Tuesday, 10 March 2009

We just dont know

Most xian arguments comit the 'god of the gaps' logical fallacy. They assume that simply because the atheist cannot completely answer there argument then their sky daddy must exist. So for example they argue that because atheists cannot explain where there universe came from their sky daddy must have made it yet ignore the fact that scientists of the future might find the answer. Or simply because atheists cannot explain the historical evidence for the resurrection* then Jebus rose from the dead. But how do they know that historians of the future wont invent a killer argument that nobody at the moment has thought of?

Infact atheists are less arogant and more open minded as we simply aknowledge that we dont know. Now i dont meant that we dont know in the classical sense (as in we are not agnostics) and we know that there sky daddy doesnt exist just as we know that fairies dont exist at the bottom of our gardens. But if we dont know then we should know it isnt true. I think that makes sense.

*Actually atheists can explain it quite easily, but lets pretend they cant purely for arguments sake.

19 comments:

johnny said...

As i see it, both sides fall into this fallacy from time to time. The naturalist versions of 'god of the gaps' appear to be evolution dunnit; natural selection dunnit; Big Bang dunnit... and when big bang appears as though there was a beginning, then shift the goal posts to multi-universe dunnit or big bang/big crunch dunnit....

or the ever p0pular, "we just don't know yet", which, at first glance, seems like it's honest inquiry but often is not... somebody famous once said, "we can't allow a divine foot in the door".


johnny

Sir-Think-A-Lot said...

Actually Mike, I dont deny that its POSSIBLE that someday we might find scientific explanations of these things. However, simply because its POSSIBLE doesnt mean its going to happen.

FiFi said...

Thing is Johnny, we didn't just pluck these concepts from nowhere - evolution, natural selection, big bang theory etc etc. These theories developed from centuries of hard work and experimentation to discover the sound scientific theories and physical laws that all matter abides by. Its not a conscious thing on the part of matter, we're talking forces such as gravity, kinetic energy and the suchlike.

Thing is, if you say that science is wrong, then explain to me how your car works, or your television, or - hey - your computer! Do you think somebody prayed and god made it for them? You can't pray your way through an empty petrol tank.

Science gave us these things. Can you tell me what similar level of lucid, solid, sound proof there is for any of your make-believe nonsense? Sorry for the sarkiness there, but really man you're a grown adult and if you still believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden (about as believable as a god is) then you really need to grow up.

Fine, go and weave some nonsense sentences as you usually do. Quote the bible at me. Do it as much as you like, because you may as well be reading from Grimms Fairy Tales for all the credibility it holds.

Anonymous said...

Sound Scientific Theories?

Sound (Unproven) Scientific Theories.

Naturalist God of the Gaps.

johnny said...

Hi FiFi,

I saw this, this morning, but i didn't have time to respond...

You said, "Thing is Johnny, we didn't just pluck these concepts from nowhere - evolution, natural selection, big bang theory etc etc.

I don't believe i've made such a claim/accusation. There are a couple of question that need to be asked of these, however... (1)how much natural presuppositions were in those that claim credit to these? (You said, "we...". Did you have a hand in these thoughts?)
(2) How much supernaturalism (read this as 'metaphysic') is tested for, before the natural explanation is accepted? (i think that's how i want to ask that question)

These theories developed from centuries

Again, you said "we". Are you centuries old? I'm not saying this to be pedantic, but you did accuse me of not researching on my own, so i'm just trying to establish if you hold me (Christians in general) to the same standard as yourself.

of hard work and experimentation

Could you point me to some material that shows how the experiments were performed that includes the experiments that eliminated the possibility of God being in the picture? Or something that proves that the natural is the only possibility?

If those experiments did not isolate all possible situations, then it is fudging the results.


to discover the sound scientific theories and physical laws that all matter abides by.

That's a funny thing, FiFi. The worldview that claims that all things came about from nothing, and espouses abiogenesis, and "a dance to the DNA" is basically worshiping chance, yet how could you possibly have any trust in your senses, when you claim that they were produced by these very same "gods".


Its not a conscious thing on the part of matter,

lol... gee, thanks for pointing that out :D


we're talking forces such as gravity, kinetic energy and the suchlike.

Here's another funny thing... kinetic energy... (i'm going to play dumb here..) Where did all the energy come from?

