The apologia of the cosmos. Evidence of God

Archaeopteryx said:

Most recently? You started speculating about the nature of the cause on the first page of this thread and you haven't stopped since, except to remind us that we aren't allowed to deal with that segment of your argument. Now in your "most recently" comment you are framing it as though we are trying to derail the thread when all we are doing is responding to your claims!

Click to expand...

I have stated this before, and I will state it again:

1. Dualism is not pertinent in any manner to the veracity of premises (i) and (ii).

2. Dualism, may be pertient, when a conceptual analysis of the cause inferred by the conclusion of the argument commences.

3. To ask that we discuss dualism in depth here at this point in this thread while it is evident that you still have problems with premise (i) and premise (ii), is an attempt to derail the thread, introduce red herrings and strawmen, and this with regards to a concept that the argument is simply not dependent upon.

Archaeopteryx said:

Furthermore, the two premises and the conclusion have been dealt with multiple times. As I keep pointing out, you are wrongfully assuming that the idea of a beginning implies theism and that the only way to maintain atheism is to deny that the universe had a beginning some finite time ago.

Click to expand...

The fact that the universe had a beginning does not necessarily imply theism. The crux of the matter is that the KCA brings us to a conclusion that has the potential to have theistic implications.

We are not offering scientific evidence for God. Rather, we supply scientific evidence that can support a premiss in an argument leading to a conclusion having theological significance.

Theist or atheist, what one is does not matter one whit when they are presented with the KCA. It is a logically sound argument whose premises can be defended and shown to be more plausibly true than their opposite, and the conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic. The conclusion of the argument requires a cause of the universe. The best explanation from the pool of live options is not that the universe somehow "self-created" itself, or that it is eternal, or that it is part of an actual larger multiverse ensemble, or that it spontaneously popped into existence out of a quantum vacuum. All of the preceding are more science fiction, or wishful thinking, than science.

The most logical, rational explanation for the data we have is that the universe was created at some point in the finite past ex nihilo. There are several other arguments that supplement this conclusion, namely the teleological argument, the ontological argument, and the contingency argument. The theisitic implications here are unavoidable if accepted. Alas, many are not willing to accept them, and so continue on in their naturalistic presuppositions to seek an explanation that does not invoke the transcendant. One must ask themselves: "Why they would doggedly hold to their view in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves it is wrong?"

Only you can be the judge of that.

Archaeopteryx said:

Several objections have been raised to your use of the word "cause" in the argument. For one, you have taken the word out of its familiar context and applied it to some entity that is radically unlike any other known cause and that possesses none of the properties that would mark it as an entity that is able to cause anything. You've leveraged the meaning of the word, but ignored the context in which finds its meaning for the sake of your argument. In other words, you are assuming that the causal principle applies to things that are unlike any of the things it actually does apply to.

Click to expand...

I shall refer you to posts # 377, #529 and #530. In them, I treated these same questions of yours.

Again in post #583 I elaborated and responded to the same question.

Archaeopteryx said:

Another objection is that your argument suffers from the fallacy of composition. You are assuming that the properties of the parts must apply to the whole. However, there is some asymmetry to your assumption. You assume the property of causality applies to the whole, but not the properties of materiality or occupying a particular space in a particular time.

Click to expand...

The fallacy of composition is reasoning that because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that property.

No where have I or any other proponent of the KCA ever argued the following:

1. If every part of a thing has a certain property, then the whole thing has that property.

2. Every part of the universe has a cause

3. Therefore the universe has a cause

This would be committing the fallacy of composition, which as you can see, I never have.

What I have maintained is that we have three good reasons why we should take premise (i) as true. They are as follows:

1. First, it’s rooted in the necessary truth that something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is literally worse than magic.

2. If things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it’s inexplicable why just anything and everything does not come into existence uncaused from nothing.

3. Third, premise (i) is constantly confirmed and never falsified in our experience as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes.

If something can not come into being from nothing without a cause, then why is it that you want to maintain that it is only the universe that can pop into being from nothing without a cause? What makes nothing so discriminatory? There cannot be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness has no properties! Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there is nothing to constrain! If the causal principle is not universally binding and applicable to all of reality as you seem to want to maintain, then why don't things like bicycles, and cars, and people, and couches just pop into existence?

