Puddle v Fine Tunning

A poster on YouTube calling himself "Genetically Modified Skeptic''(GMS) defends the "Puddle argument." [1] This is an atheist refutation of design arguments and just says we mistakenly think the world is designed for us because we fit into it;s scheme so well. Why "puddle?" The oringal version says an orgnaism crawls out of a puddle and sees how well it fits into the world.

Christian apologist Frank Turek argues the fine tunning arguent (FT) He is  making a basic istae with the argument. GMS reduces the argent to one issue, perspective. Huge mistake because that is not it.FT does not take the same perspective as a regular design argument. GMS wants you to think it does; he even says this "just the old Palley argument." The difference is profound. The old argument did not have target levels that quantify the probability each target being met. FT only takes fitedness as a basic assumption but it does not stop there.  It says we have numbers that  show a life bearing universe  is extremely improbable. It is backed up empirically. It may assume some of the old perspective but having empirically set target levels makes it totally differnt.By target levels we mean things like how thin plank density might be or how many earth sized planets we have before we strike life.[2]

The first thing that should be said about the so-called "puddle argument" is that it is not an argument. It's nothing more than window  dressing (its really just a little story to set up the argument). The actual argument is really just the skeptics retort to design arguments, "here we are, why did we need a creator"? They assert there is no evidence. Of course they are begging the question since the FT data is the evidence. Then GMS aerts that he does not have to prove his assumption but we do have to prove ours. He asserts the universe came before the observer. That means the observer is a product of the universe. The universe was not made for the observer. Of course the real issue is not the observer but what produced the universe? With FT we can assume we are a product of the universe but the universe was made to bear life. We just happen to be some of that life. We do not have to prove the existence of God. His assertion is crazy, why should we prove something to justify suspecting it? No one needs to suspect what he has already proven. We need only demonstrate a good reasonto bieve; FT is dandy reason.

So we have a stalemate and each side has a seemingly valid reason for seeing the universe as they do. That would be an excellent tie to consider FT as it was meant to be,as a tiebreaker. Although GMS just leaves out major portions of the opponent's view. For example he doesn't really deal very deeply with target levels. He wants to spend most of his time reducing Turek's argument to basic simplicity so he can dea with it in classically atheistic ways.He takes up Turek's idea that the universe is made up of information and this is being produced by a mind, and he tries to argue that we don't need a sender to have a message; the message is in the mind of the receiver alone.

What eludes him is the fact that a message with no sender is not a message. We could see this in his examples; GMS himself uses them; he just doen't think deeply about his own evidence. For example he takes the image on mars  thought to be a face and shows NASSA discovered it was not a face but a pareidolia with rocks[3] My major in undergraduate school was communication theory.[4] Communication theory does not accept any model of communication with just a receiver, we have to have a sender or no message.  GMS is merely overlooking the fact that what  Webster calls "random pattern" is thought to be a message but is not one. Theas;ect GMMS  may have a point about the way Turek argues it, Truek himself may reduce FT to complexity alone.Bt the FTA itself more than just iterpiratig complexity. The target levels are so precise they spell out the virtual impossibility of an impersonal random  universe, The major aspect behind messages that GMS overlooks is meaning. WE can see thecomningcounicatedin theaaing level of improablity of a random universe. FT is a valid reason to infer a creator. We see the meaning in the message. An impersonal source cannot attend a message with real meaning. We don't make up our own meaning we can clearly see the meaning; the main way is through personal experience.GMC trashes personal experience, even though his arguments are totally based on his experience of decohversion. It is essential that he disconnect the believer from personal experience because it validates the message we get through nature or God's creaton. In my  book The Trace of God [5] while I do not dscus FT,  one could combine the two for a fine argument.mystical ex[eroece validates the meaning of reality and makes clear God's work.A huge body of scienc studies deomstartes the validity of the experince, below is just a sample.

Research Summary
From Council on Spiritual Practices Website
"States of Univtive Consciousness"

Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources: Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.
Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184.

