When Christianity Hits Reality: the William Lane Craig vs. Sean Carroll Debate

During the 1995 O.J. Simpson murder trial, talk show host Dick Cavett mused about bumping into Simpson at a cocktail party. In such a situation, he anticipated that he would say, “Well, there are so many people here who haven’t murdered anyone, I think I’ll go talk to them.”

And that’s my reaction to hearing philosopher William Lane Craig blather on about his opinions on cosmology (read: how he’s picked facts to support his conclusion). When I’m curious about the origin of the universe, I think I’ll go talk to the cosmologists.

William Lane Craig, cosmologist. Or not.

In the first place, Craig isn’t an expert on the topic. For this 2/21/14 debate, the topic was, “The existence of God in light of contemporary cosmology.” In the second place, experts are readily at hand—for example, his opponent, Sean Carroll, who earned a doctorate in Astronomy and Astrophysics from Harvard and is currently a professor at CalTech.

Craig has made clear where his truth comes from. He states in Reasonable Faith (2008):

Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. (p. 48)

See what I mean about picking his facts to support his conclusion? Perhaps that also explains his unwarranted confidence in getting into the ring with someone who is actually an expert on the topic.

There’s not much to say about Craig’s 20-minute opening to those familiar with his arguments. He used two of his favorites, the Kalam cosmological argument and the fine tuning argument. One surprise was that his arguments were more remote than usual. The average Christian may have difficulty with terms like entropy, singularity, and arrow of time. Here, Craig also used, without definition, the terms cosmogonic, de Sitter space, “unitarity of quantum theory,” and Boltzmann brains.

However, I was pleased that he avoided my usual complaint, which is his using “just think about it” to introduce some bit of pop philosophy. Yes, common sense is tempting, but it’s not the final arbiter at the frontier of science. Maybe he knew that this kind of argument would be laughed down by an expert. If so, let’s remember that next time he uses such an argument when Sean Carroll isn’t around to laugh at him.

Sean Carroll’s response

Carroll began by making clear that this debate is not an ongoing one within the cosmology community. You’ll hear theories of origins debated at cosmology conferences, but there is no discussion of God as a plausible explanation.

He responded to Craig’s Kalam argument by attacking point 2, “the universe began to exist.” He noted that Craig gave no evidence to back up the claim and, indeed, there isn’t any.

The bigger problem is that the point isn’t even false since Craig doesn’t use the right vocabulary for discussing cosmology. Carroll said, “Aristotelian analysis of causation was cutting edge stuff 2500 years ago; today we know better.” Referring back to his opening point, he noted that you don’t find the words “transcendent cause” in a cosmology textbook; what you find are differential equations! There simply is no need for metaphysical baggage on top of the known physics—it is unnecessary baggage that adds nothing.

Borde Guth Vilenkin

The idea of a beginning to the universe suits Craig. He’s concerned about the naturalist who says that, even if the Big Bang were the beginning of our universe, it could have come from an eternal multiverse. To anticipate this, Craig invariably brings up the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (BGV), which says that the multiverse did have a beginning.

Carroll responded by ticking off variant universes. A universe with a beginning but no cause? There’s a model for that. A universe that is eternal without a beginning? There’s a model for that, too—indeed, there are at least 17 plausible models.

BGV points to a beginning to the universe, but it starts with assumptions. Discard those assumptions, and the rules are different and eternality is possible. What BGV says is simply that our ability to describe the universe classically, that is, without quantum mechanics, gives out. Craig is simply wrong when he insists that BGV proves a beginning to everything.

Potpourri

It was a pleasure to see a competent physicist dismantle Craig’s uninformed cosmological dabblings. Craig cited the Second Law of Thermodynamics to support a finite universe, and Carroll responded that he’d written an entire book on the subject. About the puzzle of why the universe began with low entropy, Carroll said, “To imagine that cosmologists cannot answer that question without somehow invoking God is a classic God-of-the-gaps move. I know that Dr. Craig says that that’s not what he’s doing, but then he does it.”

About Craig’s criticism of Carroll’s own cosmological model, Carroll responded, “[Dr. Craig] says that my model is not working very well because it violates unitarity, the conservation of information, and that is straightforwardly false.” He then pointed out how Craig took a Hawking quote “completely out of context.”

I appreciated Carroll’s polite but direct approach. (I’ve written more about Carroll’s insights here and here.)

Cosmology vs. Theism

Carroll pointed out that a major problem is the very definition of theism. One theist may give a thorough definition, but then dozens (or thousands) more will give competing definitions. More to the point, theism is not a serious cosmological model. Cosmology is a mature science, and models are expected to address real issues. For example: What is the predicted spatial curvature of this universe? What is the amplitude of density perturbations? What causes the matter/antimatter asymmetry? What is the dark matter? And so on.

Theism doesn’t even try. It has nothing to offer.

Some things happen for “reasons” and some don’t, 
and you don’t get to demand 
that this or that thing must have a reason. 
Some things just are. 
Claims to the contrary are merely assertions,
and we are as free to ignore them 

as you are to assert them.
— Sean Carroll

(This is an update of a post that originally appeared 04/25/14.)

Photo credit: brett jordan, flickr, CC

 

"That sounds like a lot of lack of understanding.It is something we don't understand, which ..."

Physicist Sean Carroll Dismisses Fine Tuning ..."
"cosmologists must have a virtually unanimous consensus on1 model, instead of 17 models with no ..."

Physicist Sean Carroll Dismisses Fine Tuning ..."
"To be taken seriously you have to present the God hypothesis and the accompanying evidence, ..."

Physicist Sean Carroll Dismisses Fine Tuning ..."
"That's OK. I'm sure China can pick that up.The Right will have no problem with ..."

When Christianity Hits Reality: the William ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Rudy R

    Classic musing response from Dick Cavett. In such a situation where I ran into Roy Moore, I’d say, “Well, there are so many people here that aren’t pedophiles, I think I’ll go talk to them.” If I ran into a Roy Moore supporter who, if Roy Moore did make unwanted advances with a 14-year old, would still vote for him instead of a Democrat, I’d say, “so Republican Alabamans age of consent is 14 years old?”

    • eric

      “I’m a big fan of Roy Moore too! Could you introduce me to your daughter?”

      • Rudy R

        “Yes, but only if you generally don’t date girls in their late teens.”

  • Doubting Thomas

    A variant on a classic:
    “Cosmological Creationism: The idea that a guy who believes in demon infested pigs knows more about physics than Sean Carroll.”

  • Sonyaj

    Carroll’s latest book, The Big Picture, is on my “to read” list. It’s always so absurd when these creationist types try to debate someone who is an expert in his or her field, and they flail around like the irrelevant fools they are. I’d never heard of this William Lane Craig character until yesterday, when some xtian apologist brought his name up in the comments section of one of Hemant’s posts, and tried to say that he “won” debates with various scientists…eh, no.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      It’s frustrating hearing WLC prance around declaring victory after every debate in his podcast. I’d like to hear the critique of a panel of experts instead, and I think their conclusion would be different.

      • Greg G.

        He responded to Craig’s Kalam argument by attacked point 2,

        Nit: DYM “attacking”?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Changed, thanks. It’ll take a few minutes to propagate through.

      • Sonyaj

        No doubt. If this guy were having a round table panel discussion with a group of PhD cosmologists, there’s no doubt he’d be reduced to intellectual rubble and probably ignored pretty quickly, just like adults try to ignore a toddler banging a toy on the floor. I guess this guy – and all the other apologists who attempt to debate either scientists on their area of expertise – are so desperate to try and make a point that has no basis in fact, reality, research, or any other credible means, that he just keeps at it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Even more desperate are the Christians who listen to him. They’re eager for a pat on the head, and he’ll give it to them.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        We need a t-shirt with a chessboard, a pigeon with Craig’s head on it, and the caption: William Lane Craig, Pigeon Chess Grandmaster

      • JP415

        William Lane Craig always wins the debate. How do we know? Because he tells us so!

    • gusbovona

      I’ve read “The Big Picture,” and it’s very good. Really big ideas but easy to read. Especially mind-blowing is the single equation in the back that describes all of physics.

      • Sonyaj

        Sweet! I absolutely love reading books like this. I enjoyed Brian Greene’s two books “The Elegant Universe” and “Fabric of the Cosmos”, and those were pretty heavy conceptual reading, even for myself with a science background and college physics class under my belt.

      • Chuck Johnson

        Especially mind-blowing is the single equation in the back that describes all of physics.-gusbovona

        With just a single equation, all of physics is described ?
        I can do that, too.

        With just a single phrase, I can describe all of physics. Here is that phrase:

        “All Of Physics”

        I am familiar enough with physics and cosmology to recognize the falseness of grandiose claims.

        • Annerdr

          Holy cow! You managed it in three words!

        • Chuck Johnson

          Yes.
          When you neglect to include the details, the explanations can be all-inclusive to a miraculous degree.

        • Annerdr

          I don’t have a science background, so too many details tends to confuse me rather quickly, which is why I hesitate to disagree with people with the education and experience in scientific fields. So, I don’t understand physics, but I’m going to trust physics information from a physicist over physics information from Ken Ham.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Yes.
          The habit of success in science and the habit of failure in fundamentalist religions allows you to make rule-of-thumb decisions.

        • gusbovona

          No, carroll’s equation is actual physics. You should check it out.

        • Chuck Johnson

          What, this equation ?
          Whether or not it does correctly represent discoveries in physics was not the point of my earlier comment.

          My comment was on my reaction to hyperbole and showmanship in popular science writing.

          No, that equation does not allow us to calculate all of the things that physicists and other scientists need to calculate.
          It’s showmanship.

          And it’s incorrect (as in imprecise).
          All math formulas designed to represent things in the real world are useful under certain conditions, and then fail in other conditions.

          And it will be revised as the years go by.

          The most impressive thing about science to me is its ability to progress and continue to deliver amazing and useful things.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d5f2ccdef650634b8f99e6f8faac01bba4b6d9ad13a63e81605afe24814459de.jpg

    • Rudy R

      “The Big Picture” is an outstanding read. Suggest it be on your “read now” list. In it, he elegantly explains the emergence of the mind from brain cells, which I dare say, biologists have had a hard time doing. Just more proof that Carroll has a brilliant mind!

  • Tony D’Arcy

    There’s no doubt Carroll swept WLC out of the argument. But WLC is a brazen bastard, changes the subject rather than argue it.

    • MR

      But [ ] is a brazen bastard, changes the subject rather than argue it.

      You could fill that blank in with pretty much every wanna be apologist that has passed through this site.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      The objective observer tells WLC that he lost, but WLC replies, “No, I didn’t.” And that’s enough for his flock in the Reality Distortion Zone, apparently.

      • Doubting Thomas

        The witness of the Holy Spirit tells Craig that he’s won and that’s enough for him. It’s like an internal pat on the head from dad.

  • Otto

    To anticipate this, Craig invariably brings up the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem (BGV), which says that the multiverse did have a beginning.

    I thought the BGV theorem dealt with how our known universe had a beginning, not the multiverse. Someone with more knowledge on the subject can set me straight…

    • Herald Newman

      That would have been my opinion as well, considering that we haven’t even confirmed that a multiverse exists.

      • al kimeea

        Ya. It’s a bunch of educated guesses and complicated math at this point. One version has 11 dimensions, iirc.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        True, though a multiverse is a predicted consequence of Cosmic Inflation, for which there is good evidence.

        • Herald Newman

          Sure, but don’t you think it’s a bit premature to say that the multiverse must have had a beginning when we haven’t even confirmed that it exists, let alone have data with which to model it? Craig is chomping at the bit just to shove his God into whatever cracks he can, even when it doesn’t belong there.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That is premature, and that’s not what I’m saying. The point of my last comment was just to say that the multiverse wasn’t some crazy idea pulled out of thin air to save the atheists from WLC’s brilliant use of the fine tuning argument. There is evidence.

        • Herald Newman

          Agreed.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      My (imperfect) understanding is that BGV won’t allow you to say, “OK, so the universe had a beginning, but what about the multiverse??” And that’s why WLC uses it. It says that, even if you go back through a universe-creation process, you still have to have a beginning. Correct me if I’m wrong.

      But Carroll dismantles that argument.

      • Otto

        I can’t correct you because I am certainly not knowledgeable enough on it. But my limited understanding is the BGV theorem only refers to the universe as it goes back to the plank time. In other words the universe had a beginning in its current form.

    • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

      i think this is the paper where they presented their theorem: “inflationary spacetimes are not past-complete” (arxiv). the point of the theorem was to find an analog of the classical singularity theorems for inflationary models (where the classical result apparently wasn’t applicable), if they are past-eternal or not. somewhat confusingly they never use the word “multiverse” and call the whole shebang “universe”.

      • Otto

        And yet WLC (and other apologists) claim the theorem says our inflationary spacetime are past-complete…so yep I agree with what you are saying.

        • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

          past-complete in this case means past-eternal, no “beginning”.

  • skl

    “Carroll responded by ticking off variant universes. A universe with a beginning but no cause? There’s a model for that. A universe that is eternal without a beginning? There’s a model for that, too—indeed, there are at least 17 plausible models.”

    I would be interested in knowing which of the 17 models wins the scientific consensus today.

    • Doubting Thomas

      None of them.

    • Kevin K

      Careful, your creationism is showing again.

  • Rudy R

    The KSA doesn’t do at all what Craig thinks it does. The first premise, Whatever begins to exist has a cause, is only an assertion if there is no evidence to support it, which Craig provides zilch. Same for the second premise: The universe began to exist; without evidence for the premise, it’s just a guess. Just for the sake of argument, say we accept premises 1 and 2 as being probable, the conclusion, The universe has a cause, does not infer a supernatural being as being the cause. The cause could have been by natural means. Let’s even stretch it a bit further and assume it was a supernatural being; it says nothing about whether that supernatural being exists now. This being could have died causing the universe. There are just big, gaping logical and scientific holes in this argument and one tailored perfectly for an apologist trying to win over the already converted and does nothing to convince the scientific literate.

    • Herald Newman

      For the first premise, Craig wants to appeal to our intuition, as most apologists do. They offer the bare minimum required to support the assertions that support their arguments.

      Ultimately, one big problem with the kalam is that it isn’t an argument for god. The conclusion says absolutely nothing about “God.” Further arguments are therefore required.

      • Rudy R

        Indeed. Craig even infers a god in the KSA, where the word god isn’t included.

      • Pofarmer

        I’ve had multiple people, Catholics and protestants say that they were going to get around to the argument for Christian God from the argument for the Deist God. So far, nuthin.

        • Herald Newman

          Shocking, right?!

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      KSA? You mean the Kalam Cosmological Argument? (Or maybe I should say, “Kalam Kosmological Argument.”)

      • Kevin K

        I’ve always found it ironic that Craig has practically made a career expounding on and defending an argument that was developed to prove the existence of Allah.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What he’s not eager to embrace is the fact that the most popular Christian apologetics today (argument from morality, transcendental arg., ontological arg., fine tuning arg, design arg, and so on) are all deist arguments. As you note, they support the existence of Allah as much as Yahweh.

        • Kevin K

          Anytime you drill down to the origins of an argument, most of them seem to have been originally conceived by Aristotle. So, they’re not an argument for the existence of Yahweh as the sole-only god, but of Zeus/Athena/Apollo, et al.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          LOL! 😉

        • Tommy

          Also the fact that a creator =/= God because many ancients believed the world was created by a being lower than God.

        • Kevin K

          The Greco-Roman tradition had the universe created by a higher-order of gods … the Titans … who were then overthrown by their offspring Zeus.

          Whatever man can imagine, that’s what you’re going to find in some holy book.

        • JP415

          The Demiurge.

      • Rudy R

        Yes, I meant KCA. Trying to use acronyms to simplify my narrative sometimes comes with mistakes.

  • Chuck Johnson

    “Should a conflict arise between the
    witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian
    faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former
    which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa. (p. 48)”

    This is not a credible argument to me.
    “The witness of the Holy Spirit” actually is a belief based upon argument and evidence.
    That is, sophistry along with shoddy evidence.

    • Michael Neville

      Lane Craig has defined “witness of the Holy Spirit” as basically what he thinks the Holy Spirit is telling him. In other words, he goes with what the voice in his head tells him is true.

      • Rudy R

        Someone should ask him how he tells the difference between the Holy Ghost’s voice and his own voice in his head. If he responds by stating that the Holy Ghost commands him to do things counter to his intuitions, then he should be referred to seek mental health help, because he probably has DID. I jest, but that should paint him into a corner.

        I’ve asked that question to several theists and none have adequately provide an answered. They usually equivocate the word “tell” into something completely meaningless.

  • Damien Priestly

    Oh, I thought the debate was recent…it was almost four years ago! WLC must really think highly of himself and live in a bubble…he would get laughed out of a 12th grade High-School physics class and he doesn’t even know it. Hasn’t any Christian told him he looks like a fool debating real scientists.

    In centuries past, the science gaps were so large that apologists would explain earthquakes, volcanoes, lightning, birth, death and disease; placing these things in the hands of god — and nobody could question them…Now, it speaks volumes that apologists like WLC are backed into a corner, left only to debate cosmology and the Big-Bang with Phd physicists (maybe the origin of life too..but again with real biologists that run circles around them). The ground left for god claims is almost completely closed — and WLC and his apologist ilk are like the last few Neanderthals in a futile attempt to hold off the intellectually superior Homo Sapiens.

    • Peter White

      I wish Craig would get laughed out of a physics class but his followers will think he must be a genius to be debating a real scientist. His debates start with nonsensical arguments which get thoroughly refuted by his opponent. He then refutes his opponents arguments by repeating his original arguments. His followers eat it up and think Craig is the easy winner in any debate.

      • Pofarmer

        The worst thing is, after those “arguments” acre clearly defeated, Craig just turns around and uses them in the next “debate” as if it never happened. He never actually learns anything.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Set up a debate with a display screen in back, so every time he tries it, the screen can show how he was debunked LAST time, as his opponent lolls back with a glass of wine :-)

        • epicurus

          This is one of the reasons I don’t buy the line that anyone in the first century telling an inaccurate version of what happend to Jesus or the disciples would be discovered and corrected and then that only the accurate version would be told afterward. Real life doesn’t work like that, especially when someone is passionate about what they believe.

        • Pofarmer

          And we can see it happening clearly in a time of mass communications, which they certainly didn’t have. People didn’t have any way to check, which we do now, and they still don’t, or they decide not to believe what they find out. It just doesn’t matter that much.

        • JP415

          Even today, a lot of myths and legends keep making the rounds long after they’ve been debunked. Examples: the Bermuda Triangle, the Roswell U.F.O. crash, the Philadelphia Experiment, the The Amityville Horror. These stories have been meticulously dismantled by skeptics, and yet believers keep propagating them in books, magazines, and websites. The true believers aren’t easily dissuaded.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Real life doesn’t work like that, especially when someone is passionate about what they believe.

          Is this necessarily true, or simply true in a lot of cases?

          Suppose, for example, that some group of Christians became rigorous truth-tellers, being exceedingly careful to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Suppose they became excellent conflict-resolvers, for those who really want to resolve conflict rather than paper it over. Suppose they get into science and public policy, resolutely refusing to cover up politically problematic science and refusing to exaggerate one study into massive sweeping policy changes. Were such a group to exist and develop a strong tradition of truth-telling, would it be a counterexample to your “Real life doesn’t work like that”? Would it be any sort of evidence that such a group could have existed in the first century, AD?

        • epicurus

          I don’t think it’s evidence that exactly that kind of group could have existed in the first century – public policy, science and all that – but I’m assuming you just mean a group dedicated to telling the truth and correcting error existing in the first century Christian community, and so I think you are asking – would first century Christians have modified their views accordingly if they were corrected by a another group of first century Christians who had developed a reputation of being rigorous truth tellers? Well, assuming the latter had somehow overcome the problems of first century communications – a very tall order – no phone no email no newspapers, no ability to quickly get to another part of a province or region, and as far as I’ve read on the topic, that the gospel was spread more by word of mouth of merchants and spouses and house to house, rather than by towering apostolic giants, they would probably only deal with an untruth once it had become widespread enough that many people or groups held it, since that would probably be the only way the “Truth Telling” group would find out about it.

          But most Christians through history have held that Paul would be part of any truth telling group – in fact the ultimate truth teller. Yet, groups and people did not change their view after the ultimate truth teller (ok maybe after Jesus) had corrected them or told them they were wrong. Was Luke corrected by anyone after or during the writing of Acts, when he makes it sound like Paul got along with everyone, when Paul’s letters indicate otherwise? Well, who knows, right?

        • Ignorant Amos

          And which gospel was the true gospel…there were numerous, from the sublime to the ridiculous…and even among those that made the fourth century cut, no one knows what is what.

          Those others declared the heretics by those that won the day, the proto-orthodox, by way of might makes right, might have been the truth tellers who ended up being put down by the liars.

        • epicurus

          Yeah, I was just trying to keep it in the first century to be consistent with Luke’s reply to me.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          I don’t think it’s evidence that exactly that kind of group could have existed in the first century – public policy, science and all that – but I’m assuming you just mean a group dedicated to telling the truth and correcting error existing in the first century Christian community, and so I think you are asking – would first century Christians have modified their views accordingly if they were corrected by a another group of first century Christians who had developed a reputation of being rigorous truth tellers?

          Something like that. I was most strongly responding to the idea that “passionate ⇒ truth-antagonistic”. Indeed, one way to understand the Good News is that there is a way to be passionate such that the passion only enhances truth. For example, one can be so passionate about the truth that if one has to admit one is a grievous sinner in need of forgiveness and repentance, it becomes worth it to undergo whatever pain and suffering is required to fully and completely root out the evil within. This can be contrasted against the strong human tendency toward self-righteousness.

          Was Luke corrected by anyone after or during the writing of Acts, when he makes it sound like Paul got along with everyone, when Paul’s letters indicate otherwise?

          Hmmm, you really think there are necessary contradictions between Paul’s letters and the Book of Acts? For example, between Gal 2:11–14, Acts 11:1–18, and Acts 15:1–11? I haven’t tried sorting out precisely the timeline with Peter, but Acts 15 makes clear that Paul and Barnabas didn’t always get along with everyone.

        • epicurus

          “Indeed, one way to understand the Good News is that there is a way to be passionate such that the passion only enhances truth.”

          Yes, that can happen. Does it usually, in real life on most occasions where religion involves claiming revelation or witness of divine things? I would say no, I assume you would say yes. Moving out of the first century, there are seemingly endless heresy, groups, and schisms. And on a smaller scale this occurred in the first century. Pretty much all of them were resolved by the power of the state, once it took an interest in the matter, or by chance, such as the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman army in 70.

          As for the Paul/Acts differences, here are a couple screen caps from Luke Timothy Johnson’s (Emory University) course book from his Teaching Co. course on Paul. These are not specific to your references, but I might dig a bit over the weekend to find the stuff in Paul’s work I was thinking of.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4e082530601109f1c8c29fe8648bfa2ed429c853b76a90f9b6a16e8d00e6874.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3a524df0d8c57a535014e9ae6ccdf3a51d82b9c1455ada031ea173fb429a0d3e.jpg

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          LB: Indeed, one way to understand the Good News is that there is a way to be passionate such that the passion only enhances truth.

          e: Yes, that can happen. Does it usually, in real life on most occasions where religion involves claiming revelation or witness of divine things? I would say no, I assume you would say yes.

          On the contrary, I have absolutely no reason to claim a “yes” for the frequency “on most occasions”. What I have reason to question is that passion is (i) necessarily antithetical to the truth; or (ii) at best truth-agnostic. It is especially fun to encounter those who defend (i) or (ii) with passion. :-) Once we open up the possibility that some—maybe a very small fraction—of people can actually employ passion to advance the cause of truth, we can go interesting places. For example, what are the necessary conditions for such an existence to be stable, for people not to veer off into falsehood? Could the NT folks have possibly been truth-oriented, or is there logic which shows them to be necessarily truth-agnostic/​truth-antagonistic? A nice thing about this line of inquiry is that one benefits even if the conclusion is that the NT folks weren’t robust truth-seekers.

          Moving out of the first century, there are seemingly endless heresy, groups, and schisms.

          Do you think this happens less, today? If you’re focusing too much on physical harm or the threat thereof to suppress dissenting views, I urge you to consider that we in Modernity have many other ways of suppressing views and punishing those who would flirt with them. We don’t even need bullets-and-bombs war to devastate an economy anymore (I reference Greece’s 25% drop in GDP).

