Conclusive evidence for Design!

[ReapReason]

A want is having a desire to do something…or to possess something…or used contextually - a deficiency in something - as in a car is in want of repair.

Why would a super perfect entity ever need or desire to do or possess something? Why?

If I walk into a field on a sunny day, sit down and discover that I am in a perfect state (if even for the time being) I don’t long for anything. I don’t sit there and think…Oh this is perfect - so now I need to add something else to this perfection - maybe a coca cola… That is the whole point of the perfect state - there is no want/'desire or need for anything more. Nothing can be added or taken away…to suggest otherwise introduces some sort of arbitrary notion…

Your idea of perfection is arbitrary and ignores context. Perfect in what sense? What is the thing that you call perfect?

It is true that perfection has no pragmatic need of anything. It has no wants. However, perfection nevertheless has an act. There is that which perfection is or does according to its nature depending on the context in which you use the word. There is that by which you know something to be perfect. Otherwise the word is meaningless.

Perfection naturally expresses its perfection, like a perfect triangle naturally expresses the fact that it is a perfect triangle. In the context of God; God’s nature is a perfect act of love. Love by its very nature shares, Love is creative. Thats what a perfect act of Love does. God is a perfect act of existence, and in that context this is expressed in the sense that God cannot cease to exist. In that respect, there is no need for words such as want or desire, at least not in the way you use them in your post.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Don’t worry. It won’t last. If you don’t get the plug pulled, people will just ignore you anyway. I will be.

But then again, maybe if you dialled it back a little and talked to people like you were discussing something over a beer at a BBQ you might end up having some interesting discussions. Carry on like a pork chop (as we say down here), and you’d more than likely get a smack in the mouth.

Well said, sir.

Your idea of perfection is arbitrary and ignores context. Perfect in what sense? What is the thing that you call perfect?

It is true that perfection has no pragmatic need of anything. It has no wants. However, perfection nevertheless has an act. There is that which perfection is or does according to its nature depending on the context in which you use the word. There is that by which you know something to be perfect. Otherwise the word is meaningless.

Perfection naturally expresses its perfection, like a perfect triangle naturally expresses the fact that it is a perfect triangle. In the context of God; God’s nature is a perfect act of love. Love by its very nature shares, Love is creative. Thats what a perfect act of Love does. In that respect, there is no need for words such as want or desire, at least not in the way you use them in your post.

But, of course, this is just “flowery prose,” you know. Nevermind the heaps of purely logical reasoning that undergird theistic philosophy. The Summa is about as intellectually engaging as a dime store romance novel, in the eyes of your interlocutor.

p.s. I find it hard to believe that anyone who’s actually read the Summa would call it “flowery prose.” It is one of the driest, most clinical works of philosophy or theology I’ve ever read–far from ornate–and I’m pretty sure most would agree with me on that.

 

[ManRay]

Your idea of perfection is arbitrary and ignores context. Perfect in what sense? What is the thing that you call perfect?

Exactly my point.

It is true that perfection has no pragmatic need of anything. It has no wants. However, perfection nevertheless has an act. There is that which perfection is or does according to its nature depending on the context in which you use the word. There is that by which you know something to be perfect. Otherwise the word is meaningless.

I agree - the word is meaningless - I don’t claim that there is anything perfect - I’m using the dictionary definition. You claim that god is perfect.

Perfection naturally expresses its perfection, like a perfect triangle naturally expresses the fact that it is a perfect triangle.

A Triangle is a quantifiable entity that exists in time and space. It can be logically demonstrated.

In the context of God

What context of god? False assumptions, magic language, and mystical reality? Where is this god?

God’s nature is a perfect act of love.

You can’t demonstrate god incontrovertibly - but you know it’s nature. Absurd.

Love by its very nature shares, Love is creative.

Contextual false assumption. I happen to love trees.

That’s what a perfect act of Love does.

False assumption

God is a perfect act of existence, and in that context this is expressed in the sense that God cannot cease to exist.

Baseless assumption. You have no idea of any of this. Magic Knowledge.

In that respect, there is no need for words such as want or desire, at least not in the way you use them in your post.

All the premises were false, and unprovable - borne of magic knowledge…so this conclusion is nonsense also.

