The Naturalist’s dilemma

The inherent problem a Naturalist has is that they cannot escape their own paradigm—the closed universe of natural laws and scientific method. This is the legacy of Western Enlightenment thinking, which is technically called Metaphysical Naturalism.

An Enlightenment philosopher who held this worldview, David Hume, argued that our reality must fit inside the laws of nature, therefore, miracles are impossible.  Modern agnostics and atheist scholars, like Bart Ehrman, have resuscitated and adapted Hume’s argument. But as we saw in “The resurrection of Jesus Christ – Part Four,” this is circular reasoning. Even those who followed Hume said this position is untenable.

I recently make the point in “The resurrection of Jesus Christ – Part Five” that: “while science is very good at analyzing and testing observable data, it cannot help us transcend the natural world or answer the deeper existential questions that also must be answered. It cannot answer why science, and why there’s even such a thing as the natural world. These are philosophical questions.”

My view was challenged by an atheist blogger who often comments here and goes by the moniker, Arkenaten. He asked me to show how my religion can answer questions that science cannot answer. The problem with this question was that he did not set it up in a valid way. He was apparently looking for scientific evidence, which would be self-refuting since you cannot show what’s beyond the limits of science by using scientific method.

Atheist activist and naturalist historian, Richard Carrier, said that science puts an effective end to worship:

“Wherein worship is replaced with curiosity, devotion with diligence, holiness with sincerity, ritual with study, and scripture with the whole world and the whole of human learning”. Carrier wrote that it is the naturalist’s duty “to question all things and have a well-grounded faith in what is well-investigated and well-proved, rather than what is merely well-asserted or well-liked.” (quoted from Wikipedia)

But does Carrier’s assertion make it true? First, he makes the assumption that the worshiper must leave the worship of God for scientific inquiry. This is a false dichotomy. Second, he assumes that the worshiper’s faith is based on an ungrounded emotional experience, simply a popular opiate for the unenlightened. This is simply an ignorant dismissal of faith and it still does not address the existential questions before us.

To even talk about breaking out of this closed system we must turn to philosophy.

How would Hamlet know about Shakespeare?

To illustrate my point, I adapted C.S. Lewis’s famous Hamlet and Shakespeare analogy. It’s not a perfect analogy, but it fits perfectly to what I believe is the Naturalist’s dilemma.  Here’s my adaptation:

Hypothetically speaking, suppose that we could observe Hamlet’s world. We notice one day that Hamlet becomes self-aware and begin to suspect that everything in his life seems arranged, almost as if following a script. The question is, how would Hamlet find out if his suspicions are true? And more importantly to my point, could Hamlet use the scientific method to find this author? Let’s even assume he has 21st century science available to him. The answer should be obvious: no matter how much Hamlet tried to find scientific evidence for an author, he could never go beyond the script he was living in.

Hamlet can infer an author by how his life seems arranged, even perceive the author’s style or disposition toward him as a “person” (character in a play). But one thing Hamlet could not do is produce scientific evidence for an author’s existence. Why? Because Shakespeare does not live in Hamlet’s world. Shakespeare exists in a completely different dimension, if you will.

The dilemma…

This is the dilemma for Naturalists in Hamlet’s world (and ours). Either they have to ignore the implications of an author and by appealing to the scientific method, conclude that “there’s no Shakespeare” (and they would be wrong because Shakespeare did in fact exist and was the author), or they have to admit there’s a possibility of something outside of their natural world that they cannot see and test with the scientific method.

But for the Christian this is not a problem. Not only can we infer an author by the design aspects of nature, but also by way of this analogy. We would say that “Shakespeare” solved this problem by writing himself into the play! Likewise, God traversed the infinite dimensional gulf between His world (Shakespeare) and our natural world (Hamlet) by becoming a human being and living in the flesh among us in the person of Jesus Christ. And Jesus proved who He said He was by being raised from the dead. I’ve shown this to be a valid argument in my series, “The resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Now, while the Naturalist can disagree with our philosophy, he or she cannot demand scientific proof for something outside of the natural world. That is a self-refuting argument. And until Naturalists see this, they’re not even addressing the question.

Here’s the video clip of C.S. Lewis’s famous “Shakespeare” response to Nikita Kruschev’s declaration in 1961 that his cosmonaut went into space and did not find God, therefore, God does not exist. It takes some serious thought to follow Lewis’s philosophical argument but it’s brilliant and well worth the effort.

About Mel Wild

God's favorite (and so are you), a son and a father, happily married to the same beautiful woman for 41 years. We have three incredible adult children. My passion is pursuing the Father's heart in Christ and giving it away to others. My favorite pastime is being iconoclastic and trailblazing the depths of God's grace. I'm also senior pastor of Cornerstone Church in Wisconsin.
This entry was posted in Christian apologetics and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

107 Responses to The Naturalist’s dilemma

  1. tildeb says:

    No, the legacy from the Enlightenment is about individual autonomy in law – necessary for consent of the governed – but I think it certainly includes respect for methodological naturalism. The idea of philosophical naturalism is a set up by the religious to misrepresent methodological naturalism, to create a false equivalency, and present it to be a synonymous kind of naturalism when it’s not, and then knock down the false equivalency by showing its circularity and then claiming methodological naturalism is philosophical naturalism and so it really, really, really is just another philosophical way of knowing.

    It doesn’t surprise me in the least, Mel, that you would once again delve into deceit and deception and misrepresentation to try to elevate your religiously motivated method of thinking – Magical Thinking – to be equivalent in merit to the world of woo as the scientific method is to this ‘constrained’ reality. This is a battle you will lose every time because your method never has, does not, and probably never will produce any knowledge about any reality no matter how you try to constrain it by framing. Your method is not another way of knowing, not an equivalent knowledge about reality ‘outside’ of reality. Not a different set of knowledge. No knowledge. None. Zero. Zip. Oh, but let’s go ask a fictional character to demonstrate the means of knowing about the non fictional author… again a set up by the religious to misrepresent what knowledge about reality is, create a false equivalency, and then claiming it to be synonymous with the misunderstanding those of us who respect for how we know anything about reality.

    • Mel Wild says:

      And your response doesn’t surprise me in the least, Tildeb. You respond to the first paragraph and ignore the whole point of the post. Is that not being deceptive and trying to diversionary on your part, trying to argue something that is not the point being made here? So you’re saying that these Enlightenment thinkers, like Hume, did not have a Naturalist worldview that denied miracles? That most of them were not naturalists? And that this was all just a straw man erected by religious people to deny methodological naturalism? Haha…which fantasy world are you living in? Interesting conspiracy theory, but it won’t pass muster and doesn’t even deal with the point of this post.

