For instance, on page 4-5, Mr Depoe says: "... Hasker explains what follows if the mind is a physical mechanism: “In a physicalistic world, principles of sound reasoning have no relevance determining what actually happens.”11 Consequently, “On the assumption of the causal closure of the physical, no one ever accepts a belief because it is supported by good reasons. To say that this constitutes a serious problem for physicalism seems an understatement.”[12] On pain of unassertability, then, physicalists must reject one of its core principles and allow for non-physical causes[13] to bring about rational actions and beliefs. Since physicalism undermines the grounds for its own assertability, physicalism contains a problem of self-reference. Although physicalism could still be true, its truth comes with the steep price of undermining the rationality of believing physicalism itself.
The physicalist is presented with a dilemma. If physicalism is true, then the belief that physicalism is true is unassertable on rational grounds. On the other hand, if people hold some beliefs (including the belief that physicalism is true) on the basis of rational reasons, then physicalism is unassertable. The physicalist’s options are not attractive: either accept irrationality or reject physicalism. I should note that strictly speaking this is not a proof that physicalism is false.[14] However, this provides grounds for dismissing physicalism since this shows if physicalism is true, then it is irrational to believe that physicalism is true."
Mr Depoe is a bit too cautious at this point (of course, generally speaking, intellectual caution is a good thing), and in this caution makes the error of conceeding any ground at all to 'physicalism.' -- At the same time, one must take into account that footnote at [14].
"If physicalism is true, then the belief that physicalism is true is unassertable on rational grounds."
True enough.
"On the other hand, if people hold some beliefs (including the belief that physicalism is true) on the basis of rational reasons, then physicalism is unassertable."
Not enough true.
In fact, IF anyone at all holds any belief at all on the basis of rational reasons, THEN 'physicalism' is not merely unassertable-on-rational-grounds, but is obviously false. For 'physicalism' necessarily entails that no one can hold any belief for rational reasons.
So, does anyone hold some belief on the basis of rational reasons? Of course! That's what we (both Mr Depoe and I, and one hopes you, Gentle Reader) have just done. Mr Depoe's assertion -- and belief -- that "If physicalism is true, then the belief that physicalism is true is unassertable on rational grounds" is reason-based. Therefore, Mr Depoe erred in allowing himself to be convinced that he hadn't presented a proof that 'physicalism' is false, as was apparently his original project.
Page 10-11: "A physicalist could object to the requirement that her view entails that all physical causes are nonpurposive. She might argue for a physicalist account of agent causation, which would allow for rational causes to bring about events."
Gack! How I *detest* this PC-infected style of speaking. In English, the proper pronoun in such a context is not 'she,' but rather 'he.'
Ilíon said.."Gack! How I *detest* this PC-infected style of speaking. In English, the proper pronoun in such a context is not 'she,' but rather 'he."
Gack! I detest the grammar police. Can we not appreciate the intention for what it is---that being to be inclusive---and move on?
In other news, Ilíon said.. "In fact, IF anyone at all holds any belief at all on the basis of rational reasons, THEN 'physicalism' is not merely unassertable-on-rational-grounds, but is obviously false. For 'physicalism' necessarily entails that no one can hold any belief for rational reasons."
This is very well said. The import of this topic is paramount to my own conversion story. Would you be able to suggest to me any works suitable to a layperson that would cogently express this? I've read Reppert, Hasker and the like, but I'm wondering if you or anyone else could recommend something that I could give to a friend who for example does all their heavy thinking while pondering over their copy of Newsweek. I struggle to come up with something that would hold the interest of the more average arm-chair-philosopher.
Ilíon, you make me smile. And yes I know you're being serious and not meaning to.
If you're right and there presently is a lack of cogent intros, then maybe someday I'll take up the cause to write a Dummie's Guide to the AfR. You may not agree, but I think it's important for this argument to be expressible to the masses. The Dawkinoids are so effective at reaching the masses----if they can do it, then we could and should too.
I bet if Tom Gilson and Dr. Reppert teamed up they could write an instant Oprah Booklist Best Seller.
Shackleman: "Ilíon, you make me smile. And yes I know you're being serious and not meaning to.
If you're right and there presently is a lack of cogent intros, ..."
You asked two questions of me. The answer I gave doesn't grammatically fit the second question.
"... then maybe someday I'll take up the cause to write a Dummie's Guide to the AfR. You may not agree, but I think it's important for this argument to be expressible to the masses."
