I wanted to say thanks for helping me out of the jam a few weeks ago when I was in the heat of a debate with a couple of atheists on Christianpost.com. You gave me the fallacy of composition.

I also found some very helpful information on the subject of the cosmological argument on Dr William Lane Craig's new audio download sight. He delt with exactly the same thing that I was trying to figure out. The key is the difference between God being infinite in qualitative terms verses the universe being in quantitative in mathematically terms. God is not a set, nor is he an infinite set of anything. Sometime I feel like the automechanic who knows just about enough to get himself in trouble: he takes the engine apart and doesn’t know how to put it back together.

Neil wrote:
JP, one answer - fallacy of composition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition
Or another take. I don't have time to do a proper Scripture word study (which I advise), but most theologians agree that God is infinite in these senses:
1. (adj) Having no boundaries or limits.
2. (adj) Immeasurably great or large; boundless
Ref: www.thefreedictionary.com/infinite
"Infinite" is a property, and while it can be a noun, it is not used as such in theology. But "nothing" is always a noun. So how can a property of something "embrace" (contain?) anything? But perhaps a trained philosopher can shoot holes in such "grammatical" reasoning...

Neil wrote:
JP, good talking w/ you.
FYI: www.trinityfoundation.org/PDF/018a-ScienceandTruth.pdf

“To be truly infinite, your god would have to embrace all things, including nothingness. Since an infinite amount of nothing is nothing, your "infinite" god does not exist.”

My response was: This is a false dichotomy. God does not have to embrace all things, nothingness is not a thing.

The challenging response was: infinite means everything, including nothingness and things which don't exist. Otherwise, there are limits, and therefore, no infiniteness. An infinite god is an infinite amount of nothing, which is still nothing, and so an infinite god does not exist.

Neil wrote:
To be brief, atheists, by attempting to escape the axiom of revelation, depend upon other epistemological axioms which are fatally flawed. The more perceptive among them like Bertrand Russell & Karl Popper have admitted that science cannot yield universal truths, for they cannot solve the problems of causation and induction. Therefore, atheists have nothing to pit against Scripture.

Meanwhile I have no desire to debate radio carbon dating. What I will say is that Christians at the very least should not put so much weight into the age of the earth. While we have been snoozing along and ignoring scientific discoveries, we are doing so to the advancement of atheism and agnosticism. If the whole of the Christian faith depends upon the age of the earth as Ken Ham presumes, the debate could be over with one discovery. Christians would of course could recuperate, but to the detriment of the confidence of many.

Neil wrote:
There is no conflict between science & the Bible because science yields no truth. The scientific method is illogical when used to reach categorical conclusions (i.e., define scientific laws).
So Ross is trying interpret Scripture in light of an unprovable theory.

Faithful Remnant wrote:
"I am a scientist and a believer, and I find no conflict between those world views."
Same here

I did hear that Hugh Ross has found some kind of a link that reveals that all humans did come from one single man and one single woman.

there are several presumptions made by young earth creationists that do not seem to have much explaining power.

1. Sin = all death. It seems to point towards spiritual death. Our hair and skin are made up from dead cells. It is also usually interpreted not to include plants. If one disagrees with Ken Ham he is anathema.

2. Does an old earth creation contradict a literal translation of the text? Dr Hugh Ross seems to adequately translate Genesis as a day = a period of time.

3. Does common decent rule out a literal Adam and Eve? Not necessarily!

AntiVaticanistAmerican wrote:
That's the Unhistorical, Twisted, Perverted, Inaccurate, Utter Blasphemy and Sacrilegeousness of The Satanically-Spawned Religion of Mohammedan: That "Judas (Iscariot) was crucified instead of Jesus (Christ)!
Over 1.1 BILLION Spiritually Lost Mohammedans Believe That Satanic (and Vaticanist Instigated) LIE; According to the Koran: to their own Spiritual, Psychological and Physical Eternal Damnation In The Lake Of Fire!
Their Eternal Damnation Has Been Sealed!

rcs wrote:
Disappointed that the real conservative candidate wasn't included in this poll. I've done quite a bit of reading on the candidates, and am very impressed with Duncan Hunter.
John Jay, our first chief justice in the Supreme Court said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
What can I say? Read Hunter's response to the youtube Bible question (ohioforduncanhunter2008.blogspot.com/2007/12/duncan-hunter-answers-bible-question.html)
http://www.myeleader.com/contribute.asp?guideLeader=5D585A5D

I was listening to Michael Medved yesterday and it is no secret that he does not favor Ron Paul. He mentioned recent news of Ron Paul praising David Duke (former Grand Wizard of the KKK, self-styled "white nationalist" and holocaust denier). He has also brought up the fact that Ron had a prominent column in a neo-Nazi publication. Why should a Jew like Medved be concerned about Ron? I couldn’t imagine!

Ron also thinks that the US is to blame for 9-11. Evidently he is ignorant of the early dealings that America had with Islamic Jihad Piracy and what Thomas Jefferson had to say about them. It is unbelievable that he wants to return us to the pre-9/11 days and put the national security concerns back into the hands of local law enforcement. Osama declared war on America years prior to 9-11. Everybody seemed to be oblivious to his attacks. 9-11 might not have happened if Bush Sr. and Clinton would have taken him seriously.

So, why don't you go find the nearest monastery and take a vow of silence. We're talking about the president of America, not the Messiah of God.

Ron Paul, responding on War in Iraq:

"So, let the people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of ours -- we trade with them, the president comes here."

"Has he so callously forgotten the over 1 million boat people who were drowned in the South China sea and the Pacific for a decade after the war ended, trying to reach friendly shores? Has he forgotten the hundreds of thousands marched into re-education camps, many of them tortured or starved to death at the hands of the Communist Vietnamese?

And has he forgotten the deaths of nearly 2 million Cambodians as a direct result of our pulling out of Vietnam, at the hands of Pol Pot and the Communist Khmer Rouge?"

Posted by Eric Dondero @

terry evans wrote:
Did Jesus distance Himself from sinners

Ron Paul, responding on War in Iraq:

"So, let the people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of ours -- we trade with them, the president comes here."

Has he so callously forgotten the over 1 million boat people who were drowned in the South China sea and the Pacific for a decade after the war ended, trying to reach friendly shores? Has he forgotten the hundreds of thousands marched into re-education camps, many of them tortured or starved to death at the hands of the Communist Vietnamese?

If I understand correctly, C.S. Lewis argued that fantasy literature provides a context to enlarge our faith in the Almighty God; it links our imagination to heaven. It explores the imagination to its depths to broaden the minds eye so that it might attempt a glimpse of eternity. Utilizing our imagination it mirrors the possibilities that lie beyond our own temporal world.