How is science different then "feeling" God?

[Tart]

How is observational science, being based on how we perceive our universe and how we make sense of those perceptions, any different then someone who believes in God because they "feel" his presence?

[Tart]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

Just a lame excuse to not have to justify anything you claim to be true... But thats understandable, because atheism is a void...

Saying stuff like "God NEVER speaks to anyone" is an objective, positive truth claim... Followed by a lame excuse that you need no justification for it.. You can simply claim it, and say "i dont need to prove anything"... And thus... Atheism... Claims without any justification...

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

Just a lame excuse to not have to justify anything you claim to be true... But thats understandable, because atheism is a void...

Saying stuff like "God NEVER speaks to anyone" is an objective, positive truth claim... Followed by a lame excuse that you need no justification for it.. You can simply claim it, and say "i dont need to prove anything"... And thus... Atheism... Claims without any justification...

While individual atheists may make claims, atheism itself makes no claims at all. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of an invisible omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being who dwells in an invisible realm and creates universes with a word. Christians however claim that there is an invisible part of them that, when they die, will go to an invisible place to be with this invisible Being. What is their evidence for this? Because they say so. And then they dare anyone to prove them wrong.

But you enjoy preaching. And so I have offered you the opportunity, not to preach exactly, but to demonstrate that your belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is based on solid evidential ground. You are faced here with a group of rather strongly committed atheists. And all I asked of you is to make a case that the resurrection is at the very least, a plausible thing to believe in. If you cannot do that, or are unwilling to try, then what exactly is your purpose here? You have a ready made audience of skeptics who have demonstrated their willingness to at least discuss the matter with you. All you have to do is make solid case that your claims and your beliefs are at least plausible.

Can't you do it?

[Tart]

[Replying to Tired of the Nonsense]

Just a lame excuse to not have to justify anything you claim to be true... But thats understandable, because atheism is a void...

Saying stuff like "God NEVER speaks to anyone" is an objective, positive truth claim... Followed by a lame excuse that you need no justification for it.. You can simply claim it, and say "i dont need to prove anything"... And thus... Atheism... Claims without any justification...

While individual atheists may make claims, atheism itself makes no claims at all. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of an invisible omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Being who dwells in an invisible realm and creates universes with a word. Christians however claim that there is an invisible part of them that, when they die, will go to an invisible place to be with this invisible Being. What is their evidence for this? Because they say so. And then they dare anyone to prove them wrong.

But you enjoy preaching. And so I have offered you the opportunity, not to preach exactly, but to demonstrate that your belief that Jesus was resurrected from the dead is based on solid evidential ground. You are faced here with a group of rather strongly committed atheists. And all I asked of you is to make a case that the resurrection is at the very least, a plausible thing to believe in. If you cannot do that, or are unwilling to try, then what exactly is your purpose here? You have a ready made audience of skeptics who have demonstrated their willingness to at least discuss the matter with you. All you have to do is make solid case that your claims and your beliefs are at least plausible.

Can't you do it?

I take on the burden of proof all the time... It doesnt scare me, im not an atheist... I think we should really consider the things we say, and take our words, and our beliefs seriously... We shouldnt just speak things as if they are meaningless to ourselves... I can give reasons for my beliefs... But this is about you, you made a claim to knowing something, and not just a small claim. You made a universal claim.... "God NEVER speaks to anyone." and "its all make believe"....

And when asked to justify the words you are saying, you basically dodged and make it seem like you dont need to prove anything you say.


Lets be honest, you couldnt prove that if you tried... Those truth claims you made, you could only know with absolute certainty, if you had some kind of universal knowledge to absolute objective truth... Which you dont have, and you probably dont even believe in...

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 133 by Tart]

I take on the burden of proof all the time... It doesnt scare me, im not an atheist... I can give reasons for my beliefs... But this is about you, you made a claim to knowing something, and not just a small claim. You made a universal claim.... "God NEVER speaks to anyone." and "its all make believe"....

Has God spoken to you directly? Do you receive messages from God? Do you actually hear God's voice? Or is it a form of mental telepathy? Actually hearing voices in one's head occurs, but it is considered a psychotic disorder.