      What is not circular about naturalists like Hume not believing in miracles? Hume’s whole argument was that miracles are impossible because they violate natural laws. That’s the very definition of circular reasoning! He doesn’t believe in anything beyond naturalism because he’s a naturalist! But no one ever claimed that miracles were natural phenomenon, so his argument is not only bogus (which his followers saw), it does not answer the question.

      And it’s interesting to me that you do not even touch the dilemma I mentioned. You just go on and on with your anti-theist talking points. But what does that have to do with the point made here? What is your answer for Hamlet in this hypothetical situation? How would he discern the possibility of an author.with your worldview? The point of this analogy is the crux of the matter.

      • tildeb says:

        The key understanding you are missing is about HOW we can know anything. So Hume argues quite correctly that we cannot know anything about ‘miracles’ that supposedly are caused from ‘outside’ of anything we can understand but implemented inside of what we can understand. In other words, Mel, philosophical naturalism is Occam’s Razor in practice because it’s a waste of time to presume we can know anything other than the natural. We have no means to connect anything claimed to be miraculous with anything other than the natural. You just refuse to admit this fact.

  2. Great post Mel! God is no one’s Lab Rat. Athiest thinking seems to be dependent on a system they can control.

    • tildeb says:

      Atheist thinking? Good grief. It’s called methodological naturalism and it by the strangest of coincidences just so happens to work for everyone everywhere all the time and produces applications, therapies, and technologies that, oh by the way, just so happen to also work for everyone everywhere all the time. Go figure. Oh, but how very ‘atheistic’. Not like your version of Oogity Boogity! that works to inform and produce…. delusion and magical thinking that depends on deceit, distortion, and misrepresentation to try to sound more reasonable than it is. It’s not reasonable. And that we have tens of thousands of equivalent unreasonable religions incompatible with each other is plenty of evidence for the rational mind of just how incoherent is this kind of magical and deluded thinking.

      • Wow! That is a lot of accusing without any substance. It remains to be a seen a square mile that exists on planet earth that the Gospel hasn’t gone into first.

      • a square mile that is safe. I pressed enter without checking it

        • tildeb says:

          Chaplapreneur, there no such method of thinking called ‘atheist’ thinking; there is thinking not polluted by faith and we call this thinking ‘methodological naturalism’. We allow reality to arbitrate our beliefs about it. That’s it. That’s the whole thing. It also goes by the name ‘science’.

          So, to be accurate, it you are suggesting that thinking that allows reality to arbitrate our beliefs about it is incompatible with religious thinking that determines reality by the beliefs we decide to hold about it – faith – then you are suggesting that the gizmo in front of you works because you believe your belief will make it work. Calling that belief ‘faith’ as if a justification for it doesn’t improve its quality or lack of truth value. It is simply religious thinking… which is identical in method – believing in spite of compelling evidence to the contrary – to what the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V diagnoses as constituting delusional thinking. I’m not making this up; I’m clarifying why Mel’s method to relegate science, relegate methodological naturalism, to be insufficient to arbitrate claims he makes about his version of Oogity Boogity! causing effect in this reality is delusional thinking. He has no means to link this reality and everything it contains including his carefully selected effects to this other-worldly cause.. except his belief it is so. And he will brook no evidence indicating a naturalist cause to undermine his faith-based and imposed belief on reality. That’s textbook delusional thinking. And you’re going along with it because… you’re pious?

        • I believe in Jesus because He changed my life! He didn’t ask me to be His arbitrator, scientist, or attorney. I am only a witness to these things. What is interesting is you don’t seem to want to bring any substance to the discussion, on broad claims about what science does and what belief doesn’t. You also make great accusations about me and how I approach the world. It is a very novice approach to debate to assign a position to someone don’t you think?

          As for my comment to Mel. It was a casual comment about in general how an atheist thinks. Maybe I shouldn’t have used that term, so thank you for the clarification. I retract, insert methological naturalism.

        • tildeb says:

          Methodological naturalism is not a system atheists control. It’s a method of thinking about reality that explains why your computer works and it has absolutely nothing to do with non belief in your god. Nothing. Painting the method this way demonstrates a religious framework that is intentionally unrelated and unrelatable to reality – and demonstrates a rejection of allowing reality to arbitrate beliefs not adduced from as Mel likes to pretend but imposed on it. You, Chaplapreneur, demonstrate this delusional framing with this ridiculous claim of ‘atheist’ thinking. It is you solely who has imported it.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I’m not saying atheists control methodological naturalism. I agree with the methodology. Theists can embrace this methodology as well as atheists. Those are realities within the confines of natural law. That is not the issue, so you’re not addressing the point at all.

        • tildeb says:

          You don’t, but Chaplapreneur says to make the substitution in his original comment so I did and then explained to him why it very much addresses the specific idiocy of what he claimed.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Chaplapreneur, there no such method of thinking called ‘atheist’ thinking; there is thinking not polluted by faith and we call this thinking ‘methodological naturalism’.

          This is where you are deluded, Tildeb. No atheist thinking? Haha…that’s really funny. You most definitely HAVE a very prejudicial worldview and way of thinking! It’s called naturalism. Your worldview does not permit any reality that goes beyond natural laws. You prove this every time you make your derogatory comments. Your worldview has is its own version of bias and polluted thinking because you will dismiss a priori anything that does not fit into your predetermined closed system of methodological naturalism. Apparently, you are also totally blind to your biased worldview.

          This is easily proven by the illustration I used with Hamlet and Shakespeare. Your closed worldview has no answer for Hamlet’s (existential) question. You would probably just wave it away call it all magic and “Oogity Boogity!” I suppose. And you would be dead wrong. So, don’t give us all your condescending nonsense about what we believe. If you cannot answer the question, you have no grounds by which to say we’re wrong. You have no way of proving it, disproving it, or even addressing it.

        • tildeb says:

          Unlike you, I recognize the fact that – like you – I have absolutely no means at my disposal to ‘know’ anything about something outside of the means I do have available. You continue to pretend this an a priori philosophical position that rules out miracles. No. You misunderstand. It rules out knowing anything about something for which In have no means to know anything about! It’s not philosophy. It’s a fact. I only have the method to investigate the natural. I have no method – AND NEITHER DO YOU – to investigate the unnatural, the meta-natural, the super-natural. This is the fact I recognize. This is the fact you wave away. This is the state in which you AND I operate whether you admit it or not.

