Why Bertrand Russel is not a Christian

[jeffreedy789]

hecd posted: ‘Yours is the worst kind of intellectual gew-gaw’ and ‘mainly because substance is singularly lacking in all responses so far’ and ‘Apologia, do you need help or further explanation to understand why your argument is logically void?’

i’d remind you, hecd, that even if you don’t ascribe to the theology of the catholic church, you do need to play by the rules of the board - which asks for kindness and charity in the way we post.

belittling or demeaning your opponents or their intelligence is one of the lowest forms of argument. please remain respectful and charitable as we hash out our discussion on russell, however his name is spelled.

 

[hecd2]

Origen:

I just want to be sure I understand your request. You want me to analyze in detail Lord Russell’s specific errors about St. Thomas Aquinas’ proofs in the confines of a message board?

I want you to post a bare minimum of substantial arguments in support of your position. I do it - why can’t you? Otherwise all you say is of no value or consequence - it is your personal unsupported opinion.

I said Russell’s argument was unsatisfactory, which is an appropriate comment on a message board,

Only if that message board is willing to accept the argument from authority. I am not. I disagree with your conclusion and I challenge you to support it with arguments of substance.

The fact that one can define a data generating mechanism that one can imagine projecting toward “infinity” tells you nothing about the physical world. That Zeno could conceive of increasingly small units does not refute the fact that indivisible quantum units exist. Similarly, that Lord Russell can conceive of an infinite chain of causes does not refute the existence of a first cause.

The existence of indivisible quantum units is based on empirical observation (and in particular on very fundamental observations such as the observations that explain why the hydrogen catastrophe does not occur - do you know what that is?). What exactly are the empirical observations that support the existence of a first cause? Is there a logical argument that excludes the possibility of no first cause? The logical proof of the possibility of an infinite chain does not prove the existence of an infinite chain but it proves it is logically possible. Do you have logical proof that a finite first cause exists?

By the way, I’ve analyzed Wittgenstein’s private language argument in the original German, my friend, so I know a thing or two about the mysterious later philosophy you teased us about. Of course, by the time Wittgenstein was talking about the private language argument, Russell no longer understood what W was talking about and said so publicly.

Argument from authority. Good for you. Do you subscribe to Wittgenstein’s early or late work or both or neither? Perhaps you can support your opinion with logical argument or perhaps not. Let’s see, my friend.

If I say Wittgenstein was known to be a serious Catholic, you can’t demand that I write a thesis on the topic because that’s not appropriate on a message board.

But I can demand you back up your erroneous opinions with some evidence. If you were at all knowledgeable about Wittgenstein you would know he was not a practising catholic. You can prove me wrong if you like. Do so. Your egregious opinions carry no weight with me, nor should they persuade anyone else.

If you were truly knowledgeable on the topic of Wittgenstein, you would know that what I said is not at all controversial and should have been granted as a valid point.

Really? I say you are wrong. It’s your word against mine. Give me evidence that Wittgenstein was a ‘serious catholic’. I say you are wrong and I have sources to back up my view. You? Being able to read the Philosophical Investigations and the Blue and Brown Books in German is no logical guarantee of correctness, my friend.

I am getting old, my friend, and am growing less willing to waste time arguing with agnostics.

Good day to you, and happy agnosticizing.

Cheerio then, my friend. I guess you are ackowledging your errors by disappearing into the sunset.

Cheerio

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

jeffreedy789:

hecd posted: ‘Yours is the worst kind of intellectual gew-gaw’ and ‘mainly because substance is singularly lacking in all responses so far’ and ‘Apologia, do you need help or further explanation to understand why your argument is logically void?’

i’d remind you, hecd, that even if you don’t ascribe to the theology of the catholic church, you do need to play by the rules of the board - which asks for kindness and charity in the way we post.

belittling or demeaning your opponents or their intelligence is one of the lowest forms of argument. please remain respectful and charitable as we hash out our discussion on russell, however his name is spelled.

His name is spelled ‘Bertrand Russell’ There are no options here.

