lee_merrill

No, "A implies B" does not mean "B implies A." So people with a missing leg are considered to be lame, but not all lame people have a missing leg.

You are apparently not remembering our prior discussion of this, Paul Cain was the minister who knew of an instance like this, so his credentials and character would be pertinent.

But I am off to Christmas travels, to return in a week, so I wish everyone a good holiday...

Blessings,
Lee

P.S. Feel free to start a new thread on this, John, after a week or so, if you wish...

John A. Broussard

So the verse you quoted from the bible on this topic is completely irrelevant.

I'm pleased to see you finally admit that.

Jack the Bodiless

Lee:
And yet you apparently believe that repeatedly claiming "fulfilled prophecy" WILL make it true.

Yet, whenever we examine ANY given example, we see that it is either FALSE (e.g. Tyre, Babylon), or fails to qualify due to "reasonable doubt" of some sort (too vague, too obvious, not definitely written in advance, not verifiably fulfilled...).

Hence, I will continue to claim "there are no fulfilled prophecies anywhere in the Bible" until a Christian PROVIDES a fulfilled prophecy.
Then why are you still here? Uncle Sam will PAY YOU to visit Iraq, and you should be able to find the "mayor" if you go to Babylon and ask around (assuming the inahbitants evicted by Saddam are still somewhere in the vicinity).
Then there would have been a standoff. Probably a "cold war" between Nazi Germany and the US (as in the movie "Fatherland"). Still no danger of worldwide extermination for the Jews.

Remember, YOU are the one who has claimed that the ASSYRIANS are still around (apparently, a handful of people who call themselves "Assyrians" are enough). Just how many examples are there of a people which have NOT survived? The only ones I can think of offhand are small tribal groups exterminated by European colonists.
So, at best, the almighty and omnipotent Creator of the Universe has managed to gather his immense magical powers to perform this miracle ONCE, under dubious circumstances...

Isn't it rather strange that God generally only bothers to cure ailments that can go into "spontaneous remission" without his help, and can provide psychosomatic relief attributable to the placebo effect?

John A. Broussard

Perhaps you can use some of your vacation time to provide the evidence of this miraculous growth of a limb and how Paul Cain "knew of an instance like this."

wyzaard

But they do prove that natural laws are sufficent to explain the form and function of living processes from a epistmological standpoint... as for the metaphysical, who cares?

You haven't shown that in the slightest, silly.

Sufficient enough to dismiss arguments from ignorance alluding to supernatural agency; even IF naturalistic models were shakey, they would still be a far cry from special pleadings for the big G.

Ummm... who has said this was a problem?

Selective inclusion and interpretation of nebulous, unshown, or expected statements about perported events after-the-fact makes biblical prophesy a cold fish indeed.

Which could be anything about anything, with no way to verify any of it. An empty venture.

Ummm, no. They ahve epistemic implications, not metaphyscial ones; questions of knowledge (conventionally bounded truths) are different from questions of being and the absolute.

And you have not in the slightest shown them to be perceptible. Care to go into detail here?

According to whom? You? How would such a metaphysical probability be calculated, and from what vantagepoint and framework of explaiantion would we undertake this inquery?

Answer... we can't. This metaphyscial possibility is just as pointlessly unverifiable as yours or any others.

Ummm... why should I believe that or any other possibility? Under what set of criteria, yours? Why should I accept your 'indicators' and not another persons... or not care at all?

Huh? You have not provided a justified way to determine empirical-to-metaphyaical corralatives, much less shown any 'leap' or 'fullfilled' anything.

Well, you have various naturalistic models to test for which possesses more predicative and descriptive value... or you have any number of unverifiable and unnecessary metaphysical schemas with unknown probabilities and indicators. Methinks the natural world's your best bet.

Unless you inject energy into system... such as like from the sun, or from the earth; they power reactions all over the place; ever heard of photosynthesis?

Except that naturalistic models are verifiable and bounded, unlike metaphyscial mind games with little efficacy. Don't unnecessarally multiply your entities, by the way.

Not according to QM physicists, who theorize that multiple universe are required to model the actions of subatomic particles; they in essense have become emperical, not metaphsyical.

Again, you have not shown the metaphysical can be evaluated AT ALL, much less relative probabilities.

You're wiggling.

Ever taken a look at Mesopotamia? It's always been a crossroads for armies and invasions of one sort or another due to it's geographical positon and conditions. It's a no-brainer that problems would be forthcoming.

wyzaard

Similarly, stated a creator could have created the world does not mean that the world implies a creator exists.

wyzaard

Oh well.