It’s funny how personal, and hypersensitive you guys are - even after a I apologized- I make a comment about potato chips, and flowery prose, and a catholic can call me an idiot among other things, and that makes perfect sense! That’s good old fashioned catholic reasoning. Exactly what I would expect. Thanx for remaining at least historically consistent. I almost felt bad for a second…It’s clear I didn’t need to. You guys won’t let me down.

 

[prodigalson2011]

It’s funny how personal, and hypersensitive you guys are - even after a I apologized- I make a comment about potato chips, and flowery prose, and a catholic can call me an idiot among other things, and that makes perfect sense! That’s good old fashioned catholic reasoning. Exactly what I would expect. Thanx for remaining at least historically consistent. I almost felt bad for a second…It’s clear I didn’t need to. You guys won’t let me down.

Who called you an idiot?

And no one’s being hypersensitive; it’s just that it’s pointless to talk to someone if their side of the conversation degrades into nothing but insults.

And by the way, it’s not just Catholics. Bradski’s an atheist, if you didn’t notice. Catholics aren’t the only people who appreciate a civil discussion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A want is having a desire to do something…or to possess something…or used contextually - a deficiency in something - as in a car is in want of repair.

Why would a super perfect entity ever need or desire to do or possess something? Why?

What about choice or intention and the creative power to do so? Do you only act from need or want and never from sheer abundance unconstrained to give, share or love?

If I walk into a field on a sunny day, sit down and discover that I am in a perfect state (if even for the time being) I don’t long for anything. I don’t sit there and think…Oh this is perfect - so now I need to add something else to this perfection - maybe a coca cola… That is the whole point of the perfect state - there is no want/'desire or need for anything more. Nothing can be added or taken away…to suggest otherwise introduces some sort of arbitrary notion…

How about someone to share it with? It may not be a need or want on your part but an extension of yourself beyond you. If God is Love, then he is necessarily not self-limiting, but extensible by nature.

 

[JDaniel]

Congratulations on remaining composed, articulate and dignified with all your responses to the Man[nerless]Ray yanking your chain!

Peter:

Thank you. You have delivered a compliment that is very apropos. At this point, I felt the same impulse.

The young man, or woman, has a problem - besides being “manner-less.” S/he is reminiscent of a terribly awful comedian, one that relies on loudness in place of intelligent wit, wryness, a little dryness and instead delivers all of his/her punchlines at 40 more decibels - as if LOUDNESS is what makes a juxtaposition of words funny.

You have to hand it to him/her though. S/he’s cautious enough to not be exceedingly offensive. I’m sill amazed that s/he has been left alone. On this forum, the Catholic must not behave that inhospitably or disrespectfully. And that is as it should be. (I think many non-theists are aware of this restriction on us, and come here to test him/her-self. It’s not Truth s/he’s after, it’s the Win.)

Ultimately, the strong-atheist underlying mantra is: I can’t possibly know, therefore you can’t possibly know. (But, we do know.)

Regardless of his/her sub-adult discourtesies, s/he deserves our prayers. Lots of them. At 1:45 PM EST.

God bless,
jd

 

[ManRay]

Who called you an idiot?

And no one’s being hypersensitive; it’s just that it’s pointless to talk to someone if their side of the conversation degrades into nothing but insults.

And by the way, it’s not just Catholics. Bradski’s an atheist, if you didn’t notice. Catholics aren’t the only people who appreciate a civil discussion.

Bradski could very well be an uncle tom. I’m not sure yet. I take everything as a whole in regards to our discussion. There have been many displays of ill manners towards me, but I’m not basing the validity of my argument on them…I let them roll of my back you see. I know I’m right…You know you’re right…the only difference is that my assertions are based in our world. Time, Space, and logic. You guys have knowledge of things that exist outside of knowledge. You guys have magical knowledge…mystical powers. I can make the most cogent and and solid point, and you’ll just reach into your grab bag of magical knowledge…and basically state. Nuh uh. It’s really hard not to make fun of it.

 

[ManRay]

How about someone to share it with? It may not be a need or want on your part but an extension of yourself beyond you. If God is Love, then he is necessarily not self-limiting, but extensible by nature.