Where is the kindness and charity in the following that I responded to:

‘You have over-rated Lord Russell.’
‘Ludwig Wittgenstein, who was Russell’s intellectual superior was a serious Catholic’
‘If you’re arguing that Russell is right because he is eminent, then I argue that Wittgenstein was MORE right because he was MORE intelligent’ Bah - I have rarely seen a grosser and poorer argument - this is pure prejudice based on no substance.
‘If only Lord Russell had continued to study Professor Wittgenstein, he would have learned how confused he was’
‘Lord Russell is well versed in math and logic, but fairly average otherwise’
‘Its a question of Newman fighting an unarmed opponent. Clever application of logic is never an adequate substitute for charitable application of God’s Wisdom’

So it seems that the principle of kindness and charity applies only to conservative Catholic sympathisers on this list but not to their dead critics. Well, for one I am not to be browbeaten by the content-free unsupported assumptions of the orthodox. You can suppress me by logical argument (so far, conspicuously absent) but not by moral blackmail.

Origen’s arguments as posted so far were indeed intellectual gew-gaw; there has been absolutely no substance posted so far (if I am wrong, please point to it); and Apologia’s arguments are indeed mired in the fallacy of Begging the Question and he or she seems to be completely unaware of it and seems to be living with the fantasy that the preconception of God’s existence proves all sorts of deep philosophical conundrums. Am I wrong in any substantive point? I am sure that you will point it out if that is, indeed, the case.

I remind you that this thread started with the outrageous claim that Cardinal Newman could reduce Bertrand Russell to a ‘quivering blob with a few strokes of the pen.’ Pshaw!!

Alec
www:evolutionpages.com

 

[jeffreedy789]

my point, which you seem not to see, is that it’s pedantic to quibble over the spelling of his name.

and ‘he did it first’ is not an adult reply to ‘let’s post in charity and kindness’.

i’d like to ask you a question - why are you here? i’m not saying you should leave, i’m asking you if you have examined your reasons for being here, and if they are to learn, or to discuss, then your tone would be more conducive to this end if you changed it a bit. if you took a less ‘you’re all a bunch of morons and i’m your intellectual superior’, and approached the subject with a bit more humility and respect.

if you’re here to tell us all that we’re wrong, and that belief in God and the church is silly, then i don’t see the point in continuing the conversation.

 

[gsaccone]

Dear hecd, you wrote the following:

You find this curious fact, that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called Ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.

I’m sorry to point out that you have been duped by those who hate the Catholic Church and who have for centuries made false claims against the Church. First of all there was no 1 single thing called the Inquisition. There were inquisitorial tribunals in different countries, but for purposes of arguement I’ll assume you are referring to the Inquistion that took place in Spain. Have you any idea of the best estimates (by non Catholic historians even) as to the total number of those executed over several CENTURIES by the ECCLESIASTIC court? The highest estimates are around 10,000 over nearly 4 centuries! This may seem like a large number, but when compared to the state run courts it pales in comparison. Many more were killed by state governments for things like theft, treason or less. This is one reason that many people accused of non-ecclesiastic crimes would purposefully blaspheme so that they would be transferred to the ecclesiastic court where there was known to be more merciful proceedings. Also, from available records it is estimated that only about 1% of those in front of the Inquisitorial tribunal were ever tortured, and then usually less than 15 minutes. The horriffic devices you may have seen (such as the iron maiden) were not used by Inquisitorial tribunals but rather they were used in Germany often against Catholics. That has been one of the most effective and long lasting “spin jobs” ever. Seeing how far off you are regarding your history (you seem to be well versed in other areas) I will just add that your comment about the witches is also misinformed. And perhaps once my ruptured aneurysm heals I’ll reply to your comment about religion being the enemy of moral progress. Till then I’ll pray for you,

Blessings

 

[Apologia100]

hecd2:

The fallacy in this argument is called ‘Begging the Question’ The logical fallacy ‘Begging the Question’ is using the conclusion that one desires (in the case of Apologia the existence of a personal loving God) in the premises. Russell’s agnosticism is based on the argument that one cannot logically prove the existence of God. It logically follows that one is barred from using the assumption of God’s existence as a premise or argument to prove the conclusion. Apologia, do you need help or further explanation to understand why your argument is logically void?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

No thanks, I prefer to take my counsel from well-grounded Catholics who sare the same worldview as I do. Thanks for the offer though.

