Saturday, November 03, 2007

Response to Soo Kiat: Existence of God

... for what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For His invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. (Rom. 1:19-20)

This post is a response and refutation of the points made by Soo Kiat in his defence of his atheism, which was made in his comment in the post of mine on Homosexuals and Homosexual bigots, as follows:

- Finally, it is of course impossible to prove a negative, so I cannot prove that god does not exist, but that is trivially true of the most absurd claims, too. I cannot prove that there are no unicorns, either, but my belief that there are no unicorns is not on a par with the belief that unicorns exist. A belief can be justified or not, depending on the balance of evidence. My belief that there are no unicorns is justified by the fact that there is not a shred of evidence that they exist, with no observations either in life or in the fossil evidence. If someone does believe in the existence of unicorns, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate it. That is my position with regard to god, too. There is no evidence. The physical world works according to laws of nature that do not require the intervention of a god. The creation of the world is not well explained by a pre-existing god, either, since that merely begs the question who created the creator. If you say the creator has always existed, or did not need any agency to bring him into being, then I can retort that the physical world can equally have always existed or did not require an external agency. There is simply no need to posit the god hypothesis, as it adds nothing to the explanation of the "genesis" of the universe except for an additional unnecessary stage, and is then redundant for all eternity. That is not blind faith. That is evidence-based reasoning. When evidence changes, my opinion changes, too. That is where I differ from most conservative religious people, who cling to the truth of their bibles, korans and torahs, even when the evidence from the world around them shows that their books are mistaken. The evolution debate is one such area. No serious biological scientist disputes Darwinian evolution, which has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt for decades, but some religions prefer to cling to an absurdly implausible alternative. That is blind faith. Deeply, wilfully blind.

I will answer these assertions made by Soo Kiat point by point.

Before I start, let me first state that I am defending the Christian faith. I am not interested even if you can prove the falsehood of all other faiths; they fend for themselves. In fact, if Christianity is true, all others are false (Jn. 14:6), so I am not interested in defending them. As such, my apologetic method has and always will be presuppositional (Clarkan as opposed to Van Tillian), and upon this basis I will proceed.

Firstly, Soo Kiat maintinas that there is no evidence for the existence of God, and maintans that the burden of proof is on the theist/Christian to prove it. However, that assertion of his is wrong. What does he mean by evidence? The Scripture has already stated that God Himself has revealed Himself to all Man through General Revelation, which is known through the fact of Creation (Rom. 1:19-20) and through the conscience in each individual (Rom. 2:15). Absolutely nobody can say that there is no evidence for God, because their very existence as people and their conscience proves it. They are just like the person who deny that air exists while they are breathing, or the person who denies that there is a soul even though there is fundamentally no physical reason why any healthy person without any blood clot anywhere should die as compared to another person of the same age and build. Yes, the reason given is usually heart attack, but for a healthy person, that just describes the symptom not the cause.

Now, Soo Kiat denies the fact of Creation and the need of a Creator, and I will tackle that later. However, I would first like to ask what kind of evidences would he require to prove the existence of God. Most people who state that there is no evidence typically cannot be convinced otherwise; in other words, their minds are closed to that possibility. If they seen an apparition, they would reason it away as hallucination. If they see a miraculous healing, oh well, the person was not sick in the first place. If peoples' lives were transformed, that would be exaplained away via psychology. What then can persuade such peoeple? Most of the time, none! As it is written,

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. (2 Cor. 4:3-4)

Satan has blinded their eyes, and they would not see. It is not a case of a lack of evidence (which I will show later), but a case of rebellion and willful unbelief, arising from the depraved hearts of sinful Man (Rom. 3:10-18).

Soo Kiat's example of the existence of a unicorn (probably derived from philosophical textbooks because I have seen that one before too) is fallacious when applied to the Christian faith. That is because evidence is aplenty for the Christian faith, just because someone refuses to accept the evidence is not proof that there is no evidence! It is analogous to the person who (using the unicorn analogy), when presented with a unicorn explans it away as being a white mutated goat!

