The God Delusion

Again you don’t argue, tsk tsk.

Anyway, i posted to say that we knoe you were kidding in the first paragrapgh of this topic, but by stating you were agnostic and be reccomending a book that argues against God and science being possible(or whatever :tongue: ) You indirectly made the claim that you think science and God do not fit together.

If I did, I didn’t mean to, which I said above.

I can’t argue if we cannot agree on the same rules of argument.

My bad. Physics really isn’t my area of expertise, and I mistakenly said that a singularity could arise from a star, when I was trying to say that a collapsing star forms a black hole, which (at the time) I understood that a black hole has a singularity at its center (my mind is feeling rather sluggish at the moment though, so I’m guessing that that assumption might have been incorrect as well?). Regardless, I was trying to say that singularities are theoretically creatable, and while my example was incorrect, I believe that the possible creatability of a singularity still stands, right?

Alright, well then I misinterpreted your statement. My apologies. I did ask in my previous posts twice, and I ask again, can we know your true beliefs (and not just a one-word summary, I am a Christian but obviously my beliefs differ substantially from others who call themselves Christians) if they differ from this, then?

Fair enough.

This logical fallacy is only true when the matter is objective rather than subjective. Since interpretation is entirely subjective, multiple interpretations validate this stance, rather than contribute to a fallacy.

And I mistakenly understood your denial of my first proposition about your denial as you not yet understanding what I believed you denied, hence my pushing the issue. I believe you, now please argue against my previous post.

Fair enough, but if you do attempt to point out the logical fallacies, make sure you are correct in your claiming of them. It takes much time and effort to argue my points anyways, and if I have to spend half of my post explaining why what you claim are logical fallacies are, in fact, not logical fallacies, it can be debilitating to the argument. I have already spent a considerable amount of time pointing out that some of my statements that you claimed were logical fallacies, were, in fact, not fallacies. While logical fallacies may lure the public to one side of an answer, claiming flawed logic lures the public even further to one’s side, thus one must be critical of the logical fallacies he or she points out. Additionally, keep in mind that citing logical fallacies in and of itself is not an argument. You must not only refute my logic, but you must refute my evidence, and then make an argument based upon evidence that you have collected in order to properly debate.

Careful with your semantics. I definitely argued my point even though we obviously did not agree on the rules in that post. You can indeed argue a point without anyone listening. We cannot, however, have an argument together, or debate. However, I have since agreed to your terms. Please argue with my previous post.

Well, you’re referring to a curvature singularity, which is quite different from the cosmological singularity. A curvature singularity allows gravity and the space-time curvature to have infinite length, which is another way of saying we can’t tell what happens to stuff that goes into this place of a black hole, though we know that it is beyond the point of no return. his is quite different than gravity, space-time curvature, matter, energy, temperature, and more being infinite, as our cosmological singularity was. It is important to note that while the theory of general relativity predicts these curvature singularities, it predicts them as separate entities. Thus, they are mathematically and empirically separate entities.

Freecube, what side are you on again? Intelligent design? Or Atheism? Honestly asking, no sarcasm intended.

And as to throwing around the term non sequitur. If you didn’t design us, something or someone did. Thats is sequitur. If we had a beginning, we had a creator. And since the Big Bang is your interpretation of the beginning, this means you acknowledge we had to start.

Ultimately you can say whatever you want. Believe whatever you want. But I believe your scared. Not a little boy afraid of the dark type scared. But scared of the unknown, which many people face. All the time. I believe you do not want to acknowledge a creator because is most doctrines this would mean your held accountable for your actions. Could it be you don’t want to accept it? Without God there is no purpose. None. Name 1. Please, for me. What could an atheist possibly have for a purpose, no seriously.

“Every purpose worth pursuing is in our innate nature. Happiness, Family, Development, and Growth…”

I believe atheist can be good people. Doing good deeds. If this is true of yourself, you must ask why. Why one prefers good over evil. How the two even came into existence. Your conscience battle of “right vs wrong” is your proof of design.

Life is a test, and noting else. Not a pleasure cruise. Not a game. Not a movie or boxing tournament. Not a shopping spree or a golf-match.

“If life is a test, who’s grading our papers?”

WAKE UP! WAKE UP! WAKE UP!

