1. The coconut milk and flesh are so tasty because they marinate, if you will, inside a hard shell that enables them to travel across the oceans. Clear logic. Created by nature/natural selection.

2. Darwin’s writings explains logically how evolution happened – keeping in mind – the word “day” in Hebrew…. is a “period of time” – so evolution is fully supported in the Bible and Creationism, like Evolution, must be properly defined in order that evolution is applied – it’s fits perfectly when tested and validated logically.

3. The Heavens and the Earth – give that more thought…. In the beginning there was a void – God created the Heavens and the Earth…. not the Earth and the Heavens.

4. Fool. You are already watching God build – or perhaps you are not… get it?

5. part 1) Truth is that we have access and capability to an infinite amount of knowledge and grossly infinite understanding of the knowledge we do have at the moment…. 2) All that I need 3) I agree: You can’t prove that “God doesn’t exist” – However you can prove that He does (and you did that in test number 1).

I hope this sheds light on some gaps for you. Have you read the Bible cover to cover? (I already know the answer) Read it – if you apply logic, you will believe though you might not see – (you won’t have to see)…. but you will “see” (understand) – then maybe you’ll end up helping preachers to wake up and smell the rest of the coffee (or all of it). Test everything until you get a clearly valid answer by deductive reasoning. You would do very well to read the Bible and make refutations based on a contextual reading rather than what we hear in the bandstands…. In fact if you read it and understand it you might be surprised to find that Jesus actually condemns religiosity….(after all there are probably only 300 million people in the entire world who’ve read it cover to cover according to stats given the benefit of the doubt and even less who understand it…. so go for it – and prove the statements in as true or false – get in there… and besides according to logic based on what it actually does say in there – we can’t understand it without learning what it means with other people…..) And for you I’d recommend beginning with the Torah/first 5 books.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Best,

Dean

PS – What’s number 6?

‘I’ve never seen a single intelligent researcher who advanced through their studies and career using religion to discover new knowledge.’

- actually there’s been a long history of scientists who studied nature with a belief that better understanding of God’s work leads to wisdom.. and – it does, even when, unfortunately, you don’t attribute his work to him.

but anyway.. if there’s anything I’ve noticed since my change from an atheist to a believer a decade or so back.. it’s the general feeling of hostility and negativity that spews from the atheist community. Of course there are ‘happy atheists’.. I’m not saying there aren’t.. but the general ‘vibe’ I find in these discussions is so harsh and bleak – and basicly any other adjective similar.

The first question would be… why so much energy devoted to what you don’t believe in? So many different excuses are generally given: ‘religion is destructive!’… ahhh… so you do it because you are humanitarians! So glad you are all looking out for our greater good! Definitely proof that atheists truly are moral creatures.. – that’s sarcasm folks, obviously it isn’t out of your concern for mankind.

So many times the old ‘Spaghetti Monster’ is brought up… yet I don’t seem to see too many debates on it’s existence… only God’s. Why even call yourself an atheist? You’ve defined yourself by a negative… devote pages and pages of web content to a negative… In Hollywood terms.. your bad press would only give God more fame..

I at one point considered myself an atheist, although in light of the above statements.. agnostic is a better term, since ‘you can’t prove a negative’. As an agnostic I also was endlessly on the warpath vs. those foolish believers… so I am quite familiar with what fueled my debates — the fear of looking like a fool. I prided myself on my intellect, as does most likely anyone that considers it their strong suit. Part of that viewpoint meant that I didn’t want to be caught believing something which was bull… I embarrass easily when it comes to something like that.. I still do. Although I admit that there was a bigger problem for my belief.. or lack there of – it wasn’t JUST that I didn’t want to be the fool…. I also had the more serious issue of simply not believing it. You simply can’t believe what you don’t believe… no matter what… This is why Pascal’s wager is asinine in construction.. No matter how much you might like to believe something.. if you don’t.. you don’t. End of story.

I do believe now.. and it took a long chain of events to prove it to me.. and of course my subjective tale is useless on non-believers. It has to happen to you individually. But the real point here is.. now that I look at ‘skeptics’ posts.. and debates.. I find them to be like a sad cloud over hanging.. and as much as I’d like to debate the topic with them – It’s almost not worth the drudging through their toxic worldview… where the skeptics own pride and flawed reasoning is the pinnacle of existence. What skeptics view as damaging to the world, the so called ‘God Delusion’, is in my interpretation the precise opposite… what is damaging to the world in my view is their constant attempt to blot out others faith.. since it somehow seems to them to be an attack on their lack there of (how?)

