I’ve been following a d.a.d (discussion-argument-debate) @ Theology Web Campus (in the Apologetic Forum) under the heading : There is no evidence for the biblical [J]esus
Though it seems that the topic is being approached or dodged, the process is laying out before the reader the thought processes employed by two regular t-webbers. So here it is.
Rational Gaze:
Philosophy. Wow, that was hard.Tassman:
And wrong.Philosophy is subordinate to scientific methodology. Any philosophical theory which is contradicted by verified empirical facts is invalidated.
Rational Gaze:
Bare assertion.Tassman:
Not, it is a statement based on existing knowledge. You are assuming without evidence that there IS a methodology for investigating the supernatural. There isn’t and probably never will be – although it remains a possibility.Rational Gaze:
Which is circular reasoning.Tassman:
Only if one accepts your unsupported premise that somewhere, somehow, someplace there is a methodology for investigating the supernatural. This has yet to be established, if ever it can be.Rational Gaze:
Which is circular reasoning.Tassman:
See above!Rational Gaze:
Circular reasoning again.Tassman:
See above!Rational Gaze:
I “think so” because it IS circular reasoning. That you are apparently unable to notice these obvious logical contradictions in your ‘arguments’ that are glaringlyTassman:
Nope! Your initial premise is not established. There is no methodology for investigating the supernatural. Consequently, there is no established body of verified knowledge of the supernatural. Thus, it remains a nice idea but a mere logical possibility, nothing more.Rational Gaze:
Which is circular reasoning. Try againTassman:
See above!
———————-
Comments by t-webbers:
Post 335 – Challenger Grim
Post 336 – lilpixieofterror
Post 337 – lilpixieofterror
Post 338 – Rational Gaze
Post 339 – Mountain Man
lilpixieofterror’s quote from Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia did it for me:
Philosophy of science looks at the underpinning logic of the scientific method, at what separates science from non-science, and the ethic that is implicit in science. There are basic assumptions derived from philosophy that form the base of the scientific method – namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions from methodological naturalism form the basis on which science is grounded. Logical Positivist, empiricist, falsificationist, and other theories have claimed to give a definitive account of the logic of science, but each has in turn been criticized.
From: Scientific Method – Philosophy and Sociology of Science
"Whoops, You Did It Again"
Oh, my goodness I don’t believe it. The n O O b actually came to his defense and well the rest is philosophy:
Post 341 – lilpixieofterror
Post 342 – Rational Gaze
Update: 21 July 2011
Overnight the mice have been nibbling the cheese.
I returned to find the following statement:
Post 344 – Tassman
Which was swiftly followed by two one-liner responses:
Post 345 – Rational Gaze
Post 346 – Teulog
As is the strategy of this t-webber, he’ll hold off replying and let his baton-man muddy the waters until the tension of the rebuttal is in a mist of adhominen. He’s been playing this dodge-ball game of his for so long that he does not care how stupid his replies look. Oh, well perhaps there is a kernel of truth in there somewhere but this watcher tired of the dishonesty a long time ago. Watch if you like, I’m bored-again. 
Recent update:
Post 355 – Tassman
‘When there’s so much data and emerging science in areas like neurobiology, sociobiology, human psychology, evolution, evolutionary biology and physics, that actually can and will provide real answers, why give precedence to philosophical notions when they can’t be empirically verified?’
(Anyone care to help the lad out? It’s simple. We are finding out more and more about ourselves, the earth and the universe, but as is common knowledge in the field of robotics – we’re still searching for ‘the spice of life’ Something the delicate art of prayer, study and thought in religion have claimed for centuries. John Calvin referred to it as “sensus divinitas” (refer two earlier blogs – 1.) The Foundation of Morality 2.) Once upon a time …. and an old paper by Dr. Michael Sudduth – ‘John Calvin and the Knowledge of God’ )
)
I thought this response was quite perky:
Post 352 – Hamster: ‘Philosophy answers questions all the time. Logic is a branch of philosophy for example. And we can’t even know anything without some philosophical foundation, let alone engage in science’
Religion answers questions too, but they are acquired through considerable study in numerous disciplines (a few have been mentioned in this blog) and prayer (especially prayer. I’m reluctant to say ‘Meditation’ because of the connotations, but certainly a system of prayer which moves beyond preconceptions and is not entirely bounded by creeds, catechisms, confessions and dry religious dogma. I’ve chatted about this before, but it’s a subject in and of it’s own. Some of the rudiments are found in the writings of Lin Yutang. Doen maar jou huiswerk ouens en vroens. )
++)(++
‘When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an essential part of an offense, such knowledge may be established if the person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.
