An open letter to Richard Dawkins: What have you got to lose by debating God’s existence with me this weekend?

(Richard Dawkins is in Sydney this weekend so I issued this challenge to him on the Christian Today website) 

Dear Professor Dawkins,

51C2WO1QhpL._SX309_BO1,204,203,200_Apologies for writing you another letter (remember The Dawkins Letters?) but you just don’t seem to be responding. It’s so funny how we don’t talk any more. Anyway, I hope you are well and fully recovered from your recent bout of illness (I would tell you that I prayed for you but I realise what a triggering effect that can have so I will just keep that one silent). But it’s good to hear that you have recovered well enough to be able to travel and speak in Australia.

I have just discovered that you are due to be in Sydney this coming weekend, on a kind of antipodean tour – after playing to packed out theatres in New Zealand and elsewhere in Australia. I guess you undertook this after the cancellation of the third global atheist convention in Melbourne that was due to take place in February. Apparently it was cancelled because of ‘lack of interest’.

Richard Dawkins speaks at Christchurch, New Zealand
TwitterRichard Dawkins speaks at Christchurch, New Zealand

This is hardly a surprise. Given that you and your fellow atheists keep telling us that atheism is not a ‘thing’, a ‘philosophy’, or indeed anything but ‘the lack of belief in gods or God’, it always struck me as kind of weird to have a conference focusing on what you don’t believe in. After all, you don’t believe in fairies and yet you don’t have an a-fairiest conference? You don’t collect stamps (do you recognise all the memes your followers keep repeating on the internet?) and yet you don’t have a ‘non-stamp collectors conference’.

Of course you and I know that the simple mantra ‘atheism is not a belief, its just a simple lack of belief‘ is nonsense. That’s why you can go on your tours and play to packed out theatres telling audiences what they want to hear from their prophet – ‘there is no God!’

Remember when we met up in Stornoway on that ‘last stronghold of the gospel in the UK’, the island of Lewis? I listened to your talk the following night, and what struck me was the revivalist tone. Your announcement that ‘there is no God’ was greeted with rapturous applause by those who get really excited about what they don’t believe in. In many of your talks in the US the emotive reading of the opening paragraph of the chapter in The God Delusion which mocks and caricatures the God of the Bible, is greeted in the same ecstatic way. I swear I can hear a few ‘Amens’ and ‘Hallelujahs’.

In some ways this is reflective of the televangelists you profess to despise. People in Sydney are being asked to pay anything from $57 to $160 to hear you say what they want to believe. It’s a nice gig if you can get it! It seems that there is money in atheism as well as religion. I recall the late, great Christopher Hitchens agreeing to debate with me in London. It eventually didn’t go ahead. Why? Because of money. The church that asked us wanted to know our price – mine was a return train ticket from Scotland. His? Two first class plane tickets from New York and $50,000 (later reduced to $25,000 when his agent discovered that the church was ‘a charity’). It seems that ‘the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil’ – including atheism.

Richard Dawkins
ReutersDawkins has been challenged to a debate in Sydney this weekend.

However, I see that there are still tickets available in Sydney, so let me make you an offer that will help you sell out (the venue). Let’s have that debate you keep refusing. Remember how you said that you would debate the archbishop of Canterbury (I believe he has a wedding on), the pope or the Chief Rabbi, but never someone like me – a mere Scottish Presbyterian pleb? Well things have moved on a wee bit…I became moderator of the Free Church – would that be enough status for you? Or perhaps you should consider that your own reviewer wrote on your own website that The Dawkins Letters was the ‘best of the flea books’. So why not debate with me? I’m free in Sydney next Sunday and Monday evenings – and I won’t cost a penny: I’m happy to speak about my beliefs for free. What do you have to lose?

The principal of Oak Hill College, Mike Ovey, was a rather brilliant man, who sadly passed away last year. In my eyes he went to glory; in yours he went to nothing. But he left behind him some rather good writings and insights. One of these was his analysis of what he called ‘colonial atheism’. I thought of this when I heard you were coming to the ‘colonies’ to spread the ‘good news’ that there is no God. I wonder if you are that kind of imperialist thinker who believes that they alone have the truth and have a solemn responsibility to pass it on to the unenlightened natives? Or are you prepared to discuss, engage with and defend your beliefs?