I will try, when/if I get time. I do not have that right now, however.

Did you actually read his post??? The whole thing is about the existence of a creator!

:eek: :eek: :eek:

I read it a couple times actually, and not once did i sense fear and definitely not a lack of the unknown. In fact from reading his post it sounds to me like he is more sure of his eternal destiny than anyone else here…

The Bible actually calls it a race…

Hebrews 12:1-3:
“1Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us. 2Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

I don’t understand honestly how he can go through a week of writing the two most educated (yes i said it) posts this forum HAS EVER SEEN, with enough scientific material and hard studying than most of us could pump out over a semester, and still get a response like this…

I am honestly, completely, truly, 100% baffled by this. I mean if you could see my face right now… like mouth on the floor

you obviously did not read his posts… theres no way…

I need sleep. you have successfully knocked me to the floor.

goodnight

Wond3rland,

I am a Christian.

I appreciate your arguments, albeit they are misguided. Clearly, you enjoy arguing with esoteric suggestions, colorful metaphors, and abstract implications. However, I might offer a critique of some of your arguments, only from what I have read in your last post:

Offering that a Big Bang needed a cause in an argument that has presented hard mathematical and empirical evidence is redundant. It only shows that either you have not fully kept up on the topic’s material–which will dampen your ability to maintain an audience for your argument–or that you do not understand reason or science–which will also fail to allure readers.

An atheistic purpose could be as follows: “Since–according to Descartes–all I can know absolutely is my own existence, I do what I can while I exist to enjoy my existence. I enjoy personal pleasure. Therefore, I want to feel good as often as possible. My purpose in life is to gain pleasure, therefore enjoying life. In order to have enjoyment among a society with other beings who enjoy personal pleasure, I must not infringe on anyone else’s pleasure–lest I might face retribution from a larger member of society or society as a group. I must therefore follow a social order, live in harmony with others, and do what I can to make myself happy.” Obviously, sex and passing on our genes brings personal pleasure as well, hence an evolutionary argument can be made as well.

Your argument of a conscience is a skewed version of C. S. Lewis’ in Mere Christianity. Do yourself a favor and read that book; not only will it help with this argument in particular but I think that it will be a book that you will thoroughly enjoy.

It is impossible to prove that life is a test without a preexisting worldview that affirms this presupposition (one that is not necessarily a Christian worldview. This is not the worldview that I hold). Since we cannot prove that life is a test, there is no need to prove a test-grader.

Might I also suggest an argument for your inventory? I offer the argument of longing and wonder. Humans are the only entities known at this time to experience a sense of longing and wonder, one must therefore wonder, why humanity? Why do we postulate the universe’s meaning alone? Hence, the argument of longing and wonder:

Alister McGrath presented this argument eloquently:

"Many have found that the awesome sight of the star-studded heavens evoke a sense of wonder, an awareness of transcendence, that is charged with spiritual significance. Yet the distant shimmering of stars does not itself create this sense of longing; it merely exposes what is already there. They are catalysts for our spiritual insights, revealing our emptiness and compelling us to ask whether and how this void might be filled.

"Might our true origins and destiny somehow lie beyond those stars? Might there not be a homeland, from which we are presently exiled and to which we secretly long to return? Might not our accumulation of discontentment and disillusionment with our present existence be a pointer to another land where our true destiny lies and which is able to make its presence felt now in this haunting way?

“Suppose that this is not where we are meant to be but that a better land is at hand? We don’t belong here. We have somehow lost our way. Would not this make our existence both strange and splendid? Strange, because it is not where our true destiny lies; splendid, because it points ahead to where that real hope might be found. The beauty of the night skies or a glorious sunset are important pointers to the origins and the ultimate fulfillment of our heart’s deepest desires. But if we mistake the signpost for what is signposted, we will attach our hopes and longings to lesser goals, which cannot finally quench our thirst for meaning.”

– Alister McGrath, Glimpsing the Face of God. Pages 51 and 53.

McGrath isn’t the first Christian to follow this train of thought: C. S. Lewis often explores his phenomenon of human longing or yearning–what the Germans call Sehnsucht, a word with strong overtones of seeking and searching. In thinking about Sehnsucht, Lewis observes that when we have it, we are seeking union with something from which we have been separated–such as being reunited with a lovely place or a good friend. However, when this phenomenon of Sehnsucht occurs without any specific feeling of nostalgia, could it not point to something beyond our temporal existence?