          Your argument hinges on you gaining access to this supposedly other-worldly realm and reality, an attempt so desperate for lack of merit that you try to have SOMETHING to work with, something so opaque and nebulous that you try to harness the weirdness of quantum mechanics as your ally… just like every other woo-peddler out there. It’s not your ally. It’s your foe! It’s all about measuring probabilities at a certain place or time. But you don;t understand even this much.

          Of course, you don’t even need this much as long as you are willing a priori to accept that faith-belief alone and without evidence has equivalent truth merit to anything we do have access to in the natural realm and reality. That really is delusional and I can understand why you associate a negative meaning to this accurate term and try to avoid its legitimacy by vilifying the person who points it out to you. But your business is to sell your magical thinking as if it were reasonable and sane.

          To sell these whoppers of claims to know something about which you can know nothing, you simply wave away all the compelling contrary evidence… and continue promoting the lie that the mechanistic operation of properties of matter are equivalent to faith-based belief. This is lunacy. To prove whether this claim about the power of faith-based belief is actually true, test it. Believe you can levitate by harnessing the awesome power of your god and step out a second story window. Your belief alone is powerless – every single time – yet it is this belief in the equivalency of your faith-based belief to evidence-adduced belief that you think allows you to continue making claims about a miracle-existing reality we share that are just as well founded… in other words, not at all, claims of miracles that fail every test independent of faith-based belief. Every time, so far. That’s the fact. You can’t levitate on the basis of belief. It’s unreasonable to think someone else could… no matter what gods are summoned. History is brimming with natural explanations for what was once considered miraculous and there is no reason to think this trend will not continue no matter how much rationalizing you bring to bear on pretending you know stuff you have no means to know anything about.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Tildeb, excuse me but all of this just a bunch of judgmental nonsense. Yes, you do have means at your disposal. It’s called philosophy. From philosophy we can infer the best explanation that has explanatory scope and power and plausibility. But a truly disinterested investigation MUST include the possibility of a miraculous answer; otherwise, it’s just prejudicial bias based in naturalism.

          Your answers prove my point that you are stuck in your circular naturalist framework mindset that refuses to consider anything outside of natural laws, as if scientific investigation is all there is to finding out what is possible. And so, evidently, if you were Hamlet you would just throw up your hands and say I don’t know. It doesn’t answer the question. And it’s a real question that must be answered. And if you were to just say Shakespeare doesn’t exist because there is no scientific evidence, you would be wrong.

          My point is, you cannot use scientific inquiry to go outside the bounds of natural laws. You have to use philosophy. To dismiss anything but scientific proof is narrow-minded and not even a valid argument. It’s based on circular reasoning, as I have shown you.

          And, besides, you are wrong that our faith is not based in evidence. I have given strong evidence in the previous series of posts that would infer the claim for the resurrection of Jesus Christ in this world by miraculous intervention. The only reason you cannot say it was a miracle is because you are stuck inside your own closed paradigm, not because it’s necessarily impossible.

          So, say whatever you want, you are not even dealing with the question. As I told Ark, “I don’t know” is not a counterclaim.

        • tildeb says:

          Mel, you say, “Yes, you do have means at your disposal. It’s called philosophy. From philosophy we can infer the best explanation that has explanatory scope and power and plausibility.”

          This is what Ark quite rightly calls a fool’s errand. Let me explain why this approach does not produce knowledge, doesn’t do what you think it does, does not address the fundamental problem that is correctly phrased as, “I don’t know.” .

          It does not produce knowledge but produces metaphysics that at best may or may not be true but – and this is the HUGE but you avoid understanding – there’s no way to know! And the metaphysics itself is completely dependent on the imported premises by assuming they are accurate descriptors of the reality the metaphysics is trying to describe in a logically deduced format. This does not get around exactly the same problem I have already stated several times: metaphysics as a method has no MEANS to be able to know if its premises are accurate and descriptive beyond assumption, assertion, and attribution! And that’s exactly what you are supply to it to pretend you are then inferring knowledge! You’re not. You’re racing around the same mulberry bush of ignorance.

          This is why epistemology matters so much and why your epistemology is not working for you.

          Using only philosophy in its very finest form of metaphysics (talking about ‘beyond’ the natural world, the ‘meta’ of the physics and doing the work you want it to do), neither you nor I have the MEANS to know if the metaphysics being used to (as you say) imply the best explanation is equivalent in every way to whatever imaginings we wish to insert in the form of premises. We can’t tell. There is no means. That’s why metaphysics has not, does not, and will never produce knowledge; it produces more premises in the form of a logical conclusion! That’s how metaphysics came up with such brilliant examples of how reality operates with such explanations as the Ptolemy model of the universe (with retrograde planets, meaning they go in different directions depending where God wants them to be) and the balance of the four humors to explain ill health and indicate demonic possession… neither of which relates to reality as it is but does a wonderful job pretending these models are deduced from rather than imposed on reality. This is what you are doing. This is why the Catholic Church absorbed metaphysics as its preferred model for explanations: they could insert their god wherever it suited them and claim – Presto! – they had used the Queen of natural physics, philosophy, to deduce a reality brimming with their god.

          What a surprise.

          Not.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Wow, way to just dismiss philosophy as inferior to science in one fell swoop! Philosophy (which includes epistemology and all other philosophical methods)is useful in making a logical argument to infer something that cannot be tested and reproduced by science. You cannot answer my question with naturalist science, which you have proven by your non-answer. Therefore science will never prove or disprove God. If God exists, He does not exist within the realm governed by natural laws. So you must use philosophy to set up a proper framework to even discuss the question. And this is why this framework MUST include the possibility of the existence of something beyond the natural world, otherwise it’s biased from the start. Then, and only then, can we talk about evidence.

          So, again, you’re not really even addressing the question here. How would Hamlet determine whether there is a Shakespeare or not? This analogy cuts to the chase with this argument. And saying you don’t know negates your participation in the inquiry. We can’t even address the issue of God without dealing with this question. This is why your denial of miracles and questioning of the existence of God isn’t even beginning to deal with the right kind of evidence. Again, it’s circular reasoning based on a naturalist bias.

          But I believe we can find evidence in this world once we have properly framed the inquiry. And Christianity has a strong case, as I have said.

        • tildeb says:

          Let’s deal with this:
          ” How would Hamlet determine whether there is a Shakespeare or not? This analogy cuts to the chase on this argument.”

