There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Parsimony]

May I suggest that this is only relevant to science and the use of the scientific method. It is also not a case of not knowing. We know that there must have been a rapid expansion, we just do not know the mechanism behind it.

Just like we know that life came into existence. We just don't know the mechanism behind that either.

 

[Serenity7855]

Just like we know that life came into existence. We just don't know the mechanism behind that either.

Yes, exactly so.

 

[cottage]

Hang on, nothing you have thus far written proves premise one to be false. A chair began to exist at the point of the big bang, as did the car and you and me. We were caused to exist as a direct result of the big bang.

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Tables, chairs, vegetation, humans, don’t begin to exist as if there was nothing previously existent, but were formed out of matter that began with the Big Bang. We don’t see anything in the universe beginning to exist, i.e. out of nothing as it were. So we can’t beg the question by saying that because the Big Bang was the cause of form and matter therefore form and matter itself is in want of a cause, since that is what you’re supposed to prove.

Everything that exists in our world is the result of the big bang that caused them to exist. It is not a complex or intricate synopsis. It is simply that everything, in reality, has a cause to its existence. Elements were caused by the big bang so everything that contains elements has a cause. Of course you cannot prove it but in cosmology the big bang is an axiom, so, based on that premise 1 remains and accurate and true statement.

It certainly isn’t axiomatic in any logically necessary sense, but otherwise I have no reason to disagree.

Well, of course it does. The universe has been brought into existence, so, it naturally follows that there is an explanation for how that happened, whether that explanation is cause-less or caused.

The argument uses “explanation’ to mean “cause”, for if it didn’t mean that then the argument would defeat its own purpose. And you’re begging the question again when you say: “The universe has been brought into existence.”

Then if you are fine with this, you have to accept that everything that came out of the big bang has a beginning as well.

Yes, of course! The Big Bang is the beginning of existence – that’s not disputed.

Well, I do not consider that premise two is the reason for the falsehood. The fact is that nobody knows what the cause was. That is a leap of faith that only Christians can take. My argument is that when considering possible causes then God should be on the list.

Again you re-state the circularity of the argument and beg the question by saying “nobody knows what the cause was.”

Well, I cannot see how premise 1 or 2 can be wrong, for reason I have already stated

The Kalam argument

Everything that begins to exist has a cause
The universe began to exist
The universe was caused

The fallacy is that the two premises are run together.

Everything that exists takes its form from existent matter in the universe, but from which it cannot be said that matter itself is caused to exist without making a circular appeal.

Here is the corrected argument:

P1. The universe began to exist
P2. Everything in the universe has a cause
C: Everything in the universe began to exist

P1. Current cosmological thinking is that the world and everything within it began with the Big Bang, and that is taken to mean that there was nothing before it.

P2. The phenomenon of cause and effect is observed in all things. (This is relatively uncontroversial but can never be demonstrated certain or true)

Conclusion: Nothing further is implied without begging the question or reasoning from circularity.
For if causality began with the world then self-evidently it can’t be argued that some external cause brought the world (including cause and effect) into being. And that effectively cancels out the ogre that is an infinite regress of causes and also removes the need for God since without cause there can be no causal agency.

 

[cottage]

Look, I can see that you have put a great deal of time into this, which is why I gave a rebuttal to your first post on it, however, I cannot continue to debate on this particular cosmological argument as I have not seen it before and I do not entirely hold with all the premises. This is what I refer to as Kalams cosmological argument.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Yes, I suppose I have put a lot of effort into examining the classic arguments for the existence of God, since studying the Philosophy of Religion nearly twenty years ago. I was drawn like a moth to candle by the title of this thread because as far as I can ascertain there is no substantive evidence for any God only a series of oblique believers’ arguments and rather fanciful explanations. The Kalam argument, especially, seems to have a following among theists when it does nothing to prove the existence of a deity recognisable as that of classical theism even it were sound, for an indifferent deist creator is a more credible agent and not contradicted by experience, although it runs into some of the same logical problems.

Anyway, I have answered the Kalam argument already and my rebuttal was given at the bottom of the page of my previous post.

I’ve given you, so far, five arguments, the first two show that that the cosmological arguments are specious and do not do what they profess to do, while the remaining three arguments demonstrate that God is logically impossible.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Part 4 as promised to Serenity

This is supposed to be convincing evidence?

The most convincing part is what they all agree on. The tomb was empty and a stranger said Jesus rose from the dead. Huh? The payoff that proves everything and nobody but nobody gets to see it? Instead we get contradictory stories.

