- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Question has been raised on another thread on this board, whether there is evidence God really exists, and did he in fact author the bible?
As evidence goes, I think it “proves” the premise. The problem becomes one of ascertaining what constitutes the best evidence, then being able to demonstate a propensity for that evidence to establish its own level of value.
HOW DOES ONE ASCERTAIN WHAT IS THE BEST EVIDENCE?
I can experience a circumstance, and know first hand what happened, and consider that to be the best evidence as to what it is I experienced. I may then conclude “experience is the best evidence.”But, how do I share that experience with another who has not experienced the same thing? “Experience” suddenly goes from being “best evidence” to being “subjective claim.” And may even go from “subjective claim” to “misapplied application of facts.” I would need to be almost an expert in some field in order to properly apply the application of facts to reach a proper conclusion about the meaning of everything from stimuli, to the meaning of my (subjective) reactions to stimuli, before I could communicate to another, just exactly what it was I experienced. But one think I know, “experience” is no longer the “best evidence” something took place “as I understand it.”
So I then begin to look for a way to share my “experience” in a way that removes all doubt that the event took place, and that its remifications are in line with my understanding of what they mean. How to share THAT becomes my goal.
So I begin to testify as to every aspect of my experience, and tell loud and long about what it is that Iperceive took place, only to have someone respond, “Yes, that looks like what happened, but how do we know you didn't write about it from someone else's record of events. In other words, how do we know it eas YOU who experienced it? And if YOU did not experience it, but only recorded it for our information, how do we know it even happened according to your testimony? So, testimony may be better than experience, but still does not satisfy as “best evidence.” There must be something more ABOUT testimony that presents itself as
“best evidence.”I then enquire into “kinds” of testimony; there must be a certain kind of testimony that serves as “best evidence” for sharing an experience. Immediately I think “of course, it must be “first hand” testimony. “Eye witness” testimony become the focus of my search, only to have someone point out, “yes, eye witness testimony certainly beats second or third party testomony, known as “hearsay” evidence, but what if you have conflicting testimony from several “eye” witnesses? Back to the drawing board.
O.K. What if I describe events AS THEY HAPPEN, is that not equivalent to letting you share in reality? Does that not consist of “proof?” Well, not quite. THAT assumes the accuracy of my subjective reporting of events, as being objectively reporting. In other words, do I allow my own prejudices to color my reporting? Is my reporting “subjective” or is it “objective?”
Suppose I discover a way to share with you an event that has not yet happened? I find a way to include details that are easy to look for? I even name names of persons that do not yet exist? Suppose that event takes place generations later, and the person involved has the name I said he would have, and the events happen as I outlined them in the telling?
THAT WOULD BE THE BEST EVIDENCE.
I tell you of an event that will take place two hundred years in the future, name the perosn involved, tell you what he will do, and even convince HIM, the person I name, that I am real BECAUSE I could name him well in advance of the factual demonstration.THAT HAPPENED.
Over two hundred years before he was born, God named a man who is going to allow the children of Israel to return from captivity. But the children of Israel are not even IN captivity whan God wrote about it. They had no reason to believe they would BE in captivity for they were not even at war with anybody when it was written.
God told about a king that would send the children of Israel back to Jerusalem, to rebuild the temple, which at the time of writing had not even been destroyed. They woud also rebuild the walls of the city, which at the time of writing had not been destroyed.
What is the best evidence? “FORETELLING IN DETAIL” of events not remotely likely to happen, is the best evidence that God wrote the bible. If He can produce statements about a foreign king sending the children of Israel back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, not yet destroyed, and rebuild the wals of the city, not yet destroyed, and name the foreign by name, there is no evidence stronger among men.
God named Cyrus, king of Persia, as his anointed, his
Beginning in Isaiah 44:28 Jehovah God said of Cyrus, king of Persia –
“He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Continuing into Isaiah 45, God foretells of Cyrus –
1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; 2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron:
3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call thee by thy name, am the God of Israel.AFTER NAMING CYRUS, GOD TELLS WHY HE NAMED HIM.
4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. 5 I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 THAT THEY MAY KNOW from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me. I AM JEHOVAH [THE LORD], and there is none else.No other God named among men has EVER performed such a happening. There is no religion among men who has a God who could do such a thing. ONLY Jehovah God of Israel, ever told events two hundred years prior to the happening, and told the name of the one performing the act.
THAT is not only the “best evidence” because it not only can be watched for by later generations, it can be verified as to accuracy, and it can be witnessed by doubters, and proved to THEIR satisfaction, leaving no doubt remaining. CYRUS king of Persia was convinced, as were the children of Israel.
It remains for men hundreds of generations later, to express their doubt as to the accuracy and the veracity of the prophets who wrote of these things. Men may express disbelief and doubt; angels believe and tremble.
PRETESTIMONY is the best evidence. God pretestified as to the events, the person, the how, the when, and the why. ANY God who can do THAT, has the right to tell us of man's origins, and how we should respond to the reality of who and what we are, as God's image. If we were not made in God's image, it would be different. We might argue with God, “you made me this way, bug off.” But THAT is NOT the case as this same God testifies. We are “made in the iomage of God, in the image of God made he them.” And “Choose YE whom ye will serve,” But don't waste his time nor your time making lame excuses or accusing him of failing to keep you perfect when your own choices and actions interject imperfection into an otherwise perfect image of God.
Test the evidence.
The experience you have is meaningless as evidence, just as is mine. That is not to discredit an eyewitness account, but I take it you have not actually physically seen any gods.
Evidence is that which stands on its own terms. Anyone else should be able to come to the same conclusion as you if the evidence is unambiguous. How many do come to the same conclusion as you after hearing you tell of your experiences? I am not one. I don't think I am being unreasonable. There are simpler explanations for your experience.
When you hear the sound of hooves in the night why think of zebras?
As for biblical prophecy, give me one example that is as unambiguous as the prediction that there will be a total solar eclipse visible across Africa on 30 April 2041, the umbra hitting the Southwest coastline at 10:10am?
We are supposedly discussing an omniscient god here. Why are his prophecies as easily interpreted as not prophetic of anything? Is it possibly because, once again, there is a simpler explanation? Humans are voracious pattern seekers AND because some people believe that their religious absurdities will seem more convincing if they can fool others into thinking that there really is something predictive going on. Educate people about coincidence and the skill of psychic cold reading and they become less inclined to believe in biblical prophecy which actually isn't.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 27 2009,02:52) The experience you have is meaningless as evidence, just as is mine. That is not to discredit an eyewitness account, but I take it you have not actually physically seen any gods. Evidence is that which stands on its own terms. Anyone else should be able to come to the same conclusion as you if the evidence is unambiguous. How many do come to the same conclusion as you after hearing you tell of your experiences? I am not one. I don't think I am being unreasonable. There are simpler explanations for your experience.
When you hear the sound of hooves in the night why think of zebras?
As for biblical prophecy, give me one example that is as unambiguous as the prediction that there will be a total solar eclipse visible across Africa on 30 April 2041, the umbra hitting the Southwest coastline at 10:10am?
We are supposedly discussing an omniscient god here. Why are his prophecies as easily interpreted as not prophetic of anything? Is it possibly because, once again, there is a simpler explanation? Humans are voracious pattern seekers AND because some people believe that their religious absurdities will seem more convincing if they can fool others into thinking that there really is something predictive going on. Educate people about coincidence and the skill of psychic cold reading and they become less inclined to believe in biblical prophecy which actually isn't.
Stuart
All you have done is demonstrate for us all that you are not familiar with the historical aspect of the Hebrew Literature.Isaiah prophecied of Cyrus over one hundred and fifty years prior to events recorded by Daniel, and over two hundred years before the events recorded by Ezra.
