Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote: Spock, Butterfly presents her argument based on her experience with Her Father and/or men, which leads her to interpret scripture through the lens of her experience. I said her arguments are based on the fact(proven by Butterfly's own words in her blog) that her father, and/or other men emotionally abused her. The basis of her hurt is extremely evident in her blog. I think any objective person without personal bias can certainly see that. here:

These are strong words, but nothing compared to the havoc wreaked in the lives of those women who have and are living under the oppression of power hungry, self-serving men who chose to inflict suffering on their fellow human beings instead of support. I speak from having had first hand experience with these self-serving men (starting with my father), who used their positions of authority to take advantage of women merely because they could. I have chosen this opportunity to purge my soul from this weight….allowing my butterfly the freedom to soar higher, and see farther then ever before, speaking out against those who stand in the way of the potential of each human life.

Rick, your assertion that her arguments are based on her negative experience with her father is false. Her arguments are based on what the Bible says and the effect it has had on 2000 years of Western history. She never appeals to her experience with her father as proof of those assertions. You are trying to discredit her argument by an APPEAL TO MOTIVE which is a fundamental logical fallacy of the class ad hominem.

RickD wrote:

Spock wrote:
Why is it that ad hominem is so common in this forum? You all would do well to pause and ponder that question.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or unrelated belief of the person supporting it.[1] Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance.[5]

Certainly you wouldn't say that her abuse is "a negative characteristic" that I'm pointing out? Certainly, you wouldn't claim that her emotional abuse is an "unrelated belief" in regards to her interpretations?

Spock, claiming God is the basis for emotional abuse by men, and the basis for all evil done by men, does nothing in the long run to help heal the effects of the abuse.

Butterfly has never said that "God" is the basis for emotional abuse by men. That is not her argument at all. You have totally misrepresented it. Her argument is that the sexism of the Bible proves it was written by men, not inspired by God. Her assertion is that the Bible is like any other book in as much as it reflects the mindset of the sexist men who wrote it. You will never be able to refute her argument if you refuse to understand it. Your caricature of her argument only adds confusion.

I did not introduce a red herring. A red herring is an attempt to distract from the main point of an argument. I was directly addressing the words you wrote and showing why they were problematic. And now you have confirmed my criticism by doubling down on your Genetic Fallacy by focusing again on the qualifications of the arguer rather than the quality of the argument. Most members of this forum are anonymous. Nobody really knows their qualifications, but even if they did it would be irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of their arguments.

Furthermore, your appeal to "academic" qualifications is the fallacy of appeal to authority, and worse, it is absurd since the vast majority of academic conclusions (other than those of the conservative minority) strongly contradict the view of the Bible supported by Rich Deem and many, if not most, members of this forum.

And worse yet, you have falsely asserted that critics are not "open to the fact that the already established scholarship address their points." You have no justification for such an assertion. We have very good reasons to reject the assertions of apologists because I have never seen an apologist yet who did not commit blatant logical fallacies in their attempt to defend the Bible. Not one.

You have no justification for your false assertion that I have been "ignoring the research already done." On the contrary, I have thoroughly reviewed the attempts of many Christian apologists and found them consistently fallacious. See here for example.

All of this is irrelevant actually. Asking someone to legitimately present their case is no genetic fallacy. If by critics you mean butterfly, then I do not know which is more sad, your false accusation or your definition of a critic. Because I meant only butterfly when I wrote that.

I also think you are reading into my words more than necessary. Plus I can revert this and say the same that I haven't seen one single atheist make a convincing argument, would that alter anything in your understanding? Then why are you wasting time introducing more red-herrings. I have very good reasons to reject atheism too, does my opinion counts in the argument? no, then please keep your opinion as authority, to yourself.

Also I am not asserting that you ignored the research, I said, if that would be the case would you be considered a serious scholar?

Furthermore, your appeal to "academic" qualifications is the fallacy of appeal to authority, and worse, it is absurd since the vast majority of academic conclusions (other than those of the conservative minority) strongly contradict the view of the Bible supported by Rich Deem and many, if not most, members of this forum.

