WLC Style Apologetics Commentary Thread

[kcrady]

As I understand it, a theory of quantum gravity (which is necessary to reconcile relativity with quantum mechanics) will rule out a point singularity, since the Uncertainty Principle would make it impossible for spacetime to curve into something smaller than the Planck length if gravity was quantized.  However, if singularities do exist, there's one actual infinity: an infinitely small point.  

In my closing statement, I argued that Existence (everything that exists, or capital-U, no "the" Universe as I've been using the term in the debate) must be an actual infinity regardless of its content.  Maj and I both must inevitably point to an infinitely existing Existence.  The difference is that he feels that a supernatural realm with at least one deity is an inescapably necessary part of Existence needed to ground the rest, and I do not think such a realm as he understands it is necessary or even useful as an explanatory mechanism.  

As to why I did not address Maj's thermodynamics argument: he was using it to argue for the Big Bang as a beginning of the Cosmos.  Since I accept the Big Bang, I did not think it necessary to use up space disputing over thermodynamics in this instance.

Admin 1/Deus: I'll leave this thread now per your instructions.  Since Maj has been going after me for post after post after post on this thread, I hope you'll give me a mulligan on this brief response.  Oh, and congrats on the promotion Deus Ex Machina.

[DisdainDavid]

I think you each were entitled to one last post on this thread.

[GetMeThere]

When  i  stumbled  across  this site,  all  i  can  do  is smile.  Because  everything  that  Hawking  is  saying,  I  already  said.  Wow,  he  even  implied  that  all  space,  time,  and  matter  didn't  exist  before  the  Big  Bang.  You people  argued  me  to  DEATH  contrary  to  what  he  said.  Read..i  even  put  the  link  up.  The  second  paragraph  just  proves  how  wrong  you  people  were,  because  me  and  Hawkings  were  on  the  same  accord  all  along...wow

Here's the section you're citing:

The Big Bang marks the instant at which the universe began, when space and time came into existence and all the matter in the cosmos started to expand. Amazingly, theorists have deduced the history of the universe dating back to just 10-43 second (10 million trillion trillion trillionths of a second) after the Big Bang. Before this time all four fundamental forces—gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces—were unified, but physicists have yet to develop a workable theory that can describe these conditions.

In other words, space and time did not exist, but matter did -- which is exactly what we've been saying all along, and directly contradicts what you said above.

Oops...

This needs to be made CLEAR. Apparently numerous people (most especially Majesty) aren't understanding it: The Big Bang Theory says NOTHING about conditions, events, times before the big bang. It CAN'T, because it's impossible to trace "time" through a singularity. That means that ANY CONDITIONS YOU WISH could have been in place before the big bang. A singularity requires a "space" around it that encompasses everything within the Schwarszchild radius. BEYOND that, one can say NOTHING. Nothing about physical laws says that god and the angels couldn't have been sitting around roasting marshmallows--as long as they were outside the Schwarszchild radius. Or, there could have been a candy shop, with ice cream on special.

For example, there is (apparently) nothing to prevent the singularities that WE observe as BLACK holes ALSO being singularities that act as WHITE holes, which create inflationary phenomena into other "universes" (which we can't observe--because we'd have to observe "through" the black hole--an impossibility).

When Hawking (in particular) says that "nothing" existed before the big bang, he means:

1) Nothing of OUR universe existed.
2) We can make no CLAIMS about anything else (in particular) existing, because causality and events cannot be traced back through a (white) singularity out to the (other, black) side, to see what the matter and energy that ENTERED the singularity was like.

[Majesty]

The only difference between what Hawkings is saying and what you are saying is you're jumping to conclusions that some supernatural creator is behind it all. Science wont jump to those conclusions but some philosophers will. I agree with the big bang theory but I don't agree with your idea that some creator is it's cause regardless of whatever arguments you have - because all you're doing to making baseless assumptions.

