Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Johnny Skeptic · 03-04-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Don't you find it odd that persons will devote their precious time to attack a God they feel doesn't even exist?

Not at all. I told you why in my post #1101.

Why do you oppose Deism and Hinduism?

I find it odd that you debate at the Evolution/Creation Forum. I posted the following arguments at the Evolution/Creation Forum on a number of occassions, and you always conveniently refused to reply to them:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Arnoldo's apparent interest in science is a masquerade. He quoted Dr. Vardiman regarding snowflakes, but if Dr. Vardiaman is wrong, he would be not able to know that because he is not a scientist. In addition, he quote Dr. Ross regarding the interpretations of some Greek words in Genesis chapter 1, but if Dr. Ross is wrong, he would not be able to know that because he is not an expert in Hebrew. Such being the case, it is actually the Bible that is the sole basis for arnoldo's beliefs, not anything that science has to say.

93% of the members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) do not believe in a personal God. If the figure was 99%, arnoldo would still be a Christian, and yet he wishes to try to convince skeptics with scientific evidence that did not convince him. If scientific evidence did not convince arnoldo, why should it convince skeptics? If the Bible convinced arnoldo, why shouldn't it convince skeptics?

Romans 3:4 says "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." That discounts anything that science has to say, and yet arnoldo is trying to use evidence to convince skeptics that the Bible essentially says does not make any difference.

If a God exists, and wants people to believe in intelligent design, it is reasonable to assume that he would defend it himself, in person, since he would know that he would be much better able to defend it than Christians could.

Non-existent Gods by necessity have to depend upon humans do carry out their objectives. A false religion would have to be spread by word of mouth. A true religion could easily be communicated to everyone by God. If a God inspired the Bible, it is quite odd that he only wants people to hear the Gospel message if another person tells them about it, and does not mind that hundreds of millions of people died without hearing it.

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Paul Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, wrote a book that it titled 'Homosexuality, the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Incredibly, at the end of chapter 4, which is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?,' after discussing lots of scientific evidence that they used to try to convince readers that homosexuality is a psychopathology, the authors say the following:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry of psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church? In the days of Nero it was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judge healthy, but God weighs sucha life and finds it lacking."

Obviously, Jones and Yarhouse only use science as a convenience when it agrees with them. So do you, which means that your apparent interest in science is a masquerade. The difference between you and Jones and Yarhouse is that they came right out and said that their primary position is based upon faith (which agrees with Romans 3:4), and that it does not really matter to Christians what science says, and you didn't. The vast majority of people who have become Christians did so without any regard for science.

Please be advised that although evolutionists make claims about evolution, it is no more encumbent upon them to reasonably disprove intelligent design than it is encumbent upon you to reasonably disprove evolution, or Deism for that matter. This is not a contest that has a time limit. Evolutionists believe that they have made great progress, and that progress will continue. As you yourself have said, both sides might be wrong.

Please admit that you only use science as a convenience when it agrees with you.

All Bible prophecies are disputable. No rational God would ever make 100% disputable predictions. 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 necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the vast majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God. Since the New Testament says that Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot intelligently argue that if Jesus had predicted what I said, that that would have unfairly interfered with people’s free will. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have 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.

In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies. That is because the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and yet Bible prophecies have needlessly caused lots of confusion.

Why does God predict the future?

It is obvious to Muslim children that President Bush exists, but it is not obvious to them that Bible prophecy is true. Why is that?

Consider the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So what is your evidence that the prophecies concerning Israel is false?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

But all self-fulfilled prophecies are "true." If Abraham falsely assumed that God made a land promise to him and his descendants, that means that the Partition of Palestine was a self-fulfilled prophecy. It is well-known that all that is takes to self-fulfill a prophecy is the belief that it is true, and enough military power to make it come true. If the Koran said that Muslims will rebuild a temple in Mecca, all that it would take to self-fulfill that false prophecy would be that Muslims believe that the prophecy is true, and have enough military power to make it come true.

Regarding assessing a being's character, his motives are everything because they reveal what his character is. Why does God predict the future? If you do not have any reasonable answers to that questions, even if God can predict the future, since his motives for predicting the future would be questionable, that would be sufficient evidence for people to reject him. You are obviously not aware that reasonably proving that God can predict the future does not reasonably prove what his motives are, and that he has good character.

It is a simple matter to reasonably prove that the Partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy. If is isn't, if Jewish and Palestinian history had been reversed, and Hitler and other parties had persecuted Palestinians instead of Jews, the U.N. would have awarded control of Jerusalem to Palestinians, and would also have awarded Palestinians a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like they did the Jews. You will have to admit that that would not have happened, in which case you will have admitted that the Partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy.