Furthermore, Greeley found no evidence to support the orthodox belief that frequent mystic experiences or psychic experiences stem from deprivation or psychopathology. His ''mystics'' were generally better educated, more successful economically, and less racist, and they were rated substantially happier on measures of psychological well-being. (Charles T. Tart, Psi: Scientific Studies of the Psychic Realm, p. 19.)
Long-Term Effects
Wuthnow:
*Say their lives are more meaningful,*think about meaning and purpose*Know what purpose of life isMeditate more*Score higher on self-rated personal talents and capabilities*Less likely to value material possessions, high pay, job security, fame, and having lots of friends*Greater value on work for social change, solving social problems, helping needy*Reflective, inner-directed, self-aware, self-confident life style
Noble:
*Experience more productive of psychological health than illness*Less authoritarian and dogmatic*More assertive, imaginative, self-sufficient*intelligent, relaxed*High ego strength,*relationships, symbolization, values,*integration, allocentrism,*psychological maturity,*self-acceptance, self-worth,*autonomy, authenticity, need for solitude,*increased love and compassion Short-Term Effects (usually people who did not previously know of these experiences) *Experience temporarily disorienting, alarming, disruptive*Likely changes in self and the world,*space and time, emotional attitudes, cognitive styles, personalities, doubt sanity and reluctance to communicate, feel ordinary language is inadequate *Some individuals report psychic capacities and visionary experience destabilizing relationships with family and friends Withdrawal, isolation, confusion, insecurity, self-doubt, depression, anxiety, panic, restlessness, grandiose religious delusions Links to Maslow's Needs, Mental Health, and Peak Experiences When introducing entheogens to people, I find it's helpful to link them to other ideas people are familiar with. Here are three useful quotations. 1) Maslow - Beyond Self Actualization is Self Transcendence ``I should say that I consider Humanistic, Third Force Psychology to be transitional, a preparation for a still `higher' Fourth Psychology, transhuman, centered in the cosmos rather than in human needs and interest, going beyond humanness, identity, selfactualization and the like.''[6]
Gms is making the same kind of fallicies he's charging Ture with. He argues that individual processes proven to be naturalistic, thus we can ase the entire cosmos is naturaitic, That id the fallacy of composition. It does not follow that the whole is naturalistic.

[1]Genetically modifed Skeptic, "Atheists Can;t Answer this Question," You Tibe, vedio.(Jun 21, 2019)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhHwPoSp7AU

[2]Joseph Hinman, "Fine Tuning Argument part 1." The Reloiiois a prooiroiJuly 2019http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2015/10/fine-tuning-argument-part-1.html

[3]WEbster's online Dictiomaryl "Pareidolia"https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pareidolia the tendency to perceive a specific, often meaningful image in a random or ambiguous visual pattern The scientific explanation for some people is pareidolia, or the human ability to see shapes or make pictures out of randomness. Think of the Rorschach inkblot test. — Pamela Ferdinand — compare apophenia https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pareidolia#:~:text=%3A%20the%20tendency%20to%20perceive%20a%20specific%2C%20often,inkblot%20test.%20%E2%80%94%20Pamela%20Ferdinand%20%E2%80%94%20compare%20apophenia

[4] long time readers may have seen me say it was sociology i had double major.

[5]Joseph Hinman, "More Alternate Causalilty Placebo, drugs, and other issues 285The Trace of God, Colorado Sp;rimgs Cparadp: 2014

[6]Council on Spiritual Practices,"Research Summary:States of Univtive Consciousness"From Council on Spiritual Practices Website the websitei now defuncked but this all documented in my book. Also called Transcendent Experiences, Ego-Transcendence, Intense Religious Experience, Peak Experiences, Mystical Experiences, Cosmic Consciousness. Sources:

Wuthnow, Robert (1978). "Peak Experiences: Some Empirical Tests." Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 18 (3), 59-75.
Noble study
Noble, Kathleen D. (1987). ``Psychological Health and the Experience of Transcendence.'' The Counseling Psychologist, 15 (4), 601-614.Lukoff, David & Francis G. Lu (1988). ``Transpersonal psychology research review: Topic: Mystical experiences.'' Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 20 (2), 161-184. GreelyLester Grinspoon and James Bakalar (1983). ``Psychedelic Drugs in Psychiatry'' in Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered, New York: Basic Books.in Roger Walsh (1980). The consciousness disciplines and the behavioral sciences: Questions of comparison and assessment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137(6), 663-673.