Cornelius Plantiga Jr., president of Calvin Theological Seminary devotes the entire first chapter in his book, Engaging God’s World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning and Living to this feeling of longing and wonder.

This argument is not concrete enough for me to feel that it is solid evidence for a creator God, but I feel that it is one that you might enjoy, hence I post it for you.

So the Flying Spaghetti monster, Zeus and Allah are all equally likely to exist? As is the probability none of them does? By this logic the chance that any of these deities exists is far greater than the possibility that none exists simply because there are infinitely more ways to assume a creator than a non-creator. Clearly, this is ridiculous.

Postulating a deity does not solve the infinite regress (what ‘created God?’) and even if we wrongly call God the solution to the infinite regress, how does follow from this name-giving the fact that the Bible is God’s word, that God hears our prayers, that there are a heaven and a hell, etcetera ? It simply does not follow at all. And God does not even solve the problem of infinite regress, so it didn’t help our understanding in any way.

There are an infinite set of theories in ‘total coherence’ with any piece of scientific data.

We have established that any piece of empirical evidence can be explained by an infinite set of theories and hypotheses. Saying: science can not (yet) explain phenomenon X, THEREFORE Allah exists, THEREFORE heaven and hell exist etc. may not be a non sequitur by your definition, but the existence of heaven simply does not follow from the fact we do not yet completely understand X, even when the God hypothesis is not incompatible with empirical evidence, because (again) we can think of infinitely many alternative hypotheses. Yahweh and the Flying Spaghetti Monster are just two of those (and not very sensible ones at that).

I really do not see how singularities have anything to do with the question whether the Qur’an or Bible represent any truth. Neither do I see how the fact that String Theory is ‘plagued with problems’ indicate that the Christian God does exist… String Theory does at least try to explain some phenomena and gets way further in it’s attempt than ‘God did it’. It all sounds like the same old ‘God of the Gaps’ to me. I have yet to read a scientific paper with the following conclusion: “Unfortunately, my hypothesis is rejected by empirical data, I therefore conclude that our prayers are heard by a omnipotent God after all and that heaven and hell do exist. I would encourage others not to look further in to this issue and don’t bother postulating new hypotheses because I have demonstrated convincingly that God did it by rejecting my null-hypothesis”

Let’s look at one of many alternative hypotheses: ‘God did it’. Isn’t this hypothesis plagued with even more problems? HOW did God do it? How did a non-material God influence the material world? By what mechanism does a non-material object connect to and influence the material world? How does a non-material object make calculations and ‘think’? I think these problems are at least as troublesome as the problems with some science theories. Furthermore, it doesn’t help us predict outcomes of future experiment, it does not increase our understanding, it is simply useless at best.

It is fine to try and refute popular theories and hypotheses in science, since that is what science is all about, but don’t make the mistake of assuming ‘God did it’ as the default, unless replaced by a convincing explanation by science.

Atheists can have purpose, and greater purpose - I would argue - than Christians. Atheism does not come bundled with a ready-made purpose one must dogmatically accept, it is rather the absence of accepting a purpose dictated to us.

We atheists with purpose are creators, we artfully create our own person out of the chaos and prejudice of our history as sculptors working with the material of self. Our own, personally created purpose is not sacred and unchanging; something that it is forbidden to laugh at. We laugh joyously at our folly.

Ah yes, Freecube generously gives us a cow to show us atheists meaning! Should the atheistic purpose be to gain pleasure and withdraw from pain? Is this not why a Christian values pity? Atheists need not be Stoics! I here quote (in full, from praxeology.net/zara.htm) Nietzsche’s contempt of this “religion of comfortableness”, from the prologue of Thus Spoke Zarathustra :

Valuing pleasure above all things is contemptible. I see this infection in those I know and myself. There is much more to life then being placated, and it begins with self-creation. To live one’s life rather than being lived by it: to expend your greatness in sorrow and loneliness is what one needs.

Hating displeasure is just as contemptible. To flee from it is to flee an impulse that would drive you farther than you could hope. To cowardly avoid pain is to rob yourself of greatness. To pity pain in others is to desire to “help them from it”, and thus rob them, too.