Do you really think that it is possible, for say, a Koala Bear, to just pop into existence on your dining room table?

When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least you've got the intelligent efficient cause the (magician), and the effect (the rabbit)!

What you seem to want to maintain is that something more infinitely complex than a rabbit could just spontaneously pop into existence without any causal conditions whatsoever!!!

------------------------------------

Therefore, it is clear that the objection of a fallacy of composition is merely a strawman of your own construction.

Archaeopteryx said:

This is where you invoke dualism to rip reality into two unequal spheres with an unspecified mode of interaction. This division of existence began on the first page of this thread, and has been an ongoing discussion ever since.

Click to expand...

If the previous strawman was not enough, you have sought to construct an even bigger one here!

First a couple of comments:

1. Dualism in this context refers to Cartesian Dualism in the philosophy of mind which states that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. (Wikipedia)

2. The ongoing discussion of this thread has been the KCA, not dualism. In fact, a letter from Dr. Goetz was used by me only in response to a person's unsubstantiated assertion that a mind is not immaterial. This was to support the assertion that mind is not necessarily reducible to a materialistic understanding.

3. This charge of imagined "division" of yours is a pathetic attempt to cast doubt on the KCA; for no where in this thread have I attempted to "divide reality into two unequal spheres with an unspecified mode of interaction"! All of the semantical gymnastics are really just the straw stuffing of this strawman you have tried to construct in order to tear down. It is not working.

Archaeopteryx said:

For a while you were even confident that dualism saved and strengthened your argument. But ever since The Engineer and Davian responded to this, your confidence has markedly diminished, and you now demand that we no longer address one of the most fundamental assumptions of your argument.

Click to expand...

Once again, this is another instance of strawman argumentation. Dualism has nothing to do with the KCA at all! I simply alluded to it to lend credibility to the assertion that mind is not necessarily reducible to pure matter.

In light of the above, I would wholeheartedly encourage you to examine why you hold to your beliefs the way you do. It seems to me that you are a man of great faith after all! One who has great faith in his naturalism.

Elioenai26 said:

I have stated this before, and I will state it again:

1. Dualism is not pertinent in any manner to the veracity of premises (i) and (ii).

2. Dualism, may be pertient, when a conceptual analysis of the cause inferred by the conclusion of the argument commences.

Click to expand...

You began this "conceptual analysis" on the first page of this thread:

You reiterated those same points on various occasions throughout the thread. If you didn't want to discuss them, then you shouldn't have introduced them into the discussion in the first place. Your claim that we are derailing the thread by responding to its contents is nonsense. In this post you even invited me to address dualism.

3. To ask that we discuss dualism in depth here at this point in this thread while it is evident that you still have problems with premise (i) and premise (ii), is an attempt to derail the thread, introduce red herrings and strawmen, and this with regards to a concept that the argument is simply not dependent upon.

Click to expand...

Given that you introduced dualist assumptions (from page 1), even though you now claim those assumptions are irrelevant, it would seem that I was responding to your red herring.

The fact that the universe had a beginning does not necessarily imply theism. The crux of the matter is that the KCA brings us to a conclusion that has the potential to have theistic implications.

We are not offering scientific evidence for God. Rather, we supply scientific evidence that can support a premiss in an argument leading to a conclusion having theological significance.

Theist or atheist, what one is does not matter one whit when they are presented with the KCA. It is a logically sound argument whose premises can be defended and shown to be more plausibly true than their opposite, and the conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic. The conclusion of the argument requires a cause of the universe. The best explanation from the pool of live options is not that the universe somehow "self-created" itself, or that it is eternal, or that it is part of an actual larger multiverse ensemble, or that it spontaneously popped into existence out of a quantum vacuum. All of the preceding are more science fiction, or wishful thinking, than science.

The most logical, rational explanation for the data we have is that the universe was created at some point in the finite past ex nihilo. There are several other arguments that supplement this conclusion, namely the teleological argument, the ontological argument, and the contingency argument. The theisitic implications here are unavoidable if accepted. Alas, many are not willing to accept them, and so continue on in their naturalistic presuppositions to seek an explanation that does not invoke the transcendant. One must ask themselves: "Why they would doggedly hold to their view in the face of overwhelming evidence that proves it is wrong?"