Comments

Anonymous said…
Joe: The first thing that should be said about the so-called "puddle argument" is that it is not an argument. It's nothing more than window dressing (its really just a little story to set up the argument).

I think that is a fair comment.

Joe: With FT we can assume we are a product of the universe but the universe was made to bear life. We just happen to be some of that life. We do not have to prove the existence of God.

I think you have missed the real point, which is whether FT is true or illusionary. The puddle analogy is saying FT is an illusion. You appear to be assuming FT is true, without addressing that at all.

You do not even properly say what fine-tuning is. Are you talking about conditions on this planet? Are you talking about the laws of nature? Perhaps you mean both, which would be quite reasonable, but you need to understand that the atheist response to these two is potentially very different as they are very different effects.

Conditions on this planet appear to be finely tuned because we have evolved on it. Any planet on which life evolves will necessarily be capable of sustaining life. And furthermore, that life will be optimised over billions of years for exactly that planet. This sort of fine tuning is clearly illusionary. I have seen creationists argue that the fact that we can see though air, for example, proves God exists. Again, the reason we can see though air is not because God made air transparent to the human eye, but because eyes evolved to see through it. Again the fine tuning is illusionary. This is exactly what the puddle analogy exposes.

Also worth pointing out that there are 100 billion stars in this galaxy alone; what are the odd that at least one is ideal for life? Very high.

When we get to the claim that the universe is fine tuned... Well, the simple fact is that it is not. The vast majority of the universe is deadly to human life. In fact only a tiny, thin skin on one planet in the vastness of space in our solar system is capable of sustaining life. That is not what I would call finely tuned.

So what about the laws of nature? Are they finely tuned? For example, the electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.

The simple fact is tht we do not know why that is so. It might be that God designed in that way, or it might be that it depends on some oter aspect of the laws of nature and so had to be that way. It might be that this is but one universe in the multiverse, and there are an infinite number of universes, most of which have the wrong coupling constant; clearly life will only appear where it is just right. Or it might not matter; perhaps there is another universe where the coupling constant is smaller and right now intelligent beings are ponder how life cold exist ina universe with a large coupling constant.

We do not know.

And of course for apologists "we do not know" is seen as an open door in which they can ram their religion.

"We do not know, therefore it must be God, and more specifically my God."

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: The first thing that should be said about the so-called "puddle argument" is that it is not an argument. It's nothing more than window dressing (its really just a little story to set up the argument).

I think that is a fair comment.

Joe: With FT we can assume we are a product of the universe but the universe was made to bear life. We just happen to be some of that life. We do not have to prove the existence of God.

I think you have missed the real point, which is whether FT is true or illusionary. The puddle analogy is saying FT is an illusion. You appear to be assuming FT is true, without addressing that at all.
Physics don't think that what you really mean is the conclusions drawn from the phenomena not the phenomena itself, that is not illusion. If you don't hit the target levels you don't get life bearing universe that is no illusion.

You do not even properly say what fine-tuning is.

that's pretty well known in the apologetically community. Besides I linked to my own argument,


Are you talking about conditions on this planet? Are you talking about the laws of nature? Perhaps you mean both, which would be quite reasonable, but you need to understand that the atheist response to these two is potentially very different as they are very different effects.

what we know from our galaxy at large. You could check out my argument

Conditions on this planet appear to be finely tuned because we have evolved on it. Any planet on which life evolves will necessarily be capable of sustaining life. And furthermore, that life will be optimised over billions of years for exactly that planet.

That's like saying "this murder victim was stabbed but how did it happen?" the other guy (you) says the point of the knife priced the skin don't you know that?