With an open mind you will eventually find belief… without an open mind you won’t. Simple as that. I promise.

and with that skeptics.. I bid you goodbye.. it’s stifling in here – you are free to go back to arguing against what you don’t believe… for whatever reason one would do that.

1. RULES OF NATURE. “Rules presuppose order, repetition, and predictable relationships among things and events, among countless other things. I agree with you that there are rules; but in your worldview, there should be no rules. The very concept should be unintelligible — meaningless.”

Michael, you simply misunderstand the word being used. ‘Rules’ in the natural sense do not mean ‘playground rules’ that God made up for matter to obey. Rules are OBSERVED uniformity of behavior, revealed through empirical observation and testing -as you say, “relying on the past to prove what the future will be like.” Exactly. That’s exactly what natural rules are.

2. MORALITY. Pure and simple, morality is a human endeavor, with suffering and happiness as its metrics – these are the ‘universal standard’ which you seem so desperate to posit. What you and the Bible are more concerned with is better defined as righteousness, meaning ‘what God says.’ Well, in the OT, God and his Chosen say and do a lot of abhorrent, nasty, cruel, capricious, mean-spirited and definitively IMMORAL (but totally RIGHTEOUS) things. Lot’s own daughters seduce him and bear children, entire cultures are slaughtered, etc. Today we call that immoral. Morality is really the simplest of human problems, and it’s been demonstrated and observed that other primate and mammalian cultures exhibit basic ‘morality’ – they tend quite strongly to discourage theft, infidelity, and murder. And they mete out punishment accordingly, what we would call justice.

“God is just. He shall judge the alduterer, the liar, the murderer, not by imperfect human standards, but His perfectly holy standard. We all ought to tremble at that.”

Thank you for proving my point.

…

“But more fundamentally problematic for the evolutionist, the universe is a chance thing.”

This is not at all problematic. A better understanding of probability/time would serve you well.

“The God I serve lives and reigns, and He desires that all mankind should be saved.”

Man, for someone who rails against unfounded assertions, you sure can sling ‘em.

“All I have ever attempted to show is that if you reject the Christian worldview, you cannot make sense of anything.”

Believer, PLEASE. I think that it is you who do not like the answers. Hiding behind politeness cannot conceal the fact that, over the course of your discussion, you have progressed through and beyond semi-rational argument, only to fall back on proselytizing and faith claims.

“The gospel is not for the proud and self-righteous.”

Apparently, though, it is.

I’m not trying to dissuade anybody. While I think they are wrong, my motivation has nothing to do with getting the theist to change his or her mind. What am I interested in doing is challenging them to apply intellectual rigor to their system of thought, just as I would challenge you or myself. Just like the theist, the atheist/agnostic needs to be constantly applying validation mechanisms to their worldview, and by engaging in healthy debate we do this. There is nothing wrong with being forced to rethink one’s ideology, based on an argument presented by someone with whom you disagree. In the end, as I have said many times, the truth is the truth, wherever it comes from.

Having said that, wouldn’t’ you agree that anytime we ask for evidence or proof of the theist worldview, we are indeed trying to understand why they believe what they believe?

“(Realist)So, Michael, ty, why do you believe in a god who is not forgiving, but makes you beg for forgiveness; a god who creates an imperfect being, and then punishes the being for those imperfections; a god who knows not love or just, who would have you suffer for eternity for a so called crime that inflicts no harm (lust)?”

“(Realist)It’s kind of hard to swear my life to a god who’s less perfect than man and

You are stepping into the theist “trap”. I’m sure they would tell you that you err in your description of their God, and your lack of understanding is a reflection of your sinful nature and lack theological rigor. I’m guessing they would also tell you that you can’t presume to know the mind of God, and that any horrors that befall man or mankind are a result of free will and his (mankind’s) own choices and inherent sinful nature.

Though you clearly scoff at the idea of the Christian God, by presenting your argument in this way, you SEEM to give credence to the idea of SOME god (perhaps not the God of Christianity, but some deity) . It seems to me this is conceding a pretty important point. I doubt that was your intent, but of course I don’t know. The question for this debate is not why should we believe in some particular God…the real issue is why should we believe in ANY god?