          Yes, it does. Look at the assumptions you have to make for the analogy to work: that Hamlet could be self aware, could write himself actions to test the hypothesis, could test the boundaries of his world, could ask the potential author to provide evidence, and so on. We have to assume that Hamlet’s world is informed in all physical ways, all chemical ways, as it with ours, that there is no discernible boundary between fiction and non fiction, and so on. In other words, you have to frame the analogy to come loaded with all the necessary assumptions you purport to be setting out to ‘find’: that there is no means to find out! But there’s still a hidden author that WE can and do know about!

          So yes, this is exactly what you’re doing, pretending there is a third position where someone somewhere does know about this hidden creator/author because it/he really is an active creative agency. You are framing the supernatural from this assumption to then suit your philosophical premises and then using the philosophical premises to ‘prove’ your supernatural framing! That’s the very definition of a circular argument. And it is a failure that has nothing to do with the belief status of anyone who understands why your assumption laden analogy fails. Why you can’t see this failure of epistemology is a marvel to behold.

          It’s also a marvel to have you set the rule that admitting ignorance about something one cannot know anything about therefore forbids one from criticizing your epistemological gong show. That’s rather delusional in and of itself.

        • Mel Wild says:

          The hypothetical question was very simple, Tildeb. All I needed was a simple answer. It was not a trick question. Thank you for your analysis though. So, I can only surmise from what you’ve told me that your answer would be that there is no way for Hamlet to know anything outside of his world, even if he suspected there was. If I’m wrong you can correct me, but it’s very hard to know what your answer actually is.

          This question was not set up to prove God but ask how we would think about the possibility that there might be a God. What kind of evidence would we need? You’ve been suggesting to me all along that God is just a bunch of “Oogity Boogity!” because there is no evidence for God. But the question remains, what do you mean by evidence?

          Let me try to explain why I ask. Suppose Hamlet were to get all the scientists and archeologists and cosmologists in the world and they searched every bit of data in the universe for God and didn’t find Him. Does that actually prove anything? Is that even looking for the right kind of evidence? Would we ever even find God that way if He did exist? Of course not, because if God exists, He doesn’t exist in the natural world. And if Hamlet had adopted your worldview he would not have been able to know, even if was true that Shakespeare exists. And Shakespeare did exist. Again, I’m not saying that proves or disproves God, I’m saying that your naturalist worldview does not even permit you to know the answer, even if there is a God. And your worldview does not permit you to accept anything but scientific data, which I’ve just shown by way of analogy that it’s incapable of proving or disproving the theory. But you could find other kinds of evidence that infers an author’s fingerprints, if you will, in everything and everywhere at the same time. This is why people have philosophized about “God” since the beginning of time. We intuitively know it, even if we’re wrong about the details. And no amount of scientific discovery is ever going to change that because science doesn’t even touch the question. We can only ignore it or deny it.

          But what if Shakespeare wrote himself into the play? Then Hamlet would have a very tangible way to know there is an author, and that there’s more to his life than the scripted play he finds himself in. Again, this is just an analogy to make a point. And it doesn’t guarantee that everyone would believe that Shakespeare is the author who had come into their world.

          Christian philosophy makes just that claim. That God (Shakespeare) became man (Hamlet) in order to reveal what God is really like and end the speculation. To restore the relationship between God and man.

          Now, let’s look to the tangible evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The surrounding data is undisputed by scholars. Jesus really did exist, He was crucified by Pontius Pilate, His tomb was found empty three days later, and over 500 people claimed they saw Him postmortem over a period of 40 days. Even Bart Ehrman agrees that this is a reasonable assumption, but he doesn’t believe in miracles. So, while it would be a logical inference to say that Jesus was indeed resurrected as all these witnesses said, based on the data, Ehrman and you and all other naturalists cannot even consider that possibility, not because it’s not possible or logical, but because it violates your naturalist worldview. This is the problem with having a closed worldview. You will never escape the confines of natural laws. This is the whole point of this post. So, you can call me delusional and every other name in the book, it doesn’t change the argument I’m making.

        • tildeb says:

          Mel, what you don’t get is that your analogy demonstrates how YOU cannot know anything about this supposed god you claim to know something about! That’s my point. You have no means. Your belief has no grounds independent of your willingness to believe, no means to demonstrate it is worthy of ANY confidence whatsoever. Your belief is based on presumptions you import to reality and impose on it… a method that really is equivalent in all ways to making stuff up and then pretending it’s true. That’s it. That’s the total content of your belief: your belief.

          You say, “And if Hamlet had adopted your worldview (Tildeb: my ‘worldview’ is that the natural world exists and I can know something about it independent of my beliefs… how very radical of me) he would not have been able to know, even if there was Shakespeare. And Shakespeare did exist. (Tildeb: See? There’s the assumption that stands in for your god in the analogy, that He does, in fact, exist… just as Shakespeare did exist… AND that we DO have the means to know something about it!!!! No, no, no! We do not!) Again, I’m not saying that proves or disproves God, I’m saying that your naturalist worldview does not even permit you to know the answer (Tildeb: and neither does your magical worldview!), even if there is a God. And your worldview does not permit you to accept anything but scientific data (Tildeb: No, my worldview uses reality from the world to arbitrate my beliefs about it, just like you do in everything BUT your religious beliefs!) of which I’ve just shown by way of analogy that it’s incapable of proving or disproving the theory.” (Tildeb: it’s not a theory but a presumption that an imported belief disconnected from reality and divorced from any means for us to know anything about it still has enough basis of truth merit to invest some level of confidence, which you do in fact invest and do so with enough confidence to claim certainty!)

        • Mel Wild says:

          Mel, what you don’t get is that your analogy demonstrates how YOU cannot know anything about this supposed god you claim to know something about! That’s my point. You have no means. Your belief has no grounds independent of your willingness to believe, no means to demonstrate it is worthy of ANY confidence whatsoever.

          I do get what you’re trying to say, but this is only true if you only look at scientific evidence and ignore the implications of an author, which you do because your naturalist worldview does not permit you to go outside of scientific evidence. You are bound by natural laws and refuse to accept anything beyond that.

          But I can investigate the possibility for an “author” with my worldview because I have put no such limitation on myself. And, as I’ve shown in the past by the following diagram, we have good reason to infer the possibility an intelligent designer (or author, in Hamlet’s case):

          And, if a possibility of intelligent design or authorship exists, then one MUST go beyond the naturalist worldview in order to investigate it.