 

[Carl]

Alec

Is that it?? Is your argument merely gratuitous name-calling with no other substance?

I guess you didn’t see post # 11?

Nor have you answered it.

The notion that the Inquisition of the Middle Ages compares with the slaughter of the innocents by atheists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, shows that you along with Bertrand Russell should have paid attention to the lessons of history. Your ignorance may be explainable by your youth. Russell had no excuse since he lived through the atheistic madness and mayhem of the twentieth century. To then turn around in “Why I Am Not a Christian” and lambaste the Catholic Church for cruelty was the greatest crime against logic a supposed master logician could have committed.

And if you think science is so very innocent and wonderful, do please try to remember that it was science, not the Vatican, that conceived the creation of monster weapons sufficient to bring on Armageddon.

 

[Carl]

from Russell’s “Why I Am Not a Christian”

I for a long time accepted the argument of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John Stuart Mill’s Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father taught me that the question ‘Who made me?’ cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question ‘Who made God?’ That very simple sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument.

More quivering gobs of sophistry from Russell, I’m afraid.

In the first place, if God created the universe, God would also have created the principle of causality. Having created that principle, why would God be subject to the principle? That is, why would God have to have a Creator?

The notion that if something must be eternal, it might as well be the universe as God, is handily defeated by the Big Bang. The universe is neither infinite nor eternal. The substance of that knowledge, which is supported by scientific evidence, tends to support a First Cause, rather than defeat it.

Russell’s essay, as I recall, was written around 1928. This was, perhaps, a little before the emergence of the first scientific evidence for the Big Bang. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, Russell never recanted any part of that essay. The discovery of the Big Bang must now be viewed as a vindication of the notion that a First Cause set the universe in motion. It must also be viewed as evidence for Russell’s persistence in the sophistry (read supreme wisdom) of his eighteen year old self.

Come now, Alec, rise above your master sophist.

Carl

 

[hecd2]

gsaccone:

Dear hecd, you wrote the following:

I’m sorry to point out that you have been duped by those who hate the Catholic Church and who have for centuries made false claims against the Church. First of all there was no 1 single thing called the Inquisition. There were inquisitorial tribunals in different countries, but for purposes of arguement I’ll assume you are referring to the Inquistion that took place in Spain. Have you any idea of the best estimates (by non Catholic historians even) as to the total number of those executed over several CENTURIES by the ECCLESIASTIC court? The highest estimates are around 10,000 over nearly 4 centuries! This may seem like a large number, but when compared to the state run courts it pales in comparison. Many more were killed by state governments for things like theft, treason or less. This is one reason that many people accused of non-ecclesiastic crimes would purposefully blaspheme so that they would be transferred to the ecclesiastic court where there was known to be more merciful proceedings. Also, from available records it is estimated that only about 1% of those in front of the Inquisitorial tribunal were ever tortured, and then usually less than 15 minutes. The horriffic devices you may have seen (such as the iron maiden) were not used by Inquisitorial tribunals but rather they were used in Germany often against Catholics. That has been one of the most effective and long lasting “spin jobs” ever. Seeing how far off you are regarding your history (you seem to be well versed in other areas) I will just add that your comment about the witches is also misinformed. And perhaps once my ruptured aneurysm heals I’ll reply to your comment about religion being the enemy of moral progress. Till then I’ll pray for you,

Blessings

Hey - no need for bursting blood vessels. There’s a big misunderstanding here. You seem to think that these words that you are criticising are mine - they are not - they are a quotation from Bertrand Russell’s ‘Why I am not a Christian’. Look for the quotation marks.

The Spanish Inquistion was not the greatest evil that man has ever visited on man - however, it was a great evil, far greater than your apology for it would have us believe. I’m sure you’ll agree that even one ecclesiastical execution was one too many, and no-one should think that one minute of torture is acceptable, much less fifteen minutes. I believe that your statistics are based on the extreme low end of the estimates of the terror. I think you need to take into account more about the practical hatred that Torquemada as Inquisitor General visited on young and old, man and woman alike. Autos de fe burnt books and people indiscrimately - ideas and flesh offered up on the altar of orthodoxy. Do not imagine that in anything else I write here I condone for a second the evil of any instance of Holy Inquisition.