In your naivity, you and sugarhitman believe that if you can prove that a non-human can predict the future, he has to be the creator of the universe, he has to have good character, and he is not able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love him and to accept him. No reasonable person would buy such outllandish, uncorroborated assertions.

As you know, I now use your and sugarhitman's evasive and rude approach of refusing to reply to your opponents' arguments, and insisting on choosing whose questions get answered, and which issues get discussion. Thank you both for teaching me this new approach. I like it too. You admitted to me in a private message that it is rude for you to refuse to reply to my arguments, and that no one wants to embarrass themself in a public forum by answering questions that they believe are difficult to answer. On the other hand, I am not afraid to embarrass myself, as I have proved for a number of weeks by directly answering your questions.

I do not mind winning by default. Surely most of the undecided crowd have declared me the victor.

Consider the following post that I made at the GRD Forum that you conveniently refused to reply to:

Message to arnoldo: If a God inspired the Bible, and loves people, and wants to keep them from going to hell, it is reasonable to assume that he would be able to do more than he has done to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will.

On February 14, I started a thread at the BC&H Forum that is titled 'What if Micah 5:2 had been written differently?' Following is the opening post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would more Jews would have accepted Jesus?

Following is your first reply:

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Enough Jews accepted Jesus that Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire and beyond and continues to exists for over 1967 years.

Readers will note that you evasively did not answer the question because you did not have want to say that not one single more Jew would have accepted Jesus.

Following is another one of your replies:

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Would you believe in the God of the Bible if the Bible mentioned Alexander the Great? No, you would simply state it was written after the fact. Sorry your arguments are just fallacies of many questions, begging the question, circular reasoning, etc.

Readers will note that you evasively did not answer the question because you did not have want to say that not one single more Jew would have accepted Jesus, and that the opening post was about Jews who lived during the time of Jesus, not about me. I assume that you still will not be willing to answer the question "yes" or "no." Is that the case?

If Jesus had predicted the names of the Roman emperors for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, obviously, no one who lived back then would have claimed that the prophecies were written after the fact. If that had happened, surely more people would have become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot 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.

If fulfilled Bible prophecy is as obvious as you claim it is, please explain why it is usually not obvious to Muslim children who study Bible prophecy and are not convinced that it is true, and why some of those same Muslim children would have accepted the prophecies if they had been raised by Christians. Would you have people believe that God allows chance and circumstance to determine what people believe? It is obvious to Muslim children that George Bush is the president of the United States. Why is that?

As far as evidence that would convince me is concerned, if a powerful being came to earth, and claimed that he was the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, and demonstrated that he was powerful, and asked me if I would be willing to love and accept him, I would not have any way of being certain who he really was, but that would not matter to me. It does not matter who a being really is, only how he treats people. I would base my decision entirely upon the supposed God's character. If I was convinced that he had good character, I would love and accept him. He might not be who he claimed he was, but under that scenario, why shouldn't I give him the benefit of the doubt?

It will not do you any good to bring up circular reasoning, begging the question, and the fallacy of many questions. Those tactics are known as the fallacy of evasiveness.

Let's discuss circular reasoning, begging the question, and the fallacy of many questions. Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic the first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in his book Prior Analytics.

In recent decades, the term has also been used to mean raising the question. This meaning describes a rather broad fallacy (or incomplete explanation) that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is in as much need of proof as the proposition itself. The more accepted classification for such arguments is as a fallacy of many questions.

An example

"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is used within one syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive. For example here is an attempt to prove that Paul is telling the truth:

Suppose Paul is not lying when he speaks.
Paul is speaking.
Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.
These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is telling the truth."

Such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument.

Formally speaking, the fallacy of petitio principii has the following structure: For some proposition p,

p implies q
suppose p
therefore, q.
The syntactic presentation of the fallacy is rarely this transparent, as is shown, for example, in the above argument purportedly proving Paul is telling the truth.

Ok, what are your propositions? What is God trying to accomplish? Why does God predict the future? Why hasn't God ever made an indisputable prophecy? An example of an indisputable prophecy would be an accurate prediction regarding when and where a natural disaster would occur, month, day, and year. No human would be able to do that. Once you have established those propositions, I will argue against them and we can discuss how circular reasoning and begging the question might apply to my arguments.

Regarding the fallacy of many questions, consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Many questions, also known as complex question, presupposition, loaded question, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. An example of this is the question "Are you still beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.

The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.

A related fallacy is begging the question also known as 'circular reasoning', in which a premise is included that is likely to be at least as unacceptable to an opponent as the proposed conclusion.