Secondly, Soo Kiat states that "the physical world works acording to laws of nature". So where did the physical laws come from? There is an argument called the cosmological argument which states that there must be a God since the physical laws and our planetary conditions are perfectly suited for life. I don't like the argument myself but the fact remains that you can't just state that the physical world works according to natural laws, as if that proved that God doesn't exist. If God is the one who ordained those laws, then there is nothing which can be proved, as if God exists = natural laws doesn't. This kind of false dichotomy between laws of nature and God is just ridiculous.

With regards to the question of who creates the Creator, this is a question of semantics. The (ultimate) Creator by definition cannot be created, otherwise whoever created that creator is the ultimate Creator. The attempted retort that the natural world have always existed or did not reqire an external agency shows a lack of understanding of both science (physics) and philosophy. First of all, even to grant the eternal existence of the universe would then make the universe into god (pantheism), so that doesn't prove that God doesn't exist, only the true Christian God. However, that cannot be the case. Scientifically, there is a law of physics called the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which disproves of an eternal universe since work can only be done when there are regions of disparity (of whatever kind). This law would entail that the ultimate end of all things is nothingness, and therefore the universe must have an origin in time with low entropy. Philosophically, if the universe was eternal, then in order to get to the present one must go through an infinite number of time frames. However, such a thing is impossible since infinity can never be reached as finite time can never complete the infinite time frames necessary. It is no wonder that to embrace an eternal universe, one has to discount the entire material world as an illusion, which is what Hinduism has done. (This also disproves pantheism, by the way)

Now, there two criteria will not apply to God. Scientifically, God is outside space and time, so the Second Law of Thermodynamics cannot apply to Him. Philosophically, we as finite beings live in a finite universe in a finite time frame. God who is infinite can experience an infinite time frame, and He reveals Himself to us via finite ways. It is entirely possible for the Infinite to experience and express Himself finitely, but not the other way around. Therefore, the philosphical problem cannot be answered by us as finite beings, but by God as the infinite Creator.

As such, I would like to challenge Soo Kiat and all other physicalists/materialists to prove that reality is even possible without a God. Without God, the reality of the material world is impossible, as Science and Philosophy has shown. Just to preempt opposition, the postulation of a multiverse does not solve the problem; besides being almost immposible to falsify or prove, it only shifts the time frame of Creation back, not to make it eternal. Therefore, far from being a 'useless hypothesis', God is the only explanation of why anything even exists. Even if Evolution and the Big Bang theory is correct, that would not answer why the existence of matter, reality and time can even begin to be possible.

Now, let's go to the issue of Evolution. Soo Kiat maintains that evolution is an undeniable fact, and that "no serious biological scientist disputes Darinian evolution". This is a totally erroneous statement. I will assume that Soo Kiat here means Evolution in general, since there are many competing theories of Evolution (Neo-Darwinian, Punctuated Equilibrium etc.). Nevertheless, this is a ricidulous statement to make. If by that statement, you mean that no scientist disputes (neo)-Darwinian evolution, then he is definitely wrong. Dr. Jonathan Sarfati is one such counter-example, not to mention Dr. Kurt Wise who studied under the late Harvard scientist Stephan Jay Gould. Of course, what most mainstream evolutionists mean by that statement is that no scientist who is serious will dispute Darwinian evolution. But this is a ridiculously circular statement. How do you know that a scientist is serious? Because he/she embraced (neo)-Dariwinian evolution. Why does a scientist embrace (neo)-Darwinian evolution? Because he is serious.

If Soo Kiat and others would like to talk about the evidences for and aginst evolution, I would be most happy to oblige. Just for the information, I have obtained a BSc. (Hons) in Life Sciences, and so far, I have not learned anything which proves Darwinian Evolution, just a bunch of just-so theories stories.

So where does this leave you? As it is, atheism and evolutionism are based on blind faith. Deeply, willfully blind. For anyone to deny the existence of God when it is evident just prove the depravity of the human heart in being further hardened and blinded in their depravity. Only the Lord God can change the heart, and I will sincerely pray that He will do so and grant to you, Soo Kiat, the repentance that comes from faith. As it is, do not disobey the voice of your conscience who is presently condemning you because you have suppressed the truth of God in unrighteousness (Rom. 1:18) and have been given over to homosexuality becuase you have continually rejected Him (Rom. 1:26-27). Rather, repent of your sins and turn to Christ alone, who can save your from your own depraved nature and a life of sin.