          As for the Paul/Acts differences, here are a couple screen caps from Luke Timothy Johnson’s (Emory University) course book from his Teaching Co. course on Paul.

          Thanks. I suspect that III.B. does touch on my references. Some of the other points seem rather dubious (why is it weird that he was circumcised but thinks others don’t need to be?), but perhaps this is not the time and place to discuss them.

  • Phil Rimmer

    I must be honest. I don’t think Lawrence Krauss has helped here. A Universe from Nothing, equivocating “nothing”. So many theories attempting a larger view than just within an emergent spacetime starting from a moment of least entropy, suggest that besides spacetimes there is an existing principle for which it is even incoherent to talk of it always existing.

    • epeeist

      A Universe from Nothing, equivocating “nothing”.

      Agreed, but there again try to get anyone, especially those who claim ex nihilo nihil fit to define what they mean by “nothing” and see if you actually get anywhere.

      • Phil Rimmer

        The question is about dissimulating WLC. It should stuff him, but might just unleash woes with Deepshit Copro….

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      What I find hilarious is WLC dismissing Krauss by saying that this wasn’t the philosophers’ “nothing” (that is, absolutely nothing) … as if philosophers have something useful to add at the frontier of science.

      • Phil Rimmer

        I think that is one area where philosophers actually become useful in their rigor.

        Wittgenstein thought he had proved philosophy redundant by rightly pointing out that the metaphysical entities (the might-bes) we may fabricate cannot be used to prove anything of themselves (true) because they could not sit upon ostensive definitions (you couldn’t point to them) but depended upon slippery words only for their definition.

        It was Popper, enriching science, that disagreed, much to W’s poker wielding fury. Popper said that metaphysics is exactly what scientists do, inventing might-bes, to later test for in the lab. If you find a thing that fits your verbal definition, near enough, then you have something to point at. An ostensive definition is possible.

        Until that time undemonstrated metaphysics needs W’s caution ringing in our ears. Feynman loathed cocktail party philosophers, using say relativity to make some unconnected point. What we truly know is what we have mastered with predictive mathematical descriptions rather than what we understand using a hugely metaphorical brain and its use of language.

        Whatever, this totally screws Mr. (metaphysics-only) WLC.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I disagree.

          Theoretical physicist *examine the math*, and make predictions based on that.

        • Phil Rimmer

          This is rigor. This is my point…and Wittgenstein’s. Language is the risk.

          However, the outputs of maths are not true unless its inputs have been demonstrated.

    • MNb

      Nah, Krauss is misunderstanding philosphy a bit and many apologists misuse it to their benefit.
      In physics the number 0 represents nothing, so when all quantum fields have the value 0 physics calls it nothingness.
      Were apologists honest they simply would have asked “Where do quantum fields come from?”, because that’s the point they try to make: something/someone must explain, create, cause, be responsible for, whatever, the existence of quantum fields. Except that this would make clear that they have to demonstrate “must” and that would require hard work and hence is not for those apologists.

  • james ohara

    I have only One thing to say to you God hating losers, here is all your science rolled up into one statement, The Non locality of Unbound Elementary Particles, get over it!.

    • epeeist

      So what is non-local realism meant to show in your version of the universe?

      • james ohara

        It’s not my Vision, it’s the way reality it is, when you get down to the nitty gritty of reality it just dissolves through your fingers like it didn’t exist in the first place, the only acceptable account of Life the Universe and Everything is the Holy Bible, and to prove it to you, I ask you One simple question,
        Where does Hydrogen come from?.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah, good point. The Bible gives an explanation, backed with evidence, for hydrogen and where it comes from.

          Or not.

        • james ohara

          The correct answer is actually very interesting, its exactly the same answer Science has to the question, Where does Life come from?.

        • Doubting Thomas

          So “I don’t know” proves the Bible is true?

          Religious people are so predictable.

        • james ohara

          Hardly, ” I don’t know “, proves that Science has no answer to the origin of the Universe, and has no answer to the origin of Life, the Bible Does!, and for your information I am not a Religious person, Christianity is a relationship with God, no one has ever claimed that Christianity is a religion, and if you had ever bothered to read the Bible you would learn that God Hates religion, but you haven’t read the Bible have you, what is it they say about books and their covers?.

        • Doubting Thomas

          …no one has ever claimed that Christianity is a religion….

          I have claimed that Christianity is a religion, therefore you are wrong.

        • james ohara

          Prove it!,
          Moses supposes his toeses are roses
          But Moses supposes erroneously
          And Moses, he knowses his toeses aren´t roses
          As Moses supposes his toeses to be

          What can I tell you son, YOUR WRONG!,

        • Doubting Thomas

          Brace yourself for my devastating proof:
          “I claim that Christianity is a religion.”
          -Doubting Thomas

        • james ohara

          Brace yourself for my devastating reply,
          It isn’t,
          There is no Church of Christianity, there is no religion of Christianity, there is no God of Christianity, there are no devotees of Christianity,
          Christ means Savior, or haven’t you heard?.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Then there are a minimum of 44000+ ‘false’ xtianities.

          ALL are false, in my book..so is the ‘bible’…but this shoots holes in your idiocy.

        • james ohara

          prove it!.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
        • adam
        • Greg G.

          There is Balaam’s talking donkey (Numbers 22:21-39) and the talking donkey in Shrek. How much confirmation do you need?

        • adam
        • james ohara

          Again, whats that old saying about books and their covers?, there are no talking snakes in the Bible, read it!.

        • Greg G.

          Again, whats that old saying about books and their covers?, there are no talking snakes in the Bible, read it!.

          There is a talking serpent in Genesis 3.

          Genesis 3:1 (NIV)
          Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

          Genesis 49:17 (NIV)
          Dan will be a snake by the roadside, a viper along the path, that bites the horse’s heels so that its rider tumbles backward.

          The same Hebrew word (נָחָשׁ nachash ) is used for “serpent” and for “snake” in Genesis. Read the Bible in depth.

        • Kevin K

          And if the snake was not talking, then why did Yahweh punish it by taking away its legs! There’s a conundrum there — if the snake was really Satan in disguise, then Yahweh punished the wrong creature. But it’s clear that Yahweh knew what he was doing — so the snake must have had legs and must have been clever and talkative. And aware enough to know that the tree had IQ-raising sin-fruit that the mud-man and rib-woman would find delicious.

          /edit

        • Greg G.

          That is a point I like to make. If Satan told Eve to eat the fruit, God owes serpents an apology.

        • Kevin K

          It’s like they don’t read their little stories for comprehension.

        • Greg G.

          They look at the words with a blank mind so a revelation can happen.

        • Doubting Thomas

          Now I see the big issue. Your reading comprehension sucks. I used to have that problem too, but then my second grade teacher said these words to me: “Slow down when you read, you inbred looking freak. Actually think what the words mean instead of just sounding them out.”

          It changed my life forever.

          Now, whenever I go to church, I softly whisper these words of thanks:
          “Bless you, Mrs. McFadden. May your words of wisdom echo throughout the ages. May your example be a shining beacon of hope to all those Christians out there who would prefer to debate the strawmen in their heads rather than have a discussion with a real person.”

          Not that I ever go to church, but if I did……

        • james ohara

          You think trying to change the subject is going to win you some kind of brownie points?, it isn’t.
          btw, don’t think I didn’t see that, I did, ” these wo rds of thanks:”.

        • Doubting Thomas

          Irony is so much nicer when it’s clueless irony.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          my second grade teacher… Mrs. McFadden…

          Whoa! My second grade teacher was Mrs. McFadden. You don’t suppose…?

          I remember being in her class when the principal interrupted to announce to the class that President Kennedy had been shot, then returned a short time later to announce that President Kennedy had died.

        • Greg G.

          You said, “…no one has ever claimed that Christianity is a religion…”

          DT made the claim, therefore that phrase in you sentence is disproved.

          You did not claim that Christianity is not a religion with that phrase.

        • james ohara

          Stay on topic!, my question is, Where does Hydrogen come from, if you have an answer other than ” I DON’T KNOW “, please let’s hear it, otherwise crawl back under your rock with the rest of the Don’t Knows!.

        • Greg G.

          DT’s reply was to that particular phrase. That is the topic of this sub-thread. If you can’t follow this simple digression and admit that you were wrong, I do not see any upside to conversing with you on quantum physics.

        • Kevin K

          Especially since Feynman’s quote about the understanding of quantum physics seems to apply in spades with this character.

        • adam
        • adam

          “otherwise crawl back under your rock with the rest of the Don’t Knows!.”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5dce8e4340d2c0716f4026b5d3ef74cff5e8685e82246f297fbb0074cb8b9f12.jpg

        • james ohara

          Not much of a rock is it?, maybe I should poke you with my stupid question again just so’s your sure of what the actual question is,
          Where does Hydrogen come from?, just say ” I don’t know “, it’s not hard, try it.

        • adam

          I dont know.

          And neither do you.
          So you might just as well quit pretending.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6fdb39aadd75100b6a42a22589cc237e66125efb7c16def734b5dcc49a03caaa.jpg

        • Kevin K
        • james ohara

          That’s not how you spell God you stupid Ape.

        • Kevin K

          You asked the question, I provided you with the answer. If you don’t like it, take it up with the physicists.

          FWIW: I don’t know what this “god” thing is that you’re referring to, but you can’t find it in either of the above-mentioned equations. And like Laplace, I suspect the vast majority of physicists and cosmologists would not have need of that hypothesis.

        • james ohara

          That’s not the answer, that’s just some Space Goat bollocks, as for Knowing God, Satan and a third of the host of Heaven knew God personally, didn’t do them much good did it?.

        • BlackMamba44
        • james ohara

          It’s like God is in the room,

          To document that God hates religion, note the following passages of Scripture:
          “…every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods, for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.” (Deuteronomy 12:31)
          “I have had enough of burnt offerings…Bring your worthless offerings no longer…I hate your new moon festivals and your appointed feasts; they have become a burden to Me… So when you spread out your hands in prayer, I will hide My eyes from you… I will not listen…” (Isaiah 1:10-15)
          “I hate, I reject your festivals; nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies…take away from Me the noise of your songs; I will not even listen to the sound of your harps.” (Amos 5:21-24)

          http://www.christinyou.net/pages/godhatesrel.html

          Ya see, you think you know something but you really really don’t, GOD HATES RELIGION!.

        • BlackMamba44
        • james ohara

          Indeed, Quotes that you have never heard and are now trying to digest, my work is done with you, God Hates Religion, square that with your God hating bollocks!.

        • BlackMamba44
        • BlackMamba44
        • james ohara

          Constantine was a Serbian War lord, what on earth has he got to do with God?,
          The Roman Catholic Church is Roman and Catholic first, what on earth have they to do with God and Jesus second?,
          Language?, whats next?,
          one word for your edited bible, Qumran,
          We fucking love Atheism?, Ephesians 3:18 “the breadth and length and height and depth, “, 4 dimensions,
          God doesn’t drink Guinness, haven’t you read the Bible?.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          More assertion.

          Show me EVIDENCE.

          Ephesians 3:18: That’s part of a *prayer* for the Ephesians, and PREscriptive, not DEscriptive of reality.

          More dishonest cherry-picking.

        • BlackMamba44

          Whooosh.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Deuteronomy 12:31 : Out of context. It says OTHERS are worshipping THEIR ‘gods’ in abominable ways. Doesn’t say ‘god’ doesn’t like religion.

          Amos 5:21-24 is just your ‘god’ supposedly in a snit and spitting vituperation. Doesn’t say it doesn’t like religion.

          So you’re cherry-picking, out of context, to try to make a point using false witness.

          Doesn’t your ‘bible’ have something to say about false witness?

          Or is Lying for Jebus™ okay?

        • james ohara

          They are called the Ten commandments because there’s only TEN! of them, not 600, and it doesn’t say God doesn’t LIKE religion, He says He hates it, the Hebrews wanted all those Laws so they could be like all the other nations, when God first introduced Himself the first thing He did was begin the destruction of Idol worship and the religious practice demanded by the generic gods of human sacrifice,
          Read the Bible, learn something!.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Non-sequitur as usual.

          If you read Deuteronomy, there are 613 laws that are all considered equal to your 10 ‘commandments’, so you lose again.

          And I demonstrated, by looking at the verses from which you pulled the book/chapter/verse fragments, that you’re distorting the meaning to suit your emotional need for certainty.

        • james ohara

          Lol, God knew you would say that!, that’s why He wrote them in Stone so’s they could not be added to or retracted from, men wrote the Rabbinical Laws dear, not God,
          ” suit your emotional need for certainty.”, , ,
          My emotional need for certainty is fulfilled, it has been since Jesus was crucified, I am now a saved Saint, my mind is still like yours, rolling in the filth of sin, my body is still like yours, rolling in the filth of sin, but my spirit is perfect, Righteously washed completely clean by the blood of my Kinsman Redeemer, i lose nothing, I in fact gain the Kingdom, you, who are obviously entrenched in the LAW, will live and die under it and be Accused, Condemned and sent straight to Hell for the love of it, you are the loser.

        • Steve Williams

          Good grief, is there no end to it? I’ve been doing a drinking game for every time you said something stupid. I’m currently in hospital with liver failure.

        • james ohara

          Perhaps you’d like to itemize my stupidity?,
          Do the crawl you toad.

        • Steve Williams

          I really don’t have the time (or desire) to copy and paste all your comments into one very long post.

        • james ohara

          I understand completely and sympathize deeply, sad to see you go,
          Lol, another one bites the dust,
          Now do the Crawl!.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I see a bunch of cherry-picked, out of context quotes, and a plug for a really shitty apologetics website.

        • BlackMamba44
        • james ohara

          God is the Creator, Satan is the Created, what is it you don’t get?.

        • BlackMamba44

          Then your god created his nemesis to be smarter and more powerful than him.

          Way to go, Yahweh!

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          God is the Creator, Satan is the Created, what is it you don’t get?

          I don’t believe you. Show me with evidence that is specific to your superstition.

          What don’t you get?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Just to be a noodge, how do we compare relative power of 2 or more nonexistent things? 😉

        • BlackMamba44

          Damn, you got me…:)

        • kevrob

          IOW, who would win, the Hulk or the Thing?

          Answer: depends on the writer.

        • epeeist

          That’s not the answer, that’s just some Space Goat bollocks

          Since you are obviously incapable of producing an answer on non-local realism here is some Space Goat bollocks a definitive paper on the subject.

          You will notice that no gods are mentioned in the paper whatsoever.

        • Kevin K

          And Dumbledore knew Harry Potter, but still got killed before Harry destroyed Valedmort!!

          And that is your problem in a nutshell … you seem to think that fictional characters are real.

        • james ohara

          I don’t have a problem with any of the characters in the Bible since most of the relevant ones can be substantiated by contemporary writers and various lithographic and parchment writings,
          But I was totally unaware that JRR Tolkien was epic bollocks was based on actual people, I thought it was just some fantasy incorporating the dynamics of the first and second world wars, do you have any proof of this or are you just gonna do the Crawl!.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          More assertion.

          Those with actual skill and study in the area of ancient languages disagree with you.

          Learn the relevant languages and read deeply of them (probably a decade’s worth of toil) and then MAYBE I’ll listen to you.

          Next, ‘james’ will claim he’s already an expert in ancient Eastern Mediterranean languages! (I’m a *prophet*!!!! 😉 )

        • Kevin K

          Actually, you’ll find that very, very few characters in the bible are “real”. Most certainly not the supernatural characters like Yahweh, Satan, Jesus, et al, which I would guess make the top of your “relevant” list, along with Adam, Eve, the talking snake and the rest.

          The bible itself is nothing more than myths, legends, highly revisionist Jewish history (there was no Exodus, Joshua did not topple the walls of Jerico, etc.), and dietary guidelines for people without ice. The majority of it was written by semi-nomadic tribesmen who did not know where the sun went at night and thought that thunder was a sign from an unhappy spirit. It is not to be taken seriously. And certainly offers absolutely zero insight into modern physics and cosmology.

          It’s been fun, but you’re boring me, and I actually have real-and-paying clients, so I’ll let the others deal with your nonsensical ravings. I suggest you get psychological help, cuz you certainly need it. No further replies will be forthcoming.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t have a problem with any of the characters in the Bible since most of the relevant ones can be substantiated by contemporary writers and various lithographic and parchment writings

          Cool. Justify Leviathan for me. And be sure to substantiate all his properties as listed in Job.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          And Captain Kirk asked “What does ‘god’ need with a starship?”

          I think my fiction is better than YOUR fiction…more moral, and more consistent, too.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s because we don’t believe your ‘god’ invented hydrogen.

        • Kodie
        • james ohara

          At last, an honest answer, there hope for you son :)

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          That’s YOUR third point.

          We’re still waiting for you to demonstrate your FIRST point is right.

          And the point under discussion here is your assertion that xtianity isn’t a religion.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Where are you going with this? “Well, if you don’t know, I do! God did it!”–is that it?

        • adam
        • Kevin K
        • adam
        • Kevin K

          So many memes. I usually don’t pull them out this early … but it’s all he deserves.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Needs a ‘pi’ symbol on his chest in place of the ’73’

          😉

        • MNb

          And what exactly has been devastated right now? Not DT’s comment.

        • JP415

          Aaaaaaaaaah. That’s devastating!

        • BlackMamba44
        • Kevin K

          Ahem … “you’re”.

        • Greg G.

          james ohara doesn’t understand words but he likes the noise they make.

        • Kevin K

          My 1-year-old great-nephew makes more sense banging two pots together.

        • BlackMamba44
        • adam
        • Kevin K
        • james ohara

          I just asked a simple question son, if you have an answer then lets hear it, if not, don’t talk, listen!.

        • Kevin K

          You asked a simple question and were given a simple — and correct answer. And I’m not your “son”, cupcake. The rhetorical trick of infantilizing someone doesn’t work here.

        • BlackMamba44
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You still haven’t met the burden of proof on your first assertion upthread.

          Why should we waste time on your Gish Gallop? We’re challenging your assertions each step of the way…if you don’t wanna play, we’d be happy to let you go away.

        • adam
        • james ohara

          Lol, you silly sausage, without God there is no Atheism, don’t you have a dictionary in the house?.

        • adam
        • james ohara

          You think so?,
          Who teaches an infant how to lie before it cant even speak?,
          Who teaches an infant how to steal when it doesn’t even grasp the concept of ownership?,
          We are not born Atheists, to be an Atheist you must first understand the concept of God or at least god’s,
          We are born sinners!,
          Please answer my question, it’s not as if it’s rocket science.

        • epeeist

          We are not born Atheists, to be an Atheist you must first understand the concept of God or at least god’s,

          Nope, atheism is the null position. I lack belief in things that I am not aware of.

        • james ohara

          Jesus, now I understand your rank stupidity, your only 12 aren’t, you thing the word Atheist means awareness, what an areshole you are, oh no, you think I’m the arsehole don’t you, well your wrong Big nose,

          ATHEIST,
          The word ‘atheism’ comes from the Greek prefix ‘a’, meaning without, and ‘theist’, meaning having a belief in a supernatural deity.
          Atheism, therefore, literally means “without theistic belief”.
          Atheism does not positively assert anything; rather, it is a statement of withheld belief,

          Are we learning yet?, would you like me to google the word Moron for you?.

        • adam
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Are you an aEasterBunny-ist as well? 😉

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          No presents for you, mister.

        • Kodie

          Babies don’t have theistic belief. You don’t need god to be an atheist, which was your initial claim.

          We aren’t learning anything – you’re not capable of it, and we already knew this shit a long time ago.

        • epeeist

          Jesus, now I understand your rank stupidity, your only 12 aren’t, you thing the word Atheist means awareness, what an areshole you are, oh no, you think I’m the arsehole don’t you, well your wrong Big nose,

          I usually find that when someone resorts to ad hominem it is because they lack an argument.

          Atheism, therefore, literally means “without theistic belief”.

          It is perfectly possible to lack a belief without the knowledge of a term. Do you have belief in Kami?

          To reinforce what I said previously, the default position is to not include anything in one’s ontology for which there is no justification.

          Are we learning yet?

          From you? Hardly.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Funny, you came up with Kami.

          I was thinking ‘whatamores’ from ‘Zen Without Zen Masters’ :-)

        • epeeist

          I think we are both overdoing it, what odds he has heard of anything outside of the wholly babble and apologetics sites.

        • BlackMamba44
        • james ohara

          I have to answer my reply’s son, I think you’ll find that’s not what a Troll does,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Philmonomer

          well your wrong Big nose,

          Quality stuff right here. (Also, you’re funny! Does it come naturally, or did you have to practice it? I’m thinking it comes naturally.)

        • james ohara

          Both, I’m old, thanks.

        • Philmonomer

          Both, I’m old, thanks.

          Like “GET OFF MY LAWN” old?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          ‘Old Man shaking fist at clouds” old

          😉

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And the irony is, he’s on our lawn.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          atheist merely means we disbelieve your assertion of any ‘gods’.

          You keep trying to redefine words to support your idiot assertions.

          Consensus reality is under no obligation to cater to your delusions.

        • james ohara

          Tell it to Cyrano then do the Crawl!.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Your non-sequiturs are evidence indicating either that you’re trolling or are a disturbed individual who needs to repeat catchphrases to maintain emotional balance.

          Either way, you’re painfully useless to anybody who doesn’t suffer from chronic low blood pressure.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And “do the crawl” means … what?

        • JP415

          “well your [sic] wrong Big nose” Wow! Now that is a brilliant counterargument. That’s one for Bartlett’s Quotations. You are truly a great thinker, sir!

        • james ohara

          I’m not big nose you idiot, and you’re not big nose, but big nose knows who he is and that’s all that matters.

        • JP415

          I’m really enjoying your disjointed, stream-of-consciousness writing style. Please, give us more!

        • james ohara

          Sure, what is it you’d like to know, i am a veritable fountain of knowledge, ask me what you like, i’ll straighten you out no problem and further more my answer will be 100% correct.

        • adam

          “We are not born Atheists, to be an Atheist you must first understand the concept of God or at least god’s, ”

          No, you dont have to understand the concept of God to be an atheist.
          Your ignorance is showing
          . https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f1aee1f6a7ece67690141d74adb3c45ceb54b7106bd54c8973750c1c04bd3bf8.jpg

          “Who teaches an infant how to lie before it cant even speak?,” The Church
          “Who teaches an infant how to steal when it doesn’t even grasp the concept of ownership?,” The government

          Who teaches a God how to create universes and life?

        • james ohara

          Answer my question or do the Crawl!.

        • adam

          I answered your question.

          Now answer mine.

          Who teaches a God how to create universes and life?

        • MNb

          “Who teaches an infant how to lie before it cant even speak?,”
          Christians like you.

          “Who teaches an infant how to steal when it doesn’t even grasp the concept of ownership?,”
          Christians like you.

          “We are not born Atheists, to be an Atheist you must first understand the concept of God or at least god’s,
          We are born sinners!,”
          Thanks for confirming that it’s christians like you.

        • james ohara

          Let’s make it simpler for you eh, just for you,
          various Animals disguise themselves in various way to fool prey into thinking that they are something else, this is an example of an Animal telling lies, do you understand?,
          Various Animals act nonchalant pretending not to be interested in something or other that clearly belongs to some thing or someone else, before they dash in a d steal it,
          No Christians involved, do you understand, or is everyday life just too complicated for you?.

        • adam
        • james ohara

          God can’t lie,
          Animals can talk,
          Wizards, witches and demons have all been held to account in numerous courts of Law,
          Magicians do metamorphic tricks all the time, they tried their trickery on Moses and lost their heads,
          Food from the sky?, are you serious?, I worked for Scottish water for decades, Water is a food source,
          Nobody can walk on water, not wizards, not witches, not demons, only God could do such a thing, but your welcome to try,
          Do the crawl!.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There’s no evidence that ANY ‘gods’ exist, including yours.
          Animals don’t talk in objective reality.
          Human law can be wrong, and any assertion of magick needs to be demonstrated before being allowed in a court of law,
          Magicians do tricks that *appear* magical, until you’re show the natural basis behind them,
          biblical ‘mana’ was food from the sky. Remember the Israelites after they left Egypt, per your ‘bible’?
          your ‘bible’ claimed ‘jesus’ walked on water,
          and you still can’t spell worth s**t.

        • james ohara

          Yeah, I’m not good at doing spells, I’m not a Wizard or a Witch,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Philmonomer

          Do the Crawl!

          You say this a lot.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I think it’s a spell.

        • Kodie

          He thinks we are snakes and should crawl back under a rock.