All four Gospels tell much the same story. Women go to the tomb on Sunday morning. (The women named vary but that is not really significant). When they get there the tomb is empty and they are told by a stranger that Jesus rose from the dead.

Jesus rising from the dead is got to be the most significant event in history. It is the demonstration that the promise of a universal resurrection and judgment is for real. It is the assurance that Jesus really does have divine backing and everything he said can be believed. So obviously it should be unmistakably on the level, witnessed by plenty of people, Jesus believers and non-believers, Jews and gentiles, Roman authorities, so that there can be no mistake, no claims of stolen bodies, no accusations of fraud. Right?

Wrong! Nobody but nobody sees the resurrection. Even in Matthew, who tells the most elaborate versions, when the stone is rolled back in the presence of soldiers the tomb is already empty! And nobody but believers ever gets to see Jesus after the fact. (And those stories have nothing in common but that is already being discussed elsewhere.)

If you did not already believe it, if you had not been raised believing it, would you believe it? If someone made a similar claim about a Tibetan monk who was supposed to be dead was later seen by other monks and no two tell even similar stories, would you come anywhere close to believing it?


I will start responding to your replies soon. I hope...

 

[Sapiens]

The important question is did Jesus see his shadow? Was there six more weeks of winter?

 

[Alt Thinker]

The important question is did Jesus see his shadow? Was there six more weeks of winter?

I was nine years old when I first heard that joke, whispered to me in church, during ultra somber Good Friday ceremonies. Is it possible to die from trying not to laugh?

 

[Sapiens]

I was nine years old when I first heard that joke, whispered to me in church, during ultra somber Good Friday ceremonies. Is it possible to die from trying not to laugh?

If Jesus Rises from His Tomb & Sees His Shadow, We Get Six More Weeks of Winter; Groundhog's Day vs. Easter: Pagan Celebrations in Modern Guises

 

[Alt Thinker]

The truth is, Jesus met with His disciples in both places, but He did so at different times. One of the reasons so many people allege that two or more Bible passages are contradictory is because they fail to recognize that mere differences do not necessitate a contradiction. For there to be a bona fide contradiction, not only must one be referring to the same person, place, or thing in the same sense, but the same time period must be under consideration. If a person looks at a single door in the back of a building and says, “That door is shut,” but also says, “That door is open,” has he contradicted himself? Not necessarily. The door may have been shut at one moment, but then opened the next by a strong gust of wind. Time and chronology are important factors to consider when dealing with alleged errors in the Bible.

Similarly, Jesus met with His disciples both in Jerusalem and in Galilee, but at different times. On the day of His resurrection, He met with all of the apostles (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as both Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). Since Jesus was on the Earth for only forty days following His resurrection (cf. Acts 1:3), sometime between this meeting with His apostles in Jerusalem and His ascension more than five weeks later, Jesus met with seven of His disciples at the Sea of Tiberias in Galilee (John 21:1-14), and later with all eleven of the apostles on a mountain in Galilee that Jesus earlier had appointed for them (Matthew 28:16). Sometime following these meetings in Galilee, Jesus and His disciples traveled back to Judea, where He ascended into heaven from the Mount of Olives near Bethany (Luke 24:50-53; Acts 1:9-12).

None of the accounts of Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances contradicts another. Rather, each writer supplemented what a different writer left out. Jesus may have appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on Earth after His resurrection (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:1-7), while the New Testament writers mentioned only the more prominent instances in order to substantiate the fact of His resurrection.

Apologetics Press - To Galilee or Jerusalem?

The proposed resolution of the Galilee/Jerusalem contradiction is supposed to be that between Luke 24:43 and Luke 24:44 40 days have elapsed even though Luke does not bother mentioning anything about it.

Luke 24:36-53

[Day of the Resurrection]
36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
[40 days go by?]
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on hig
50 When he had led them out to the vicinity of Bethany, he lifted up his hands and blessed them. 51 While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up into heaven. 52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. 53 And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.

According to the link you supplied, the whole story of Jesus and the disciples after the resurrection is something like this:

The disciples are told to go to Galilee
Mt 26:32 But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee.
Mt 28:10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”
Mk 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’

Jesus appears to them in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection
Lk 24:36-43 (see above)
John 20:19-23

Jesus appears again to them in Jerusalem a week later
John 20:24-29

They go to Galilee where they encounter Jesus while fishing
John 21:1-14

They then go to the mountain where they were supposed to meet Jesus and Jesus is there
Matthew 28:16-20

They go back to Jerusalem where Jesus appears to them from time to time the ascends into heaven
Luke 24-44-53 (see above)
Acts 1:1-11

So Jesus tells them to Galilee but before they go Jesus appears to them in Jerusalem. A week later they still have not gone and Jesus appears to them again. Then they go to Galilee and while they are fishing along the way Jesus appears to them again. They go to the mountain where they were supposed to meet Jesus and Jesus is there. Then they go back to Jerusalem where Jesus appears to them now and then. Jesus then ascends into heaven.