Why would you think I don't agree? I think it's vitally important ... though, at the same time, I think it's likely to be all-but-futile. By this, I simply mean that most people have been so indoctrinated with the false idea that "It's impossible to prove that God exists" that they're all-but incapable of *listening* to the argument (*) (**) (***). Even when they're Christians. And as for the typical 'atheist' ...
(*) And so, presenting it to them seems almost never to have an immediate effect upon their thinking about reality. But, it may plant a seed in many hearts and minds, and so it must be done.
For example, consider this thread here at DI: These guys want a theocracy. Specifically, notice how my interlocutor is missing the point (at the same time, I must admit that I got distracted with something else and dropped the ball).
(**) For instance, consider the content of my comment upon which you were commenting. Mr DePoe is a philosopher (and Christian) and is himself presenting an AfR ... and he was easily convinced (I presume by his academic advisor) that his argument wasn't strong enough to show 'physicalism' to be false.
(***) Though, at the same time, "Joe Blow" *may* have an easier time of it than "Joe Too-Educated" does. An example: a few months ago I was giving a clerk at a convenience store a synopsis of my version of the AfR ... and she skipped ahead of me and told me the sub-conclusion I was still two-steps away from.
"I bet if Tom Gilson and Dr. Reppert teamed up they could write an instant Oprah Booklist Best Seller."
Mr Reppert already has "C S Lewis' Dangerous Idea," if you can get or borrow a copy. Though, it's not quite a "Dummie's Guide to the AfR." I'd say it's more a monograph written primarily with his fellow "Joe Too-Educated" compatriots in mind, but also trying to keep "Joe Blow" in mind.
Ilíon said...You asked two questions of me. The answer I gave doesn't grammatically fit the second question.
Yes it does.
Me:"Gack! I detest the grammar police. Can we not appreciate the intention for what it is?"
You:"No, we cannot."
Me:"Would you be able to suggest to me any works suitable to a layperson that would cogently express this...I'm wondering if you or anyone else could recommend something that I could give to a friend?"
You:"No, we cannot."
You, Mr. Grammar Policeman sir, are in check!
=====================
Ilíon said..."Why would you think I don't agree?"
By implication of your terse response and also past discussions with you suggest to me that when one is thinking less rigorously than say, a PHd in Philosophy might, you're generally rather hostile toward one. (Might I need to prepare to duck now even as I write this?)
That said, you've shown that my guess at your position was wrong and that you and I essentially agree on the main point, but I certainly don't think it would be futile. The general public is being bombarded by the Dawkinoids and they're starting to buy it. Now, of course they themselves haven't read his books. But they believe the 60-second interviews they see on PBS or read on a blog somewhere.
There are many who are "new" theists, or are not quite yet theists but are on their way that I would bet would be hungry for my Dummie's guide idea. I own and have read more than once Dr. Reppert's book. And you can take my word for it when I say it doesn't appeal to the masses the way a Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris does.
I think we proponents of the AfR could really benefit from a modern CS Lewis here--someone who can present the AfR with pith enough to go onto Larry King with it, but with weight and impact enough to get people interested in digging into it more deeply.
=====================
Thanks for fixing my links to Tom Gilson's blog. Either would do---I can't seem to edit my own posts so I'll let your corrections serve as my own.
Mr Anti-Grammarian (and mistaken, at that, in imaging I am a grammar policeman): "You, Mr. Grammar Policeman sir, are in check!"
And you, sir, are in check-mate. For I cannot be a "we" with "... you or anyone else ..."
BTW, it is not a concern for grammar, despite that it is expressed in terms of grammer, which prompted my expression if disgust about use of 'she' when 'he' is proper. Saying 'she' when 'he' is proper is a matter of politics (whether the 'she-er' subscribes to those politics or has merely surrendered to them), not faulty grammar.
---------------------- Mr Has-It-All-Wrong: "By implication of your terse response and also past discussions with you suggest to me that when one is thinking less rigorously than say, a PHd in Philosophy might, you're generally rather hostile toward one. (Might I need to prepare to duck now even as I write this?)"
But then, you *also* have accused me of accusing you of being intellectually dishonest ... when I was doing just the opposite.
The terse response was to the extremely annoying first "question:" you pissed me off, I responded tersely to what pissed me off and ignored the rest. I do that sometimes.
So, and as I attempted indirectly to point out a couple of posts ago, the implication you are imagining is not there in the first place.