Self professed "prophet" Peter Popoff use to receive "information from God" during his evangelical outreaches. But it turned out that he had a radio receiver in his ear and was listening to instructions from his wife concerning the names and physical conditions of individuals in his audience. His ministry collapsed after he was exposed, but he is now back at it again. There is a never ending supply of the gullible, it seems.

And when asked to justify the words you are saying, you basically said you dont need to prove anything you say....

Actually I said that it was your turn to prove something. You keep asserting that it is my job to prove that something DOES NOT EXIST. But that is proving a negative, and "proving" a negative can only be done by implication found in the LACK of evidence.

I mean, lets be honest... You couldnt prove that if you tried, and you know it... So basically your just talking out nonsense, and feel no need for any justification for the words you say...

Proving a negative inevitably proves to be frustrating, because something which does not exist, or is not true, provides no physical evidence to consider ultimate proof.

But I have giving you a chance to "prove" that the resurrection of Jesus was not a negative, because you believe that it is something that actually physically occurred. You earlier indicated that you had considered Christian claims and found that that the evidence for Christianity justified believing that the claims are true.

Please provide that evidence so we can all consider it. That's not too much to ask, surely. Or are you less than secure that what you have claimed justifies belief might not be able to stand up to actual analysis?

[Tart]

[Replying to post 133 by Tart]

I take on the burden of proof all the time... It doesnt scare me, im not an atheist... I can give reasons for my beliefs... But this is about you, you made a claim to knowing something, and not just a small claim. You made a universal claim.... "God NEVER speaks to anyone." and "its all make believe"....

Has God spoken to you directly? Do you receive messages from God? Do you actually hear God's voice? Or is it a form of mental telepathy? Actually hearing voices in one's head occurs, but it is considered a psychotic disorder.

Self professed "prophet" Peter Popoff use to receive "information from God" during his evangelical outreaches. But it turned out that he had a radio receiver in his ear and was listening to instructions from his wife concerning the names and physical conditions of individuals in his audience. His ministry collapsed after he was exposed, but he is now back at it again. There is a never ending supply of the gullible, it seems.

And when asked to justify the words you are saying, you basically said you dont need to prove anything you say....

Actually I said that it was your turn to prove something. You keep asserting that it is my job to prove that something DOES NOT EXIST. But that is proving a negative, and "proving" a negative can only be done by implication found in the LACK of evidence.

I mean, lets be honest... You couldnt prove that if you tried, and you know it... So basically your just talking out nonsense, and feel no need for any justification for the words you say...

Proving a negative inevitably proves to be frustrating, because something which does not exist, or is not true, provides no physical evidence to consider ultimate proof.

But I have giving you a chance to "prove" that the resurrection of Jesus was not a negative, because you believe that it is something that actually physically occurred. You earlier indicated that you had considered Christian claims and found that that the evidence for Christianity justified believing that the claims are true.

Please provide that evidence so we can all consider it. That's not too much to ask, surely. Or are you less than secure that what you have claimed justifies belief might not be able to stand up to actual analysis?

I believe in Christianity, and Jesus as the Crucified Messiah, Resurrected from the dead, from my studying of the evidence resulting in an "increasing conviction" of the "authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible" (as Simon Greenleaf put his beliefs, which i agree with)... From the revealing of truth and the reasoning the disciples give in the epistles, and the fulfillment of the law, and the prophecies, and the convictions placed on me from above, not spawning in my own will but from beyond myself.

I believe in Christianity, becuase i believe Jesus lived a life accordingly to His ministry, showing great signs, crucified for our sin according to the scripture, and resurrected from the dead... I see this, not only as the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, but the only reasonable one.

This is a revelational epistemology, which is being shown that God, and Christ as the cornerstone of the Temple, is the foundation for truth and reason. The "principle of divine reason and creative order"... This is where our foundations for reasoning, truth, knowledge and wisdom, and righteousness rest on..

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 133 by Tart]

I take on the burden of proof all the time... It doesnt scare me, im not an atheist... I can give reasons for my beliefs... But this is about you, you made a claim to knowing something, and not just a small claim. You made a universal claim.... "God NEVER speaks to anyone." and "its all make believe"....