          Do you have a point?, make it or do your snake hip Cha-cha and get back under your rock.

        • Philmonomer

          Ah.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m not good at doing spells

          Oh, go on. You’re too modest. Surely you’ve prayed to God for something and gotten your wish. No?

        • Doubting Thomas

          God can’t lie,

          Then I can do something that your “all-powerful” god can’t. I can lie. Perhaps a demonstration of my lying ability is in order to assuage your skepticism:

          “That james ohara fellow seems like an intelligent, mentally stable, well written kind of chap.”

          Ta Daaaaa!!!

          Doubting Thomas: 1
          God: 0

        • james ohara

          Yeah, you can lie, sin comes naturally to you, that’s why you, we, need a savior, we can’t help but sin, if it wasn’t for Jesus and Gods amazing GRACE we would all be Damned to Hell.

        • Tony D’Arcy

          What did I ever do to be deserving of being boiled in the fiery lake for eternity ? Grow up you idiot.

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          Ah, accountability of witches before the law! I assume that you endorse the classic “Malleus Maleficarum”, originally written in the 16th century, as a proper manual of legal procedure to be followed in such cases? In what courts ought such cases to be tried? And what constitutes proper proof of witchery? On conviction, I assume that you’re comfortable with the traditional punishment of burning alive at the stake? Or would simple strangulation, in the English fashion, be sufficient?

          Just trying to clarify a few open questions here.

        • james ohara

          No!, I am a proponent of Gods Divine GRACE, not Gods Divine LAW, I hold with Jesus, I believe in the spirit of the Divine LAW, not the Letter,
          There is no mention of Witches in the Ten Commandments. written by God, only in the hundreds of Laws written by men.

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          OK, that’s reasonable. But if so, then what was the point of your comment about witches before the law?

        • james ohara

          I was responding to someone else’s comment, they were trying to say witches, wizards and demons were fictitious, my thread is about the origins of Hydrogen, not witches.

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          And you were arguing for the reality of witches? Aside from the tattered relics of pagan sects such as the Wiccans, Asatru, etc.? Real witches that do bad things to people, like dry up their cow or or stuff their children into ovens? Witches that have made pacts with the devil, and ought to be pursued by the civil authorities? If so, then the questions I raised earlier about handling witches apply equally here as well, since they differ only in the auspices under which the judgment is exercised.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          So? The animals that can do that survive & breed. It’s not necessarily well-developed at first, but the traits that promote reproduction intensify until they’re no longer beneficial.

          Doesn’t need any ‘gods’, it’s just slow mutation and natural selection.

        • MNb

          Yup. Christians like you are like those animals.

        • james ohara

          No dear, Christians are under GRACE not LAW, all my sins Past, Present and future have been rolled up into a ball and cast into the depths of the furthest ocean never to be remembered, but your sins continue to snowball, and you will be held accountable for them weather you believe in the one true God, any of the demon gods or you purely depend on you own merit,
          Whats that?, it’s all Bible bollocks you say?, then why do you try to obey God’s Laws?, why do you feel guilty for falling short of them?, you say we’re just like animals, indeed we are, but the soul of Christians are perfect, we’re going straight to Heaven, no judgement seat for us, you, on the other hand, I’m sad to say, will have a lot of explaining to do.

        • MNb

          “No dear, Christians are under GRACE”
          Every single comment of yours demonstrates that you aren’t, so shrug.

        • james ohara

          Lol, you just don’t get it do you!, I obey Gods Divine LAW because I want to, because I love God, not because I have to, not because I fear God, like you,
          You live under the Divine LAW, you wan’t to Kill the Killers, rape the Rapists, burgle the burglar, chop off the hands of thieves, chop off the feet of absconders,
          Jesus teaches to for give the sinner, love your enemy, GRACE saves, LAW kills, now do you see the difference between GRACE and LAW?, if not then keep looking around you’ll find a suitable rock soon enough.

        • MNb

          “because I want to”
          You can want as much as you like. What you don’t get is that you don’t always get what you want and given the awful quality of your comments GRACE is just one of the things you don’t get.

          “keep looking around you’ll find a suitable rock soon enough.”
          Already done so. Guess whom I found?
          Exactly, I found you under that rock. Don’t worry, I won’t join you there.

        • james ohara

          “What you don’t get is that you don’t always get what you want”, , , , , ,
          The first man into Heaven under GRACE was the good thief who hung on the cross next to Jesus, he wasn’t baptized, he didn’t repent, he didn’t recant any of his deeds he didn’t do any sort of good work to earn the privilege of walking hand in hand with Jesus into the kingdom of God to inherit Half of all he saw, all he did was acknowledge Jesus as the son of God, Jesus holds out His hand to You, with the exact same deal, accept Him as you Lord and God and Inherit half the Kingdom, what kind of fool are you to reject such an offer?, I strongly advise you to take it!, or,
          Do the Crawl,

        • MNb

          “The first man into Heaven under GRACE was the good thief who hung on the cross next to Jesus,”
          You are not in Heaven, neither are you hanging on a cross.
          The Crawl remains yours.

        • james ohara

          Indeed, I was baptized, i did repent of my sins, being brought up roman catholic it’s something we did every week, and no, i was not crucified, but my sin hung on that cross, Jesus bought it from me.

        • Tony D’Arcy

          Omni-generous Jesus would have thought the price of your sins was a piss in His infinite ocean.

        • Michael Neville

          Pascal’s Wager rears it’s silly head once again.

        • BlackMamba44

          That’s really all they have.

          Just wait until you’re dead!! Then you’ll find out!!!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          … and then you’ll stop being mean to me!!

        • Michael Neville

          Another thing that gets me is they think that belief can be consciously turned on. “I think I’ll believe in Vishnu today. I’m getting bored with believing in Jesus and believing in Quetzalcoatl can be injurious to one’s health.”

        • BlackMamba44

          I post atheist stuff on FB. I had a good friend tell me “just believe”.

          Sorry, it’s just not that easy for me.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ask your friend to demonstrate how it’s done. Have them “just believe” in leprechauns and then report back how that went.

        • Kodie

          Beyond just believing something that might give you an emotional boost, or whatever hope you think you need to bother staying alive (apparently), is all the baggage. I mean, I get good luck charms and amulets, which is all “just believing” seems to be, but then there is the arbitrary favor you give to other believers, as if they are better people, as if they are using their lives to make other people’s lives better instead of being a self-interested shitstain, which I find most believers turn out to be, if you get to know them. There’s this one part of them that “just believes” to make it through the day, cope with obstacles, etc., and then there’s who you really are in there, and whether or not you deserve to feel so good. Does one’s faith inform those other parts, make them excuse slavery in the bible, hate groups of people (or pretend to love them so much that all they’re trying to do is Jesus the gay out of them, for instance). Our loony james ohara can’t get beyond grace, neither can Ed Senter. No matter what they do, they’re saved, so they use beliefs to bully others. We’ve gotten similar posters who aren’t as overtly rude, but eventually get around to the threats. They just can’t get through life thinking all these people around them choose hell, and they’ve decided they have to do something about it. Anyway, I think Christians feel entitled to something in a privileged sort of way that they don’t grasp from their perspective, and when they aren’t using their beliefs consciously to beat on other people, they are just being “normal” – selfish, unobservant, blame-shifting, defensive, and judgmental. When they decide to be generous, and I mean actually generous, in service to others, altruistic in a social sense, it’s either a brief acting phase because their church is recruiting helpers for some charitable cause, or they are actually a good person who happens to be a Christian. If you talked to them, they would probably think they are good because they are Christian, and that makes other Christians automatically better people than non-Christians, and the sort who are confused why atheists aren’t killing everyone because that’s what you do when you are hopeless.

          It’s not god, it’s the people, and it’s not the belief, but the baggage.

        • james ohara

          Hardly, your betting on your eternal soul, not your life.

        • Michael Neville

          Another Christofool who doesn’t understand the problems with Pascal’s Wager. Why am I not surprised?

        • james ohara

          So tell me tough guy, why don’t you go on the rampage?, murder steal and rape?, whats stopping you?, I’ll tell you shall I, before God wrote the Ten Commandments on your heart there was Nothing stopping you, before God walked with Abraham the main purpose for having children was to sacrifice them to pay your dues to the local gods, unthinkable to day, but that was the reality then, God put an end to that, right up until the time of Jesus it was still the done thing, nobody even questioned it, to treat your children and your women folk like chattel was compulsory, when you killed your enemy you had best eat his heart or his ghost would pursue you to the grave, the horrendous social conditions we lived under were unimaginable to the like of us, Jesus’ work put an end to all of that, and outlined the conditions we live in today,
          but Pascal and you are stuck in the same delusion, that you have to do something to earn Gods favor, you have to do something to earn half of Gods Kingdom, you have to do something to aver His anger,
          Neither of you understands Gods Divine GRACE!, Jesus didn’t say to the good thief, no, no, you have to climb down off the cross and go and apologize to all those people you robbed, and don’t for get to dunk your self in the Jordan river, and remember to crawl all the way back here in penance!, the Bible tells you straight, there is Nothing you can do to save yourself, no amount of good works will save you from the fires of Hell, the LAW doesn’t work that way, you do the crime you do the time, there’s no getting away from it, weather your Jew, Muhammadan, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or even Atheist, each and every one is subject to and adheres to the Divine LAW, and yes even animals,
          But God makes a way where there is no way, thre righteous way of the article of the Kinsman Redeemer, your righteous ticket to Heaven, and how much does it cost?, Nothing!, no wager, no heap of cash, no good work, Nothing!, its free, Take it!, or lose your soul.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          More unevidenced claims.

          Suggestion: since your claims all distill down to “God dun it!” you might just give that as a much more succinct reply.

        • james ohara

          What unevidenced claims are you on about now?, Hydrogen was made After creation, Hydrogen itself is not creation, try and keep up, read the actual question and stop making shit up, my answer isn’t “God dun it!”, as you well know, My answer is Cavitated space,
          God created the Universe!, Hydrogen came later,
          My question of you as a defender of the church of Science is,
          WHERE DID HYDROGEN COME FROM?,
          Do you have an answer or are you just over fond of bumping your gums.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Do you have an answer

          No, I don’t give a shit about the question.

        • james ohara

          Then you admit that your scientific reality is nothing short of an ecstatic illusion.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Thank you, Mr. Non Sequitur.

        • james ohara

          Either its real or its not, does Hydrogen have an identifiable origin or is it magic dust invented by you priesthood of Science?,
          at least try to answer the question or simply admit that neither you nor the church of science has any Idea of what their talking about, then you can finally move on with your life and admit that the only acceptable origin story is the one that has been in acceptance from the beginning o record keeping, The stoy of Genesis.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          you can finally move on with your life and admit that the only acceptable origin story is the one that has been in acceptance from the beginning o record keeping, The stoy of Genesis.

          Uh huh. The mythological story with no evidence behind it.

          Yeah, that’s a winner. Since evidence isn’t a concern of yours, why not become a Scientologist or Hari Krishna and go bother someone else?

        • Kodie

          You seem really insecure about your faith if you need to lie.

        • james ohara

          Asking a question isn’t lying, if you have an answer then please let’s hear it, otherwise,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Kodie

          Then you admit that your scientific reality is nothing short of an ecstatic illusion.

          One wonders why Christians who believe they have “grace” need to argue with atheists at all, and when you do, you have to lie and delude yourself that you’re winning at anything. You keep behaving like someone who wants everyone to run as far as they can away from Christianity. All you have is insults, arrogance, deceipt, and apparently, if you have grace, all you want to do with your time is keep up with your bullshit and harass everyone with your idiot rantings. Nobody gives a shit about you here, is that why you need Jesus? No real friends? Jesus loves you just like you are, so you don’t need to reflect on what an asshole Jesus has made you?

        • james ohara

          What has any of this got to do with the origins of Hydrogen?.

        • Kodie

          What has the origin of hydrogen got to do with you clinging superstitiously to your imaginary friend, and then being an asshole in general?

        • james ohara

          I asked a purely scientific question, nothing about God, superstitions, imaginary friends or religion, and putting guys like you in their place is not being an asshole it’s more like parental marshaling.
          Now do the Crawl!.

        • Kodie

          Just because you can’t read doesn’t mean we can’t read. You’re a joke.

        • Tony D’Arcy

          You were given an answer. An answer you evidently didn’t understand, so to make it simple, Hydrogen came as a result of the big bang. Natural processes, no need for big G.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I wasn’t sure if his hydrogen question was supposed to point us to God or show that he had a novel physics answer. I always heard that it was “I can prove Relativity wrong!” was the goal of nuts like that. Perhaps james has already dealt with that one.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m sure that james is trying the god of the gaps gambit. “You don’t know the origin of hydrogen therefore GOD!” However we’re straying from the script so he can’t unleash his killer argument quite yet.

        • MNb

          In your case it is – because it has been answered many times by now.
          Worse – you are not even capable of formulating the First Cause Argument properly, which came from the house philosopher of your own RCC.
          Not that I expect you to understand too many words of this sentence, given your amoeba brain.

        • james ohara

          Cognition is not your forte,
          I don’t have an argument, just a simple question, amazing the lengths you go to to avoid answering it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Cavitated space…

          You just made that up ya imbecilic woo-woo merchant, didn’t ya?

        • james ohara

          Cavitated space?, no, its just one of the implications of my discovery, and no Pongo, I didn’t sail under no red duster,
          d138561t.

        • Michael Neville

          The reason why I don’t murder, steal and rape is that I care about other people. Read John Donne’s Mediation XVII for a further explanation.

          I don’t care about my soul for the simple reason that it’s a figment of your imagination, just like your god. The divine law you so stridently proclaim is another figment of your imagination. So why should I concern myself with what an internet looney has to say about souls and gods?

        • james ohara

          Matter and energy are indestructible, every atom in your body has been here since the beginning of time and will be here till the end of time,
          The oldest cell in your body is Ten years old, every ten years you have a completely new body, that means that ever ten years you die!, how do you square that with “I don’t care about my soul for the simple reason that it’s a figment of your imagination”, , , , bollocks?.

        • Michael Neville

          As usual, when you make a pronouncement about science you’re wrong. Many of the atoms in my body were created by supernovae (those are exploding stars) and weren’t in existence at the beginning of time.

          I’m a combat veteran. Many years ago I realized two things, it’s very easy for people to die and that I would die. Unlike most Christians, I don’t fear death. I’ll die and revert back to the non-existence I had before I was born.

          As for souls, the moment you or any other god-botherer can show that they exist then I’ll admit your blather about souls isn’t bollocks. So do you have any evidence that souls exist? I didn’t think so, which means your blather about souls is still bollocks.

        • james ohara

          Indeed they were, and the Matter and energy they are constructed with are the same energy and matter that was used to create the star,
          Wake up son, there in no new energy being created, there is no new matter being created, its all old stuff, it all appeared during One event, creation.
          btw, Stars don’t explode,
          “I don’t fear death”, , , ,
          Why would a christian fear death?, you don’t know their history very well do you?, all the non existence you were before you were born is, according to the cannon of the church of science 13 and a half Billion years old, ignorant Pongo,
          “evidence that souls exist? “, , , ,
          I’m just after proving to the brethren of your church of science that your reality is founded on magic dust and as such cannot be proved to exist, like by your own yard stick, You body doesn’t exist,
          Now do the Crawl.

        • Michael Neville

          No, you stupid prig, I wasn’t a pongo (again, that’s a common noun and doesn’t need to be capitalized). I was a squid who became a bubblehead after visiting beautiful, sunny Southeast Asia.

          btw, Stars don’t explode

          Actually they do, you ignorant slob. Google “supernova” to dispel your ignorance.

        • james ohara

          Pongo, is a British Squaddie,
          Now do the Crawl!.

        • Michael Neville

          I wasn’t a squaddie (another common noun which doesn’t require capitalization), I was a squid. My friend on this blog, Ignorant Amos, was a squaddie (he was an RE corporal) but I wasn’t. Google “riverine monitor” for an idea of what I did.

        • Kodie

          I think you lost all the cells in your brain first.

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          That must be why the last couple of thousand years since Christ have been so exquisitely peaceful and free from people trying to oppress one another. Christian-run Europe is a particularly good example of how peaceful a society can be, isn’t it?

          Laws come in two forms. There are the laws that in fact cannot be disobeyed, such as the law of gravity or the law forbidding you to touch things and have them turn to gold. These are the so-called natural laws. These laws are self enforcing, and they always produce the same consequences if you try to violate them. Then there are the laws that should not be disobeyed, such as “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not view pornography to excess”. These are man-made laws. They can be disobeyed by humans, and often are. Like natural laws, there are generally consequences imposed as a result of violating human laws; these are imposed by the human beings who enacted the laws, and there are no natural consequences to these violations. Unlike natural laws, these consequences are by no means inevitable, and are often imposed somewhat arbitrarily.

          For a large part of human history, the distinction was largely irrelevant to most of the people. Man-made laws were created by the rulers (secular or religious) with no consultation with those who would be affected by them. For the commoners, these laws were as arbitrary and nonnegotiable as natural laws, although they would change fairly frequently sometimes random. In the last few hundred years, many societies have decided that is a good idea to have the people affected by the laws participate to varying degrees in their formulation. Thus, most places in the world now operate under laws where the people subject to them have an investment in them and understand them as something other than arbitrary impositions by a supreme ruler.

          However, even when they participate in the formulation of their laws, human beings still have a definite tendency to violate them in varying degrees. It’s very easy to see yourself as superior to those around you and thus subject to some other set of laws that you formulate for yourself. Above, I mentioned human laws regarding both murder and pornography. It should be noted that in the US, evangelical Christians have a rate of committing murder pretty much indistinguishable from that of society generally (I might note that there are almost no atheists in federal prison for anything). The “red” states that are notable for the highest percentage of evangelical Christians are also the states where pornography tends to be viewed on the Internet at notably higher rates than so-called “blue” states.

          Somehow, the professed Christian beliefs of many people don’t seem to stop them from violating laws enacted by their fellow citizens. I don’t know why this is the case. Perhaps they feel themselves already forgiven and thus entitled to do as they wish; perhaps they feel themselves superior enough to their non-Christian associates that they’re allowed a different standard; or perhaps they’re just not really nice people and their “Christianity” is simply a social sham put on for appearances or even to justify their own prior prejudices, such as the desirability of slavery in former years and/or the attacks against homosexuality today.

          Jesus is quoted as having said, “By their fruits you shall know them”; that is, those who profess real Christianity ought to be able to demonstrate the kind of love and care for others that presumably Christ preached. But the fruits of present-day evangelical American Christianity tend much more to be exclusion and degradation of some kinds of people, withdrawal of social resources from those in need in favor of enriching social elites, and direct and indirect attacks on those who do not subscribe to evangelical fundamentalism. By their fruits you shall know them indeed!

        • james ohara

          Gravity is not a LAW, its a mathematical formula,
          Christian Europe isn’t christian its Roman!, if it was Christian based it would be centered around GRACE not LAW,
          “the law forbidding you to touch things and have them turn to gold”, , , , , , its hardly a LAW and that day will come,
          “By their fruits you shall know them indeed!”, , , , , exactly, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck then odds on, it’s a Duck!, if it acts like a christian should than is very likely to be a christian and if it doesn’t then guess what?.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Look it up.

        • james ohara

          Yeah, its a formula, not a Law!,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          Sorry; you don’t get to pick and choose which pieces of the overall experience of Christianity you want to take credit for and then blame all the rest of the experience on somebody else. The fact is that Christians have been singularly effective over the last millennium or so in doing violence to those that opposed. And this is equally true of the “salvation by grace alone” Protestants as well as the more institutional Roman Catholic Church; the 30 years war was a collaborative effort. The fact is that organized religion of almost any stripe has been the single most divisive and corrosive influence on societies everywhere and everywhen.

          The term “law of gravity” is in such common use that I thought it would be perfectly clear to what I was referring. Science conventionally uses the term “law” to refer to any principle that is sufficiently well-established as ubiquitous; for example, “Boyle’s Law” of gas behavior. I cited these as examples of “natural laws” that exist because they simply can’t be disobeyed, as distinct from human laws that are created by societies in which can be and are violated with varying consequences. All religious rules and laws fall in this latter category.If you’ve manage to find a way around the physical laws that don’t allow for the transmutation of one metal into another (such as gold), my congratulations; that should be worth at least a Nobel prize or two. You certainly can’t accomplish it by passing legislation, even if the legislature is full of believing Christians. You could, presumably, paint some rocks with gold leaf and then pass a law saying that they had to be accepted as gold. This is pretty much equivalent to passing laws saying that everybody has to have heterosexual attractions only, and any other kind of attractions are illegitimate. You can constrain human behavior by human laws, but you can’t change the fundamental nature of things through that process.

          The “fruits” of evangelical Christianity in America today largely consist of organized hatred and attempts to force society into a narrow and rigid set of categories and rules, many of which have neither biblical backing nor strength of tradition behind them. You can’t attempt to take credit for whatever positive influences Christianity may have had on people while at the same time ducking any responsibility for the evil consequences of actions motivated by the same set of beliefs.

        • james ohara

          Idiot, the Roman Catholic church, what you regard as THE christian church was founder by a Serbian Warlord, not the Lord God Christ Jesus, what a cretin you are.
          Do the Crawl!.

        • james ohara

          Christians follow the teaching of Jesus, not your American cult leaders,
          Do the craw!.

        • Greg G.

          People go on killing sprees. Did God’s pen run out of ink. Was it written with washable tattoos? If the scribbling on your heart was a thing, then it wouldn’t ever happen.

          I don’t hurt people because I like people. I’m too lazy to hassle people and too lazy to deal with the consequences.

          You are free to swing your fist but that freedom ends at the next person’s nose. You are free to practice your religion but the freedom ends when you try to practice it on somebody else.

        • james ohara

          When your doing wrong, knowing, that your doing wrong may not be enough stop you from doing wrong, but you still know your doing wrong, and you will be held accountable to it,
          “God’s pen run out of ink. Was it written with washable tattoos?”, , , , No, in stone with His finger,
          “If the scribbling on your heart was a thing, then it wouldn’t ever happen”, , , , Muhammadans chop of the hand of the thief, but if you look around Islamia you’ll find kids with both hands chopped off, like er, the first amputation didn’t take,
          “I don’t hurt people because I like people”, , , , These days the majority of western people are good living, right thinking, Law abiding, Christian and Atheistic people,

        • Kodie

          I wish you could see how crazy you sound right now, like you’re in a cult.

        • james ohara

          Following the one true God is not a cult, following a man, that’s a cult,
          GRACE over LAW!.

        • Kodie

          So, all you have is superstitious gibberish.

        • james ohara

          I take it you also believe the Earth orbits the Sun, cult indeed!.

        • MNb

          “So tell me tough guy, why don’t you go on the rampage?, murder steal and rape?,”
          Because your utterly stupid and evil version of christianity has not turned him (and me) into an evil character like yours . You need a boogeyman to prevent him from doing all these things and calls that boogeyman a god. We don’t.
          The Crawl remains yours and so does the Slither.

        • james ohara

          Wake up son, Jesus didn’t murder or rape anyone, where on earth do you get your information from?, there is no evil version of Christianity, the church of Rome is the church of Rome,
          Jesus takes your evil characters and turns them into Saints, what on earth are you talking about, the Christs name is Jesus, not Samael, are you a Muhammadan?, have you just arrived in the western world from some third world hell hole?.
          Do the Crawl!.

        • MNb

          Do the Slither!
          I was not talking Jesus.
          I was talking about your utterly stupid and evil version of christianity.
          A version that needs a boogeyman to prevent you from murdering, stealing and raping.
          I don’t need that.
          I don’t need Jesus for that either.

        • james ohara

          There is no such version, you are delusional. Jesus murdered no one, stole from no one, raped no one , threatened no one other that the exact same people you accuse Him of being associated with, the priests of the Temple whom He referred to a serpents and vipers,
          What you need Jesus for is to wash your filthy sin stained soul, it’s your choice, He won’t force you, and neither will I.

        • Ignorant Amos

          What a loada ballix and shite talk.

        • james ohara

          Is that your answer?, well done Pongo!,
          Now do the Crawl!.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ex pongo ya retarded Fenian arsehole.

        • james ohara

          I am many things, but I’m not Psychic.

        • BlackMamba44
        • james ohara

          I’m not asking any religious questions son, You are, I’m asking only One question,
          WHERE DOES HYDROGEN COME FROM?.