The advert for your show says that you are ‘revered for unapologetic appraisals of critical thinking and equally unapologetic takedowns of religion’. Your followers may revere you but it is somewhat easy to take down a straw man caricature that you yourself have set up. This is a bit like people paying to watch a football match with only one team – its not difficult for that team to win. If you want to be, as your advert says, ‘a staunch ongoing opponent to the waves of irrationality that continually plague the public sphere’, then why not allow some rational opposition? Is it not a bit irrational to refuse to engage in rational discussion with those who don’t share your views? And boring?

Anyway, glad you have recovered. The Lord has given you more time. I’ll keep the diary free…and look forward to getting your agent’s call.

Yours etc.


Salvation Came Through Richard Dawkins

On Writing the Dawkins Letters

I thought this from Monty Python was appropriate…


50 thoughts on “An open letter to Richard Dawkins: What have you got to lose by debating God’s existence with me this weekend?

  1. What part of the word ‘believe’ does Dawkins not understand? How very nice for him to ‘know’ the ‘fact’ of the non-existence of any Supreme Being!

  2. ” How very nice for him to ‘know’ the ‘fact’ of the non-existence of any Supreme Being!”

    Dawkins very specifically and intentionally says that he is a 6.9 on his scale of disbelief and that he can’t say categorically that “god does not exist”.

    1. Please enlighten as to the precise scale to which Mr Dawkins refers. Is it a scale of 0-7? Perhaps 0-10! Perhaps 0-100!!

      Whatever it is, if he is, as he declares, an “a-theist”, then he accepts as a fact that there is no supernatural Being – to Whom, in the English language we accord the nomencaltuer “God”. If he has even the slightest doubt with regard to his oft-declared position, then he is, in fact, an “a-gnostic” – one who is unsure. That is xcertainly not the position that he portrays in public. Surely Mr Dawkins is not deceiving his many followers!!!

      1. “an “a-theist”, then he accepts as a fact that there is no supernatural Being ”

        No, atheist mean no belief in a god. It is not the positive claim that a god does not exist.

        An A-Theist is one without belief a god. (as in Asexual, Amoral). Agnostic means without knowledge of a god.

        One can be both agnostic and atheist. The 2 are not mutually exclusive.

  3. Amazing, and you seriously expect a positive response from such an open letter with this tone?

    Why would someone such as Dawkins ever consider engaging you?

    I’ll tell you what, as you believe you may have been slighted by Dawkins and your position and your arguments are so watertight, why not have a simple open discussion with me? n your blog … or even mine?

    I realise I have absolutely no status in this arena , so there might not be much in it for you and certainly zip for me but now that you are somewhat of a big wig in your Church and had over a million views last year was it? – it would at least garner some attention from your followers.
    I have no formal qualifications in the areas of history or theology and thus should be a walk over.

    So what exactly was the debate you wished to have with Dawkins?

    I’ll take on the challenge.

    I only ask that:
    We agree to absolute honesty.
    Agree to answer every relevant question directly with no hand waving and no philosophical blather that may obfuscate and muddy the waters.
    And we also agree to accept and run with current consensus of recognised scholars etc ( archaeologists, historians paleontologists etc) across the relevant fields.

    Are you game?

    1. No – I don’t expect any response – although he will read it…Dawkins is a coward.

      And no I can’t have a simple open discussion with you – because you seem to be incapable of that. But feel free to continue to ask me any relevant questions and provide any arguments for your case. You keep jumping from subject to subject and are full of ad hom and ignorant assertions…but feel free to continue to troll me..

      1. You accuse me of ad hom and yet you state in your opening sentence that Richard Dawkins is a coward!

        Of course you can have a simple open discussion with me.
        The question is are you willing to be honest and straightforward?
        Based on evidence so far I would suggest you would be incapable of such a simple thing.
        But I would love to be proved wrong.
        Why don’t you post your intended opening statement to Dawkins here on your blog and we can discuss it.

      2. I have no intended opening statement for Dawkins! But you can read the Dawkins Letters. You don’t do honest…you do Google….you have your beliefs and then cherry pick quotes that back them…come back once you have done some serious scholarship and show some evidence of being willing to think!