If I’m in a perfect state…I couldn’t be shared. I couldn’t do anything to make it MORE PERFECT…that would imply that the a prior state wasn’t perfect if something could compliment it.

The statement

It may not be a need or want on your part but an extension of yourself beyond you.

is basically making the argument of the arbitrary.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Bradski could very well be an uncle tom. I’m not sure yet.

Please.

I take everything as a whole in regards to our discussion. There have been many displays of ill manners towards me, but I’m not basing the validity of my argument on them…I let them roll of my back you see.

Maybe so, but the closest thing you can find to being ill mannered on my part was me telling you that I thought you needed to do a little more studying in the area of cosmology before continuing our discussion. Nowhere have I compared your intelligence to a bag of potato chips or a block of wood. Mind you, it doesn’t hurt my feelings, but it’s a poor substitute for a real conversation and it just makes people want to ignore you, as Bradski noted.

I know I’m right…You know you’re right…the only difference is that my assertions are based in our world. Time, Space, and logic. You guys have knowledge of things that exist outside of knowledge. You guys have magical knowledge…mystical powers. I can make the most cogent and and solid point, and you’ll just reach into your grab bag of magical knowledge…and basically state. Nuh uh. It’s really hard not to make fun of it.

Again with the ad hominems. We don’t have “magical knowledge” or “mystical powers”; we make logical arguments based on the available evidence. It’s called deductive reasoning. Physicists, and other scientists, do it all the time. It’s where hypotheses like the Higgs Boson come from. No one ever saw a Higgs Boson–it was not a known object in our universe–but something fitting its description was the best explanation for the quantum activity that physicists were observing. Is a deductive argument absolute, incontrovertible empirical proof? No. And it doesn’t claim to be. It merely attempts to establish its conclusion as the best explanation of its subject.

And you must hold yourself in higher esteem than the most respected atheistic philosophers of our time, because they take philosophers like William Lane Craig very seriously. I’ve not heard one of them accuse him of hocus pocus.

Also, I have duly noted that while I, and others I’m sure, have responded to each of your points in turn, you have carefully selected bits and pieces of my arguments against which I suppose you thought you had a knock down counterpoint, while completely ignoring the majority of my refutations and corrections.

You have consistently demonstrated a glaring lack of familiarity with theistic thought while claiming the contrary. If you’re not here to engage in honest conversation, then why ARE you here? To boost your ego? To try (failingly) to make others feel stupid so you can feel smarter?

 

[Peter_Plato]

If I’m in a perfect state…I couldn’t be shared. I couldn’t do anything to make it MORE PERFECT…that would imply that the a prior state wasn’t perfect if something could compliment it.

The statement is basically making the argument of the arbitrary.

That assumes perfection is intrinsically a limited, static and not extensible state and therefore a limitation upon itself, which is logically incoherent

 

[prodigalson2011]

If I’m in a perfect state…I couldn’t be shared. I couldn’t do anything to make it MORE PERFECT…that would imply that the a prior state wasn’t perfect if something could compliment it.

Another prime example of your complete misunderstanding of theistic philosophy. Creation does not make God more perfect, nor does it “complement” him. It is not a fashion accessory.

In fact, in the theistic understanding, this is why creation isn’t perfect, because if it were perfect there would be no distinction between it and God. For anything to be separate from God, it must be, to greater or lesser degrees, imperfect.

This combined with your previous statement comparing the love of God to your love for trees makes me seriously doubt how much of any serious Christian theology you’ve read. Your love for trees would fall, at best and if even, in the category of “storge” (affection), which is love in its lowest form (though honestly, saying you “love” trees is really probably a misnomer–a hyperbolic expression of your aesthetic attachment to them.) The love of God is “agape” (unconditional or perfect love; total charity). It is not based on affections, passions, needs, wants, emotional reciprocation or anything of the like. It is a creative will that gives freely of itself because that is its nature. Consider it a conscious, willful version of whatever creative principle or force you might posit or imagine the universe to spring from.

 

[ManRay]

Please.
]Maybe so, but the closest thing you can find to being ill mannered on my part was me telling you that I thought you needed to do a little more studying in the area of cosmology before continuing our discussion. Nowhere have I compared your intelligence to a bag of potato chips or a block of wood. Mind you, it doesn’t hurt my feelings, but it’s a poor substitute for a real conversation and it just makes people want to ignore you, as Bradski noted.