I said "What is God trying to accomplish? Why does God predict the future? Why hasn't God ever made an indisputable prophecy?" The fallacy of many questions does not apply to those questions. If you disagree, I will start a new thread at the Philosophy Forum and we can debate this issue there.

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 be 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.

In my opinion, it is very improbable that a moral God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, and wants people to believe that they know what he wants them to do with their lives, but frequently mimics a naturalistic universe in predictable ways, or mimics some other God who chose to mimic a naturalistic universe, and always makes disputable prophecies, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

What you propose is the existence of a God who wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it, and only wants people to have enough food to eat if they are able to obtain it by human effort.

Hypothetical arguments are valid in debates. They are frequently useful tools for exposing bad and inconsistent arguments. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they believe that it suits their purposes to do so.

When assessing the character of any being, his motives are everything. If God's methods do not complement his motives, meaning if God's methods of trying to accomplish his agenda do not make any sense, and could easily be more effective, he probably does not exist.

Please be advised that a large percentage of non-Christians in the world know little or nothing about circular reasoning, begging the question, and the fallacy of many questions. Many of them have never even heard about those arguments, and have no intention of studying them. What you need are simple, clear arguments that the vast majority of non-Christians can understand, and you don't have any. On the other hand, my arguments are easy for the vast majority of non-Christians to understand.

I will save this post as a Microsoft Word file for purposes of quick and easy cutting and pasting since I know that you will conveniently refuse to reply to most or all of my arguments. Thanks very much for helping to build my confidence. Whenever fundies get evavise, I always know that I have done a good job.

Gullwind · 03-04-2008, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

God is not the author of confusion....confusion comes through rejection....prophecies are disputable to those who reject them.

Really?

Exodus 14:24
During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion.

Exodus 23:27
"I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run.

Deuteronomy 7:23
But the LORD your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed.

Deuteronomy 28:20
The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.

Deuteronomy 28:28
The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind.

Joshua 10:10
The LORD threw them into confusion before Israel, who defeated them in a great victory at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah.

Care to revise your claim? Apparently Paul forgot a few events from the OT.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-04-2008, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

I guess since God doesn't exist from the POV of atheists the attack is more against the belief in God.

I remind you that this thread is about the existence of the God of the Bible, not about the existence of any God.

arnoldo · 03-04-2008, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

God is not the author of confusion....confusion comes through rejection....prophecies are disputable to those who reject them.

Really?

Exodus 14:24
During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into confusion.

Exodus 23:27
"I will send my terror ahead of you and throw into confusion every nation you encounter. I will make all your enemies turn their backs and run.

Deuteronomy 7:23
But the LORD your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed.

Deuteronomy 28:20
The LORD will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him.

Deuteronomy 28:28
The LORD will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind.

Joshua 10:10
The LORD threw them into confusion before Israel, who defeated them in a great victory at Gibeon. Israel pursued them along the road going up to Beth Horon and cut them down all the way to Azekah and Makkedah.

Care to revise your claim? Apparently Paul forgot a few events from the OT.

There is no need to revise anything, Paul is referencing maintaining order within the church, read the scripture in context

Quote:

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-04-2008, 08:36 PM

It is a simple matter to reasonably prove that the Partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy. If is isn't, if Jewish and Palestinian history had been reversed, and Hitler and other parties had persecuted Palestinians instead of Jews, the U.N. would have awarded control of Jerusalem to Palestinians, and would also have awarded Palestinians a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like they did the Jews. Christians will have to admit that that would not have happened, in which case they will have admitted that the Partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy.

No rational God would make 100% disputable prophecies. 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 necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the vast majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God. Since the New Testament says that Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot intelligently argue that if Jesus had predicted what I said, that that would have unfairly interfered with people’s free will. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have 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.

In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies. That is because the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and yet Bible prophecies have needlessly caused lots of confusion.

Why does God predict the future? Arnoldo has said that God used prophecy after the fact to strengthen the faith of Jews, but that could not possibly have been the case. If God wanted to strengthen the faith of Jews after the fact, he would have told Ezekiel about Alexander. Even better, he could have told Micah to write that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom as Micah 5:2 indicates, that the messiah would heal people, that the messiah would be crucified and rise from the dead in three days, that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman Governor of Palestine, that Herod would become the Jewish King of Judea, and that Titus would destroy the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. If Micah had predicted those things, surely more Jews would have accepted Jesus, and more non-Jews as well.