Why were they supposed to go to Galilee if they just went back to Jerusalem? Why did Jesus keep appearing to them before they left for Galilee and once along the way?

We may note that Matthew seems to have them go to Galilee immediately.

Matthew 28:16-17 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.

This passage immediately follows the women at the tomb and the soldiers reporting to Pilate. “Then” seems to strongly imply that the next significant thing they did was go to Galilee and met Jesus on the mountain where they were told to meet him. It is also suspicious that even though this is the fourth time they see Jesus after the resurrection still “some doubted”. I thought the doubting issue was resolved with Thomas at the second appearance.

That Matthew says nothing about Jerusalem and Luke says nothing about is not surprising. In a previous post I talked at great length about Luke intentionally inverting Matthew at many points (e.g., genealogy, nativity, Moses imagery) to shift focus from Jews to gentiles. Part of this was short circuiting Matthew’s concentration on Galilee and concentrating instead on Jerusalem. It is just like Matthew to have Jesus appear to the disciples in Galilee. And it is just like Luke to have it all happen in Jerusalem just to turn Matthew upside down again.

If the Gospels tell a single coherent story, why does so much have to be explained to make them fit?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Topic title: There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists

Certainly, more and more scientists are thinking so.

------------------------------------------------------

Jesus said- "And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt 10:30)

 

[adi2d]

Admit it. You only posted so you could put up a selfie of yourself getting a haircut

 

[Bunyip]

Certainly, more and more scientists are thinking so.

------------------------------------------------------

Jesus said- "And even the very hairs of your head are all numbered" (Matt 10:30)

Flew was in his dotage and was exploited by some disreputable apologists. He was a philosopher, not a geneticist. What a philosopher thinks about DNA is nothing to do with science.

Complexity does not indicate intelligent origin. And Flew became a DEIST, not a theist by the way.

 

[Serenity7855]

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Tables, chairs, vegetation, humans, don’t begin to exist as if there was nothing previously existent, but were formed out of matter that began with the Big Bang. We don’t see anything in the universe beginning to exist, i.e. out of nothing as it were. So we can’t beg the question by saying that because the Big Bang was the cause of form and matter therefore form and matter itself is in want of a cause, since that is what you’re supposed to prove.

Form and matter is in want of a cause. That cause is the big bang.

ex nihilo nihil fit

The idea that “anything begins to exist has a cause” is basically an affirmation of ex nihilo nihil fit, which is Latin for “from nothing, nothing comes.” In other words, it is not the case that things pop into being uncaused out of nothing.

Relevance to theism

The claim that “anything that begins to exist has a cause” has important relevance to something called the kalam cosmological argument (KCA). The KCA goes like this:

1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe begins to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Further arguments are given to show that the cause of the universe is (among other things) a transcendent personal cause. If we have adequate grounds for thinking the universe has a transcendent personal cause, this gives at least some evidence for the truth of theism. In this article though I’ll just be arguing for ex nihilo nihil fit.

The meaning of the first premise

First some philosophy lingo. A material cause is that which a thing is made out of, and an efficient cause is one that produces the effect. For example, in the case of a woodworker making a wooden sculpture, the sculpture’s material cause is the wood and the sculpture’s efficient cause is the woodworker.

It’s important to keep in mind that “anything that begins to exist has a cause” is using the phrase “has a cause” in a way to include both material and efficient causes, such that it means “anything that begins to exist has a [material or efficient] cause.” Put another way, the first premise means “it is not the case that something begins to exist with no efficient cause and no material cause.” Something beginning to exist with no efficient cause and no material cause constitutes that something coming into being from nothing, with “something coming into being from nothing” meaning that something comes into being but it doesn’t come into being from anything (no efficient cause and no material cause). So the first premise is basically just an affirmation of ex nihilo nihil fit.