Mr Really-Has-It-All-Wrong: "... and also past discussions with you suggest to me that when one is thinking less rigorously than say, a PHd in Philosophy might, you're generally rather hostile toward one. (Might I need to prepare to duck now even as I write this?)"
First off, in my experience (admittedly limited), those with training in philosophy *tend* to be worse with sloppy thinking. And certainly when being questioned by a "no one," such as I.
Secondly, and more importantly, and as I've explained before, it's not *merely* a lack of rigorous thinking that draws the fire of my scorn. In fact, I do *not* scorn those who cannot reason with rigor ... or, as is far more likely to be the case, have been "educated" such that they find it diffucult and thus have little practice at it. Recent examples of what it takes to attract my scorn are on display here (the 'J' fellow) and here (the 'SE' fellow).
Mr Missed-The-Full-Point: "That said, you've shown that my guess at your position was wrong and that you and I essentially agree on the main point, but I certainly don't think it would be futile. ..."
I said "all-but-futile," and I explained what I meant by that: namely, that there is not likely to be an immediate and large-scale "pay-off" (with, I thought, the implied further understanding that those who are looking for an immediate and/or large-scale "pay-off" must see such an effort as futile ... and those who can see past the immediate are still likely to feel discouraged).
Mr Misunderstands-Human-Beings: "... but I certainly don't think it would be futile. The general public is being bombarded by the Dawkinoids and they're starting to buy it. Now, of course they themselves haven't read his books. But they believe the 60-second interviews they see on PBS or read on a blog somewhere."
Those who are being "convinced" by such are almost always unreachable by human means, including mere reason. Such folk *already* are village-atheists-in-practice; the "Four Horsemen of Atheism" simply give then the excuse to tune-out any arguements to the contrary (which they had long since done, anyway) while pretending to themselves that they have already done the intellectual work to justify tuning-out arguments for God.
Mr Seems-To-Have-Missed-My-Point-Again: "There are many who are "new" theists, or are not quite yet theists but are on their way that I would bet would be hungry for my Dummie's guide idea. I own and have read more than once Dr. Reppert's book. And you can take my word for it when I say it doesn't appeal to the masses the way a Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris does."
Though, perhaps I wasn't explicit enough: yes, Reppert's book isn't going to appeal to the average Joe, it's too geared towards those of his own professional circle ... and (as such) it's too tentative in its conclusion and in expressing its argument. It's all well and fine to properly qualify one's statements, it's necessary in fact; but the "too-educated" folk seem to spend so much time qualifying their statements that they never quite get around to making the statements.
But, at the same time, even a book geared towards "Joe Blow" isn't going to appeal to the average person who doesn't *already* hunger after God and hunger to know him by reason. This argument doesn't fit on a bumper sticker (*) (**), and so one has to *desire* to grasp it, such that one will put in the effort to do so.
(*) Though, "*You* are the proof that God exists" does nicely encapsulate it, once one grasps the argument.
(**) I do not mean to imply that the argument is difficult to understand; it isn't. But (rightly or wrongly), it seems to me that a thorough treatment of it must digress -- because we are all so mis-educated these days -- into all sorts of territory to lay the ground-work. What I mean is that it seems to me that a thorough treatment of it, geared towards the mass audience, must begin with a primer on proper/logical reasoning.
A few weeks ago, I posted a fairly concise treatment of my version of it on the "Raving Theist" (formerly "Raving Atheist") blog, in the thread: More than Matter at response #177. There, there is the argument; it's not particularly difficult, not is it particularly long ... and yet, even those pre-disposed to agree with the thrust of it seem often to miss the point, as per starting here ... and, in my experience, some refuse even to engage it! How much more those who do not want to understand that atheism is refuted, do not want to know that we already know via reason that the Creator-God does indeed exist, do not want to know that there has *never* been a valid excuse to deny that God exists?
Mr Flattery-Will-Get-You-Nowhere: "I think we proponents of the AfR could really benefit from a modern CS Lewis here--someone who can present the AfR with pith enough to go onto Larry King with it, but with weight and impact enough to get people interested in digging into it more deeply."
11 comments:
Exactly. And knowing this is *how* we can know-without-possibility-of-error that atheism is false.
OK, not quite exactly; but close.