This has NOTHING TO DO
Quote (Stu @ July 27 2009,02:52) The experience you have is meaningless as evidence, just as is mine. That is not to discredit an eyewitness account, but I take it you have not actually physically seen any gods. Evidence is that which stands on its own terms. Anyone else should be able to come to the same conclusion as you if the evidence is unambiguous. How many do come to the same conclusion as you after hearing you tell of your experiences? I am not one. I don't think I am being unreasonable. There are simpler explanations for your experience.
When you hear the sound of hooves in the night why think of zebras?
As for biblical prophecy, give me one example that is as unambiguous as the prediction that there will be a total solar eclipse visible across Africa on 30 April 2041, the umbra hitting the Southwest coastline at 10:10am?
We are supposedly discussing an omniscient god here. Why are his prophecies as easily interpreted as not prophetic of anything? Is it possibly because, once again, there is a simpler explanation? Humans are voracious pattern seekers AND because some people believe that their religious absurdities will seem more convincing if they can fool others into thinking that there really is something predictive going on. Educate people about coincidence and the skill of psychic cold reading and they become less inclined to believe in biblical prophecy which actually isn't.
Stuart
All you have done is demonstrate for us all that you are not familiar with the historical aspect of the Hebrew Literature.Isaiah prophecied of Cyrus over one hundred and fifty years prior to events recorded by Daniel, and over two hundred years before the events recorded by Ezra.
This has NOTHING TO DO with my own experiences. It has EVERYTHING TO DO with the evidence of pretestimony.
You suppositions and possibilities have nothing to do with responding to the issue of the OP.
Stuart and I have had this discussion before and we both agree that God cannot be proved or disproved as his nature is essentially undefined. As the creator of the universe he is outside of its bounds so there can be no valid proof one way or another. I choose to see evidence and Stuart does not, but proof is not available nor likely ever to come to fore.
I choose to see God but not as depicted in Christian literature for therein he appears to be overly anthropomorphic and limited; he even make mistakes see Gen 6:6-7 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So the LORD said, “I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth—men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air—for I am grieved that I have made them.”
So called revelations are to me of dubious value for as Thomas Paine wrote in the Age of Reason; “No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”
It is no different then believing as do the Muslims that… “the Koran was written in Heaven and brought to Mahomet by an angel, the account comes too near the same kind of
hearsay evidence and second-hand authority as the former. I did not see the angel myself, and, therefore, I have a right not to believe it.”As far as prophesies are concerned it all depends upon the interpretations and analysis thereof and Biblical prophesies are no different then those of Nostrodamus people often see what they want to see in them.
Again to quote Paine “We can know God only through his works. We cannot have a conception of any one attribute but by following some principle that leads to it. We have only a confused idea of his power, if we have not the means of comprehending something of its immensity. We can have no idea of his wisdom, but by knowing the order and manner in which it acts. The principles of science lead to this knowledge; for the Creator of man is the Creator of science; and it is through that medium that man can see God, as it were, face to face.”
Quote (Paladin @ July 27 2009,03:12) Quote (Stu @ July 27 2009,02:52) The experience you have is meaningless as evidence, just as is mine. That is not to discredit an eyewitness account, but I take it you have not actually physically seen any gods. Evidence is that which stands on its own terms. Anyone else should be able to come to the same conclusion as you if the evidence is unambiguous. How many do come to the same conclusion as you after hearing you tell of your experiences? I am not one. I don't think I am being unreasonable. There are simpler explanations for your experience.
When you hear the sound of hooves in the night why think of zebras?
As for biblical prophecy, give me one example that is as unambiguous as the prediction that there will be a total solar eclipse visible across Africa on 30 April 2041, the umbra hitting the Southwest coastline at 10:10am?
We are supposedly discussing an omniscient god here. Why are his prophecies as easily interpreted as not prophetic of anything? Is it possibly because, once again, there is a simpler explanation? Humans are voracious pattern seekers AND because some people believe that their religious absurdities will seem more convincing if they can fool others into thinking that there really is something predictive going on. Educate people about coincidence and the skill of psychic cold reading and they become less inclined to believe in biblical prophecy which actually isn't.
Stuart
All you have done is demonstrate for us all that you are not familiar with the historical aspect of the Hebrew Literature.Isaiah prophecied of Cyrus over one hundred and fifty years prior to events recorded by Daniel, and over two hundred years before the events recorded by Ezra.
This has NOTHING TO DO with my own experiences. It has EVERYTHING TO DO with the evidence of pretestimony.
You suppositions and possibilities have nothing to do with responding to the issue of the OP.
Paladin did you not write this in your OP?I can experience a circumstance, and know first hand what happened, and consider that to be the best evidence as to what it is I experienced. I may then conclude “experience is the best evidence.”
The word 'pretestimony' does not appear in my dictionary. I have no idea what you mean, although I have guessed at something like 'prediction'.
King Cyrus is referred to in Is 45:1 as 'the anointed'. Was Isaiah foretelling of Cyrus the messiah? That is how he was percieved by the Jews under his reign, as it turns out. Coincidence and cold reading. Sooner or later the psychic guesses something right. Think about all the alleged prophecy of Jesus in Isaiah (was Jesus supposed to be the messiah according to Isaiah?): it is all poor guessing about what could subsequently be fulfilled retrospectively in any case.
Was Cyrus a really unusual name in ancient Persia? Did no ancient meddle with Isaiah during copying? That is what early christians did to Josephus.
There are far simpler explanations to consider before you jump into invoking magic.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 27 2009,07:07) Quote (Paladin @ July 27 2009,03:12) Quote (Stu @ July 27 2009,02:52) The experience you have is meaningless as evidence, just as is mine. That is not to discredit an eyewitness account, but I take it you have not actually physically seen any gods. Evidence is that which stands on its own terms. Anyone else should be able to come to the same conclusion as you if the evidence is unambiguous. How many do come to the same conclusion as you after hearing you tell of your experiences? I am not one. I don't think I am being unreasonable. There are simpler explanations for your experience.
When you hear the sound of hooves in the night why think of zebras?
As for biblical prophecy, give me one example that is as unambiguous as the prediction that there will be a total solar eclipse visible across Africa on 30 April 2041, the umbra hitting the Southwest coastline at 10:10am?
We are supposedly discussing an omniscient god here. Why are his prophecies as easily interpreted as not prophetic of anything? Is it possibly because, once again, there is a simpler explanation? Humans are voracious pattern seekers AND because some people believe that their religious absurdities will seem more convincing if they can fool others into thinking that there really is something predictive going on. Educate people about coincidence and the skill of psychic cold reading and they become less inclined to believe in biblical prophecy which actually isn't.
Stuart
All you have done is demonstrate for us all that you are not familiar with the historical aspect of the Hebrew Literature.Isaiah prophecied of Cyrus over one hundred and fifty years prior to events recorded by Daniel, and over two hundred years before the events recorded by Ezra.
This has NOTHING TO DO with my own experiences. It has EVERYTHING TO DO with the evidence of pretestimony.
You suppositions and possibilities have nothing to do with responding to the issue of the OP.
Paladin did you not write this in your OP?I can experience a circumstance, and know first hand what happened, and consider that to be the best evidence as to what it is I experienced. I may then conclude “experience is the best evidence.”
The word 'pretestimony' does not appear in my dictionary. I have no idea what you mean, although I have guessed at something like 'prediction'.
King Cyrus is referred to in Is 45:1 as 'the anointed'. Was Isaiah foretelling of Cyrus the messiah? That is how he was percieved by the Jews under his reign, as it turns out. Coincidence and cold reading. Sooner or later the psychic guesses something right. Think about all the alleged prophecy of Jesus in Isaiah (was Jesus supposed to be the messiah according to Isaiah?): it is all poor guessing about what could subsequently be fulfilled retrospectively in any case.
Was Cyrus a really unusual name in ancient Persia? Did no ancient meddle with Isaiah during copying? That is what early christians did to Josephus.