        • BlackMamba44

          Sorry, that question is nowhere in the post I responded to. Maybe you can find it (and I don’t give a rat’s ass where hydrogen came from):

          So tell me tough guy, why don’t you go on the rampage?, murder steal and rape?, whats stopping you?, I’ll tell you shall I, before God wrote the Ten Commandments on your heart there was Nothing stopping you, before God walked with Abraham the main purpose for having children was to sacrifice them to pay your dues to the local gods, unthinkable to day, but that was the reality then, God put an end to that, right up until the time of Jesus it was still the done thing, nobody even questioned it, to treat your children and your women folk like chattel was compulsory, when you killed your enemy you had best eat his heart or his ghost would pursue you to the grave, the horrendous social conditions we lived under were unimaginable to the like of us, Jesus’ work put an end to all of that, and outlined the conditions we live in today,
          but Pascal and you are stuck in the same delusion, that you have to do something to earn Gods favor, you have to do something to earn half of Gods Kingdom, you have to do something to aver His anger,
          Neither of you understands Gods Divine GRACE!, Jesus didn’t say to the good thief, no, no, you have to climb down off the cross and go and apologize to all those people you robbed, and don’t for get to dunk your self in the Jordan river, and remember to crawl all the way back here in penance!, the Bible tells you straight, there is Nothing you can do to save yourself, no amount of good works will save you from the fires of Hell, the LAW doesn’t work that way, you do the crime you do the time, there’s no getting away from it, weather your Jew, Muhammadan, Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu or even Atheist, each and every one is subject to and adheres to the Divine LAW, and yes even animals,
          But God makes a way where there is no way, thre righteous way of the article of the Kinsman Redeemer, your righteous ticket to Heaven, and how much does it cost?, Nothing!, no wager, no heap of cash, no good work, Nothing!, its free, Take it!, or lose your soul.

          I responded to this:

          why don’t you go on the rampage?, murder steal and rape?, whats stopping you?

          EDIT: Apparently the only thing stopping you is a belief in a sky daddy.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/dbec81b9094936dc43f33943d55a25ad3a348b38787848aeb6e584f9740b4f51.jpg

        • james ohara

          That is the only question I asked, if you can’t or won’t answer then.
          Do the Crawl!.

        • BlackMamba44

          So you don’t understand punctuation marks.

          I’m going to type really slow so you understand. This – “?” – is a QUESTION MARK. When you use that at the end of a sentence, it means you’re asking a question.

          If these:

          So tell me tough guy, why don’t you go on the rampage?, murder steal and rape?, whats stopping you?

          aren’t also questions, then you need to remove the question marks.

          And you seem to have a comma fetish.

        • james ohara

          What is it about my question that has you guys slithering and twisting and turning and jumping off topic, it’s like you have a demonic being sitting on your shoulders with his claws dug into your skull and both ends of his forked tongue going into both ears pulling you this way and that making you do anything other than answer a simple question which either has and answer or it doesn’t,
          If you have an answer then let’s hear it, otherwise,
          Do the Crawl!, tut, I mean Slither, in your case.

        • BlackMamba44

          If you have an answer then let’s hear it

          I gave you my answer: I don’t give a rat’s ass where it came from. No slithering or twisting. A simple answer. I don’t care. If you don’t like it, tough shit.

        • james ohara

          Excellent answer, now get back, back I say,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • BlackMamba44

          Fuck off.

        • Kodie

          …. and its name is james ohara. You don’t have what you think you have. You’re just a joke.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Condescending piece of Fenian shite.

        • BlackMamba44

          He reminded me of that old man that came here typing in all caps.

        • james ohara

          What is it with you and the pictures, did you learn to read and write in the arse bandit school of pornography magazines?.
          Do the Crawl!.

        • BlackMamba44

          BTW, I’m a female. I learned to read before kindergarten and learned to write in kindergarten, back in the 70s.

          When are you going to learn to read and write? You’re never too old to learn.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fa6e9a157f09f8eeed4014197f90130938c78965959e7e7960368d1f06778954.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          They walk amongst us…the gene pool is fucked…idiocracy is a coming reality. Trump is here and now.

        • Pofarmer

          On my facebook, there are a bunch of women that I interact with that are with their kids at the National Catholic Youth Conference. Some of my kids friends are there. They will be fucking insufferable when they get back. They go to these things and it energizes them, and you don’t want to be negative to people but, holy fuck, they get on these holy roller Catholic binges, and, just shit, makes life miserable. I suppose I should be happy they’re happy, but I’d just like to be left out of their fantasy world, thank you.

        • Pofarmer

          That was a whole lot of nothing he typed out.

        • BlackMamba44

          Every time a Christer comes to Bob’s blog and starts spewing their shit I think “this is the most insane thing I’ve ever read.”

          Then along comes another and proves me wrong.

        • Pofarmer

          It’s not just person to the next person. In my experience Christians will believe increasingly crazy things until they finally hit the thing that is so obviously out there they just can’t. For many of them that’s pretty far down the road. It’s a “true believer” effect.

        • Tony D’Arcy

          Gosh ! I hate to think how Allah will treat you James !

        • BlackMamba44

          Jesus also said you have to hate your family and yourself to follow him.

          Jesus also said that if no one wants to listen to you to shake the dust off your feet and leave.

        • james ohara

          Indeed, the Divine LAW is very taxing, those who are entrenched in the Divine LAW are lost, but when your set free from the accountability to the Divine LAW through Gods Divine GRACE which came with Jesus, you are free indeed,
          “if no one wants to listen to you to shake the dust off your feet and leave”, , , , ,
          Sad but true, Satan and a third of the host of Heaven knew the trinity personally, but they would not listen, they rejected everything about God except the Divine LAW, they put that above all else, and even though the provision of the article of the Kinsman Redeemer is Righteous under the very same Divine LAW, they reject that too,
          Amazing isn’t it.

        • BlackMamba44

          Do you even read the comments you’re responding to?

        • james ohara

          It’s not my fault you don’t understand Gods Divine GRACE, Grace means (unmerited favor), Muhammadans call it the Shaeed, that’s those buggers who kill innocent people in the name of the Divine LAW, in doing so they supposedly cleanse their own soul of sin and that of 70 of their family, but they actually don’t Qualify under the Divine LAW, other Pagan religions and cultures call it Blood money, but, in order for the sacrifice to be acceptable under Divine LAW, the Kinsman Redeemer must be,
          Over one year old,
          Be without spot or blemish, and,
          Free of Sin!,
          As i’m sure you already realize, only one man in all of creation, in all of time actually fits this description, the Lord god Christ Jesus, our Kinsman redeemer,
          Does that help you to understand?.

        • BlackMamba44

          Do you even read the comments you’re responding to?

        • james ohara

          Yeah, I thought not,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • BlackMamba44
        • james ohara

          For me, distinguishing GRACE from LAW is as clear as crystal, but for others it’s just gobbledygook, I believe its demonic, I know you think you’re a good person and that will be enough for you to argue your case, but the LAW wasn’t made to be circumnavigated, it was created to Accuse, Condemn and Kill,
          GRACE was made to Save!, and without it, you are lost.

        • BlackMamba44

          This is a last response. You are no longer entertaining. You are boring. If you want to continue to spout about your religious delusions, go right ahead. I’m moving on to more interesting things.

          EDIT: Oops. I lied. (see response below – or above)

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/85a089025aa69d86bbaacab8c3a8ad103872543cc040e6666fb6a8ad7e6d6a54.jpg

        • james ohara

          Stupid boy, What did the first man into heaven do to prove obedience?,
          What did the first man into heaven have o do for salvation?,
          What did the first man into heaven have o do for eternal happiness?,
          What did the first man into heaven have o do for the cleansing of sin?,
          Answer, Nothing other than accept it, just as with the good Shepherd, what did the lost sheep have to do to get rescued?, Nothing!, just accept rescue, have as good a life as you can, it’s a long time in the grave,
          Bye!,
          Another one bites the dust,
          Do the Crawl, tut, i mean slither!.

        • BlackMamba44

          Fuck off.

        • james ohara

          Slither!.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Do you have anything useful to offer? Anything besides insults? So far you’re a time waster.

          Someone needs to make amends.

        • BlackMamba44

          He thinks he’s winning when someone gets fed up with his word salads – or maybe he’s speaking in tongues.

          The only reason I don’t block him is I don’t get updated Recent Comments from the people I follow who reply to him – I’m still interested in what they have to say.

        • james ohara

          my time is never wasted, I ask one simple question and you all run for the hills.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Who cares if your time is wasted? You’re wasting ours.

          Become useful. Add to the conversation.

        • MNb

          “What did the first man into heaven …”
          Nothing. There is no heaven.

        • Greg G.

          There is no heaven so there is no first man in heaven. We don’t need salvation. Thanks, anyway.

        • james ohara

          No, I’m psychic.

        • james ohara

          No I’m psychic, again.

        • epeeist

          various Animals disguise themselves in various way to fool prey into thinking that they are something else

          Yes they do, isn’t evolution wonderful.

        • james ohara

          Yeah, Evolution is indeed wonderful, but the question is, are you stupid enough to try and make something out of it?, I have a big book here that’s just aching to have me beat you over the head with,
          Go for it Cyrano!, have a stab and I’ll show you what an irrepressible Divine Claymore can do.

        • epeeist

          Yeah, Evolution is indeed wonderful, but the question is, are you stupid enough to try and make something out of it?,

          Well yes, what it does is show that your god is not a necessary being, we can therefore invoke the principle produced by the good friar of Ockham.

          I’ll show you what an irrepressible Divine Claymore can do.

          Claymore?, Pff.

          Dieu n’est pas du côté des gros bataillons, mais du côté de ceux qui tirent le mieux.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGearEu2PlU

        • james ohara

          the Ninth Wonder
          of the Universe!
          The world’s only flyin’ elephant!
          Did you ever see an elephant fly?
          – Well, I’ve seen a horsefly.
          – Ah, I’ve seen a dragonfly.
          – Hee-hee. I’ve seen a housefly.
          – Yeah!
          See, I’ve seen all that too.
          I’ve seen a peanut stand
          and heard a rubber band.
          I seen a needle
          that winked its eye.
          But I be done seen
          about ever’thing
          When I see a elephant fly,

          Are you sure you wanna go down this road son, I’m just gonna rub your big nose in it, you see there’s this troublesome thing called ‘the missing link’, well actually there’s Millions of them, for instance, one type of fly doesn’t turn into an other type of fly as any university student will tell you, coz their experts on the fly that lends itself most to study, that is the fruit fly, if I remember correctly there’s about 400 variations in its genome, but try as they may, they cant coax a fruit fly to change into a house fly, or a dragonfly, or a sheep or Goat, get the picture?,
          I knew one of you scientifically insidious clowns would pull out the Evolution baloney, but face is son, Evolution is only possible AFTER! Life is created, it is not Creation, it’s just a feature of Life which allows it to adapt to it’s ever changing environment, pigs don’t turn into frogs, horses con’t turn into dogs, are we learning yet?,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • epeeist

          Are you sure you wanna go down this road son, I’m just gonna rub your big nose in it

          An insult is not an argument. Are you learning yet?

          you see there’s this troublesome thing called ‘the missing link’, well actually there’s Millions of them, for instance, one type of fly doesn’t turn into an other type of fly as any university student will tell you,

          Which strangely enough is what the theory of evolution actually says. But there again creationists only ever present a straw man version of the theory.

          What they never do is actually read anything about the subject from actual biologists. For example, here is a good exposition from the Universe of California at Berkeley. If you worked through this you might learn a thing or two.

        • james ohara

          Here’s what I learned,
          ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,(Not Found

          The requested URL /evolibrar y/article/evo_01 was not found on this server.

          Apache/2.2.15 (CentOS) Server at evolution.berkeley.edu Port 443,),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

          But to put you straight, There is no link between man and Ape, you guys like to say PROVE IT!, and if you could I’d ask you to do exactly that, but I know you can’t so I won’t,
          Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of Life, if you think it does then it is You who doesn’t understand the theory!, get over it,
          Isn’t the two edged sword which extends from the Lords mouth wonderful?, not only can it cut you in half from let to right and right to left and top to bottom and bottom to top, you can also turn it on its flat side and bludgeon someones dirty great big poetic nose flat into their face then use the pummel to drive it home!,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • epeeist

          Apache/2.2.15 (CentOS) Server at evolution.berkeley.edu Port 443,),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

          Strange, when I click on the URL in that error message it takes me straight to the site, but there again I am savvy enough to ensure that all the traffic to my browser is encrypted.

          Here is the link again but this time from the plain text site:

          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

          Evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with the origin of Life,

          Absolutely true, ask any evolutionary biologist.

          Isn’t the two edged sword which extends from the Lords mouth wonderful?

          Well first you have to demonstrate the existence of your “Lord”, only then can you attempt to show he has a sword,metaphorical or not.

        • james ohara

          Ah, you twist and turn like the twisty turny thing, Lol, no sonny, You brought up the E word, not me, you think you can somehow cobble it together with the origins of Life, and that’s just not going to happen, in order to have Evolution, Life must First be created, got it?,
          To the Scientific world Life is a complete mystery, all that science can say about Life is that Life, comes from Life, end of story,
          Now do the crawl!, or perhaps in your case, the Slither!, Lol.

        • epeeist

          you think you can somehow cobble it together with the origins of Life

          Nah, that’s what creationists do, biologists are happy to accept that abiogenesis and evolution are two different sets of phenomena and hence need separate descriptions (scientific theories) as to how they happened.

          But there again creationists tend to have less of an understanding of science than the average primary school child here in the UK.

          To the Scientific world Life is a complete mystery

          It is? I think you need to inform Robert Hazen that his book is wrong.

          Now do the crawl!, or perhaps in your case, the Slither!, Lol.

          I see that you haven’t yet learnt that an insult is not an argument.

        • james ohara

          “abiogenesis”, , , ,
          It’s just a word with meaning but no relation to reality, very much like astrobiology, wake up!, there is no life beyond earth,
          Life is not erupting from inanimate substances unless you count eating hobnobs as creating new life around your midriff.
          Now do the Crawl!.

        • BlackMamba44

          I had no issues with your link.

        • james ohara

          Ah, you twist and turn like the twisty turny thing, Lol, no sonny, Big nose brought up the E word, not me, he like you thinks he can somehow cobble it together with the origins of Life, and that’s just not going to happen, in order to have Evolution, Life must First be created, got it?,
          To the Scientific world Life is a complete mystery, all that science can say about Life is that Life, comes from Life, end of story,
          Now do the crawl!, or perhaps in your case, the Slither!, Lol.

        • epeeist

          in order to have Evolution, Life must First be created, got it?,

          Begging the question I see.

          No, a replicator that can undergo modification must first exist. If you want to claim that this is created then you need to demonstrate this.

        • james ohara

          Genesis 1:11
          11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so.
          That son, is the word of God,
          so whats your story, and don’t give me any of your Primordial seafaring bollocks, if your stupid enough to claim that Evolution is Creation then You!, need to demonstrate this, this is Your thread son, Not mine!, show me where Life began, Show me how Life started, Show me something, Anything that could possible pass for the origin of Life outside the Word of God!, or just do the Crawl!,
          I mean Slither.

        • epeeist

          Genesis 1:11
          11 Then God said: “Let the earth cause grass to sprout, seed-bearing plants and fruit trees according to their kinds, yielding fruit along with seed on the earth.” And it was so.
          That son, is the word of God,

          The bible is a claim, it isn’t evidence. If you want to say that it is evidence then it must be the case that the Rig Veda, the Quran etc. are also evidence.

          don’t give me any of your Primordial seafaring bollocks

          You know what gets me about creotards. Not only are they ignorant but they are deliberately so despite the information that is available to them. Two other things, firstly while it is possible to be honest, ignorant and a creationist it certainly isn’t possible to be all three at the same time.

          Lastly, Isaac Asimov gets it spot on as far as I am concerned:

          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.

          Although I am also fond of this quotation from Bertrand Russell:

          The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

          And with that I am away, I am in South America for the next month including a visit to the Galapagos and the Darwin Station while I am there. Frankly I will be happy to be away from your stupidity and bombast.

        • james ohara

          Jees, you use your tongue prettier than a 3 dollar whore, but your fancy words and praises won’t save you, watch out for spiders and snakes while your slithering around, bye!,
          Another one bite the dust!,
          Do the Crawl!,

        • MNb

          Yup, you are another christian fool who eats dust and produces crap.

        • james ohara

          I’m not a twisty turny thing that slithers around in it’s own shit and eats dust, that you!,
          Now do the Crawl!, i mean Slither.

        • MNb

          “I’m not ….”
          Your comments demonstrate that you are.
          Both the Crawl and the Slither remain yours.

        • james ohara

          The tragedy here is your inability to stay on topic,
          Slither.

        • MNb

          The joke is that you don’t have a topic.
          The Slither remains yours.

        • james ohara

          My topic is a question, if you can’t or won’t answer it then get back under your rock.
          Do the Crawl.

        • MNb

          Your question is not a topic, not if you managed to use more than two of your brain cells.
          The Crawl and the Slither remain yours, until you manage to find your way from under your rock.

        • james ohara

          That’s not an acceptable answer.

        • james ohara

          Hey you can cut and paste as well as lunge stab and parry, good for you.

        • Michael Neville

          the two edged sword which extends from the Lords mouth

          In English we call that a tongue.

        • james ohara

          Being Scottish I wouldn’t know!,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Michael Neville

          O’Hara is a Scottish name? Is that like Costello being an Italian name?

        • adam
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Who says babies lie? Evidence?
          Who says babies steal? Evidence?

          We are all born atheists, because superstitious beliefs proceed from social language interaction, which babies can’t do, not having learned languages yet, as evidenced by their responses being random to words, responding more to tone of voice cues.

        • Annerdr

          So, please tell me in what way an infant lies?

        • Greg G.

          Without theists, there would be no need for atheism.

        • MR

          I was going to say, without belief in gods there would be no atheism.

        • adam
        • Kodie

          That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard, and we get a lot of dumb fucking theists here.

        • james ohara

          Don’t you know how to work a search engine either, here I googled it for you,

          Atheist
          noun
          a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

          Notice the words God and god’s, easy isn’t it.

        • Kodie

          Do you have a major head injury? Does your teachermom know you’re on the internet?

        • james ohara

          Do you have a point?, make it or do your snake hip Cha-cha and get back under your rock.

        • Kodie

          My point is you don’t know what the fuck you’re even talking about, but you’re too stupid to recognize how stupid you are. Other people have already made this point to you, but I guess you’re also illiterate. Shouldn’t you be at home/school today, or is your mom drunk?

        • james ohara

          That’s not a very Scientific answer to my very exacting scientific question now is it!,
          Do the crawl!.

        • Greg G.

          You got the answer. Then you moved the goalpost.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I *really* want to know what this ‘do the crawl’ thing is.

          Only place I remember reading it is in a Frank Herbert novel, “The Eyes of Heisenberg”, to wit:
          Cling to the wall,
          For if you fall,
          Then you will have to
          Learn the crawl!

          Okay, it’s ‘learn’, but that’s as close as I get…and I’m curious.

        • Greg G.

          I assumed it was that undulating break dancing maneuver. All I know about break dancing is that, for me, it would mean breaking a hip.

        • BlackMamba44

          I think it’s from a comment he made earlier about crawling back under the rock of “dont knows”.

          He’s trying to be a smart ass. He just can’t seem the get the “smart” part down.

          EDIT: Missing words.

        • JP415

          Maybe it’s like doing the locomotion. Or maybe James is referring to the swimming stroke know as the crawl. In any case, it’s another philosophical problem for us to ponder.

        • Kodie

          He thinks he is shutting us down with his weak shit, and calling us snakes and commanding us (back) under a rock.

        • Kodie

          You don’t read the scientific answers, because your teachermom is too drunk to teach you how to read them.

        • epeeist

          We have had a spate of stupid theists of late but this one easily limbos under their level. Mind you his delusions of adequacy are only matched by Robert Lockett.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Who left the gate to the alligator pond open?

        • epeeist

          Well I’ll leave you to deal with your latest dimwit.

          I won’t be around for a while, I am off so South America for a month. Internet access is going to be pretty restricted and anyway I suspect I will be engaged in other things.

          Amongst other things I will be in the Galapagos for 10 days, visiting Darwin Station as well as touring the islands. I won’t be bringing pictures of alligators back but I should have some of iguanas as well as boobies…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Fascinating! Tell us about it when you return.

          One interesting bit of trivia about the Galapagos islands are the Judas goats. If you haven’t heard of them yet, I’m sure you will.

        • MR

          Wha’? You can’t just abandon us like that!

          I am so jealous!

        • Susan

          I am off to South America for a month

          Buen viaje! Le extranaremos.

          I look forward to your photos.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOU are the one shitting in the punch bowl and demanding praise for it.

          Or did that fact escape you?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          I’m guessing *james ohara* is emotionally disturbed, poor fella.

        • adam
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          &ltGollum voice&gt : “Tricksy Greeks, they is…ALWAYS showing us how logic is more powerful than superstition! WE HATES TRICKSY GREEKS!

        • Greg G.

          Atheists do not believe in the imaginary beliefs of theists.

        • adam
        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Means you get ashes (hey, lumps of coal are *expensive* !! )

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          There are LOTS of other ‘gods’, so YOURS isn’t necessary for atheism to exist.

          None really need to exist, because atheism is merely the disbelief in ‘gods’…so if no ‘gods’ are asserted, then disbelief is reflexive.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And since there are atheists, there must be a god? Is that what you’re saying?

        • Pofarmer

          Atheism isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship with reality.

        • james ohara

          Yeah!, and the KKK is a religion of peace,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Pofarmer

          The KKK is actually a cult based on Christianity. The burning cross, after all, is a symbol of “Spreading the light of Christ.” So inspiring.

        • Greg G.

          The religion of the KKK is Christianity.

        • james ohara

          Is that why they only kill Christians?, next you’ll be telling me their cannibals,
          Do the crawl!.

        • Greg G.

          They oppose Catholics. They may have killed Christians because of their race but not because they were Christian.

        • james ohara

          Make up you mind.

        • Greg G.

          Protestants are Christians but they are not Catholics. If they killed a Protestant, they would have killed a Christian but not a Catholic.

          Is there anything you are not confused about?

        • james ohara

          Yeah, what is a catholic in your opinion?,
          Yeah, the word catholic means Universal, but i got a Universal ball joint in my car, is it catholic?,
          and yeah, you could say that the word catholic in the Roman Catholic church means that it embraces all peoples, but that doesn’t make it Christian, the Romans conquered the known world and killed all who insisted on being killed, the remainder they converted into Hellenism, IE, your mountain god is the same as our mountain god, your river god is the same as our river god etc, so the Roman catholic church has been the Roman Catholic church since before Jesus was born, because they embraced all the different pagan religions, got it?, but the Catholic part only came into being After Jesus was dead 300 years didn’t it!, so Catholic, in the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t mean All embracing, what it actually means is a fusion of the Gods Divine LAW and Gods Divine GRACE into one heathen church,
          Jesus said that GRACE and LAW were like oil and water, they Cannot mix!, you can have one or the other but not both, got it!,
          the Holy Roman Catholic Church is a Pagan church masquerading as a Christian church, the first to recognize and rebel against this lie was Martin Luther,
          and basically Any church that tries to mix GRACE and LAW are Not, christian, they are Pagan.

        • Greg G.

          I know what “catholic” means and I know what “Catholic” means. I did not accidentally capitalize the word.

        • al kimeea

          Well, there’s a spelling mistake on the cover of that book. An ‘e’ is missing. Holey is far more apt. Reading it from cover-to-cover revealed how many holes there are.

        • james ohara

          Yeah, Nets are full of them too, the very thing for catching astute fish.

        • al kimeea

          Ya. You can tell the ones that have been snared by the wee piscean symbol on their cars.

        • james ohara

          Snared, Lol, into what?.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I agree: the Bible has lots of answers. Why should I believe any of them?

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          Let’s hear God read the Bible aloud!

        • Michael Neville

          The Sutras also has answers to the origins of the universe and of life. For that matter creation myths are a dime a dozen, so why should we go with your favorite myth instead of the gaping abyss of Ginnungagap? This chaos of perfect silence and darkness lay between the homeland of elemental fire, Muspelheim, and the homeland of elemental ice, Niflheim.

          Frost from Niflheim and billowing flames from Muspelheim crept toward each other until they met in Ginnungagap. Amid the hissing and sputtering, the fire melted the ice, and the drops formed themselves into Ymir, the first of the godlike giants. Ymir was a hermaphrodite and could reproduce asexually; when he sweated, more giants were born.