I had not planned on remarking further after my previous remarks. I did want you to know that I appreciate your admonition that the exchange, if it would not be fruitless, must cultivate rigorous and rational dialogue while rejecting ad hominem.

You have spoken much about the need for evidence. I do not want you — or anyone here — to have the impression that the Christian’s approach to belief is fideistic, that he forsakes reason for a leap into darkness. To my mind, the Christian who holds that faith and reason are irreconcilable kings of separate domains holds a heresy.

What I have attempted to convey, inadequately perhaps, is that faith, it turns out, is the foundation of all sound reasoning. We exist. We take this for granted. Much as the naturalist would like the burden to be on the Christian to prove God exists, it lies just as heavily upon his shoulders to prove his worldview — that existence emerged from chance and is yet purposefully guided somehow by inanimate forces — is the correct one. I should also ask the naturalist how he would prove that he exists. Descartes cleverly proclaimed, “I think, therefore I am,” thinking the matter resolved. The problem, however, is that his premise started with “I,” betraying obvious question begging on his part.

So the philosopher is left with skepticism unless he embraces universals, a prioris, self-evident generalizations. Once he casts aside such universals, which permit categorization, predication, and the relating of facts to one another, he forfeits any claim to making sense of any fact in existence whatsoever. So we all accept that there are universals that help us to order and make sense of reality. The question must become: Which worldview can make universals intelligible, and hence lay claim to the ability to relate the facts to one another in an intelligible way, such that there is coherence in the human experience?

To do this, we must set the opposing worldviews beside each other and examine them upon their own foundations. We must examine their most foundational presuppositions and decide whether they can account for the things we take for granted in the human experience. My position has been that if I were to stand on the foundation of evolutionism and naturalism, I could not rationally interpret the human experience and all its incidents; I could not rationally account for universal invariants like laws of logic and all the rest.

But more fundamentally problematic for the evolutionist, the universe is a chance thing. Holding to this notion prevents even the acceptance of generally applicable universals, for all the facts in a chance universe must necessarily be brute facts (“Brute” here is a term of art, I suppose, and by it I mean simply that the facts cannot be related to each other in any rational way. They are pure particulars, existing in utter contingency). I have thus argued that systematic assessment and discovery (science) in such a universe lacks a rational foundation; it makes sense only if one assumes consistency, order, facts that are relatable, design . . .

Secondly, as I think I have implied, and think you would agree, it is crucial to understand that neutrality in the debate over conflicting worldviews is impossible; for the facts themselves are interpreted and evaluated by one’s worldview — by one’s theory of knowledge and metaphysic.

Thirdly, and I must stress, I have defended the Christian theistic worldview only. I reject all religions because they are ultimately arbitrary or inconsistent, or internally contradictory, their teachings and assertions reducing the human experience to absurdity. My defense has been of the God of the Bible. My defense has assumed that the Bible is authoritative on all matters to which it speaks, and that it speaks to all matters, implicitly if not explicitly.

Lastly, I do not categorically reject an evidential approach to Christian apologetics (giving an answer to the unbeliever for my hope, yet with gentleness and respect). Evidence testifies to what actually is the case. But as I want to stress, ultimately the evidence for or against a worldview is itself assessed and interpreted through the lens of one’s worldview. It is one’s most basic presuppositions that must be challenged if the evidence can ever be viewed as it should.

Tim, I respect you and your intellect, and consider that you might very well be more intelligent than I. When the Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart ‘There is no God’”, it is not at all saying the unbeliever is unintelligent; it is saying that he forsakes the right use of his reason and intelligence by denying His Creator, and is made a fool in his thinking.

Before I take my leave, I wanted to thank you again for carrying on the dialogue. I also wanted to show you some scientific facts from the Bible, with this understanding: In the Christian worldview, everything that is evidences the God of the Scripture; nothing can be accounted for apart from him. The very concept “fact” is unintelligible if God be denied.

These facts, by the way, come from various literature and are recited in a multitude of websites, but I would encourage you to go right to the Bible, the very word of God, and see for yourself (I will provide the place where the passage is found).

The Bible speaks of the earth’s free float in space (Job 26:7), which science did not discover until 1650.

The Bible says that the visible things are made of invisible things — which today we call atoms (Hebrews 11:3).

The Bible reveals that the earth is round (Isaiah 40:22).