Has God spoken to you directly? Do you receive messages from God? Do you actually hear God's voice? Or is it a form of mental telepathy? Actually hearing voices in one's head occurs, but it is considered a psychotic disorder.

Self professed "prophet" Peter Popoff use to receive "information from God" during his evangelical outreaches. But it turned out that he had a radio receiver in his ear and was listening to instructions from his wife concerning the names and physical conditions of individuals in his audience. His ministry collapsed after he was exposed, but he is now back at it again. There is a never ending supply of the gullible, it seems.

And when asked to justify the words you are saying, you basically said you dont need to prove anything you say....

Actually I said that it was your turn to prove something. You keep asserting that it is my job to prove that something DOES NOT EXIST. But that is proving a negative, and "proving" a negative can only be done by implication found in the LACK of evidence.

I mean, lets be honest... You couldnt prove that if you tried, and you know it... So basically your just talking out nonsense, and feel no need for any justification for the words you say...

Proving a negative inevitably proves to be frustrating, because something which does not exist, or is not true, provides no physical evidence to consider ultimate proof.

But I have given you a chance to "prove" that the resurrection of Jesus was not a negative, because you believe that it is something that actually physically occurred. You earlier indicated that you had considered Christian claims and found that that the evidence for Christianity justified believing that the claims are true.

Please provide that evidence so we can all consider it. That's not too much to ask, surely. Or are you less than secure that what you have claimed justifies belief might not be able to stand up to actual analysis?

I believe in Christianity, and Jesus as the Crucified Messiah, Resurrected from the dead, from my studying of the evidence resulting in an "increasing conviction" of the "authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible" (as Simon Greenleaf put his beliefs, which i agree with)... From the revealing of truth and the reasoning the disciples give in the epistles, and the fulfillment of the law, and the prophecies, and the convictions placed on me from above, not spawning in my own will but from beyond myself.

I believe in Christianity, becuase i believe Jesus lived a life accordingly to His ministry, showing great signs, crucified for our sin according to the scripture, and resurrected from the dead... I see this, not only as the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, but the only reasonable one.

This is a revelational epistemology, which is being shown that God, and Christ as the cornerstone of the Temple, is the foundation for truth and reason. The "principle of divine reason and creative order"... This is where our foundations for reasoning, truth, knowledge and wisdom, and righteousness rest on..

"You believe." You said it twice. Yes I understand that you believe it. No one is questioning the fact that you genuinely believe it. What I was asking for is evidence to support your belief. The reason that you have chosen to believe it. Because what you believe is that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. And that is, on the face of it, a pretty preposterous thing to believe.

So I am asking you a very simple question. What solid reason do you have, what sort of solid evidence can you provide, that would tend to establish that this seemingly preposterous claim is even slightly plausible and isn't simply a matter of tall tales and childlike make believe?

[H.sapiens]

Back to topic... Would you guys agree with Dr. Hume, that induction must be proven to justify the belief that it is a reliable method of inquiring knowledge? Or should we just assume its true?

You are making an meaningless argument since Hume does not use the term ‘induction’ anywhere in the Treatise or the first Inquiry. You can stop creating red herrings any time now, or quote Hume directly.


Back to the topic now. It is absurd, on the face of it, to demand that someone prove a negative. Logic dies not permit it. It is equally absurd to declare proofs as axiomatic when they are every bit as likely to represent nothing more than your preconceived notions about the universe and god. Your refusal to recognize that being an atheist is no different than not believing in Santa Claus, leprechauns or pixies says it all.

With respect to the reality of falsity of god ... is is simple. Have all Theists pray for the regrowth of all amputee's lost limbs and take the results as binding. Just one demonstrable success proves a god, no successes within, say, 10 years, proves no god.

[Tart]

[Replying to post 133 by Tart]

I take on the burden of proof all the time... It doesnt scare me, im not an atheist... I can give reasons for my beliefs... But this is about you, you made a claim to knowing something, and not just a small claim. You made a universal claim.... "God NEVER speaks to anyone." and "its all make believe"....

Has God spoken to you directly? Do you receive messages from God? Do you actually hear God's voice? Or is it a form of mental telepathy? Actually hearing voices in one's head occurs, but it is considered a psychotic disorder.