This sort of fine tuning is clearly illusionary. I have seen creationists argue that the fact that we can see though air, for example, proves God exists.

that is nowhere near the kind of thing I'm talking about you are too lazy to read the argument,


Again, the reason we can see though air is not because God made air transparent to the human eye, but because eyes evolved to see through it. Again the fine tuning is illusionary. This is exactly what the puddle analogy exposes.

good job! beat the hell out of that straw man argument it will never bother us again!,

Also worth pointing out that there are 100 billion stars in this galaxy alone; what are the odd that at least one is ideal for life? Very high.

miniscule. you are doing the gambler's fallacy, the more stars with no life the more improbable life becomes.

When we get to the claim that the universe is fine tuned... Well, the simple fact is that it is not. The vast majority of the universe is deadly to human life.

That is not how fine tanning is reckoned, there being bits even large bits not hospitable to man does not indicate lack of fine tuning,


In fact only a tiny, thin skin on one planet in the vastness of space in our solar system is capable of sustaining life. That is not what I would call finely tuned.

So what about the laws of nature? Are they finely tuned? For example, the electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.

laws are how fine tuning is regulated. Those are like the knobs on the tv set

The simple fact is tht we do not know why that is so. It might be that God designed in that way, or it might be that it depends on some oter aspect of the laws of nature and so had to be that way.

wrong. if science has any ability to understand why the universe acts as it does we should be able to read fine tuning

It might be that this is but one universe in the multiverse, and there are an infinite number of universes, most of which have the wrong coupling constant; clearly life will only appear where it is just right. Or it might not matter; perhaps there is another universe where the coupling constant is smaller and right now intelligent beings are ponder how life cold exist ina universe with a large coupling constant.

you are using theory as though it is fact

We do not know.

And of course for apologists "we do not know" is seen as an open door in which they can ram their religion.

"We do not know, therefore it must be God, and more specifically my God."

atheist BS has to psychologize the believer to divert fro, the facts, The fact is we know we have a find tuned universe,
Anonymous said…
Joe: Physics don't think that what you really mean is the conclusions drawn from the phenomena not the phenomena itself, that is not illusion. If you don't hit the target levels you don't get life bearing universe that is no illusion.

Okay, then that is what you need to show. Just asserting it is not an illusion does not cut it.

Joe: that's pretty well known in the apologetically community. Besides I linked to my own argument,

Nevertheless, it is fundamental to your post, so it is bizarre you choose not to say what it is.

Joe: what we know from our galaxy at large. You could check out my argument

Or you could present your argument. If you cannot be bother to do that, why think anyone else will be bothered to read it?

Pix: Conditions on this planet appear to be finely tuned because we have evolved on it. Any planet on which life evolves will necessarily be capable of sustaining life. And furthermore, that life will be optimised over billions of years for exactly that planet.

Joe: That's like saying "this murder victim was stabbed but how did it happen?" the other guy (you) says the point of the knife priced the skin don't you know that?

In what sense are they alike? They look very different to me.

Joe: that is nowhere near the kind of thing I'm talking about you are too lazy to read the argument,

And you are too lazy to present it.

Joe: good job! beat the hell out of that straw man argument it will never bother us again!,

If you could be bothered to make clear what you mean by finer-tuning I would not have to guess. But then you would not be able to do your oh-so-clever straw man quips.

Joe: That is not how fine tanning is reckoned, there being bits even large bits not hospitable to man does not indicate lack of fine tuning,

Right, because fine tuning means whatever the hell apologists want it to mean, right? And if they want fine tuning to mean only 0.00000001% is habitable for life, then that is what it means.

In real science, you construct a hypothesis, draw predictions from it, then test the predictions.

The hypothesis is that God created the universe for life. The prediction, then, is that much of the universe is ideal for life. That is patently not the case. How do we handle that? Well, this is pseudo-science, so we say "That is not how fine tanning is reckoned". Job done.

Joe: wrong. if science has any ability to understand why the universe acts as it does we should be able to read fine tuning

Why?

Pix: The simple fact is tht we do not know why that is so. It might be that God designed in that way, or it might be that it depends on some oter aspect of the laws of nature and so had to be that way.
It might be that this is but one universe in the multiverse, and there are an infinite number of universes, most of which have the wrong coupling constant; clearly life will only appear where it is just right. Or it might not matter; perhaps there is another universe where the coupling constant is smaller and right now intelligent beings are ponder how life cold exist ina universe with a large coupling constant.