          Furthermore, I have real evidence for the person of Jesus Christ. The surrounding data is undisputed by scholars. Jesus really did exist, He was crucified by Pontius Pilate, His tomb was found empty three days later, and over 500 people claimed they saw Him postmortem over a period of 40 days.

          So, based on the data, I can logically deduce that God exists and He was revealed bodily in Jesus Christ. My claim has explanatory scope and power. The only reason you cannot believe this claim is because you don’t believe in miracles. And you don’t believe in miracles because you are stuck inside your naturalist worldview. It’s that simple, but I don’t think you really get it.

      • Mel Wild says:

        Atheist thinking? Good grief. It’s called methodological naturalism and it by the strangest of coincidences just so happens to work for everyone everywhere all the time…

        Yes, of course. I agree. If you think I’m refuting methodological naturalism you would be committing the same fallacious false dichotomy that Carrier makes. We believe in methodological naturalism (science). We are saying that this does not explain everything. That’s the whole point you seem oblivious to. You just wave it all with your condescending and adolescent “Oogity Boogity!” remarks. That’s just childish and doesn’t answer the question.

        This is the crux of the problem. It’s found in Hume’s argument:
        (from “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding”)

        Premise 1: Miracles are a violation of the laws of nature
        Premise 2: Our unalterable experience has established these laws.
        Premise 3: Therefore because miracles are outside of our experience they are impossible.

        This is classic naturalist circular reasoning! All there is to life is what we can experience. The truth is, you don’t believe in miracles because they don’t fit into your closed naturalist worldview, not because they actually impossible. But miracles, by definition, would be a violation of natural laws, so Hume is really saying nothing at all. That’s why those who came after him said it was an untenable argument.

        Are you that oblivious to the problem you have here? You can’t see the forest for the trees? You have not even addressed the point of this post. Again, to illustrate this problem, how would Hamlet find out if there was an author to his scripted life? How would he find Shakespeare? To your argument, could he apply methodological naturalism to come the right answer?

        You can blather on about how you think we’re deluded all you want; I’m sorry but “the emperor has no clothes” with regard to your argumentation.

  3. Arkenaten says:

    Wow! That is a lot of accusing without any substance. It remains to be a seen a square mile that is safe on planet earth that the Gospel hasn’t gone into first.

    And all put there by your omniscient deity, Yahweh, yes?
    lol….

  4. Arkenaten says:

    blockquote>The truth is, you don’t believe in miracles because they don’t fit into your closed naturalist worldview, not because they actually impossible.

    No, this is a blatant lie, and why yoyu are a disengenious arse.

    The truth is, not that we do not beleive in miracles but you have not shown any evidence to demonstrate them beyond pure speculation.

    You expect us to accept the Resurrection because, according to your methodology the ”evidence” (sic) infers the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth rose from the dead, yet you refuse point blank to accept the verifiable hard core evidence that refutes the Exodus as this then puts your god man in an untenable position and practically reduces him t a complete work of fiction.

    This is the core of this entire series of posts.
    And it is this that you will not deal with.

    • Mel Wild says:

      What KIND of evidence, Ark. You have never answered this question. In other words, how would Hamlet be able to find out if there is a Shakespeare? What evidence would he use to answer his suspicions?

      I just laugh when you say I won’t deal with it! Right…Ark, please wake up. You haven’t even addressed the question, either here or in the other 30+ irrelevant comments you made.

      • Arkenaten says:

        You make the mistake of trying to find a solution to why the house is falling down but flat out refuse to inspect the foundations of the building.

        All you hypothesis and pontifications would simply disappear faster than dirty dishwater down the plughole if you look at your problem methodologically.
        Start from Genesis as I suggested and work your way forward.

        One can pick any individual part of the bible and construct an argument to make it fit your already indoctrinated belief.

        John has thoroughly laid to waste any notions you may have been harboring concerning the historical veracity of Pentateuch and shown you exactly what current Jewish thinking is regarding their history.
        The really scary part, and I mean really scary part for you is to extrapolate this through to the character Jesus of Nazareth.

        Do this and you will quickly see just how untenable the prime foundational tenet of your faith is.

        But you do not have the balls to do this.

        • Mel Wild says:

          More avoidance. What kind of evidence. Ark?

        • Arkenaten says:

          Not avoidance in the least, Mel.
          This is a similar scenario as when a believer demands of the unbeliever:
          ”What evidence would make you believe?”

          And my answer would be the same …
          ”I have absolutely no idea.”
          I would automatically presume an omniscient entity would know. And I consider the same applies to miracles.

          So now the onus is on you to provide the evidence you have that will unequivocally demonstrate the veracity of your claim.
          So far you have not been able to do so.
          But you cannot assume an apriori about miracles, which in your case is that they are real.
          That is cheating.

          Now you should go back to Genesis, work your way forward and work out why the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth considers the Pentateuch to be fact!
          Until then …. well, there is a saying about pissing in the wind. And this is what you are faced with.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, Ark, this is pure avoidance. You’re talking about everything but the question! How would our hypothetical Hamlet resolve his suspicions about Shakespeare? What kind of evidence would it take, Ark? Just answer the question.

          To say, “I have absolutely no idea but you’re wrong!” not only does not address the question, you have forfeited your right to say I’m wrong. Then our discussion is at an end.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I did not say you are wrong. I said :
          ”I have absolutely no idea.”
          Which also makes you a lying sack of shit.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Oh boy, here comes the adolescent name calling again. Ark, please calm down and talk about this like an adult.

          The implication of your statement was very clear. And since you’ve said several times in the past that everything I believe is fiction, I’m sorry but your objection rings rather hollow. You’ve absolutely said I’m wrong about my worldview several times now in other comments, so it’s a valid assumption.

          And the fact still remains, if you say “I have absolutely no idea” you forfeit your right to say my claim is false. This does not address the question.

          Now, answer the question. What kind of evidence?

        • Arkenaten says:

          Don’t assume Mel, that is just an adolescent tantrum on your part.
          I reiterate . I do not know.
          Same as I do not know the answer to faster than light travel. But I am open to be convinced .
          I fo
          Let that statement stand.

          Now, what you have to do is first acknowledge the nature of the Pentateuch as has been outlined for you and considered fact by archaeology and science and the majority of biblical scholars.
          That is stage one.
          Let’s see an honest response to this

          Your call ….

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, then we’re done with our discussion, Ark. It really comes down to that. You want to put the cart before the horse and do everything backwards, but you won’t even consider anything outside your naturalist worldview. So, there’s no point in continuing. Your head is firmly stuck in the sand here. I have been given no valid way to talk about this with you.

