Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James?

1) Creation vs Evolution : Heard of Libby Anne? , 2) Did Libby Anne misunderstand at least Something about Young Earth Creationism? Or: Why don't they teach logic in these schools?! 3) Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue" 4) Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James? 5) Whose assumptions are best or least well proven? 6) Somewhere else : Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others? 7) Great Bishop of Geneva! : How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from? 8) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... to Hitchens on Revelation, Decalogue and Evidence for Moses. 9) Correspondence de / of / van Hans-Georg Lundahl : Notifying Craig A. James of a refutation of his refutation ...

We start off with quotes within the quote from M. Craig A. James who is quoting from the text Atheist Professor - Christian Student.

Student : Professor, is there such a thing as Heat?

Professor: Yes.

Student : And is there such a thing as Cold?

Professor: Yes.

Student : No, sir. There isn't.

(The Lecture Theatre became very quiet with this turn of events )

Student : Sir, you can have Lots of Heat, even More Heat, Superheat, Mega Heat, White Heat, a Little Heat or No Heat. But we don't have anything called Cold. We can hit 458 Degrees below Zero which is No Heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as Cold. Cold is only a Word we use to describe the Absence of Heat. We cannot Measure Cold. Heat is Energy. Cold is Not the Opposite of Heat, sir, just the Absence of it.

This is so ridiculous it's embarassing. No professor of philosophy would be tricked by a stupid word game like this.

...

Student : What about Darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as Darkness?

Professor: Yes. What is Night if there isn't Darkness?

Student : You're wrong again, sir.

Darkness is the Absence of Something. You can have Low Light, Normal Light, Bright Light, Flashing Light ... But if you have No Light constantly, you have nothing and its called Darkness, isn't it? In reality, Darkness isn't. If it is, were you would be able to make Darkness Darker, wouldn't you?

Again, this is the same silly word trick. The author is claiming there is no such thing as darkness. Darkness is merely a subjective, relative term that says, "Insufficient photons are stimulating the retina for this human's present needs."

Replace "darkness" with "emptiness" and see how it sounds. Suppose your coffee cup is empty. Would you say there's no such thing as emptiness because you can't make your coffee cup any emptier than it already is?

Ah, well, now it is time for me to do some response to Craig.

Atheist Professor having posed problem like "did God create Evil". Christian Student answers Evil is not a thing. He parallels with Darkness and Cold. They have no physical existence of their own but are defined as absense or too low presence of the Good Opposites.

Now, Craig A. James considers this a Magic Trick, since they still "exist" - but do they?

Well, no.

An empty mug exists. It may irritate owner by fact of being empty. But its emptiness does not exist. Its emptiness rather occurs. The mug is never really empty, when it is referred to as "empty" it means it is full of air even down to the bottom, usually. Its emptiness consists of absense of a good, specifically a drink (water, wine, tea or coffee ...) its owner would desire there. It is very true its emptiness can irritate. But for all that, it has no positive physical definition. It is not a thing created by God. Oh, God has created air that fills the cup as long as it is empty, but he has for all that not created emptiness as such.

But would not its eternal plenty be as bad or worse? Suppose it was eternally full of wine, God had created mugs that way, once you pour a liquid into them it stays full of that liquid forever.

You take a sip of wine. You put it back on table. Wine level rises to where before. You take another sip. And it is full of wine again. Might be pretty risky to some people? No?

And what if you wanted water? You could never empty the cup, even if you turned it upside down, since once you put it straight up again, the few drops left inside would quickly start filling the mug again. You would need another mug for water. And another one for milk. And another one for tea. And what if you wanted a drink you had given away the mug for? And what if you mixed two liquids that do not go together, like tea and coffee? You would be eternally stuck with the mixture (it is atrocious even to mix them in the stomach, I dare not imagine how it is to the taste!).

I think it is good for us mugs have been created such (in God's plan and man's work) that they can be empty - even if that means they will sometimes be empty when we do not want it.