Self professed "prophet" Peter Popoff use to receive "information from God" during his evangelical outreaches. But it turned out that he had a radio receiver in his ear and was listening to instructions from his wife concerning the names and physical conditions of individuals in his audience. His ministry collapsed after he was exposed, but he is now back at it again. There is a never ending supply of the gullible, it seems.

And when asked to justify the words you are saying, you basically said you dont need to prove anything you say....

Actually I said that it was your turn to prove something. You keep asserting that it is my job to prove that something DOES NOT EXIST. But that is proving a negative, and "proving" a negative can only be done by implication found in the LACK of evidence.

I mean, lets be honest... You couldnt prove that if you tried, and you know it... So basically your just talking out nonsense, and feel no need for any justification for the words you say...

Proving a negative inevitably proves to be frustrating, because something which does not exist, or is not true, provides no physical evidence to consider ultimate proof.

But I have given you a chance to "prove" that the resurrection of Jesus was not a negative, because you believe that it is something that actually physically occurred. You earlier indicated that you had considered Christian claims and found that that the evidence for Christianity justified believing that the claims are true.

Please provide that evidence so we can all consider it. That's not too much to ask, surely. Or are you less than secure that what you have claimed justifies belief might not be able to stand up to actual analysis?

I believe in Christianity, and Jesus as the Crucified Messiah, Resurrected from the dead, from my studying of the evidence resulting in an "increasing conviction" of the "authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible" (as Simon Greenleaf put his beliefs, which i agree with)... From the revealing of truth and the reasoning the disciples give in the epistles, and the fulfillment of the law, and the prophecies, and the convictions placed on me from above, not spawning in my own will but from beyond myself.

I believe in Christianity, becuase i believe Jesus lived a life accordingly to His ministry, showing great signs, crucified for our sin according to the scripture, and resurrected from the dead... I see this, not only as the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, but the only reasonable one.

This is a revelational epistemology, which is being shown that God, and Christ as the cornerstone of the Temple, is the foundation for truth and reason. The "principle of divine reason and creative order"... This is where our foundations for reasoning, truth, knowledge and wisdom, and righteousness rest on..

"You believe." You said it twice. Yes I understand that you believe it. No one is questioning the fact that you genuinely believe it. What I was asking for is evidence to support your belief. The reason that you have chosen to believe it. Because what you believe is that a corpse came back to life and subsequently flew away. And that is, on the face of it, a pretty preposterous thing to believe.

So I am asking you a very simple question. What solid reason do you have, what sort of solid evidence can you provide, that would tend to establish that this seemingly preposterous claim is even slightly plausible and isn't simply a matter of tall tales and childlike make believe?

Ok, well i gave you my answer... The reason I believe is because God has revealed himself to me. From my seeking out answers, the scripture proved to me without a doubt that it is a living message, alive and active, prophetic in nature and having the quality of describing truth. Truth in my personal life, truth in the world around me, and truth beyond. God is clearly a foundation for truth, and I see it through the convictions placed on me from God.

However, if you want an evidential claim that is independent of human experience, ill narrow it down for you.

I believe (and FYI, saying "i believe", doesn't nullify something as being true), that Jesus came and lived a ministry showing many signs. He came in the fulfillment of prophecy, and fulfillment of the law, essentially as a missing piece making sense out of God. He was crucified for the forgiveness of our sins, and was resurrected (which without a resurrection, we wouldnt even know about Jesus right now)... This isnt only the best explanation for the existence of christianity, its the only reasonable one.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 138 by Tart]

Ok, well i gave you my answer... The reason I believe is because God has revealed himself to me. From my seeking out answers, the scripture proved to me without a doubt that it is a living message, alive and active, prophetic in nature and having the quality of describing truth. Truth in my personal life, truth in the world around me, and truth beyond. God is clearly a foundation for truth, and I see it through the convictions placed on me from God.

I notice that you don't really have any physical evidence to offer though, do you? Essentially, you believe it to be true because that is what you believe.