Thing is, if you say that science is wrong, then explain to me how your car works, or your television, or - hey - your computer!

Computer? What computer? I'm in a corner pr.... just kidding.

Tell you what... when you can prove that we aren't "brains in vats" or "last thursday-ists", then you'll have understood enough to answer to your own question.

Do you think somebody prayed and god made it for them? You can't pray your way through an empty petrol tank.

Are you making a 100% statement?
Since you claim to be a "mind of science", prove it.
Again, i'm not being pedantic.

Science gave us these things. Can you tell me what similar level of lucid, solid, sound proof there is for any of your make-believe nonsense?

"make-believe nonsense"?? Pardon me, but your bias is showing.

Also, sorry, but you are making a mistake in reasoning...

Where is your scientific test that proves your scientific positivism?

As far as my "lucid, solid, sound proof"?
1)Your mind was not a result of chance, random occurences.
2)Your ability to decide is not an illusion.. that is to say, free will is not an illusion, but if we are all the result of blind, natural laws and chemical reactions (yes, i know, redundant) then free will doesn't exist-- and when you said that you used to be a Christian, your "choice" to leave was also an illusion. You didn't choose to read Dawkins, but rather you read it because some molecule in your head happened to bump into some other molecule, etc., etc., so on and so forth.

Sorry for the sarkiness there,

no apology necessary. Just don't jump on me, if and when i reply in kind.

but really man you're a grown adult and if you still believe in fairies at the bottom of the garden (about as believable as a god is) then you really need to grow up.

hmmm, i'll give this some thought.
Tell me... in your worldview, nothing blew up and produced something... this nonsense is what i've to look forward too? Oh wait, the science of the gaps response is, "just wait, science'll tell us someday" ;)

Fine, go and weave some nonsense sentences as you usually do.

In a different post you said something like,
"Please, just look into what I've said and honestly, for your own sake, be straight with yourselves on this. I know its hard to leave the Christian community, cos I've done it myself. But life is so much better when you live in the real world."

Let's play a little Pascal's Wager , shall we?

Between atheism and Christianity..

If atheism is true, what have i lost? What have you gained?

If Christianity is true, what has the non-Christian lost? What has the Christian gained?

I realise that not many folks care for Pascal's wager, but your statement, "for your own sake, be straight with yourselves" defeats itself.

Quote the bible at me. Do it as much as you like, because you may as well be reading from Grimms Fairy Tales for all the credibility it holds.

And your point is?

If it makes no difference to you, why mention it?

And if it does bother you, why? Especially if you are honest with yourself.

If you are not a hypocrite, then i offer you to do as you prescribe... namely, "for your own sake, be straight with yourself" and actually think abit about the verses presented.


johnny

FiFi said...

Johnny, you don't half talk a load of old shite.

Sorry, but you do!!

I'll respond to what I understand. Now really, I am an intelligent person but you come up with arguments that have no place in reality. So I'll answer what I feel is seriously in need of answering. Its only fair, as you pick and choose what you answer and elegantly side-stepped the question of science actually working in the real world. Funny, admittedly, but didn't get anybody anywhere and I thought that was the point of all this.

I say 'we' as in the royal 'we' of people who have common sense and realise that there is no god. Of course I had no part in Darwin's theory of evolution, or Newton's laws. How stupid you must be to even entertain that as a serious argument! Or are you playing your part and being a parody?

JUDAS PRIEST!! You are aren't you?? Its just occurred to me that you must be a parody, and you're just taking the mick here. Sorry, I should have seen it sooner!

However, for the benefit of those people who actually think you're serious, I'll continue.

"Again, you said "we". Are you centuries old? I'm not saying this to be pedantic, but you did accuse me of not researching on my own, so i'm just trying to establish if you hold me (Christians in general) to the same standard as yourself."

Johnny, you misunderstand me. I was saying you have to assess your source. As the source of all your research is coming from the Christian perspective, then you should maybe try reading something written by an atheist once in a while. It makes much more common sense.

And you WERE being pedantic.

"Could you point me to some material that shows how the experiments were performed that includes the experiments that eliminated the possibility of God being in the picture? Or something that proves that the natural is the only possibility?

If those experiments did not isolate all possible situations, then it is fudging the results."