Now that is an ad populum. And you accuse me of bringing in authority? wow!
I am not bringing authority, simply validity. Qualification does matter in critical analysis, if you disagree I suggest you ask any university student or professor, go ahead. An argument should not be put down on qualification but only when the argument is not affected by the qualification, if it does, I can not think of any reason why it should not be questioned.

"Should that be enough for you?" - why do you ask that? I have told you that I do not base my criticism of any argument on the qualifications of the arguer. True can be spoken "from the mouth of babes."

Sometimes you should actually, when the argument is tainted with poor scholarship, it should be questioned. I agree that truth can spoken by anyone, but I have to discern if it is really the truth that is being spoken.

I suggest we cut to the chase, rather than hopping around on formalities.

Rick, your assertion that her arguments are based on her negative experience with her father is false. Her arguments are based on what the Bible says and the effect it has had on 2000 years of Western history. She never appeals to her experience with her father as proof of those assertions. You are trying to discredit her argument by an APPEAL TO MOTIVE which is a fundamental logical fallacy of the class ad hominem.

Spock, sorry for the confusion with the way I'm writing. I'll try to be more clear. Butterfly has been the victim of emotional abuse by her father. so, she interprets the bible through that lens of abuse. Therefore, her interpretation of how she sees the "biblegod" is what she bases her argument on. If only "Her arguments are based on what the Bible says and the effect it has had on 2000 years of Western history." like you say, then I would have not argued with her. the bible says a lot of things that are horrible. Life, especially in the ANE was horrible. The bible doesn't hide that. Her argument is not what the bible says, but what she thinks the "biblegod" promotes, and condones. I agree that she doesn't appeal to her father as proof of her assertions. But her basis, or ground for her argument stems from emotional abuse. If she wasn't abused by a man, she would have no need to discredit "biblegod" as a god who promotes sexism. She might focus on His love, not on what she sees as His immorality.

From the link you posted:

Appeal to motive is a pattern of argument which consists in challenging a thesis by calling into question the motives of its proposer. It can be considered as a special case of the ad hominem circumstantial argument. As such, this type of argument may be a logical fallacy.

A common feature of appeals to motive is that only the possibility of a motive (however small) is shown, without showing the motive actually existed or, if the motive did exist, that the motive played a role in forming the argument and its conclusion. Indeed, it is often assumed that the mere possibility of motive is evidence enough.

Spock, I'm not trying to win an argument here. That's not my intention with all this. I have better things to do than spend hours arguing for the sake of trying to win an argument. My intention is to help Rose move past this, and see the God of the bible for who He is, not who she thinks He is. So, as far as "appeal to motive", I think from her blog, it's pretty clear that the blog is a way to speak out against man's abuse on women. So, I think it's clear that the motive(Father's abuse) DID play a role in forming her argument.

Butterfly has never said that "God" is the basis for emotional abuse by men. That is not her argument at all. You have totally misrepresented it. Her argument is that the sexism of the Bible proves it was written by men, not inspired by God. Her assertion is that the Bible is like any other book in as much as it reflects the mindset of the sexist men who wrote it. You will never be able to refute her argument if you refuse to understand it. Your caricature of her argument only adds confusion.

Sorry, Mr. Technical pants . She didn't say "God" is the basis for emotional abuse by men. She said "biblegod". Now you know very well that I believe the God of the bible is "God".

The question is to you, Spock: Do you want to win an argument, or do you want to deal with the real issue here?

RickD wrote:Sorry, just to add:

Butterfly wrote:
I stand corrected on mentioning my father on abusing his position of authority, but that in no way justifies your implications that my arguments are not rational, valid and based on biblical facts.

You're not saying that your interpretation is the same as "biblical facts", correct?