Click to expand...

The text in bold is not an explanation at all. It is an essentially an admission of defeat: we don't know how it happened, so some obscure supernatural cause must have done it, somehow. The details are apparently unimportant or not worth pursuing.

I shall refer you to posts # 377, #529 and #530. In them, I treated these same questions of yours.

Again in post #583 I elaborated and responded to the same question.

Click to expand...

To which I responded.

The fallacy of composition is reasoning that because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that property.

No where have I or any other proponent of the KCA ever argued the following:

1. If every part of a thing has a certain property, then the whole thing has that property.

2. Every part of the universe has a cause

3. Therefore the universe has a cause

This would be committing the fallacy of composition, which as you can see, I never have.

What I have maintained is that we have three good reasons why we should take premise (i) as true. They are as follows:

1. First, it’s rooted in the necessary truth that something cannot come into being uncaused from nothing. To suggest that things could just pop into being uncaused out of nothing is literally worse than magic.

2. If things really could come into being uncaused out of nothing, then it’s inexplicable why just anything and everything does not come into existence uncaused from nothing.

3. Third, premise (i) is constantly confirmed and never falsified in our experience as we see things that begin to exist being brought about by prior causes.

Click to expand...

The last point is problematic for your larger argument. As you point out, in our experience we see things being brought about by prior causes. This implies a temporal sequence to causal relations. You maintain that time, like space, was created at the moment of the Big Bang. If that is true then we cannot speak of causes existing "prior" to the Big Bang. Unless we are to say that our experience is wrong in this regard, or that time transcends the beginning of the universe, there is no "prior to" that we can refer to.

Furthermore, while the argument attempts to avoid committing the fallacy of composition, it is well within its territory. The notion that every "thing" that begins to exist has a cause means that the entire set of all things has a cause is a suspiciously close parallel to the argument that because every part has a certain property the whole must have that property as well.

If something can not come into being from nothing without a cause, then why is it that you want to maintain that it is only the universe that can pop into being from nothing without a cause?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that I wanted to maintain that position. To my mind, it remains a mystery (one of the most baffling), but not one that theology can help us to unravel.

What makes nothing so discriminatory? There cannot be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness has no properties! Nor can anything constrain nothingness, for there is nothing to constrain! If the causal principle is not universally binding and applicable to all of reality as you seem to want to maintain, then why don't things like bicycles, and cars, and people, and couches just pop into existence?

What you seem to want to maintain is that something more infinitely complex than a rabbit could just spontaneously pop into existence without any causal conditions whatsoever!!!

Click to expand...

Actually, that would seem to adhere more to your position, given the lack of properties you ascribe to your cause, with the apparent exception of one property (being a cause).

If the previous strawman was not enough, you have sought to construct an even bigger one here!

First a couple of comments:

1. Dualism in this context refers to Cartesian Dualism in the philosophy of mind which states that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical. (Wikipedia)

2. The ongoing discussion of this thread has been the KCA, not dualism. In fact, a letter from Dr. Goetz was used by me only in response to a person's unsubstantiated assertion that a mind is not immaterial. This was to support the assertion that mind is not necessarily reducible to a materialistic understanding.

3. This charge of imagined "division" of yours is a pathetic attempt to cast doubt on the KCA; for no where in this thread have I attempted to "divide reality into two unequal spheres with an unspecified mode of interaction"! All of the semantical gymnastics are really just the straw stuffing of this strawman you have tried to construct in order to tear down. It is not working.

Click to expand...

I don't see how you call your own position a strawman. This thread is replete with instances where you have indeed divided reality into two unequal spheres with an unspecified mode of interaction. You claim that one sphere (the supernatural, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, mind) created the second sphere (nature, matter, space, time, things, Etc). The mode of interaction is unspecified because you haven't explained (1) how the first sphere gave rise to (i.e. created) the second, (2) how it interacts with the second. I would think that (1) is important to any explanation for the origin of the universe. With regard to (2), we have some idea about how matter can interact with other matter. Much remains to be learned, but at least we have some idea. By contrast, we have no idea how matter interacts with the ghostly stuff of the first sphere, and you're not going to tell us.