I can point you in the direction of some science research papers and then you can make up your own mind about it. DON'T have the Bible alongside it for reference though! A dictionary would be much more useful :-)

If you think its fudging results, you don't understand about double-blind trials, presenting experiments in impartial ways, assessing experiments against similar ones which then build up evidence towards a conclusion. Believe me, if god was there anywhere, the scientists would have found him by now. But they haven't. He only pops up to speak in the minds of madmen.

When one person is delusional, its called mental illness. When a group of people are delusional, its called religion.

How true! Unfrotunately, I didn't write that. I read it in the God Delusion but I don't think Dawkins wrote it, he was quoting a colleague. Can't remember who, sorry. Doesn't make it any less true though.

"That's a funny thing, FiFi. The worldview that claims that all things came about from nothing, and espouses abiogenesis, and "a dance to the DNA" is basically worshiping chance, yet how could you possibly have any trust in your senses, when you claim that they were produced by these very same "gods"."

All I can say to that is... WTF???? You MUST be a parody to come out with that twaddle. DNA doesn't dance, and I claim that nothing was produced by a god, so don't try that one on.

"Its not a conscious thing on the part of matter,

lol... gee, thanks for pointing that out :D"

Well, you seem to need telling these things.

"Here's another funny thing... kinetic energy... (i'm going to play dumb here..) Where did all the energy come from?"

Gee Johnny, you really want an hour-long science lesson right now?? Go back to school would you, then come back when you can grasp the basics of physics.

"Thing is, if you say that science is wrong, then explain to me how your car works, or your television, or - hey - your computer!

Computer? What computer? I'm in a corner pr.... just kidding."

Highly amusing. But just answer the f'in question would you??

"You can't pray your way through an empty petrol tank.

Are you making a 100% statement?
Since you claim to be a "mind of science", prove it.
Again, i'm not being pedantic"

Yes, I am making a 100% statement. Go on, give it a try! See if you can get from one side of the Nevada desert on 1 litre of petrol. Go on, I dare you.

And you are, again, being pedantic. It seems to be your natural state, pretty much.

I'm bored now. I'll wait till Mike's next post before continuing banging my head against this brick wall. The rest of your post is utter twaddle.

I've given up. I realise now (thanks for bringing this to my attention Johnny) that you just can't argue with stupidity.

Sir-Think-A-lot said...

You are aren't you?? Its just occurred to me that you must be a parody, and you're just taking the mick here. Sorry, I should have seen it sooner!

hmmmmm....maybe Mikey and Jonny are teh same person and he(or she) does this for his own sick entertainment....

Nah Just kidding. I'm sure Jonny is real, and I'm fairly certain Mikey is too.

johnny said...

FiFi,

Johnny, you don't half talk a load of old shite.

Sorry, but you do!!


huh... i'm not from Great Britain so you might be doing some sort of slang, but "you don't talk shite but you do?" Law of Non-contradiction.

I'll respond to what I understand. Now really, I am an intelligent person but you come up with arguments that have no place in reality. So I'll answer what I feel is seriously in need of answering. Its only fair, as you pick and choose what you answer and elegantly side-stepped the question of science actually working in the real world.

FiFi, what i was pointing out, not side-stepping, is that there are things assumed that need to be considered. You're talking about the real world, but then you conflate the presumption to include things that can not be directly tested, but have every bearing on the worldview presuposition.

Funny, admittedly, but didn't get anybody anywhere and I thought that was the point of all this.

What, exactly, was funny? I answered your question. That you didn't understand it, was most likely my fault. Let me try again.
The science that makes cars run, is repeatable. The science that makes theories on the origin of the universe is not repeatable, since that is the question being asked. And only if new universes 'pop out of the test tubes' could there be significant verification that the theory is correct.

I say 'we' as in the royal 'we' of people who have common sense and realise that there is no god.

You may have meant it that way, but you did say, "we didn't pluck these concepts...", implying that you are employed as a scientist, or somesuch.
As far as that "common sense" goes, did you know that there are many scientists that believe God exists?... yes, real scientists.

Of course I had no part in Darwin's theory of evolution, or Newton's laws. How stupid you must be to even entertain that as a serious argument! Or are you playing your part and being a parody?

You make an absurd claim, and it's in the name of "royal 'we'" and "common sense", but i make an absurd comment to point out your absurdity, and now i'm the parody?