In other words, a person acted ‘knowingly’ if either: (1) the person actually knew a particular fact; or (2) that he deliberately closed his eyes to what he had every reason to believe was the fact. However, the requisite proof of knowledge on the part of the person cannot be established by merely demonstrating that he was negligent, careless or foolish.’
From: The Lectic Law Library ~ Deliberate Ignorance
As honesty is not a high priority on forums (and the internet in general) I’d be surprised if either side will let go. In the words of Pink Floyd:
Perhaps a little more Floyd to brighten up the morning/evening (wherever you are in the world this morning):
—————–
My comment:
The supernatural argument is being employed to avoid dealing with the subject of Epistemology (Reformed Epistemology and Christian Apologetics – Dr. Michael Sudduth), Argument for the existence of God (Existence of God – Dr. William Lane Craig), the reliability of the Christian sacred texts (Inerrancy of the Bible – Theopedia), the historical evidence for Jesus, the person and work of Jesus Christ and the trust which is born out of such. What Tassman is doing is grabbing the tail of the donkey and screaming, ‘It’s not a donkey’
( Dr. Ben Witherington’s website )
I once suggested that he consider approaching his priest (he’s an Anglican) and discussing the matter of prayer.
Sidebar:
His argument completely ignores the writings of such scholars as Dr. Gary Habermas, who deals with the resurrection of Jesus, Near Death Experiences, as well as the current research of brain activity during deep prayer and meditation.If he really wants evidence for God, I’d suggest he follows the path outlined in the first stanza and combine that with a serious discipline in praying with all the energy he uses up thinking up ways to avoid dealing with the facts.
Update: 25 July 2011
It’s very seldom that one sees Glen Peoples ( Say Hello to my Little Friend) interacting on Theology Web Campus, it’s not surprising that he’s entered the thread to call for clemency between Rational Gaze and Tassman, for if I remember correctly that Glen is into Physicalism.
What is a physicalism?
Physicalism is a philosophical position holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. The term was coined by Otto Neurath in a series of early twentieth century essays on the subject, in which he wrote:
“According to physicalism, the language of physics is the universal language of science and, consequently, any knowledge can be brought back to the statements on the physical objects.”[Keith, J.F. (2010). Integrationalism: Essays on the rationale of abundance]
In contemporary philosophy, physicalism is most frequently associated with the mind-body problem in philosophy of mind, regarding which physicalism holds that all that has been ascribed to “mind” is more correctly ascribed to “brain” or the activity of the brain. Physicalism is also called “materialism”, but the term “physicalism” is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles. The related position of methodological naturalism says that philosophy and science should at least operate under the assumptions of natural sciences (and thus physicalism).
The ontology of physicalism ultimately includes whatever is described by physics — not just matter but energy, space, time, physical forces, structure, physical processes, information, state, etc. Because it claims that only physical things exist, physicalism is generally a form of ontological monism.
Here is the latest exchange (Post 439 – There is no evidence for a biblical [J]esus ) between Glen and Tassman:
GLENN P:
According to you, Rational Gaze is. You said that explicitly.TASSMAN:
Glenn, I have not said RG is taking refuge in theoretical physics. You have misunderstood the argument, which in point form consists of:Tass: Said that in the final analysis verified, empirical scientific facts take precedence over a philosophical argument if the two conflict and thta the philosophical argument must give way.
RG: Said that he gave examples of philosophical arguments overturning science.
Tass: Responded that RG’s examples only concerned unverified hypotheses in theoretical physics, which are still subject to examination, NOT verified empirical scientific facts.
In short, he was fudging his argument.
GLENN P:
And now you have as well, by appealing to the Quantum Universe. The Quantum Universe is part of theoretical physics. Or are you saying that only some parts of theoretical physics can be taken refuge in, but others are off limits?TASSMAN:
Certain aspects of quantum physics, as with ALL physics, are in the realm of theoretical physics but Quantum Theory has been mainstream science for 80 years and is empirically verified science capable of making predictions’ and multiply tested.(Quantum Mechanics @ Wikipedia Online)
Update: 26 July 2011
Post 440 – bertaberts / yo lunch
The Moderators have finally begun to address the extremely personal and unrelated comments by this new t-webber. Having seen them come and go (and this one is definitely a sock-puppet for a banned alias, I suspect “yo lunch”) and this persons days are numbered.