There are far simpler explanations to consider before you jump into invoking magic.
Stuart
For YOU I will invoke silence.I accept your tacet concession that I am right then. God is an assertion on your part that is not necessitated by any evidence or anecdote.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ July 27 2009,02:52)
(Stu)Quote The experience you have is meaningless as evidence, just as is mine. That is not to discredit an eyewitness account, but I take it you have not actually physically seen any gods. (P) I have seen the result of God having expressed himself. I read it constantly.
(Stu)
Quote Evidence is that which stands on its own terms. (P) That's wishful thinking. Evidence does not “stand on its own” because it does not have an “own” to stand on. THAT is an overused figure of speech with no meaning.
If evidence indeed “stands on its own” why does it have to be interpreted in every court of law in the world? Why do lawyers make thousands of dollars in annual salaries, interpreting evidence for the courts, and Judges interpret the accuracy of the lawyers interpretations of evidence.
That is the entire function of witnesses, to interpret and explain the significance of exactly what it is evidence is supposed to show.
(Stu) Anyone else should be able to come to the same conclusion as you if the evidence is unambiguous. [/quote]
(P) If that were true, juries would only have to have one member, not twelve. It is not ambiguity of evidence, it is difference of experience of the jurists, whose job it has become, to interpret what it is the evidence shows.
(Stu)
Quote How many do come to the same conclusion as you after hearing you tell of your experiences? I am not one. I don't think I am being unreasonable. There are simpler explanations for your experience. (P) How would you begin to arrive at that conclusion? I have not told you anything at all about my experience. I only used experience to demonstrate the value of testimony as evidence relating to experience, but no mention was made of what was experienced in the reference. And THAT is most certainly unreasonable.
(Stu)
Quote When you hear the sound of hooves in the night why think of zebras? (P)Prevalent experience?
(Stu)
Quote As for biblical prophecy, give me one example that is as unambiguous as the prediction that there will be a total solar eclipse visible across Africa on 30 April 2041, the umbra hitting the Southwest coastline at 10:10am? (P) Already did. God did not have a telescope and thousands of years of scientific trial and error judgment as back-up. He spoke from the perspective of intent. He intended to do a thing, and pretestified to the event. Unambiguous. Unpretentious. And unimitated.
(Stu)
Quote We are supposedly discussing an omniscient god here. (P)I do not remember using that terminology in my OP. I was speaking of the God of whom we learn in scripture. Omniscience is not one of them. Nor is it a bible-taught concept, as I have demonstrated in my earlier post.
(Stu)
Quote Why are his prophecies as easily interpreted as not prophetic of anything? (P) They aren't. You may ignore what is said, you may even deny the results as valid, but that will not change the fact that what eventually happened was exactly as was determined by pretestimony.
(Stu)
Quote Is it possibly because, once again, there is a simpler explanation? (P) Nope! Once again, there is acceptance and there is denial. Anyone can call God a liar, because God has said “It is your choice.” God will have the last word.
(Stu)
Quote Humans are voracious pattern seekers AND because some people believe that their religious absurdities will seem more convincing if they can fool others into thinking that there really is something predictive going on. (P) I know. Like athiests trying to convince people who know better, there is no God. THAT is a “religious absurdity” of the order of first magnitude.
When God inspired Isaiah to write about Cyrus, king of Persia, that he would free the captives of a war not yet fought, and retrun them to a city not yet destroyed, to rebuild the wals of a temple not yet torn down, and that Cyrus would take care of all the expenses incurred by the people, as well as the cost of construction, and all of it happened exactly as foretold, THAT does not constitute a simple matter of
“pattern seeking and finding.”(Stu)
Quote Educate people about coincidence and the skill of psychic cold reading and they become less inclined to believe in biblical prophecy which actually isn't. (P)That is not education. That is simple “I didn't see it happen therefore it didn't happen” stupidity. Education would teach everyone to study the possibilities involved, of the total number of separate events, the total number of possibilities of all of those separate events happening from coincidence, exactly as prophesied, but without being a result of the prophecy.
Education would identify Cyrus as the ONLY possible human who could fulfill the prophecy which called him by name two hundred years before the event, and would test every aspect of the children of Israel returning to their own land. Add to that the possibility that they would rebuild the walls of the city. Add to that that they would rebuild the temple. Add to that the fact that Cyrus the king would pay all the expenses. Add to that the fact that Cyrus concluded Jehovah is indeed the God of Israel. ALL of which constitute historical facts, available to educators, not all of whom have preconceived notions as to what it all means.
When the educators get through, and the Historians finish verifying what the educators premise, then the evidence masters begin thier application of interpreting facts as to possibility, coincidence, artifacts, testimonies, and results.
God steps out on the finished page as the result of careful consideration of all the pertinent factual circumstances considered.
Quote (Stu @ July 27 2009,18:48)
(Stu)Quote I accept your tacet concession that I am right then. (P)you cannot “accept” what is not offered. I conceded no such tacet understanding.
(Stu)
Quote God is an assertion on your part that is not necessitated by any evidence or anecdote. (P)I asserted nothing about God. I used his own words specifically to avoid my own assertions. As for your assertion,
“that is not necessitated by any evidence or anecdote,” it is wrong on both counts.Just because you do not consider pretestimony to have any value, that has no effect on the value of the pretestimony. Your doubt does not cancel the facts of historical events taking place exactly as prestated. Nor does your ignorance of the historicity of Hebrew literature negate the factual application of events recorded therein.
Paladin
Quote I have seen the result of God having expressed himself. I read it constantly.
What exactly is your god, and what necessitates it? And what actual physical evidence do you have that the supernatural being that is necessitated in your model is not one of the other tens of thousands of gods worshipped over the millennia?Stu: Evidence is that which stands on its own terms.
Quote That's wishful thinking. Evidence does not “stand on its own” because it does not have an “own” to stand on. THAT is an overused figure of speech with no meaning.
It does depend on some basic philosophy, but the assumptions made by science are not unreasonable, given the nature of empirical evidence. We have to assume that what we observe is what we get, there is no reasonable alternative. However you seem to want to be allowed to make all sorts of claims of things beyond our observation, without saying what would be true if you were wrong. It is not a credible position.Quote If evidence indeed “stands on its own” why does it have to be interpreted in every court of law in the world? Why do lawyers make thousands of dollars in annual salaries, interpreting evidence for the courts, and Judges interpret the accuracy of the lawyers interpretations of evidence.
Because they are paid thousands of dollars to get the result that each side is demanding. They want black-and-white, they are not in the business of proposing a model that fits the evidence then refining it in the light of new evidence, courts are potentially going to deprive people of their liberty because of the evidence. Epistemology and justice are two different demands on evidence. In science the evidence itself still stands on its own terms, and its interpretation is up to those who consider it. Remember I made this statement in the context of whether evidence is unambiguous.Quote That is the entire function of witnesses, to interpret and explain the significance of exactly what it is evidence is supposed to show.
There is always an education element to it, since we seem to want juries of non-experts to interpret the evidence on behalf of ‘the people’. DNA evidence is one really good example: a scientist can tell a jury the probability that a DNA sample came from a suspect. The jury needs to understand that there is a chance that the DNA sample did not come from that suspect, in order that they can decide whether the corroborating evidence presented with the DNA evidence is enough to lower the odds to the standard they consider ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.Stu: Anyone else should be able to come to the same conclusion as you if the evidence is unambiguous.
Quote If that were true, juries would only have to have one member, not twelve. It is not ambiguity of evidence, it is difference of experience of the jurists, whose job it has become, to interpret what it is the evidence shows.