        • Arkenaten says:

          *Smile* Well, Mel, others have been following this and you have laid out your stall.

          If it was just me that considered you a devious disingenuous fool then we would have cause for concern. But I can pretty much guarantee that pretty much everyone who understands this argument you are trying to hoodwink with regards you in a similar light.

        • Mel Wild says:

          More name calling. Wow, Ark, you’re really showing me a thing or two! I’m sure everyone is so embarrassed by my utter devious foolishness and stalling tactics.

          Excuse me, but just who is avoiding the subject here? If you cannot answer the question, how are we supposed to continue? Your prejudicial bias does not allow you to go beyond your own closed-loop naturalist paradigm, and your non-answer doesn’t even give me a basis to have an honest conversation here. You have given me no answer for what evidence might look like, so how can I answer your questions?

        • Arkenaten says:

          I thought were done with this discussion? What are you a Last Word Freak?
          Name calling? Good heaven’s no …. a fairly accurate character description.

          The question arose out of your statement that religion (Christianity) answer questions science can not.

          And that is a fools errand….

        • Mel Wild says:

          I thought were done with this discussion? What are you a Last Word Freak?

          Haha, love the irony. Well, look in the mirror when you say that, Ark. You’re the one who won’t ever let things go. You’ve made over 300 comments here recently so you can get the last word. And then when I don’t answer you, you claim victory.

          The question arose out of your statement that religion (Christianity) answer questions science can not.
          And that is a fools errand….

          And you proved this to be a fools errand how so? You still have not even given me an answer for what this evidence would look like.

        • Arkenaten says:

          *Smile* No, Mel … You misunderstand. I didn’t prove it is a fool’s errand – You did!

        • Mel Wild says:

          Haha…my only fools errand was expecting you to give me an honest answer and not completely avoid my question about what this evidence would look like to you, or answer my simple hypothetical question about Hamlet and Shakespeare here, other than to tell me you have no idea. Although, I did expect that you would eventually resort to the name calling and I wasn’t disappointed there.

          So how can you even question the possibility of something beyond your closed naturalist worldview? You have no basis to argue that God does not exist and that there is nothing beyond nature. You can’t even tell me what would constitute evidence for something existing beyond the natural world. So how could anyone prove or disprove anything with you? And your avoidance negates making any demands on anyone who does believe in God. No doubt your refusal is because you would then have to refute your own naturalist worldview, which you’re not willing to even consider. This is truly your dilemma, Ark. All other discussions about God are pointless if you cannot honestly address this issue.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I’ll answer your hypothetical question if you acknowledge the Pentateuch is Historical Fiction and answer why the character Jesus of Nazareth believed that Moses and the Patriarchs were real.

          Bet you won’t ….

        • Mel Wild says:

          No more fallacious avoidance, Ark. Either answer the question or admit you can’t.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Oh I can answer, Mel …. that is not the issue.
          But I won’t until you acknowledge that the Pentateuch is historical fiction and tell me how the character Jesus of Nazareth could possibly have believed the characters real people, involved in real events, and taught as though they were.

          You see, Mel, you, like Wally and IB etc continually try to infer that I lie.
          But I simply have no need to.
          What on earth would I gain from lying?
          I am an atheist. I have no after-life agenda to defend.
          I think what you believe in is utterly silly.

          The world is slowly, but surely flipping religion the bird.
          You just haven’t woken up to this fact. But you will …

          Try to understand something. And it should be easier for you as you are a Pastor and
          are obliged to be at least one step ahead of your flock.

          You have to defend your own religion not only against someone such as me but also against every other religion that offers challenge. You are a Pastor. If you do not wholeheartedly believe in what you preach then how the Gehenna can you stand up there and preach about sin and salvation, right?
          Doubt is the cancer that rots your faith, not so?
          But most importantly you have to defend it for your sake.
          Otherwise why are you a believer for, right?
          And this is why you will not venture into waters that look as if you might get stuck in the mud.

          So, I give you my word I will give answer to your hypothetical Hamlet question straight after you address the hard core factual, evidence regarding the Exodus etc and its impact on the biblical character, Jesus of Nazareth.

          You have my word.
          That’s my best offer.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Oh I can answer, Mel …. that is not the issue.

          Okay, good. I’m waiting…

        • Arkenaten says:

          Sorry, did you skip the terms on purpose?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Ark, did you totally skip the subject of this post on purpose? Answer the RELEVANT question and stop with your fallacious red herrings so you can avoid the question. IF you have an answer like you said, it should be very easy for you.

        • Arkenaten says:

          If you want to demonstrate you have integrity and trust in your holy text then you should already have an answer down pat regarding the Pentateuch.
          You must surely have learned this stuff while studying for your formal pastor qualifications?
          It should be easy for you. Even if all you have is an apologetic answer.
          If it flies I’ll accept it.
          You have believers and probably some of your flock reading along.
          Some will consider me the way you do, that I accept, but there may a couple who are wondering:
          ”Come on Pastor Mel, answer the man, for goodness’ sake! You preach this stuff every week. Tell him what you tell us. You have God on your side. ”

          If I were one of your flock I would be getting just a tad nervous as to why you flat out refuse to answer the questions regarding the Pentateuch, Moses, Exodus etc and their relation to the character Jesus of Nazareth.
          Do you teach that the Exodus really happened, Mel? Well, do you?
          If I were one of your flock it would look as if you are avoiding the question and this would make me rather uncomfortable.

        • Mel Wild says:

          What is the subject of this post, Ark? Still waiting for your relevant answer.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Then you will have to wait …

        • Mel Wild says:

          Then I can only surmise that you have no answer.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Then you are a liar, as I have stated I have an answer and will answer.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You do like to throw out the accusations. I said I could only surmise that you don’t have an answer since you won’t give one after dozens of attempts to get one from you. That is not lying. You say you have an answer, then give it.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Sure … and I have given you my word I shall. But only after you explain the Pentateuch in relation to the character Jesus of Nazareth.
          So if you are not lying you can only be :
          a) Willfully ignorant.
          b) Disingenuous
          c) Afraid

        • Mel Wild says:

          Sure … and I have given you my word I shall. But only after you explain the Pentateuch in relation to the character Jesus of Nazareth.
          So if you are not lying you can only be :
          a) Willfully ignorant.
          b) Disingenuous
          c) Afraid

          The subject of the post is the question I posed to you, Ark. You are the one practicing avoidance with your fallacious red herring. So, if you’re not lying it can only be…

        • Arkenaten says:

          But everything is relevant if it refers to the biblical character Jesus of Nazareth, wich is why the Old testamwmtn caano be divorced from the New.
          While Pauls admission that everything hinges on the resurrection has no meaning if there is no foundation – the Old Testament.
          His death is then in a vacuum
          So, you cannot simply cherry pick a this particular biblical scene and then cry ”Aha! See!”