I posted this quotation from Russell because Russell was being misquoted and this seemed to be the closest actual passage of Russell that Carl was referring to.

But, I do think Russell is wrong here in his history - this is easily the weakest of his arguments in ‘Why I am not a Christian’ (so weak as to be counter-productive) and the weakness of his argument is based, as you rightly diagnose, on an exaggeration of the evil of the Inquisition. Of course, a million women were not burnt as witches, as he claims. His historical inaccuracy undermines his argument, but his revulsion at the misuse of authority represented by Holy Inquisitions is absolutely justified. We should abhor the burning of people and books on religious grounds. Should we not? Have you read George Eliot’s unforgettable Romola which contains a deeply affecting description of the burning of Savonarola?

Thank you for the prayers - we all need them

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[transfinitum]

You said:

And we are talking here not about any intelligent agnostic but the mathematician/philosopher who is one of the most eminent philosophers of the 20th century and the guy who formulated the basis of modern mathematics with Alfred North Whitehead.

I reply:

Perhaps you missed it, but Kurt Godel reduced him to a quivering blob. “On the Formal Undecidability of Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems”.

In addition to being a man of almost quintessential evil, Russell’s entire mathematical system was demolished in twenty six brilliant pages by Godel.

 

[hecd2]

jeffreedy789:

my point, which you seem not to see, is that it’s pedantic to quibble over the spelling of his name.

But it’s you who have made an issue of spelling. I commented in passing that it’s Russell not Russel. I don’t think for a moment that the spelling of Russell’s name is a key point - by focusing on that you’re diverting attention from the infinitely more telling points in the thread.

i’d like to ask you a question - why are you here? i’m not saying you should leave, i’m asking you if you have examined your reasons for being here, and if they are to learn, or to discuss, then your tone would be more conducive to this end if you changed it a bit. if you took a less ‘you’re all a bunch of morons and i’m your intellectual superior’, and approached the subject with a bit more humility and respect.

Why I’m here is my business. I learn from every intreraction I have, whether face-to-face or on the web. I am not saying anyone is a ‘moron’ and I am not claiming any sort of intellectual superiority - rather the opposite;I am an average ‘Joe’. I merely challenge others to support their views with logic and evidence

if you’re here to tell us all that we’re wrong, and that belief in God and the church is silly, then i don’t see the point in continuing the conversation.

I am* not* here for that purpose which would be, as you say, futile.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Apologia100:

No thanks, I prefer to take my counsel from well-grounded Catholics who sare the same worldview as I do. Thanks for the offer though.

Isn’t that just a touch narrow-minded? Just a little intellectually incestuous? You can learn neat stuff from all sorts of people - even, heaven forbid, atheists and Mohammedans. I have.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Carl:

Alec

Is that it?? Is your argument merely gratuitous name-calling with no other substance?

I guess you didn’t see post # 11?

Nor have you answered it.

I saw and I responded in post #20. Perhaps you haven’t seen that?

The notion that the Inquisition of the Middle Ages compares with the slaughter of the innocents by atheists like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, shows that you along with Bertrand Russell should have paid attention to the lessons of history. Your ignorance may be explainable by your youth. Russell had no excuse since he lived through the atheistic madness and mayhem of the twentieth century. To then turn around in “Why I Am Not a Christian” and lambaste the Catholic Church for cruelty was the greatest crime against logic a supposed master logician could have committed.

No, the argument that relative devilry can turn a devil into an angel is logically bankrupt. The evils of the Inquisition are great absolute evils and comparison with other greater evils does not excuse them or turn them into meritorious movements. We live with the consequences of passionate religiosity today and it is not pretty. The fact of the appalling evils of Mao and Stalin (whether Hitler weighs in the atheistic or believer’s scale is a moot point) does not excuse the gross evils of the Holy Inquisition or the Inquisition of Ferdinand and Isabella.

