Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List

subscribe to our mailing list:


Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes


Serious Notions with a Smile


Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site


[Create a New Thread] [Letters Index]

Title Author Date
Against the free will defense Lehrer, Michael Nov 20, 2009
The Problem with this argument is that we can make a reasonable case that God would have no problem reducing FW for a specified amount of time (sleeping), but that still gives the sleeper the ability to choose whatever actions he/she wants. However, stopping people from committing an evil act is a true interference of FW for the person that wants to commit it. In short, eradicating evil acts affects the range of actions that a person can do while sleeping merely affects the time one has to to them.
read replies (3)
write a reply
Related Article(s):
Against the Free Will Defense

Title Author Date
publication policy Channon, Martin Nov 20, 2009
I don't think that I have ever come across so blatantly biased a publication policy as yours. So you want to completely ignore any contrary
comments? And you view this as "reason"? The value of contrary comments is that they can serve to sharpen one's understanding. You have provided a forum in which like-minded people can reinforce one another's beliefs, but that's about it. Learning involves real debate. That can't happen here.

Consider this simple fact: either the universe is the result of an accident or it is not (a "perfect disjunction"). The latter position is
that of the ID enthusiasts and it is considered unscientific (for well-considered reasons). But theories in the former category (e.g., the
scenario of the multiverse) are routinely criticized for being nonfalsifiable. That would make them unscientific. Either way we go, we
have a serious problem. And you don't want to even look at it? Oh, BTW, I'm not a creationist.
read replies (3)
write a reply

Title Author Date
Can we disprove Judaism Magarshak, Gregory Dec 16, 2009
Hi there.

I grew up religious but now think there is a strong possibility that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are based on no more than mythologies, just like the Greek mythology, Norse mythology, and so on.

The trouble is, I am not 100% sure of this. Or even 99.9999% sure. I have a feeling that with a good understanding of science, and an in-depth
understanding of the Bible (more specifically, the Torah in its original Hebrew, as well as authoritative Talmudic commentary on it) we can DISPROVE that the events described there, which give authority to the entire laws and pronunciations that we are expected to abide by, never happened.

If they never happened, I see no reason to go ahead and invent other religions as we'd clearly know they are invented. This would discredit pretty much all religions based on Judaism as well, since they rely on it
being true.

The only concern I have is that atheists might be wrong about the Torah, and the authority-granting events really did happen as described
(red sea splitting, Torah being given on mount Sinai, etc).

I am having a very hard time finding contradictions between

a) something in the Torah that all mainstream Jewish interpretations hold to be true (this excludes literal interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, making the job harder)


b) facts established to 99.9% or better certainty, using some kind of research. Whether it use history, physics, biology or something else.

At the same time, I have to allow for the possibility of miracles to have happened. That is, events that would normally not happen in our
everyday world, and which our current science could not explain. For example, I cannot ask "how did all the animals fit into the ark, how did they survive the voyage" because the answer would be "miraculously".

However, even miracles cannot explain some contradictions. For example, if I could prove that birds for sure evolved after land animals, then no miracle can explain the ORDER being wrong in Genesis 1. But then, not everyone takes Genesis 1 literally.

The other problem is language. For example, I could point out that the hare (or rabbit or bunny) does not chew its own cud. But then an apologist could come back and say that this referred to an animal that is not the hare, or no longer exists. I would need a thorough research to PROVE this is really the hare that was referred to.

This leaves very little. Assuming all Jews believe the flood story, can we show with 99.9% certainty that some civilizations persisted before and after the flood? How do we do this? Carbon 14 dating has had hiccups in the past.

Is there ONE CLEAR DISPROOF of the Torah? If so, can someone point me to it? Thank you.

Gregory Magarshak

write a reply

Title Author Date
Actually, it's a GOOD ARGUMENT. Magarshak, Gregory Dec 16, 2009
But we do find something interesting in considering this line of reasoning. Namely that there must be SOME THING that has no cause. Either it is within the universe we can observe, or the universe we can infer from the observed universe and a scientific model.

Now, scientific models are nothing more than hypotheses that produce necessary predictions that can be tested experimentally or evaluated
logically. There may be nothing logically wrong with the existence of an uncaused effect in our universe. Indeed, many events in quantum theory seem to be of this nature.

Either way, I don't see how the existence of an uncaused event within the observable or inferred universe, is any more or less likely than the existence of an uncaused creator of the universe, who may be outside our ability to infer anything about this creator.

At the very least, the Kalam argument shows that there is very likely some sort of uncaused thing. Even if we consider time as an emergent
property of our universe, we have to admit there is either an infinite progression of time -> big bang, or a finite sequence of time units (say, no larger than planck time) in which case there is a FIRST UNIT OF TIME. And the question is, how did that first unit of time come about?

So to be put more accurately, either there is an infinite progression of time units (it seems unlikely that they would get infinitely shorter and converge to something) or there is an UNCAUSED THING.

If there is an uncaused thing, as we said it could be a creator, or it could be a mundane thing like an infinitely existing (e.g. non-expanding) universe, which gave rise to ours through the creation of a new black hole
or something.

Either way, it seems that we can logically deduce that if we go back far enough, there was a "time" when there were only UNCAUSED THINGS. This happens after all the finite chains of causation have been exhausted.

If these uncaused things were completely devoid of intelligence, it seems strange that our universe began at all, if the uncaused things
existed for an infinite amount of time. So either they existed for a finite amount of time, or they had to have some sort of "infinite" intelligence to decide when to create this universe (by that I mean, cause the universe to come into existence). Unless of course we are a non-special universe among
infinitely many.

The possibility that the uncaused things were finite in time seems problematic, as we can once again ask about the "first unit" of time.

Thus we are left with: either there really are infinite chains of causes, OR there is an infinitely intelligent first cause, OR we are a
non-special universe among infinitely many. Either way, something must be infinite, and that something can be considered "God" :)

write a reply
Related Article(s):
Dr. Craig's Unsupported Premise

Title Author Date
rerlativity's inconsistence Rebigsol, Cameron Dec 16, 2009
If relativity cannot overcome the mathematical inconsistence in length measurement brought up by the concept of length contraction, nothing more is needed to put the validity of this theory in a skeptical position. The mathematical consequence of this concept is that the same segment of a straight line can be simultaneously concluded to have two values by an observer when he passes by the line at a constant speed. This inconsistence is shown in a website <> with very simple mathematical demonstration that takes less than four 8x11 pages. You are cordially invited to visit the site. While ignoring anything else that does not interest you there, you can go directly to the page of "Solution
Paper" and click the button "More Disasters" to find out.

write a reply

| Next