Psalm 8:8 refers to the “paths of the seas.” Matthew Maury, the father of oceanography, considered the words of Scripture and went looking for these paths. He discovered warm and cold continental currents.

The Bible says that the earth is wearing out (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25, 26; and Hebrews 1:11). Today we refer to this condition as the Law of Increasing Entropy (The Second Law of Thermodynamics).

The Bible explains the hydrologic cycle, which science discovered two thousand years later (Ecclesiastes 1:7, 11:3; Amos 9:6).

The Bible speaks of God’s creation as “finished” — once and for all (Genesis 2:1). This is what the First Law of Thermodynamics says (The Law of Conservation of Energy).

The Bible describes a “cycle” of air currents two thousand years before scientists discovered them (Ecclesiastes 1:6).

The Bible says that there is “a weight for the wind” (Job 28:25). Not until the sixteenth century was it recognized that the air had weight.

The Bible speaks of the rotation of the earth (“[The earth] is turned as clay to the seal” — like a clay vessel being turned upon a potter’s wheel). – Job 38:12,14.

The Bible speaks of “the springs of the sea” (Job 38:16).

The Bible tells us that the colors can be parted from the white light (Job 38:24), which science discovered in 1650.

The Bible and the universal flood: About 85 % of the rock surface around the world is made up of sedimentary rock, indicating that at some time in the past, water covered the world.

There are many more evidences . . .

Tim, I hope that God will bless you as He has me, and that the considerable powers of your intellect will one day be used to glorify God.

May God Bless,

Michael

Very well-put and eloquent. I agree completely with what you said.

Ni’s comment is also deleted. It’s fine (and expected) to disagree strongly, but personal attacks aren’t wanted here.

Andy

Ni, by name calling, you are engaging in a personal attack against someone who doesn’t share your world view, which in my opinion, has no place in rational debate. Michael is anything but an idiot. He is clearly well read, and his arguments are for the most part well stated and thought provoking. If anyone who reads his posts does not feel compelled to evaluate the source of his/her belief system, then I would argue that person is either being intellectually dishonest, or hasn’t understood what he wrote. I disagree with Michael…vehmently, but I respect him. He has forced me to think through many of my positions and evaluate my own biases. For that I am grateful. He has clearly come to his conclusions through much study and reflection. Most theists I have known, have nothing close to his level of understanding, in terms of either WHAT they believe or why they believe it. Give credit where credit is due

By engaging in ad hominem attacks, we reduce the debate from one of intellectual discourse to a one consisting of close minded “corner sitting”. In this way we become no better than the very people we accuse of thoughtless adherence to a system of beliefs for which we find no compelling evidence in a system.

No.

The proselytizing comment was deleted. It is off topic and adds no value to this conversation.

I’ve been monitoring this conversation silently for quite some time, and have been thrilled with everyone’s willingness to debate. While I personally don’t agree with Michael, I’m happy he’s taking the time to post his thoughts here. However, the rules exist for a reason – to keep the conversations on track and on topic.

Andy

Saying your message is not directed at me, is a cop out. I have admitted to you that am I willing to change my ideology in the presence of evidence that dictates I do so. Are you suggesting that your message is just intended for those who aren’t willing to push back on contentions that may defy the evidence in their present worldview? Is your message only directed at those who refuse to question? How nice for you…you don’t have to worry about the souls of those who don’t easily give up their natural and (I would contend) HEALTHY skepticism.
My skepticism is directed at anything that demands I believe regardless of a lack of evidence, or worse, contrary to the evidence that is placed in front of me. It doesn’t matter whether it’s religious dogma or new age charlatanism, or bad science. The fact that I ask questions doesn’t make me dogmatic; it makes me curious.

“(michael)But allow me to say this: You are no more neutral than I. You assume that human autonomy in reasoning is the ultimate predicate for all knowledge. Tell me, how will you prove that? How do you not beg the question? If you had read my previous remarks carefully, you would know that I believe circularity is unavoidable when debating what is the truth about ultimate reality. The difference between us is this: You claim man is the measure of all things. I claim God to be the measure of all things.”