As for your argument against youth, which is an appalling logical fallacy, it’s ironic that it’s at least an even probability that I’m older than you, sonny. Failed attempt to undermine my position by logically inadmissible tactics noted.

And if you think science is so very innocent and wonderful, do please try to remember that it was science, not the Vatican, that conceived the creation of monster weapons sufficient to bring on Armageddon.

It was the the use of scientific knowledge that created the bomb. We can all turn our ploughshares into swords. That says nothing about the merit or the moral standing of our blacksmiths. The fact that a majority of the earth’s now huge population have the potential for a decent and fulfilling life is the consequence of the Enlightenment, not of the Establishment of a Christian tradition which, institutionally, has held back the developing understanding of the natural world at every turn, and even today demands of its adherents that they believe things that any competent scienist can see cannot be true.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Carl]

Alec

The fact of the appalling evils of Mao and Stalin (whether Hitler weighs in the atheistic or believer’s scale is a moot point) does not excuse the gross evils of the Holy Inquisition or the Inquisition of Ferdinand and Isabella.

I did not justify the Inquisition. My answer to Russell is that we are all sinners, even atheists. If you have read Russell’s essay, it would be intellectually dishonest to say that Russell was not arguing a moral superiority of the atheist outlook. He points to the Inquisition as the logical consequence of Christianity. I point to Hitler, Stalin, and Mao as the logical consequence of modewrn atheism. Which was the greater evil you ought to know if you have read any history at all instead of just a comic strip version of the Middle Ages.

 

[Carl]

Alec

*The fact that a majority of the earth’s now huge population have the potential for a decent and fulfilling life is the consequence of the Enlightenment, *

Several problems here …

Your assumption is that there was never before in the history of the world potential for a decent and fulfilling life … utterly absurd.

Likewise, to assert that the Enlightenment, not the Church, made possible decent and fulfilling lives is likewise absurd. More comic strip history. Several consequences of the Enlightenment: overpopulation, unprecedented pollution of the environment, nuclear weapons sufficient to anihilate humanity, etc. The Vatican cannot be blamed for these.

*not of the Establishment of a Christian tradition which, institutionally, has held back the developing understanding of the natural world at every turn, *

Every turn?

I suppose you mean that the Church of England held back Isaac Newton from his discoveries.

Or that Gregor Mendel, a Catholic monk, was instructed not to dabble in genetic research.

Or that George LeMaitre, a Jesuit, was prevented from discerning the roots of the Big Bang theory and scooping Einstein himself.

• and even today demands of its adherents that they believe things that any competent scienist can see cannot be true.*

Are you ever going to say anything specific, or are you going to entertain us all day and all night with these glittering generalities?

 

[jeffreedy789]

hecd - thanks for your reply. i appreciate your position as stated. i would enjoy taking up the duel with you, but alas - my knowledge of russell is limited.

happy dueling!

 

[jeffreedy789]

The fact that a majority of the earth’s now huge population have the potential for a decent and fulfilling life is the consequence of the Enlightenment, not of the Establishment of a Christian tradition which, institutionally, has held back the developing understanding of the natural world at every turn

that is, i think, one of the most prevalent and misguided notions of our time.

i heard an interview with the current high priest of the temple of set (the satanic church in san francisco founded by anton lavey) who claimed that the satanic element is always the seeking, ground breaking part of society, and that we should be grateful to them for keeping us from being ‘held back’ by christianity.

the church is always seen as the eternal ‘sticks in the mud’, keeping us all from ‘progress.’

i say this is untrue - what say you?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

heliumspark:

One of his arguments is that Jesus said “There are some standing here which shall not taste death till the Son of Man comes into His kingdom”, and “Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come.” He says that this is a defect in Jesus’s teaching, since he obviously still hasn’t come yet.

The speech can be read at this link:
users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html

I read the whole speech “Why I am not a Christian”, and the straw-man tactic being used by such an intelligent (albeit seriously misguided) person like Bertrand Russel is embarrasing, and it is obvious that he did not do any research to discover whether there actually were intelligent, thinking people who believe in Christianity. He assumed from the beginning that none existed.