JUDAS PRIEST!! You are aren't you?? Its just occurred to me that you must be a parody, and you're just taking the mick here. Sorry, I should have seen it sooner!

Nope, sorry, neither Mike nor myself are parodies.


However, for the benefit of those people who actually think you're serious, I'll continue.

Thank you.. because i know i'm serious.

Johnny, you misunderstand me. I was saying you have to assess your source. As the source of all your research is coming from the Christian perspective, then you should maybe try reading something written by an atheist once in a while. It makes much more common sense.

Interesting that you know all my research is from Christians. You must only be reading over my shoulder when i happen to have a Christian source in my hand.
Next time you read over my shoulder, at least introduce yourself.

And you WERE being pedantic.

no, but now i am.

I can point you in the direction of some science research papers and then you can make up your own mind about it. DON'T have the Bible alongside it for reference though! A dictionary would be much more useful :-)

Why don't you look at those research papers and judge for yourself whether the experiment even considered the possibility of the Supernatural. I guarantee that, at best, only the conclusion was reach against God, but not the experiment itself.

If you think its fudging results, you don't understand about double-blind trials, presenting experiments in impartial ways, assessing experiments against similar ones which then build up evidence towards a conclusion.

I understand it. What you don't seem to understand is that science says that it can not say anything about God. The natural can only look for the natural, apart from Revelation.

Believe me, if god was there anywhere, the scientists would have found him by now. But they haven't. He only pops up to speak in the minds of madmen.

Ohhhh, now you want me to believe you. What happened to "research for yourself"?
And you think i'm the madma.... wait, you aren't looking over my shoulder holding a sharp object, are you?
Wow, nice hair.. did you do something different?

When one person is delusional, its called mental illness. When a group of people are delusional, its called religion.
How true! Unfrotunately, I didn't write that. I read it in the God Delusion but I don't think Dawkins wrote it, he was quoting a colleague. Can't remember who, sorry. Doesn't make it any less true though.


LOL... i keep getting told that atheism is not a religion. Thanks for showing that i'm right ;)

All I can say to that is... WTF???? You MUST be a parody to come out with that twaddle. DNA doesn't dance, and I claim that nothing was produced by a god, so don't try that one on.

Actually, i think it was your beloved Dawkins that said, "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."

By 'gods', i was refering to Big Bang (the 'something from nothing' theory), abiogenesis, and macro-evolution (even though 'macro' is not a correct name, since "atheistic" evolution includes 'micro-evolution', but i'm not sure how to make the distiction in order to satisfy you).

Well, you seem to need telling these things.

Don't worry about me.. i have been understanding you, for the most part. It's you that claim i'm not making sense. But you've also whined when you thought i was talking down to others.

Gee Johnny, you really want an hour-long science lesson right now?? Go back to school would you, then come back when you can grasp the basics of physics.

no, no, no, FiFi. That's not going to fly here. Answer the question... "where did the energy come from?"

Ok, i'll make the question easier for you.....
If the universe is all there is, and there is nothing beyond the universe, that would mean that the universe is a closed system... energy goes from "high to low"...
This means that the universe (and energy itself) had a beginning... Where did all the energy come from?


Do you see the point yet?
I'll spell it out for you.. the reason one would look for multi-verses or universes caused by virtual particles, or even the 'big crunch... oscilating universes' is to avoid the problem of needing a beginning.

Highly amusing. But just answer the f'in question would you??

Well, if you were paying attention, you would know that i had answered.

Yes, I am making a 100% statement. Go on, give it a try! See if you can get from one side of the Nevada desert on 1 litre of petrol. Go on, I dare you.

Hey, you say that you are "science minded", how many times would the experiment need to take place, in order for you to have 100% certainty?

Pay attention, FiFi... That statement can not be made with 100% certainty. Let's say that i tried to pray my way across Nevada and i don't succeed... it does not prove a darn thing, other than i did not make it that time.
This isn't a cop out, although i'm sure that's what you'll make it out to be.

And you are, again, being pedantic. It seems to be your natural state, pretty much.

Whatever you say.

I'm bored now. I'll wait till Mike's next post before continuing banging my head against this brick wall. The rest of your post is utter twaddle.

I've given up. I realise now (thanks for bringing this to my attention Johnny) that you just can't argue with stupidity.