Correct. It is my interpretation that is based on biblical facts. Unfortunately some people feel forced to challenge the facts themselves in order to defend a preconceived belief.
-

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:Your comment reveals a gross failure to understand the most basic elements of logic. When a proposition is written that refers to "persons A and B" it is understood to be referring to two arbitrary people and therefore necessarily applies to "ALL PEOPLE." A and B are merely variables, like in an algebraic equation.

If you want this conversation to continue, you will need to show that you understand your error since it will be impossible to reason with a person who cannot grasp the elementary principles of logic.

No, let me show you once again who is in error.

When a proposition is written, it refers to only things that are expressed in said proposition. You're guilty of a Non-sequitur.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

I suggest you recognize your error since it is impossible to reason with a person who expresses disorderly thought and tries to pass it off as logic.

Spock wrote:The standard of moral symmetry is independent of me and any particular individual because it is a symmetry constraint on any moral statement that involves persons A and B.

A statement on persons A and B IS and ONLY IS a statement on persons A and B.

Not only that, but there is no axiom present.

Again, if you are trying to pass it off as "ME TOO!", you are committing Tu quoque
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

I applaud your attempt to be rational, but am dismayed by your dismal failure. There is a great irony in your comments because they contain a blatant non sequitur, the very thing you tried to pin on me. I did not mention the word "axiom" in my argument, and you did not state what "axiom" is supposedly missing or even why you mentioned it or what it has to do with anything. So I thought maybe the articles you linked might mention something about an axiom but that word is not found in either article. Therefore, your assertion that "there is no axiom present" is a blatant non sequitur that does not follow from anything you or I wrote. No one reading your comment has any clue what you are talking about. Your comments are literally meaningless.

Furthermore, your assertion that "A statement on persons A and B IS and ONLY IS a statement on persons A and B" indicates a profound failure to understand the most basic elements of logic. Consider the following logical assertion:

If person A begat person B then person B is a child of person A.

That applies to ALL PERSONS that ever existed. How is it possible you could fail to understand such basic logic?

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:Your statement that "Physics is a constant conjunction" is meaningless because the word "conjunction" always refers to at at least two things. Physics is a "conjunction" with what? You didn't say. Your comment is therefore irrational.

No, the statement is not meaningless. Talking physics, you are talking about matter in motion.
Constant conjunction
Whenever A has occurred, B has occurred
"Whenever I've seen smoke, I've seen fire"

If you are speaking of physics. The matter in motion is seen, but what is NOT SEEN is the NECESSITY. There is no necessary connection.

Necessary connection
Whenever A occurs, B MUST occur
Whenever A occurs, A has the POWER to MAKE B occur
Whenever A occurs in the future, B WILL occur.

Because there is no necessary connection, there is no explanatory power.

Thank you for explaining what you meant. It helps me understand why you are so confused with my analogy between the symmetry principles of physics and morality. There is a lot more to physics than mere "constant conjunction of events A and B." I never used any such "constant conjunction" in anything I wrote (I'll comment more on its relation to causality below). You seem unaware of the large body of physical theories such as Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity that have great explanatory power. My argument is based on symmetry principles analogous to those physicists use to derive and understand the objective laws of nature. They have great explanatory power and apply directly to moral theory as is evident because the Golden Rule, the most universal of all moral principles, is based on moral symmetry. If we interchange person A with person B we get logically identical statements:

Person A can discern if action X affecting person B is moral if person A would be willing to be subject to action X by person B (everything else being equal).
Person B can discern if action X affecting person A is moral if person B would be willing to be subject to action X by person A (everything else being equal).

This is the root of our moral intuitions and the foundation of an objective moral theory with no reference to God. It is the "praxis" and the epistemological part of the theory because it tells people how to understand if something is moral or not and what to do. Similar principles, somewhat extended and clarified, form the ontological foundation for objective morality so we have a complete theory.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:And we see the same error in your statement "There is no necessary connection." Connection with what? Who said it was necessary? I specifically stated that moral symmetry is "analogous to the symmetry principles used in physics to derive fundamental universal laws such as the conservation of angular momentum which is implied by the rotational symmetry of space by Noether's theorem." I get the impression that this is all way over your head.