          It might work like this with your indoctrinated flock and others of a similar predisposition but it doesn’t work like this with real scientist or real biblical scholars, and it sure as Gehenna doesn’t work like that with me.
          You refuse to answer … so be it.
          Others will judge you for your cowardice for not addressing the foundation of your belief and not stepping up and facing what scientists and archaeologists the world over accept as fact.

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, it’s not relevant at all. We are not talking about a particular belief in God here, Ark. We are talking about worldviews and how we infer data. Why don’t you get this.

        • Arkenaten says:

          The Old Testament is crucial to everything about the character Jesus of Nazareth.
          And with the Pentateuch we hardly need to infer data as we have the evidence that refutes stories such as Exodus and Conquest.
          Are you truly suggesting that the character Jesus of Nazareth realised that Moses was a work of fiction?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Again, no, it’s not relevant to my question. This question is not referring to any particular belief in a God.

        • Arkenaten says:

          So why are you asking it then?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Because you (atheists) keep saying there’s no evidence for our claims, so I want you to tell me what kind of evidence we would need to infer a designer (or author in the analogy). This is critical in the discussion of how we talk about God. This analogy makes this point. Everything else is irrelevant until this is established.

        • Arkenaten says:

          ”You atheists” ?
          Hmm … nice.
          No intended pejorative there I see.

          I have already stated my position on this, presuming an omniscient deity would know exactly the type of evidence required. No Faith Needed.

          Your entire case is irrelevant if your claimed god man believes that the Pentateuch and it leading characters are real.
          And this is what you are scared to death of tackling.

        • Mel Wild says:

          You atheists” ?
          Hmm … nice.
          No intended pejorative there I see.

          Again, you mischaracterize my statements. I said “you (atheists)” meaning not just you in particular but atheists in general. Hardly pejorative, unless you yourself feel that “atheist” is a pejorative term. If that’s the case, how should I refer to your position?

          I have already stated my position on this, presuming an omniscient deity would know exactly the type of evidence required. No Faith Needed.

          Haha…no faith needed? You really do think this, don’t you. Sure, it’s not religious faith, but you absolutely have almost blind faith that the natural world is all there is! And your point that an omniscient deity would know what type of evidence is needed is not only irrelevant, it does not deal with the question nor does it help us. It’s just a simple refusal to even consider the possibility. And your unwillingness to answer my question only confirms my point, unless you can prove otherwise.

        • Arkenaten says:

          No, that is not the case. I can only work with the evidence.
          I am not saying you are wrong.
          All I ask is that you produce the evidence.
          And so far the evidence is found wanting.

          You cannot divorce your faith from the hard, factual evidence that refutes the stories of the Pentateuch and until you are prepared to address this you are simply whistling in the wind, Mel, as any god-man would surely know that the characters in the Pentateuch were fictional and neither the Exodus or conquest are actual historical events.
          So why did this character believe they were?
          Do you know why?

        • Mel Wild says:

          What evidence, Ark? This is the very question you have not answered.

        • Arkenaten says:

          Are you at last talking about the archaeological evidence«related to the Exodus and Conquest?

        • Mel Wild says:

          No, Ark. Stay on topic. I’m talking about what kind of evidence would we use to infer the possibility of a creator, or author in this analogy. Again, we are not even talking about which God, but how we would discuss the possibility. How many times do I have to say this?

        • Arkenaten says:

          Well, as you believe in prayer, ask your god and get back to me, okay?

          Meantime, why did the character Jesus of Nazareth believe Moses was a real person and the Exodus and Conquest real historical events, Mel? ?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Haha… nice deflection. I’m asking YOU what this evidence would look like if it were true.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I have no idea.
          Why did the character Jesus of Nazareth beleive Moses was a real person, Mel?

        • Arkenaten says:

          Something for you to think about, Mel.

          If Christianity were such that Jesus had no teachings or sermons but just died for their sins, then most if not all Christians would remain Christians.

          If Christianity were such that Jesus had teachings and sermons but didn’t die for their sins, then most Christians would never have become Christians.

        • Arkenaten says:

          And I notice you have not responded t the comments John Z posted, confirming the current scholarly and archaeological position regarding the Patriarchs, Exodus and Conquest.
          Are you now completely stumped or simply too afraid or embarrassed to offer any sort of reply?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I didn’t respond to John because, like you, he’s wildly off-topic. I don’t care to have to chase down how he made his conclusions and add another irrelevant 100 comments to this post by going down that rabbit hole. All he ever wants to do is push his own agenda. At least Tildeb can stay on topic.

          I will cover the Pentateuch and the Old Testament another time, but that’s not the topic here. This is my blog. I pick the topics. You can choose to make relevant comments or not. That’s up to you. But I’m not going to continually chase your red herrings.

        • Arkenaten says:

          No, you are simply a coward, that’s all, Mel.

        • Mel Wild says:

          And now you are a liar.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I do not lie. I am not a Christian, I have no need.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Haha…very funny. Then answer the simple question, which is the topic of discussion.

        • Arkenaten says:

          I am interested as to why you called me a liar?

        • Mel Wild says:

          I am interested as to why you called me a liar?

          Ark…seriously? Because you said I was a coward. That’s a total lie. You don’t know what you’re talking about nor do you know anything about me. I am not afraid to deal with your red herrings, like the Pentateuch, but that is not the subject and I refuse to have you set the agenda on my blog and have me go down every rabbit hole you wish to discuss. I’m not going to keep going over this with you. Either answer the question or drop it if you can’t.

        • Arkenaten says:

          ….it looked like passive aggressive, blame-shifting, self-absorbed, smug, over-indulging, angry, judgmental, hypocritical, argumentative, small-minded, emotionally disconnected, impatient, inconsiderate, controlling, and generally suspicious of everybody.

          Funny how you haven’t changed much, Mel. Do you notice?

        • Mel Wild says:

          Ark, I’m trying to get you to stay on topic. Why can’t you just do this? And how is this passive aggressive, blame-shifting…? Can you just stay relevant to the subject for once? If you don’t have an answer, just tell me. Why go through all this avoidance gymnastics?