Emily, have  you  been  paying  attention?  These people  tried  to  argue  me  down  when  I  said  that  the  Big  Bang  is  the  best  explanation  we  have  for  the  origin  of  the  universe,  and  that  space, time, and  matter  came  into  being  with  the  Big Bang.  They  tried  to  argue  me  down,  when  Hawking  confirmed  everything  that  i  said  from  jump  street.  And  I  appeal  to  the  supernatural  only  when  a  natural  explanation  cant  be  available.  If  space,  matter,  and  energy  came  into  being  with  the  big  bang,  as  HAWKING  said,  whatever  gave  it  that  cause  could  not  have  been  space,  matter,  or  energy,  because  IT  DIDNT  EXIST  BEFORE  THE  BIG  BANG.  Science  doesn't  prove  the  supernatural,  but  it  does prove  that  the  origin  has  to  be  something  that  was  not  natural.  Then  you  have  to  use  your  brain/philosophy/thinking  cap,  whatever,  and  say  "well,  if  there  was  nothing  natural  before  the  big  bang,  the  cause  could  only  be  supernatural." 

But  you  people  just  want  to  stop  short  of  the  supernatural,  which  is  fine.  But  i  go  where  the  evidence  takes  me,  and  the  evidence  is  taking  me  to  the  supernatural.

The  fact  of  the  matter  is,  these  people  have  been wrong,  and  i  was  right.

[Deus ex Machina]

That's it from the debate participants in this thread.

[HAL]

 But  i  go  where  the  evidence  takes  me,  and  the  evidence  is  taking  me  to  the  supernatural.

You missed my challenge methinks ...

Supernatural is made-up nonsense until proven to exist. You might as well say that Munchkins created the universe with the help of the Witch of the North - it makes exactly as much sense as saying a supernatural deity did it. Exactly as much sense.

Majesty cannot prove the supernatural exists. Nobody has ever done that, not WLC, not anybody. So I am 100.0 % confident my challenge will go unanswered. Plus the beauty of it is I don't have to do much work at all. Since he is the claimant, he has to do all the work and all I have to do is examine his tests, methods, and theory.

Say Majesty - did we miss your theory of the supernatural? I don't recall reading it. Do you know what a theory is? Do you know how to verify and test a theory? Do you mind posting it, or even your hypothesis of the supernatural and how you propose verifying the hypothesis?

Thanks.

[Emily]

Emily, have  you  been  paying  attention?  

Yes I have been. Some days more than others because I've been sick but I know what's going on.

These people  tried  to  argue  me  down  when  I  said  that  the  Big  Bang  is  the  best  explanation  we  have  for  the  origin  of  the  universe,  and  that  space, time, and  matter  came  into  being  with  the  Big Bang. And  I  appeal  to  the  supernatural  only  when  a  natural  explanation  cant  be  available.  If  space,  matter,  and  energy  came  into  being  with  the  big  bang,  as  HAWKING  said,  whatever  gave  it  that  cause  could  not  have  been  space,  matter,  or  energy,  because  IT  DIDNT  EXIST  BEFORE  THE  BIG  BANG.

Read painodarf and GetMeThere's post.

Science  doesn't  prove  the  supernatural,  

Agreed

but  it  does prove  that  the  origin  has  to  be  something  that  was  not  natural.  Then  you  have  to  use  your  brain/philosophy/thinking  cap,  whatever,  and  say  "well,  if  there  was  nothing  natural  before  the  big  bang,  the  cause  could  only  be  supernatural."  

Don't agree. All this is doing is making assumptions.

I understand the idea that there could be something supernatural out there but I am not going to be so bold and claim there is.

[Majesty]

This needs to be made CLEAR. Apparently numerous people (most especially Majesty) aren't understanding it: The Big Bang Theory says NOTHING about conditions, events, times before the big bang. It CAN'T, because it's impossible to trace "time" through a singularity. That means that ANY CONDITIONS YOU WISH could have been in place before the big bang. A singularity requires a "space" around it that encompasses everything within the Schwarszchild radius. BEYOND that, one can say NOTHING. Nothing about physical laws says that god and the angels couldn't have been sitting around roasting marshmallows--as long as they were outside the Schwarszchild radius. Or, there could have been a candy shop, with ice cream on special.

For example, there is (apparently) nothing to prevent the singularities that WE observe as BLACK holes ALSO being singularities that act as WHITE holes, which create inflationary phenomena into other "universes" (which we can't observe--because we'd have to observe "through" the black hole--an impossibility).