      3. And this from someone who doesn’t ”do” ad hom?
        Based on your blog, ”Serious scholarship” seems pretty much up for grabs as you have your own views as to what you believe, which often flies in the face of what is accepted by mainstream scholars and historians and archaeologists.
        And why would I need to go and do any serious study to discuss with you the evidence for God?
        Surely you as a minister must have more than enough evidence to demonstrate your case?
        I won’t say you are afraid to discuss these issues as you sound confident to the point of arrogant, but I am curious as to why you refuse to engage me on this topic.

      4. Yawn….GIven that I allow you to post numerous posts on my blog and spend (waste) time responding to you its clearly not true that I refuse to engage with you…but now I’m of to work…have a good day..

    1. Given that every believer in God is in some sense a creationist this would mean that Dawkins would never debate anyone – which is pretty well where he is at now…only talking to those who agree with him – such clear and rational thinking!

    2. Hello again, Mark,
      keeping up with reasons Dawkins gives for not debating seems to be quite a task! As David points out, a blanket ban on debating-creationists means that he can refuse to debate with any believer since all Christians are in some sense, creationists. This decision might yet prove to have been a short term fix that backfires since the Dawkins credibility is under fire from other atheists.
      This is from p. 14 of John Gray’s Seven Types of Atheism: ‘Dawkins and his disciples have embellished Darwinism with the cod-science of memes – units of information that compete for survival in a process of natural selection like that which operates on genes. But memes are not physical entities like genes. No mechanism has been identified whereby memes could replicate themselves and be transmitted within or across cultures. Lacking any unit or mechanism of selection, the theory of memes is barely a theory at all. The idea of memes belongs in an obsolete philosophy of language. … As insubstantial as phlogiston, memes are posited only in order to bolster the belief that evolution can explain everything.’
      I suspect however that Dawkins has given up on the evolution-explains-everything model and the ban continues for his protection, well, from having to debate. I can hardly blame him for that since I don’t think quickly enough on my feet myself but what do I know? Here I am writing about the death and resurrection of Jesus deep in the depths of someone else’s blog comment pages and there Dawkins is on a grand tour of adulation getting out his message while he’s still box-office enough.
      I’d debate David if I were you, Richard, because people are still going to want to hear that even if people accept John Gray’s analysis of the new atheists.

      1. “the belief that evolution can explain everything”

        At no point has anyone ever said that evolution explains everything.

        The evolutionary algorithm (reproduction, change, selection) is applicable to many fields, however and demonstrably works in finding solutions to problems. Be it in biology, computing, electronics, drug discovery etc…

        Evolution is the explanation for diversity. It is NOT an alternative to creation. It explains biological diversity, it is true regardless of how life started be it natural or by a god.

      2. Actually Dawkins has said that the believes that evolution can explain everything. And has been criticised by atheist and theist alike for so doing.

      3. Really? He said that? I’d be interested to read a transcript of this or a link to a video where he said it. Do you by chance have such a link?

      4. I have not seen a video, Ark,
        where Dawkins has said that Evolution explains everything. I’ve heard him charged with saying that by sources you would not recognise as authoritative but I’m happy to put forward again the quotation that Stooshie queried.
        From p. 14 of John Gray’s Seven Types of Atheism: ‘Dawkins and his disciples have embellished Darwinism with the cod-science of memes – units of information that compete for survival in a process of natural selection like that which operates on genes. But memes are not physical entities like genes. No mechanism has been identified whereby memes could replicate themselves and be transmitted within or across cultures. Lacking any unit or mechanism of selection, the theory of memes is barely a theory at all. The idea of memes belongs in an obsolete philosophy of language. … As insubstantial as phlogiston, memes are posited only in order to bolster the belief that evolution can explain everything.
        Gray’s atheist agenda is rather different from that of the New Atheists so, no doubt he will be answered. In the meantime I see no reason to doubt what he says, particularly since it confirms what I hear from elsewhere. If I might venture to suggest a comic book analogy: ultimate origins are the Evolutionists’ kryptonite.

      5. John, as the question was directed to David, I am curious why you are answering on his behalf?
        Do you believe he needs a minder or has he authorized you to speak for him?

        So, no direct quote from Dawkins then?
        I suppose until you verifiable evidence for the claim then it can be dismissed with impunity and regarded as yet another silly piece of nonsense that a evangelical such as you feels they need to dish out in the absence of any evidence to support their supernatural claims, yes?