Joe: you are using theory as though it is fact

I am pointing out that we do not know. How you can twist that to "you are using theory as though it is fact" I have no idea.

Joe: atheist BS has to psychologize the believer to divert fro, the facts, The fact is we know we have a find tuned universe,

Which pretty much proves my original point:

"I think you have missed the real point, which is whether FT is true or illusionary. The puddle analogy is saying FT is an illusion. You appear to be assuming FT is true, without addressing that at all."

You are taking fine-tuning as a fact, you are assuming it is true. Thanks for confirming; looks like my work here is done.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: Physics don't think that what you really mean is the conclusions drawn from the phenomena not the phenomena itself, that is not illusion. If you don't hit the target levels you don't get life bearing universe that is no illusion.

Okay, then that is what you need to show. Just asserting it is not an illusion does not cut it.

At this time I am not concerned with proving God to you. I am concerned with critique of atheist argument.


Joe: that's pretty well known in the apologetically community. Besides I linked to my own argument,

Nevertheless, it is fundamental to your post, so it is bizarre you choose not to say what it is.

as I said my concern here is atheist argument

Joe: what we know from our galaxy at large. You could check out my argument

Or you could present your argument. If you cannot be bother to do that, why think anyone else will be bothered to read it?

you need to be bothered to pay attention to the essays, I start taking about an atheist who wrote something that is obviously the topic

Pix: Conditions on this planet appear to be finely tuned because we have evolved on it. Any planet on which life evolves will necessarily be capable of sustaining life. And furthermore, that life will be optimised over billions of years for exactly that planet.

physicists have see FT all around the galaxy

Joe: That's like saying "this murder victim was stabbed but how did it happen?" the other guy (you) says the point of the knife priced the skin don't you know that?

In what sense are they alike? They look very different to me.


you want to focus on limited processes that you can deniiy are fine tuning

Joe: that is nowhere near the kind of thing I'm talking about you are too lazy to read the argument,

And you are too lazy to present it.

no it wasn't meant to be the major focus, see above



Joe: good job! beat the hell out of that straw man argument it will never bother us again!,

If you could be bothered to make clear what you mean by finer-tuning I would not have to guess. But then you would not be able to do your oh-so-clever straw man quips.

read he link

Joe: That is not how fine tanning is reckoned, there being bits even large bits not hospitable to man does not indicate lack of fine tuning,

Right, because fine tuning means whatever the hell apologists want it to mean, right? And if they want fine tuning to mean only 0.00000001% is habitable for life, then that is what it means.

It refers to the specific targets that have to hit exact;y that give rise to life

In real science, you construct a hypothesis, draw predictions from it, then test the predictions.

you can do that with God arguments that is just a matter of presentation.

The hypothesis is that God created the universe for life. The prediction, then, is that much of the universe is ideal for life. That is patently not the case. How do we handle that? Well, this is pseudo-science, so we say "That is not how fine tanning is reckoned". Job done.
that is like saying some things do not conduct electricity therefore there is no electricity because some things don't conduct, some tunings are not fine tunin that does not mean here is no fine tuning,

Joe: wrong. if science has any ability to understand why the universe acts as it does we should be able to read fine tuning

Why?

I mean if it exits; that' h what science does

Pix: The simple fact is tht we do not know why that is so. It might be that God designed in that way, or it might be that it depends on some other aspect of the laws of nature and so had to be that way.

No one ever said God argument are absolute proof




It might be that this is but one universe in the multiverse, and there are an infinite number of universes, most of which have the wrong coupling constant; clearly life will only appear where it is just right. Or it might not matter; perhaps there is another universe where the coupling constant is smaller and right now intelligent beings are ponder how life cold exist ina universe with a large coupling constant.

there are other possible worlds in which God is [rpved sl that proves God must exist

Joe: you are using theory as though it is fact

I am pointing out that we do not know. How you can twist that to "you are using theory as though it is fact" I have no idea.

science basis theory n what we know. FT is what we know based on the universe we know

Anonymous said…
To me, the issue here is whether so-called fine tuning is real or illusionary. I do not see that being addresed here, and that was confirmed when last time you admitted:

Joe, previously: atheist BS has to psychologize the believer to divert fro, the facts, The fact is we know we have a find tuned universe,

It is clear your whole argument is founded on the assumption that fine tuning is real, and not illusionary. This is born out by the simple fact that over three posts you utterly fail to address this foundational issue/

Your comments in post 1:

At this time I am not concerned with proving God to you. I am concerned with critique of atheist argument.

as I said my concern here is atheist argument

you need to be bothered to pay attention to the essays, I start taking about an atheist who wrote something that is obviously the topic


Nothing addressing this issue... Or anything really.

Your comments in post 2:

physicists have see FT all around the galaxy

you want to focus on limited processes that you can deniiy are fine tuning

no it wasn't meant to be the major focus, see above

read he link

It refers to the specific targets that have to hit exact;y that give rise to life

that is like saying some things do not conduct electricity therefore there is no electricity because some things don't conduct, some tunings are not fine tunin that does not mean here is no fine tuning,


There is an unsupported assertion that physicists have see FT all around the galaxy, whatever that means, but that is it. What sort of fine tuning do they see "all around the galaxy"? You do not say. Who are these physicists? You do not say.

Your comments in post 3:

I mean if it exits; that' h what science does

No one ever said God argument are absolute proof

there are other possible worlds in which God is [rpved sl that proves God must exist

science basis theory n what we know. FT is what we know based on the universe we know


The last line is reiterating that fine tuning is fact, but it is really just your opinion. You are assumption that fine tuning is real, and not illusionary.

To have an argument, you need to make the case - which could be just linking to a credible web page that makes that clear. As it is, it is just your opinion.

Pix
Anonymous said...
To me, the issue here is whether so-called fine tuning is real or illusionary. I do not see that being addresed here, and that was confirmed when last time you admitted:

that's because you know if you read the link and deal with the stuff on that page you can't make these shallow assertions, so you pretend it's not there.

Joe, previously: atheist BS has to psychologize the believer to divert fro, the facts, The fact is we know we have a find tuned universe,

It is clear your whole argument is founded on the assumption that fine tuning is real, and not illusionary. This is born out by the simple fact that over three posts you utterly fail to address this foundational issue/

as yo know I addressed it by linking to my arguent on my website RAP bit you know you cant admit that


Your comments in post 1:

At this time I am not concerned with proving God to you. I am concerned with critique of atheist argument.

as I said my concern here is atheist argument

you need to be bothered to pay attention to the essays, I start taking about an atheist who wrote something that is obviously the topic

Nothing addressing this issue... Or anything really.

Your comments in post 2:

physicists have see FT all around the galaxy

you want to focus on limited processes that you can deniiy are fine tuning

no it wasn't meant to be the major focus, see above

read he link

It refers to the specific targets that have to hit exact;y that give rise to life

that is like saying some things do not conduct electricity therefore there is no electricity because some things don't conduct, some tunings are not fine tunin that does not mean here is no fine tuning,

There is an unsupported assertion that physicists have see FT all around the galaxy, whatever that means, but that is it. What sort of fine tuning do they see "all around the galaxy"? You do not say. Who are these physicists? You do not say.

not unsupported and I quoted many of them you take the above comment out of context your arguments are slipshod and illogical


Your comments in post 3:

I mean if it exits; that' h what science does

No one ever said God argument are absolute proof

there are other possible worlds in which God is [rpved sl that proves God must exist

science basis theory n what we know. FT is what we know based on the universe we know

The last line is reiterating that fine tuning is fact, but it is really just your opinion. You are assumption that fine tuning is real, and not illusionary.

To have an argument, you need to make the case - which could be just linking to a credible web page that makes that clear. As it is, it is just your opinion.

Pix

that is what I did do you afraid to deal with evidence.
I close this thread now!

I have made a new post were I put up the page i linked to that we wont argue,

click here to go to new page

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

The Bogus Gandhi Quote

Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Why Christian Theism Is Almost Certainly True: A Reply to Cale Nearing

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

Scientifically Documented Miracles

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

The Meaning of the Manger