arnoldo

Rubbish.

arnoldo

Sure there is, Abraham is frequently mentioned in the Koran, note the following.
Source: SAQ

Minimalist

Yes, but what were the Egyptians trying to "say" in Egyptian? I've seen a pretty compelling argument that the rich, agricultural region of the Jezreel valley also fits as well as "Israel".

The inscription tells us that "Canaan is laid waste" and then goes on to speak of Ashkalon and a couple of other towns AND THEN comes the "Israel" line. If you're doing a geographical breakdown, "Jezreel" which is right in the same area, fits even better.

Sorry but this has the feeling of "believers" jumping on an apparent similarity in words to trumpet their superstitions. Pretty much as they have tried to make "apiru" become "hebrew." There was a lot of that in early archaeology.

Johnny Skeptic

No it isn't. A loving God would do everything that he is able to do to keep people from going to hell.

What evidence are you referring to?

Actually, if Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day and year, some skeptics would probably become Christians as a result. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

On the contrary, you have never reasonably proven that the Partition of Palestine was not a self-fulfilled prophecy. If the Koran said that a temple would be rebuilt in Mecca by Muslims, and Muslims rebuilt a temple in Mecca, would you call that a legitimate fulfillment of prophecy?

If God did not make a land promise to Abraham and his descendants, and Abraham falsely believed that God made a land promise to him and his descendants, since all that it takes in order to self-fulfill a prophecy is the belief that it is true, and enough military power to make it come true, that explains why Palestine was partitioned in 1948.

On the contrary, if hell exists, there is always a need for God to do everything that he is able to do to keep people from going to hell.

All Bible prophecies are disputable. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have failed to convince the majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year, that would be far less disputable than any Bible prophecy. In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies because that would mean that God needlessly creates doubt and confusion.

On the contrary, in the NIV, Acts 17:10-12 say "As soon as it was night, the brothers sent Paul and Silas away to Berea. On arriving there, they went to the Jewish synagogue. Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. Many of the Jews believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men."

The Scriptures that the Bereans read were Old Testament Scriptures. The book of Micah is part of the Old Testament. Micah could have made many predictions that would have caused a lot more Jews and non-Jews to become followers of Jesus.

If Jesus had accurately predicted that Titus would destroy the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D., and the names of all of the Roman Emperors that would rule over the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, you and I would not be debating whether or not at least one being exists who is able to predict the future.

If a God exists, there are not any doubts whatsoever that he could easily convince everyone in the world that he can predict the future if he wanted to. That reasonably proves that if a God exists, he has never used fulfilled prophecy after the fact in order to try to convince people to believe that he can predict the future.

It is very unlikely that the God of the Bible exists. If the universe is naturalistic, or if some other God exists who chose to mimic the ways that things would be if the universe is naturalistic, 1) all religions that have books would be spread entirely by word of mouth, which is the case 2) humans would only able to obtain food through human effort no matter what their worldview is, which is the case, 3) it would not be surprising that the percentage of women who are theists is significantly higher than the percentage of men who are theists in every culture, which is the case, 4) it would not be surprising that the percentage of elderly people who change their worldviews is much smaller than the percentage of younger people who change their worldviews, which is the case, 5) hurricanes would kill people, animals, and plants, and destroy property as if there were not any differences between them, which appears to the case, 6) all tangible benefits would indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, requests, or worldview, and the only benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits, which appears to be the case, 7) it would not be surprising that fossils and sediments are sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics, and have convinced some evangelical Christian geologists that a global flood did not occur, which is the case, 8) no religious book would contain any indisputable prophecies, which is the case, and 9) it would not be surprising that 50% of the genome of chimpanzees and humans are identical, which is the case.

What kind of God would state that he wishes to convince people to believe that he exists, but frequently mimics a naturalistic universe in predictable ways, or frequently mimics some other God who chose to mimic a naturalistic universe?

Under many other circumstances, you would have had some other worldview, and you would have been just a certain of it as your are that the Bible is true. What kind of God would set up a system where chance and circumstance determine what people believe? If the universe is naturalistic (since I am agnostic, I am not saying that it is), every man would consider that his worldview is more reasonable that the worldviews of other people, except if he changed his mind, in which case he would believe that his former worldview, which he believed was true, was actually false. No rational God would ever set up a system like that. If a God exists, he could easily telepathically communicate the same messages to everyone in the world, thereby discouraging dissent instead of needlessly inviting dissent. What would be wrong with that?

The bottom line is God's motives. No reasonable motives why God does what he does = no God of the Bible. Even if a God inspired the Bible, he might be evil, amoral, mentally incompetent, or a benevolent but inept bungler who failed in his attempt to create and maintain a much better world than the world that he created.

Consider the following post that I made at the GRD Forum:

Then skeptics are not to blame. If you will say that there are other reasons why skeptics are to blame, what are the reasons? If you mention other reasons, you should not have brought up the conduct of Christians.