Post 448 – Glenn P (Dr. Glenn Peoples)
Post 445 – Tassman challenges Dr. Glenn Peoples’ comment. Also makes the following statement:
‘….the intuitive rules of the macro-universe (upon which the classical philosophers based their premises and logical inferences), no longer apply in the counter-intuitive quantum universe and are invalidated as a result. This includes Aquinas and his so-called 5 proofs of god’s existence.’ (Tassman)
Post 458 – David Hayward (now there’s a name I’ve not seen before, he’s been a members since May 2004) responds to some of Tassman’s statements:
Tassman:
The point… is that the intuitive rules of the macro-universe… no longer apply in the counter-intuitive quantum universe and are invalidated as a result. (from post 454)David Hayward:
My suspicion is that the intuitive rules that the classical philosophers knew were pre-Newtonian, probably Aristotelian, and that this charge could have been levelled at any time after Newtonian mechanics gained sway.You are jumping the gun in saying quantum mechanics is counter-intuitive – or is there a proof out there that quantum mechanics is inherently counter-intuitive and will remain so?
The counter-intuitiveness of the quantum universe may well be simply the result of there being no proper theoretical understanding of the physical basis underlying quantum mechanics. (The Copenhagen Interpretation can be paraphrased as saying: if the calculations work, why bother working out why they work.) That’s to say, the counter-intuitiveness of the quantum universe may well be simply the result of our current lack of understanding.
When a decent theory is eventually provided, we – or those with the maths to understand it – may well say, “Quantum mechanics is quite obvious to me; in the light of this new understanding it’s highly intuitive.”
Tassman:
The universe exists because there is nothing that prevents it from existing in physical cosmology. It is not required to exist, but that’s not important, for it didn’t exist nothing would be affected. (From post 457 )David Hayward:
Odd that you should claim that. I would have thought that you and I, both, would be significantly affected if the universe didn’t exist.David
Update: 26 July 2011 ( 17h15 UK time )
When I was studying Philosophy (essentially Christian Philosophy) through Trinity Foundation (though not officially), I can’t remember if I worked through the section on Logic but it seems that whatever is meant to be happening on this thread; Tassman’s statement style posting is receiving a strategic carcass picking by t-webbers who’ve been a part of T.W.C for a long time and also have a low posting rate, which doesn’t always mean they are necessarily bright sparks, but sometimes it does.
This is the second time I’ve seen a name that I don’t recall posting when I used to prowl the cyber-halls of Theology Web Campus and this time instead of Maths, Science or History the challenge is with regard to the subject of Logic, by Juice.
Responding to Tassman’s reply to Rational Gaze (Post 457)
Tassman:
Logic always applies in science but the validity of ALL logic depends on its inferences being based on valid premises.Juice:
You appear to be confusing validity with soundness. Rookie mistake.Tassman:
And what makes a premise valid is empirical evidence. Nothing else!Juice:
Okay. Provide empirical evidence to prove true your statement: what makes a premise valid is empirical evidence.BTW, premises aren’t valid or invalid, they are either true or false.
Tassman:
Logic is how the universe works.Juice:
You haven’t got a clue what logic is if you think that. (frown) Logic is the discipline of proper reasoning.Tassman:
The laws of the universe ARE logical and they ARE rational.Juice:
I would say we use logic to draw inferences. Some inferences are stronger and more reliable than others. Some are so strong we can call them laws.
Sidebar – 1:
If you are new to this sort of thing and I’ve certainly watched blase individuals having their trousers pulled down in public because they’ve not had a solid handle on Logic, here’s a link that I think might provide a sound introduction to Logic: INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC (It’s aimed ‘at first year undergraduates studying Philosophy at the University of Oxford, but it is hoped that the site may be useful more widely, for anyone who would like to investigate the subject.’ )
Sidebar – 2:
It’s so important when one is engaged in studies that are tending towards theories and especially when one is dealing with subjects as robust as Philosophy and Theology, to a) know one’s limitations and b) be humble enough to be taught by those who have mastered a particular discipline. It’s seldom one finds someone who is distinguished enough to a) have mastered all disciplines known to man and b) have exact accuracy in every d.a.d
I recall getting to a point in studying where I reached the point where my brain could not longer manage the input. I’m no Einstein, but I gave it my best shot.