For instance, on page 4-5, Mr Depoe says:
"... Hasker explains what follows if the mind is a physical mechanism: “In a physicalistic world, principles of sound reasoning have no relevance determining what actually happens.”11 Consequently, “On the assumption of the causal closure of the physical, no one ever accepts a belief because it is supported by good reasons. To say that this constitutes a serious problem for physicalism seems an understatement.”[12] On pain of unassertability, then, physicalists must reject one of its core principles and allow for non-physical causes[13] to bring about rational actions and beliefs. Since physicalism undermines the grounds for its own assertability, physicalism contains a problem of self-reference. Although physicalism could still be true, its truth comes with the steep price of undermining the rationality of believing physicalism itself.
The physicalist is presented with a dilemma. If physicalism is true, then the belief that physicalism is true is unassertable on rational grounds. On the other hand, if people hold some beliefs (including the belief that physicalism is true) on the basis of rational reasons, then physicalism is unassertable. The physicalist’s options are not attractive: either accept irrationality or reject physicalism. I should note that strictly speaking this is not a proof that physicalism is false.[14] However, this provides grounds for dismissing physicalism since this shows if physicalism is true, then it is irrational to believe that physicalism is true."
Mr Depoe is a bit too cautious at this point (of course, generally speaking, intellectual caution is a good thing), and in this caution makes the error of conceeding any ground at all to 'physicalism.' -- At the same time, one must take into account that footnote at [14].
"If physicalism is true, then the belief that physicalism is true is unassertable on rational grounds."
True enough.
"On the other hand, if people hold some beliefs (including the belief that physicalism is true) on the basis of rational reasons, then physicalism is unassertable."
Not enough true.
In fact, IF anyone at all holds any belief at all on the basis of rational reasons, THEN 'physicalism' is not merely unassertable-on-rational-grounds, but is obviously false. For 'physicalism' necessarily entails that no one can hold any belief for rational reasons.
So, does anyone hold some belief on the basis of rational reasons? Of course! That's what we (both Mr Depoe and I, and one hopes you, Gentle Reader) have just done. Mr Depoe's assertion -- and belief -- that "If physicalism is true, then the belief that physicalism is true is unassertable on rational grounds" is reason-based. Therefore, Mr Depoe erred in allowing himself to be convinced that he hadn't presented a proof that 'physicalism' is false, as was apparently his original project.
Page 10-11: "A physicalist could object to the requirement that her view entails that all physical causes are nonpurposive. She might argue for a physicalist account of agent causation, which would allow for rational causes to bring about events."
Gack! How I *detest* this PC-infected style of speaking. In English, the proper pronoun in such a context is not 'she,' but rather 'he.'
Ilíon said.."Gack! How I *detest* this PC-infected style of speaking. In English, the proper pronoun in such a context is not 'she,' but rather 'he."
Gack! I detest the grammar police. Can we not appreciate the intention for what it is---that being to be inclusive---and move on?
In other news, Ilíon said.. "In fact, IF anyone at all holds any belief at all on the basis of rational reasons, THEN 'physicalism' is not merely unassertable-on-rational-grounds, but is obviously false. For 'physicalism' necessarily entails that no one can hold any belief for rational reasons."
This is very well said. The import of this topic is paramount to my own conversion story. Would you be able to suggest to me any works suitable to a layperson that would cogently express this? I've read Reppert, Hasker and the like, but I'm wondering if you or anyone else could recommend something that I could give to a friend who for example does all their heavy thinking while pondering over their copy of Newsweek. I struggle to come up with something that would hold the interest of the more average arm-chair-philosopher.
No, we cannot.
Ilíon, you make me smile. And yes I know you're being serious and not meaning to.
If you're right and there presently is a lack of cogent intros, then maybe someday I'll take up the cause to write a Dummie's Guide to the AfR. You may not agree, but I think it's important for this argument to be expressible to the masses. The Dawkinoids are so effective at reaching the masses----if they can do it, then we could and should too.
I bet if Tom Gilson and Dr. Reppert teamed up they could write an instant Oprah Booklist Best Seller.
Shackleman: "Ilíon, you make me smile. And yes I know you're being serious and not meaning to.
If you're right and there presently is a lack of cogent intros, ..."
You asked two questions of me. The answer I gave doesn't grammatically fit the second question.
"... then maybe someday I'll take up the cause to write a Dummie's Guide to the AfR. You may not agree, but I think it's important for this argument to be expressible to the masses."
