‹ First  < 4 5 6
 
   
 

The things that happened before the appearance of God in the universe

 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
26 December 2018 16:39
 
GAD - 26 December 2018 03:45 PM
TwoSeven1 - 26 December 2018 02:07 PM
GAD - 26 December 2018 12:03 PM

Daniel 9 prophecy is easily debunked if you bother to get your information from a source other then ignorance, myth, magic and superstition. 

Here are a few of the many.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks
https://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/

Here is some good information to counter:

http://tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.php

Of course you have a link to a pet nut who goes against all modern critical scholarship to justify your (and his) ignorance, myth, magic and superstitious beliefs, that goes without saying as people like you just want to believe, not spend a lifetime studying to try and manipulate history and the bible to justify your god and magic book of choice.

 

This will be my last response to your attacks-

“...all modern critical scholarship” is an awfully big claim.  Does Wikipedia fall into that category?

Orthodox Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, so they have a bias against the fact that the book of Daniel prophesied about Jesus.

My link contains a solid defense of the book of Daniel.  If you read the article you might see a different perspective than you’re used to.

For future reference, the best way to see if an argument is true or not is to analyze the argument, and not the person making the argument.  I could be the least qualified person on planet Earth, but if my argument is sound, why attack me personally?

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
26 December 2018 17:12
 
TwoSeven1 - 26 December 2018 11:41 AM

What does my opinion on other “holy books” prove or disprove?  My opinion doesn’t affect the truth of a matter, nor does yours.

You said, “we should only be concerned with what is true or not.” So if you’re so concerned about truth, wouldn’t you want to know that you’re abiding by the correct book??

If no one is claiming that something can come from nothing, as you stated earlier, why do you push the point that scientists claim that something can come from nothing?

To put things back in context:

You said, “If scientists are claiming that they know the Universe came from nothing, then they aren’t using the scientific method.” To which I replied, “Scientists aren’t claiming that they know the Universe came from nothing. The Big Bang model begins with an incredibly dense singularity…”

And later you said, “It doesn’t make sense to say that virtual particles created something…” To which I replied, “Nobody is saying that virtual particles created something.“

In what way did the prophecy fail?  I’m not going to interpret what you mean and reply to my own interpretation.

The failure is obvious. So you tell me… in what way did it succeed?

The 500-700 B.C. window I refer to contains many prophecies about Christ that were fulfilled by his coming.  For example, Daniel 9.

What Gad said. And this:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

To my knowledge, the Bible doesn’t prophesy about God’s existence.  However, God’s existence is asserted in the very first verse of the Bible, and all throughout it. My point is that Bible prophecy is proven true by history, and we can come to the conclusion that God exists because of the validity of Biblical prophecy.

No, the conclusion of a God does not follow. Even IF predictions in the Bible came true, you still haven’t demonstrated that a God exists. All you have is a presumption of a God. How do you know that super intelligent aliens didn’t provide the predictions using some sort of advanced algorithms? Or that the predictions were just lucky guesses? I’d also like to know what you make of the validity of Quranic prophecy. Or the validity of Hindu prophecy.

I disagree that there is value in the hypothetical question.  If I don’t answer a question it doesn’t mean that I can’t or won’t change my mind.  It means I am not answering a question.  I already explained why I am not answering the question.

You’re not answering because you want to “finish the discussion” first?? That makes no sense. The answer to “would you change your mind if it could be shown that the Bible contains contradictions and/or errors” should be the same whether or not you are at the start of the discussion, in the middle, or at the end. I’m sorry to say that your refusal to commit here displays intellectual dishonesty.

Ron

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17529
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
26 December 2018 17:58
 
TwoSeven1 - 26 December 2018 04:39 PM
GAD - 26 December 2018 03:45 PM
TwoSeven1 - 26 December 2018 02:07 PM
GAD - 26 December 2018 12:03 PM

Daniel 9 prophecy is easily debunked if you bother to get your information from a source other then ignorance, myth, magic and superstition. 

Here are a few of the many.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks
https://infidels.org/library/modern/chris_sandoval/daniel.html
https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/daniel-9-a-true-biblical-interpretation/

Here is some good information to counter:

http://tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.php

Of course you have a link to a pet nut who goes against all modern critical scholarship to justify your (and his) ignorance, myth, magic and superstitious beliefs, that goes without saying as people like you just want to believe, not spend a lifetime studying to try and manipulate history and the bible to justify your god and magic book of choice.

 

This will be my last response to your attacks-

“...all modern critical scholarship” is an awfully big claim.  Does Wikipedia fall into that category?