It is also good for man not to have sympathy with each and every creature solliciting it every time. Otherwise one would so easily be overloaded. So it is good we have the freedom to cut off sympathy (and even an unsympathetic empathy*) when we need. It is not a freedom one should deprive each other of. Or ask God to deprive mankind of either. But this also means we have the freedom to not show sympathy when we actually should.

God has not created Evil, he has created Possibilities, and therefore also the Possibility of each Possibility working out for Evil on some occasion in some aspect. And the Possibility of Evil, unlike Evil, is Good.

Even Physical Evil (i e physical conditions of lower levels of things that comfort us, like life or like coffee, any level of seriousness) is sometimes a Good insofar as it is a Deserved Punishment.**

God sometimes causes Deserved Punishments (collectively or individually deserved, varies), but He never causes Moral Evil. Even if the Deserved Punishment is someone else's Moral Evil, God was not causing it, just using it to punish someone else's Moral Evil.

And Moral Evil is a lack of things in Angelic or Human lives that these angels or humans owe to God. Things that affect God as an empty or dirty or broken cup would affect us. If you want to know what "abhomination" means, imagine a cup that has been standing in the sink for one month (by my laziness I have seen such). Moral Good is what we owe God, either directed to Him or to Ourselves and Our Neighbour (Fellow Man, Fellow Christian) for God's sake.

This is a Christian theory of why there is Evil in a world that God created Very Good. It is very shortened, has not entered into the Historic and Theological Point of how Original Sin (the state we inherit from Adam's Sin) are a Culpability deserving of some Physical Evil, but it has I think made the point that Christian Student was not doing a shuffling of the logic, but rather Craig A. James a shuffling of terminology, confusing "exists and is created" with "occurs" as if everything that occurred would aslo be created rather than sometimes allowed by God, and also confusing "the fact there is evil is evil" with "the possibility of evil" being therefore also evil, as if possibility of one state were not also possibility of opposite and perhaps the only genuine possibility of opposite.

Meaning that Atheist Professor had no real point. And Craig A. James has not given him one. Meaning that Atheism is therefore not another name for thorough logic but for sloppy such.

St Thomas Aquinas has actually also dealt with why there is evil. First briefly in the Question-Article whether God actually exists, Summa Theologica Part I, Q 2, A 3:

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

...

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Note the wording "allow evil to exist" - not create it. Evil in angels come in Part I, QQ 63 and 64. Evil in Men is dealt with according to the understanding of the subject in Ist Part of IInd Part (I-II), QQ 71-89. By the way, the passage just quoted would be the case of Atheist Professor along with the response.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Bridget
of Vadstena
8-X-2013

*Sympathy usually should either be empathetic or have the luck to coincide with what someone's own or someone wiser's sympathetic empathy would be. But empathy on the other hand can be there even if cut off from sympathy. Note that empathy can also be an illusion, one can think one understands someone without actually doing so.

**One can say that it is also part of the testing of those who are elect to glory, but even there there is an element of collective punishment for original sin.

Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue"

1) Creation vs Evolution : Heard of Libby Anne? , 2) Did Libby Anne misunderstand at least Something about Young Earth Creationism? Or: Why don't they teach logic in these schools?! 3) Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue" 4) Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James? 5) Whose assumptions are best or least well proven? 6) Somewhere else : Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others? 7) Great Bishop of Geneva! : How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from? 8) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... to Hitchens on Revelation, Decalogue and Evidence for Moses. 9) Correspondence de / of / van Hans-Georg Lundahl : Notifying Craig A. James of a refutation of his refutation ...

Actually, as far as I am concerned, it is easier to refute a thesis or an argument than a dialogue, but here goes:

Student : Have you ever observed Evolution with your own eyes, sir? (The Professor shook his head with a Smile, beginning to realize where the Argument was going )

Another subtle trick: the student says, "with your own eyes." Scientists use all sorts of instruments to extend our senses. You can't see sunspots "with your own eyes" because your eyes can't look at the sun. But does anyone not believe in sunspots? Or bacteria, viruses, supernova, radio waves, protons and electrons? It's ridiculous.