          As the frost continued to melt, a cow, Audhumbla, emerged from it. She nourished Ymir with her milk, and she, in turn, was nourished by salt-licks in the ice. Her licks slowly uncovered Buri, the first of the Aesir tribe of gods. Buri had a son named Bor, who married Bestla, the daughter of the giant Bolthorn. The half-god, half-giant children of Bor and Bestla were Odin, who became the chief of the Aesir gods, and his two brothers, Vili and Ve.

          Odin and his brothers slew Ymir and set about constructing the world from his corpse. They fashioned the oceans from his blood, the soil from his skin and muscles, vegetation from his hair, clouds from his brains, and the sky from his skull. Four dwarves, corresponding to the four cardinal points, held Ymir’s skull aloft above the earth. The gods eventually formed the first man and woman, Ask and Embla, from two tree trunks, and built a fence around their dwelling-place, Midgard, to protect them from the giants.

          Cribbed from Norse Mythology for Smart People.

        • james ohara

          I know you think your posing a very difficult question, but the answer is simplicity itself, all the myths you cite begin withing creation, in order for them to have any credence they must begin their story before creation, it’s not rocket science.

        • Michael Neville

          You’re wrong. The Vedic creation myth begins with the appearance of a creator. If you knew anything about Hinduism you’d know this.

        • james ohara

          “a dismemberment and distribution; not an actual creation of something out of nothing, but rather a rearrangement, another instance of order out of chaos”, , , ,
          Go away with your demon bollocks creation myth, don’t you understand what Beginning means?,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Michael Neville

          How about trying to refute what I say instead of babbling gibberish? Or gibberish all you have?

          And what’s that “do the crawl” bullshit? More gibberish?

        • james ohara

          How about saying what you claim to say instead of talking bollocks!, Hinduism is a joke, I can’t count the number of bare arsed Hindu peadophiles I’ve sent running to the hills looking for more enlightenment and the reason their running is because they can’t catch their Gurus, just because of my one stupid but decisive and no bullshit question, my question being, How do Hindus propose to penetrate the Sin barrier?, I have yet to receive any kind of answer, my last bout was over in my first mention of the word sin with that ridicules woman who claims to be a new Hindu god,
          Hindu creation Myth begins within creation, that is AFTER!, not before creation,
          “And what’s that “do the crawl” bullshit? More gibberish?”, , , ,
          That relates to the rock from which you crawled from under, so do the snake hip Cha-cha and crawl back under it!,
          Do the crawl!.

        • Michael Neville

          So I was right, you don’t have anything to say other than gibberish.

        • james ohara

          Well, you started it,
          Now do the Crawl!.

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          That’s silly. “Sin” is a concept created by humans, for reasons that may be debated but generally amount to finding a reason to assert power over someone else. Since the concept has no more validity that that you are willing to concede to it (i.e., the degree to which you are willing to let someone else prescribe their artificial and arbitrary boundaries around your behavior), it has no place in a rational discussion of epistemology or human origins. They probably left because once you have embraced a series of nonsense propositions as the basis for your argument, there’s little point in continuing the discussion. As I’m sure you are now prepared to demonstrate.

        • james ohara

          Yeah, I’m sure your right, you should try it on the Great and terrible Judge, you’ll have to wait your turn though, there’s a momentous queue in front of you, the LAW of Condemnation and Death is very popular among those who reject Gods Divine GRACE I hear, let me know how that goes for you,

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          Clearly, this is an argument that can never be empirically resolved, since communications from the dead are pretty much interrupted. Given our complete lack of agreement on any fundamental principles, I think that the one point we can both agree on is that one of us is in for a pretty massive surprise.

        • james ohara

          No, You are in for a massive surprise, LAW and GRACE are of no use to you when your dead.

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          On the other hand, wouldn’t you be surprised if you suddenly found yourself reincarnated. Or perhaps even just evaporated. Or even perhaps in a state of reunion with the universe along with every other human soul, Christian or not. That might frost you for a while, but I suspect that even you could learn to deal with it. We’re both going to find out; pity we won’t be able to share the information afterward.

        • Greg G.

          Nobody is claiming that Hinduism is anything but bollocks. It is just not any more bollocks that your religion.

        • james ohara

          GRACE and LAW!.

        • Greg G.

          GRACE and LAW!.

          More bollocks, right down to your need for double punctuation. It’s like God is supposed to be just and merciful. That is not possible. Being merciful means not being just.

        • james ohara

          ” It’s like God is supposed to be just and merciful. That is not possible. Being merciful means not being just.”, , , ,
          Now your getting it, God is Merciful and God is just, but please try to pay attention, God cannot wave your sins and allow you into heaven unjustly, no, God can’t let you or anybody else into heaven because God Is Just!,
          There’s only ONE WAY,
          Jesus tells you,
          “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”,
          Got it?, the righteous Kinsman redeemer, we are righteously saved through the Divine LAW, Justly!,

        • Ignorant Amos

          That relates to the rock from which you crawled from under, so do the snake hip Cha-cha and crawl back under it!,
          Do the crawl!.

          An original piece of your own work? Ha, ya fuckin’ Dime Bar…two armadillo’s.

        • james ohara

          Why thank you Pongo, brothers in arms eh :)

        • Kodie

          Do the crawl! You’re a fucking blithering idiot.

        • james ohara

          Back!, Back I say!, the power of Christ compels you, Back under your rock!,
          Lol, another one bites the dust,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Kodie

          You’re not just a blithering idiot, you’re delusional!

        • james ohara

          Wassa madda?, can’t you find your rock, well I suppose one rock looks much like another, just pick one and,
          Do the crawl!.

        • epeeist

          I ask you One simple question,
          Where does Hydrogen come from?.

          Quark-gluon plasma.

        • james ohara

          How does ( Quark-gluon plasma. ) answer my question, this is a recipe, not a point of origin.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          How does ‘god’ have any predictive power?

          We already know ‘god’ has NEGATIVE explanatory power, as it’s unfalsifiable.

        • epeeist

          How does ( Quark-gluon plasma. ) answer my question

          You asked where hydrogen comes from, the answer is that for a very short time after the Big Bang there was a quark-gluon plasma which eventually (after a few microseconds) cooled to form protons and neutrons. These then combined with electrons to form hydrogen and a small amount of other elements.

          So why doesn’t this answer your question?

        • Greg G.

          So why doesn’t this answer your question?

          Motorized goalposts.

        • epeeist

          Motorized goalposts.

          Driven by badgers.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yep. If it isn’t quark-gluon plasma, it’s those damn badgers.

        • Otto

          The only thing worse than an idiot… is a completely confident idiot

        • ThaneOfDrones

          Strangest thing, I just searched an online Bible for “hydrogen” and got this:

          Your simple query produced no results.

        • Annerdr

          What’s the Hebrew word for Hydrogen? I’m having trouble looking this up.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Oh, I LOVE that! **madly looks for ancient Aramaic word for hydrogen**

        • Annerdr

          http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2011/11/14/found-the-first-atoms-in-the-u/
          Here, I did your research for you. This explains where hydrogen came from.
          What’s your next gotcha question or are you ready to listen to others?

        • Giauz Ragnarock

          What does God need with a book?

        • Joe

          He needs something to read on his starship.

      • james ohara

        I just went through your previous posts, God, Religion, Science, you have no Idea whats going on do you?.

        • epeeist

          you have no Idea whats going on do you?.

          Rather more than you I suspect.

          Plus the fact that I can actually construct grammatical sentences.

        • james ohara

          “Rather more than you I suspect”, I very much doubt it,
          “Plus the fact that I can actually construct grammatical sentences”, indeed you can, perhaps you should get a mundane job like English teacher, coz your Epee is a joke when faced with the Christs two edged sword, all that your tongue and that thing can do is stab, a Claymore will cut you in half from both directions,
          Now why don’t you talk less bollocks and answer my simple straight forward question!, or are you too afraid to admit the horrible truth?.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Do you have ANY IDEA how grandiose and hyperbolic you sound?

        • Kevin K

          He sounds like he’s having a manic episode. Someone went off their lithium.

        • Steve Williams

          As someone with Bipolar Disorder I would have to agree with you :)

        • RichardSRussell

          I suspect he has an excellent idea but enjoys poking anthills with a long stick.

        • al kimeea

          I notice many of these types often use violent imagery when discussing their religion of peace…

        • epeeist

          indeed you can, perhaps you should get a mundane job like English teacher

          Well that would be rather a waste of my doctorate in molecular physics don’t you think?

          coz your Epee is a joke when faced with the Christs two edged sword, all that your tongue and that thing can do is stab, a Claymore will cut you in half from both directions,

          Is there an actual argument in this?

          Now why don’t you talk less bollocks and answer my simple straight forward question!, or are you too afraid to admit the horrible truth?.

          I tell you what, why don’t you answer my question first? What does non-local realism show in your world?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Plus the fact that I can actually construct grammatical sentences.

          Now you’re just rubbing it in.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          FYI, I think I recognize ‘james’ style.

          If he’s not Frank, of trolling past, I’ll be surprised.

        • Joe

          He seems more belligerent then Frank. Just as stupid, but more aggressive.

        • Otto

          Blathers more too…

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I see 2 Franks in the banned list, each banned about a year ago.

          And you think he’s come back to hang with us? How sweet!

        • epeeist

          I just went through your previous posts, God, Religion, Science, you have no Idea whats going on do you?.

          Oh, and you seemed to have missed answering my question, what does non-local realism show in your world?

        • Doubting Thomas

          You can tell by the random capitalizations and overall poor grammar that James is a member of the God Squad. And Rule #1 of God Squad is “Never answer any direct question if it might make you look bad.”

        • james ohara

          You have a question?, let’s hear it son.

        • Doubting Thomas

          A little slow, are we?

          From epeeist:

          So what is non-local realism meant to show in your version of the universe?

        • james ohara

          ( james ohara epeeist • 2 hours ago
          It’s not my Vision, it’s the way reality it is, when you get down to the nitty gritty of reality it just dissolves through your fingers like it didn’t exist in the first place, the only acceptable account of Life the Universe and Everything is the Holy Bible, and to prove it to you, I ask you One simple question,
          Where does Hydrogen come from?. )
          Are you drunk?, as you can plainly see, I answered you over 2 hours ago.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “So what is non-local realism meant to show in your version of the universe?”

          Answer, or forswear and recant your foolish superstition.

        • james ohara

          “So what is non-local realism meant to show in your version of the universe?”, , , , , ,
          Cold empty space, dear, I don’t have a version of the Universe, i only know whats know, whats reported and the last I heard there is no Scientific account for the origins of Hydrogen or the origins of Life, so perhaps you’d like to state your pseudo scientific foolish superstitions and give us all a laugh.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          YOU brought up the topic as a refutation of science.

          Explain why, or recant and forswear your foolish superstition.

        • james ohara

          “YOU brought up the topic as a refutation of science.”, , , , ,
          Indeed I did,
          “Explain why, or recant and forswear your foolish superstition”, , , , ,
          Why, because your perceived reality is a lie!, “foolish superstition”?, what has this got to do with Hydrogen?.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re changing the subject again.

          You offered a subject as a refutation of science.

          Now explain WHY it’s a refutation of science.

        • adam

          “the only acceptable account of Life the Universe and Everything is the Holy Bible, ”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb4831e1694c2ba934736efcb24fc7f67501a3f169ecaeac7e1a8fd31de3d3f6.png

        • james ohara

          If you know of any other account of the creation of the Universe I’d be glad to hear it, and as for Leviticus 25:44-46, you’re obviously some sort of novice when it comes to the Bible and Gods Law for man, but I feel i must point out,
          God wrote the TEN!, Commandments in Stone so that they could not be added to or retracted from, now if you can find anything in those God given Commandments that refer to Slavery I’m happy to discus it,
          The 600 or so extra Laws written by the Hebrews were made to circumnavigate the penalties of the TEN!, which God wrote, and if you were to actually read the Bible you would find that these Rabbinical laws existed before the TEN! were written,
          Please don’t quote the Bible unless you want it shoved down your throat, stick to the subject at hand.

        • Kevin K

          Once there was nothing but endless dark water without form or purpose. Existing within this void was Heka (god of magic) who awaited the moment of creation. Out of this watery silence (`Nu’) rose the primordial hill, known as the Ben-Ben, upon which stood the great god Atum (or, in some versions of the myth, Ptah). Atum looked upon the nothingness and recognized his aloneness and so, through the agency of magic, he mated with his own shadow to give birth to two children, Shu (god of air, whom Atum spat out) and Tefnut (goddess of moisture, whom Atum vomited out). Shu gave to the early world the principles of life while Tefnut contributed the principles of order.

          https://www.ancient.eu/Egyptian_Mythology/

        • james ohara

          Lol, yeah, I know you think your being clever, but may I point out the dirty great big holes in that statement,
          “endless dark water”, where did the water come from?,
          “(god of magic)”, there is no magic in the Bible except that of Magicians,
          “awaited the moment of creation”, surely creation had already begun, remember the ‘dark waters’,
          “primordial hill”, where on earth did that come from?,
          I could go on shooting down every single word but suffice to say that all the other supposed creation myths from all over the world Begin Within Creation!,
          There is only One creator God, not two, not three, not any permutation from any number of gods,
          Please stick to the topic, at least then you won’t be lying.

        • Kevin K

          You asked if anyone had another creation story, and I provided one. That particular one pre-dates the Hebrew creation story by several thousand years. As does this one, from the Babylonians…

          In the beginning there was only undifferentiated water swirling in chaos. Out of this swirl, the waters divided into sweet, fresh water, known as the god Apsu, and salty bitter water, the goddess Tiamat. Once differentiated, the union of these two entities gave birth to the younger gods.

          These young gods, however, were extremely loud, troubling the sleep of Apsu at night and distracting him from his work by day. Upon the advice of his Vizier, Mummu, Apsu decides to kill the younger gods. Tiamat, hearing of their plan, warns her eldest son, Enki (sometimes Ea) and he puts Apsu to sleep and kills him. From Apsu’s remains, Enki creates his home. Tiamat, once the supporter of the younger gods, now is enraged that they have killed her mate. She consults with the god, Quingu, who advises her to make war on the younger gods. Tiamat rewards Quingu with the Tablets of Destiny, which legitimize the rule of a god and control the fates, and he wears them proudly as a breastplate. With Quingu as her champion, Tiamat summons the forces of chaos and creates eleven horrible monsters to destroy her children.

          Ea, Enki, and the younger gods fight against Tiamat futilely until, from among them, emerges the champion Marduk who swears he will defeat Tiamat. Marduk defeats Quingu and kills Tiamat by shooting her with an arrow which splits her in two; from her eyes flow the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Out of Tiamat’s corpse, Marduk creates the heavens and the earth, he appoints gods to various duties and binds Tiamat’s eleven creatures to his feet as trophies (to much adulation from the other gods) before setting their images in his new home. He also takes the Tablets of Destiny from Quingu, thus legitimizing his reign.

          After the gods have finished praising him for his great victory and the art of his creation, Marduk consults with the god Ea (the god of wisdom) and decides to create human beings from the remains of whichever of the gods instigated Tiamat to war. Quingu is charged as guilty and killed and, from his blood, Ea creates Lullu, the first man, to be a helper to the gods in their eternal task of maintaining order and keeping chaos at bay. As the poem phrases it, “Ea created mankind/On whom he imposed the service of the gods, and set the gods free.” Following this, Marduk “arranged the organization of the netherworld” and distributed the gods to their appointed stations.

          https://www.ancient.eu/article/225/enuma-elish—the-babylonian-epic-of-creation/

        • james ohara

          No dear, you create from the absence of creation, not after creation, please read your texts carefully, all your cited gods are created beings, they do not create without first destroying, there is only One creation story which begins BEFORE creation,
          I can only imagine that you want to talk about anything but the topic at hand because you have No answer to my very simple and very basic question that even a child could ask.

        • Kevin K

          At the beginning of the world there was only darkness, void. Creation began when the dual Ometecuhtli (Lord of Duality) / Omecihuatl (Lady of Duality) created itself. This first god was good and bad, male and female, and gave birth to four other gods: Huizilopochtli, Quetzalcoatl, Tezcatlipoca and Xipe Totec . These gods created the world.
          The first things created by Quetzalcoatl and Huitzilopochtli were fire and a half sun. They then undertook the creation of humanity by sacrificing a god whose blood drops on a mass of ground-up bones produced the first man and woman, named Oxomoco and Cipactonal respectively. The birth of each took 4 days.
          After the creation of man, the gods continued creating the lords of the underworld, the heavens and waters, a crocodile-like water creature named Cipactli, and the rain god Tlaloc and his wife Chalchiuhtlicue.
          When the initial creation was completed, a cycle of 5 suns followed which corresponded to 5 world ages, each one ending in destruction. According to the Aztecs, we are currently on the 5 th sun of the creation.

          http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-folklore/aztec-creation-myths-0071

        • Kevin K

          One of the Hindu creation myths — again, predates the Hebrew myth by several hundred to thousand years

          In the beginning there was neither existence nor non- existence; there was no atmosphere, no sky, and no realm beyond the sky. What power was there? Where was that power? Who was that power? Was it finite or infinite?

          There was neither death nor immortality. There was nothing to distinguish night from day. There was no wind or breath. God alone breathed by his own energy. Other than God there was nothing.
          In the beginning darkness was swathed in darkness. All was liquid and formless. God was clothed in emptiness.

          Then fire arose within God; and in the fire arose love. This was the seed of the soul. Sages have found this seed within their hearts; they have discovered that it is the bond between existence and non-existence.

          http://1stholistic.com/Prayer/Hindu/hol_Hindu-creation-of-the-universe.htm

        • Kevin K

          there is only One creation story which begins BEFORE creation

          I just gave you two. And the Jains do not teach that the universe had a beginning, but exists eternally, going through cycles of birth and rebirth.

          One of my best friends is a Christian. He is also a scientist with two PhDs in the hard sciences…and one of his favorite sayings is “the bible is not a science text”.

          The creation myths written down by the ancient Hebrews were 1) synthesized from earlier accounts, and 2) are demonstrably incorrect.

          And you do realize that there are two separate and distinct creation myths in Genesis … right? You who thinks we haven’t read your book of fairy stories.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Until you demonstrate your ‘god’, you have NOTHING.

          SHOW ME…I don’t believe you.

          Just call me Doubting Thomas regarding your assertions.

        • james ohara

          God does not belong to me, rather I, we, belong to Him, but I will not call you Doubting Thomas, I will call you Didymus, and as proof of God and His great work I give you Israel, the people, the state, the country and its promise of a lesson unlearned and it’s future of Greater Israel.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          More empty assertion, Frankie-poo.

          To quote Aron-Ra, “If you can’t SHOW it, you don’t KNOW it.”

        • james ohara

          Israel is a nation once again, just like God said it would be, you can’t deny it, there you have it, proof positive.

        • Michael Neville

          Considering james ohara, a quote from Marx comes to mind. Groucho once said: “This man may talk like an idiot and look like an idiot. But don’t let that fool you. He really is an idiot.”

        • james ohara

          Y I otta!, I’d horse whip you iffin I had a horse!,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Greg G.

          There is already a person using “Doubting Thomas” as his Disqus handle and has posted here as recently as yesterday.

        • adam

          “there is no magic in the Bible except”

          Except the Magical parts, right?

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a7128a3eb16308d24c6b38263e28d5a2baa3e91f3884491e9cdfe71444bc0263.jpg

        • Kevin K

          Well, right at the beginning, Yahweh uses magic words to create the universe…so, there’s not really any way to separate the myths from the magic.

        • james ohara

          The magic tricks done by magicians yes, you have a problem with that?, also may I point out, that nowhere in the TEN Commandments does it say,
          ” Thou shalt not shove your dick up your best friends arse “, nor are there any ribs, or magic trees,
          Please don’t quote whats not wrote.

        • adam

          “The magic tricks done by magicians yes, you have a problem with that?,”

          But it is your God and his “son” who are the magicians.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/57d8812041d27bff15f48eb5ac5edd1f3cb26a8df7bfd55a8bae3b5a093d53c8.jpg

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Leviticus 18:22 (KJV) Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.

          So yes, your ‘bible’ condemns homosexuality.

        • BlackMamba44

          Genesis 1:26

          26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

        • adam

          “There is only One creator God, not two, not three, not any permutation from any number of gods,”

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/48f64686cc56c93e340da908278a26b5ca4234795178a430344b7c7698c95824.jpg

        • MNb

          Yeah, I’d like to know. According to your favourite Holy Book the Earth was once totally flooded. Where did the water come from if no magic was involved?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope. Assertion is not evidence.

          Show me EVIDENCE or STFU & GTFO.

        • james ohara

          Another one bites the dust!,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Frank, is that you?

          It took me a while to recognize your style, and you have a whole new crop of catchphrases, but it’s you, sure as shootin’.

        • Greg G.

          now if you can find anything in those God given Commandments that refer to Slavery I’m happy to discus it,

          The Ten Commandments were so OK with slavery that you couldn’t covet those belonging to your neighbor. That is right after not coveting you neighbor’s wife and before not coveting your neighbor’s fertilizer producers.

          Exodus 20:17 (NRSV)17 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

        • Kevin K

          That’s gotta sting.

        • epeeist

          If you know of any other account of the creation of the Universe I’d be glad to hear it

          Hesiod’s Cosmogony, the Norse Eddas, the Rig Veda, the Enuma Elish as a starter. There are also accounts of creation by the Egyptians, the Chinese and the Meso-Americans amongst many others.

        • james ohara

          Take a leaf out of your own book and go and actually read these so called creation myths, if your the scholar you claim to be you’ll see that they are all creating inside the creation, mostly destroying before they create.

        • epeeist

          you’ll see that they are all creating inside the creation,

          You mean like:

          1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

          2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

          As it is all you asked for was “any other account of the creation of the Universe”, but once again you didn’t like the answer you got so you shifted the goalposts once more.

        • Kevin K

          And shifted them right into several other creation myths, including myths of religions currently practiced. He’s a dull kind of stupid, dense without even flecks of intelligence. Par for the course, I know, but one wonders what specific branch of Protestantism this one practices. If I knew, I could plan to avoid streets where those churches are next to, in order to avoid the chaos coming from people who can’t walk and chew gum at the same time, much less learn how to drive on the correct side of the road.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Nope. You’re wrong.

          They’re all de novo ‘creation’, just like YOUR myth.

        • james ohara

          I didn’t write it you silly man, its contents are even older than writing itself,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Yet more assertion.

          SHOW ME, I’m Doubting Thomas.

          If you can’t, why should I believe you?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Your favorite mythology is different from the other mythologies … so therefore yours is correct? You’ve lost me.

        • adam

          “Please don’t quote the Bible unless you want it shoved down your throat, stick to the subject at hand.”

          You brought it up.

          Shove all you want, your bible is chucked full of magical talking serpents, magical fruit, magical talking donkeys and a vast collection of other magical creatures.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/62da10177de8c12d9feedf1a0ff3d448ed929feef887a1192640edb3a8a15953.jpg

        • adam

          “you’re obviously some sort of novice when it comes to the Bible and Gods Law for man”

          Nope, I just like pointing out when people worship the words of Paul and totally ignore those of Jesus.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/89d230f179881be8275da4101e50e5e24d2a0bb95addba201026fbc36fa9a751.jpg

        • BlackMamba44

          Which Ten Commandments?

        • Kevin K

          I noticed that as well…he doesn’t seem to be aware that there are several different versions. He’s dull, but he makes up for it by being uneducated.

        • MNb

          “If you know of any other account of the creation of the Universe I’d be glad to hear it”
          Given your nonsensical “hydrogen underpinning reality” I’m pretty sure either you are a huge joke or any other account as formulated by physics will fly way above your head.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Which set of ten ‘commandments’ in stone?

          The catholic or protestant version(s)?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re writing off Levitical laws on slavery simply because you CAN’T ANSWER it and feel comfortable in your emtions.

          Not our problem.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re a bright spark. Come to the front of the class and tell us what the Ten Commandments are. (Points off if you list the ones on the tablets that were smashed on the golden calf.)

          now if you can find anything in those God given Commandments that refer to Slavery I’m happy to discus it,

          Good point! Yahweh must be quite the asshole if he has “don’t covet” but forgets the prohibitions against slavery, rape, and genocide. Wow–can you imagine worshiping this guy??

        • Joe

          God wrote the TEN!, Commandments in Stone so that they could not be added to or retracted from

          Then Moses broke them and god wrote ten more.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Right–ten different ones.