Orthodox Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah, so they have a bias against the fact that the book of Daniel prophesied about Jesus.

My link contains a solid defense of the book of Daniel.  If you read the article you might see a different perspective than you’re used to.

For future reference, the best way to see if an argument is true or not is to analyze the argument, and not the person making the argument.  I could be the least qualified person on planet Earth, but if my argument is sound, why attack me personally?

The argument didn’t make itself up, you made it up, and then you tell people if they can’t disprove your unprovable argument it must be true. OK, my God is the Butt Fairy, he is the creator of universe and he lives in my ass and I am his prophet. Now go ahead and show your evidence and arguments and prove that my God isn’t the one true God of the universe.

 

 
 
TwoSeven1
 
Avatar
 
 
TwoSeven1
Total Posts:  341
Joined  18-12-2018
 
 
 
26 December 2018 22:57
 
MrRon - 26 December 2018 05:12 PM
TwoSeven1 - 26 December 2018 11:41 AM

What does my opinion on other “holy books” prove or disprove?  My opinion doesn’t affect the truth of a matter, nor does yours.

You said, “we should only be concerned with what is true or not.” So if you’re so concerned about truth, wouldn’t you want to know that you’re abiding by the correct book??

If no one is claiming that something can come from nothing, as you stated earlier, why do you push the point that scientists claim that something can come from nothing?

To put things back in context:

You said, “If scientists are claiming that they know the Universe came from nothing, then they aren’t using the scientific method.” To which I replied, “Scientists aren’t claiming that they know the Universe came from nothing. The Big Bang model begins with an incredibly dense singularity…”

And later you said, “It doesn’t make sense to say that virtual particles created something…” To which I replied, “Nobody is saying that virtual particles created something.“

In what way did the prophecy fail?  I’m not going to interpret what you mean and reply to my own interpretation.

The failure is obvious. So you tell me… in what way did it succeed?

The 500-700 B.C. window I refer to contains many prophecies about Christ that were fulfilled by his coming.  For example, Daniel 9.

What Gad said. And this:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

To my knowledge, the Bible doesn’t prophesy about God’s existence.  However, God’s existence is asserted in the very first verse of the Bible, and all throughout it. My point is that Bible prophecy is proven true by history, and we can come to the conclusion that God exists because of the validity of Biblical prophecy.

No, the conclusion of a God does not follow. Even IF predictions in the Bible came true, you still haven’t demonstrated that a God exists. All you have is a presumption of a God. How do you know that super intelligent aliens didn’t provide the predictions using some sort of advanced algorithms? Or that the predictions were just lucky guesses? I’d also like to know what you make of the validity of Quranic prophecy. Or the validity of Hindu prophecy.

I disagree that there is value in the hypothetical question.  If I don’t answer a question it doesn’t mean that I can’t or won’t change my mind.  It means I am not answering a question.  I already explained why I am not answering the question.

You’re not answering because you want to “finish the discussion” first?? That makes no sense. The answer to “would you change your mind if it could be shown that the Bible contains contradictions and/or errors” should be the same whether or not you are at the start of the discussion, in the middle, or at the end. I’m sorry to say that your refusal to commit here displays intellectual dishonesty.

Ron

If the other “holy books” contain something that you consider relevant then you should have went with that instead of asking me to defend the Bible against them.  You’re essentially saying that there are other documents that disagree with my perspective and that I should include them in my argument.  I inferred that they do not need to be included in my argument.

I now see my confusion with your points:

“It’s understood that virtual particles do come into existence from ‘nothing.’ I suggest Lawrence Krauss’s book…”
You were replying to my supposition and I connected your reply to your comments on the Big Bang.  My mistake lead me to think that you were implying the dense singularity was a “virtual particle” of some sort.

“Nobody is saying that virtual particles created something.”  I understand what you were saying now.  But you did mean that virtual particles can come from nothing.  We fundamentally don’t agree on that point.  My original question was based on the supposition that we could agree that something can’t come from nothing, and it was related more to the concepts of time and existence rather than apologetics, but here we are.

I think I’ll just let you wonder on my perspective of those verses.

How do I know that God exists from Bible prophecy?  Because it conveys God’s plans, and the prophecy itself is impossible without God’s involvement.  Also, do you fail to see that introducing the idea of “super intelligent aliens” degrades the discussion?  You set the precedent for anyone to explain anything however they want because “aliens.”  What I have argued is that the Bible is true, and is backed by historical evidence.  If evidence is false, then speak to the falsehood.