PS: The using of my scientific qualification is not meant to appeal to authority, but as a pre-emption against all these 'scientific' evolution supporters who always think or at least hint that thoe who reject Evolution do not know anything about Science/ Biology/ Life science.

9 comments:

KC Low said...

Hmm. You want evidence of evolution? Then let me refer you to some papers.
Kinoshita et al 1981 Purification and characterization of 6-aminohexanoic-acid-oligomer hydrolase of Flavobacterium sp. Ki72.Eur J Biochem

This paper described how scientists managed to isolate an ezyme that digest nylon. Nylon is a synthetic plymer created only in 1930. A creator wont have the foresight to make a useless enzyme that would only have use several millenia later.

Some IDers will bring up Michael Behe's irreducible complexity argument which mainstream scientists reject. There's a recent Science paper called
"Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation".
which explains how hormone receptors could have evolved to fit different ligands.
Using your Life Science degree, you are trying to argue from authority. James Watson, Richard Roberts and Albert Einstein are all non-beleivers and I'm sure they are smarter than u. For you information, I'm an A*Star scholar who also just gotten my degree. Remember Matti Tammi's lecture where he said that if evolution does not make sense, nothing else does. Our homology with other species like apes and mouse shows our ancestry and these homology are used in bioinformatics, in animal models. The evidence is all summarised here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent.
Refute them all if you can

If u took immunology, you would have learnt about adaptive and innate immunity. However, adaptive immunity is only present in higher species but the lamprey has evolved a different immune system.
http://www.nature.com.libproxy1.nus.edu.sg/news/2004/040705/full/news040705-2.html
In fact i would like to ask you, what species are Adam and Eve? Are they Homo sapiens sapiens, or homo sapiens idalthu? Or Homo erectus who can make tools and control fire. Or Homo neanderthalensis who has elaborate art form and well shaped spears? These hominds have better cognitive power than our primate ancestors, just lacking some more ingredients which will be manifested in us.
What mechanism did the creator use to make organisms? Did he wave his magic wand? Or whip up soil like Nu Wa?
In Genesis 1:11 God said And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so
and 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also
So plants were created before the sun was created? How can the plants photosynthesize then?

ddd said...

KC,

OK, let's talk about the science, but you being an A*Star scholar will not help you here. The only reason why I mention my life science degree is to get people to think, and not post stupid theories as if they can smoke through. Or worse still, some people will disregard whatever you say if you have no science degree, which is just plain ridiculous. (Everything should be judged by its own merit, not on the person uttering it)

I disagree with Matti Tammi. That doesn't mean he is stupid or that other evolutionary scientists are stupid. The problem is one of logic, not science. Evolution is a system of rubbish in, rubbish out. No matter how brilliant a person may be, starting with rubbish will not enable you to come up with anything but rubbish (maybe repackaged nicer though). That brilliant people believe evolution proves nothing at all, after all, the renown scientist and Nobel laurate James Watson made some racist remarks recently (http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3067222.ece). Does that mean he is stupid, or rather that his brilliance does not render him infallible even on various matters he should know better, and that due to his presuppostions?

You describe the isolation of an enzyme that digest nylon. As of now, I do not have access to the article, since I am not at work. However, I will grant you the nmost generous of scenarios. Let's say that this enzyme is something which didn't exist at all back then and 'evolve' because of selection pressure (the typical evololution scenario). So what? Acquiring a new function (which is actually a modification of a pe-existing one) for a protein somehow proves the 'molecules to Man' evolutionary scenario? Notice that the catalytic activity is not something altogether new either, just that for various reasons (probably steric, from what I garner from the abstract), 'normal enzymes' cannot digest nylon. If the reason for non-digestion is indeed steric, then that disproves your contention that Evolution is hereby involved. Evolution MUST create new information in order for it to be viable as a theory; shuffling of data to fit the task may be good for the enzyme and for the organism, but it proves nothing about the validity of (macro)evolution. In fact, I have read before in an article (which is lost somewhere in my journal archive) of experiments being done via Molecular Evolution (which has nothing whatsoever to do with real evolution) to experiment on the feasibility of proteins to 'evolve' from one superfamily to another. Not surprisingly, the protein superfamilies are seemingly on a stability peak, and to get from one to the other, one hs to go through a fitness 'valley', where the protein will not be stable. Unlike other forms of evolution, protein 'evolution' always have a few timeless selection pressures like the stability of the protein, and therefore it is impossible for a protein to slowly evolve from one superfamily to another.

