On 27 Dec 2006 07:48:45 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

The key sentence:

'Most sensible believers in the book subscribe without demur to
Darwin’s theory of evolution while reading Genesis in the light of the
mystery so well articulated by Martin Rees — “Why is there something
rather than nothing?” ',

assuming the assertion "because God created it" provides the answer,
rather than just giving us the same mystery once removed.

Mike Murray wrote:

On 27 Dec 2006 07:48:45 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:

I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

The key sentence:

'Most sensible believers in the book subscribe without demur to
Darwin's theory of evolution while reading Genesis in the light of the
mystery so well articulated by Martin Rees - "Why is there something
rather than nothing?" ',

assuming the assertion "because God created it" provides the answer,
rather than just giving us the same mystery once removed.

I couldn't have expressed it better. Probably I'd've been much worse,
in fact.

Mark Houlsby wrote:
I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

And here's the refutation:

http://www.tothesource.org/11_8_2006/11_8_2006.htm

LiamToo wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

And here's the refutation:

http://www.tothesource.org/11_8_2006/11_8_2006.htm

Not sure that it genuinely *refutes* the thesis expounded in the Times
article, but it's certainly a point-of-view which is somewhat opposed.

On Dec 27, 6:08 pm, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

And here's the refutation:

http://www.tothesource.org/11_8_2006/11_8_2006.htm

Not sure that it genuinely *refutes* the thesis expounded in the Times
article, but it's certainly a point-of-view which is somewhat opposed.

Actually, the two articles seemed to be largely in agreement. So it's
not clear to me which is supposed to be refuting what.

Mark Houlsby wrote:
LiamToo wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

And here's the refutation:

http://www.tothesource.org/11_8_2006/11_8_2006.htm

Not sure that it genuinely *refutes* the thesis expounded in the Times
article, but it's certainly a point-of-view which is somewhat opposed.

It seems to me that there are two distinct arguments here.

(1) Everything must have a cause. Therefore God exists.

(2) Everything but God must have a cause. Therefore God exists.

Dawkins rejects the former, while while the theists claims that he is
setting up a strawman as their argument is really the latter.

Taylor Kingston wrote:

On Dec 27, 6:08 pm, "Mark Houlsby"
wrote:
LiamToo wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

And here's the refutation:

http://www.tothesource.org/11_8_2006/11_8_2006.htm

Not sure that it genuinely *refutes* the thesis expounded in the Times
article, but it's certainly a point-of-view which is somewhat opposed.

Actually, the two articles seemed to be largely in agreement. So it's
not clear to me which is supposed to be refuting what.

I agree. That's why I wrote that I was not sure that it genuinely
refutes the other article, and why I chose the
damning-with-feint-praise phrase: "...somewhat opposed.".

Once again, our Lance demonstrates that his reading skills and his
reasoning skills are about on a par with one another....

Vince Hart wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
LiamToo wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

And here's the refutation:

http://www.tothesource.org/11_8_2006/11_8_2006.htm

Not sure that it genuinely *refutes* the thesis expounded in the Times
article, but it's certainly a point-of-view which is somewhat opposed.

It seems to me that there are two distinct arguments here.

(1) Everything must have a cause. Therefore God exists.

(2) Everything but God must have a cause. Therefore God exists.

Dawkins rejects the former, while while the theists claims that he is
setting up a strawman as their argument is really the latter.

With every respect to you, Vince, Mike Murray already pointed out why
all this is hogwash.

For all I know, you may agree that it is.

Mark Houlsby wrote:
Vince Hart wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
LiamToo wrote:

Mark Houlsby wrote:
I just found the following article, which may cheer the theists:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...2-2517335.html

And here's the refutation:

http://www.tothesource.org/11_8_2006/11_8_2006.htm

Not sure that it genuinely *refutes* the thesis expounded in the Times
article, but it's certainly a point-of-view which is somewhat opposed.

It seems to me that there are two distinct arguments here.

(1) Everything must have a cause. Therefore God exists.

(2) Everything but God must have a cause. Therefore God exists.

Dawkins rejects the former, while while the theists claims that he is
setting up a strawman as their argument is really the latter.

With every respect to you, Vince, Mike Murray already pointed out why
all this is hogwash.

For all I know, you may agree that it is.

I do agree although I may not have said so explicitly. I don't think
that you can prove the existence of God by a law of causation to which
God is not subject.

Vince Hart wrote:
Mark Houlsby wrote:
The Historian wrote:


Very interesting, Neil. Evidently I didn't know him so well. I played
him a number of times on ICC, and we had some conversations here, but
never did he strike me as "deeply troubled," or "poisonous".

Perhaps Angelo and you knew him better, or you're more perceptive than
I am, or both.

If you never discussed Goichberg or Jarecki with him, you might never
have noticed these tendencies. On many topics, he could be amiable and
engaging. However, his rage knew no bounds when it came to anyone that
he held responsible for the martyrdom of St. Stan of Las Vegas.

Yes, and unfortunately he often introduced those topics himself.