Telling me that I should read more on cosmology is tantamount to me telling you that you need to read more about the bible…But a catholic is never offensive. Never wrong.

Again with the ad hominems. We don’t have “magical knowledge” or “mystical powers”; we make logical arguments based on the available evidence. It’s called deductive reasoning. Physicists, and other scientists, do it all the time. It’s where hypotheses like the Higgs Boson come from. No one ever saw a Higgs Boson–it was not a known object in our universe–but something fitting its description was the best explanation for the quantum activity that physicists were observing. Is a deductive argument absolute, incontrovertible empirical proof? No. And it doesn’t claim to be. It merely attempts to establish its conclusion as the best explanation of its subject.

Again with the misuse of ad hominem. First -It’s not an ad hominem if it’s true. And Second the higgs boson particle is a hypothetical/theoretical prediction based upon what has been “demonstrated” in the here, and now. Time, Space, And logic. Where is this god at—oh yea…I forgot. God exists outside of time, and space. …Right…magical knowledge.

And you must hold yourself in higher esteem than the most respected atheistic philosophers of our time, because they take philosophers like William Lane Craig very seriously. I’ve not heard one of them accuse him of hocus pocus.

Of course not because you never, ever seem to know what you are talking about. This is evidence that you are wrong…but you’ll never admit to it. Now you’ll argue why Richard Dawkins isn’t respected.

-Dawkins
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him. Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”.

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig?INTCMP=SRCH

Also, I have duly noted that while I, and others I’m sure, have responded to each of your points in turn, you have carefully selected bits and pieces of my arguments against which I suppose you thought you had a knock down counterpoint, while completely ignoring the majority of my refutations and corrections.

Simply untrue.

You have consistently demonstrated a glaring lack of familiarity with theistic thought while claiming the contrary. If you’re not here to engage in honest conversation, then why ARE you here? To boost your ego? To try (failingly) to make others feel stupid so you can feel smarter?

Simply untrue. All the catholic does is wave their hand and resort to magical knowledge. You’re a super hero. You have super powers.

 

[ManRay]

Another prime example of your complete misunderstanding of theistic philosophy. Creation does not make God more perfect, nor does it “complement” him. It is not a fashion accessory.

Exactly my point. You don’t get it though.

In fact, in the theistic understanding, this is why creation isn’t perfect, because if it were perfect there would be no distinction between it and God. For anything to be separate from God, it must be, to greater or lesser degrees, imperfect.

There is nothing perfect…hence there is no god. I’ve said this 42 million times on here, and you’ll never understand it because it is apparently beyond you. We exist in the domain of time and space. If there is a change in the universe or God between state 0, and 1, then neither state, due to the existence of an alternative, is perfect. Then by induction, there is no perfect state that the universe or God can ever achieve. Time is change so, a thing that never changes can’t exist but a thing that does change can’t be perfect. Your only defense is that god exists outside of time and space…this is magical knowledge - you may think you know what that means…but you don’t.

This combined with your previous statement comparing the love of God to your love for trees makes me seriously doubt how much of any serious Christian theology you’ve read. Your love for trees would fall, at best and if even, in the category of “storge” (affection), which is love in its lowest form (though honestly, saying you “love” trees is really probably a misnomer–a hyperbolic expression of your aesthetic attachment to them.) The love of God is “agape” (unconditional or perfect love; total charity). It is not based on affections, passions, needs, wants, emotional reciprocation or anything of the like. It is a creative will that gives freely of itself because that is its nature. Consider it a conscious, willful version of whatever creative principle or force you might posit or imagine the universe to spring from.

You can go, on, on all day about this made up bunk, about your knowledge of love, and the different types of love, and gods love - but it’s completely made up. You don’t know anything about this god thing. It’s magical knowledge. Why would I use some christian jive talk to defend my argument…spare me.

 

[You]

…

There is nothing perfect…hence there is no god…We exist in the domain of time and space. If there is a change in the universe or God between state 0, and 1, then neither state, due to the existence of an alternative, is perfect. Then by induction, there is no perfect state that the universe or God can ever achieve. Time is change so, a thing that never changes can’t exist but a thing that does change can’t be perfect. Your only defense is that god exists outside of time and space…this is magical knowledge - you may think you know what that means…but you don’t.