When Hawking (in particular) says that "nothing" existed before the big bang, he means:

1) Nothing of OUR universe existed.
2) We can make no CLAIMS about anything else (in particular) existing, because causality and events cannot be traced back through a (white) singularity out to the (other, black) side, to see what the matter and energy that ENTERED the singularity was like.

The  only  thing I  have  to  say  about  this  is,  you  didn't  rule  the  possibility  of  God  out  of  the  equation.  So,  thanks  for  making  my  point  for  me,  and  whats  up  with  that  debate?

[Majesty]

Don't agree. All this is doing is making assumptions.

Look,  science  is  full  of  assumptions  ok.  This is  making  a logical  assumption  based  on  evidence  that  is  provided.  Before  cars  existed,  is  it  safe  to  assume  that  people  wasn't  driving  around  in  cars??  I  bet  you  wont  have  any  problems  answering  yes  to  that,  even  though  it  is  assumption.  But  if  i asked  you,  "Before  space, time, matter, energy  existed, is  it  safe  to  assume  that  the  cause  of  space,  time,matter,energy  could  not  of  been  space, matter, time, energy  itself?"  Now  all  of  a sudden,  we  are  assuming  things,  right??  lolllll  Oh my  lawd,  how  foolish  is  that?

[GetMeThere]

Another thing. To anyone who says that matter/energy can't exist before a singularity: The only singularities we have ever observed (black holes) have arisen SPECIFICALLY from matter/energy. We have ZERO KNOWLEDGE about singularities forming from anything BUT matter which was, previous to formation of the singularity, just ordinary matter.

[xphobe]

Look,  science  is  full  of  assumptions  ok.  This is  making  a logical  assumption  based  on  evidence  that  is  provided.  Before  cars  existed,  is  it  safe  to  assume  that  people  wasn't  driving  around  in  cars??  I  bet  you  wont  have  any  problems  answering  yes  to  that,  even  though  it  is  assumption.  But  if  i asked  you,  "Before  space, time, matter, energy  existed, is  it  safe  to  assume  that  the  cause  of  space,  time,matter,energy  could  not  of  been  space, matter, time, energy  itself?"  Now  all  of  a sudden,  we  are  assuming  things,  right??  lolllll  Oh my  lawd,  how  foolish  is  that?

As soon as you use a word like "Before", you're making a claim about time - namely that there was time "before" time existed.  So you're actually arguing against yourself. 

In some models of the universe[1] it isn't necessary for time to have a beginning.  There may not have been a "before", just as it makes no sense to talk of a place "north of" the North Pole.

Physicists know a lot more about these things than I do, but I'm not yet ready to conclude that what we call the Universe is All There Is, or that we can never know anything about things outside the Universe.  Maybe the Universe had a beginning.  Maybe there was a Before in the larger matrix people sometimes call the Multiverse.  Maybe some day we'll be able to see evidence of things outside the Universe, and of times before its beginning. 

Who knows.  I'm not ready to call these things God though, and I'm certainly not ready to say "Therefore it was Yahweh" when there is an infinite number of equally likely (meaning equally absurd) deities to choose from.

1.	e.g. the Hawking-Hartle No Boundary Proposal

[Majesty]

As soon as you use a word like "Before", you're making a claim about time - namely that there was time "before" time existed.  So you're actually arguing against yourself. 

Regardless  of  whether  or  not  I  said  it  in  this  particular  post  that  you  are  referring  to,  I  said  time  and  time  again,  that  the  cause  of  the  universe  did  not exist  "before"  the univere.  I  said  that  the  cause  of  the  universe  had  to  TRANSCEND  the univere.  Whatever  the  cause  was,  it  had  to  transcend  space  and  time.  So  I  am  very  well  aware  of  there  the  impossibility  of  something  being  "before"  time.

In some models of the universe[1] it isn't necessary for time to have a beginning.  There may not have been a "before", just as it makes no sense to talk of a place "north of" the North Pole.

1.	e.g. the Hawking-Hartle No Boundary Proposal

The  Hawking-Hartle  model  can  only  work  if  you  use  what  is  called  "imaginary  numbers".  When  using  imaginary  numbers,  the  singularity  disappears,  but  when  using  real  numbers,  the  singularity  reappears.  I  already  gave  a  quote  with  Hawking  himself  acknowledging  this.  But  i  guess  you  either  didn't  see  it,  or  you  simply  ignored  it.  I  also  gave  a quote  that  stated  that  the  Big Bang  model  is  the  best  explanation  for  the  universe,  a  quote  from  Hawking.  I  dont know  what  more  you  need.