If happiness be our only measure for life, why not simply be drugged constantly? Is that enough? Is this happiness what we really want? No! We want to test ourselves against despair, and live a great life. Yes, even the atheist has his ideals!

We have a creator, because we didn’t create anything. This is not hard. It had to get here, some how by someone or something at sometime. Are you ignorant? Prepackaged purpose… are you serious? “Oh mine isn’t dogma” Its part of the package. You get the life you and you get the purpose. We all agree on the purpose of life. Become happy and then make other people happy. Simple again. That is what we as humans have been striving towards for a millennia. Evolving from our primitive nature of selfishness and greed.

Do you not agree…?

No!

First of all, shaving off the Flying Spaghetti monster’s straw-man, and taking Ockham’s razor to the ideas of multiple gods (Greek mythology has a bounty of them, and if one god can explain the universe, no more are necessary, strictly in looking at the evidence), your quote is one big non sequitur. If it is just as likely that these deities do not exist or that they do exist, based upon the evidence, then there is no greater empirical possibility that they exist than if they don’t. That’s very, very basic logic.

If God created time, He therefore exists outside time. Therefore, He does not need a beginning, as what exists outside our conceptual realm of time does not need a beginning, as there is no beginning nor end. Therefore, since He does not have a beginning, He does not need a cause. This “infinite regress” ignores the first premise of the kalam cosmological argument–whatever begins to exist has a cause; without a beginning there is no need for a cause. This is not special pleading to a creator-God either, as this is how enlightenment philosophers argued out of necessitating a creator for the universe. What is eternal needs no creator.

And thank you for assuming that I made any reference whatsoever to the Christian God or Christian doctrines! I did not, and the basis for accepting Christianity over any other religion would be a matter of biblical revelation and its validity, which is a whole separate topic.

First of all, no, not an infinite amount or with all pieces of scientific data, second of all, the possibility of more than one theory in coherence with scientific data was my point exactly to Bombax: a different explanation does not necessitate a non sequitur. Thank you, for you have, though terribly, argued for my original point.

I’m amazed by your logic. You state a wrong opinion, then refer to it–without any evidence or logic whatsoever–as a pure fact. I feel that I can just leave this one here.

Yes, that is exactly the very definition a non sequitur (keep in mind, logical fallacies are not subjective; it doesn’t even matter what my interpretation of a non sequitur is), which is why my argument has always been nothing more than “since science points in the direction of a creator God, one should be free to investigate the truth claims of all religions.”

By the way, try to show me that Yahweh isn’t a sensible one. I would actually enjoy that thoroughly, as I will prove you wrong from every angle. It currently seems that only one in this topic who has proven able to argue with me is Bombax. He argues from logic, evidence, and is a careful (though sometimes over-meticulous) critique of flawed logic. If someone else is qualified in these respects, then please by all means post, but if not, please do not waste both of our time.

Argument from ignorance. Skewing my argument. Straw man.

I have never argued that “God did it” from my posts. See my above explanation of my argument. I have also stated that I’m a methodological materialist in science. Stop wasting your time.

The entire discipline of theology deals with these problems. You clearly haven’t investigated this discipline and are just arguing from common materialistic standpoints. For a quick refutation, a non-material God isn’t anti-matter, he’s above matter and can thus influence it. Some say that God most likely exists in the fifth dimension, others say in the seventh. Just like we, in 3 dimensions, can influence things in 1 dimension–though the things in 1 dimension might not recognize this–so God can influence things in the third dimension. Also, keep in mind that there is actually anti-matter in theoretical physics, which does in fact influence matter. So the problem of how non-matter influences matter should not be much of an issue if you’re willing to accept theoretical physics.

You clearly have not thoroughly read my posts. I never assumed “God did it” by default, nor did my arguments. My argument, as seen in my first post, has been to provide evidence that materialism is false, that The God Delusion is a poor overall book, and to provide evidence that, based upon our current knowledge, points towards a creator-God.

Amorphis, I will get to your attempt of an argument later tonight.

Edit: I had accidentally typed in a quote as quoting Bombax at a point when it was in fact P.M. If anyone, especially Bombax, saw that, I’m sorry, my mistake.