In judge-only trials there is just one ‘juror’. This is a function of our concept of justice, not one of how we determine the best quality of information. Wouldn’t you want every case to be based on unambiguous evidence that stands on its own merits? Don’t forget this discussion is about determining a good model for the universe, not deciding on guilt. The two objectives are different ones. Science can just suspend judgement; it can speculate but bear in mind that there is not enough evidence to be confident about a particular hypothesis. That is not what the courts want to hear.Stu: When you hear the sound of hooves in the night why think of zebras?
Quote Prevalent experience?
That would seem to be the approach most christian fundamentalists take. Because it says zebras in the bible, then there are zebras outside the window. There is no need to look. They are zebras.Stu: As for biblical prophecy, give me one example that is as unambiguous as the prediction that there will be a total solar eclipse visible across Africa on 30 April 2041, the umbra hitting the Southwest coastline at 10:10am?
Quote Already did. God did not have a telescope and thousands of years of scientific trial and error judgment as back-up. He spoke from the perspective of intent. He intended to do a thing, and pretestified to the event. Unambiguous. Unpretentious. And unimitated.
What example do you mean? Cyrus, the name pencilled in over the writing of the author of Isaiah, to make that work into a convincing prophecy of a king that attained demi-god status, after the event? That is pathetic. And it is the best example I have heard of, too.Stu: We are supposedly discussing an omniscient god here.
Quote I do not remember using that terminology in my OP. I was speaking of the God of whom we learn in scripture. Omniscience is not one of them. Nor is it a bible-taught concept, as I have demonstrated in my earlier post.
Psalm 147:4,5
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.Acts 15:18
Known to God are all his works from the beginning of the world.The Psalmist and Paul both seem to be disagreeing with you.
Stu: Why are his prophecies as easily interpreted as not prophetic of anything?
Quote They aren't. You may ignore what is said, you may even deny the results as valid, but that will not change the fact that what eventually happened was exactly as was determined by pretestimony.
I have not ignored anything. I have given you much simpler explanations for your example, and they are based on the evidence that time and again humans will tamper with evidence to support their cause, and that humans are credulous people and do not understand probability properly, a characteristic exploited by psychics and other fraudsters like faith healers and astrologers.Stu: Is it possibly because, once again, there is a simpler explanation?
Quote Nope! Once again, there is acceptance and there is denial. Anyone can call God a liar, because God has sai
d “It is your choice.” God will have the last word.
Don’t you rather think that”Nope!” makes it sound like you might be the one in denial?Stu: Humans are voracious pattern seekers AND because some people believe that their religious absurdities will seem more convincing if they can fool others into thinking that there really is something predictive going on.
Quote I know. Like athiests trying to convince people who know better, there is no God. THAT is a “religious absurdity” of the order of first magnitude.
You assert, without evidence, that you know better. You do not justify making claims of the supernatural, about which, by definition, you cannot know. That certainly is an absurdity.Quote When God inspired Isaiah to write about Cyrus, king of Persia, that he would free the captives of a war not yet fought, and retrun them to a city not yet destroyed, to rebuild the wals of a temple not yet torn down, and that Cyrus would take care of all the expenses incurred by the people, as well as the cost of construction, and all of it happened exactly as foretold, THAT does not constitute a simple matter of
“pattern seeking and finding.”
“When God inspired Isaiah to write about Cyrus is the premise I am arguing against, so how are you making a relevant argument to support it if you are assuming the truth of it in the first sentence? If you want something to be prophetic then your human brain will tell you that it is, because it thinks it sees a pattern. The fact that christians wrote their mythology over the top of the diary entries of Josephus shows that it is very plausible that early Jews under Cyrus wrote his name into Isaiah. Judeo-christian believers have been hamstrung by the willingness of those early christians to misrepresent, and thus no credibility is deserved by their scripture. If scientists lied about things in relation to evolutionary theory I am sure you would be keen to tear their credibility to shreds. If so, you understand the credibility problem with your bible.Quote Education would identify Cyrus as the ONLY possible human who could fulfill the prophecy which called him by name two hundred years before the event, and would test every aspect of the children of Israel returning to their own land. Add to that the possibility that they would rebuild the walls of the city. Add to that that they would rebuild the temple. Add to that the fact that Cyrus the king would pay all the expenses. Add to that the fact that Cyrus concluded Jehovah is indeed the God of Israel. ALL of which constitute historical facts, available to educators, not all of whom have preconceived notions as to what it all means.
Sure, and when he had done all that, they wrote about it in Isaiah. And even if that is not how it happened, there are a thousand rational possibilities before you invoke Judeo-christian magic. But your confirmation bias says jump straight to the god conclusion. Not that it actually explains anything.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2009,01:05)
(Paladin)Quote I have seen the result of God having expressed himself. I read it constantly. (Stu) What exactly is your god,
(P) If your reference is to my God, he “IS.” That is sufficient for me. He is self contained, and self sufficient. He is “the being.”
(Stu)
Quote and what necessitates it? The claims made by his book. They REQUIRE investigation, not blind acceptance. ANYONE can lay claim to ANYTHING. But if the one making claims is able to back up their claims with performance, I will certainly give more attention to THAT claimant over all others. The bible is the ONLY communication claiming for itself, to come from God, AND it backs up its claim with performance, in that it offers truth about events not yet performed.
When, in the natural course of time, those events unfold with a precision totally unequaled by any other performance in history, with an exactitude heretofore unknown, it behooves us to further examine the claims, against other criteria found within the pages of that same book.
(Stu)
Quote And what actual physical evidence do you have that the supernatural being that is necessitated in your model is not one of the other tens of thousands of gods worshipped over the millennia? (P)Name another that can explain beginnings with scientific exactitude? In other words, nothing in the claims of how things began has EVER been scientifically proved to be false.
Name another that told of events hundreds of years prior to the expression of happening, with the same degree of accuracy, and the same degree of minutia, as in the case of Cyrus.
Name another that invokes the passions of men to the same intensity as Jehovah, God of Israel, over as long a time.
(Stu)
Quote Evidence is that which stands on its own terms. (P) That's wishful thinking. Evidence does not “stand on its own” because it does not have an “own” to stand on. THAT is an overused figure of speech with no meaning.
(Stu) It does depend on some basic philosophy, but the assumptions made by science are not unreasonable, given the nature of empirical evidence. We have to assume that what we observe is what we get, there is no reasonable alternative. However you seem to want to be allowed to make all sorts of claims of things beyond our observation, without saying what would be true if you were wrong. It is not a credible position.
(P) Not true at all. Go ahead, and feel free to tell us what really happened in Persia so long ago. Oh, by the way, be sure to provide evidence. I have it in the form of contemporary written hjistorical accounts, and archeological findings. Click HERE
for a small example.(P)
Quote If evidence indeed “stands on its own” why does it have to be interpreted in every court of law in the world? Why do lawyers make thousands of dollars in annual salaries, interpreting evidence for the courts, and Judges interpret the accuracy of the lawyers interpretations of evidence. (Stu) Because they are paid thousands of dollars to get the result that each side is demanding. They want black-and-white, they are not in the business of proposing a model that fits the evidence then refining it in the light of new evidence, courts are potentially going to deprive people of their liberty because of the evidence. Epistemology and justice are two different demands on evidence. In science the evidence itself still stands on its own terms, and its interpretation is up to those who consider it. Remember I made this statement in the context of whether evidence is unambiguous.
But your statement was about “evidence standing on its own.”
I have shown how it is that evidence stands upon
“interpretation,” not on the fact of its being.“Epistomological” evidence is simply the evidence for the fact of the book, i.e., its age, material being true to that age, material of binding and cover, and etc. and has nothing to do with the contextual considerations contained within its pages.
You can have two books from the same age of existence, one a scientific textbook, filled with error, and the other a work of science fantasy, which may be closer to the truth than the official textbook of scientific fact. So the “epistomological” evidence will only ascertain for the witness, that they belong to the same age group.