From Refuting the Atheist Professor vs the Christian Student
http://religionvirus.blogspot.fr/2011/07/refuting-atheist-professor-vs-christian.html

I cannot see my eyes or mouth with my own eyes without a mirror. And we can agree a mirror is an extension of one's own eyes.

However, in the enumeration there are things which are indeed visible in the usual sense, though not to one's own eyes and perhaps not to any human eyes at all without certain extensions.

To see sunspots one needs to magnify the angle of sight dedicated to the sun (by a telescope) and to dim the light (by some filter) so as not to damage the eyes.

To see bacteria, one needs to magnify the angle of sight dedicated to a bacterium (by a microscope) and perhaps to colour them so they stick out better from the background.

Supernovas are events. One may be divided on what they mean, but they are events. And visible through telescopes.

But now we come to another part of the list of Craig A. James:

"radio waves, protons and electrons? It's ridiculous."

None of these are actually seen by merely manipulating light so as to extend one's eyesight range.

Protons are I think not even seen as bulbs in the nucleus when using electronic microscopy. The one kind of bulbs that does reveal is probably (if theory is correct) the very fast spinning of electrons around nuclei.

And as electronic microscopy uses electrons to see things, obviously even if that is really what it is using they cannot be seen by it, just as you cannot see photons by shining light on them.

Same thing applies to radio waves, no one ever saw one. Using them and observing them is not same thing.

The point is thus not empiricism vs faith alone. The point is that empiric knowledge (or what is currently portrayed as such, for that matter) is not restricted to what can be directly observed by the five senses.

And that is where the Atheistic Professor in question betrayed his ignorance of how Science really works. An ignorance which Christian Student was trying to reveal by a perfectly legitimate reductio ad absurdum of his first formulation of his position. Of course, the Atheistic Professor could have reformulated and said "OK, empiric knowledge also includes valid conclusions from what is seen, heard, etc". but then the Christian Student could have as well answered "how do you know Evolution is and God is not a valid conclusion?"

You see, proving God exists (or "someone with the same skillset" not defining which religion it is the God of) is perhaps even easier than proving electrons exist. Electrons and protons and so on are models about why the atoms we can see that molecules are made up of (in electronic microscopy, if we trust it) have the different atom weights and their different combination possibilities and these functioning on basis of whole number ratios between atom numbers ... but as far as I know one has not been making up loads and loads of other models trying to fit them into the evidence here relevant and then ruling them out one by one.

By contrast, when St Thomas Aquinas proves God exists, he is not content with the Five Ways, he also says they prove there is a "first unmoved mover which everyone calls God" and the other four ("first" not as in temporally first or earliest but as in causally first simultaneously, quite distinct from "if there was a big bang there must be a big banger" some have paraphrased it with), he then goes on for a lot of further Quaestiones to test different models of what God could be. Ruling them out one by one. Can God be all the matter of the universe? Can God be the soul of all the universe relating to it as soul to body? Can God be material himself but mightier than the matter over which He is God? No, no, no. And St Thomas does not just say "no, no, no" but he proves there is something at least very problematic about each such model.

He then goes further and asks whether the Christian God specifically the bit about Holy Trinity fits or does not fit the God that natural philosophy gives us evidence for. Only after that does he get into the question about creation - what kind of divine act it is and only after that does he get into the Biblical account of it.

How long does all of this take? In Question I he is asking whether the Bible (or if you like Bible and Tradition) is needed on top of all human sciences. Affirmative. But when he gets back to the Biblical account of the stages of creation he has used so many Questions the way I just outlined that the one about Day four is Question 70. And each Question is very typically subdivided into more than one Article (the Five Ways are given in Part I Question 2 Article 3 - easy enough to remember - and furthermore in "corpus" of article as opposed to objections part and answers to objection part).

I do not think that Einstein or Planck did such a thorough job of thinking it through. They certainly had access to more observation than St Thomas had (he never looked into a telescope) and they certainly used more advanced mathematics for their models than he did. (How do you mathematicalise Infinity? St Thomas answers that properly speaking you don't, when mathematicians speak of "infinity" in mathematical contexts, they do not really mean it, so when Theologians and Philosophers speak about Infinity of God, they do not mathematicalise it). But any mathematic conclusion does not only depend on how well you do the mathematics, but also how well what you count about fits how you count it. The one time a student failed to get a maths problem in my very short teaching carreer, he had simply set up the wrong calculations that did not fit the problem of applied mathematics.