      6. Ark,
        I am a bit disturbed that you should categorise a quote from John Gray as ‘yet another silly piece of nonsense that a evangelical such as you feels they need to dish out.’ I know that he is no friend of New Atheism but he also has harsh things to say about Christianity. I did not realise that he was persona non grata enough for him to be labelled as an ‘evangelical’. I don’t think that that’s what you meant, but it does suggest that you didn’t read the two previous posts that David was referring to.
        You will surely someday have to recognise that the way you handle secondary sources casts a great deal of light on how you would deal with primary sources, should you ever admit them to exist.
        As for Dawkins’s own mouth saying something akin to Gray’s evolution-can-explain-everything accusation. During the course of a Dawkins/Lennox debate which David already referred to — — Dawkins said that Darwin explained the origin of life. Since Evolution is by definition the development of life and cannot be an explanation for its beginning, Dawkins was at best a little bit careless with his definitions.


      7. Hi, Andrew,
        John Gray does have an agenda and putting down the New Atheism — as well as the Christianity that spawned it (his view) — is part of it. However I’ve come across the evolution-explains-everything idea before. It is a Thing, as they say, and Dawkins stands accused of it. (I did hear that he has abandoned Social Darwinism and the notion that Evolution itself evolved.)
        I agree with you that evolution ‘is not an alternative to creation’ which for a six-day Creationist is something, I admit. In my view, God built phylogenetic relationships right into his creation in order, as you say, to give diversity but also, to allow stability, feeding and healing.

  4. It’s because you are not important, David.

    Dawkins has easily “beaten” everyone that has been put in front of him – mainly because unlike many Atheists, they don’t know what the stronger arguments in favour of God truly are. 🙂

    Sorry David, but you have done nothing to show that you are a worthy scalp in the fight against murderous death-cults like Christianity.

    1. I agree that I am not important and I agree that that is his motivation – he is very much of a snob and a bit of a racist. Dawkins rarely beats anyone in debate which is why he shies away from any serious debate (unlike Hitchens). Would you like to send me a link to the people he has beaten in debate – or did you just make that up?! I note your unbiased and factual comment about ‘murderous death cults’ – somewhat ironic coming from someone who beliefs in a faith that has caused more deaths than any other!

    2. I’ve been trying to understand your post, Brian,
      Yes, I get how the murderous death-cult accusation can arise from the simplistic religion: bad/secular: good message and the notion that faith is a virus. The danger with such an escalation is that it can easily get out of hand. John Gray finishes his chapter “The New Atheism: a nineteenth-century orthodoxy” (Seven Types of Atheism p. 23) with an insightful paragraph: ‘Throughout much of the twentieth century, terrible violence was inflicted in the service of secular faiths. In contrast, the organized atheism of the present century is mostly a media phenomenon and best appreciated as a type of entertainment.

      And I can understand the boast that Dawkins wins every debate because creating a bubble from which all dissent is excluded seems to be frighteningly easy to acheive these days. What would bother me if I were on your side is that you think that Dawkins’s victories were ‘easy’ for him. What! he’s never had a worthy opponent? The ease of his victories rather cheapens them, don’t you think? Outside the bubble, it’s the failure of Dawkins to do his homework, leading to defeats that were far too easy for him, that stands out.

      What I don’t understand is who the ‘they’ are in ‘they don’t know what the stronger arguments in favour of God truly are.’ I assume you mean Dawkins’s ‘important enough’ debate opponents with whom he ‘easily’ wiped the floor but again that really cheapens the putative Dawkins victories. Be that as it may, unless his wikipedia entry is mistaken, Dawkins became an atheist when he realised that Evolution provided a better explanation for the way things are than the simplistic Natural Theology/God-of-the-gaps explanations he’d been brought up with. The tragedy of Richard Dawkins is that — unlike many Atheists — he seems never to have seriously considered the possibility that the convenience-god that he once needed to explain the way things are, is not the God who made everything the way they are, phlyogenetic relationships and all.


  5. Goodness me! I didn’t realise that atheism put so many bums on seats. I wonder how much he gets paid for each “lecture” – probably more than a Scottish Free Church minister gets paid in a year (or even two years).

    But what interests me is whether or not he has anything new to say which he has not already said in his delusional book. Have there been any great new breakthroughs in atheistic thought which he needs to communicate to his acolytes?

    I would have thought, “There is no God: you are born by chance, life’s a pain, and then you die” pretty much sums up his philosophy. What more need be said?