Don't worry, i haven't given up on you... although, i suppose i'm not going to have philosophy teaching jobs knocking down my door anytime soon. (don't worry, i wasn't actually considering it)

johnny

CodewordConduit said...

Hey Johnny :)

Do me a favour and describe any attributes of your interpretation of "God" that could be falsified...

Go on :p

(Hope all's well)

Cheers, Sarah.

johnny said...

Hi CC,

I'm not sure that there are any.

If there is not any falsifiable attributes, what does that prove?

johnny

johnny said...

Wow, that is an interesting thought..

anyone have any suggestions?

I might consider asking (Tweb's) Dr. Jack Bauer (Glen Peoples)

http://www.beretta-online.com/CV.html

but i would kinda like to kick this idea around for a bit, before going that route.

johnny

johnny said...

Brief thought, and then off to work..


FiFi had made the claim that so many experiments have been made, that if God were there, He would have already popped up... her assumption would then be that God is falsifiable (she would also have the assumption that God is a material being, as per her naturalist worldview).

I made the alternate claim (to Sarah, aka CC) that i don't think any of God's attributes are falsifiable.... which turns out to be the same sort of thing i had been saying in the thread.. that God is not subject to science. That is also a claim made by scientists and philosophers.

Let's suppose that there are attributes of God that are falsifiable... i think that would mean that the test (experiment) was greater than the particular attribute. (this is one reason that we trust the laws of logic and mathmatics)...

But again, that God is not falsifiable says nothing about the existence of God (for or against).


OK, gotta run. Should have left 5 minutes ago.

johnny

FiFi said...

Johnny, when you talk about attributes of god not being falsifiable, could you please specify what you see to be an attribute of god? You state quite confidently that they are not falsifiable but don't give explanation as to why?

johnny said...

FiFi,

I believe CC was refering to things like:

Holy, Just, Love, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Eternal, Transcendent, Immanent, Sovereign.

johnny

johnny said...

Ooops, sorry FiFi, i got sidetracked... two of our dogs were fighting and when i sat back down at the computer, i forgot to finish answering you.


You said, "You state quite confidently that they are not falsifiable but don't give explanation as to why?"

I mean that i'm not sure that any of those could be proven or disproven.

For example, Eternal... we would have to be eternal ourself, in order to prove 100% that someone or something is eternal (and even if we were eternal, anything that is not eternal, would have to take our word for it). We can surmise that something must be eternal, but there is no test that can be done.. it's not falsifiable.


And, for the record, i am not confident on this... CC's question has piqued my curiousity. I don't recall having read any papers on the subject.


Any thoughts on how to test these or any others?

johnny

FiFi said...

Johnny,

I would say that those things aren't event testable (is that a word?!?). However, some do contradict each other, and so cannot exist in one being at the same time.

The classic example of this is that he can possibly be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time. The reason for this is, that if he has a plan and knows what is going to happen in the world to every human, plant and animal on this planet, then how can he also be all-powerful, because he would be powerless to do anything other than what he knows is going to happen anyway.

Therefore, praying is rendered useless because it can't possibly change anything (unless part of his plan was that you should pray at a certain point in time). And if he knows what you will do, indeed what everybody will do during their lifetimes, then where does this famous 'free-will' that vicars keep on about come into the equation?

Its also rather convenient, I might add, that these attributes are all unquantifiable. But just because you can't test whether he's really there or not, we shouldn't assume to go with the 'yes he is there' option.

Lets look at these attributes again:

"Holy, Just, Love, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Eternal, Transcendent, Immanent, Sovereign."

I think just reading that list proves my point.

Wouldn't you agree??

johnny said...

FiFi replied,
"Johnny,

I would say that those things aren't event testable (is that a word?!?).


Yes, that's what i said.. if they are not testable, then they are not falsifiable, with the possible exception of your next statement...

"However, some do contradict each other, and so cannot exist in one being at the same time."

Contradict... the Law of Non-Contradiction....
A cannot be both B and non-B at the same time and in the same way.

Let me guess... Love, Omnipotence and Omniscience?

The classic example of this is that he can possibly be omnipotent and omniscient at the same time.

Yes He can, but i'll let you continue.

The reason for this is, that if he has a plan and knows what is going to happen in the world to every human, plant and animal on this planet, then how can he also be all-powerful, because he would be powerless to do anything other than what he knows is going to happen anyway.

