Dear Dan,

<<Why quote Scripture to me when you've previously suggested I shouldn't put my confidence in the Scriptures?>>

I would never make such a suggestion - I am happy that you have confidence in the Scriptures.

Perhaps what you refer to was my fear that you could lose this confidence? I hope it never happens, but since you are playing with fire here, this is a possibility. Should it ever come to that, I encourage you to still trust God and remain on His side, even if you are no longer able to trust the Scriptures.

<<You encourage me with a Psalm to 'trust the Lord'. I already do trust the Lord. I trust him to tell the truth.>>

And may you always know the truth in your heart of hearts by the grace of the Holy Spirit. There is no truth other than God.

There is however a difference between truth and mere facts.
God is not there to feed our curiosity and addiction to facts.

<<Is there anything better for building trust?>>

There are many things that help people to build trust in the Lord, including charity, purity, introspection, prayer and austerities.

The very best among them is the company of saints. As not everyone is fortunate enough to have that, the next-best is to keep the good company of the righteous and faithful and to read or listen to the Scriptures.

However, attempting to correlate between Scripture and facts is an offence against faith and will not help you to build this trust.

AJ Why do you refer to Schroeder as a "character"?

According to Antony Flew, Schoeder's arguments were instrumental in turning him away from atheism to theism. You have heard of Antony Flew haven't you?

AJ: <<By the way, the irony of you providing a link to a guy claiming that the Bible’s description of God helps to prove his existence, when your authority on the Qur’an’s scientific accuracy claims that the Qur’an is the more scientifically accurate of the two, hasn’t escaped me.>>

It hasn't? Let's explore this. I noticed that Dan also suggested we read the account of Genesis, so perhaps some comparisons across texts might be useful.

For the same reason I referred to Bucaille as a "character", grateful.

<<Why do you refer to Schroeder as a "character"?>>

Because just referring to him by surname has too much of a formal ring to it; an air of respect that he doesn't deserve given the stupidity of his claims.

I was going to say "joker", but I thought that might be laying it on a little too thick. Schroeder did enough damage to his own credibility "in five minutes" without me having to add to it.

<<According to Antony Flew, Schoeder's arguments were instrumental in turning him away from atheism to theism.>>

So instead of addressing my rebuttals to this Schroeder character, you’re going to fallaciously appeal to an authority by mentioning Antony Flew and his acceptance of this Schroeder character’s arguments? Sheesh. You’re not even trying anymore, are you?

But, yes. Poor ol’ Flew. Seems he starting losing his marbles towards the end there. He rejected the idea of an afterlife, so it’s not like he was ‘cramming for the finals’ or anything.

The guy, who was brilliant enough to coin the No True Scotsman fallacy and understand that the problem of evil means that an omniscient god cannot exist, decided that he was a Deist with no justification other than the God of the Gaps fallacy.

Very sad indeed.

So yes, there’s the answer to your question. I do know of Flew. Many atheists do. You lot make damn sure of that. He is, after all, about the only famous conversion story you’ve got involving a prominent scientist.

<<I noticed that Dan also suggested we read the account of Genesis, so perhaps some comparisons across texts might be useful.>>

Oh, we haven’t gotten that far yet. You still need to establish the existence of a god first, then we’d need to find out if the Abrahamic god is the one true god. Only then will comparing the accuracy of Islam and Christianity be anything more than a sheer waste of time.

AJ you are degrading anyone who poses a threat to your point of view. Why? Why not make an argument rather than denigrate the person?

grateful,

I have presented arguments against the reasoning and arguments of those with whom I disagree, in order to justify my pointing out of their stupidity. To do otherwise would be to commit the ad hominem fallacy, and I don't do fallacies, sorry.

You, on the other hand, have focused only on my "denigrating", presumably to avoid addressing my counter-arguments.

Now that, if anything, is fallacious.

My point of view is not under threat either, by the way. If it turns out that I'm wrong, then so be it. I'll simply change my mind. As an atheist, I have no reason to cling to my position as, unlike the theists' position, nothing is at stake.