Still, I would like to know what our most astute explanations are for the apparent misconception of the early church that Jesus would be coming again during their lifetimes. From reading the spoken words of Jesus, it is easy to see where they got this idea, and yet, Jesus would not lie or intentionally mislead His church…

What are the best refutations against this argument?

Unfortunately, brilliant men sometimes say absurd things. Such as applying causality where it is wholly irrelevant. (Not that Russell was alone in making such odd mistakes.) One of the problems on sites such as the “Skeptic’s Annotated Bible” is that many - not all, but many - of the objections are, well, childish: which is not fair to children. Point out that a 3000-year old text from the Middle East not infrequently means something different from what it says, or is thought to mean, in English today, and one gets nowhere, often. Apparently it’s OK for us to talk of “sunrise”, today - but not for the author of the Apocalypse to speak of “the four corners of the earth” 1900 years ago. If a phrase is in the Bible, it’s unmitigated garbage & rubbish - if people today say it, it’s fine ​

What is an “intelligent, thinking person” ? Intelligence may include not being a Christian. Not least because it seems very unintelligent to believe in something so wrapped in uncertainties as - say - the Resurrection.

It would be far easier if Matthew 24.34 were not in the Bible. But it is. Maybe Jesus was mistaken: I don’t know. Maybe the answer is so blindingly obvious, that one can’t see it. There is no shortage of possibilities. ##

 

[hecd2]

transfinitum:

Perhaps you missed it, but Kurt Godel reduced him to a quivering blob. “On the Formal Undecidability of Propositions in Principia Mathematica and Related Systems”.

In addition to being a man of almost quintessential evil, Russell’s entire mathematical system was demolished in twenty six brilliant pages by Godel.

1. In case you have forgotten, the proposition that was on the table to which I objected, was that Cardinal Newman would have ‘reduced Russell to a quivering blob with a few strokes of the pen.’ I said no theologian or deist philosopher could do that to a reasonably intelligent agnostic. Whatever the truth or otherwise of your claim above, it does nothing to argue against that position, since Goedel is not Newman, and not a theologian (he was a brilliant mathematician and, along with Russell, one of the two most brilliant logicians of the 20th century; his incompleteness theorems are about formal systems of mathematics and not about theology).
2. You might be an exception, but I have come to realise that almost no-one who pontificates about Goedel has the slightest notion about what his Incompleteness theorems say or how he proved them.
3. The fact that you claim Goedel turned Russell into a ‘quivering blob’ does not bode well for your understanding of Russell’s lasting legacy to mathematics and logics, Goedel’s own debt to Russell, what Goedel actually showed in his incompleteness theorems or, in progressive subjects, how the thinking of each person builds on earlier work.
4. By saying ‘Russell’s entire mathematical system was demolished in twenty six brilliant pages by Godel’, you definitely show signs of repeating the opinions of others that you fail to understand. Russell’s (and Whitehead’s) ‘mathematical system’ established the formal logical basis for most of mathematics, it has been and continues to be immensely influential in mathematics and logic. It is true that his expectation that all problems that can be described in formal systems can be decided using the logical underpinning that he provided was dashed by Goedel, but to say that his entire system was demolished is to display an astonishing level of superficiality and ersatz understanding.
5. Russell was a man of quintessential evil? Let me see: was this barb launched because of the fact that he was a principled pacifist who was prepared to go to prison and lose his job for his principle? Or the fact of his anti-nuclear weapon stance? Or the fact that he developed the logical underpinning of modern mathematics? Or was it the fact that he pointed out the absurdity, illogic and cruelty of much of mankind’s insistence in believing in myth and superstition, the fact that he opposes your personal religious beliefs with cutting arguments that lead you to this slander?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[heliumspark]

Wow! My thread turned into an argument with hecd2! I guess there is no point in thinking any good answers to the original post are going to turn up.

hecd2, I hope you didn’t expect to find the best arguments in favor of Christianity in these forums. There have been many great works written on the subject, however, and I will start a new thread in which we can discuss the refutations to the arguments in my favorite Christian apologetic, The Case for Christ by Lee Strobl. If you like.

I will post it in the Apologetics forum.