I know this can be an heated topic … but could posters remember to show respect for each other.

Amorphis,

With my response, I am at least in sync with an atheistic philosophy of life. If the self is all that is assured, then no God or purpose is a necessity. Therefore, living for pleasure is acceptable. However, when one allows one’s self to accept things other than the self, one has two options: we are entirely of chance—leaving no possible human purpose—or we have a cause—and that necessitates a deeper purpose.

“There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, nothing but pointless indifference.” – Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, page 133.

Bertrand Russell wrote that we must build our lives upon “the firm foundation of unyielding despair.” – Bertrand Russell, “A Free Man’s Worship,” in Why I Am Not a Christian, page 107.

“Our European culture is moving for some time now with a tortured tension that is growing from decade to decade, as toward a catastrophe: relentlessly, violently, headlong, like a river that wants to reach the end, that it no longer reflects, that is afraid to reflect.” – Friedrich Nietzsche, on the purposeless of European culture, in “The Will to Power,” trans. W. Kaufmann, in Existentialism from Dostoyevsky to Sartre, page 130-131

As Jean-Paul Sartre says, without God, all we are confronted with is the bare, valueless fact of existence. With atheistic naturalism, carried to its implications, there is no deeper purpose. Creating one’s own purpose is, ultimately, deeply, meaningless. Without a purpose behind one’s self-made purpose, there is no reason for the continuance of life once that purpose has been removed. This is not the only cause, but certainly a contributing factor, to the risen rates of suicide in our culture. My argument’s purpose is the only argument consistent with a materialist atheistic philosophy—I was defending your position rather than attacking it; I proved that there was an actual purpose to atheism, if only in Cartesian philosophy.

Ultimately, in an materialist atheistic philosophy, there is no deeper reason to create than personal pleasure. What is the meaning in creating? Why do it? There is ultimately no deeper answer that can be given, as illustrated previously by great atheistic philosophers.

What reason do you have not to be a stoic? There is ultimately no reason behind avoiding this!

A valiant effort, but Zarathustra, the founder of Zoroastrianism, had his religion to fall back on as a reason to regard these things with contempt. I included a quote from Nietzsche that illustrates his knowledge that without God, culture will be driven towards a pitiful existence, one that one does not want to imagine. Without religion, it is illogical for anyone to fall back on religious morals, as there is no objective reason for anything against these morals to be contemptible.

What is the point of these ideals? What reason do you have not to consistently be drugged? Where is the basis of what you consider right and wrong? Why is the idea of pleasure above all contemptible? There is no objective reason for any of this in atheism! Ultimately, life is pointless, save for Cartesian philosophy or a deity.

Argue a point for an objective human reason without God! I challenge you, as this is impossible. What do you have to fall onto when your self-created purpose falters?

The same thing when your self-created faith in ‘god’ falters… what ever that might be.

As both ‘sides’ have pointed to the fact that we can neither prove or disprove the existance of god or that sience can adequetly explain creation of the universe and all that is in it - then there has to be a leap of faith at some point for either side of the arguement.

At least in that point both sides should share some common ground.

God’s existence does not depend upon our faith. Humanity has purpose in God, if God exists–at least in the Christian definition of God,–whether or not we choose to believe it. In addition, faith in the Christian God is not self-created; rather, it is a personal relationship that I continue to experience. Before you try to argue that point, keep in mind I said that it was my experience, not a universal one, and arguing with one’s experience is irrelevant. With science allowing the possibility of a God, and my faith being experienced in a relationship with a personal God, there is no reason for my faith to falter.

While science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God, based upon current knowledge, we can make a logical choice as to which way the evidence points. As Patrick Glynn states, “As recently as twenty-five years ago, a reasonable person weighing the purely scientific evidence on the issue would likely have come down on the side of skepticism. That is no longer the case. Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis. It is the simplest and most obvious solution to the anthropic puzzle.” – Patrick Glynn, “The Making and Unmaking of an Atheist,” in God: The Evidence. Pages 53 and 55.

This is not to say that we should stop all materialistic investigation, as I have said previously, science is a material discipline, and therefore should be carried out with methodological materialism, regardless of one’s personal philosophy. It does say, however, that in making an argument for God it can be logical to choose the most compelling answer with currently known evidence. There is indeed a leap of faith either way, but how big of a leap on either side is the question that this argument intends to answer.