Also, your statement that "A creator wont have the foresight to make a useless enzyme" is begging the question. First of all, who said it was useless? You? The scientist? What do you mean by useless? Useless for the organism, or that its ability to degrade nylon is useless because no nylon existed back then? But then why must we evaluate the usefulness an enzyme by whether it has a useful ability for us humans, instead of its original usage in the parent organism (in this case Flavobacterium)? It may be the case that we currently do not know whether it has any usage in the parent organism, but so? Are we going to commit the fallacy of arguing from silence? Scientists previously thought the thyroid was useless (vestigal organ), but in the end it was found out to perform vital functions in the body. So are we to condemn something as being useless just because we do not understand how it could probably be useful?

You mentioned that a recent Science paper attempts to explain how hormone receptors could evolve. Let's put it this way, I am not that interested in ID as a theory, though I see how it could prove useful. That said, however, for this paper, is this a matter of scientific story telling? You yourself said that it explains how it could evolved to fit different ligands. And this somehow proves Evolution? COULD? I could do a lot of things, but so what? It is possible for me to think scienifically of a scenario whereby the universe teems with life, or one where it is barren of any extra-terrestial life, but this does not change the reality out there (whatever it is). Could happen does not mean have happened. Also, all of these scenarios have not calculated whether it is chronologically and statistically feasible for such a evolution scneario to occur given the miniscule probabilities of everything happening exactly to plan, and they ignore the very likely possibility of such evolution being reversible or taking off in another direction altogether.

Next, on homology, you assume that similarity implies common descent. However, is that something you infer from your theory or something which is derived from your theory? Most cars have four wheels, does that mean that have comon ancestry? NO, but they have common design pattern, because such a design is needed for cars to work. Similarly, homology can be due to common design. Common descent only comes when you believe in Evolution.

For more on homology and common descent, see here http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/homology.asp

Yes, I have taken immunology, and that gives even greater nightmares to evolutionists in order to explain how such a complex system can ever evolve (unless you believe in punctuated equilibrium, but I don't think you are a Stephan Jay Gould or Niles Eldredge fan, are you?). The lamfrey has a different type of immune system, but what does this have to do with evolution? What kind of Creation account have you heard which makes you think that this fact would be a problem for us? In fact, this pose a great problem for the evolutionists who need to explain how two complicated immune systems (those in humans and other higher species, and those in lamphreys) could have evolved seperately, and yet both are complicated and poses 'Irreducible Complexity', to use Behe's words.

As to Adam and Eve, they were humans (Homo Sapiens). But then this is irrelevant. The ridiculous theory of 'human evolution' has gone through many major changes since it was first proposed? Have you heard of the Piltdown Man hoax? Or the controversy over 'Lucy' and the 'Out of Africa" theory? And I disagree with the entire Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis categorization. I myself am not as well versed in this topic as I think is necessary, but I don't see how you can be so adament on the rightness of your theory on human evolution when even the 'experts' disagree among themselves. And about the only thing they can agree upon is that 'humans evolve form apes', which, after all their evidences have been torn up by each other, doesn't seem so well founded after all.

I will round up this response by looking at the presuppositions of your comment. I will ignore the last part because IMO they are meant to ridicule rather than seeking understanding.

First, let me say that you do not seem to realize the foundational issue at hand. Even having a PhD would not help you here, because this debate is ultimately a philosophical debate (including Philosophy of Sciece). You interpret your evidences to support Evolution, but the fact of the matter is that you make way too many unsubstatiated suppositions (which is why I say rubbish in, rubbish out). You assume Uniformitarianism, but the fact of the matter is that you don't have any actual measurements of the ancient past to back up any of your hypotheses. Didn't you learn at least in Physics ('A' level) that extrapolation of any equation on a graph way beyond the data points would imply that whatever data you get from such an extrapolation is unreliable? Yet, to prove evolution, you must extrapolate into the past, of which you have no measurements of. How can you rule out any possible factors (especially unique occurances) which may disturb your nice Uniformitarian system and thus cause you to have a false measurement since you did not take that into account? And don't try to use the fossil record to aid you. The fossil record is in a mess (try finding a real place on earth where the soil layers look exactly like the one all of us see in any biology textbook; they don't exist!) and the most they can give us is probabilities. Of course, geologist may ignore and explain away all evidences which contradict their evolutionary paradigm, but that's another story. If you want to know more about how science works, read up on scientists like Philosopher of Science Thomas Kuhn (PhD Physics). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn) and his theory of paradigm shift.