[HAL]

Urgent Message for Majesty -

 But  i  go  where  the  evidence  takes  me,  and  the  evidence  is  taking  me  to  the  supernatural.

You missed my challenge methinks ...

Supernatural is made-up nonsense until proven to exist. You might as well say that Munchkins created the universe with the help of the Witch of the North - it makes exactly as much sense as saying a supernatural deity did it. Exactly as much sense.

Majesty cannot prove the supernatural exists. Nobody has ever done that, not WLC, not anybody. So I am 100.0 % confident my challenge will go unanswered. Plus the beauty of it is I don't have to do much work at all. Since he is the claimant, he has to do all the work and all I have to do is examine his tests, methods, and theory.

Say Majesty - did we miss your theory of the supernatural? I don't recall reading it. Do you know what a theory is? Do you know how to verify and test a theory? Do you mind posting it, or even your hypothesis of the supernatural and how you propose verifying the hypothesis?

Thanks.

[Majesty]

Another thing. To anyone who says that matter/energy can't exist before a singularity: The only singularities we have ever observed (black holes) have arisen SPECIFICALLY from matter/energy. We have ZERO KNOWLEDGE about singularities forming from anything BUT matter which was, previous to formation of the singularity, just ordinary matter.

So  you disagree  with  Hawking?  The  man  said  that  matter,  energy  came  from  the  Big Bang singularity.  Yet  you  are  claiming  that  the  singularity  came  from  matter.  Based  on  Hawking's  track  record,  and  your  track  record,  i  think  its  safe  to  say  he  knows  more  than  you  do,  so  I  am  trusting  him  on  this  issue.  All  matter  in  the  universe  came  from  THAT  (BB)  singularity.  There  was  no  matter  before  that  singularity.  If  you  have  a  problem with  this,  take  it up  with  Hawking.

[HAL]

I hope everyone is noticing how Majesty (correctly) avoids the impossible.

Good choice, good choice.

[Inactive_A]

By the looks of it, all I get are these lousy stars under my name...

Also, fancy green wallpaper for your posts here.   

[GetMeThere]

Another thing. To anyone who says that matter/energy can't exist before a singularity: The only singularities we have ever observed (black holes) have arisen SPECIFICALLY from matter/energy. We have ZERO KNOWLEDGE about singularities forming from anything BUT matter which was, previous to formation of the singularity, just ordinary matter.

So  you disagree  with  Hawking?

No, I UNDERSTAND Hawking--and you don't. I also understand science, and what scientists mean when they write something. I also have good reading comprehension.

And I also understand the most BASIC principles of chemistry and physics, among which is that matter and energy are equivalent. In fact singularities that we KNOW about arise from the collapse of a quantity of matter that is squeezed inside its Schwarszchild radius (although they also accrete MASS AND ENERGY directly--when they happen to enter within its Schwarszchild radius). At an actual singularity, NOBODY can say WHAT it's composed of exactly, because current theory is not yet able to describe the physics of singularities. But they are DESCRIBED in terms of their APPARENT mass, charge, and angular momentum.

You CAN'T take a single sentence from someone's work and claim to understand the totality of their work. And you can't understand science from reading a popular book or two (or a hundred). When Hawking (or any other theoretical physicist) says that "all matter and energy comes from the singularity" he means all the matter/energy in THIS universe comes from the singularity. He simply DOESN'T DISCUSS any other matter or energy that might exist elsewhere (in another dimension, in another universe, etc.). I have a feeling you simply don't understand these concepts. You are definitely not in a position to discuss them.

Would you like some advice? Drop the Kalam argument. You are not in a position to deal with it. Instead, as an "apologist," you should concentrate on:

1) The apparent fine tuning of cosmological constants.
2) Ways to convince others that the jesus story is true and accurate.

THOSE are the only things that have ever brought in new believers to christianity. Even some physicists and philosophers have been turned (mostly to deists) by the fine tuning argument (although, IMO, it seems they've made a leap into fantasy).

The Kalam argument holds VERY LITTLE sway among thinking people as it is, and you lack the ability of WLC to bully his way across its huge gaps and fudges.

