitherto refused to make)–namely, that the triune God of the Bible is necessarily and demonstrably the aforesaid absolute, transcendent entity on whose existence certainty depends. Unfortunately, you fail to make this case. Adding a three-point definition of the God whose existence you haven’t proved does nothing to alter this. I doubt you disagree.

I am now convinced that this is because you simply cannot make that argument. If I’m wrong, you will have to prove me so. Otherwise I’ll consider this discussion resolved.

Edit: I don’t consider you to have failed, because your task was impossible to begin with. One of the fundamental characteristics of religious belief is that it requires faith (or do you disagree?), and faith can’t be turned into a logical and necessary connection.

796

[quote]pat wrote:

Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
[/quote]

Only if the Deus is indeed all powerful and all knowing.

797

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Deism negates freewill, that’s the problem with it.
[/quote]

Only if the Deus is indeed all powerful and all knowing.

[/quote]
No.

798

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:<<< This is where your argument breaks down and your (otherwise impressive) powers of argument and persuasion come to naught. I ask why I should believe in the Bible and you give me a couple recycled lines about me already knowing it’s true and then you cite the Bible as evidence.

I know you know why that kind of logic is unacceptable. The Bible is true because the Bible says so.[/quote]This is a couple years old now and I put it there because it was easier and quicker than isolating it here right now. http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/index4.html
[/quote]

OK, so I just read this link. edit: the one I read was actually a 10 page pdf, found here:

http://gregnmary.gotdns.com/dox/Brother_Greg_refromed_apologetic.pdf

At the end of it all, after the “prove to me how you know 2+2” interrogation is put to rest, is THIS seriously the best argument that can be put forth to explain why the existence of God as outlined in the Bible is the key to everything?

If not, can someone who “gets it” PLEASE address it per smh23’s post:

If so… wtf?

[quote]smh23 wrote:
This part is important: I am asking you to, in one simple, lucid, single-post logical progression, show why THE TRIUNE GOD OF CHRISTIANITY must be this uncontingent being. Show me why faith is unnecessary because your worldview is demonstrably true without a shade of doubt.

It would look something like this:

  1. x
  2. y
  3. z
  4. d
  5. a

Therefore, Christian doctrine is logically and/or evidentially true. The Christian God EXACTLY AS HE’S DESCRIBED IN THE BIBLE must exist and He is the ONLY deity that exists AND THIS IS PROVABLE.

In other words, skip the part where you cast doubt on the certainty of the human experience. Go directly to a positive case for God’s existence–not any God, not a nameless uncontingent being, not a prime mover, but Jesus Himself.[/quote]

All we need is the numbered list. No need for 10+ paragraphs of rambling prose stuffed with dozens of adjectives and vague analogies.

799

[quote]anonym wrote:

All we need is the numbered list. No need for 10+ paragraphs of rambling prose stuffed with dozens of adjectives and vague analogies.[/quote]

I’ve been trying…it’s not going to happen. Tiribulus’ second-to-last post on this page made one thing painfully obvious to me: if pressed, he will ignore criticism and loop back around. When confronted with the opportunity to substantiate his rhetoric, he will pretend “it’s over your head” or some other such nonsense. He won’t admit that he can’t show the God of Christianity to be evidentially and/or logically inevitable, but he also won’t show it.

Most other believers on this site interact with nonbelievers in a relatively equitable manner. They can argue back and forth on any number of issues, including evolution, without acting as though they are indubitably, discernibly, and provably infallible. Tirib, on the other hand, tends to act as though he not only knows he’s right, but he can prove he’s right.

If that’s so, Tiribulus, I say do it.

800

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here is my epistemological/philosophical contention. Actually the bible’s epistemological/philosophical contention if prayerfully and carefully studied and surrendered to. Certainty is either comprehensive and universal or altogether impossible and the agnostics are correct. In other words to quote that great yet utterly uneven thinker, the incomparable Pat of Atlanta, “To be certain about anything you’d have to be certain about everything”.

Why? Because all knowledge is interdependent (check into the problem of the one and the many,
seriously). If one were to be in possession of absolutely every possible object of knowledge EXCEPT one, that one unknown variable carries with it the potential to alter every last other object of knowledge already possessed and certainty anywhere is impossible. This is why I keep pounding on the example of 2+2 equaling 4. If that one elementary equation is uncertain? So is everything else and any assertion about this or that scientific blah blah blah is ultimately meaningless. Our certainty derives from the one true and living non contingent all governing God for whom nothing is uncertain because everything is ultimately His will. Not one particle of reality exists or functions independently of His willvand decree.[/quote]

OK, so here’s something I am curious about then: what is wrong with admitting uncertainty? What are the ramifications of someone saying, “well, based on the millions of tests conducted over thousands of years, we can certainly assume that 2+2=4. We can’t PROVE it with absolute, 100% certainty, but to date we have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of 2+2 adding up to anything else, so we are pretty friggin’ sure that’s the answer.”

Is it because once we admit to uncertainty in one thing, we admit to uncertainty in EVERYTHING, which puts a dick in the ass of (divinely-inspired) moral authority, leading to the issues associated with moral relativism? I’ve only skimmed the moral authority thread, but is THAT why it keeps getting brought up there?

801

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Here is my epistemological/philosophical contention. Actually the bible’s epistemological/philosophical contention if prayerfully and carefully studied and surrendered to. Certainty is either comprehensive and universal or altogether impossible and the agnostics are correct. In other words to quote that great yet utterly uneven thinker, the incomparable Pat of Atlanta, “To be certain about anything you’d have to be certain about everything”.

Why? Because all knowledge is interdependent (check into the problem of the one and the many,
seriously). If one were to be in possession of absolutely every possible object of knowledge EXCEPT one, that one unknown variable carries with it the potential to alter every last other object of knowledge already possessed and certainty anywhere is impossible. This is why I keep pounding on the example of 2+2 equaling 4. If that one elementary equation is uncertain? So is everything else and any assertion about this or that scientific blah blah blah is ultimately meaningless. Our certainty derives from the one true and living non contingent all governing God for whom nothing is uncertain because everything is ultimately His will. Not one particle of reality exists or functions independently of His willvand decree.[/quote]OK, so here’s something I am curious about then: what is wrong with admitting uncertainty? What are the ramifications of someone saying, “well, based on the millions of tests conducted over thousands of years, we can certainly assume that 2+2=4. We can’t PROVE it with absolute, 100% certainty, but to date we have ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER of 2+2 adding up to anything else, so we are pretty friggin’ sure that’s the answer.”
Is it because once we admit to uncertainty in one thing, we admit to uncertainty in EVERYTHING, which puts a dick in the ass of (divinely-inspired) moral authority, leading to the issues associated with moral relativism? I’ve only skimmed the moral authority thread, but is THAT why it keeps getting brought up there?[/quote]Because probability in a logical vacuum void of certainty is meaningless. Probability is the state of being more or less certain. How can anything be more or less of something that doesn’t exist? You propose probability to replace certainty when certainty is required for probability to exist itself. Uncertainty is as circular as any position can possibly get. I don’t know how else to say these things to you guys.

What I can prove is that every last particle of human knowledge is taken on a faith no different than mine. You will say no, that your "faith is based upon things more probable. I am very tired and just saw these posts, but you will also be conceding that uncertainty is a wholly untenable position and be back wrangling certainty with me.

BTW, EVERYTHING we’ll ever talk about will be ethical in it’s motivation. You’ll disagree of course, but men (and women) hate God because they don’t like Him telling them how to live. That’s why the people who Do claim to believe in God around here always have one that approves of all the perversion they approve of and who also lets them whore around.