Slightly before I resigned from brain-stretching, I began reading some of the writings of Dr. Michael Sudduth and if you are up-to-it I think you might find this page on his website quite useful: NATURAL THEOLOGY Though, I am somewhat apprehensive, I think I’m going to give some of his papers a read and see how I get along. He’s associated with Dr. Alvin Plantinga, so it should be more or less in line with where this thread is headed. Guess work on my part, but hey this is my second sidebar. (or Bar Side, hicc*** up!!!)
Curiously the new t-webber (bertaberts) who has spent most of the thread arguing with (lilpixieofterror) dropped a berry into this thread in the form of a quote by the ‘Austrian philosopher’ Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein ‘(26 April 1889 – 29 April 1951) who held the professorship in philosophy at the University of Cambridge from 1939 until 1947 ‘ [Dennett, Daniel. "Ludwig Wittgenstein: Philosopher", Time magazine, 29 March 1999.]
“Philosophical scepticism is a type of obsession because the sceptic never, even from the beginning, allows for the possibility of anything counting as evidence which might satisfy his doubts. Thus, doubt is perpetual, and the activity of constantly questioning is ultimately pointless.” – Ludwig Wittgenstein.
From: Post 463 – bertaberts
‘He is known for having inspired two of the century’s principal philosophical movements, logical positivism and ordinary language philosophy, though in his lifetime he published just one book review, one article, a children’s dictionary, and the 75-page Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921).[For his publications during his lifetime, see Monk, Ray. How to read Wittgenstein. W.W. Norton & Company. 2005, p. 5.] In 1999 his posthumously published Philosophical Investigations (1953) was ranked as the most important book of 20th-century philosophy.[Lackey, Douglas. "What Are the Modern Classics? The Baruch Poll of Great Philosophy in the Twentieth Century"] ‘
‘Throughout the war, he kept notebooks in which he frequently wrote philosophical reflections alongside personal remarks, and in them he records his contempt for the baseness of soldiers in wartime. He discovered Leo Tolstoy’s The Gospel in Brief at a bookshop in Galicia, and carried it everywhere, recommending it to anyone in distress, to the point where he became known to his fellow soldiers as “the man with the gospels”.[Monk, pp. 44, 116, 382–384.] Russell said he returned from the war a changed man, one with both a more mystical and more ascetic bent.[Monk, p. 183.]‘
Quotes from Ludwig Wittgenstein @ W.O.E.
In the next post, post number 464 – lilpixieofterror (Crystal) responds to bertaberts quote of Wittgenstein with the following words:
‘I do love soundbites without context, but you might want to reread that since it appears to me that Ludwig Wittgenstein is addressing fundy atheist like yourself more then he’s addressing me. Do you seriously have this bad of reading comprehension problem? He is saying consistent doubt, without anything that would satisfy the doubter’s doubts, is illogical and leads to endless questioning instead of trying to find answers. That is what I get out of that quote, perhaps you should try taking an English 101 course and try this again?’
I am most intrigued by this man’s writing (as well of course Tolstoy, though he’s surely ten thousand miles higher than my mind can reach, I think this video series might be of some value as an introduction) :
(7 part BBC series of the life of Wittgenstein)
Dr. Glenn Peoples’ reply (post 469) was disappointing, but then again if you’ve read earlier threads, you’d probably agree with him.
Time for some music and a movie.
Update: Raphael deals out what looks like an ultimatum to the rowdy ‘n rude noob. (on another thread: Thread statistics of the use of insults, name calling ~ post 117 < I suspect the latest volley ‘Anti-Theist anger’ on ‘There is no evidence for a biblical [J]esus’ – post 474 will receive a due snap-to-the-griddle. ( This is a tremor back to my earlier blog about Anti-Theism: Anti-Theist Pain.
Crystal replies: Post 475
Muddy Waters are the perfect hiding place for trolls of all kind to carry on their mutterings, but this ex-twebber is outta here.
10-4
Blue.
Related Posts (Archive):
1. The Existence of Jesus
2. Jaecp and Tassman: Honor and Shame
+)(+
Update: 28 July 2011 – LESSONS IN LOGIC, or just a put down?
Post 477 – Juice responds to Tassman / would that be: attempts to teach a little logic?
TASSMAN: An attempted put-down and utter nonsense as well.
