Comments on: The Epistemological Bottleneck And God’s Respect for Human Inquiry

By: Anthony

Anthony — Sat, 15 May 2010 03:56:36 +0000

I believe my faith statement addresses your question. http://sntjohnny.com/front/faith-statement

By: Diane Vera

Diane Vera — Sat, 15 May 2010 03:03:04 +0000

You wrote:

\Christians, I am afraid, undermine this line of reasoning by constantly presenting the Bible as inerrant and inspired to unbelievers.\

Do you or do you not regard the Bible as \inerrant\? You suggest that its unwise to make the claim of inerrancy to \unbelievers,\ but do you nevertheless believe that claim yourself?

In your post above, you have not countered the arguments against the Bible’s alleged INERRANCY. Here you have presented arguments only for the idea that the Bible is better, as a historical record, than the Koran or the Book of Mormon. But most Christians regard the Bible as more than just a \messy\ historical record. Do you?

By: Anthony

Anthony — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:54:07 +0000

that’s really funny, given how rude, crude, and downright mean that ‘opponent’ is. We’re talking about Richard Dawkins, right? Right?

No offense, bob, but if you find the word ‘chump’ offensive and over the top, then you should probably just stay off the net. I’m just saying.

By: bob

bob — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 05:40:03 +0000

You lost the ‘logical’ debate when you called your opponent a Chump.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:50:27 +0000

I am, and always will be, one who likes to stir pots.

By: Tim

Tim — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 19:07:42 +0000

Boy you sure know how to stir the pot.
The main problem with Dawkins and others that hold views like his, is that they view all religious faiths as just variations on a theme. Probably influenced by cultural nuances and the state of technology at the time. Because they haven’t experienced the life changing power of the gospel of Jesus.
If we are triune in our nature; spirit, soul & body, then they are functionong with a 30% dead weight around their neck. Take a V6 and unplug 2 of the spark plugs. You have far more than just a 1/3 reduction in performance. In fact if it is driven very long in that state it will literally destroy itself. The same holds true on the spiritual plane. Don’t expect Dawkins or others to respond to the logic, they know they can’t win on the science. Crick knew that, that’s what his ‘directed panspermia’ hypothesis was all about. He didn’t “want” to deal with the ramifications, so he pushed it billions of light years away…..only in his mind.
A distinction in terms needs to be made also. They claim that ‘science says’ or ‘speaks’. In actuality it is scientists that speak, science can only give inferrences to the best possibly explaination (see Dempsky’s Design Inferrence).
Great insights, keep it up.
Tim