Short answer is, that's not a contradiction, that is a conformation... In fact, what you have here is the beginnings of Hyper-Calvinism (not unsimilar to Fred Phelps and his Westboro Baptist Church... although, they are a contradiction, but we can save that for some other time).

The real trouble comes when the Christian tries to throw Freewill into the mix (still not a contradiction, but it gets more difficult).

The best analogy that i can think of, that could show that this is not a contradiction, is if you watched and videotaped a football game. If you watched it again, you could know what was going to happen without causing the players to do anything different than what they did. In a way, God's fore-knowledge could be like this.

Now, you mention praying wouldn't effect anything. Aside from this being incorrect, it also does not create a contradiction. (mind you, i'm pointing out how it's not a contradiction. I'm not saying that this is how God does it)
Suppose God ordained, before the foundation of the world, that on March 17, 2009 at 8:46pm central time, i would pray for FiFi to start to know God.
The prayer would have been there from before Adam and Eve sinned, just waiting for all this time for me to think it would be a good thing to pray for you.
The pray would be of my own will, in accordance with God's Will, and still leave you free to do what ever happens between then and when you die.

Now, a question for you...
Did i pray for you, or did i just give a hypothethical explaination?

Therefore, praying is rendered useless because it can't possibly change anything (unless part of his plan was that you should pray at a certain point in time).

Oops, sorry, i didn't read ahead.

And if he knows what you will do, indeed what everybody will do during their lifetimes, then where does this famous 'free-will' that vicars keep on about come into the equation?

Are you not able to "know" if someone is going to do something, without causing that person to do it?

Its also rather convenient, I might add, that these attributes are all unquantifiable.

ummm, ya... unfalsifiable.


But just because you can't test whether he's really there or not, we shouldn't assume to go with the 'yes he is there' option.

I have not defaulted to that position. You've attributed that to me (or Christians in general) on more than one occasion.

And just to nip it in the bud, my reason for belief is not because i have been told by others. It may have been the start of it, back when i was 4, but i've studied. i looked. i've thought. God has confirmed. God has provided. God has taught.
I don't expect you to believe me when i say that God has confirmed, provided, taught. Nor do i expect you to understand.
I'm only telling you this, so you can stop attributing me to a default and to a "because they told him", and this goes for many Christians, not just me.
Oh, you can continue to do this, if you want, but at least you know.

Lets look at these attributes again:

"Holy, Just, Love, Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnipresence, Eternal, Transcendent, Immanent, Sovereign."

I think just reading that list proves my point.

Wouldn't you agree??



No.. if you have a point, you have not presented a compelling version of it.



Regarding the Problem of Evil, if you are, in the least bit willing to look into it, read
God, Freedom, and Evil
by Alvin Plantinga

(and the cool thing about the argument, belief in freewill is not necessary, only knowledge that freewill is possible)

And, contrary to the worldview called naturalism, freewill is experimentally proven (sorta..) .
Try reading Benjamin Libet's book, Mind Time ... i mentioned this to you before.

God Bless,
johnny

FiFi said...

Johnny, Whilst I appreciate your efforts, as much as you dont' think my arguments hold any water, I think the same of yours.

I guess different people come to different conclusions. Who's to say who's right and who's wrong.

So lets agree to disagree on this particular thread.

One last thing though, I used to 'know god' as you put it so if you pray for me to start to know god, your prayers would be misdirected (not to mention a total waste of time, but that's another argument for another time).

See you in another thread.

FiFi x

johnny said...

FiFi said,
I guess different people come to different conclusions. Who's to say who's right and who's wrong.

So lets agree to disagree on this particular thread.



Ok. Since this subject is so intertwined with so many others, i'm sure we'll be discussing it again. in one form or another.

As far as "who's to say who's right", most philosophers realise that there isn't a contradiction, however, the philosophers that do not believe in God continue to try to find ways that show logical contradictions, and the Christian philosophers continue to try to show where atheism (naturalism) is logically incoherant.
My view is that, with God given freewill, neither side will ever have a triumphant argument... it will continue to be roughly a stalemate.

One last thing though, I used to 'know god' as you put it so if you pray for me to start to know god, your prayers would be misdirected (not to mention a total waste of time, but that's another argument for another time).

Prayers are never a waste... even when they are prayed in your behalf.



See you in another thread.

sounds good.


johnny