It is the OTHER examinations available to the reader that will entertain persuits of truth and understanding of factual offerings made by each.
(P)
Quote That is the entire function of witnesses, to interpret and explain the significance of exactly what it is evidence is supposed to show. (Stu) There is always an education element to it, since we seem to want juries of non-experts to interpret the evidence on behalf of ‘the people’. DNA evidence is one really good example: a scientist can tell a jury the probability that a DNA sample came from a suspect. The jury needs to understand that there is a chance that the DNA sample did not come from that suspect, in order that they can decide whether the corroborating evidence presented with the DNA evidence is enough to lower the odds to the standard they consider
‘beyond reasonable doubt’.(P)But the bible is in a different category. It was presented to us by ignorant and uneducated men, men who did NOT have the “education” of their day. They did not, for the most part, know each other; did not get together in hidden basements to plot and plan, to come up with a great scam upon mankind. Yet their story is a united concept, without peer or equal in the annals of literature. 66 books written by over forty authors, containing thousands of different concepts but with one focus, one theme, and one hope for all of mankind.
It is a simple story about one man's family, that brings hope to all men of ever nation, and every age.
I think you may be confusing it with that which is claimed by men who think THEY have a particular inroad with God. They bind their own concepts upon their fellows and shout long and loud about how it is God speaks through them. I am not speaking of THAT Christianity.
I speak of the Christianity that demonstrates that simplicity of self-worth that encompasses all men equally. NO ONE is above another. NO ONE can say to another, I am in charge and am to be obeyed.
I speak of that Christianity of which the bible tells us is comprised of “Christ in you” so that it is no longer I that live, but Christ is expressed t
hrough my life.When Paul wanted to teach strangers, he never sent them a New Testament, saying to them, “read this. He sent them a Christian, and said “Here is Christ, read HIM.”
(Stu)
Quote Anyone else should be able to come to the same conclusion as you if the evidence is unambiguous. Are you speaking of “ability” or of “likelihood?” Anyone should be able to reach the same conclusion IF they have the same concern for exactitude, the same degree of interest, the same background experience, the same understanding of unexplained phenomena, the same curiosity of things otherwise left alone. There are WAY too many variables to assume anything at all about conclusions reached from evidence.
But the bible does not need agreement over evidence. All it needs is fair examination of several of THOUSANDS of bits of evidence. NONE of the items offered for examination, given a fair hearing, will conclude anything other than a need to know more of the other evidence contained therein.
The problem arises when men examine the bible from the evidence found in books ABOUT the bible. If they read the bible, they will not be divided like they are reading commentaries and doctrines, creeds, and catechisms.
(P)
Quote If that were true, juries would only have to have one member, not twelve. It is not ambiguity of evidence, it is difference of experience of the jurists, whose job it has become, to interpret what it is the evidence shows. (Stu) In judge-only trials there is just one ‘juror’. This is a function of our concept of justice, not one of how we determine the best quality of information. Wouldn’t you want every case to be based on unambiguous evidence that stands on its own merits? [/quote]
Nope! I want every case to be based on truth, not evidence that might even show the antithesis of truth. “Evidence” is sometimes produced that, because it is misunderstood, or misapplied, caused confusion precisely BECAUSE it has nothing to do with the case with which it was presented.
Circumstance is sometimes considered evidence when it remains only circumstance. Assume; B and C both happened to D on the same night. Assume A committed B on D. Chances are good that he will be blamed for committing C also on D BECAUSE the evidence shows that the two circumstances happened within an approximate time frame not easily explained by A.
(Stu)
Quote Don’t forget this discussion is about determining a good model for the universe, not deciding on guilt. The two objectives are different ones. (P)Not really. This discussion was concerned with “how to determine what is the best evidence,” not guilt, or models of any kind whatsoever. Remember we went into “pretestimony” as the best evidence?
(Stu)
Quote Science can just suspend judgement; it can speculate but bear in mind that there is not enough evidence to be confident about a particular hypothesis. That is not what the courts want to hear. (P)Science can also suspend good sense. And it can suspend fairness, to present a slanted view of things it has already voiced itself about. Look at what happened to Galileo. He discovered the Earth is not the center of the universe, published his “scientific” evidence, was arrested, charged with heresy, his books banned, and he was under house arrest for life. Over two hundred years later, he was aquitted by that same Catholic church that adjudged him guilty, his books were returned to public view, and the Catholic church within the past two years “forgave” Galileo. I still possess a copy of the newspaper report stating so.
Scientific analysis is not the “court of review” I look for in ascertaining the truth of scripture. I look to the court of man. I look to see how man is effected by its pages. Does man improve in his understanding of his fellow? Does his selfworth improve? Does he begin to appreciate those of whom it would earlier be understood he did not appreciate?
THIS is the proper court of review for scripture. But when men begin to “own” the bible, and think they have the right to impose their “Bible” on the minds of other men, it begins to fall into the realm of the disgusting, which you describe so well. But your mindset is effected by what you have seen among “Christians” who themselves do not know what it means.
If ANYONE teaches you ANYTHING about scripture, and it makes you love God more than you did yesterday; and if ANYONE teaches you ANYTHING about scripture, and it makes you more considerate of your fellow; and if ANYONE teaches you ANYTHING from scripture, and it makes you better understand YOURSELF in relationship to others, it probably is a pretty good teaching from scripture.
But, if anyone teaches you anything from scripture, and it does not make you closer to God, or does not make you more considerate of your fellow, or does not make you understand yourself in relationship to others, I think I would go elsewhere for my understanding.
(Stu)
Quote When you hear the sound of hooves in the night why think of zebras? (P) Prevalent experience?
(Stu) That would seem to be the approach most christian fundamentalists take. Because it says zebras in the bible, then there are zebras outside the window. There is no need to look. They are zebras.
(P)WRONG! It is because YOU presented the possibility in your post, that Zebras are the focus of YOUR attention when you hear “hooves in the night.” MY response had nothing to do with what is in the bible. It had to do with what I understood from your remark, to be “prevalent experience.”
(Stu)
Quote As for biblical prophecy, give me one example that is as unambiguous as the prediction that there will be a total solar eclipse visible across Africa on 30 April 2041, the umbra hitting the Southwest coastline at 10:10am? (P)Already did. God did not have a telescope and thousands of years of scientific trial and error judgment as back-up. He spoke from the perspective of intent. He intended to do a thing, and pretestified to the event. Unambiguous. Unpretentious. And unimitated.
(Stu) What example do you mean? Cyrus, the name pencilled in over the writing of the author of Isaiah, to make that work into a convincing prophecy of a king that attained demi-god status, after the event? That is pathetic. And it is the best example I have heard of, too.
(P)Evidence? Reference? Surely not in a book ABOUT the bible? A Book written by a (gasp) DOUBTER.
I think I would read more from the bible before I attack God, based upon such petty opinion.
(Stu)
Quote We are supposedly discussing an omniscient god here. (P)I do not remember using that terminology in my OP.
I was speaking of the God of whom we learn in scripture. Omniscience is not one of them. Nor is it a bible-taught concept, as I have demonstrated in my earlier post.(Stu)
Quote Psalm 147:4,5
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite.Acts 15:18
Known to God are all his works from the beginning of the world.The Psalmist and Paul both seem to be disagreeing with you.
(P)Not unless you understand “infinite” to mean the same thing as “omniscient.” “Infinite” is found three times in scripture, once applied to God's understanding, (not to God himself); once applied to the strangth of No, a city of Egyptian acquintance; and once to describe the sins of Job.
I don't think the translators knew what they were talking about.
As for “omniscient,” it is found once in scripture, in Revelation and is a carryover from the Rheims translation. I have already
given you references that show God does not know everything. So bringing upo a translation that disagrees does nothing toward resolving the discrepancy.(Stu)
Quote Why are his prophecies as easily interpreted as not prophetic of anything? (P)They aren't. You may ignore what is said, you may even deny the results as valid, but that will not change the fact that what eventually happened was exactly as was determined by pretestimony.