“I’m sorry to say that your refusal to commit here displays intellectual dishonesty.”  So, to not display intellectual dishonesty, I have to explicitly state how I would react in a hypothetical situation?  It seemed better to me to focus on the subject of the discussion than to figure out who will concede before the discussion took place.  I am also aware that your question would only serve to provide you ammunition in the future when you claim that the Bible is false in some way.  This would set you up in a position to falsely discredit my arguement: saying I am intellectually dishonest.

I will withdraw from the conversation since we can’t agree on fundamentals.

 
MrRon
 
Avatar
 
 
MrRon
Total Posts:  1842
Joined  14-08-2008
 
 
 
27 December 2018 03:48
 
TwoSeven1 - 26 December 2018 10:57 PM

If the other “holy books” contain something that you consider relevant then you should have went with that instead of asking me to defend the Bible against them.  You’re essentially saying that there are other documents that disagree with my perspective and that I should include them in my argument.  I inferred that they do not need to be included in my argument.

No, I’m not saying that you should include other holy books/documents in your argument. I’m just wondering how you can ignore the validity of Quranic prophecy (and Hindu prophecy). In essence, how did you determine that YOUR particular book is the correct one?  Especially since you claim that we should be concerned about truth.

I think I’ll just let you wonder on my perspective of those verses.

And I think I’ll let you reflect on how much squinting you’d have to do in order to have those verses mean what you want them to mean. In fact, that goes for pretty much anything in the Bible. If you squint hard enough you can interpret most passages in the Bible any way you want to. After all, it’s no accident that there are thousands of different Christian denominations.

How do I know that God exists from Bible prophecy?  Because it conveys God’s plans, and the prophecy itself is impossible without God’s involvement.  Also, do you fail to see that introducing the idea of “super intelligent aliens” degrades the discussion?  You set the precedent for anyone to explain anything however they want because “aliens.”  What I have argued is that the Bible is true, and is backed by historical evidence.  If evidence is false, then speak to the falsehood.

That’s a circular argument. One could just as easily say that they know that Vishnu exists because the Hindu Vedas convey Vishnu’s plans. After all, the Hindu prophecies are impossible without Vishnu’s involvement. Would you buy that argument?

And how does introducing the idea of intelligent aliens degrade the discussion any more than introducing the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving SUPER DUPER being? And besides, we have more evidence of the possibility of space-faring beings than of all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving SUPER DUPER beings. After all, WE became space-faring beings when we went to the Moon. 

“I’m sorry to say that your refusal to commit here displays intellectual dishonesty.”  So, to not display intellectual dishonesty, I have to explicitly state how I would react in a hypothetical situation?  It seemed better to me to focus on the subject of the discussion than to figure out who will concede before the discussion took place.  I am also aware that your question would only serve to provide you ammunition in the future when you claim that the Bible is false in some way.  This would set you up in a position to falsely discredit my arguement: saying I am intellectually dishonest.

I will withdraw from the conversation since we can’t agree on fundamentals.

I’m not waiting for the future to claim the Bible has contradictions and errors – I’m claiming it now! So… are you of the position that the Bible does NOT contain any contradictions and errors? And if it did, would you change your mind? And also, what would you make of a devout Islamic or Hindu worshipper who refused to commit on these very same questions about their holy book?

Ron

 
proximacentauri
 
Avatar
 
 
proximacentauri
Total Posts:  324
Joined  07-02-2017
 
 
 
30 December 2018 17:19
 
EN - 24 December 2018 02:29 PM
proximacentauri - 24 December 2018 10:35 AM

So to paraphrase…Beliefs unsubstantiated by evidence should be granted equal respect with evidence based beliefs, especially if they are religious beliefs believed by a large number of people. Also, a “valid experience” requires no evidence. Bronze-aged reasoning in the 21st century. Yikes

No, your paraphrase is wrong. You shouldn’t believe what you do not experience. If millions are experiencing it you should have a more humble and open attitude.  Don’t mischaracterize my statement.


We give religious ‘experience’ and religious belief too much respect already. It’s not a question of humility, it’s a question of reason. The issue of humility lies with the person who thinks himself/herself a special creature. So special that the universe was created with them in mind.

All religion is based on myth and all religious personal experience is self-delusional.  A miracle is not a fact, prayers are not answered, and a make believe ‘god’ does not favor you or your country. Unless of course, you will be the first in the history of our species to prove that this is not the case.

As a nation, the sooner these beliefs are relegated to the dustbin of history, the better.

The fact that mythical beliefs and belief systems hold so much sway, while those based on fact and objective evidence do not, is probably our greatest failing in the 21st century. It erodes our ability as a society to make the right decisions, and to pick the right leaders. And it makes our survival less likely.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
‹ First  < 4 5 6