        • Joe

          God probably thought “Well, they obviously didn’t care for those ones. Maybe these will be a keeper?”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m scrupulous about #10, “Never eat a kid boiled in its mother’s milk.”

          Not bragging, just sayin’.

        • Michael Neville

          So children with nursing mothers are safe around you. That’s good to know.

        • Joe

          I can never seem to wait until the milk has boiled.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Don’t go to a Jamaican restaurant 😉

        • al kimeea

          come on, he didn’t mean the whole book

        • adam

          ” I ask you One simple question,”

          Where did God learn to create universes?

        • james ohara

          God doesn’t learn, He teaches, God doesn’t acquire knowledge, He created it, but again, you digress, please answer my question.

        • Kodie

          Why do you think you can act like a total asshole and then demand answers to your stupid ignorant fucking questions?

          Is it because you’re a Christian?

        • adam

          “Is it because you’re a Christian?”

          He is doing ‘apologetics’, he HAS to LIE.

        • adam

          Where did God learn to create universes?
          Where did God learn to create life?

          I answered your hydrogen question already.

          but you havent answered mine.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Your ‘god’ doesn’t demonstrably *exist*…so stop trying to use it to support your counterfactual assertions.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          God doesn’t learn

          Yeah? Why then did he send the two angels to Sodom?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Matter of fact, didn’t he have to go searching through the Garden of Eden since they hid themselves in their nakedness?

          Hmmm….things that make you think 😉

        • MNb

          A hydrogen comes from combining a proton and an electron.
          It has preciously little to do with non-locality.

        • james ohara

          “combining a proton and an electron.”, , , , , ,
          Is that a fact, and how does one manage that exactly?.

        • Kodie

          What an interesting question from someone who thinks his imaginary friend made hydrogen by farting it into existence, but doesn’t have any answers as to exactly how he managed it – I mean, were there beans involved, or did he blame it on the dog, or what?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “combining a proton and an electron.”, , , , , ,
          Is that a fact, and how does one manage that exactly?.”

          Opposite charges attract…what next? “F**kin’ magnets, how do they work”??!!

        • james ohara

          Magnet?, whats that?, the arse or the elbow?.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Frankie-poo! I didn’t miss you at all!

          Why couldn’t you have stayed away?

        • MNb

          Yes, that is a fact.
          No one manages that.
          The electromagnetic force does.

        • james ohara

          no one?.

        • MNb

          The ultimate sign of stupidity: asking a question that already has been answered.
          The Crawl and the Slither firmly remain yours.

        • james ohara

          I’m a child of light, I don’t hide, crawl or slither under rocks.
          Do the Crawl!.

        • MNb

          Of course not. If you crawled or slithered under rocks you would run the risk of escaping the darkness of your rock. All you can do is sit still and switch your amoeba brains off.
          Given that you have to ask where lighting comes from it’s safe to conclude you don’t understand what “light” means.

        • james ohara

          Not a very scientific answer is it?.

        • adam
        • Kevin K

          That trip with Satan to the tallest mountain to see the four corners of the world is one of my favorites…

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          One of the clever commenters here pointed out that this goes both ways. If you can see all of the world from Mount X, then you can see Mount X from all of the world. So go outside on a clear day and look around–it’s there, somewhere.

        • Otto

          If Jesus is God how does Satan tempt Jesus with anything? That would be like me bringing Bill Gates over to my house and saying ….’ALL THIS CAN BE YOURS!!!’

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Exactly. This story doesn’t fit the current concept of Jesus as part of the Trinity since the beginning, but it would work if Jesus was just a good man who was tapped by God for a special role. We see this in Mark (Jesus baptized by John the Baptist is another anomaly), but it’s successively watered down until he’s godlike in John.

        • Kevin K

          Oh my … don’t tell the flerfers!

        • MNb

          No, you have answered any question regarding your total lack of understanding of physics conclusively already.

          Oh wait, I do have a question.
          Are you deliberately that funny or involuntarily? Because the combination of your total lack of ignorance and and your pomposity triggers my laughing muscles.

        • adam

          Yes, where did YOUR “God” attain the ability and knowledge to create life and universes?

        • RichardSRussell

          Really? I heard this one: “The first rule of Jesus Club is: You never shut up about Jesus Club.”

        • Doubting Thomas

          As James has shown, often the reason religious people never answer any questions is because they can’t stop talking about Jesus Club.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Somewhere, baby Jesus is crying.

        • Kevin K

          Well, you see, the flat-fixed Earth is local therefore there can be no non-local realism, therefore Jesus! Checkmate, Aethiesismists!

    • Michael Neville

      So what’s the point of randomly capitalizing words in your gibberish?

      • epeeist

        Obviously using the Camel Case minor mode in Emacs.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        I dunno what he’s saying, but he’s certainly convinced me. Of something.

        • james ohara

          Yeah, I’m surrounded by clever dicks who think they know what their talking about, they think Science has the answer, it doesn’t, they think God was created by man, He wasn’t, they think they know what the Bible is all about, they don’t.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Science builds airplanes.

          Religion flies them into buildings.

          So go ahead, give me ONE time when science has been disproved, repeatably, by religion.

        • james ohara

          Why are you talking about religion?, the heading for this thread is,
          ‘ When Christianity Hits Reality: the William Lane Craig vs. Sean Carroll Debate ‘, , , , , ,
          I have already shown that Christianity is NOT A RELIGION!, and I have also shown that Science cannot prove what is real and what isn’t, in that Hydrogen underpins the whole of what we know as reality, and no one on this thread or outside can answer my very simple basic child like question,
          “Science builds airplanes”, , , , , No dear, I would ask you to elaborate, but I already know it’s beyond you, believe builds airplanes, not science,
          “Religion flies them into buildings”, , , , , No dear, religion praises whatever god, warriors fly airplanes into buildings,
          “give me ONE time when science has been disproved, repeatably, by religion”, , , , , Religion isn’t Science, but Science is quickly becoming a religion, in order for science to prove something it has to measure it, again and again, one of the most exacting measurements id the charge on the electron, so at the risk of repeating myself, Where does Hydrogen come from?.

        • BlackMamba44
        • Kevin K

          Dammit, man. I wanted to use that one!! Sad-faced emoji…

        • Greg G.

          I have already shown that Christianity is NOT A RELIGION!

          No, you claimed that nobody had made the claim that Christianity was a religion, but that was immediately refuted by Doubting Thomas making that very claim. Saying that “Christianity is a personal relationship with God” is demonstrating that it is a religion. If God existed, your “relationship” would be more like stalking.

        • adam

          “I have already shown that Christianity is NOT A RELIGION!”

          No, you havent, you’ve only claimed it.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/977fec8d919b78bac464e34ebf3323186d387d2d5896053076277b97e83eca78.jpg

        • james ohara

          Jesus founded an Ekklesia, not a religion or church.

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/ekklesia.html

          Ekklesia
          a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly

          an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating

          the assembly of the Israelites

          any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously
          in a Christian sense

          an assembly of Christians gathered for worship in a religious meeting

          a company of Christian, or of those who, hoping for eternal salvation through Jesus Christ, observe their own religious rites, hold their own religious meetings, and manage their own affairs, according to regulations prescribed for the body for order’s sake

          those who anywhere, in a city, village, constitute such a company and are united into one body

          the whole body of Christians scattered throughout the earth

          the assembly of faithful Christians already dead and received into heaven

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Now you’re just pettifogging.

          You COULD have just used the word ‘congregation’…but you’re trying to baffle us with bullshit, it being obvious you can’t blind us with brilliance.

        • james ohara

          No dear, that’s not what an Ekklesia is, the Romans had a propaganda unit of teachers and builders, merchants, temple staff, librarians, apothecaries, liver merchants, blacksmiths and all manner of artisans who moved into conquered settlements and introduced the new Roman citizens to the new way of life, this is the Ekklesia,
          This is what Jesus commissioned, not a church, not a religion, but a new perspective, a new way of life, living under Gods Divine GRACE (unmerited favor), rather than living under Gods Divine LAW, which was created for devils and demons, not man,

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          As usual, you’re trying to redefine words to support your assertions.

          I refuse to accept your self-serving redefinition.

          So join consensus reality or be dismissed into the irrelevance you so richly deserve.

        • Kodie

          So Christianity is a superstition.

        • epeeist

          so at the risk of repeating myself, Where does Hydrogen come from?.

          Well done you win the prize for the fastest press of the reset button ever.

          You have already been told this, but you obviously didn’t understand the answer.

          EDIT: Typo

        • james ohara

          Yeah, well as you know I’m just stupid, so why don’t you tell me again so’s I can beat you over the head with whatever bollocks you think answers my question, and no more Recipes please, i want to know where your questionable ingredients came from, not a list of their details or their quantities.

        • epeeist

          You don’t actually understand how discourse works do you.

          When you answer my question about non-local realism then I might get around to responding to your questions.

        • adam

          ” i want to know where your questionable ingredients came from, ”

          Yes, like your IMAGINARY “God”, the talking serpents, magical fruit, magical talking donkeys and whole host of other imaginary characters.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          We’re well aware that you’re stupid, and also oppositional, and unhelpful.

          You refuse to answer questions honestly asked, then decry us for our lack of civility brought on by your intransigence.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You seem to have a hard time simply expressing yourself. I guess the allure of being a dick is too great?

          So let me try: you’re saying that science can’t tell where the matter in the universe came from, but you can. Is that it?

        • Herald Newman

          You have already been told this, but you obviously didn’t understand the answer.

          The man is a troll! His objective has been achieved.

        • MNb

          “that Hydrogen underpins the whole of what we know as reality”
          And you don’t understand what the word “shown” means either.
          See, hydrogen doesn’t underpin a lot of things. Elemantary particles do in a way and hydrogen is not one of them. Hydrogen is underpinned by a proton and an electron, as my 13 year old pupils learn in the first grade.

        • al kimeea

          13?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          “I have already shown that Christianity is NOT A RELIGION!”

          The dictionary disagrees with you, as do billions of people around the world.

          So, since it’s subjective, majority rules, and so it’s a religion.

          If you want to be a weird outlier, that’s your business.

        • JP415

          “I have already shown that Christianity is NOT A RELIGION.”

          Sure. Right. And North Korea is not a dictatorship.

          You need to get on some strong psychiatric medications there guy.

        • james ohara

          Idiot!,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • JP415

          Er, you’re not making any sense. It’s time for the doctors to put you away in a padded cell.

        • Kevin K
        • MNb

          Well, if you write that all matter in the Universe is made of hydrogen you are one of those who thinks they know what they are talking about, but just don’t.
          Also I noticed you don’t understand the difference between a question and an answer.

        • james ohara

          Answer the question or do the Crawl!.

        • adam
        • MNb

          Your answered has been answered, stupid liar. By Epeeist and by me.
          The Crawl is yours.

        • james ohara

          “Your answered has been answered,”, , , ,
          My answer has been answered?, Jees, I’m not saying Put the bottle down!, I’m saying,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • MNb

          Thanks for pointing out my error. I have corrected it.
          Also thanks for your very unchristian lack of empathy regarding the errors of other people. Love your enemy and such is not for you.
          The Crawl is even more yours.
          Keep up the good work!

        • james ohara

          somebodies got to keep you straight son.

        • MNb

          Fortunately you are not such a somebody dude.

        • james ohara

          don’t call me Dude son, I’m not a Cowboy, and I’m definitely not a Skateboarder.
          Back, Back I say, back under your rock,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • MNb

          Don’t call me son, dude, I don’t care what you are.
          No way I’m going to join you under my rock – I escaped that as a toddler.
          The Crawl and the Sligher remain yours.

        • james ohara

          That’s not the answer.

        • james ohara

          I didn’t ask for a cook book, I asked for the source, the origin, liar indeed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          More like a sauce ya goatskin.

        • james ohara

          I don’t need the skins of animals, my soul is cleansed by the blood of the Lord God Christ Jesus.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Fuck off ya Coco.

        • james ohara

          That’s Saint Coco,

        • Greg G.

          Where did God come from, with the level of detail you are asking for the origin of hydrogen?

        • james ohara

          I asked One question on One subject and asked for One detail, it’s origin, and it’s like i threw a cat among a dozen pigeons, it’s not rocket science or brain surgery, either the answer is known or its not, but no one single devotee of the church of science would say the bleeding obvious answer, which is, “I DON’T KNOW!”,
          As for ” Where did God come from?”, , , , Outside time, Outside space, Outside the reality of what we know as creation, you’d be as well asking Who, What, When, Why, Where and How God came from,
          my question is far more simpler than that and the actual answer was even simpler, virtual empty space.

        • Michael Neville

          t no one single devotee of the church of science would say the bleeding obvious answer, which is, “I DON’T KNOW!”

          That just shows that you’re not paying attention to what you’ve been told because that answer has been given.

          As for where did your god come from, it’s obvious it came from your rosy red rectum, along with the rest of your nonsense.

        • james ohara

          Why can’t you tell the truth son?, there’ll be no pain, yeah, you know something of the components of Hydrogen, but it’s origin eludes you, why don’t you just tell the truth, you’ll feel much better, and when you say ‘god’, I have no idea who or what your talking about, there are literally millions of gods, unless of course you mean God, if so it’s spelled wit a Capital G.

        • Michael Neville

          I admit I don’t know the origin of hydrogen (it’s a common noun and doesn’t require capitalization, you semi-literate prig) and neither do you. Your imaginary sky pixie didn’t poof hydrogen into existence for the simple reason that your imaginary sky pixie doesn’t exist.

        • james ohara

          Hydrogen is not the creation son,its just one of the elements, my question is a scientific one, nothing to do with God,
          But hey!, I got the second true answer to my very simple question,
          btw, there are no pixies in the Bible, that’s your ignorance bag, not mine, but you don’t have to go crawl under a rock, you can walk proudly in the light of day, an honest man, thee are very few of us.

        • Michael Neville

          I am not your son so you can stop patronizing me.

          Both of us know that your “question” is a feeble attempt to squeeze a Middle Eastern Iron Age tribal god into the role of creator of the universe, so stop pretending you’re trying to be scientific. You’re not and it’s obvious you’re not. And you calling yourself an “honest man” would be laughable if it weren’t for the point that you think you are. You’re a pompous, pedantic prig who knows a whole lot less than you think you do.

          As for your magic sky pixie, it may not be given that name in the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible but I can all it anything I want. If you don’t like me calling your magic sky pixie a magic sky pixie that’s your problem, not mine.

          I have no need or desire to worship any gods, let alone your favorite sky pixie. You certainly haven’t given me any reason to believe your magic sky pixie or any other sky pixies exist.

        • james ohara

          How do you roll all that shit up into my question, are you sure you’re on the right page?, here let my put it in capitals for you,
          WHERE DOES HYDROGEN COME FROM!.

        • Michael Neville

          Don’t shout at me, you ignorant prig.

          I can “roll all that shit up” because I’m not as stupid and ignorant as you. Do you think you’re the first Christian who’s played the God of the Gaps game with us? While you’re more pompous, pretentious and condescending than most proselytizers your basic shtick is not new. We seen it many times before. You ask what you think is “the killer question”, ignore the answers that don’t fit your script, and then try to sell your magic sky pixie as the answer to what’s really a quite silly question.

        • JP415

          Is it time to do the crawl yet?

        • james ohara

          Some of you guys crawl out from under your rocks, shit on my comment then proudly and noisily proclaim never to return but next day there you are shitting on my comment again,
          Have you finished shitting on my comment?, if so then it’s time to crawl back under your rock,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • JP415

          Shitting on your comments would be like shitting on a pile of shit, which is kind of redundant.

          In any case, thank you for providing some comic relief on this blog.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The next time life craps on you (flat tire or late for a meeting or whatever), you can take a small bit of comfort in reminding yourself that there are people who have it worse–like this jerk-off.

        • BlackMamba44

          Well, I did say “it was my last response” at one point. But then I edited it with (oops, I lied). I had to get in a couple of “fuck offs” and one or two more memes. Thank you for the entertainment, even though you made a lousy chew toy.

        • MNb

          We told you the source.
          Proton, electron, electromagnetic force bringing them together.
          But thanks for admitting that you’re a liar.
          A stupid one.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Science has many answers, and no one knows if it will ever have all of them; God was indeed created by Man (along with Zeus, Xenu, Thor and all the rest); and most of us are quite knowledgeable about the Bible (though still happy to learn new things).

          But you disagree. How lucky for us that you’ve dropped by! You can correct us. Go.

        • james ohara

          Write out your Christmas list son and I’ll tick it off for you,
          Lol, I’ll give you Xenu, Zeus?, the Greeks loved their Kings and war lords, King of the gods, arguable, Thor, the god of thunder, are you saying that thunder does not exist?, as for all the rest?, there are literally millions of them, but lets keep it simple shall we, lets consider the oldest, arguably the first, (lower case ‘g’, not upper case’G’),
          The first of your man made gods, What?, you don’t know the first of your gods?, the Moon, the hunters god, no Moon, no hunt, but I’m forgetting you stipulated MAN MADE gods, didn’t you, but it’s not just man who venerates the Moon god is it, All carnivores do,
          The history of the gods is long and very detailed, and I’d love to explain it to you in great detail but you can guess how this is going to end by my very simple story of the Moon god and how very wrong you are about it’s godhood,
          As for the one true God, He introduced Himself, He walked with Abraham when there were more gods than you can shake a stick at,
          If you’d like me to explain exactly what makes the one true God completely different from all the Demon gods, let me know.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’ve given ZERO evidence to distinguish your ‘god’ from all the other fables out there to any of US.

          It’s obvious YOU believe fervently, but that is *subjective*, not OBJECTIVE, and thus unconvincing. It’s not testable, demonstrable, repeatable, and makes no testable predictions. It’s unfalsifiable, and so it’s bunk.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yahweh’s different from all the rest? Share.

        • Joe

          If you’d like me to explain exactly what makes the one true God completely different from all the Demon gods, let me know.

          Because he isn’t made of Hydrogen?

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          Does he weigh more than a duck?

        • adam
        • al kimeea

          the only one waving a dick around is you and it’s not even yours, it’s Allah’s

        • james ohara

          Allah is a proponent of the LAW, the LAW Accuses, Condemns and Kills, only a fool would live and die under the LAW,
          GRACE saves.

      • james ohara

        Is that your answer?.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          It’s requiring you to define your terms so the question is intelligible.

        • james ohara

          My terms?, what are you talking about?,
          Hydrogen is as real as reality gets, everything, do you understand the word EVERYTHING?,
          Everything, all matter in the Universe is made of Hydrogen, Hydrogen is your reality.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          You’re PURPOSELY being obtuse.

          The question was why you randomly capitalize letters in your initial screed.

          DO learn to focus, will you?

        • Kevin K

          Um. No. Everything in the universe is not made of hydrogen. So…you’re off to a pretty bad start. At the Big Bang, there were no hydrogen atoms at all. In fact, it took 380,000 years after the Big Bang for electrons to form around proton/neutrons to create the first atoms, which were mainly helium and hydrogen.

          Don’t know where you’re getting your information about science … but I’d ask for a refund if I were you.

        • BlackMamba44

          Don’t know where you’re getting your information about science … but I’d ask for a refund if I were you.

          I’m guessing the same place where he learned grammar.

          EDIT: missing word.

        • Kevin K

          I weep at the thought of the state of our educational system.

        • adam

          Betsy DuVos will fix our educational system by insuring that james is one of the premier instructors.

        • Otto

          Good news…it looks like from his commenting history he may be a Brit

        • adam

          Please dont tell me american stupidity is spreading like this….

        • Otto

          Ummm…you did notice he uses ‘bullocks’ a lot right…? 😉

        • adam

          I just figured he was another Ted Haggard christian….

        • Michael Neville

          But Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual.

        • Phil

          Well a true Brit would use the word ‘bollocks’ which is basically what this guy is spouting.

        • Otto

          He might have and I spelled it wrong…lol

        • Greg G.

          ohara does spell it “bollocks” though.

        • Phil

          My sincere apologies. I wouldn’t wish our nutters on anyone. We are slowly dealing with them though.

        • Kevin K

          Somehow, I’m not consoled…

        • Otto

          I’m not really either…

        • Phil

          Oy, don’t blame us! We have far fewer freaks per capita than the US. 53% non-religeous and only about 5% churchgoing Xians. I am so glad my kids weren’t educated in the US!

        • Otto

          Oh I agree you guys are doing much better, but you do have some. Just so you know I based part of my conclusion on his posting history where he was talking quite a bit about the Tory and Labour parties.

        • BlackMamba44

          I think he mentioned earlier he is Scottish.

          (I’m half Scottish but full American).

        • Otto

          I fully admit I incorrectly lump Brits, Scots, Irish, etc. together with anyone from the Isles…for that I do need to apologize

        • Phil

          It is perfectly all right! We don’t understand it either. I am English, British and live in the UK. I really regarded myself as European but that is going to change soon. I have to give it to the Scots in that regard, they showed more common sense in the referendum. But truly we are all Earthmen and borders are an arbitrary tribal creation.

        • Ignorant Amos

          WTF makes that good news, Otto?

          Asinine fuckwittery is nation-less.

          Claiming to be Scottish and actually being Scottish are two different things. I’ve been to a few Scots/Irish, or Ulster?Scots as we like to say, hooly’s in Florida, where just about everyone claims to be one of either, or both, but that is just heritage.

          O’Hara is an Irish name, Ó hEaghra in Irish….the fuckwit probably doesn’t know what rock he crawled from under.

          That said, Scotland has it’s fair share of rhubarbs too…that Wee Flea, the Rev. David Robertson is a right religious gabshite too.

          His repetitive shite idiom “do the crawl” is not something I’m familiar with, and I know loads of Jocks personally. In fact I’m heading to Glasgow on Saturday morning…I’ll ask about.

          Religious trolls gonna troll, it’s what they do.

        • james ohara

          You don’t know fuck all about Scots or Scotland and I’ll make you prove it by having you answer one question, and it doesn’t even have to be balls on accurate just half arsed will do,
          How many Scottish castles are there?,

        • Ignorant Amos

          A fuckwit with more fuckwittery. Are you a dim 12 year old?

          So anyone that can’t state the number of Scottish castles there are is knows fuck all about the Scots or Scotland?

          That’ll be news to all my Scottish pals.

          I suppose not knowing how many castles there are in Ireland means a know fuck all about the Irish or Ireland?

          And not knowing how many castles there are in Britain means I know fuck all about the British or Britain?

          You don’t even realise how much of a knuckle dragging imbecile you are coming across. You are a full on Dime Bar….two armadillo’s.

          You do realise where the Scots and Scottish came from… right?

          http://unknownscottishhistory.com/articlesix.php

        • james ohara

          Stupid Pongo, like I said you know nothing of Scot’s, Scotland or even the Irish or Ireland,
          There are no Scottish castles son, they’re either Roman, Anglo Saxon or Norman, what a complete and utter arsehole you are, a Scot or an Irishman building a castle is like an American Indian building a Calvary fort, you numskull!, what kind of soldier are?, a plastic one?, castles are built to suppress the populus and defend the invader, you prick!,
          Now do the crawl!, Muhahahaha!.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Stupid Pongo, like I said you know nothing of Scot’s, Scotland or even the Irish or Ireland,

          Oh fer fuck sake… a told you already, ex-pongo, Ulsterman, British, Irish, and proud of it…you really are one retarded Fenian bastard.

          There are no Scottish castles son, …

          I doubt you are capable of having a son. There are loads of Scottish castles ya dumb cunt.

          …they’re either Roman,…

          The Romans built forts in Scotland Mr. Moron….no castles.

          Anglo Saxon or Norman,…

          Nope.

          For a self proclaimed Scotsman claiming expert knowledge, you appear to know fuck all…and demonstrably so…Dime Bar.

          …what a complete and utter arsehole you are,…

          Yeah, ya are, demonstrating such to everyone else reading this thread…keep it up though, the craic is ninety.

          … a Scot or an Irishman building a castle is like an American Indian building a Calvary[sic] fort,

          And yet Scots built castles in Scotland and the Irish built castles in Ireland. Your asinine comparison to native Americans building cavalry forts is a false equivalence ya daft bastard…try and work out why, then take a redner ya fuckwit.

          …you numskull!, …

          Yep, you really are…hilariously so.

          …what kind of soldier are?,…

          I’m not, and even if I was, there is no relevance to anything here, so pah!

          … a plastic one?,…

          Like your Christianity ya mean?

          …castles are built to suppress the populus and defend the invader, you prick!,.

          More ignorant fuckwittery ya prick….it must take some practice to be such a dumb fucker with just the one head. Two armadillo’s ya Dime Bar.