[xphobe]

Regardless  of  whether  or  not  I  said  it  in  this  particular  post  that  you  are  referring  to,  I  said  time  and  time  again,  that  the  cause  of  the  universe  did  not exist  "before"  the univere.  I  said  that  the  cause  of  the  universe  had  to  TRANSCEND  the univere.  Whatever  the  cause  was,  it  had  to  transcend  space  and  time.  So  I  am  very  well  aware  of  there  the  impossibility  of  something  being  "before"  time.

What does "transcend the universe" or "transcend space and time" even mean?  It's as meaningless a phrase as "before time".

Also, I've given you a bye: I've acknowledged that I can't absolutely rule out a god.  Why don't you pick up that ball and try to justify "therefore Yahweh/Jesus"?

[Dragnet]

Try thinking a little bit and realize that a hot dense mass has to contain matter.
Matter and energy existed and was spread out in to the vacuum of what we term our universe.
What we can see of it and where the tracking backwards does is show that there was what "appears" to be a starting point of that spread.

There are reasonably viable natural causes that science must consider. To do otherwise is not science.
Science is supposed to be objective in approach. There should be NO preconceptions, no bias. It should follow facts and evidence.

Iustus res.

[kin hell]

......well that killed some time. I just read through the debate and these 26? pages.

KC  thanks for the time thought and effort, brilliant as expected, I am only sorry your opponent was unable to address it all with any honesty or any real understanding.

 

A by-product of the event is that I have begun to suspect that an actual infinity does exist in our cosmos.

It is within the closed loop paradox of trying to explain the Dunning-Kruger Effect (DKE) to someone too stupid (or with too much invested) to even try to understand it.

I imagine that tiny intellect under the directive force of a LHC (logic, honesty, comprehension) looping the (by default) closed but "disembodied mind", ever accelerating away from knowledge toward the emergence of the pure stupid.


the Infinite Stupid is reached at the birth of god and we lucky few are here to observe.


.....god is our species imaginations' big bang moment, we are still dealing with the results.




Scientists are the true  Deus ex machina   ........all else is the residual fantasy fading away.  

It isn't god of the last gaps, it is god of the last gasp.

[Grogan]

So  you disagree  with  Hawking?  The  man  said  that  matter,  energy  came  from  the  Big Bang singularity.  Yet  you  are  claiming  that  the  singularity  came  from  matter.  Based  on  Hawking's  track  record,  and  your  track  record,  i  think  its  safe  to  say  he  knows  more  than  you  do,  so  I  am  trusting  him  on  this  issue.  All  matter  in  the  universe  came  from  THAT  (BB)  singularity.  There  was  no  matter  before  that  singularity.  If  you  have  a  problem with  this,  take  it up  with  Hawking.

I hear ya buddy. I too agree with Hawking, especially when he says things like....

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

---which is precisely why you lost your debate, and why the kalam doesn't hold up.

There are models (which are viable and accepted as possibilities) that KC held up as examples.  You need to stick to rap forums and making pyhsical threats on the internet.

It's your destiny, pimp juice.

[Majesty]

What does "transcend the universe" or "transcend space and time" even mean?  It's as meaningless a phrase as "before time".
Also, I've given you a bye: I've acknowledged that I can't absolutely rule out a god.  Why don't you pick up that ball and try to justify "therefore Yahweh/Jesus"?

Transcend: 1.  go beyond limit: to go beyond a limit or range, e.g. of thought or belief 
                2.  surpass something: to go beyond something in quality or achievement
                3.  be independent of world: to exist above and apart from the material world

The  first  cause  would  have  to  transcend  space  and  time  to  give  the  universe its  cause.

[xphobe]

What does "transcend the universe" or "transcend space and time" even mean?  It's as meaningless a phrase as "before time".
Also, I've given you a bye: I've acknowledged that I can't absolutely rule out a god.  Why don't you pick up that ball and try to justify "therefore Yahweh/Jesus"?

Transcend: 1.  go beyond limit: to go beyond a limit or range, e.g. of thought or belief 
                2.  surpass something: to go beyond something in quality or achievement
                3.  be independent of world: to exist above and apart from the material world

The  first  cause  would  have  to  transcend  space  and  time  to  give  the  universe its  cause.