Munchy said...

huh? Im pretty sure Einstein was not Christian but he certainly believed in the presence of a God and this belief was quite a factor in his approach towards science.. if anything creationists should be using him as an example and not evolutionists

While taking General Biology in NUS, I emailed my TA questioning how they taught evolution. One of my points was that the famous peppered moth experiment (mentioned in lecture) was fake.. the reply I got essentially said that the experiment was fake but that evolution was true anyway..

sigh...

anyway.. an Astar scholar who just got his degree (bachelors? phD?) using this argue from authority over one with a life science degree... im distinctly unimpressed
.. not to mention none of what you put forth is (actual) evidence of evolution.. surprise us !

P.S. anyway im a 4th year bioengineering student at NUS if anyone is not curious haha

ddd said...

Marn Chi:

I salute you on your boldness. I wouldn't be so bold if I were you, especially since you are still studying. Discrimination against scientists who believe in Creation is always a distinct reality, epecially so in the US but perhaps also in Singapore too. I definitely wouldn't want to be the first one in Singapore to be sacked because I refuse to bow down to the idol of Evolution!

Anyway, Einstein is not a good example. Yes, he did believe in some type of God, but his beliefs are closer to pantheism than to classical theism. The most you can say about him was that even such a brilliant mind does not believe that time + chance = everything in the universe. Besides that, there is not much apologetic value left.

Anyway, enjoy your final year in NUS. Work life is definitely much tougher.

Munchy said...

yeah its sad that Christians and those who dare to question evolution are often dismissed as being unscientific.. when I feel that its the staunch pro-evolutionists who are being unscientific and jumping to conclusions that go beyond the actual implications of the evidence before them.. they are often too eager to make the evidence fit their worldview and say "ah ha! evolution!"

my personal views of how old the world actually is and all that remain mixed, but i do think its irrelevant. There is not much difference between a 5 billion year old earth and a 10,000 year old earth that looks 5 billion years old... and whatever other possibilities, same for evolution, its really a bit irrelevant sometimes.. but as said above it does irk me when pple do go overboard in jumping to blatantly unscientific conclusions about evolution

ddd said...

Well, I wouldn't want to talk about the age of the earth etc at this moment, but just to state that I think otherwise. Enough issues for a single post already...

Chee Soo Kiat said...

Daniel, since you base your beliefs on a 2,000-year-old book written in an age of ignorance, internally inconsistent, by different authors selectively narrowed down by the Church in Rome for political reasons, I think it is fair to say that you and I have different standards when it comes to evaluating evidence.

Most scientists and philosophers, whose professional lives are centred around the evaluation of empirical data or metaphysical argument, are not believers in gods, either singular or in triplicate, and even among those who are, only a very small percentage indeed believe in a personal, active god. The remaining God of the Gaps has, since the Enlightenment, been relegated to an ever-diminishing, increasingly insignificant role in the universe even among theistic thinking men. That some thinking men like yourself still cling to faith is more about personality than evidence.

You regard my lack of belief as a sin. I regard your belief as a defect of character. You do not possess the evidence to change my mind, I do not have the power to change your personality, so there is little to be gained from continuing our exchange.
Best wishes, and may the scales fall from your eyes,
Soo Kiat

ddd said...

Soo Kiat,

I suggest you stop your bluff. You have not even interacted with my arguments, and you dare state that I do not possess the evidences to change your mind?! Perhaps, because your mind is closed to any reality except what your sinful, depraved nature has already decided you want to hear and believe in! After all, if you accept that there is a God who created you, you must answer to Him for your sinful decision to commit the sin of homosexuality, and you love your sin too much to do that, don't you? Better to deny that He doesn't exist and hope that your denial would be the true reality, like the ostraitch who thinks that the lion does not exist because its head is in the sand!

