John A. Broussard

Let's go through it again. Just for the benefit of our new audience.

How many city blocks must it contain?

Will highrise apartments count?

How thick should the walls be?

Will it have to be ruled by Babylonians?

Do tents count for anything?

We need to know what "Babylon" will have to consist of in order for the prophecy to be demonstrably false.

Of course, since the bible says it won't be rebuilt, then it really doesn't matter what the specs are....it just can't be rebuilt.

Right?

ELECTROGOD

Who is going to water the hanging gardens, it doesn't rain there very often. :huh:

RandomCoolzip

Would that it were that easy. Unfortunately, a lot of people decide what to believe based on how it makes them feel rather than whether it stands up to rational scrutiny. The thought of nothingness after death is too much for them. So is the responsibility of creating meaning and purpose for themselves instead of having it handed to them by an external agency. For these reasons I suspect there'll always be a market for superstitious belief systems. Perhaps the people courageous enough to face the void without flinching will always be in a minority.

Jagella

I realize that some scientists sometimes come up with wacky ideas. However, this fact in no way discredits science as our most useful way of discovering knowledge. If mistakes are made or notions discredited, then they are discarded. Religion, on the other hand, has no objective, testable way of discerning truth, and it very often clings to outmoded, primitive ideas such as a “special creation� of living things.

I don’t know if they’ve conceded that any outlandish ideas they may have been refuted, but if they have not, then they are no better than Christians who refuse to concede their loss.

Many older civilizations have never been rebuilt or reinhabited. The “prophecy� is therefore not out of the ordinary. If I state: “The United States will someday fall as a nation,� and it does, do I have supernatural prophetic powers? No. I just foresaw the inevitable.

How could anybody know if this “prophecy� could ever be “fulfilled�? The only way to disprove it is to witness the death of the last Jew. Proof, on the other hand, is impossible to attain because one cannot wait until “always.�

As I hope you can see, a little bit of critical thinking renders these alleged prophecies to be less than astounding. These issues have been debated extensively, and no Christian has ever come up with any so-called prophecy that has been substantiated as something that requires more than human abilities to utter.

What does it mean to be “not within time�?

Alleged prophecies are mostly bunk. Any cases in which the so-called prophet actually got one right can be attributed to either good luck or foretelling what is inevitable. Besides, Christians have looked awfully foolish trying to explain away the many false prophecies in the Bible including the “end of the world� nonsense in the New Testament. These “prophecies� have been extensively debated, and the skeptics win every time (or at least this skeptic has won every time). Your argument has been refuted, and I’ve won the debate once again. Give it up.

It’s strange that you ask because religion, like I pointed out, has led to countless wars and other miseries. Get rid of this pernicious superstition, and all the miseries it causes will no longer be in effect.

Jagella

fast

Narrowing the focus even more.

There are simply too many issues (though related by topic) going at once.

Agreed. But, I fail to see how this point captures the essence of my point.

Saying that it's "implicit" is unjustly putting words in another’s mouth. It is not true that all theists making the claim "I believe God exists" would also pedantically hold the claim "there is a God"; hence, there are some believers in God that would recognize that they do not in fact know there is a God; therefore, some theists would only decide to hold themselves accountable to the claim that they are actually asserting; moreover, I'm not dredging up a small minority either, for some additional theists that may claim "there is a God" would rescind their assertion once pinned down as to the distinction between "knowing" as conflated with certainty there is in fact a God and "believing" that there is a God.

He who says, "I believe in God's existence" need not justify the claim "there is a God that exists".

He who passionately believes that there's a God need not justify a thing.

Biff the unclean

So you are saying that most Christians are a bunch of duplicitous, double talking, weasels.

hashbrownz

as far as i'm concerned, with all the inconsistencies present in the bible and contemporary theology and how utterly nonsensical christianity as a whole is, and all the arguments i've read for and against it, i am convinced that the christian god is but a hoax.
i don't understand why anyone would choose to believe in such a monster or... how anyone in their right mind, of good physical and mental health, could be convinced that such a being exists (not saying that evangelists aren't sneaky fucks that hide the reality of their barbaric beliefs).
i think atheism won the debate against the christian god, no doubt in my mind. logic is on atheisms side.
but logic has nothing to do with faith so its all for nothing.
they'll never admit defeat.

Jagella

Of course. How could it be anything else? People believe in it because they’ve been indoctrinated often since their youth using mind control techniques like guilt and fear. Since facts and good reasoning are in very short supply, the apologist must use mind games to overcome people’s natural defenses.

I can vouch for that. I was a born-again Christian in the mid ‘80s. I was not in my right mind, and I decided to give up sensible and critical thinking because I felt guilty over having left my Catholic faith.