Once again, this is another instance of strawman argumentation. Dualism has nothing to do with the KCA at all! I simply alluded to it to lend credibility to the assertion that mind is not necessarily reducible to pure matter.

Click to expand...

You've been alluding to it from the beginning. If it has nothing to do with the KCA, then perhaps you should have left it out of the discourse.

In light of the above, I would wholeheartedly encourage you to examine why you hold to your beliefs the way you do. It seems to me that you are a man of great faith after all! One who has great faith in his naturalism.

Click to expand...

Why do I hold the beliefs I do? Well, when I was a Christian, I didn't find any of these sorts of arguments convincing, so I wouldn't pin it down to "faith in naturalism". I know some Christians who agree. Because they are theists I would be hesitant in saying that their "faith in naturalism" is preventing them from finding these kinds of arguments compelling.

Archaeopteryx said:

You began this "conceptual analysis" on the first page of this thread:

​

You reiterated those same points on various occasions throughout the thread. If you didn't want to discuss them, then you shouldn't have introduced them into the discussion in the first place. Your claim that we are derailing the thread by responding to its contents is nonsense. In this post you even invited me to address dualism.



Given that you introduced dualist assumptions (from page 1), even though you now claim those assumptions are irrelevant, it would seem that I was responding to your red herring.



The text in bold is not an explanation at all. It is an essentially an admission of defeat: we don't know how it happened, so some obscure supernatural cause must have done it, somehow. The details are apparently unimportant or not worth pursuing.



To which I responded.



The last point is problematic for your larger argument. As you point out, in our experience we see things being brought about by prior causes. This implies a temporal sequence to causal relations. You maintain that time, like space, was created at the moment of the Big Bang. If that is true then we cannot speak of causes existing "prior" to the Big Bang. Unless we are to say that our experience is wrong in this regard, or that time transcends the beginning of the universe, there is no "prior to" that we can refer to.

Furthermore, while the argument attempts to avoid committing the fallacy of composition, it is well within its territory. The notion that every "thing" that begins to exist has a cause means that the entire set of all things has a cause is a suspiciously close parallel to the argument that because every part has a certain property the whole must have that property as well.



I didn't say that I wanted to maintain that position. To my mind, it remains a mystery (one of the most baffling), but not one that theology can help us to unravel.



Actually, that would seem to adhere more to your position, given the lack of properties you ascribe to your cause, with the apparent exception of one property (being a cause).



I don't see how you call your own position a strawman. This thread is replete with instances where you have indeed divided reality into two unequal spheres with an unspecified mode of interaction. You claim that one sphere (the supernatural, immaterial, spaceless, timeless, mind) created the second sphere (nature, matter, space, time, things, Etc). The mode of interaction is unspecified because you haven't explained (1) how the first sphere gave rise to (i.e. created) the second, (2) how it interacts with the second. I would think that (1) is important to any explanation for the origin of the universe. With regard to (2), we have some idea about how matter can interact with other matter. Much remains to be learned, but at least we have some idea. By contrast, we have no idea how matter interacts with the ghostly stuff of the first sphere, and you're not going to tell us.



You've been alluding to it from the beginning. If it has nothing to do with the KCA, then perhaps you should have left it out of the discourse.



Why do I hold the beliefs I do? Well, when I was a Christian, I didn't find any of these sorts of arguments convincing, so I wouldn't pin it down to "faith in naturalism". I know some Christians who agree. Because they are theists I would be hesitant in saying that their "faith in naturalism" is preventing them from finding these kinds of arguments compelling.

Click to expand...

All of the above essentially let's me know you do not find the argument compelling. I knew this without you having to reiterate it again.

The problem with your position is that you admit that you do not know how the universe began, but you cannot say positively that it was not a transcendent cause. Therefore, your position is one that is more agnostic than anything else.

And in light of the lack of any good argument for a naturalistic cause from you or anyone else, the supernatural explanation is looking better all the time.

Elioenai26 said:

All of the above essentially let's me know you do not find the argument compelling. I knew this without you having to reiterate it again.

Click to expand...

Then perhaps you should return to those points where I elaborate on why I don't find it compelling.

The problem with your position is that you admit that you do not know how the universe began, but you cannot say positively that it was not a transcendent cause. Therefore, your position is one that is more agnostic than anything else.