…

And yet we are here. This is a fact we all have to deal with. Where did we come from.

As we must have come from somewhere and not from nothing…

 

[Peter_Plato]

And yet we are here. This is a fact we all have to deal with. Where did we come from.

As we must have come from somewhere and not from nothing…

You are (is) correct. You have (has) made answering to you (You) a very challenging enterprise by taking You as a member name. Welcome to you, You! :tiphat:

In a perfect world would you be You?

 

[You]

You are (is) correct. You have (has) made answering to you (You) a very challenging enterprise by taking You as a member name. Welcome to you, You! :tiphat:

In a perfect world would you be You?

Greetings!

Its all part of the plan, I am You, You is me…

Would I still be You? In a perfect world? Yes, I imagine so…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Exactly my point. You don’t get it though.

There is nothing perfect…hence there is no god. I’ve said this 42 million times on here, and you’ll never understand it because it is apparently beyond you. We exist in the domain of time and space. If there is a change in the universe or God between state 0, and 1, then neither state, due to the existence of an alternative, is perfect. Then by induction, there is no perfect state that the universe or God can ever achieve. Time is change so, a thing that never changes can’t exist but a thing that does change can’t be perfect. Your only defense is that god exists outside of time and space…this is magical knowledge - you may think you know what that means…but you don’t.

Let me get this straight

1. Nothing exists outside of time
2. Time and the universe itself began at the Big Bang.
3. Nothing exists “outside” of the consequences of the Big Bang.
   Therefore, nothing brought time and the universe into existence.

So everything came from nothing and you (not You, however) want us to believe that “magic” (creation from nothing) is not an intrinsic aspect of the universe. It seems to me that the “magical” nature of knowledge cannot be denied by you (though it isn’t denied by You, however.) Right, You?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your only defense is that god exists outside of time and space…this is magical knowledge - you may think you know what that means…but you don’t.

This is an interesting point. So you (but not You) know the nature of this “magical” knowledge in order to say that we don’t “know” what this knowledge is. You (intended lower case, but could not at the beginning of a sentence, but not You {sorry, You}) claim to know what others don’t know. How would you (again, not You) “know” what it is that others don’t know without some non-natural (i.e., magical) means?

PS. Sorry You. I told you (You) that this You name would become a messy business.

Sigh, I am so glad that you (You) are (is) here, however. Would not have it any other way. It’s perfect! Or is it?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Telling me that I should read more on cosmology is tantamount to me telling you that you need to read more about the bible…But a catholic is never offensive. Never wrong.

Let’s review the facts: I put forth a defense of design based on the universal constants. You then asked me what those constants were. Those constants are elementary to modern cosmology. If you don’t even know what they are, then yes, you should read more about cosmology.

Similarly, if you put forth an argument against the historicity of the Bible based on discrepancies in the gospels and I responded, “What gospels?”, you would be completely justified in telling me that I need to read more about the Bible.

I have never said that no Catholic is ever offensive. I said that I have not deliberately been offensive or disrespectful to you. Nor have I said that I nor any other Catholic is never wrong. I’ve had numerous disagreements with my fellow Catholics and, more than once, have found myself on the losing side of the argument.

Again with the misuse of ad hominem. First -It’s not an ad hominem if it’s true.

It is not true that we think we have “magical knowledge” or “mystical powers.”

And Second the higgs boson particle is a hypothetical/theoretical prediction based upon what has been “demonstrated” in the here, and now. Time, Space, And logic. Where is this god at—oh yea…I forgot. God exists outside of time, and space. …Right…magical knowledge.

The design hypothesis is a theoretical prediction based upon what has been demonstrated in the here and now–time, space and logic. The fact that the hypothesis predicts something beyond the immediate realm of its premises does not render it logically invalid.

Of course not because you never, ever seem to know what you are talking about. This is evidence that you are wrong…but you’ll never admit to it. Now you’ll argue why Richard Dawkins isn’t respected.