In another thread, I said:

"However, since non-Christians do not trust the Bible, the best evidence for non-Christians would be from non-Jewish and non-Christian sources."

You replied:

"The best evidence is Christians."

I replied:

"That contradicts 'It's the job of the church to end confusion, explain scriptures, and spread the gospel into all of the earth. I admit the church hasn't done it's job adequately.'"

"The title of this thread is 'Why would a God only make disputable predictions?' That does not have anything to do with the church. Please answer the question. If the Bible had lots of indisputable predictions, it would be a lot easier for Christians to defend Christianity. If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, surely some skeptics would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

"Why would God choose to spread the Gospel message entirely through humans? Do Christians consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God? If God had invented a cure for a disease in 50 A.D., would he have told Christians to take thousands of years to give the cure to everyone in the world who had the disease?

"If the God of the Bible does not exist, or if some other God exists who chose to mimic the ways that things would be if the universe is naturalistic, 1) all religions that have books would be spread entirely by word of mouth, which is the case 2) humans would only able to obtain food through human effort no matter what their worldview is, which is the case, 3) it would not be surprising that the percentage of women who are thiests is significantly higher than the percentage of men who are theists in every culture, which is the case, 4) it would not be surprising that the percentage of elderly people who change their worldviews is much smaller than the percentage of younger people who change their worldviews, which is the case, 5) hurricanes would kill people, animals, and plants, and destroy property as if there were not any differences between them, which is the case, 6) all tangible benefits would indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, requests, or worldview, and the only benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits, which appears to be the case, 7) it would not be surprising that fossils and sediments are sorted in ways that are convenient for skeptics, and have convinced some evangelical Christian geologists that a global flood did not occur, which is the case, and 8) it would not be surprising that 50% of the genomes of chimpanzees and humans are exact copies which is the case."

So does tangible, firsthand evidence. Consider the following Scriptures:

Item 1

Matthew 4:23-25 And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them. And there followed him great multitudes of people from Galilee, and from Decapolis, and from Jerusalem, and from Judaea, and from beyond Jordan.

Item 2

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did. (KJV)

Item 3

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. (KJV)

Item 4

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him. (KJV)

Item 5

John 20:30 And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book. (KJV)

Item 6

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

Item 7

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep. (KJV)

Obviously, the writers of Matthew, John, Acts, and Corinthians placed great importance on tangible, firsthand evidence.

Regarding items 2, 3, and 4, Jesus' words alone were not enough to convince those people to accept him, so Jesus willingly provided them with tangible firsthand evidence.

It is suspicious that in spite of all of that tangible, firsthand evidence, Jesus criticized Thomas for wanting tangible, firsthand evidence that he has risen from the dead.

I would never be willing to accept a God who refused to provide an equal quality of evidence to everyone.

End of post

Will you admit that you contradicted yourself?

One thing is for certain: If a God inspired the Bible, there are not any doubts whatsover that he would be able to convince more people to love him, and to accept him, without unfairly interfering with their free will.

Since I know that you will conveniently refuse to reply to most of what I said, I will save this file as a Microsoft Word file so that I can quickly and easily repost any parts of this post that you refuse to reply to.

Johnny Skeptic

One thing is for certain: If a God inspired the Bible, there are not any doubts whatsover that he would be able to convince more people to love him and to accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will. It would certainly would not have been unfair for Jesus to accurately predict what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, which would surely have caused more people to become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Sheshonq

Uh, wrong. As usual.

Sheshonq

1. I know far more about Islam and the Koran than you'll ever come to know in your entire life.So trying to use it as proof for your position - or attempting to quote it back to me - is only going to get you into deeper trouble;

2. In your Koranic reference, notice the lack of a reference to any covenant to give Palestine to the Jews - in fact, no mention of "land' or "Palestine" or anything similar. This is what you need to prove, and also what I mentioned in my post - which <edit>you skipped over;

3. A mention in the Koran would not be independent proof of a covenant anyhow;

Not only do you fail, arnoldo, but you fail in three spectacularly different ways. You're a trifecta of failure! :rolling:

arnoldo

You know nothing about Islam since Islam teaches to respect the fellow "People of the Book,"ie, Jews and Christians. You only seem to know how to mock the Abrahamic Faith which my brothers, the Jews and Muslims, practice.

Sheshonq

1. Trying to distract attention from your failed claim will not work. You are not a martyr, and trying to paint me to be the bad guy merely because you shot your mouth off again and got caught red-handed; well, it's beyond lame. But it's typical arnoldo;

2. Your "brothers" are not the Jews and Muslims. Maybe you should ask their opinion before assuming that they are;

3. As I said: I know more about Islam that you'll ever come to know in your <edit> life.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Please reply to my post #1034.