And in light of the lack of any good argument for a naturalistic cause from you or anyone else, the supernatural explanation is looking better all the time.

Click to expand...

"I don't know" is not a problem with my position. It is as an honest expression of our current state of knowledge. You don't know either. You believe it was some obscure supernatural cause, but you can't tell us how that cause created everything that there is (except that it did). That doesn't make your explanation look better; it makes look like it isn't really explaining anything at all.

Archaeopteryx said:

Then perhaps you should return to those points where I elaborate on why I don't find it compelling.



"I don't know" is not a problem with my position. It is as an honest expression of our current state of knowledge. You don't know either. You believe it was some obscure supernatural cause, but you can't tell us how that cause created everything that there is (except that it did). That doesn't make your explanation look better; it makes look like it isn't really explaining anything at all.

Click to expand...

I do know how the universe was created. I also assure you that my knowledge is not based on an argument for God's existence. To him whom the Eternal Word does speak is freed from multiplied questionings.

Elioenai26 said:

I do know how the universe was created. I also assure you that my knowledge is not based on an argument for God's existence. To him whom the Eternal Word does speak is freed from multiplied questionings.

Click to expand...

When all else fails, preach.

Elioenai26 said:

I do know how the universe was created. I also assure you that my knowledge is not based on an argument for God's existence. To him whom the Eternal Word does speak is freed from multiplied questionings.

Click to expand...

If you do know, then you certainly haven't shared that knowledge in this thread.

Archaeopteryx said:

If you do know, then you certainly haven't shared that knowledge in this thread.

Click to expand...

If you are not willing to hear the truth, then no one can tell you.

Davian said:

When all else fails, preach.

Click to expand...

You have heard one argument for the existence of God. I dare say, most do not come to Christ because of a philosophical argument. But faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

You have heard the word proclaimed to you, no doubt many years ago, and thus far, you have rejected it. This says something about you, not the one who proclaims it. You are the one who has to answer for the way you conduct your life, and no argument will persuade you to do anything you are not prepared to do.

You know why you believe what you do, whatever that may be, and ultimately, you will bear the consequences for living according to said beliefs.

Elioenai26 said:

If you are not willing to hear the truth, then no one can tell you.

Click to expand...

Until you start sharing the truth of your ostensible knowledge there is nothing to hear.

Elioenai26 said:

You have heard one argument for the existence of God. I dare say, most do not come to Christ because of a philosophical argument. But faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Click to expand...

If most do not come to your deity by means of an argument, then why even bother with one?

You have heard the word proclaimed to you, no doubt many years ago, and thus far, you have rejected it. This says something about you, not the one who proclaims it. You are the one who has to answer for the way you conduct your life, and no argument will persuade you to do anything you are not prepared to do.

Click to expand...

What does it say about him?

You know why you believe what you do, whatever that may be, and ultimately, you will bear the consequences for living according to said beliefs.

Click to expand...

What consequences do you have in mind?

Faith is not a virtue. Nothing should be taken on faith. And yet the religious constantly ask us to believe wild, outlandish claims for which they cannot possibly claim absolute knowledge- on faith.

We discard faith and use reasoning and evidence in every other area of our lives- but when it comes to what many consider the most important one, we use faith? This doesn't make sense, in any sense, at all.

Elioenai26 said:

I do know how the universe was created.

Click to expand...

Nope.

What makes you a pathetic homo sapien is the fact that you refuse to admit ignorance. None of us know. That includes you.

I also assure you that my knowledge is not based on an argument for God's existence.

Click to expand...

You might as well assure us that your knowledge is based on absolutely nothing. You've just done so.

To him whom the Eternal Word does speak is freed from multiplied questionings.

Click to expand...

Hot air.

Elioenai26 said:

I do know how the universe was created.

Click to expand...

No you don't. Knowledge is demonstrable. What you have is called 'faith', which is an epistemological dead end.

Elioenai26 said:

You have heard one argument for the existence of God. I dare say, most do not come to Christ because of a philosophical argument. But faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

Click to expand...

You have not provided sufficient reason to believe that you have "the word of Christ".

Elioenai26 said:

You have heard the word proclaimed to you, no doubt many years ago, and thus far, you have rejected it.

Click to expand...

As I have rejected the claims of used car salesmen, snake oil purveyors, and promoters of "mysteries", like the "Bermuda triangle".