Actually, I don’t have to argue it. I’ll let his fellow atheists do it for me:

“The God Delusion makes me embarrassed to be an atheist… …Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion would fail any introductory philosophy or religion course. Proudly, he criticizes that whereof he knows nothing.” - Michael Ruse, atheist and philosopher of science

“The absence of a debate with the foremost apologist for Christian theism is a glaring omission on your CV and is of course apt to be interpreted as cowardice on your part.… …I notice that, by contrast, you are happy to discuss theological matters with television and radio presenters and other intellectual heavyweights like Pastor Ted Haggard … and Pastor Keenan Roberts.” - Dr. Daniel Came, philosopher and atheist, in an article entitled: “Richard Dawkins’ refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist: Using [Craig]'s remarks as an excuse not to engage in reasoned debate is typical of New Atheist polemic”

"While I have your [Dawkins’] attention, may I also urge you to take another look at the ontological argument for the existence of God? On the basis of your brief discussion of the argument in the God Delusion, it appears you do not understand the logic of this argument.… Douglas Gasking’s parody of the argument, which you cite, moves from a logical impossibility to actuality and so is not parallel to the argument… …In addition, you do not discuss the more sophisticated modal version of the argument advanced by … Alvin Plantinga. Admittedly, you do say that some philosophers ‘resort to modal logic’ in an attempt to prove the existence of God. But this is a bit like saying, ‘some botanists resort to looking at plants,’ and so so can hardly be said to constitute an objection to the argument." - Daniel Came

 

[prodigalson2011]

-Dawkins
Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig
This Christian ‘philosopher’ is an apologist for genocide. I would rather leave an empty chair than share a platform with him. Don’t feel embarrassed if you’ve never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a “theologian”.

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig?INTCMP=SRCH

We’ve all heard his lame excuses and flip-flopping attempts at damage control, but they are nothing more than that: lies and excuses. The fact is he already DID share a platform with him, when he had safety in numbers. But he knows that, one on one, Craig would dismantle him. Not to mention, such feigned moral indignation is even less believable coming from one who claims that there is no such thing as evil.

Anyway, atheists much more philosophically competent than Dawkins (who is a biologist, and not a philosopher) exhibit a great deal of respect for Craig, which leads me to Dawkins’ statement that Craig only “parades himself as a philsopher” and that noone takes him seriously. As it so happens, his more philosophically astute atheist contemporaries have already refuted that claim:

“Professor Craig has a PhD in philosophy and PhD in theology. He is Research Professor in Philsophy at Talbot University. He has published more than thirty books and over a hundred papers in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Given your passionate and unconditional commitment to truth, I can only think that you {Dawkins] were not aware of Professor Craig’s credentials when you made the above reference.” - Daniel Came

“…I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in*** the unbelieving community take him very seriously. *** He’s thought of as … very rigorous, very scholarly, very formidable. And I would say that without reserve… Normally, I don’t get people saying, “Good luck tonight,” and, “Don’t let us down,” you know. But with him, I do.” - Christopher Hitchens

“William Lane Craig is one of the leading philosophers of religion and one of the leading philosophers of time. In this book [Time and Eternity], he combines his expertise in these areas to produce an original, erudite and accessible theory of time and God…” - Quentin Smith, atheist philosopher

“I’m genuinely honored to be sharing the stage with Professor Craig this evening…” - Stephen Law, atheist philosopher

“Craig has done a great work, and it is marvelous that now the philosophy of religion is engaging with the philosophy of science to the great benefit of both.” - John Lucas, philosopher, Oxford Fellow, Fellow of the British Academy and former President of the British Society for the Philosophy of Science

“…it was clear even then that Bill [Craig]'s book was a new landmark in the discussion of the cosmological argument.” - Peter MacMillan, atheist philosopher

Simply untrue.

If I had even less of a life than I already do, I would go back and find every argument of mine that you’ve failed to address.

Simply untrue. All the catholic does is wave their hand and resort to magical knowledge. You’re a super hero. You have super powers.

No, we have arguments. You refuse to engage them in depth. Whenever we attempt to move beyond your superficial (mis)interpretation of them, you start to make smarmy sarcastic remarks like, “You’re a super hero. You have super powers.” The same kind of intellectual dishonesty exhibited by your hero, Dawkins.