          Castles were built for all manner of reasons, least of which is the two you provide, ya gormless wanker.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle

          And since the particular castles you want to talk about are those in Scotland, those two reasons are a loada ballix.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_castles

          Now fuck away aff and learn something about the subjects ya want to spew shite about….there’s a good child.

        • james ohara

          Get lost you wind bag, I won you lost, your wrong at the top of your voice, I know it, You know it and now the rest of the world for all cyberspace time knows it,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bwahahahahah…. you have been pwn’d like the know nothing wee taig boy you are….and ya know it. Run along now laddie, the kiddies table is elsewhere.

        • james ohara

          I’m sure you’d like to think so,
          Do the crawl, back under your Blarney stone.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’ll leave it to others to decide which one of the two of us is the one making an arse of themselves.

          You are clearly way, way, outta yer depth here little child.

        • james ohara

          Yeah, me to, bye bye ya gobshite, enjoy your new life in the reunited Ireland.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Uh, no—you do the crawl. To somewhere else on the net.

          We all know where your hydrogen and methane comes from—the same place your clever ideas come from.

          Bye.

        • BlackMamba44

          Damn. I got busy at work and missed the send off.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You can join us in blowing him a farewell kiss. And giving him a final critique (if there’s even any actual substance to critique) without any more “crawl” bullshit.

        • BlackMamba44

          Well, my last comment to him was “fuck off” – not sure if it was too late for him to receive it.

          But, that works just fine for me. :)

        • Ignorant Amos

          O’Hara was always going to to be doing the crawl eventually. But sure a bit of a hand along was very welcome indeed.

        • Otto

          I know it is a world wide issue, it just seems like the worst of the worst Christians are always from the US. I wasn’t really being serious that it was good news….;)

          >>>”the Rev. David Robertson

          Yes I have heard this one speak…ugh. He is very aggressive even when it is not necessary. I listened to the Unbelievable radio show with him and Dillahunty…Robertson was a complete asshole. Actually when I realized this Ohara was most likely from the UK I first thought of Robertson.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I know it is a world wide issue, it just seems like the worst of the worst Christians are always from the US.

          Probably because that’s where most of the Christians we interact with on the web hail from. Try living in Northern Ireland and experiencing the worst of the worst Christians. And to each other no less.

          I wasn’t really being serious that it was good news….;)

          A know…hence ma up vote…a shoulda included a sark emoji //s, or a wee facetious smiley devil }8O)~

          Yes I have heard this one speak…ugh. He is very aggressive even when it is not necessary.

          He’s a lying piece of shite for sure… no surprise there then.

          I listened to the Unbelievable radio show with him and Dillahunty…Robertson was a complete asshole.

          He used to comment on the old Richard Dawkins forum back in the day. A hateful cunt indeed.

          Actually when I realized this Ohara was most likely from the UK I first thought of Robertson.

          Ha ha…a different flavour of Christian arsehole, but a Christian arsehole just the same.

        • Otto

          >>>”Try living in Northern Ireland and experiencing the worst of the worst Christians. And to each other no less.”

          My wife’s parents are from Minnesota here in the US, she is full Irish heritage. She was given up for adoption because one parent was Northern Irish and the other was Irish Catholic. They can’t stop being shitty to each other even for the sake of a child…so yeah you gotta point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I will assume Northern Irish Prod in that case.

          Am a bit surprised. Folk brave enough to get into a mixed marriage are usually more forgiving.

          Of course It usually results in the capitulation of the Protestant to the Catholic side….in my experience…but the hatred most have to undergo from both sides of the communities is nothing normal. Not something entered into lightly. The mother of my children had a name that would identify her as a Catholic which caused enough hassle….she wasn’t.

          But your point stands. If two folk of different Christian flavours who are supposed to love one another can’t get along, what chance?

          I was thinking more along the lines of the arseholes blowing each other to smithereens in my comment….or chopping each other up…as a neighbour of mine was involved in.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shankill_Butchers

          The ingrained hatred for the “other side” in this country is ridiculous. We even need workplace legislation in order to get along ffs.

          Christians and Christianity….ave shit ’em.

        • Otto

          It wasn’t a mixed marriage, it was teenagers who were not allowed to continue a relationship. You would think adults would be able to set their issues aside …and ..ya know…be adults.

          Well it is a nice thought…

        • LeekSoup

          Are you saying he’s not a true Scotsman?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha! A seen what ya did there, very good.

        • Pofarmer

          My guess is teachermom.

        • Kevin K

          Kent Hovind, maybe.

        • Joe

          Everything, all matter in the Universe is made of Hydrogen,

          No. Other elements exist.

        • Greg G.

          All of the other elements have neutrons. Most isotopes of hydrogen do not have neutrons.

        • james ohara

          Have you just fallen out of the front undercarriage of a 737?, Hydrogen is the basic foundational building block of every element in the periodic table.

        • al kimeea

          that really, really isn’t how that works or reality for that matter

        • james ohara

          Yes it is!,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Greg G.

          Protons and neutrons make up the nucleus of atoms. Hydrogen is usually a proton but can have one or two neutrons. Heavier nuclei have at least as many neutrons as protons so at least half the mass of any other atom is not protons.

        • james ohara

          heavyer protons?, what is mass?.

        • Greg G.

          Protons have charge. Neutrons are so named because they do not have charge.

          Mass is where Catholics go to eat Jesus by pretending crackers turn to Jesus flesh and pretend to drink Jesus’s blood.

        • Joe

          What?

        • james ohara

          Where the hell did you come from, get lost!.

        • Phil

          quarks aren’t

        • james ohara

          quarks are not Hydrogen.

        • Phil

          Duh! So therefore everything in the universe isn’t made of hydrogen.

        • james ohara

          Jesus!, I bet your one of those clowns who actually believes that the Earth orbits the Sun aren’t you?,
          Who says, “So therefore everything in the universe isn’t made of hydrogen”, , , ,
          YOU!, that’s who,
          I asked a question, if you can answer it then please do so!, otherwise,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Phil

          Are you a crazy person? If not it is a damn good impression.

          Oh and I prefer the breast stroke and some times a bit of back stroke. I think the crawl is now called freestyle. I don’t take kindly to being ordered to do things either.

          The whole point of communication is that the intended audience understands the idea that you are communicating. I see a lot of words but I have no idea what it is you are trying to get across.

        • james ohara

          you mean like answering a simple question?, if not then,
          Do the crawl, the crawl that takes you back under your rock, now git!.

        • Phil

          Well there isn’t a question from you in this thread to answer. Here is some of my own. Where does your god come from? What is the point of a god? Why do you think one exists?

        • james ohara

          Are you shitting me, I have close to two hundred replies, my question is,
          Where does Hydrogen come from?,
          As for your questions,
          “Where does your god come from?”, , , , , ,
          Outside Time, Space, the Universe and your perceived reality, though I don’t own Him, He owns me, He is the Creator, we are the Created, got it!,
          “What is the point of a god?”, , , ,
          I’ll give you the answer He give’s, “I AM WHO I AM”, deal with it,
          “Why do you think one exists?”, , , , ,
          Because of the information I receive through all of my senses seen and unseen,
          Now, You!, either answer my question of Where does Hydrogen come from or,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Phil

          How do you know it is from “Outside Time, Space, the Universe”, by definition that is unknowable. So there is no point to a god? What information do you receive that proves there is a god? This Hydrogen question is on another thread. Which I answered. You insisted on that thread you weren’t talking about a god.

        • james ohara

          I have no thread on God, I simply responded to fools like you who point blank refuse to answer my simple question on of the origin of Hydrogen, that is the Tin, not its contents,
          If you have an answer to my question, not yours, then answer it!, or,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Phil

          Another childish response

        • MNb

          No, a question.

        • Michael Neville

          I see that thinking is not your primary language.

          I asked a simple, straightforward question. I didn’t answer any questions because you didn’t ask one. You just babbled gobbledygook and I asked you a question about it. If you can’t keep up, take notes.

        • james ohara

          Put the Bong down and try to keep up, the question is,
          Where does Hydrogen come from?.

        • Michael Neville

          From the Big Bang. As I said, if you can’t keep up, take notes.

          Now that I’ve answered your question, now answer mine Since you’ve probably forgotten it, I ask again: So what’s the point of randomly capitalizing words in your gibberish?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Holy shit–are you going anywhere with this? Do you have an origin for hydrogen? Give it to us already.

          So far, you’re a colossal waste of space. Become useful.

        • james ohara

          Indeed I am, to prove that the perception that science has any of the big questions answered is a lie,
          Indeed I do, i know exactly where Hydrogen comes from,
          Useful!, As a retired public servant of the public for 40 years I’ve been useful all my life, and I don’t mind telling you where Hydrogen comes from, but I won’t tell you how it’s done,
          Hydrogen comes from Cavitated empty space, just the same as clouds of vapor comes from Cavitated air or gas from Cavitated water.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Indeed I am, to prove that the perception that science has any of the big questions answered is a lie

          The big questions? Like “where did hydrogen come from?”?

          If that’s one of life’s big questions, I’ll just stand back when you write poetry. With a mind unafraid to grapple with the truly monumental issues of our time, I would be in awe when you wax lyrical.

          As a retired public servant of the public for 40 years I’ve been useful all my life, and I don’t mind telling you where Hydrogen comes from

          Yeah, I can see the relevance of being a public servant.

          Hydrogen comes from Cavitated empty space, just the same as clouds of vapor comes from Cavitated air or gas from Cavitated water.

          Uh huh. You should update the Wikipedia article.

        • james ohara

          Why would I do that?, I haven’t published yet, no doubt you noticed you can’t find anything about what I just wrote on the web.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah, it’s almost like it’s the scribblings of a guy sitting in the corner of the bus station, off his meds.

        • james ohara

          Pearls among swine.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And yet you’re still here. So what’s your point? Just to be an asshole? I have a remedy for that.

        • james ohara

          My question still stands, how does science account for Hydrogen, apart from magic dust?.

        • JP415

          Isn’t this the part where you tell us to do the crawl? You’ve missed your cue.

        • james ohara

          What?, and crush my own pearls?.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Aren’t you the clever lad?I do notice that you avoid responding to the questions that you can’t answer.

          Tell me why you shouldn’t be banned so that you can take a little time to think over what this means to your position.

        • james ohara

          I’m not sure why, but I’m not receiving notification of every response, when I revealed one of the implications of my discovery to you, the cavitated space, I didn’t get notification that you had replied, i only came across your reply when I went through my list of comments,
          “avoid responding to the questions that you can’t answer.”, , , , there is no question that i can’t answer,
          “Tell me why you shouldn’t be banned “, , , , nobody’s twisting your arm to interact with me, go watch TV.

        • MNb

          Science may not have answered any of the big questions, at least it has answered some of the small ones. LIke “where do thunder and lighting come from?” (hint: not an angry god). Like “Where does epilepsy come from? ” (hint: not from being possessed by demons). Like your beloved “Where does hydrogen come from?”.
          Your favourite Holy Book however hasn’t answered anything. It only contains made up stuff and is totally useless except as an unreliable source for those who are interested in History of Antiquity in a not too important region.

        • Phil

          And for where Jesus came from, see Richard Carrier’s books and videos.

        • MNb

          I am not interested in people who don’t understand what they write about.

          https://www.scribd.com/doc/305750452/Richard-Carrier-s-On-the-Historicity-of-Jesus

          Perhaps you think that a non-mathematician understands Bayesian Theorem better than an actual mathematician, but I don’t. Worse, I don’t take people seriously who do think so – they are on Ken Ham the lying Young Earth Creationist level.

        • Phil

          Thanks for that. He seems to have a problem with the maths. The main point is still valid without the attempt at mathematical proof. Definitely not on Ken Ham’s level who just blatantly lies, that is disingenuous. Perhaps someone should correct the maths and see what emerges. That is what scientists do isn’t it?

        • MNb

          The main point becomes valid if his math sucks, because it’s based on that math.
          Definitely on Ken Ham’s level – Carrier never has even tried to correct his math. That’s as bad as lying as far as science is concerned.
          If it’s what scientists do Carrier is not a scientist, albeing posing as one. Like Ken Ham and his crew.
          Then again he has lied about other topics as well – consult Freethought blog.

        • Phil

          I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong but his main point is the historicity of Jesus. The math was some attempt at trying to prove it scientifically. Which you say it fails. That is fine but there is sufficient doubt without the maths. Anyway I have just looked at the blog so I guess your wrath is understandable. I only read books and one leads to another and his tied in with others from other authors but seemed to be better researched. It gets really difficult to get to the truth with everyone lying around you.
          Shame about the other stuff. Still we live and learn, well at least I try to. It is going to be a real pain if I have to do background checks on authors!

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s bit more complicated than some would like you to believe.

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/8192

          https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10989

          Carrier has addressed specifics in Hendrix’s critique of his hypothesis.

          Comparison with Ham is disingenuous to say the lest.

        • james ohara

          you know where thunder and lightning comes from, this should be interesting, please tell me, coz I haven’t got a clue.

        • MNb

          Sorry, I don’t feel like giving free lessons physics to stupid liars like you.
          Take a break with your Crawl and Slither.
          Do the Google.
          Or read a textbook.

        • james ohara

          Lightning is still up in the slates the last I heared, no doubt your an expert on sprites and elvs too, tell us oh great one, whether doth the lighting come?,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • MNb

          Doubt is something you don’t have indeed.
          That’s the trademark of christians with amoeba brains like you.

        • james ohara

          I heard ducks fart in church, do you?.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

      First: Demonstrate this ‘god’ of yours before you conjure fell and evil magicks with it.

      Second: Do you even understand what you’re citing?

      • Doubting Thomas

        You can tell he knows what he’s talking about by all the big words he capitalizes.

        It’s the sign of true genius.

      • james ohara

        No!, lets first demonstrate this reality of yours before you start talking bollocks!.

    • adam
      • james ohara

        If you have proof that Hydrogen can be explained by ANYTHING other than the creative Word of God then I will happily defer to your judgement, if not,
        DO THE CRAWL!

        • adam

          Demonstrate that YOUR “God” is anything but IMAGINARY, then I will happily defer to your judgement, if not,

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d26c01438ed72a51fc443a909998fae839b7369f77c892e77abf2efb67c53b8.jpg

        • Kodie

          Why do you think ordering people around helps support your claim? You don’t have any proof or evidence of god. That is just something you say, and something you feel oddly superior about, but it’s obvious you’re working out your insecurities. You don’t have shit, but you can tell people to “do the crawl” if it makes you feel like your dick is as huge as your mom tells you it is.

        • Michael Bean

          Your “word of god” explains precisely nothing – now you can do the twirl.

        • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

          First you have to demonstrate your ‘god’.

          I’m not holding my breath for your success.

        • Phil

          Yep, magical elves.

        • james ohara

          Yeah, that’s as good an explanation as any in the earthy world of Science,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • Phil

          Or a god, glad we agree on something.

        • james ohara

          We don’t agree on a god, there is only one God,

        • Phil

          Duh! your one god is a god. Same as magical elves are gods.

        • james ohara

          Yes, God is a god, just as as you say, ” magical elves are gods” as a title, as all other gods are known as gods, but there is only one God,
          Up until He revealed His name He was known only as God!, got it, all the other gods, were identified by their names, are we learning yet?,
          God eventually Identified Himself like this,
          Exodus 3:15,
          “The word Lord when spelled with capital letters, stands for the divine name, YHWH, which is here connected with the verb hayah, to be”,
          Allah on the other hand just means, god, so, you silly sausage, God is a god known as God, got it?,
          Now do the crawl!.

        • Phil

          Hmm so gods with a name aren’t real? Is that what you are saying? Like Adonai, Elohim, El-Shaddai, Yahweh and Jehovah?
          So how do you know there is a god whatever it is called. And here we go back to square one.

        • james ohara

          Yeah, you think your being clever, but those are just descriptive names of the One True God,
          Adonai = My lord,
          Elohim = God,
          El-Shaddai = God almighty,
          Yahweh = I am who I am,
          Jehovah = is the Hebrew word Yahweh rendered in English,
          You’ll find all this stuff on the net, it’s not like is a secret, look it up, but really, I’m only concerned with one question here,
          Where dose Hydrogen come form?, any Idea’s?.

        • Phil

          Aren’t all names descriptive?

        • james ohara

          Do you have a face like a horse?.

        • MNb

          Do you have a brain like an amoeba?

        • james ohara

          Isn’t your name Phillip?,

          “From the Greek name Φιλιππος (Philippos) which means “friend of horses”, composed of the elements φιλος (philos) “friend, lover” and ‘ιππος (hippos) “horse”. This was the name of five kings of Macedon, including Philip II the father of Alexander the Great.”

          I didn’t know Amoeba had brain, Ah, this is some feeble attempt at humor,
          Do the Crawl!.

        • MNb

          “Isn’t your name Phillip?”
          No.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And the cretin is still wrong at that. A pity the Clampett can’t use the net like he advises others to do so.

          The early Hebrews, aka Canaanites, were polytheists before the Babylonian exile. Archaeology demonstrates it so.

        • Phil

          Where does a god come from? Can I stop crawling now, I am 65 and my knee is giving me gip.

        • james ohara

          Fuck your knee, that quack wanted to cut my leg off,
          My question isn’t about God, I simply asked where Hydrogen comes from and this whole room exploded!,
          Do you have an answer?, if not ,
          Do the crawl!.

        • Phil

          Mine is about your god. Well hydrogen is made up of sub-atomic particles so I guess you want to know where they come from really. You can Google it quite easily and get a better answer to any I can give. But the best theory at this time is they were created in the Big Bang but that can change, because that is what science is about. There are models that go back to fractions of a second. It is possibly unknowable prior to that. There are many speculations. But a god isn’t required. I guess you already know all this and are just trolling. You are not a nice person so it would be interesting to see if you assert your god is love.

        • james ohara

          Yes sonny boy, I’m sure every body in this room knows what Hydrogen is made form but that’s not my question is it!,
          The BB is just Giant Martian Space goat bollocks!, explosions rip matter apart, they don’t create anything,
          What your answer boils down to is ” I DON’T KNOW”, is it so hard to say?,
          ” You are not a nice person so it would be interesting to see if you assert your god is love”, , , ,
          What on earth are you on about?, I’m the one who got all the hate, I didn’t call you horse face because i think you have a face like a horse, your name means horse lover, it’s not an insult, i could have innocently asked you if your fond of shagging horses, and that wouldn’t have been an insult either, why your mother looked at your squished up little face when you were born and said to herself, ” this one definitely a Phillip” is on her, not me, and as for being nice,
          Being nice isn’t going to get you to Heaven,
          Isaiah 64;6,
          “6.For all of us have become like one who is unclean, And all our righteous deeds are like a filthy garment; And all of us wither like a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, take us away.”,

          Good works can’t save you, only the Blood of your Kinsman Redeemer can do that.

    • MNb

      Got over it.
      No god in sight.

      • HairyEyedWordBombThrower

        ‘God’ over it?

        (I’ll see myself out….)

    • Michael Bean

      Why do you believe that non-theists “hate” your god? Why would anyone waste time on hating something that does not exist? Clearly, you have not thought this through.

  • Eric Sotnak

    “Perhaps that also explains his unwarranted confidence in getting into the ring with someone who is actually an expert on the topic.”

    There is a significant danger lurking here. Expertise, itself, is not enough. Craig is a skilled debater, and it takes more than expertise to deliver the kind of performance Carroll did here. The Gish debates on evolution are a powerful illustration of this. Gish “won” a lot of his debates not because of the quality of his evidence, but because he knew how to exploit the framework of the debate. Craig is not only a better debater than Gish, but also has quite a bit of relevant expertise. Showing him wrong within the debate framework (especially in a way that the debate audience can follow at the time) is no mean feat.

    By the way, I’ll also follow Sonyaj in throwing in a plug for Carroll’s book, “The Big Picture” – not only for the material on cosmology, but also on naturalism, more broadly.

    • Kevin K

      I agree…it’s an excellent book. I was impressed at how much philosophy he discussed — he’s the anti-Krauss.

  • Greg G.

    SMBC has a theology that makes a little more sense:

    http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/flawed

  • Kevin K

    Craig continues to use Guth as a proof-source for the existence of Yahweh even though Guth is an atheist.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      That’s OK. He has a doctorate in cherry picking.

      • Kevin K

        I think it was Guth himself (or Valenkin, not sure) who actually showed up at one of Craig’s “debates” to state that Craig was misusing his science and to quit it. Don’t think it helped … the man has a gigantic ego. He even wrote a book trying to overturn Einstein’s special relativity theorem … with WORDS!!! Nice try, doofus, but where’s the math?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          No need for words when you’re guided by the Holy Spirit, can I get an Amen?!

          And the real frustration is that because of his celebrity, WLC bumps into the best. It’s like Ray “Banana Man” Comfort getting schooled about how evolution doesn’t predict a croco-duck by well-known biologists … and not changing his banter a bit.

        • Michael Neville

          My favorite Comfort episode is when he put out his “evolution requires both sexes to evolve separately in each species” on his blog A biologist explained the evolution of sex and Comfort acknowledged the explanation. A couple of months later, on the same blog, Comfort repeated “both sexes have to evolve separately.”

          A bunch of people including me told him that the first time he was mistaken. But after being corrected and acknowledging the correction to repeat the same claim is lying. Shortly thereafter the blog was closed.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          At some point, the charitable interpretation becomes untenable, and you must assume that he’s a liar.

        • Otto

          He was in this debate. During the rebuttal phase Carroll had slides of him holding a tablet that said the universe was quite likely eternal, essentially rebutting what WLC was asserting using the BGV theorem.

  • RichardSRussell

    I am always at pains to point out the distinction between physicist Sean M. Carroll of Caltech and evolutionary biologist Sean B. Carroll of my own beloved University of Wisconsin – Madison. Each is just as distinguished in his own field, equally respected, similarly articulate, with comparable-quality books under his name, and just as much death on the TBs as the other, so one might easily imagine it’s just a single almost super-human intellect named Sean Carroll. But it’s not.

    • Kevin K

      Both are amazing, I agree.

      In my recent past, I had experience with two experts in the same field and subspecialty who shared the exact same name down to the middle initial. One was at Duke and the other was at Johns Hopkins, so the only way we could distinguish which of the two experts we wanted to talk about was to say “John Smith Duke” (not his real name) or the opposite.

      • ThaneOfDrones

        Ha. When I was in grad school I worked with a prof named Johns Hopkins.

  • dluch

    speaking of Christmas – when should we require all citizens to officially proclaim ‘Merry Christmas’ rather than a pagan ‘Happy Holidays?
    I say 12 days ahead of XmasD: Dec 13th (seems like a lucky number – you know with the 12 apostles + JC?)
    Let it be so

  • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

    Carroll is somewhat misleading when he says that some things don’t happen for reasons. What he really means is that there are some things for which the reasons or conditions for occurrence are so numerous or so complicated that they cannot at present be untangled. In our universe, everything is in fact connected to everything else, to one degree or another, and thus at some level everything is a reason for everything else. When we make models of causality, either strictly scientific or practically heuristic, we are implicitly saying that some things really don’t matter all that much, relative to other things. Scientific model building is as much is anything else a process of excluding things to pay attention to, leaving what remains to be part of the model.

    Just because some phenomena are currently out of the predictive range doesn’t mean that at some point we might not be able to form models about them as we learn more about the conditions under which they occur. The history of science is essentially one of forming increasingly specific and increasingly effective models of a wide range of phenomena. While it may be satisfying to simply say that some things “just happen”, it’s both epistemologically incorrect and potentially misleading. It’s pretty much precisely the equivalent of saying that things happen “because God wishes them to happen”. Both statements convey exactly the same amount of information or more precisely noninformation, and serve only to close down further inquiry.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      The Copenhagen interpretation doesn’t say that we don’t yet know what causes some quantum events; it says that there is no cause.

      • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

        That’s arguably the case at the level of the quantum foam. But once you get to the level of relatively stable phenomena like quarks, electrons, and bosons, you get into relationships that are in principle consistent and thus interconnected.However, it takes several more levels of aggregation before you get to a level where measurement technology allows for meaningful modeling to take place beyond the purely statistical.

        • Joe

          Considering no religions have even got this far in their models, how does that place Science alongside religion in conveying ” exactly the same amount of information or more precisely noninformation, and serve only to close down further inquiry.”

          What epistemology does have all the information?