Nevertheless, for others who are more open-minded, I would respond to some of your assertions.

The Bible, contrary to what you say, is not a 2000-yea old book. It is older than that, and yet it is timeless. You comment on "an age of ignorance" shows your modernist snobbery and rejection of anything which is not of your time and age as being wrong, which above all, centers on an euthopian version of evolution popularized by people such as Aldous Huxley in his vision of a "brave new world", a vision which somehow survives despite the horrible displays of depravity in the massacres of the 20th century and the sickening attempts at genocide against the Jews by Hitler, and also the current genoocide attempt in Sudan. And if you want to talk about progressiveness, check out communist Russia and the millions it slaughtered and tortured in an age of 'scientific enlightenment'. That you can somehow still believe that Man is progressing as time passes is a sad reflection of an inability to learn from the past. Also, as postmodernism mestatasized throughout the culture, such views of the past would probably be in the trashheap of ideas soon anyway.

And such a concept of the development of the Canon of Scripture you espoused is Da Vinci style fiction; utter nonsense. That anyone can choose to believe in such historical revisionism shows that they are not objective. Ditto for your attack on the Canon of Scripture by linking it to Roman Catholicism, which didn't exist back then (another historical revisionist fiction concoted by the Romanists). Furthermore, this argument sounds utterly stupid when one considers that the early church was under PERSECUTION back then. Not the mild 'discrimination' you experience, but the one that would throw you to the lions if you refuse to recant. It is absurd to claim that the Canon was restricted for political reasons, as the church was struggling to exist back then; nobody has the time to go around burning Gnostic manuscripts etc when their next meal might be their last. Also, if you talk about history, the false Gnostic writings were written much later in the 2nd-3rd century AD. You should really brush up on your historical facts instead of making baseless assertions which are historically inaccurate.

Yes, most scientists and philosophers are not believers in God. And this is supposed to prove that God does not exist? What kind of argument is this but a fallacy of appeal to authority? Scientists and philosophers are not infallible, so why can't they be wrong? After all, according to you, almost all the scientists of Darwin's day was wrong in their rejection of evolution, so what's new? Since when has truth been determined by majority vote?

You mention the phrase the 'God of the gaps'. Perhaps you may wish to consider the 'chance of the gaps'. Anytime evolution has a particualr thorny problem, immediately the magic words of 'chance + time' would be used to exaplin it all away, as like a magic wand to solve all problems. Perhaps you may want to try exaplining how science can exaplain the Cambrian explosion, or the process of Abiogenesis. Nobody to my knowledge has adequately explain either of them even plausibly.

Oh, for someone who doesn't believe in God, you sure do have a lot of faith that what you are saying matters at all. In fact, you have a lot of faith in your beliefs (liberalism, homosexuality, atheism, humanism). That being said, that you cling to such faith of yours and yet castigate others like me who have faith in God is most definitely NOT a wise move. Just because your faith is not in God does not make it not faith. Please stop trying to chide others for having faith when you yourself have such blind faith in your belief system.

Anyway, regarding scales and eyes, I do not know why you even want any supposed scales to fall from my eyes. On what basis can you make such a wish? If there by no God, then why must I be wrong? Everything will be relative anyway then. The only thing you can wish for is that I will change my position; you can't wish for scales to fall from my eyes because saying so assumes that I am wrong and deceived, which presupposes that there be an objective standard of reality, which cannot exist if there is no God.

Anyway, I will pray that God will remove the blindness from your eyes, and remove this wicked heart of yours and regenerate you. May God have mercy upon your soul and save you from your own chosen destiny - hell.

Jenson said...

Hi Soo Kiat,

I would let Daniel deal with your comment, but I was interested to see you describe the Bible as:

"internally inconsistent"

My experience of those who say this is:

1) they have not read the Bible, but got that from hearsay, or

2) they have read and scrutinised the Bible to seek out all the inconsistencies.

I assume you are (2), please may I know what inconsistencies have you found? Perhaps just 3-5 verses for Daniel and I to ponder over?

That is much appreciated...