Why would you think I don't agree? I think it's vitally important ... though, at the same time, I think it's likely to be all-but-futile. By this, I simply mean that most people have been so indoctrinated with the false idea that "It's impossible to prove that God exists" that they're all-but incapable of *listening* to the argument (*) (**) (***). Even when they're Christians. And as for the typical 'atheist' ...
(*) And so, presenting it to them seems almost never to have an immediate effect upon their thinking about reality. But, it may plant a seed in many hearts and minds, and so it must be done.
For example, consider this thread here at DI: These guys want a theocracy. Specifically, notice how my interlocutor is missing the point (at the same time, I must admit that I got distracted with something else and dropped the ball).
(**) For instance, consider the content of my comment upon which you were commenting. Mr DePoe is a philosopher (and Christian) and is himself presenting an AfR ... and he was easily convinced (I presume by his academic advisor) that his argument wasn't strong enough to show 'physicalism' to be false.
(***) Though, at the same time, "Joe Blow" *may* have an easier time of it than "Joe Too-Educated" does. An example: a few months ago I was giving a clerk at a convenience store a synopsis of my version of the AfR ... and she skipped ahead of me and told me the sub-conclusion I was still two-steps away from.
"I bet if Tom Gilson and Dr. Reppert teamed up they could write an instant Oprah Booklist Best Seller."
Mr Reppert already has "C S Lewis' Dangerous Idea," if you can get or borrow a copy. Though, it's not quite a "Dummie's Guide to the AfR." I'd say it's more a monograph written primarily with his fellow "Joe Too-Educated" compatriots in mind, but also trying to keep "Joe Blow" in mind.
I didn't notice that your link to Tom Gilson's blog doesn't seem to work. Is this it? current home-page or former home-page
Ilíon said... You asked two questions of me. The answer I gave doesn't grammatically fit the second question.
Yes it does.
Me: "Gack! I detest the grammar police. Can we not appreciate the intention for what it is?"
You: "No, we cannot."
Me:"Would you be able to suggest to me any works suitable to a layperson that would cogently express this...I'm wondering if you or anyone else could recommend something that I could give to a friend?"
You: "No, we cannot."
You, Mr. Grammar Policeman sir, are in check!
=====================
Ilíon said... "Why would you think I don't agree?"
By implication of your terse response and also past discussions with you suggest to me that when one is thinking less rigorously than say, a PHd in Philosophy might, you're generally rather hostile toward one. (Might I need to prepare to duck now even as I write this?)
That said, you've shown that my guess at your position was wrong and that you and I essentially agree on the main point, but I certainly don't think it would be futile. The general public is being bombarded by the Dawkinoids and they're starting to buy it. Now, of course they themselves haven't read his books. But they believe the 60-second interviews they see on PBS or read on a blog somewhere.
There are many who are "new" theists, or are not quite yet theists but are on their way that I would bet would be hungry for my Dummie's guide idea. I own and have read more than once Dr. Reppert's book. And you can take my word for it when I say it doesn't appeal to the masses the way a Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris does.
I think we proponents of the AfR could really benefit from a modern CS Lewis here--someone who can present the AfR with pith enough to go onto Larry King with it, but with weight and impact enough to get people interested in digging into it more deeply.
=====================
Thanks for fixing my links to Tom Gilson's blog. Either would do---I can't seem to edit my own posts so I'll let your corrections serve as my own.
Mr Anti-Grammarian (and mistaken, at that, in imaging I am a grammar policeman): "You, Mr. Grammar Policeman sir, are in check!"
And you, sir, are in check-mate. For I cannot be a "we" with "... you or anyone else ..."
BTW, it is not a concern for grammar, despite that it is expressed in terms of grammer, which prompted my expression if disgust about use of 'she' when 'he' is proper. Saying 'she' when 'he' is proper is a matter of politics (whether the 'she-er' subscribes to those politics or has merely surrendered to them), not faulty grammar.
----------------------
Mr Has-It-All-Wrong: "By implication of your terse response and also past discussions with you suggest to me that when one is thinking less rigorously than say, a PHd in Philosophy might, you're generally rather hostile toward one. (Might I need to prepare to duck now even as I write this?)"
But then, you *also* have accused me of accusing you of being intellectually dishonest ... when I was doing just the opposite.
The terse response was to the extremely annoying first "question:" you pissed me off, I responded tersely to what pissed me off and ignored the rest. I do that sometimes.
So, and as I attempted indirectly to point out a couple of posts ago, the implication you are imagining is not there in the first place.