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          I think we’re basically on the same side here. No epistemology has “all the answers”. Science has the advantage, because unlike religion, it doesn’t claim to have all the answers. I’m only taking exception to the statement that “some things have no reasons”, which seems to me to close off inquiry rather than encourage it. That seems to put the two approaches on the same level, which is obviously not the case. At present at least, the quantum foam level is inaccessible to science, and therefore not subject to reasoned inquiry, but any assumption that this is a fundamentally inaccessible problem is just that – an assumption. The Copenhagen Interpretation is just that – an interpretation. I don’t see any particular advantage to conceding the unknowable to religion in principle.

        • Chuck Johnson

          At present at least, the quantum foam level is inaccessible to science, . . . -JD

          It is not inaccessible, it is insufficiently accessible.
          That’s the whole problem.

          Early on, classical physics was the limit of our understanding and no paradoxical quantum phenomena were known to exist.

          Our present state of knowledge gives us enough information to demonstrate that quantum phenomena really do exist, but inadequate information to satisfy our curiosity and to make quantum phenomena thoroughly understandable.

          At such a time that we might have scientific tools to gather the additional information, then the the paradox will go away.
          But then of course, the old unknowns will be replaced by newer unknowns. – – – This always happens.

          This is from the Wikipedia article describing the Copenhagen Interpretation:
          “The inner workings of atomic and subatomic processes are necessarily and essentially inaccessible to direct observation, because the act of observing them would greatly affect them.”

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          I agree. Thanks for the clarification!

        • Joe

          I’m only taking exception to the statement that “some things have no reasons”

          You’ll find that thought echoed by eminent physicists and cosmologists the world over. At some point, there will be a brute fact. There’s no way, even in philosophy, to get around this.

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          The matter is almost infinitely debatable. And it is probably not resolvable empirically within the current remaining life of the present universe. The good news is that since virtually no possible research question hangs on the resolution of this issue, We may assume, projecting from present trends but allowing for various alternative scenarios, that this matter will be resolved empirically in due course, probably right after “Can entropy be reversed?”

        • Chuck Johnson

          What epistemology does have all the information?-Joe

          None has all the information, and none ever will.
          But there is a big difference.

          Scientific acquisition of information is heavily informed by empiricism.
          Religious acquisition of information deals less with empiricism and more with superstition and politics.
          Scientific information is thus more reliable and useful.

      • Chuck Johnson

        The Copenhagen interpretation doesn’t say that we don’t yet know what
        causes some quantum events; it says that there is no cause.-Bob

        Bob, where did you see the explanation that no cause exists ?

        I checked the Wikipedia description of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
        Nowhere did I see the “no cause exists” assertion that you are making.

        Instead, I saw this:
        “The inner workings of atomic and subatomic processes are necessarily and essentially inaccessible to direct observation, because the act of observing them would greatly affect them.”

        And this would be consistent with “No cause exists that we can know about” conclusion instead of the conclusion that “No cause exists”.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Alexander Vilenkin: “If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunneling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required. In classical physics, causality dictates what happens from one moment to the next, but in quantum mechanics the behavior of physical objects is inherently unpredictable and some quantum processes have no cause at all.”

          “However, the advent of quantum mechanics removed the underpinning from that approach, with the claim that (at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation) the most basic constituents of matter at times behave indeterministically.”
          Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indeterminism

        • Kevin K

          I just read Hawking’s update to A Brief History of Time and he makes the same point.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          IIRC, Vic Stenger’s book on the fine tuning argument does as well.

        • Kevin K

          Seems that the only people who haven’t heard about causality not being a “thing” anymore is … well … pretty much everyone who isn’t a physicist/cosmologist.

        • Chuck Johnson

          . . . with the claim that (at least according to the Copenhagen interpretation) the most basic constituents of matter at times behave indeterministically-Bob

          Those two Wikipedia articles disagree with each other.
          (Indeterminism) and (the Copenhagen interpretation)

          The explanations from scientists are very much arguments and disagreements.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Science is full of demonstrations of cause and effect.
          To a large extent, science consists of demonstrations of cause and effect.

          Science can, and often does show that cause and effect has not yet been demonstrated. This is research as a work in progress.

          But when an effect is claimed to happen without any cause, this is the same as saying that scientists will never, no matter how much time and effort is expended, ever discover any cause for that particular effect.

          This is a prediction of eternal scientific failure for a specific research project. Today’s scientists have insufficient grounds to predict such a failure.

          Saying that “we can never know” a particular scientific fact is both unscientific and antiscientific.

          Saying that science cannot ever know everything would be justified, however. That’s because “everything” is apparently an infinite amount, and we cannot expect to ever know an infinite amount of knowledge.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re making some bold pronouncements. i’m not sure why. Philosophy and common sense applied at the edge of science often don’t work.

        • Chuck Johnson

          But I am referring to empiricism.
          Science has a long history of observing that matter and energy always come from previously existing matter and energy.

          A careful consideration of that fact reduces the likelihood of people believing in a science of miracles.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Bob, what methods can be used to prove that any specified effect has no cause ?

          If you cannot explain this to me, then your messages to me on this topic are arguments from authority.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The Copenhagen interpretation is the scientific consensus. Pointing that out isnt’ the argument from authority. Even if it were a minority view, then you’re stuck with “some quantum events might have no cause,” which is enough to put a hole in the Kalam argument.

        • Chuck Johnson

          It is not the scientific consensus.
          Just saying that doesn’t make it true.
          Not only are there many disagreements with the Copenhagen interpretation, it is a collection of various ideas, each of which can be agreed with or disagreed with.

          There is no uniquely definitive statement of the Copenhagen interpretation. It consists of the views developed by a number of scientists and philosophers during the second quarter of the 20th Century. Bohr and Heisenberg never totally agreed on how to understand the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics. Bohr once distanced himself from what he considered to be Heisenberg’s more subjective interpretation.[9]

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation#Current_status_of_the_term

          A thing like the Copenhagen interpretation is not a fact to be agreed with or disagreed with.
          It is a collection of ideas to be carefully considered.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It is not the scientific consensus.

          You seem very confident.

          Just saying that doesn’t make it true.

          Duh.

          Not only are there many disagreements with the Copenhagen interpretation, it is a collection of various ideas, each of which can be agreed with or disagreed with.

          Are you just being contrary? We’re talking about the possibility of quantum events not being caused. That’s it.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Are you just being contrary? We’re talking about the possibility of quantum events not being caused. That’s it.-Bob

          What definition of “cause” would you like to use to examine this question ?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The one physicists use when they say that quantum effects don’t have to have causes.

          If you’re just going to pound the table and say, “It doesn’t make sense, by gum, and in my universe, things make sense!” then you can do that on your own. Simply pointing you to the Copenhagen interpretation seems to have gotten you peevish. If you don’t like things not abiding by your common sense, I’m not the one to take that up with.

        • Chuck Johnson

          I need no Copenhagen interpretation to put the Kalam argument into perspective.

          Craig states the Kalam cosmological argument as a brief syllogism, most commonly rendered as follows:[3]
          Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
          The universe began to exist;
          Therefore:
          The universe has a cause.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

          I don’t believe that the universe began to exist.
          I believe that the universe continues to exist and evolves as it exists.
          The William Lane Craig argument is not persuasive to me.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Even if it were a minority view, then you’re stuck with “some quantum events might have no cause,”. . .-Bob

          I am also stuck with ” In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.”

          Both of these are “maybes” but we have maybes of all different qualities. I consider both of these maybes to be low-quality, low probability ones.

        • Susan

          Both of these are “maybes” but we have maybes of all different positions.

          As I just mentioned to Bob, I think it’s important to define “cause” or everyone might be talking past each other and none us will learn much.

          I consider both of these maybes to be low-quality, low probability ones

          Even low probability, it seems reasonable not to accept this as a first premise in a forcing argument.

          To claim that “everything that begins to exist has a cause” in a deductive argument, requires zero probability.

          The “in the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth” model is an assertion

          As is “everything that begins to exist has a cause”

          I’m not trying to argue with people with more expertise than I have. I’m trying to wade through a forcing argument.

        • Chuck Johnson

          As I just mentioned to Bob, I think it’s important to define “cause” or everyone might be talking past each other and none us will learn much.-Susan

          Cause: Those events, circumstances, etc. which come before and lead up to a phenomenon. Causes are the things necessary for a phenomenon to occur.

          In quantum mechanics, we can begin by saying that the presence of matter or energy is necessary for a quantum effect to occur.

          The presence of matter or energy causes quantum effects to occur.

          But of course, we would eventually want to say much more scientifically in the future as we learn more about quantum effects.

        • Susan

          Thanks.

        • Susan

          some quantum events might have no cause.”

          It might be useful to define “cause” here between both you and Chuck.

          “|Causality” as we instincively use it vs. what Chuck might mean when he rejects it

        • Herald Newman

          The Copenhagen interpretation is the scientific consensus.

          Really? Copenhagen may be the most popular, but I wouldn’t really call it a consensus. See Sean Carroll’s post The Most Embarrassing Graph in Modern Physics in which he states: I’ll go out on a limb to suggest that the results of this poll should be very embarrassing to physicists. Not, I hasten to add, because Copenhagen came in first, although that’s also a perspective I might want to defend (I think Copenhagen is completely ill-defined, and shouldn’t be the favorite anything of any thoughtful person). The embarrassing thing is that we don’t have agreement.

          Even if it were a minority view, then you’re stuck with “some quantum events might have no cause,”

          I can definitely get behind this, and agree that it put’s the soundness of the Kalam at question.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Yes Alexander Vilenkin claims that our universe materialized out of nothing.

          This is absurd.
          This is not absurd because of any math formula that I will present.
          This is absurd because centuries of scientific observation and experiment have shown that matter and energy do not materialize out of nothing, and they also do not disappear into nothingness.

          When theory and observation conflict, then the theory should be doubted.

          There are many theories which can be proposed, but science must be kept on track using empiricism.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Absurd”? It’s the frontier of science. Why is it surprising that it seems to your amateur mind (I’m assuming you’re not a physicist) as absurd?

          If you’ve read anything about quantum physics, you already know that it’s absurd.

          For my next trick: consider the zero-energy universe (which explains where the energy in the universe came from by saying, “What energy?”).
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

        • Chuck Johnson

          The zero energy universe that you have referred to requires that a gravitational field must represent negative energy.

          Actually, a gravitational field along with the mass that generates that field represents positive energy.

          Consider two massive objects (cannonballs) at a distance from each other.

          One pair is in our gravitational universe Universe (A) and the other pair is in imaginary universe (B). Universe (B) is unusual in that gravitation is nonexistent.

          Left unconstrained in Universe (B) the balls just float in space and their distance remains constant.

          Left unconstrained in Universe (A), the balls approach each other, and they accelerate as they approach. Gravitational attraction causes this.

          As the acceleration proceeds, they reach increasing velocities which represent increases in kinetic energy. The gravitational potential energy is being converted into kinetic energy.

          This kinetic energy is positive energy.
          It derives from the decreasing positive energy from the gravitational field.

          This exchange of positive energy from the gravitational field to the positive kinetic energy of moving balls demonstrates the conservation of energy.

        • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

          One interesting theory as to why gravity is such an overall weak force in our universe is that our universe is on one four-dimensional brane in a five-dimensional space, and that gravity bleeds between our brane= and another one; that in the other one gravity is a very powerful force, while only some of it bleeds over into our brane. The math of multidimensional spaces is quite elegant, I’m told.

        • Chuck Johnson

          That’s a bizarre explanation.

          Gravity is a very powerful force when observed across the cosmos.
          It organizes matter into galaxies, solar systems, planets, etc.
          It pulls matter together into black holes.

          Gravity is a very tiny force when measured in the laboratory.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

        • MNb

          Depending on how you define “nothing” X materializing out of nothing totally has been observed. It’s called electron-positron pair production.
          Also there is a strong suspicion that the total amount of mass-energy in our Universe is equal to exactly zero.
          What people like you tend to forget is that our Universe is expanding. Galaxies with their huge masses are almost all moving away from each other. That results in a lot of negative energy. Specified: work done by gravity. Force and movement are opposite, hence negative work.
          Perhaps it’s you who must be kept on track – with recent developments in physics.

        • Chuck Johnson

          That results in a lot of negative energy. Specified: work done by gravity. Force and movement are opposite, hence negative work.-MNb

          As the Big Bang material began to expand, a huge amount of kinetic energy came into being.

          As the rate of expansion decreased, kinetic energy was converted into potential energy. Pieces of matter attract each other due to gravity. That matter and that gravity together represent a potential energy which is positive.

          Kinetic energy (positive energy) was converted into potential energy (positive energy). The conservation of energy was maintained.

        • MNb

          Nothing of this contradicts what I wrote above, so shrug.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Specified: work done by gravity. Force and movement are opposite, hence negative work.-MNb

          Whenever movement occurs against a hindering or restraining force, work is done. This is positive work.

          Positive potential energy continues to accumulate in the expansion of our observable universe. Matter together with gravitational fields cause this to happen.

        • MNb

          This is nonsense. Get back your school fee, you had a bad teacher physics. When force and movement have opposite direction the work is negative.

        • Chuck Johnson

          In order to clarify what negative and positive work might mean, a specific example is described.

          A sack of corn is on the floor of the store room.
          A worker decides to lift the sack onto a high shelf.

          The worker applies upward force (using his hands) to the sack.
          He lifts the sack to the top shelf.
          This increases the potential energy of the sack to maximum.

          During the lifting operation, the force of gravity is downward.
          The worker lifts upward, but the force of gravity is downward.
          When the sack end up on the top shelf, the potential energy has increased to maximum because positive work has been done.

          This specific example shows how force and movement can be in the same direction or opposite direction and positive work gets done.

          The potential energy of compressing or extending a spring is very similar to the gravitational potential described on this example.

        • MNb

          It’s always funny when someone tries to explain physics to a teacher physics like me.

          “because positive work has been done”
          By that worker, not by gravity.
          Now if you tell me what worker is pushing all the galaxies in our Universe away from each other …..
          Oh, wait! I get it! That work might come from …… hold your breath …… all the mass/energy in our Universe.
          And who knows, perhaps the two amounts are exactly equal, resulting in a net mass/energy of exactly zero.
          Just like you try to contradict.

          “The potential energy of compressing or extending a spring”
          And where did that potential energy come from again?
          Oops, my bad. I already answered it. It may very well be compensated by the total mass/energy in our Universe, with a net result of exactly zero.
          But hey, you don’t have to believe me. After all I’m just an anonymous simple teacher math and physics. Go visit the faculty physics at the nearest university. Ask two questions.

          1. Given the fact that all galaxies are moving away from each other, is the result negative work done by gravity?
          2. Is it possible that that negative work done by gravity and all the mass/energy in our Universe cancel each other out?

          You might first want to consult these two sites:

          https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/physical-processes/work-and-energy-mcat/a/work-can-be-negative

          http://tutor4physics.com/positivenegativework.htm

          Then go back to your school and ask your fee back.

        • Chuck Johnson

          It’s always funny when someone tries to explain physics to a teacher physics like me.-MNb

          This time, I didn’t bother to analyze your comment.
          You are trolling.

          And you are a teacher physics.

        • Chuck Johnson

          “Because a negative amount of work is done to bring an object closer to the Earth, gravitational potential energy is always a negative number when using this reference point.”

          http://www.sparknotes.com/testprep/books/sat2/physics/chapter11section3.rhtml

          The gravitational potential energy is specified using a negative number. Read the article to see why this convention is used.

          If we throw a heavy object out of a balloon, this object accelerates towards the ground and accumulates positive kinetic energy.
          So the sign of the energy being delivered by gravitational potential energy is positive.

          No negative energy is delivered when objects fall towards each other under the pull of gravity. – – – Positive energy is delivered.

        • Ficino

          When I attended a lecture on cosmic inflation by Alexander Vilenkin, Vilenkin said that nothingness is a state that is inherently unstable but is not absolutely no thing whatsoever. I gather that Krauss et al say that a Quantum Vacuum State is technically a kind of nothing but that out of it could arise a Big Bang event.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Vilenkin said that nothingness is a state that is inherently unstable but is not absolutely no thing whatsoever.-Ficino

          Yes, I am familiar with this kind of doubletalk.
          Saying that nothingness and somethingness are the same thing is a very defective way to formulate your ideas and to communicate them to other people. – – – You will confuse yourself and others.

          This is too much like the Holy Trinity being one thing and three things simultaneously. Of course, whenever I see stuff like this, I wonder if the person saying these things is deliberately trying to confuse and deceive.

        • Chuck Johnson

          I gather that Krauss et al say that a Quantum Vacuum State is technically a kind of nothing but that out of it could arise a Big Bang event.-Ficino

          Yes, Krauss says that.
          His book title offers a description of our universe materializing out of nothing, but after you buy and pay for the book, you discover that he is saying that our universe actually derived from something.

          Krauss also fill his lecture with jokes.
          Jokes like these help Krauss to make money.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Alexander Vilenkin tell us this:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHdI4Let27I

          To justify a universe coming from nothing, or disappearing into nothing, the assertion is made that gravity is a form of negative energy.

          It’s obvious to me that gravity is not a form of negative energy.
          The negative energy assertion is used to justify (within the concept of the conservation of matter) the fact that universes can materialize and dematerialize whenever they feel like doing so.

          What might put a universe in the mood to materialize out of nothing is not explained.

          This is all ignorance and dishonesty. It is too much like religion.
          It looks like that story about gravity being negative energy was created to allow people to assert science-based miracles.

          Science-based miracles are exciting news to some people.
          Money can be made with miraculous stories.
          The universe that I understand is not so miraculous.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The universe that I understand is not so miraculous.

          Which universe do you understand? I’m guessing not this one.

        • Greg G.

          “There is no scientific discoverer, no poet, no painter, no musician, who will not tell you that he found ready made his discovery or poem or picture — that it came to him from outside, and that he did not consciously create it from within.” –W. K. Clifford (From a 1868 lecture to the Royal Institution titled “Some of the conditions of mental development”)

        • Chuck Johnson

          Part of what we create has been given to us by our culture.
          Part is created by us because we enjoy creating and we intend to create something.

          That goes for all aspects of being human.
          It’s part us, and part the previous achievements of humanity.

        • Chuck Johnson

          I have seen religionists and pseudoscientists both severely misuse the English language to deceive themselves and to deceive others.

    • Chuck Johnson

      I agree with your description of our physical world.
      I haven’t read where Carroll says that some things don’t happen for reasons, that is reasons without the quotation marks.

      To address this puzzle, we need a definition of the word “cause”.
      We might define “cause” as the set of circumstances which, in time, give rise to the phenomenon in question.

      We might define “reasons” as things leading up to the phenomenon in question.
      That would be pretty much the same as “cause” as I have defined it above.

      But we also might define “reasons” as ideas and understandings that humans have, or might be able to have in the future.
      I suspect that a confusion concerning semantics and word definitions is creating the problem.

      • http://jdeveland.com/ JD Eveland

        All the more reason to be careful and precise in our definitions and claims, lest by imprecise wording we give openings to those who reject the science model to claim that we’re contradicting ourselves. We’re in a serious war of words with the theocrats here.

    • Chuck Johnson

      Yes.
      The idea of a phenomenon happening without causes is both unscientific and anti-scientific.
      Anti-scientific because it discourages curiosity.
      Curiosity is the lifeblood of science.

  • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

    I once read that you should never debate anyone who admits there is nothing that would change their mind. Craig essentially does that, I think, with invoking the Holy Spirit. So what point is there debating him?

    • Herald Newman

      If there are any intellectually honest people in the audience, they can hopefully see this dishonesty and disown him. For those who use this dishonesty, pointing out why it’s bad (because anything can be derived as truth), may convince them to change their minds.

      • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

        That may be, but I’m not sure it doesn’t do more harm than good. It makes him seem worthy of debating, for one. That lends him credence.

        • Chuck Johnson

          I think that as the years go by, your “worthy of debating” objection becomes less of a problem.
          And the logic, reason and science presented by rationalists will continue to take their toll.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          Perhaps. Let’s hope.

        • Chuck Johnson

          Yes. At one time, Dawkins said that he would refuse to debate a Creationist for the same reasons that he would refuse to debate someone who was arguing for the “stork theory” of human reproduction.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          I remember. Given how most of these “debates” go, it seems a good policy in general.

        • Herald Newman

          If somebody walks all over his position, it’s not going to lend them credence for too long. Debates aren’t about the people, it’s about the position itself and how the position is defended.

          The above said, I do agree that there are debates that aren’t worth having (is the Earth flat, or does evolution explain the diversity of life, for example, as probably close to pointless), and there are people so unskilled and incapable (Sye Ten Bruggencate for instance) that debating them isn’t worth the time for many. But holding a bad idea shouldn’t really stop people from engaging in debates with the person. That’s part of what a debate is about: Trying to provide evidence and argument to change people’s minds.

        • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

          My issue is mostly with debating Craig specifically, not debate in general so much. Of course, it could help if he’s discredited, or onlookers can be won over.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I agree with Herald. Modeling thoughtful behavior can influence the audience (and if WLC is going to put his peeps in front of an atheist speaker, let’s take advantage of the opportunity).

      • http://musingsfromacorneroftheuniverse.blogspot.com/ Michael

        See above.

  • Sulie

    “The average Christian may have difficulty with terms like entropy, singularity, and arrow of time.” I’d say the average person doesn’t care about those terms.

    I don’t understand why anyone with a belief in the spiritual existence of spiritual things would use scientific means to explore or explain the experiences of spiritual realities. The whole point of christian faith is that Love requires faith in the unbelievable anyway.

    • martin_exp(pi*sqrt(163))

      when i was a child i didn’t made a distinction between science and non-science. i read everything i was interested in. what i found appealing was the idea of an invisible world besides and underneath the mundane world of everyday experience. something like that you not only find in more esoteric subjects like angels, ghosts, astrology, clairvoyance, magic, and so on, but also in astronomy and physics.

    • Kevin K

      Which is why so many of you are duped into giving one-tenth of your income to the guy in the shiny suit.

      • Sulie

        Not me, and it isn’t accurate or fair to portray them all alike. People aren’t automatically duped into giving them money anyway, and there’s all sorts of questionable things people pay for. At any rate, anyone can form a 501c3 and no authority can make us participate in anything they offer, or give them our money.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah, but if everyone was like you, there would be no guy’s at all, in shiny suits or otherwise.

          The fact is, there are people leeching, and they are leeching off the gullible. The sooner everyone becomes like you, the better. Yipee!

        • Tommy

          Not me, and it isn’t accurate or fair to portray them all alike.

          Kevin didn’t. That’s why he said:

          so many of you are duped into giving one-tenth of your income to the guy in the shiny suit.

        • Kevin K

          But other charitable organizations are actually required to submit reports on how they spend their money. There are charity watches galore to make sure those organizations are actually using donated funds for useful purposes. Not so with churches. It’s the best scam, because it’s completely legal and the only true deliverable is given to you after you die.

    • Dannorth

      I think that for Craig the reason for the debate and his writings on such subject are not for the purpose of intellectual or spiritual inquiry but rather in an apologetics aim.

      Five hundred years ago it was believed that an order of angels was responsible for the mouvement of heavenly bodies and that the world had been created a few thousand years before.

      Since then science has shown a completely different vision of these things.

      Some Christians have accepted this vision and adapted their belief to them, viewing scripture in a more allegorical way.

      Others have chosen the primacy of scripture over the discoveries of science. It is for such folks that Craig works, trying to find a way to harmonise science to the immanent God of the Bible. Or at rather he is trying to cherry pick such hypothesises as not challenge the faith of his public.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Craig’s focus is apologetics, but I think his focus is on existing Christians, not potential new converts.

        • Tommy

          Agree. The aim is not to persuade non-believers to become Christians, but to dissuade Christians from becoming non-believers.

        • Max Doubt

          “Craig’s focus is apologetics, but I think his focus is on existing Christians, not potential new converts.”

          I wouldn’t think it reasonable to expect a significant number of converts from his faux-debate style of preaching. On the other hand, even Trump was only a few million shy of getting the the most votes in the last election. When we set a low estimate for the potential level of stupidity, someone’s going to take that as a challenge and drive it further down.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And now suddenly I’m depressed.

        • Clint W. (Thought2Much)

          The election of Trump and the growth of flat eartherism and conspiracy theory thinking have made me realize just how intractably stupid a vast swath of Americans are. And it makes me depressed and hopeless for the future of the United States.

          We had a good run. Now it’s up to the rest of the world to do the sciencing and technologing.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s OK. I’m sure China can pick that up.

          The Right will have no problem with the change in power, I’m sure.