Justification for ex nihilo nihil fit

The ex nihilo nihil fit principle has intuitive plausibility right off the bat. To illustrate, suppose a police officer finds a suspiciously large amount of money hidden in the trunk of my car and she asks me how it got there. I say to her, “Well officer, all the money just popped into being uncaused out of nothing!” Any rational police officer, even an atheist one, would immediately disbelieve me. Even if I showed the officer a video of the money apparently popping into being from nothing (one frame shows no money, the next frame shows the money) the officer would still disbelieve me and suspect I faked the video recording in some way. When confronted with a claim that something (as money, rocks, or cars) popped into being from nothing, our normal reaction is severe skepticism. If an atheist shares this same skepticism but suddenly abandons it when it comes to the universe, such a maneuver would strike me as intellectually suspicious. In any case, there are at least three reasons to accept ex nihilo nihil fit.

First, violations of ex nihilo nihil fit are literally worse than magic. When a magician waves his magic wand and *poof* a rabbit pops into being, at least you have the magician and the wand to bring about the rabbit. A rabbit popping into being without any cause whatsoever is like magic but worse because there’s not even anything to poof the rabbit into existence. A similar thing holds true for mariachi bands, tuna factories, and space shuttles poofing into existence uncaused; it’s like magic but worse because there’s not even anything to do the poofing. If the intelligent atheist has good reason to accept the implausibility of magicians who can pop things into being by waving their magic wands, she has even better reason to accept the implausibility of things popping into being uncaused out of nothing.

Second, if something can pop into being out of nothing, it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn’t pop into being uncaused out of nothing. If someone says only universes can pop into being out of nothing, this raises an important question: what makes nothingness so discriminatory about what can and can’t pop into being from it? Nothingness has no properties (since there isn’t anything to have properties), and so to ascribe nothingness with a proclivity to have some things pop out of it and not others would be to make a category error, like saying the number six has a color. Another way to look at it: if things can pop into being from literally nothing, there’s nothing that would restrict or constrain what would come about, because there isn’t really anything to constrain (nothingness is quite literally nothing after all). Thus if things can pop into being uncaused out of nothing, it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything doesn’t pop into being uncaused from it; e.g. it becomes inexplicable why horses, mountains, and root beer floats don’t also pop into being uncaused. And of course, “inexplicable” means “there can’t be an explanation.” So it’s not merely that ex nihilo nihil fit is the best explanation for why everything and anything doesn’t pop into being uncaused, it’s the only explanation. The fact that that ex nihilo nihil fit is the best and only explanation for why not everything and anything pops into being uncaused provides substantial rational support for “anything that begins to exist has cause.”

Third, common experience and scientific evidence confirm that something cannot come into being from nothing. For example, if ex nihilo nihil fit could be violated it becomes inexplicable why (for example) there are not violations of the conservation of electric charge via a bunch of electrons coming into being from nothing, yet we can be pretty confident in thinking that the conservation of electric charge is a bona fide law of physics. The fact that this (and various other) laws of physics disallow various things coming into being uncaused out of nothing provides confirmation of “anything that begins to exist has a cause.” The third reason is also related to second reason. The empirical fact that we don’t see anything and everything coming into being uncaused gives us reason to think such a thing can’t happen, since ex nihilo nihil fit both explains and predicts this. It’s not as if nothingness could have a predisposition for things to pop into being from it such that it happens in cases when we’re not looking but never when we are looking. What would make nothingness so discriminatory? Nor is it the case that things popping into being from nothing is prohibited by some locations (as the ones human occupy) and not others. It doesn’t make sense that our own observable sphere puts constraints on nothingness where there would otherwise be none, because nothingness isn’t anything, so there’s literally nothing to constrain regarding what, where, and when something comes into being out of it. (It’s more sensible to view nothingness qua nonbeing as simply having no potential for something to come into being out of it.) One can’t exactly inhibit the cause of something popping into being when there’s literally no cause. If things can pop into being uncaused (i.e. no efficient cause and no material cause), they can do so anywhere at any time precisely because there is no cause

Anything that Begins to Exist Has a Cause | Maverick Christian

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes, I suppose I have put a lot of effort into examining the classic arguments for the existence of God, since studying the Philosophy of Religion nearly twenty years ago. I was drawn like a moth to candle by the title of this thread because as far as I can ascertain there is no substantive evidence for any God only a series of oblique believers’ arguments and rather fanciful explanations. The Kalam argument, especially, seems to have a following among theists when it does nothing to prove the existence of a deity recognisable as that of classical theism even it were sound, for an indifferent deist creator is a more credible agent and not contradicted by experience, although it runs into some of the same logical problems.