My late aunt believed it to be true too. Because that is what she believed. Jesus use to talk to my Aunt as well. He would stand right there in the room with her, and they carried on a running conversation for more than 20 years. None of the rest of us could see or hear him of course, but when we asked her what he looked like, she would say that he was radiant. My aunt was diagnosed with psychosis, and was prescribed meds. But she said that taking the meds upset Jesus, and he stopped appearing to her. So she stopped taking the meds, and Jesus returned.

For my aunt's 80th birthday, Jesus revealed to her the day of his second coming, because, he said, she was his special beloved. Coincidentally this special day was only a few weeks away. So my aunt and a large number of her church congregation sat out in the church parking lot in lawn chairs before dawn on the appointed day to watch Jesus return from the sky in glory with his hordes of angels. Well, as you may have surmised, Jesus stood her up. All she could say was that she must have misunderstood him.

My aunt passed when she was 90. In the hospital she was told that she probably only had a few days to live. She was delighted and didn't last the night. She had spent her entire life waiting to die so that she could be with Jesus in heaven.

However, if you want an evidential claim that is independent of human experience, ill narrow it down for you.

I believe (and FYI, saying "i believe", doesn't nullify something as being true), that Jesus came and lived a ministry showing many signs. He came in the fulfillment of prophecy, and fulfillment of the law, essentially as a missing piece making sense out of God. He was crucified for the forgiveness of our sins, and was resurrected (which without a resurrection, we wouldnt even know about Jesus right now)... This isnt only the best explanation for the existence of christianity, its the only reasonable one.

First, how do YOU differentiate between "believe" and "make believe?"

And second, what then is the best explanation for Islam? Or Hinduism? Or any of the other thousands of religious beliefs that have existed, past and present? The billions of people that subscribed to those religious beliefs, past and present, were just as convinced as you are that what they "believed" to be true, was unquestionably true. Their belief s were the "true" beliefs. And yet they all had it wrong. Because you know without a doubt that your beliefs are the "true" beliefs.

Another thing I should point out. The very existence of Jesus went entirely unrecorded during his lifetime. So unspectacular were the things that Jesus ACTUALLY did that no one even bothered to take notice and write about him while he was alive. Jesus became a huge star in the years after his death however, based on the stories and tall tales that were being spread concerning the miraculous things he did. Things that seemed to impress NO ONE at the time they were supposed to have been occurring.

So what you are really saying about your beliefs is that is that the resurrection of Jesus makes sense because it fits neatly within the parameters of your beliefs. Like offering us relief from original sin.

Original sin occurred when God, who is omnipotent and knows all things, created Adam and Eve and the serpent with his own hands to be EXACTLY what He created them to be. No error was possible. God put them all in the garden together knowing EXACTLY what would occur, and then condemned both side in perpetuity when His divine plan turned out exactly as He always knew and intended that it would. But then, 2,000 years ago, God came to earth in human form to bleed and die in agony, so to offer humankind salvation from sin. Why?? Because only the shedding of divine blood would relieve humankind of the massive sin of God's original plan. Why? Why couldn't God just forgive humans for falling into his original trap? God's game, God's rules!

But of course, believing this myth doesn't nullify it as being true.

[H.sapiens]

I believe in Christianity, and Jesus as the Crucified Messiah, Resurrected from the dead, from my studying of the evidence resulting in an "increasing conviction" of the "authenticity and plenary inspiration of the Bible" (as Simon Greenleaf put his beliefs, which i agree with)... From the revealing of truth and the reasoning the disciples give in the epistles, and the fulfillment of the law, and the prophecies, and the convictions placed on me from above, not spawning in my own will but from beyond myself.

I believe in Christianity, becuase i believe Jesus lived a life accordingly to His ministry, showing great signs, crucified for our sin according to the scripture, and resurrected from the dead... I see this, not only as the best explanation for the existence of Christianity, but the only reasonable one.

This is a revelational epistemology, which is being shown that God, and Christ as the cornerstone of the Temple, is the foundation for truth and reason. The "principle of divine reason and creative order"... This is where our foundations for reasoning, truth, knowledge and wisdom, and righteousness rest on..

It is dishonest of you to rest your defense on Greenleaf without first dealing with my precious refutation of his concepts.

