Title Author Date

Public Debate Yakuboff, Keith Mar 16, 2008

Why doesn't someone who can adequately represent your point of view challenge Dr. Ross to a public debate? As it stands now, each of you have your own fora where you can spout your views unchallenged. If you're right, having a debate open to public scrutiny would discredit Hugh Ross and put the matter to rest, no?

Keith

read replies (3)
write a reply

Title Author Date

Has Mark Perakh done a poll? Bruggink, Paul May 15, 2008

In the fourth paragraph of "Flagella -- Real and Fictional," Mark Perakh asks if Joseph Bessette conducted a poll of atheistic scientists to support his statement about "two inconvenient facts."

Then in the sixth paragraph, Mark Perakh states "likewise, a similar statement can be made about those 40% of contemporary scientists in the USA
who overwhelmingly inherited their faith from their parents and adhere to it throughout their lives because of having emotionally absorbed it in their chidhood."

I have two questions:

(1) Has Mark Perakh conducted a poll of those 40%?

(2) Does he really believe that those scientists who as adults profess to believe in a personal God are merely adhering to their childhood faith without having questioned it at some point in their lives and concluded that it was valid and/or experienced it themselves? To my mind, Christian scientists have good adult reasons for believing as they do.

read replies (1)
write a reply Related Article(s):
Flagella -- real and fictional

Title Author Date

link essays Muns, Lodewijk May 12, 2008

Dear editors, you might consider linking to my personal website
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~lmuns/) which contains a recent essay God and the
calculus of belief (against 'probabilistic theism') (http://www.xs4all.nl/~lmuns/CalculusOfBelief.pdf) and an essay on magical
thinking, Magic, signs, and making sense
(http://www.xs4all.nl/~lmuns/Magic,%20Signs,%20and%20Making%20Sense.pdf).
Kind regards. (By the way, why are you anonymous?)

read replies (1)
write a reply

Title Author Date

Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller Prophet, Nathan May 08, 2008

From a Brown University website - written by Dr. Ken Miller:

http://www.findingdarwinsgod.com/excerpt/index.html

[1] "In biological terms, evolution is the only way a Creator could have made us the creatures we are - free beings in a world of authentic and
meaningful moral and spiritual choices."

[2] "Over the years I have struggled to come up with a simple but precise answer to that question. [What kind of God do you believe in?] And, eventually I found it. I believe in Darwin's God."

My comments:

[1] The "only way" - I doubt it. Are we "free beings in a world of authentic and meaningful moral and spiritual choices? It's very debatable.
Gee, millions of the unborn and children who die in early childhood never had the chance to make "moral and spiritual choices". Pity I guess - that's the price they had to pay for us living adults to have the free will to make those types of choices.

[2] If Miller means Charles Darwin's personal belief in God, then he should know that Darwin became an staunch agnostic, and possibly and
atheist. He did not believe in the Bible as does Miller. If Miller means by "Darwin's God" a "creator god" that kick-started life with DNA and its associated mechanisms powering evolution, then that's a little more
palatable. He doesn't really make that clear.

Although Miller doesn't attempt to find a "scientific basis" or "proof" of God, he goes to great lengths to attempt to find a natural mechanism (quantum indeterminacy) through which God can act, and to permit the all important "free will" for making moral choices that we Homo sapiens are supposed to have. It's a kind of "God of the gaps" argument.

In my opinion, Miller is desperately trying to find a way to preserve his traditional Roman Catholic beliefs in light of his considerable
knowledge of facts thus far discovered through science.

Nathan Prophet.

write a reply Related Article(s):
Yin and Yang of Kenneth Miller

Title Author Date

the nitz of the lice Yoav Apr 28, 2008

dear Mr. naftaly:
my name is yoav and i have some questions regarding the opinion of the reshonim About the lice.

Segal the ultimate lying machine, said that rashi knew about the nitz of the lice, by saying " :" מינא הוא דמקרי ביצי כינים בארמית אינבבא ובלעז לינטריס

Lintris means in old france "the nitz of the lice" (according to segal).

you did mantion in your letter that reshonim and rashi him self claimed that the lice is created from the swet or the dust or the stench, but where precisely?

and do you have an indubitable evidence that the reshonim and hazal did not knew about the nitz at all?

yoav

read replies (1)
write a reply

Previous | | Next