Anyway, I have answered the Kalam argument already and my rebuttal was given at the bottom of the page of my previous post.

I’ve given you, so far, five arguments, the first two show that that the cosmological arguments are specious and do not do what they profess to do, while the remaining three arguments demonstrate that God is logically impossible.

I do not believe that you have shown that that the cosmological arguments are specious on the two first premises and I do not recognise or hold to the other three premises, therefore, God is not proven to be logically wrong, but, I am sure that you didn't expect a devout Christian to accept your argument anyway. I to have done a great deal of study and Philosophy of Religion, probably without scepticism, and have concluded that a superior intelligence is the only real answer for our existence, that is, where did we come from, what is our purpose, and where are we going. A reason for being and not a death sentence on the death row of life.

 

[Serenity7855]

Flew was in his dotage and was exploited by some disreputable apologists. He was a philosopher, not a geneticist. What a philosopher thinks about DNA is nothing to do with science.

Complexity does not indicate intelligent origin. And Flew became a DEIST, not a theist by the way.

Typical aggressive atheist retort. Discredit the person in the hope that it will discredit the words he has spoken. Only, those of us with a modicum of intellect know that truth spoken is not dependant on the medium that tells it. It is a constant and never changes. Even if someone as wicked as Hitler was said it the truth of it would still very much stand. Having said that I would treat your appraisal of Dr. flew with great scepticism just because you attacked him and could not critique what he said.

 

[Sapiens]

He's making a gentle excuse for Flew getting it dead wrong and making a fool of himself, something any college level biologist should see.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Other scientists too are beginning to question whether there's a "guiding force" behind life and the universe-

"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature."-Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): The Universe: Past and Present Reflections. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics: 20:16.

"There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming"- Paul Davies (British astrophysicist), The Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability To Order the Universe. New York: Simon and Schuster, p.203.

"As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"- George Greenstein (astronomer),1988. The Symbiotic Universe. New York: William Morrow, p.27

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."- Tony Rothman (physicist),Paradigms Lost. New York, Avon Books, p.482-483

"When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist, I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics."- Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics), 1994 The Physics of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, preface.

"We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it.."- Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician),Gannes, S. October 13, 1986. Fortune. p. 57

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one"- Ed Harrison (cosmologist),Harrison, E. 1985. Masks of the Universe. New York, Collier Books, Macmillan, pp. 252, 263.

"Who created these laws? There is no question but that a God will always be needed"- Barry Parker (cosmologist),Heeren, F. 1995. Show Me God. Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 223.

"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."- Galileo

 

[Bunyip]

Typical aggressive atheist retort. Discredit the person in the hope that it will discredit the words he has spoken. Only, those of us with a modicum of intellect know that truth spoken is not dependant on the medium that tells it. It is a constant and never changes. Even if someone as wicked as Hitler was said it the truth of it would still very much stand. Having said that I would treat your appraisal of Dr. flew with great scepticism just because you attacked him and could not critique what he said.

Are we just not supposed to notice how you invent some imaginary offence and fling a bigoted insult at all atheistsin alomst every response?

What I said is not only true, but easily verified. Flew embraced deism, he never accepted theism or the Abrahamic god. Christian apologist Lee Strobel exploited a sick old man by lying about his position for the benefit of book sales.

Can you deal with the content, or are these silly imaginary offences and bigoted slurs against all atheists your sole capability?

 

[Serenity7855]

Are we just not supposed to notice how you invent some imaginary offence and fling a bigoted insult at all atheistsin alomst every response?

What I said is not only true, but easily verified. Flew embraced deism, he never accepted theism or the Abrahamic god. Christian apologist Lee Strobel exploited a sick old man by lying about his position for the benefit of book sales.

Can you deal with the content, or are these silly imaginary offences and bigoted slurs against all atheists your sole capability?

I didn't say it wasn't true. I said It is his words that interest me, not his morals,

Not all atheists, just atheists like you.

 

[Bunyip]

It is his words that interest me, not his morals,

Not all atheists, just atheists like you.

See if you can post just a single response on topic and without a personal attack.

Flew was an atheist in regard to the Christian god, and died an atheist towards tye Christian god.
A few disreputable Christians deliberately misrepresented him.

What are you actually contesting about what I have claimed? Can you actually engage like an adult and respond ONLY to the point under contention?

You seem to actually agree with me - you say that you never said it wasn't true.
So if what I said is true, and you do not contest that -HOW WAS I DISCREDITING HIM? And what was aggressive about me pointing out facts that you are not even contesting?