JUICE: Let’s review what you wrote.You wrote, “Logic always applies in science but the validity of ALL logic depends on its inferences being based on valid premises.”
The bolded part is false. In logic, the validity of an argument is not dependent upon the premises being true. Premises are the truth bearing statements that comprise an argument, and as such they are either true or false. Arguments are said to be either valid or invalid, not premises. If the Argument is valid and the premises are true then the argument is said to be sound. You have repeatedly displayed a lack of knowledge of how to apply the terminology used in logic. From this, and your other absurd comments about logic (see here), I infer you are talking out of your butt when it comes to the topic of logic. Stop pretending you aren’t.
TASSMAN: Regardless, the point remains valid, namely that even an argument which has faultless logic is an empty argument if it is based on a premise that has not, or cannot, be experimentally verified.
JUICE: In logic arguments are not “empty.” An argument is either valid or invalid. If it is valid and the premises true then it is sound. There is no universal mandate in logic for the premises of an argument to be experimentally verified.TASSMAN: Invalid question based on ignorance!
JUICE: Invalid response based upon poor reading comprehension skills. It wasn’t a question.More importantly, you can’t even establish your own statement using the standard by which your statement universally demands all premises to be established. Hence, your statement that “what makes a premise valid is empirical evidence” is bogus.
TASSMAN: True as far as it goes – but it doesn’t go far enough!
JUICE: It doesn’t need to go any further. Logic is not “how the universe works” as you erroneously claimed.TASSMAN: Logic and mathematics are reliable and essential tools but we can’t construct scientific laws and theories by mathematics and logic alone.
JUICE: Try telling that to Stephen Hawking.TASSMAN: Well I would say that you are talking nonsense. We use logic to draw inferences from a given premise.
JUICE: You say that I’m talking nonsense, then go on to basically agree with me.TASSMAN: The only “laws” are the natural laws based on inferences from a premise which has been empirically verified.
JUICE: Not quite. “Natural laws” are inferences drawn from premises which have been empirically established, yes. “Natural laws,” however, are not the only laws. For instance, the law of non-contradiction.Tassman, he’s always good for a chuckle.
( Lessons in Logic to be continued )
Update: 01 August 2011
The exchange between David Hayward and Tassman continues, with a chirp from Doug Shaver:
Post #516 – David Hayward
Post #525 – Doug Shaver
Post #530 – Tassman
I think it’s time I headed of to Faraday and listened/watched something a bit more informed. This is like going back to Grade 1.
Mmmmm 
I think I’ll start with a video lecture by Professor Stephen Williams. It’s tiled, ‘Science, Faith and Reason’ Goody.
After reading Professor Williams’s biography, I found a great link to a website ‘Christians in Science ~ Ireland.’ Yummy!!!! ((( “Religion and Scientific Reason: Dawkins, Locke and Pascal.” )))
More phenomenal giggles from the new t-webber: Meme’s: Are They Mind Viruses Post #32 – NeilUnreal / David Hayward’s patient and informed posts conclude in post 98 and post 249:
Getting back to the topic of memes: Simon Conway Morris, professor* of evolutionary biology at Cambridge University, a person at the top of his field, well conversant with genetics, points out that memes seem to have no place in serious scientific reflection. He says:
“Life’s Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe”, Cambridge University Press, 2003, P. 324
“Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple mental exercises. In any wider context they are hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic.”
Do I, or you, need better authority to dismiss memes as useless?
Finis.
Final Update:
Post #535 – Juice replies to Tassman: ‘Enquiring minds would like to know. This should be hilarious… 
One last update:
It seems Tassman does not really know how to admit defeat and continues to post up his statements (line-upon-line). This’ll be my last cut-n-past from the TWC thread discussed here: There is no evidence for a biblical [J]esus:
Post 547
‘snip’
Conversely, supernaturalism has no methodology supporting it; it has produced nothing except divisive religious notions, reinforced the miraculous beliefs of the credulous, pre-scientific age and promotes religion at the cost of retarding the advancement of human knowledge. In short, religion is detrimental to civilisation.
‘snip’
My Comment:
As I said earlier on : ‘there is a kernel of truth’ and this is it, though his last sentence: ‘In short, religion is detrimental to civilization’ is in part true and no one can deny the damage that religion has done, when it is practiced correctly it provides the doorway beyond Tassman’s Supernatural Strawman argument.
Listening to God.
To prayer then, sir.
Blue.