      1. Goodness me David – you make your living by preaching to the converted don’t you?

        Why – when as a minister you play host to weekly gatherings of the converted – do you begrudge the occasional speaking tour by Dawkins where the majority of those who attend may comprise those you wish to describe as his “converted”?

        Dawkins’ criticism of religion (all religion David, nut just yours) is just a tiny part of what he speaks about. Have you seen any of the numerous discussions that Dawkins and Krauss have given?

      2. Yes – I do it in a church that is for that purpose….in a religious context which Dawkins professes to despise. In other words he is a hypocrite. I also preach to many who are as yet unconverted – and in public arenas I much prefer to have debate/discussion rather than a monologue. His current tour of Australia and New Zealand has nothing to do with science (I have now read several reports) and everything to do with anti-religious rallies. His purpose is to make money out of the gullible faithful, shore up his own declining image, and above all stir up hatred towards religious people.

  6. What? No mention of the Israeli massacre of innocents at the Israel/Gaza border yesterday?

    Maybe atheists are entitled to question the existence of a righteous God based on the Christian silence on what the “Chosen People” did on the 14th May.

    A god was in evidence at the border but it looks like – with the gassing of an eight month old girl among the 58 dead and 3,000 injured – that it was Molech.

      1. I know that the Creator God in the person of Jesus chose to give up His life rather than send avenging angels to crush His enemies.

        What happened at the Gaza/Israel border was that 62 civilians were slaughtered and 3000 injured, something that is inconsistent with the life of Jesus Christ Himself. No other so-called democratic nation in the world would behave in such a callous and brutal manner and if objecting to the life of an eight month old baby being extinguished makes me prejudiced then I admit that as a human being and as a Christian I am prejudiced.

        Moreover, if supporting that callous slaughter, by way of silence and a catty remark about prejudice, makes you godly then I fervently wish to be ungodly.

      2. Apparently 50 of the 62 were not civilians (according to Hamas). I’m still not sure why a clash on the GAza border between Palestinians and the Israeli Defence force has anything to do with Jesus – I doubt either were claiming him on their side! Your logic seems a little convoluted! I share your horror at the life of an eight month old baby being taken away (and wonder why that baby was taken to such a dangerous and violent situation?) but do not accept that no other democratic nation would do such a thing (have you forgotten the wars that the UK, US, France etc have been involved in. You are aware that each year our ‘democratic’ nations slaughter millions of babies in the womb….?

  7. His current tour of Australia and New Zealand has nothing to do with science

    Nothing that you preach about has anything to do with science either, but at least Dawkins has that option if he so wishes, and is well qualified to do so.
    All you have is … well … faith, I guess, right?

    1. I suspect, Ark,
      that you do Dawkins a disservice by the comparison you make here. I read The Selfish Gene when it came out and I found it fascinating. Although I did buy and read a couple of Ethology classics after I was out of Science, I missed out on reading The Extended Phenotype but I think I’d have enjoyed it also. For the present it will have to remain on my someday/maybe list.
      However, if Dawkins was to take up the ‘option’ which you say he has to lecture or preach Ethology on this tour, he would come up against some problems. Discounting the fact that he is being paid to ‘play to the gallery’ — all above board — and that the paying audience are not turning out to hear about niche construction or genetic load; Dawkins majoring on science might have to face tiresome questions about whether or not ‘work’ on memes should be published in peer-reviewed journals (and if such publication makes the idea scientific.) Dawkins, to be fair has left much of that behind him, even distancing himself from some applications of his idea; but it remains a moot point whether he has also put science itself behind him for the needs of his celebrity.
      Besides all that, a lot more work would need to be done before the charge that faith is fundamentally unscientific can be made to stick. I don’t think either you or Dawkins can do that, only I suspect that he knows more about the difficulties than you do.

      1. I am amazed how, as a fundamentalist Christian, the extraordinary lengths you are prepared to go to in an effort not only to justify your wholly presuppositional supernatural faith-based wordlview, but also to discredit genuine sceptism of your position that has its roots firmly in evidence-based reality.

        Why don’t you once and for all dispense with all this waffle and simply offer up contemporary, verifiable evidence for your claims and we can all be happy?
        Seriously, John, how hard can that be for you?