        • Arkenaten says:

          I do have an answer and will, as stated.

  5. Good post,Mel! I love CS Lewis and his analogies. Someone once drew a cartoon of some fish in an aquarium staring at a giant hand shaking fish flakes into the tank.. One fish is asking the other, “do you think he’s real?” Made me laugh.

  6. This is good. I must also say you are well gifted with patience as I peruse the comments.
    You are planting some seeds for someone in doubt or denial that will eventually take root.
    I don’t get atheists and I’m sure they don’t get me but I can’t imagine trying to navigate this wacky world on my own limited power! Peace 🙂

  7. Pingback: Atheist puts the smackdown on Richard Carrier | In My Father's House

  8. john zande says:

    Mel, I just saw this rather odd statement from you, regarding me.

    I didn’t respond to John because, like you, he’s wildly off-topic. I don’t care to have to chase down how he made his conclusions and add another irrelevant 100 comments to this post by going down that rabbit hole. All he ever wants to do is push his own agenda.

    I say odd because you had spent dozens of comments trying to claim the Pentateuch was true. In fact, the comment I was directly responding to started with this line:

    The archeological evidence does NOT refute what Exodus or the Old Testament is about.

    Your comment, here in this thread, then, is a lie.

    You were discussing the historical veracity of the Pentateuch. I addressed your comments specifically.

    It appears the facts I presented were simply too awkward for you to address, so you have, here, fashioned a pantomime excuse. A lie.

    In the future, I would just ask you not to lie when talking about me.

    I don’t lie to you, and I would appreciate it if you could do likewise.

    • Mel Wild says:

      I say odd because you had spent dozens of comments trying to claim the Pentateuch was true.

      John, please listen. The post had NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Pentateuch! My post was about the heart of worship as a response to God. That’s the ONLY thing that was relevant to comment on. But on your first comment you bring up a bunch of irrelevant scripture verses on obedience and away we went down your rabbit trail ending up at the Pentateuch.

      The fact is, none of my recent post have had anything to do with the Pentateuch or the Law. You and Ark keep bringing this up. Are you Jewish or something? Every time you bring this up you are going off topic.

      It appears the facts I presented were simply too awkward for you to address, so you have, here, fashioned a pantomime excuse. A lie.
      In the future, I would just ask you not to lie when talking about me.

      And THAT is a lie, John. Your comments were wildly off-topic from the start. You are the one who steered the conversation to obedience and the Pentateuch. The so-called “facts” you brought up were irrelevant to the post so I just dropped it since it got so far off track. I have not lied to you, but you obviously don’t know how to make relevant comments to the topic of the post. Next time read the post and comment on that if you want. Keep irrelevant comments to yourself.

      • john zande says:

        Nothing to do with the Pentateuch, and yet there you were discussing the veracity of the Jewish origin tale and archaeology in comment after comment after comment with Ark. I was reading along, following the thread, until seeing this comment, which finally motivated me to jump in and set you straight:

        The archeological evidence does NOT refute what Exodus or the Old Testament is about.

        But OK, if you say you weren’t, in fact, discussing archaeology, and I’m just hallucinating the entire thread, dreaming those words above, then fine. You must be right.

        We’ll just put this down as yet another topic Mel doesn’t want to talk about, but promises to do so later…

        But please, don’t lie about me. I don’t lie about, or to, you.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Yes, you were obviously hallucinating then, because YOUR topic of archeology and the Pentateuch was NOT the topic of the post. It’s NOT about the off-topic thread YOU started. The post was “True worship is a response to God.” It had nothing whatsoever to do with archeology or the Pentateuch. Whether you got me to go down your off-topic rabbit trail is beside the point, John. Now you’re just being ridiculous.

          So, I tell you what. I won’t respond to any more of your off-topic comments because I get tired of being accused of lying by you and Ark. Good-bye.

        • john zande says:

          I started?

          OK… show me where I started talking about archaeology, Mel.

          I look forward to reviewing your answer…

        • Mel Wild says:

          That is still not the point, John. It was not the subject of the post. Why don’t you get this? You keep talking about the thread. That totally misses the point.

        • john zande says:

          OK, so you were lying, again, about me hallucinating.

          Please stop doing that, Mel.

          I look forward to your promised post on the historical veracity of the Jewish origin tale. I also look forward to your promised post on “design.”

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay. Whatever.

        • john zande says:

          Or were you lying about those “promised” posts, too?

        • Mel Wild says:

          John, please stop with this childish arguing. Let it go.

        • john zande says:

          No problem. Let’s just not seeing any further lying, OK.

        • Mel Wild says:

          I haven’t yet with you, John. Just please stay on topic with the post.

        • john zande says:

          You haven’t?

          Your words:

          Yes, you were obviously hallucinating then, because YOUR topic of archeology and the Pentateuch was NOT the topic of the post. It’s NOT about the off-topic thread YOU started.

          I asked you to show me where I started talking about archaeology.

          You didn’t. You can’t. That, Mel, makes this statement above, and the earlier comment to Ark, a bold faced lie.

          Please stop lying.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Okay, fair enough. I went back and looked at the comments. It was Ark who first brought up archeology. I apologize for that part. I mixed both of your comments together in my memory of it. But I wasn’t intentionally lying, And my only real point was, and is, that you (and Ark) were totally off-topic to the post. And you did bring in archeology after the fact. So my comment about you and Ark being off-topic to the POST is not a lie.

        • tildeb says:

          Of course it’s not a lie; it’s an alt-truth statement.

        • Mel Wild says:

          Would you all just put your lawyer to bed. It was not intentional. Please drop it.

        • tildeb says:

          Don’t forget to add me to that list, Mel.

  9. Your words:
    Yes, you were obviously hallucinating then, because YOUR topic of archeology and the Pentateuch was NOT the topic of the post.
    Please stop doing that, Mel.
    I look forward to your promised post on the historical veracity of the Jewish origin tale.

  10. Pingback: How can we know God? | In My Father's House

  11. Pingback: Why science can’t answer everything | In My Father's House

  12. ComputerBook says:

    Your words:
    Yes, you were obviously hallucinating then, because YOUR subject of archeology and the Pentateuch was NOT the subject of the position. But I wasn’t intentionally lying, And my only literal level was, and is, that you (and Ark) were totally off-subject to the position.

  13. Pingback: The sticky thing about what we believe | In My Father's House

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.