I make no such assumption or contention. I will grant your assertion that I am not neutral. I do not give equal weight to arguments demanding faith vs. arguments which present evidence. Guildy as charged.. We are born with a certain intellectual capacity, which may or may not be enough to understand the reality we find ourselves in. But based on the evidence, it’s all we have. Mankind may not be smart enough to ultimately understand the universe completely. But all we have to go on is what we can process with our senses, what we can test, and ultimately what we can conclude. I would argue that this approach has worked pretty well for moving us from savages sitting around camp fires to thoughtful, civilized men sitting around our computers debating the issues. We can make predictions, test them, adjust our theories, make more predictions, and so on. I will agree with you in this regard; some circularity is unavoidable in that there are some postulates that we assume are true, a priori. But I’m arguing from the standpoint of understanding the nature of the evidence presented to me, and you seem to be arguing from the standpoint of having direct knowledge with no falsifiable evidence. Which is a more reasonable position? I’m willing to change my worldview based on new data; you seem much less inclined to do so. Who is the more dogmatic?

“(michael)Is all knowledge derived through the senses, such that it can be experimentally validated? Did you learn through your senses that all knowledge is derived through the senses? If not, how did you learn this? Your suggestion that your knowledge is not faith-based is disingenuous. You obviously have faith that the laws of physics will be tomorrow what they are today.”

Oh please. You know as well as I do that there is a difference between having a measure of rationally and logicall driven confidence in the scientific method, and having an emotionally driven, hopeful belief in something you can neither see nor touch. Don’t talk to me about being disingenuous when you’re very argument defines the word. The fact that I have a degree of certainty that the sun will come up tomorrow (tomorrow), is based on observation and some level of insight into the laws of physics, If you want to call that “faith” , then so be it. I would argue that there are qualitative differences in faith that defies evidence, and faith that is supported by evidence.

I would contend that knowledge isn’t derived from the senses, but that this is where the raw data comes from. Sensory data comes in; I process it; I draw conclusions; I test those conclusions and measure the results with my senses; I adust my conclusions accordingly; sensory data comes in, and so on. Is there knowledge that comes to us without sensory input? Possibly, although that is a contention that more likely springs from a lack of knowledge of how the brain works than anything. So?

“(michael)I have freely admitted that I presuppose the God of the Bible. The Bible says that if you deny God’s existence, you are made a fool. You claim that I beg the question. I do. But what you repeatedly neglect to grapple with is that my worldview — the Christian theistic worldview — can make sense of reality, while yours cannot.”

First of all, I have no problem “grappling” with the fact that your worldview can make sense of reality. I’m well aware of that fact. I even understand how it would. The idea of a caring and loving God, who watches over our every move and guides our path through life, who will forgive our every transgression, and who will welcome us with open arms forever and ever…well that’s pretty potent stuff to thoughtful beings who have a difficult time wrestling with their own mortality and who are tryng to make sense of man’s inhumanity to man. However, the fact that your worldview offers an explanation for reality, doesn’t make it correct. And without evidence, I’m unwilling to concede that it is. If by “making sense of reality” you mean explain reality, then I would strongly disagree with your contention that my worldview is not capable of meeting this challenge.

“(michael)Do you know whether the universe is finite or infinite? If it is finite, do you know how it began? If it is purely material in character, can you explain invariant, immaterial laws?”

No, of course I don’t. So what?…the fact that I can’t explain something means you are correct in your worldview? If you had asked the question if I could come up with a theory that is internally consistent and is untestable (i.e., it requires faith to believe in), then I would answer yes. But that wouldn’t make ME right, either. Bottom line is there ARE theories that have made this attempt and we are figuring out how to test them; they may be wrong. But the fact that I can come up with explanations, requiring no God and which are internally consistent compel me to ask the question “why should I believe one theory, without evidence, and not the other?

“(michael)They do have answers. You just don’t like them. Your bias dictates your rejection of the Christian theistic explanations. Otherwise, how can you say that the questions I have posed do not have answers? Do you know everything?”

Well ACTUALLY, I was talking about questions relating to explaining reality without a Christian god, which, if I understood correctly, YOU were contending didn’t have answers in the absence of said creator. I was simply conceding that RIGHT NOW, there are questions that we don’t have answers to, but which you assert Christian theology DOES have. I don’t have a particular bias against Christian theology; I have a bias against lack of evidence or proof. Secondly, you are assuming a response that is inaccurate. I neither like nor dislike the answers. The truth is the truth. And clearly if I have already conceded that there are questions for which we don’t have answers, I have admitted that we (and certainly I) don’t know everything. Sarcasm doesn’t become you.

“(michael)How did we test the validity of the scientific method for answering questions?”