(Stu) I have not ignored anything. I have given you much simpler explanations for your example, and they are based on the evidence that time and again humans will tamper with evidence to support their cause, and that humans are credulous people and do not understand probability properly, a characteristic exploited by psychics and other fraudsters like faith healers and astrologers.
(P)That is not what you have done. There is no “evidence” as you claim. There is only your “claim” that humans tampered with Isaiah, and with Josephus. THAT is not evidence. Again, you probably found that claim in a book ABOUT the bible. You certainly did not find it IN the bible.
For the cause of brevity I will not respond to the rest of your post in this one.
This should leave you with enough to consider.
Paladin
Quote If your reference is to my God, he “IS.” That is sufficient for me. He is self contained, and self sufficient. He is “the being.”
What a load of nonsense rhyme. You have said nothing about your god, and I suspect that is because you cannot make any positive claim about it.Stu: and what necessitates it?
Quote The claims made by his book. They REQUIRE investigation, not blind acceptance. ANYONE can lay claim to ANYTHING. But if the one making claims is able to back up their claims with performance, I will certainly give more attention to THAT claimant over all others. The bible is the ONLY communication claiming for itself, to come from God, AND it backs up its claim with performance, in that it offers truth about events not yet performed.
That does not necessitate any gods, it just necessitates that there were people who wrote scripture.Quote When, in the natural course of time, those events unfold with a precision totally unequaled by any other performance in history, with an exactitude heretofore unknown, it behooves us to further examine the claims, against other criteria found within the pages of that same book.
And when do you think that will happen? Not to the precision of science in describing everything from eclipses to the interactions of matter and photons, which make the bible look like poor blind guessing…actually it is poor blind guessing with an agenda.Quote Name another that can explain beginnings with scientific exactitude? In other words, nothing in the claims of how things began has EVER been scientifically proved to be false.
Nor has it been ‘proven’ true. It is not possible to prove a negative. You are making the claim, don’t be fatuous and dodge the burden of proof yourself. How is goddidit an explanation of anything? It is just a ceremonial dumping of the question into a too hard basket. Fortunately for your medical wellbeing, real scientists do not treat knowledge and its acquisition like that.Quote Name another that told of events hundreds of years prior to the expression of happening, with the same degree of accuracy, and the same degree of minutia, as in the case of Cyrus.
Already gave you a really good one. Why don’t you look up your local tide table, or the NASA data on eclipses that tells you what time they will occur on what days in the future. There is no particular need to know eclipses 300 years from now, but don’t think they couldn’t tell you with blinding precision if you really needed to know. That is quite apt really, because there is no need for anyone to know that a man-god’s execution was, after the fact, attributed to absolving you of religious crimes that the man-god was not happy you were doing, and that you probably did not realise yourself up to the point of being told about it by someone else so convinced.Quote Name another that invokes the passions of men to the same intensity as Jehovah, God of Israel, over as long a time.
Passion is irrelevant. Many have claimed with passion they are Jesus. Shall we include their passionate testimonies too?Quote Go ahead, and feel free to tell us what really happened in Persia so long ago. Oh, by the way, be sure to provide evidence. I have it in the form of contemporary written hjistorical accounts, and archeological findings.
It does not bother me particularly what happened in ancient Iran. It is reassuring to think we can get the details right, but it is not nearly as important to me as the events of ancient Palestine are to you. Your absolute dependence on historical events does reveal a degree of insecurity.Quote “Epistomological” evidence is simply the evidence for the fact of the book, i.e., its age, material being true to that age, material of binding and cover, and etc. and has nothing to do with the contextual considerations contained within its pages.
I look up definitions before I comment on them, why can’t you?Quote I think you may be confusing it with that which is claimed by men who think THEY have a particular inroad with God. They bind their own concepts upon their fellows and shout long and loud about how it is God speaks through them. I am not speaking of THAT Christianity.
I don’t particularly care about what you think is and isn’t christianity. If we were to play that game, 2.1 billion people would put up their various and contradictory beliefs and we would need 2.1 billion responses to them. Why can I not claim that christians believe there are talking snakes and donkeys and it is possible to see Tonga from a high mountain in the Middle East? Those are CHRISTIAN BELIEFS. I don’t mind if you lump me in with ‘atheist belief’, because there is only one belief, and it is something on which all atheists agree.<SNIPPED more material that was close to prostyletising but was ignoring the brutality of christian philosophy.
Stu: Anyone else should be able to come to the same conclusion as you if the evidence is unambiguous.
Quote Are you speaking of “ability” or of “likelihood?” Anyone should be able to reach the same conclusion IF they have the same concern for exactitude, the same degree of interest, the same background experience, the same understanding of unexplained phenomena, the same curiosity of things otherwise left alone. There are WAY too many variables to assume anything at all about conclusions reached from evidence.
It is what unambiguous means. Can you get someone to buy you a decent dictionary for your next birthday?Quote But the bible does not need agreement over evidence. All it needs is fair examination of several of THOUSANDS of bits of evidence. NONE of the items offered for examination, given a fair hearing, will conclude anything other than a need to know more of the other evidence contained therein.
Huh?Quote The problem arises when men examine the bible from the evidence found in books ABOUT the bible. If they read the bible, they will not be divided like they are reading commentaries and doctrines, creeds, and catechisms.
Just read any half-decent webpage on biblical inconsistencies (then listen for the sound of moving goalposts as christian apologists paper over the gaps: that is their job, after all). Do you worship the omniscient god of Acts and Psalms, or the god of Genesis that has to walk around the garden of eden calling out to find Adam?Stu: In judge-only trials there is just one ‘juror’. This is a function of our concept of justice, not one of how we determine the best quality of information. Wouldn’t you want every case to be based on unambiguous evidence that stands on its own merits?
Quote Nope! I want every case to be based on truth, not evidence that might even show the antithesis of truth. “Evidence” is sometimes produced that, because it is misunderstood, or misapplied, caused confusion precisely BECAUSE it has nothing to do with the case with which it was presented.
You need not only a dictionary, but an education in philosophy. After that you might understand the relationship between the words ‘evidence’ and ‘truth’.Quote Circumstance is sometimes considered evidence when it remains only circumstance. Assume; B and C both happened to D on the same night. Assume A committed B on D. Chances are good that he will be blamed for committing C also on D BECAUSE the evidence shows that the two circumstances happened within an approximate time frame not easily explained by A.
And it is called circumstantial evidence, and it is (hopefully) weighted in each case according to the probability that it has something valid to say about the event, just like with DNA evidence. Enough circumstantial evidence and the probability mounts up sufficiently for a jury to make a decision. Is the evidence “The Truth”? Of course it is not, all you can do is hope the jury can determine the historical facts well enough to match them to the law being prosecuted.Quote Science can also suspend good sense.
Good sense is not part of the philosophy of science. Actually what most people call common sense is simply inadequate for articulating many scientific models.Quote And it can suspend fairness, to present a slanted view of things it has already voiced itself about. Look at what happened to Galileo. He discovered the Earth is not the center of the universe, published his “scientific” evidence, was arrested, charged with heresy, his books banned, and he was under house arrest for life. Over two hundred years later, he was aquitted by that same Catholic church that adjudged him guilty, his books were returned to public view, and the Catholic church within the past two years “forgave” Galileo. I still possess a copy of the newspaper report stating so.
How is that an example of science “presenting a slanted view of things”? It is just christians persecuting someone in the name of their god and demi-god. By the way, Galileo was not the first to discover heliocentrism.Quote Scientific analysis is not the “court of review” I look for in ascertaining the truth of scripture. I look to the court of man. I look to see how man is effected by its pages. Does man improve in his understanding of his fellow? Does his selfworth improve? Does he begin to appreciate those of whom it would earlier be understood he did not appreciate?