Let's look at what his assumptions were, for therein lies the errors of his ways.

According to Professor Greenleaf, we must:

1) begin with an open mind, not clouded or congested by the impediments of prejudice; (if only he had actually been able to do so.)

2) subject the testimony of the disciples to no greater burden of proof than to which any fair courts would hold any other witnesses; (if only he had actually been able to do so, but the threat of perjury could not be invoked.)

3) realize that the factual foundation for the basis of the Christian religion as to birth, ministry, miracles, death and resurrection is based upon professed personal knowledge of our witnesses (i.e., “the Gospels are altogether free of Gnosticism and of the other aberrant theologies that pervade many writings from the second century);(if only he had actually been able to do so, the provenance of the gospels is so murky as to render this "realization" unreasonable. Keep in mind that he first complete copies of single New Testament books appear around 200, and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus dates to the 4th century.)

4) accept our conclusions regardless of where they lead;

5) give no consideration to special or express revelation beyond the factual accounts of the evangelists;(if only he had actually been able to do so he would have realized that what is in doubt here is the factual basis of the evangelists and that without giving such consideration the entire question is moot.)

6) begin with the assumption that copies of the Gospels we have today are accurate unless and until proved otherwise—the burden of contesting their accuracy being on the person(s) contesting their accuracy, similarly to the presumption of innocence placing the burden of proving guilt on the one alleging guilt; (he has the burden wrong, remember that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and here even ordinary evidence is lacking. All there is is a claim which it is most unreasonable to assume to be accurate.)

7) presume that individuals are conversant (“knowledgeable�) about their own affairs;(There must also be the implicit and unreasonable presumption of precise knowledge of exact authorship and provenance, which is nonexistent.)


8) examine who and what manner of men the disciples were (e.g., were they men of moral and sincere purpose, or men given to foolishness and frivolity?);
understand that, in trials of fact by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true;(There must also be the implicit and unreasonable presumption of precise knowledge of exact authorship and provenance, which is nonexistent.)

9) understand that a proposition of fact is proved when its truth is established by competent (i.e., admissible) evidence unless and until refuted by greater evidence;(There is no competent evidence here, not even if hearsay were to be declared admissible.)

10) recognize that, in the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility being on the one seeking to impeach;(The circumstances do engender suspicion, to declare that there is absence of suspicion denies the entire rationale for the discussion to exist.)

11) appreciate that the credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends firstly upon their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, upon their number and the consistencies of their testimony; fourthly, upon the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, upon the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances;(None of which are relevant if there is reasonable suspicion as to the identity of the authors or the provenance of the documents.)

12) consider that the disciples declared their “great truths� with one voice (e.g., that Christ rose from the dead and only through repentance from sin and faith in Him could men hope for salvation);(The most logical explanation for one voice is a single author or subsequent massaging of the documents to bring them into line with an established dogma.)

13) consider their varied and unique “qualifications,� Mark and John being much too unlearned to forge the story of their Master's Life; Matthew and Luke too learned to be duped; (Again there is the issue of exact authorship and provenance.)

14) evaluate the paradoxes in their narratives—men contriving a lie would be consistent in every respect; men telling the same truth(s) from their own perspectives would tell it differently, albeit without contradiction; (There is no such consistency unless you blinker yourself and stick to the gospels from a single tradition and translation. Bart D. Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus - The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, notes that there are more textual variants in the New Testament (200-400 thousand) than it has letters (c. 140 thousand).)

15) dispense with faulty logic, e.g., the argument against miracles, which supposes that the Creator of all things first made a code of laws, and then put it out of his own power to change them; (Irrelevant.)

16) consider the “coincidence� of the disciples’ testimonies with collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances (e.g., the works of other authors and discoveries of subsequent archeologists). (There are no "collateral and contemporaneous facts and circumstances".)

All in all, in the face of modern knowledge, Greenleaf’s own words, while perhaps good argumentation in his day, are revealed to be weak, pale and wan and are only of interest in a strictly historical sense or to those with an underdeveloped understanding of today's knowledge. So your are discovered to be holding naught but a misplaced argument from authority.

Deal with these points, only then may we honestly move on to a refutation of your thoughts.