      2. Believe me, Ark,
        if I were a fundamentalist, I would not be offering you the opportunity to treat of the Acts of the Apostles as historical fiction in the task of satisfying yourself that Luke’s record of the eyewitnesses cannot be falsified.
        You did notice that I did go some distance to absolve Dawkins of some things that have been levelled against him? No? Well read what I said again: he has distanced himself from the ‘science’ of memetics even although he invented the idea of the ‘meme’ (which I personally find to be a useful— if not very scientific — concept).
        If you constructed ‘wholly presuppositional supernatural faith-based wordlview‘ by yourself, I’m impressed. That rather sums it up, although my admiration is tempered by the thought that if you knew what ‘presuppositional’ means, you wouldn’t accuse me of going to extraordinary lengths to justify it.
        As for discrediting Dawkins’s scepticism: doesn’t he do that himself when he doesn’t give the same care and attention to Christian Theology as he obviously did and maybe still does in Ethology?
        Given your obdurate refusal to accept as contemporary anything that has ever been questioned by anyone with a degree, I’d say that it must be right off the Moh scale of hardness to provide contemporary, verifiable evidence that you will even deign to look at. Nevertheless, in spite of your repeated refusals to do what a real sceptic would do, I offer up again for your consideration, the ungainsayable eyewitness testimony that Jesus rose from the dead, as recorded in the New Testament. Go on, do the hard yards.

      3. As for the contemporary evidence for the biblical character, the Lake Tiberius pedestrian, Jesus of Nazareth:
        I am still waiting for you to provide a even a single scrap, and I suspect I will very likely be waiting for ever.

      4. I’m afraid you’re guilty, Ark,
        both of double counting and exaggeration. You have been presented with evidence. Just because you rejected it does not mean that it was not presented to you. Furthermore, those authorities that you allude would be surprised at your gross overextension of their deliberations. Not ‘even a single scrap‘ of evidence? Putting forward a thesis that Matthew wasn’t actually written by Matthew, for example, does not, in fact, leave the evidence box scrapless, especially now that you’re questioning if Jesus ever existed.
        Come off it.

      5. Contemporary, verified evidence, Ark?
        Certainly. We’ll keep it brief.
        1 Corinthians 15:5-9 contains a list — of eyewitnesses to the Resurrection — that is at the same time, a record of verification and itself, for as long as those mentioned were alive, a verifiable account. not only does this text meet your criterion, Ark, it seems to have been written, primarily to meet it.
        Here is the 1 Cor. list of eyewitnesses:
        1. Cephas [Peter]
        2. the twelve.
        3. more than five hundred … at one time.
        4. James.
        5. all the apostles.
        6. Paul … the former persecuter of the church.

        I know this isn’t what you wanted, but have the good grace to admit that it’s what you asked for.


      6. Also, I do have a post up at the moment regarding this complete lack of evidence. It seems to be attracting a modicum of interest from former Christians. Maybe you would like to pop over and explain to them why your claim of valid,verifiable evidence is not simply the vacuous nonsense of the indoctrinated faith-inclined?

        I am sure you would receive some interesting and robust dialogue?

        A couple of visitors to my spot are former ministers so your dialogue would not be solely with heathen plebs in the cheap seats.
        How about it, John?
        Want to test your mettle and show some of this evidence you are so keen on?

  8. Contemporary, verified evidence, Ark?
    Certainly. We’ll keep it brief.

    Sorry …. fail.
    Neither contemporary or verified.
    You can’t actually use the bible to try to prove the bible. You do know this I hope?

    1. What happened to evidence, Ark?
      Yes, contemporary — [1 Cor. 15:6] — Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. What evidence do you have to the contrary?
      Yes, verified — [1 Cor. 16:21] — Paul signed his own letter even though the bulk of it was written down from his dictation by someone else. What evidence can you show that you know the difference between ‘verified’ and ‘verifiable’? An admission that you’d been careless would have left you with some moral right to go on about verification — though that gets thinner every time you wriggle out of attempting to falsify the records at the crucial point — but I can’t recall when you’ve asked for verified evidence before. It’s always been ‘verifiable’ and then you write: ‘still waiting for contemporary verified evidence.’ Pity.
      No, I said: ‘for as long as those mentioned were alive, a verifiable account’ and that is not ‘use [of] the bible to try to prove the bible. On the other hand the way the works of different authors of the Bible, support one another is evidence in its own right. (falsifiable rather than verifiable of course, but you should have worked that out for yourself.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s