Scientific analysis is the source of the best information we have. Surely if your system of belief is so correct, all its posturings should be completely consistent with our top knowledge. But the two are not only philosophically at odds in regards the best way to discover information, they are often diametrically opposed in their findings.Quote THIS is the proper court of review for scripture.
OK. I assume you have no interest in creationism then, from a scientific point of view.Quote But when men begin to “own” the bible, and think they have the right to impose their “Bible” on the minds of other men, it begins to fall into the realm of the disgusting, which you describe so well. But your mindset is effected by what you have seen among “Christians” who themselves do not know what it means.
In that case, christianity is nothing, because on the evidence of the 39,000 different denominations we have, it cannot be agreed what it is.Quote If ANYONE teaches you ANYTHING about scripture, and it makes you love God more than you did yesterday; and if ANYONE teaches you ANYTHING about scripture, and it makes you more considerate of your fellow; and if ANYONE teaches you ANYTHING from scripture, and it makes you better understand YOURSELF in relationship to others, it probably is a pretty good teaching from scripture.
So you think it is a good thing to love the OT god, the one that has killed up to 32,000,000 of your fellow human beings? That is not the kind of love that I am very comfortable with personally. I suppose someone had to love Stalin, whom your god must envy in the genocide stakes (59 million!) but you can see my reluctance, I hope!Quote But, if anyone teaches you anything from scripture, and it does not make you closer to God, or does not make you more considerate of your fellow, or does not make you understand yourself in relationship to others, I think I would go elsewhere for my understanding.
And you did. And as a result you cannot use a dictionary.Stu: That would seem to be the approach most christian fundamentalists take. Because it says zebras in the bible, then there are zebras outside the window. There is no need to look. They are zebras.
Quote WRONG! It is because YOU presented the possibility in your post, that Zebras are the focus of YOUR attention when yo
u hear “hooves in the night.” MY response had nothing to do with what is in the bible. It had to do with what I understood from your remark, to be “prevalent experience.”
Again, huh?Quote Evidence? Reference? Surely not in a book ABOUT the bible? A Book written by a (gasp) DOUBTER. I think I would read more from the bible before I attack God, based upon such petty opinion.
You would replace robust skepticism that demands high standards of probity with an ad hominem argument, and call that convincing??<SNIPPED bit about omniscience: it makes no difference at all to me personally. The fact that there are contradictions even worth discussing tends to support my earlier point about it.
Stu: I have not ignored anything. I have given you much simpler explanations for your example, and they are based on the evidence that time and again humans will tamper with evidence to support their cause, and that humans are credulous people and do not understand probability properly, a characteristic exploited by psychics and other fraudsters like faith healers and astrologers.
Quote That is not what you have done. There is no “evidence” as you claim. There is only your “claim” that humans tampered with Isaiah, and with Josephus. THAT is not evidence. Again, you probably found that claim in a book ABOUT the bible. You certainly did not find it IN the bible.
Would you read the writings of Chairman Mao or Marx for an objective discourse on the pros and cons of communism?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 02 2009,11:36)
(Paladin)Quote If your reference is to my God, he “IS.” That is sufficient for me. He is self contained, and self sufficient. He is “the being.” (Stu) What a load of nonsense rhyme. You have said nothing about your god, and I suspect that is because you cannot make any positive claim about it.
(P)Obviously you have different set of standards than I do. I have said everything that is necessary about my God, and you do not even see that I said anything at all.
(Stu)
Quote and what necessitates it? (P) The claims made by his book. They REQUIRE investigation, not blind acceptance. ANYONE can lay claim to ANYTHING. But if the one making claims is able to back up their claims with performance, I will certainly give more attention to THAT claimant over all others. The bible is the ONLY communication claiming for itself, to come from God, AND it backs up its claim with performance, in that it offers truth about events not yet performed.
(Stu) That does not necessitate any gods, it just necessitates that there were people who wrote scripture.
(P)You are not even reading what I said. It is obvious to everyone else in the world except Stu, that performance according to what is written requires further investigation.
If the bible was only written by men, without inspiration, don't you suppose those men would be making claims for themselves? They would be proclaiming loud and long, “Look at how brilliant I am, I can predict a man's actions and name him before the fact just to prove I am brilliant.”
(P)
Quote When, in the natural course of time, those events unfold with a precision totally unequaled by any other performance in history, with an exactitude heretofore unknown, it behooves us to further examine the claims, against other criteria found within the pages of that same book. (Stu) And when do you think that will happen?
During the time of the Israelite prophet Ezra.[536 b.c.]
(Stu)
Quote Not to the precision of science in describing everything from eclipses to the interactions of matter and photons, which make the bible look like poor blind guessing…actually it is poor blind guessing with an agenda. (P)O.K. mr. smart guy, publish the name of the scientist that is going to publish the reading of the eclipse as it approaches the coastline. God named the king of Persia, 200 years before the event. Let's see YOU name the scientist.
(P)
Quote Name another that can explain beginnings with scientific exactitude? In other words, nothing in the claims of how things began has EVER been scientifically proved to be false. (Stu) Nor has it been ‘proven’ true. It is not possible to prove a negative.
(P)Now you are showing pure ignorance of logic. This is not a case of “proving a negative” because there was no “negative” to be proved. It is simply a case of disproving a positive, which was simply stated, naming names and giving details of events that were to happen at some future time.
And it most certainly was “proven true” when Cyrus king of Persia sent the prisoner-of-war population of the Children of Israel back to their homes to rebuild the city walls, and the temple, AND paid all expenses of the trip, AND all the expenses of the rebuilding. It is historical fact. THAT CONSTITUTES PROOF in any court of any land.
(Stu)
Quote You are making the claim, don’t be fatuous and dodge the burden of proof yourself. How is goddidit an explanation of anything? I did not say “God did it.” I said God said it. I also said events took place exactly as recorded by the prophet to whom God said it; 200 years prior to the event. THAT is a matter of HISTORICAL RECORD. READ THE ACCOUNTS and prove them to be false IF YOU CAN. And I do not mean “find someone who claims it is false.”
(Stu)
Quote It is just a ceremonial dumping of the question into a too hard basket. Fortunately for your medical wellbeing, real scientists do not treat knowledge and its acquisition like that. I know. They speak of things like “the FACT of Evolution” as though it has grown beyond the “theory of Evolution” stage. They speak of “Parallel Universes” as though they are established in fact, when all along they begin with “Assume for the sake of the argument…” then make the argument “there is no chaos” in this universe. Their entire argument is based on an “assumption for the sake of the argument.”
(P)
Quote Name another that told of events hundreds of years prior to the expression of happening, with the same degree of accuracy, and the same degree of minutia, as in the case of Cyrus. (P) Already gave you a really good one. Why don’t you look up your local tide table, or the NASA data on eclipses that tells you what time they will occur on what days in the future. There is no particular need to know eclipses 300 years from now, but don’t think they couldn’t tell you with blinding precision if you really needed to know.
(P)BUT, can you NAME THE SCIENTIST that will take the reading?
I grow weary of responding to an unhappy man whose only claim to fame is he doesn't understand what he reads.
I don't like long post, so all I am going to say is:” Jesus the Son of God testified of His Father God, and that is good enough for me. No other Scriptures necessary.
Peace and Love IreneQuote (Cindy @ Aug. 03 2009,02:16) I don't like long post, so all I am going to say is:” Jesus the Son of God testified of His Father God, and that is good enough for me. No other Scriptures necessary.
Peace and Love Irene
OK. What an unfortunate blindness afflicts you.That's long enough for me too.
Stuart
Paladin
Since you are growing ‘weary’, I’ll keep it short for you.
