arnoldo

I don't know Johnny, maybe that info is in the bible codes????

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: 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 would easily be able to 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 to influence anyone.

arnoldo

I dunno Johnny, Yeshua did mention something about "no two stones" being left of the Jewish temple and that happened around 70 AD. As far as the rest of you questions Yeshua established his church on the earth as a powerful witness to all unbelievers. BTW, Alexander the Great is mentioned in Daniel 8:8

Here is a coin of Alexander the Great with horns.
Source: Alexander the Great: pictures

Johnny Skeptic

Is it your position that God is not able to do anything more than he has done to convince people to believe that he can predict the future?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Is it your position that God is not able to convince a lot more people to believe that he can predict the future?

arnoldo

Irrelevant, Johhny. The early christians were a powerful witness to the skeppies that an actual historical Jesus lived,died and was resurrected in the first century (the gnostics quickly wrote Jesus came in the "spirit" and not the flesh. In the same way modern skeppies simply state he was a myth altogether). Modern day christians and the State of Israel are indisputable signs for the existence of the God of Abraham,Issac and Jacob. There absolutely was no need for any additional writings (re-wording) in the old testament to back up this historical fact.

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?

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.

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.

ksen

What would a just God do?

Johnny Skeptic

In my opinion, a just God would not endorse eternal punishment without parole. If a God exists who endorses eternal punishment without parole, if he is able to convince more people to love him and to accept him but refuses to do so, I would never be able to love him. If a God exists, there are not any doubts whatsoever that he is able to convince more people to love him, and to accept him.

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.

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.

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.