No, again, there is nothing analogous with symmetry principals in physics to "derive" "fundamental" "universal" "laws". You are trying to smuggle in necessity in constant conjunction. If there is no necessary connection, there is no explanatory power.

And again, you have shown no understanding of the symmetry principles use to derive physical laws, so it is no surprise that you can't understand their analogous use in moral theory.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:And I am not "trying to pass off physics as metaphysics." I gave an analogy that you didn't understand. That's all.

No, thats EXACTLY what you are doing. I didn't misunderstand the analogy. You just don't know that you don't have the explanatory power that you think physics gives you. I've corrected you.

Physical theories like Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity have great explanatory power. Are you denying this fact?

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:I explained but you have not understood my explanation, apparently because you don't understand basic logic that involves variables like "persons A and B."

No, I understood. However, you are wrong. You need a philosophy class to enroll in.

Dude, if ever a man should take his own advice, the time is now.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:Again, you fail to understand the most basic logic. Is the equation 1 + 2 = 3 "subjective" because "WE discern" it? Your comments make no sense at all. They are fundamentally irrational.

Where do these things called 1, 2, and 3 exist?

As explained in my previous post, that is a category mistake. The concept of "where" applies only to physical things. Abstract numbers and logic are not "things" that exist in a "place" except perhaps when they are instantiated in a mind (this is subject to debate). Now if you want to argue that there is a universal Mind that instantiates all abstract things and gives them a "place," then fine. That's the answer to your question. Are you a Platonist?

domokunrox wrote: Even if you can prove that mathematics exist (and I seriously doubt you can prove such a thing exists), mathematics is the RELATIONS OF IDEAS and they are NECESSARILY CONNECTED. Its not the same thing when you are talking about PHYSICS, which is CONSTANT CONJUNCTION.

I'm really glad you are explaining yourself more. Your first post contained only disconnected fragments of your ideas so I had no idea what you were trying to say. I agree that mathematics (a subclass of logic) deals with relations between ideas, but it is false to say that physics deals only with "constant conjunction" - that phrase was coined by Hume in his discussion of causality, the fact that cause A is always conjoined with effect B. Physics deals with much more than mere causality and the theories of physics explain many things. They give us understanding of why the world behaves as it does. For example, why is Newton's First Law valid? Because space and time are symmetric under linear transformations. See how beautiful that is? We understand fundamental laws of nature based on concepts of symmetry.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:Of course you said "no" - you don't have a clue about what moral symmetry means or why it is objective despite the fact that I've repeatedly explained it.

I've repeatedly shown you that your explanation has NO EXPLANATORY POWER!

The only thing you showed is that YOU fail to understand the explanatory power of physics.

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:So you call me a "fool" for reading and understanding the plain and obvious meaning of the text? That explains a lot. If there were any truth to your claim, you wouldn't have to descend to such false and immoral insults.

Yes, you are a stubborn and ignorant fool because you don't understand academics, ancient history, ancient texts, and you don't want to understand in the proper context. I welcome you to continue discussing with everyone else on the subject. I am not interested in a debate on theology. There are plenty of other people who are well prepared to discuss that with you.

Your assertions are rude, false, and well below the dignity of any man of honor. You know nothing of my understanding of "academics, ancient history, ancient texts." You don't know anything about me at all! We have barely begun this conversation and you spew such unfounded absurdities at me? You should be ashamed of yourself.

Attention thread participants!

I want to address the issue that keeps popping up in my discourse with others on this forum. I have presented valid arguments concerning the Male bias of the Bible and Morality, based on reason, logic and facts, yet over and over again my personal experiences, or speculation on them have been used to cast doubts on the validity of my arguments. These types of Ad Hominem attacks would never be tolerated in a professional debate, so why are they acceptable here?