————————–
The Mad Hatter’s Tea Party
1. What does inerrancy mean? Is it essential to Christian belief? (Dr. DA Carson)
2. Is The Bible Literally True? – Dr. Tim Keller
3. Is Your Brain On God? N.P.R
Jean-Michel-Jarre ~ Concerts in China ( 8 videos )
4. Want a giggle? : What is Natural? What is supernatural?
5. I forgot how much fun it was to read bacon-threads like this one: (The title seems to be on the topic – above) but that’s where the similarity ends: THE QUEST FOR THE HISTORIC JESUS. It was preceded by ‘WERE THE APOSTLES BIG DUMMIES?’ and Yes, Resurrection Accounts Are Irreconcilable
One for the road:
6. The problem of apologetics ( my add: Is that it should synchonized with Biblical Languages 301) Refer the difficulties that arise when the nOOb attempts to translate a passage ( Mark 16:17 ) from the New Testament, and the subsequent reply by Hamster: ( O Lord help me, where are the real scholars? )
Post 65 – bertaberts (nOOb)
(NIV)(NLT){HCS)(WEB)Mark 16:17 And these signs will accompany those who (Any person that (All) believe.
(KJV)(ASV)Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them (All) that believe.
It is clearly stated in (excuse the pun) “all” versions of the bible.(apart from foreign language versions) Unless of course you wish to rewrite it to suit.
Post 66 – Hamster
The wording of that sentence doesn’t necessitate that every single believer will do those things. If I said “There were dentists in Golden Gate Park and they were accompanied by dogs” does that mean every dentist brought a dog? Obviously this isn’t the Greek though.
How about: “The Chess Club is coming to the gym for their party. These are the things they had with them: Chips, a video, a TV, and pizza.” Does that mean every member of the Chess club brought each of those things?
Let’s have a look see if John Reece has dealt with this passage in BL301 (T.W.C – same forum)?
Oh, what a pity ~ John’s only got as far as Mark 3:10 refer post 144
Alan Cole explains ‘The supplement’ this way:
Vs. 15-18, are the equivalent of the ‘great commission’ of Matthew 28:18 which Mark had expressed in brief in 13:10. Baptism was to be the sign of commitment to Christ; unbelief was to be itself a condemnation. Most of the signs mentioned here are to be found either in the gospels or Acts (except that of drinking poison unharmed although it is mentioned in early tradition.) It is important to realize that even the early church writer does not suggest that these signs happen always to everybody. We must not presume upon them and put God to the test, like one Christian sect that handles poisonous snakes. They are signs of the kingdom of God. We should accept them gratefully if they occur, but our minds should be set on God’s kingdom, not on its signs.
From: New Bible Commentary – Mark by Alan Cole
7. Professor Freeman J. Dyson : (videos)
8. Plantinga – Methodological Naturalism? (A very interesting knee-jerk reaction from shunyadragon. ( A wise friend once told me that it was not the fool who explored mysticism, but the fool who did not plan their exit. )
9. Christian Nondualism / Nondualism – If one is more interested in unified approach to life, rather than the typical chopped up version of Philosophy + Theology + Science + Religion + strict Ecclesiology etc, etc.
10. Old MacDonald had a farm, eee iii eee iii ooooo!
Of course, not many are willing to admit that a Christian could mine that deeply into unknown, magical and mysterious things and so they’re generally shunned: ‘The Fight Against Fundamentalism’
Full series: George MacDonald < watch it Frank
11. REASONABLE FAITH ( Questions and Answers with Dr. William Lane Craig – So, Richard when are you going to engage the tender-heart-lion, child of Aslan? )
12. Perhaps a little Kuyper to warm the heart strings: Calvinism ~ Six Stone Lectures : Calvinism and Science
13. Quantum Theory, Critical Realism and Religious Belief – Revd. Dr. John Polkinghorne
14. Interpretation of quantum mechanics @ W.O.E.
15. Many Worlds Interpretation @ W.O.E.
16. Many-minds interpretation @ W.O.E.
17. QUANTUM LOGIC @ W.O.E.
18. Boolean Algebra @ W.O.E.
19. Quantum Logic and Probability Logic at STANFORD ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY
20. INDUCTIVE LOGIC @ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
21. Inductive Reasoning in Science by Steve Novella @ NeuroLogica Blog
22. Solipsism and the Problem of Other Minds @ I.E.P
Peace,
Blue.
———————