So, if the Atheistic Professor ever had admitted that Scientific knowledge is not just five senses with content, but also valid conclusions from such (including from the fact we can reason about their content), he would not have been in any logical position at all to state brazenly "evolution is proven and God is not a scientific concept" at all, and the Christian Student could very easily have shown so.

One little Red Herring to possibly clear up: the terms macroevolution and microevolution are not the distinction between evolution on macroscopic and microscopic level. What creationists used to call microevolution (the community is starting to abandon the terminology I heard) is indeed observed on both macroscopic and microscopic level. What creationists used to call macroevolution is however neither observed on macroscopic nor on microscopic level. It is the extrapolation from observed microevolution in the microdifferential and microtemporal perspective into a macrodifferential and macrotemporal perspective. You know the famous extrapolation "a million generations" - which are of course not observed ones.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Bruno, Hermit
6-X-2013

Heard of Libby Anne?

Brought up as Creationist. Let's skip how Georgia Purdom [PhD Molecular Biology] describes her change of mind for now and go to her response.

[Here is the series: 1) Creation vs Evolution : Heard of Libby Anne? , 2) Did Libby Anne misunderstand at least Something about Young Earth Creationism? Or: Why don't they teach logic in these schools?! 3) Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue" 4) Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James? 5) Whose assumptions are best or least well proven? 6) Somewhere else : Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others? 7) Great Bishop of Geneva! : How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from? 8) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... to Hitchens on Revelation, Decalogue and Evidence for Moses. 9) Correspondence de / of / van Hans-Georg Lundahl : Notifying Craig A. James of a refutation of his refutation ... ]

If your beliefs can’t stand up to scrutiny, you need to rethink your beliefs. If cutting yourself off from anything that might ever challenge your beliefs is the only way you can keep them, you have a serious problem.

From Rebutting Ken Ham’s Response

Oh, sure. However high school and friends (or sometimes non-friends) you are automatically exposed to might not be the best occasion. It is the age that God has usually meant for starting families and not for debating your beliefs with others. Secular powers have lately made a Hell for people that age by near compulsory high school plus near compulsory co-education. Lately meaning last century or perhaps just last fifty years - since before I was there anyway!

Since homeschooling in Vienna ended at my age 11 1/2 to when I was forced to get to a boarding school after a short second home schooling, my beliefs and right wing loyalties were challenged all right. At the boarding school they were challenged. It did not mean I ceased to believe the Bible, only I started to believe the Catholic Church (in its historic tradition) in order to do so. At University, in the Military, back at University, my beliefs were challenged. Every step of the way. I was labelled as a devout young man, because my father confessor encouraged it, because I enjoyed it as long as I secretly hoped to get out of Sweden into a Monastery and then get out of the Monastery into marriage with a nice Catholic girl outside Sweden. But very much also because certain someones were making my fight for my creed more difficult than it need be, even for a shy boy or young man, by stamping truly intellectual beliefs which I held to independently of devotion going up and down as "too much devotion or fervour".

It led to a first drop out from University, for social circumstances rather than Academic reasons (though I failed the one test I had time to prepare for in the year 92-93, it was not a big one either), to several changes of environment and ... challenges against my beliefs. In Sysslebäck a Catholic was challenged from Communist and Fundamentalist alike. And one with a not so ecumenic outlook from Liberal Christians as well.

I came to Sysslebäck in 95 and left it via prison (with asylum) - for a shooting which killed noone and which I consider as legitimate self defense. I came to Rosengård - and left it 2004. It is an immigrant dominated part of Malmö. There I had my last appartment.

I have toured Europe 2004 - 2005. I have toured France up to 2009. I am touring the Paris region as a homeless man since then. Everywhere I come, though most certainly not from everyone, I am by sufficient people ignored, pitied, stamped as alcoholic or madman, or I get my beliefs challenged. And in the Internet, I go where I get my beliefs challenged. Or where there is at least some half promise of it.