My personal experiences have nothing to do with the topics I am discussing, so they should not be used to try and discredit my arguments. I have found these tactics typical of men who debate women that promote equal rights denied by men. So, I would ask PLEASE let us keep our discourse focused solely on the arguments presented and not on the affairs of my personal life. If any of you have solid challenges to my arguments, or answers to my questions I would love to discuss them.
-

neo-x wrote: I suggest we cut to the chase, rather than hopping around on formalities.

That is precisely what I was hoping to achieve. I'm glad we are now on the same page.

Butterfly and I have presented a number of arguments. Begin where you will.

These last few posts have made it clear that people have taken this far too personally on BOTH sides, which typically means that the arguments have run their course and nothing more needs to be said since all have decided they are correct in their respective arguments and all that is left is "insults".
I'm out of here, later.

Butterfly wrote:Attention thread participants!

I want to address the issue that keeps popping up in my discourse with others on this forum. I have presented valid arguments concerning the Male bias of the Bible and Morality, based on reason, logic and facts, yet over and over again my personal experiences, or speculation on them have been used to cast doubts on the validity of my arguments. These types of Ad Hominem attacks would never be tolerated in a professional debate, so why are they acceptable here?

Hi Rose.

This is not a professional debate forum. Most of us have no philosophical degrees. If you want a professional debate, contact William Lane Craig @ Reasonable Faith.org. Until then, you came to our board, and are stuck with us.

Only speaking for myself, but your argument isn't wrong IMO because of your personal experiences. I believe your argument is wrong because it is based on a wrong interpretation of scripture. And your interpretation is clouded by your personal experiences, and it keeps you from objectively interpreting scripture. Of course, this is only my opinion.

My personal experiences have nothing to do with the topics I am discussing, so they should not be used to try and discredit my arguments. I have found these tactics typical of men who debate women that promote equal rights denied by men. So, I would ask PLEASE let us keep our discourse focused solely on the arguments presented and not on the affairs of my personal life. If any of you have solid challenges to my arguments, or answers to my questions I would love to discuss them.

Your personal experiences have nothing to do with the topics you are discussing? Seriously? And you said you are an honest seeker. I think Paul is correct. You made your points, and we showed you why we believe your interpretation of scripture is wrong. We disagree.

PaulSacramento wrote:These last few posts have made it clear that people have taken this far too personally on BOTH sides, which typically means that the arguments have run their course and nothing more needs to be said since all have decided they are correct in their respective arguments and all that is left is "insults".
I'm out of here, later.

I've never seen a more obvious dodge. No one has dealt with my arguments in any significant way, and I have received MANY mindless insults and ad hominem attacks and have never done anything like that myself. For example, look at the mindless abuse spewed out by domo at me (which no moderator bothered to correct):

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:

domokunrox wrote:No. I am sorry, but if you really believe Genocide was commanded in the bible then there is no way to put it other then you are a stubborn, and ignorant fool.

Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

So you call me a "fool" for reading and understanding the plain and obvious meaning of the text? That explains a lot. If there were any truth to your claim, you wouldn't have to descend to such false and immoral insults.

Yes, you are a stubborn and ignorant fool because you don't understand academics, ancient history, ancient texts, and you don't want to understand in the proper context.

It is easy to see the gross immorality of his attack on me. All we need to do is apply the Golden Rule based on moral symmetry. Imagine how I would be treated if I talked to Christians like that!

JUST IMAGINE HOW I WOULD BE TREATED!

How is it possible that a Christian forum could allow such behavior? Has no one here ever read the Bible?

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
.

Butterfly wrote:

RickD wrote:Sorry, just to add:

Butterfly wrote:
I stand corrected on mentioning my father on abusing his position of authority, but that in no way justifies your implications that my arguments are not rational, valid and based on biblical facts.

You're not saying that your interpretation is the same as "biblical facts", correct?

Correct. It is my interpretation that is based on biblical facts. Unfortunately some people feel forced to challenge the facts themselves in order to defend a preconceived belief.
-

And our interpretations are based on biblical facts. We are saying your interpretation is wrong, not your facts. I feel like I'm replying to Ken Ham.