Mr Really-Has-It-All-Wrong: "... and also past discussions with you suggest to me that when one is thinking less rigorously than say, a PHd in Philosophy might, you're generally rather hostile toward one. (Might I need to prepare to duck now even as I write this?)"
First off, in my experience (admittedly limited), those with training in philosophy *tend* to be worse with sloppy thinking. And certainly when being questioned by a "no one," such as I.
Secondly, and more importantly, and as I've explained before, it's not *merely* a lack of rigorous thinking that draws the fire of my scorn. In fact, I do *not* scorn those who cannot reason with rigor ... or, as is far more likely to be the case, have been "educated" such that they find it diffucult and thus have little practice at it. Recent examples of what it takes to attract my scorn are on display here (the 'J' fellow) and here (the 'SE' fellow).
Mr Missed-The-Full-Point: "That said, you've shown that my guess at your position was wrong and that you and I essentially agree on the main point, but I certainly don't think it would be futile. ..."
I said "all-but-futile," and I explained what I meant by that: namely, that there is not likely to be an immediate and large-scale "pay-off" (with, I thought, the implied further understanding that those who are looking for an immediate and/or large-scale "pay-off" must see such an effort as futile ... and those who can see past the immediate are still likely to feel discouraged).
Mr Misunderstands-Human-Beings: "... but I certainly don't think it would be futile. The general public is being bombarded by the Dawkinoids and they're starting to buy it. Now, of course they themselves haven't read his books. But they believe the 60-second interviews they see on PBS or read on a blog somewhere."
Those who are being "convinced" by such are almost always unreachable by human means, including mere reason. Such folk *already* are village-atheists-in-practice; the "Four Horsemen of Atheism" simply give then the excuse to tune-out any arguements to the contrary (which they had long since done, anyway) while pretending to themselves that they have already done the intellectual work to justify tuning-out arguments for God.
Mr Seems-To-Have-Missed-My-Point-Again: "There are many who are "new" theists, or are not quite yet theists but are on their way that I would bet would be hungry for my Dummie's guide idea. I own and have read more than once Dr. Reppert's book. And you can take my word for it when I say it doesn't appeal to the masses the way a Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris does."
Though, perhaps I wasn't explicit enough: yes, Reppert's book isn't going to appeal to the average Joe, it's too geared towards those of his own professional circle ... and (as such) it's too tentative in its conclusion and in expressing its argument. It's all well and fine to properly qualify one's statements, it's necessary in fact; but the "too-educated" folk seem to spend so much time qualifying their statements that they never quite get around to making the statements.
But, at the same time, even a book geared towards "Joe Blow" isn't going to appeal to the average person who doesn't *already* hunger after God and hunger to know him by reason. This argument doesn't fit on a bumper sticker (*) (**), and so one has to *desire* to grasp it, such that one will put in the effort to do so.
(*) Though, "*You* are the proof that God exists" does nicely encapsulate it, once one grasps the argument.
(**) I do not mean to imply that the argument is difficult to understand; it isn't. But (rightly or wrongly), it seems to me that a thorough treatment of it must digress -- because we are all so mis-educated these days -- into all sorts of territory to lay the ground-work. What I mean is that it seems to me that a thorough treatment of it, geared towards the mass audience, must begin with a primer on proper/logical reasoning.
A few weeks ago, I posted a fairly concise treatment of my version of it on the "Raving Theist" (formerly "Raving Atheist") blog, in the thread: More than Matter at response #177. There, there is the argument; it's not particularly difficult, not is it particularly long ... and yet, even those pre-disposed to agree with the thrust of it seem often to miss the point, as per starting here ... and, in my experience, some refuse even to engage it! How much more those who do not want to understand that atheism is refuted, do not want to know that we already know via reason that the Creator-God does indeed exist, do not want to know that there has *never* been a valid excuse to deny that God exists?
Mr Flattery-Will-Get-You-Nowhere: "I think we proponents of the AfR could really benefit from a modern CS Lewis here--someone who can present the AfR with pith enough to go onto Larry King with it, but with weight and impact enough to get people interested in digging into it more deeply."
;)
Af, I missed the emphasis; to try again:
Mr Anti-Grammarian (and mistaken, at that, in imaging I am a grammar policeman): "You, Mr. Grammar Policeman sir, are in check!"
And you, sir, are in check-mate. For I cannot be a "we" with "... you or anyone else ..."
Post a Comment