And I do challenge Scientists for debate. It is often not I that cop out.

Three or Ten Dimensions, with Bubbaman

Some things tend to make me yawn. You linked to a site saying I think more than once: "The author of this essay is trying to put religious logic into an atheist's argument. The professor would never do that." And a few more. Believe me, or watch, Atheists do argue lamely and do forget the façade of impeccable logic (and impeccable superiority to Christians therein) that is so much easier to keep up when no Christian is around to challenge it.

These dialogues are not made up.

And how is Craig A. James to know what the Atheist Professor said? Was he there? No, he just sees what mistakes the Atheist Professor made. But he does not give a better solution. The solution that he does give opens up other faults in the atheist logic, like begs the question where atheists think morality comes from in general, not at all limited to where they get their version of it for themselves.

The Premise of Duality is a religious concept, not a scientific one. The author of this essay is trying to put religious logic into an atheist's argument. The professor would never do that.

From: Refuting the Atheist Professor vs the Christian Student

Well, there goes the Professors argument for the argument of Lucretius. If Duality is unscientific it is also unscientific to have a preference and so to deny God on the charge of having "created evil despite being good". But also to have a morality above one's personal preference and binding it. Which has opened very dark passages of the history of the previous century. Up to congratulating policemen on their act of hysteria around the President for protecting him probably just from getting a slap in his face.

Miriam Carey, RIP!

Some people can't really receive gate crashers very well. In my much better case, I was of course not driving a car, but still: I woke up with a torch shining in my face and a rifle in front of it, answered calmly, and when the farmer knew I had been there for just one night and intended to be somewhere else the next, I got a very nice breakfast. Honey on the bread, milk in the coffee.

Sorry, rambling. Back to Libby Anne:

Second, I find the last part of this paragraph a bit insulting. Dr. Purdom doesn’t know me, and she wasn’t there when I was in college. The idea that I “fought for a while” and then “gave up” is ludicrous. I “fought” for months. And it wasn’t a college professor I was “fighting,” either. It was another student in my dorm, a student who found science and evolution fascinating and was himself fairly agnostic. I spent almost an entire year arguing with him about creation and evolution daily, and I continually went back to my sources, reread my books, and made sure I was using every young earth creationist argument in the book. I even took him to an Answers in Genesis conference. That’s not fighting “for a while.”

Again from Rebutting Ken Ham’s Response.

Months in her language is longer than a while. In mine, a while is so undefined it can for instance be months. She was not herself enjoying the kind of linguistics education that her hero Craig A. James recommends. And it seems this kind of prolonged exposure is precisely what certain people want to happen to Christians, especially "Evolution deniers". I boldened the word him in this quote, since this means there just might have been some kind of hormones into play as well.

Let us note this kind of prolonged exposure can have very different results, even for people finding people of other beliefs they can agree socially with. In Libby's case, apostasy followed (sorry for being cruder than Georgia Purdom), in mine Catholic Conversion and some other conversions of lifestyle too, in Cassandra Bernall's case she became a Goth Chick up to a conversion a few months before she died in the shooting, saying, famously, yes. Cassandra Bernall was physically eliminated. I was socially eliminated. Atheists and Goth Chicks that remain so tend to be encouraged. A recipe that sounds like a Lenin omelette (the one you famously cannot make without breaking eggs, you know, but in this recipy it is a moot point what he refers to as broken eggshells ...), yes to me it sounds like a Lenin omelette.

Back to Libby Anne:

In the end, I didn’t “give up.” Rather, I realized I had been wrong. There’s a big difference there. And once I saw that creationism didn’t actually hold water, and that evolution was supported by the evidence, I had the intellectual honesty to change my mind. Why? Because that’s what you do when you realize you were wrong.

Realising one has been wrong can sometimes be a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, i. e. a kind of giving up.