I know what the word Transcend means.  Where is this place that's beyond the limit or range of the Universe?  How many miles or years do you have to go to get "beyond" or "above" the Universe?  What does that look like?  How big is it?  Does it have a limit itself?  If so, what's beyond that?

"transcend the universe" isn't the only nonsense phrase I can say.  Imagine something "smaller than nothing".   How about picturing a "square circle"?   See?  Just because I can say the words doesn't mean they have meaning.

[Deus ex Machina]

Ahem, Majesty...

That's it from the debate participants in this thread.

[Majesty]

I hear ya buddy. I too agree with Hawking, especially when he says things like....

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

---which is precisely why you lost your debate, and why the kalam doesn't hold up.

There are models (which are viable and accepted as possibilities) that KC held up as examples.  You need to stick to rap forums and making pyhsical threats on the internet.

It's your destiny, pimp juice. 

Oooo  see  this  is  what  I  like.  Grogan  here  really  thinks  he  put  the  nail  in  my  coffin.  Do  you  guys  feel  it?  He  typed  the  words  with  such  conviction,  didn't  he?  This  is  probably  the  most  fun  I  ever  had  typing  a  post.  I'm  so  anxious  to  post  this,  my  fingers  are  shaking  as  i  type.  Look,  this  quote  that  Grogan  gives  us  was  a  theory  that  Hawking  had  back  in  1989.  He  made  a  "friendly"  bet  with  James  Preskill  on  this  subject,  and  in  2004,  Hawking  admitted  that  he lost  the  bet,  and  the  bet  ended  up  being  settled  by  Hawking  giving  Preskill  a  baseball  encyclopedia.  James  Preskill  tells  us  about  the  bet  right  here  http://www.theory.caltech.edu/~preskill/jp_24jul04.html 

Also,  to  give  Grogan  more  insult  to  injury,  Hawkings  said  "There  is  no  baby  universe  branching  off,  as  I  once  thought.  The  information  remains  firmly  in  our  universe.  I'm  sorry  to  disappoint  science  fiction  fans,  but  if  information  is  preserved,  there  is  no  possibility  of using  black  holes  to  travel  to  other  universes"     S.W.Hawking, "Information Loss  in  Black Holes"  15Sep05, 4.

Look  people,  as  I  said  over  and  over  again,  the  models  that  you  people  keep  coming  at  me  with  have  major  flaws  in  them,  and  I  already  quoted  Hawking  saying  that  the  BBM  remains  the  best  explanation  for  the  cause  of  the  universe.  Grogan,  you  failed.  It  was  a  nice  try,  because  I  can  tell  with  the  words  that  you  typed  you  thought  you  were  really  doing  something.  But  you  wasn't.  You  can't  beat  me  dude.  So  stop  trying.  Since  i  just  sucessfully proved  yet  another member  of  this  forum  wrong,  i  will  now  take  Grogans  advice,  i  will go  back  to  my  rap  forums  and  continue  making  physical  threats....see  you  guys  later...

[Majesty]

That's it from the debate participants in this thread.

So  where  am  i  supposed  to  post?  These  people  are  still  typing  my  way.

[Ambassador Pony]

Start a thread where you demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. It is a fundamental component of your ridiculous argument. 

Or, limp away like a coward, mumbling about how awesome you did in a debate you actually lost.

[HAL]

So  where  am  i  supposed  to  post?  These  people  are  still  typing  my  way.

In the regular forum - duh. 

[Deus ex Machina]

That's it from the debate participants in this thread.

So  where  am  i  supposed  to  post?  These  people  are  still  typing  my  way.

Given some of the unkind things you've said about a number of forum members here, I do wonder what benefit you think there is in posting here anyway.

I'm keen to bring this debate to a conclusion so that we can move on (hopefully to a more fruitful debate). The best thing to do is to concentrate on your closing remarks in the main debate thread, and ignore this thread. If you really want to, you can include in your closing remarks any points that may be pertinent to the comments that have been made here, so long as they're within the scope of the debate - though I would ask you not to respond to them directly.

Alternatively, as HAL suggests, you can start a new thread in the General Religious Discussion board (or at a push, the Science board) on any specific points that you'd like to discuss with other forum members.