Spock wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:These last few posts have made it clear that people have taken this far too personally on BOTH sides, which typically means that the arguments have run their course and nothing more needs to be said since all have decided they are correct in their respective arguments and all that is left is "insults".
I'm out of here, later.

I've never seen a more obvious dodge. No one has dealt with my arguments in any significant way, and I have received MANY mindless insults and ad hominem attacks and have never done anything like that myself. For example, look at the mindless abuse spewed out by domo at me (which no moderator bothered to correct):

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:

domokunrox wrote:No. I am sorry, but if you really believe Genocide was commanded in the bible then there is no way to put it other then you are a stubborn, and ignorant fool.

Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

So you call me a "fool" for reading and understanding the plain and obvious meaning of the text? That explains a lot. If there were any truth to your claim, you wouldn't have to descend to such false and immoral insults.

Yes, you are a stubborn and ignorant fool because you don't understand academics, ancient history, ancient texts, and you don't want to understand in the proper context.

It is easy to see the gross morality of his attack on me. All we need to do is apply the Golden Rule based on moral symmetry. Imagine how I would be treated if I talked to Christians like that!

JUST IMAGINE HOW I WOULD BE TREATED!

How is it possible that a Christian forum could allow such behavior? Has no one here ever read the Bible?

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

.

Spock, That's just domokunrox way of showing his love for you. "Fool" is a term of endearment.

Spock wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:These last few posts have made it clear that people have taken this far too personally on BOTH sides, which typically means that the arguments have run their course and nothing more needs to be said since all have decided they are correct in their respective arguments and all that is left is "insults".
I'm out of here, later.

I've never seen a more obvious dodge. No one has dealt with my arguments in any significant way, and I have received MANY mindless insults and ad hominem attacks and have never done anything like that myself. For example, look at the mindless abuse spewed out by domo at me (which no moderator bothered to correct):

domokunrox wrote:

Spock wrote:

domokunrox wrote:No. I am sorry, but if you really believe Genocide was commanded in the bible then there is no way to put it other then you are a stubborn, and ignorant fool.

Deuteronomy 2:34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

So you call me a "fool" for reading and understanding the plain and obvious meaning of the text? That explains a lot. If there were any truth to your claim, you wouldn't have to descend to such false and immoral insults.

Yes, you are a stubborn and ignorant fool because you don't understand academics, ancient history, ancient texts, and you don't want to understand in the proper context.

It is easy to see the gross immorality of his attack on me. All we need to do is apply the Golden Rule based on moral symmetry. Imagine how I would be treated if I talked to Christians like that!

JUST IMAGINE HOW I WOULD BE TREATED!

How is it possible that a Christian forum could allow such behavior? Has no one here ever read the Bible?

Matthew 22:37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Matthew 12:36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. 37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.
.

Dom can get a little feisty. He does it with his fellow Christians on this forum too, not just atheists. Yeah, I find it a little off-putting too, but don't take it too personally. That's just how he is.

I hope I can address your argument soon. I'm working on my doctorate right now and I'm waist-deep in busy-ness, I'm afraid. I have no education in formal logic or philosophy, though, so I'm afraid I'll have to ask that you be patient with me.

RickD wrote: Spock, That's just domokunrox way of showing his love for you. "Fool" is a term of endearment.

He would do well to try to conform his expressions of "love" to something that is consistent with his beliefs, don't you think?

Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

1 Peter 3:15 but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence; 16 and keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.

Domo has put himself to shame by the false and absurd assertions he has thrown at me.

Butterfly, Spock,

I'm afraid I made a mistake. My comments about Rose's experiences being the basis for her argument, was about her argument in this thread:http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... p?f=9&t=12

The thread we're posting in now has been confused with that one in my mind for a while now. Rose, your argument about Morality without God is completely different, and isn't what I was referring to. Sorry for the confusion again. I know it seems like you two are being bombarded from all sides here, and my confusion doesn't help.