When I realise "I had been wrong", I say about what I realised it. And how wrong I had been. And what argument made me change my mind. At sixteen I realised I had been wrong to believe there were Bible believing Christians not so different from today's Protestants all along the Church History and beside the usually larger Catholic Church. I realised Protestantism is not a direct product of Matthew 28, but a by product of Catholicism, which comes from Matthew 28. I have never since wanted to be a Protestant. Except the first year and then only for a while, as a High Church Lutheran preparing for a negociated union with Rome. The other guys who had that plan drifted off very soon, I was living my life and - at the boarding school and out of it and up to including Sysslebäck, most of the time - I was living it badly. When I got around to the Catholic Church at age 20, 1988, I had things to confess.

Later I realised I had been wrong to presume Vatican II Catholicism is just Catholicism with a new outlook. So I became a Trad. And a few more conversions forth and back since. But never back to Protestantism.

Libby does not tell us what made her at once see creationism doesn't actually hold water. But here is one important thing she does tell us:

Does Dr. Purdom think I didn’t read those books too? Does Dr. Purdom not think my parents’ house was awash with creationist literature from early on? Does Dr. Purdom think that my parents never “asked questions” to make sure I really understood what I was being taught? If so, Dr. Purdom would be wrong, very, very wrong. Creationism was discussed at the dinner table, while working on family projects, and on car rides. My parents always discussed sermons with us after church, and our church frequently taught creationism from the pulpit using AiG materials.

...

I wonder if Ken Ham remembers the little girl in braids who stood in awe in his presence and eagerly asked him for his autograph all those years ago. Probably not. But that little girl, that little girl fascinated by science and ever eager to find truth, she’s still here. She’s just sitting on the other side of the fence now.

I think some of the people that remember me being curious about dinosaurs and how long ago they lived (Evolutionist scenario), and listening eagerly to how stars form and how gravity holds them in galactic orbits shook their heads at my change of mind at age 9. The first time in my life ma had a chance to educate me on her own. And, if still alive, they still shake their heads.

But girls that they do not want me to make Catholic, Young Earth Creationist, Thomist and Reactionary in moral, legal and other philosophy, or Geocentric, they do tend to shut them off from me. As if they did not agree about - what was it Libby said? Yeah:

First, if the only way to preserve your creationist beliefs is to not have them challenged – i.e. not attend a college that teaches any contrary view – that says more about your beliefs than anything else. [...] If your beliefs can’t stand up to scrutiny, you need to rethink your beliefs. If cutting yourself off from anything that might ever challenge your beliefs is the only way you can keep them, you have a serious problem.

I do not have it.

But they seem to think I have never read the right books. Believe me, from their point of view I have. I was a pesky, soon fat little researcher in Evolutionist and Heliocentric (and all that modern Cosmology) lore. Now I am not. I am a refuter of such things. What was it again that Craig A. James said the Philosophy Professor should have done?

But real professors (especially in philosophy) are faced with smart-alec kids like this in every freshman Philosophy 101 class. Most of them learn to gently correct these young hotheads so that they can get on to important lessons.

Professor: So what is the point you are making, Young Man ?

Student : Sir, my point is your Philosophical Premise is flawed.

Professor: Flawed ? Can you explain how?

A real professor would have cut this student off by now and suggested some reading and a writing assignment to force the student to defend his position. And while writing the essay, the student would probably discover his errors.

And if the student has not realised he was wrong, at least the Professor has shut off the discussion, so the other students are cut off from anything that might challenge their belief systems. Maybe the Professors produced by modern education are better at Football (as Kent Hovind is good at Tennis) than at serious argumentation. Must laud the candour with which Craig A. James admits this.

That is one reason for putting Creationist arguments in blog form - essays here and close to in extenso discussions on the other blog I linked to. Because that way students do not depend on their professors' loud voice and authority. They are not cut off unless they want to.

These dialogues are not made up.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Placidus and Martyrs
of Messina
5-X-2013

PS, I do not know on what point Libby gave up defensibility of Young Earth Creationism, but I do know that as one try was to make me realise the Bible I believed divine came from the Catholic Church I did not yet believe divine, and this led me to become a Catholic, so one other try was Distant Star Light Problem and this led me to Geocentrism./HGL