I can find common ground with experienced debaters who communicate logically, with reason, and accept evidence that can alter their worldview so long as it is true evidence. I can find common ground with people who search for the True.

I am not questioning your experience - the same can be said for schizophrenics for the experiences that they endure. But ultimately, it comes down to your perception of the experience - and you have rightly shared your perception of your god experience as a personal one, as experience is subjective.

You say god can exist wheter or not we choose to believe it or not. But if humanity was not aware of gods existance, then how can humanity have a purpose in God? God will still exist - but our perception of god will be interpreted in other ways.

edit: didnt see your edit and I am not sure if you saw mine? Sorry. Will have to reply later… otherwise I will not get anything done today :tongue: Great conversation!

Odd, I use the same example and reasoning against postmodern philosophy. I might want to stress that I do not feel that an experience is enough to warrant a belief in God–save for a revelatory experience. My belief in God stems from a union of verifiable, suggestive, scientific evidence as well as the historical validity of the Bible and, additionally, my own personal experience. I do not feel that experience alone is always enough to allow for worldview contrary to verifiable evidence.

Humanity will have purpose in God if God dictates it as such. Even if a God created us but left us to ourselves, we would still have no higher purpose. However, humanity can be unaware of said purpose without the reality of that purpose being forsaken. Our acknowledgement of something does not necessitate its truthfulness. If I am interpreting you right, I am basically restating your finishing statement in different words, and if so, I agree with you.

I saw yours. Agreed! Conversations like these do indeed prove that while views can differ greatly, civil philosophical discussions can be held. I look forward to your future replies.

I don’t feel any God is ‘necessary’ (apply Ockham’s razor one step further). But I don’t think Ockham’s razor is a very strong argument (rather a ‘guideline’ for building models or postulating theories). Multiple gods may not be necessary but can still exist. I admit that for the argument of the existence of any god, this is of no relevance. It is relevant when considering the validity of any one specific religion, but I understand this is not the point you want to argue here (see directly below).

Fair enough.

You are right; I did not demonstrate the validity of my statement and should not have claimed to have done so. I should have referred to the Duhem-Quine-These. Basically: “It is always possible to reject an apparently falsifying observation by claiming that only one of its [the theory’s] underlying assumptions is false; since there are an indeterminate number of such assumptions, any observation can potentially be made compatible with any theory.”
Further, I am totally aware I was arguing the same point as you were (which is why I emitted a referral to the Duhem-Quine-These in the first place). I simply wanted to stress that the fact that any piece of empirical evidence can be explained by many (whether infinitely many is actually beside the point) different theories does not make all these possible theories equally likely to be truth (you want me to provide evidence for this?). The fact that an argument does not commit a non sequitur, does not automatically make that statement valuable in any respect.

Fair enough (although I do not feel science points in the direction of a creator God)

For this we would first have to agree on a exact definition of ‘sensible’ and requirements to qualify as sensible.

First, the premise that everything that begins to exist has a cause is not universally accepted and may simply be wrong. It could very well be right however, but still this does not lead any further than the conclusion that the universe is caused and it certainly does not imply this cause is ‘God’ (unless you would simply define this cause as God). I don’t see how assigning any quality to this cause (except the quality to cause something) can be justified or can help our understanding of the world (Ockham’s razor).

First, I never meant to suggest that God is anti-matter.
Second, if you are arguing that God transcends space and time, I don’t think that means much and I think there are many problems when assuming a God outside space-time with regard to how he could influence our universe. What does it mean to say “he’s above matter and can THUS influence it”. I don’t see how that follows or what meaning it has. Neither have I seen a convincing argument for the existence of such entity. Or, if you’re fond of Ockham’s razor, how postulating a God outside space-time does add to our knowledge.
And even if I assume there is such thing as a God creator outside of space-time, the step to attributing it with any qualities apart from pushing the ‘start’-button, let alone such qualities attributed to him by major and minor religions is formidable.

If your argument for ‘God’ implies nothing more than that the universe is or might be caused, we do not have a fundamental disagreement. If you attribute him with other qualities, I would like to know which ones and what justification you have for attributing them to him.