We observe, we process, we theorize, we test, we revise. It’s just what people do as a natural part of their mental processing (some more than others). The scientific method simply put a more formalized process around this. Maybe there is a better process; I have no way of knowing, but I think we can both agree that over time the body of human knowledge ha grown, and that in large measure this is due to the process I just described.

“(michael)Tim, this is a statement of faith. You do not know what tomorrow will be like, and that fact alone ought to give you serious pause. Unless, of course, you assume the uniformity of nature, an assumption which your worldview defies. Your confidence therefore rests upon another worldview: the Biblical worldview that the sovereign God controls all things. Were this not assumed, science would be a futile undertaking. Men like Newton and Copernicus knew this. Hence they were able to apply science to the universe to discover its laws of operation. In your worldview, there is only chance. Mere probability does not comport with a chance universe, much less near certainty.”

Wow…that’s quite a leap. So the fact that I admit that I don’t know everything, that we don’t live in a completely deterministic universe, but which HAS obeyed the same physical laws out to our ability to test (which, by the way goes down below the level of the atom, and back billions of years), should compel me to embrace your argument, which offers no where near as much evidence as to it’s validity? And I should do this because…..??? Michael…I”ve never said you were wrong; I’ve just said “prove it” with REAL and compelling evidence.

“(michael)I would urge you to read what David Hume concluded about reality, induction, and the uniformity of nature. We assume uniformity and so unconsciously live our lives accordingly. Tim, I am asking you to think more consciously about your assumptions. From the unbeliever’s standpoint, all is ultimately uncertain; science, though it be done, makes no sense unless the Christian worldview be assumed. So you assume what you “must” — order, purpose, predictability, morality — from the Christian worldview, rejecting what you do not like — sin, righteousness, judgment, Hell, the just God of wrath. Your worldview is thus arbitrary.”

I haven’t read Hume, so can’t comment on either his conclusions or yours until I have a chance to gain an understanding of where you are coming from on this one.

“(michael)Then do not condemn the rapist or the murderer. Do not condemn Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot.
Were a criminal to hurt you or a loved one, would you not demand justice? What if the crime was carried out against your loved one in a country that merely fined rapists and murderers. If your loved one was raped or murdered, and the perpetrator was fined for it — say, a thousand dollars — then let go with the blessings of his society, what would you think of that country’s justice system? Of their moral code? Are some codes better than others? Do some mete out justice better than others? How can you answer “yes” without necessarily appealing to a universal standard by which all systems are judged

If natural selection and evolution create moral behavior, how can we punish anyone? Can evolution and natural selection instill free will in their creatures? This is a laughable dilemma for the evolutionist, who cannot have it both ways. Do not speak to the Christian about purposeful, or non-random evolution.”

The fact that morality, ethics, etc, don’t derive from a supreme being does not make them any less important to humans or the human condition. And the fact that we consider these things wrong, heinous, immoral, etc given that we have been raised in a cultural environment where that is so, doesn’t mean they are universal absolutes. It just means that over the course of time these “immoral” behaviors have not benefited the propagation of the species and have ultimately been codified in our standards of good behavior. Don’t get me wrong, I abhor these behaviors as much as you, and I would guess that you would be astounded at my level of conservatism given my postings. But the fact remains that you can offer no proof of the universality of moral absolutes, and arguing from an appeal to consequence is logically flawed. Just because we don’t like the answer, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Yes I would be outraged if the situation as you describe it existed. But that is completely beside the point.
In hindsight, of COURSE they would seem to be universal; but couldn’t it be because we’ve been conditioned to feel that way? The fact that I can’t imagine a society or a civilization where these would not be considered absolutes, does not mean that such a society could not exist, given different environmental, psychological, or sociological pressures.

(michael)As I have repeatedly argued, such questions presuppose the theistic Christian God. Your question is intelligible only within a Christian worldview. Again, I do not expect the Bible to make sense to you. No argument will persuade you because the facts themselves are interpreted in terms of presuppositions. All I have ever attempted to show is that if you reject the Christian worldview, you cannot make sense of anything. Were you to stand on my worldview, the questions you assume have not been answered would have answers after all. You do not like the answers, I am afraid, and that’s really what all unbelief comes down to.”

You evade my question. I have no difficulty making sense of the world, and it doesn’t require god for me to do so. Having said that, I will adjust my worldview according to wherever the evidence leads me. Would you do the same?