Elioenai26 said:

This says something about you, not the one who proclaims it.

Click to expand...

But what you proclaim, and the manner in which you have done it, says a lot about you.

Elioenai26 said:

You are the one who has to answer for the way you conduct your life, and no argument will persuade you to do anything you are not prepared to do.

Click to expand...

That is not true. I have made several significant, and in ways, surprising, changes in my worldview in recent years, following convincing arguments from others. Those arguments, however, were consistent, coherent, and evidenced.

Elioenai26 said:

You know why you believe what you do, whatever that may be, and ultimately, you will bear the consequences for living according to said beliefs.

Click to expand...

For that to carry any weight, you have to wave your Harry PotterTM wand while saying it out loud. Perhaps you could upload that to Youtube?

Archaeopteryx said:

What does it say about him?



What consequences do you have in mind?

Click to expand...

If you are familiar with the teachings of Christ, then you should already know the answers to these questions.

Eight Foot Manchild said:

No you don't. Knowledge is demonstrable. What you have is called 'faith', which is an epistemological dead end.

Click to expand...

No greater love has a man than this, to lay down his life for his friend.

Again it is written:

The world shall know you are My disciples by the love you have for one another.

These are the words of God and they tell us that the greatest demonstrable proof of our knowing Him is the love that we have in our hearts which expresses itself towards others.

Elioenai26 said:

No greater love has a man than this, to lay down his life for his friend.

Again it is written:

The world shall know you are My disciples by the love you have for one another.

These are the words of God and they tell us that the greatest demonstrable proof of our knowing Him is the love that we have in our hearts which expresses itself towards others.

Click to expand...

You mean, in the way that you have continually lied, plagiarized work, and mislabeled almost every atheist on this board?

And in the meantime, maybe you should tell all of the ridiculous apologists just what God told you all. They want the best arguments for God, right? Well, then they should use the best they've got. I'm inclined to agree, it is the best you've got. In that it proves absolutely nothing.

Go ahead, spout it off as your best argument. At least you'll be honest and kind and loving while your religion dies off. That's all we're asking for anyway.

Too bad the majority of loving Christians harbor so much hate.

Elioenai26 said:

If you are familiar with the teachings of Christ, then you should already know the answers to these questions.

Click to expand...

I am familiar with the Bible, but people seem to differ on what they think it teaches, so I would like to know what you think the consequences are and what you think it says about Davian.

Danyc said:

You mean, in the way that you have continually lied, plagiarized work, and mislabeled almost every atheist on this board?

And in the meantime, maybe you should tell all of the ridiculous apologists just what God told you all. They want the best arguments for God, right? Well, then they should use the best they've got. I'm inclined to agree, it is the best you've got. In that it proves absolutely nothing.

Go ahead, spout it off as your best argument. At least you'll be honest and kind and loving while your religion dies off. That's all we're asking for anyway.

Too bad the majority of loving Christians harbor so much hate.

Click to expand...

If anyone is harboring hate, it is you, for it is evidenced in your words.

If I spoke as you do, think as you do, and act as you do, you would no doubt agree with me. As it stands, you do not agree with me because I testify that your godless worldview is evil.

Too bad you haven't even met the majority of Christians, let alone know whether or not they harbor hate as you claim they do.

Just tell me how many atheists are involved in taking care of orphans, widows, the homeless, the hungry, the outcasts of society, the sick, those which live in countries that have been ravished and raped by the ruthless whims of atheist dictators and the millions who have been raised in godless societies that have been taught that God is dead.

Talk to the millions whose lives have been changed by the love and mercy that was shown to them by Christians who were complete strangers, but who nonetheless displayed self-less love to those which were looked upon by society as unlovable.

I pray you experience this love because it is evident that you are a very bitter and hateful young person.

Archaeopteryx said:

I am familiar with the Bible, but people seem to differ on what they think it teaches, so I would like to know what you think the consequences are and what you think it says about Davian.

Click to expand...

It does not matter what I think. Only God's view of Davian is what counts.

At the foot of the cross, you, Davian, and myself are all equal. We all need a Savior from our sin. The one thing that separates me from you is that I have accepted Christ's precious gift of grace and mercy. I pray you do the same.