Why are so many skeptics apparently afraid to tell Christians this fact? Sometimes I think some skeptics are partially beguiled by Christianity in that they see it as improper to be blunt in telling Christians that their beliefs are simply nonsense. Personally, I feel that these long debates between skeptics and Christians that involve scholarly subjects like science and history lend a certain amount of credibility to Christian beliefs—credibility that Christian beliefs don’t deserve. I say cut through all the BS and tell the Christian that one only needs simple common sense to see that Christianity isn’t true.

Jagella

fast

Uh, um, well, it's more like we shouldn't say they fired the gun until they have fired the gun.

And just because they would, it doesn't mean they have.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Sure, but why build real buildings? Surely he didn't build with blocks of granite and real marble! He built a set, says this link, and a set is not a city. And did he build on the site of Babylon? That would be very inconvenient, and really unnecessary. I would have expected the archaeologists to object if he had done this (just for a movie!), and again I ask, what happened to all these stones and magnificent buildings? If they were all quite real?

From the same link, "Replica of Babylon's encircling walls, 300 feet in height, and broad enough for the passing of chariots." Taking down a 300-foot-high wall of stone would be a mammoth task. And he built the whole wall? Again, surely not, the set covered only (though I know that was a lot of effort!) a quarter-mile.

Well, why do you say this? He built a palace, which is now crumbling (they used bad bricks), and a few temples and theaters, as I have heard, and that is not what Babylon was, by any stretch of the imagination.

Um, the pictures were of people standing there. There's a difference! Nor did we have pictures of Arabs and tents, this means nothing, and goes poof, because as far as I can tell, it is imaginary. And again, the buildings Saddam built are not what Babylon was, by any means.

Here again is my response...

"... if you want specific numbers, at least two blocks with a total of two miles of streets with houses along them, three temples similar to the ones we know were there once, if you wish me to define 'similar,' I would say as evaluated by at least 60% of the archaeologists who have published in Archaeology Review and who respond to a poll, where at least ten of them respond, at least 1,000 inhabitants, all on the former site of Babylon, and I would include rebuilding similar [as defined above] walls to those the city had."

Actually, there's a swamp nearby, the problem is keeping the water out of Babylon!

Yes, so why has directed panspermia not apparently been discarded? Have you refuted them? Have they ceded?

But if you have only now learned of them, how do you know of their defeat? What arguments have been used? And are Orgel and Crick so wacky and obstinate as you seem to be painting them here?

How would this be for objective and testable? I am quoting from a post not very far back, by the way!

Babylon will never be rebuilt, or reinhabited (Isa. 13:19-20, Jer. 25:12, Jer. 51:26).

Babylon is not rebuilt, you may attempt this if you wish, though you might want to consider the outcome of Saddam Hussein's recent attempt first. This would seem to be a substantiated prophecy.

There will always be Jewish people (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:24-26).

Will you argue that there are no Jewish people, or that no one has tried to destroy them as a people? Hitler could well have made an atomic bomb, it came to the balance of a hair. And yet he failed, this also substantiates a clear prophecy.

There will be Egyptian and Assyrian people up until the fulfillment of Isa. 19:16-25.

Egypt will never again rule the other nations (Eze. 29:14-15).

These are clear enough, and also quite true, and are being fulfilled today, Egypt could also try and rule other nations, this is falsifiable today, even.

Or other ideas such as aliens planting life on earth? A "special planting," if you will?

But there is more, Babylon will never be rebuilt! Now that is not so inevitable, it is even improbable, and Alex and Saddam even tried, and failed! But they had the resources for succeeding, and determination, too. You may try, or anyone else, as well, at any time, and that would overturn the prophecy, and the claim to inspiration of Scripture. So we don't even really have to argue about this, give it a try! It would be most convincing, if you succeed.

Well, again (are you not reading my responses?) "you can make as many prophecies out of this (according to your definition here) as you want! Babylon will not be rebuilt in the 18th century, Babylon will not be rebuilt in the 19th century, Babylon will not be rebuilt in the 20th century, and so on. Real, fine, solid prophecies, and all of them fulfilled."

Well then, rebuild Babylon! Or reinhabit it. That would prove your point here conclusively, this is a testable prediction, and if it is only some person's idea, it can be overthrown very easily in this way.

We are told that time is like a dimension, so outside that dimension, though I am not saying I know this like physics! I am saying that real perception of the future is good evidence for a being transcending time, though, however they may do this.

Um, this is not a refutation...

It seems I must repeat myself: well then, rebuild Babylon! Or reinhabit it.

But why will the effect not be reduced, as the cause is reduced? That is my question.

Regards,
Lee