Quote Obviously you have different set of standards than I do. I have said everything that is necessary about my God, and you do not even see that I said anything at all.
You have said nothing, get that education in philosophy to understand why. Start with Popper.Quote If the bible was only written by men, without inspiration, don't you suppose those men would be making claims for themselves? They would be proclaiming loud and long, “Look at how brilliant I am, I can predict a man's actions and name him before the fact just to prove I am brilliant.”
How could they do that if the prophecies had not yet been fulfilled by the inventions of later people?Quote During the time of the Israelite prophet Ezra.[536 b.c.]
I gave you the minute of the eclipse and you give me an era. Not very impressive.Quote O.K. mr. smart guy, publish the name of the scientist that is going to publish the reading of the eclipse as it approaches the coastline. God named the king of Persia, 200 years before the event. Let's see YOU name the scientist.
Who cares who is was? I could probably do it if I learned the maths. Science is not a personality cult.Quote And it most certainly was “proven true” when Cyrus king of Persia sent the prisoner-of-war population of the Children of Israel back to their homes to rebuild the city walls, and the temple, AND paid all expenses of the trip, AND all the expenses of the rebuilding. It is historical fact. THAT CONSTITUTES PROOF in any court of any land.
You can’t accept that they lied to fulfill “prophecy’, can you. In a court we would be talking about perjury.Quote You are making the claim, don’t be fatuous and dodge the burden of proof yourself. How is goddidit an explanation of anything? Quote I did not say “God did it.” I said God said it. I also said events took place exactly as recorded by the prophet to whom God said it; 200 years prior to the event. THAT is a matter of HISTORICAL RECORD. READ THE ACCOUNTS and prove them to be false IF YOU CAN. And I do not mean “find someone who claims it is false.”
But that is not relevant. You are insisting that I conclude divine-based magic from this, when I can give you several simpler explanations, with examples of how that same simple thing has happened elsewhere. You have the burden of proof. Prove it was divine inspiration, or at least give evidence that does not have a much simpler non-magical explanation.Quote They speak of things like “the FACT of Evolution” as though it has grown beyond the “theory of Evolution” stage.
If you bothered to learn something about the natural world, you would know that it is the FACT of evolution explained by the THEORY of natural selection.Quote They speak of “Parallel Universes” as though they are established in fact, when all along they begin with “Assume for the sake of the argument…” then make the argument “there is no chaos” in this universe. Their entire argument is based on an “assumption for the sake of the argument.”
Can you please refer to the published paper (where it really counts) which has anyone outlining parallel universes as factual? I think you are just making up smears without knowing anything about it.Quote I grow weary of responding to an unhappy man whose only claim to fame is he doesn't understand what he reads.
Another ad hominem. What makes you think I am unhappy? Is it because you are insecure and your religious beliefs insist to you that I must be unhappy?Stuart
ATTEMPT TWO:
Paladin
Since you are growing ‘weary’, I’ll keep it short for you.
Quote Obviously you have different set of standards than I do. I have said everything that is necessary about my God, and you do not even see that I said anything at all.
You have said nothing, get that education in philosophy to understand why. Start with Popper.Quote If the bible was only written by men, without inspiration, don't you suppose those men would be making claims for themselves? They would be proclaiming loud and long, “Look at how brilliant I am, I can predict a man's actions and name him before the fact just to prove I am brilliant.”
How could they do that if the prophecies had not yet been fulfilled by the inventions of later people?Quote During the time of the Israelite prophet Ezra.[536 b.c.]
I gave you the minute of the eclipse and you give me an era. Not very impressive.Quote O.K. mr. smart guy, publish the name of the scientist that is going to publish the reading of the eclipse as it approaches the coastline. God named the king of Persia, 200 years before the event. Let's see YOU name the scientist.
Who cares who is was? I could probably do it if I learned the maths. Science is not a personality cult.Quote And it most certainly was “proven true” when Cyrus king of Persia sent the prisoner-of-war population of the Children of Israel back to their homes to rebuild the city walls, and the temple, AND paid all expenses of the trip, AND all the expenses of the rebuilding. It is historical fact. THAT CONSTITUTES PROOF in any court of any land.
You can’t accept that they lied to fulfill “prophecy’, can you. In a court we would be talking about perjury.Quote You are making the claim, don’t be fatuous and dodge the burden of proof yourself. How is goddidit an explanation of anything? Quote I did not say “God did it.” I said God said it. I also said events took place exactly as recorded by the prophet to whom God said it; 200 years prior to the event. THAT is a matter of HISTORICAL RECORD. READ THE ACCOUNTS and prove them to be false IF YOU CAN. And I do not mean “find someone who claims it is false.”
But that is not relevant. You are insisting that I conclude divine-based magic from this, when I can give you several simpler explanations, with examples of how that same simple thing has happened elsewhere. You have the burden of proof. Prove it was divine inspiration, or at least give evidence that does not have a much simpler non-magical explanation.Quote They speak of things like “the FACT of Evolution” as though it has grown beyond the “theory of Evolution” stage.
If you bothered to learn something about the natural world, you would know that it is the FACT of evolution explained by the THEORY of natural selection.Quote They speak of “Parallel Universes” as though they are established in fact, when all along they begin with “Assume for the sake of the argument…” then make the argument “there is no chaos” in this universe. Their entire argument is based on an “assumption for the sake of the argument.”
Can you please refer to the published paper (where it really counts) which has anyone outlining parallel universes as factual? I think you are just making up smears without knowing anything about it.Quote I grow weary of responding to an unhappy man whose only claim to fame is he doesn't understand what he reads.
Another ad hominem. What makes you think I am unhappy? Is it because you are insecure and your religious beliefs insist to you that I must be unhappy?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Aug. 03 2009,06:29) Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 03 2009,02:16) I don't like long post, so all I am going to say is:” Jesus the Son of God testified of His Father God, and that is good enough for me. No other Scriptures necessary.
Peace and Love Irene
OK. What an unfortunate blindness afflicts you.That's long enough for me too.
Stuart
Really!!!! How can you prove that there is no God? The Bible is true, because all history which was predicted came true.
So you not only have Jesus, but the Apostles too. It was a Catholic Monk who took all of the Letters and put them in a Book, which is the N.T. and the O.T. the Jewish people reserved.
Peace and Love Irene
P.S. You don't have to reply, I know you are not going believe me no matter what I say.Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 03 2009,09:50) Quote (Stu @ Aug. 03 2009,06:29) Quote (Cindy @ Aug. 03 2009,02:16) I don't like long post, so all I am going to say is:” Jesus the Son of God testified of His Father God, and that is good enough for me. No other Scriptures necessary.
Peace and Love Irene
OK. What an unfortunate blindness afflicts you.That's long enough for me too.
Stuart
Really!!!! How can you prove that there is no God? The Bible is true, because all history which was predicted came true.
So you not only have Jesus, but the Apostles too. It was a Catholic Monk who took all of the Letters and put them in a Book, which is the N.T. and the O.T. the Jewish people reserved.
Peace and Love Irene
P.S. You don't have to reply, I know you are not going believe me no matter what I say.
Well I will reply, and I will retract for the time being the comment about blindness, because you seem willing to engage. Good for you.No I cannot prove there is no god.
Some bits of the bible are true. There is a place called Jerusalem, and Herod was a king, for example.
There are other bits that are definitely wrong, beyond any reasonable doubt, like the origins of humans and the global flood. They did not happen as written in scripture.
It is up to you whether you believe that Jesus existed, or walked again after he was executed. Humans are not able to do either, and there are very good reasons to explain why ancient people might have invented that story. Virgin birth and resurrection of a man-god was a very common myth in many religions before the supposed time of Jesus. Your religion is a repeat of what has gone many times before.
The bible is indeed a compilation of the old Catholic church. How was the canon decided? Do you really trust those monks to work out which parchments carried the official word of your god?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