It is up to Christians to reasonably prove that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will, and why God has made 100% disputable prophecies, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

Arnoldo is wasting his time quoting the Bible because even if a God inspired the Bible, he does not have good character according to his own standards. Might does not make right. Right makes right, and there is not any credible evidence that everything that God does is right.

If I may digress for a moment, at the Evolution/Creation Forum, arnoldo said that form follows function when in fact function follows form. Nothing can function until it is formed, and it can only function according to how it was formed.

Gullwind · 03-04-2008, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

There is no need to revise anything, Paul is referencing maintaining order within the church, read the scripture in context

Quote:

What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God. 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment. 30 But if a revelation is made to another who is seated, the first one must keep silent. 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all may be exhorted; 32 and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets; 33 for God is not a God of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Oh, I see. So the I Corinthians quote doesn't say what Sugarhitman thinks it does. He was using in the context of those outside the church - those that reject the prophecies.

Thanks for clearing that up.

sugarhitman · 03-05-2008, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gullwind

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

There is no need to revise anything, Paul is referencing maintaining order within the church, read the scripture in context

Oh, I see. So the I Corinthians quote doesn't say what Sugarhitman thinks it does. He was using in the context of those outside the church - those that reject the prophecies.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Actually it was Johnny who used this out of context by saying that God is not the author of confusion which he was referring to prophecies....I responded without qouting...thank you. :wave:

Johnny Skeptic · 03-05-2008, 07:33 AM

The Partition of Palestine was a self-fulfilled prophecy. That is easy to prove. If the Partition of Palestine was not a self-fulfilled prophecy, if Jewish and Palestinian history had been reversed, and Hitler and other parties had persecuted Palestinians instead of Jews, the 32 Christian nations that voted in favor of the partition have awarded control of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, and a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like the Jews got. That proves that Arnoldo and sugarhitman are wrong.

No rational God would make 100% disputable prophecies. 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 necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the vast majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God. Since the New Testament says that Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot intelligently argue that if Jesus had predicted what I said, that that would have unfairly interfered with people’s free will. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have 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.

In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies. That is because the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and yet Bible prophecies have needlessly caused lots of confusion.

Why does God predict the future? Well, er, uh.......

Why did God make 100% disputable prophecies? Well, er, uh.......

Why does God refuse to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will? Well, er, uh.......

Why does God want people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it? Well, er, uh.......

Why does God want people to have enough food to eat, but only if they are able to obtain it through human effort? Well, er, uh.......

Since arnoldo has brought circular reasoning, begging the question, and the fallacy of many questions from time to time as evasive tactics, let's discuss those issues. Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

In logic, begging the question has traditionally described a type of logical fallacy (also called petitio principii) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. Begging the question is related to the fallacy known as circular argument, circulus in probando, vicious circle or circular reasoning. As a concept in logic the first known definition in the West is by the Greek philosopher Aristotle around 350 B.C., in his book Prior Analytics.

In recent decades, the term has also been used to mean raising the question. This meaning describes a rather broad fallacy (or incomplete explanation) that occurs when the evidence given for a proposition is in as much need of proof as the proposition itself. The more accepted classification for such arguments is as a fallacy of many questions.

An example

"That begs the question" is an apt reply when a circular argument is used within one syllogism. That is, when the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove; in essence, the proposition is used to prove itself, a tactic which in its simplest form is not very persuasive. For example here is an attempt to prove that Paul is telling the truth:

Suppose Paul is not lying when he speaks.
Paul is speaking.
Therefore, Paul is telling the truth.
These statements are logical, but they do nothing to convince one of the truthfulness of the speaker. The problem is that in seeking to prove Paul's truthfulness, the speaker asks his audience to assume that Paul is telling the truth, so this actually proves "If Paul is not lying, then Paul is telling the truth."

Such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is in some way identical to the premises. All self-circular arguments have this characteristic: that the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument.

Formally speaking, the fallacy of petitio principii has the following structure: For some proposition p,

p implies q
suppose p
therefore, q.
The syntactic presentation of the fallacy is rarely this transparent, as is shown, for example, in the above argument purportedly proving Paul is telling the truth.

Ok, what are arnoldo's propositions? What is God trying to accomplish? Why does God predict the future? Why hasn't God ever made an indisputable prophecy? If arnoldo establishes those propositions, I will argue against them and we can discuss how circular reasoning and begging the question might apply to my arguments.

Regarding the fallacy of many questions, consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_many_questions

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Many questions, also known as complex question, presupposition, loaded question, "trick question", or plurium interrogationum (Latin, "of many questions"), is an informal fallacy or logical fallacy. It is committed when someone asks a question that presupposes something that has not been proven or accepted by all the people involved. This fallacy is often used rhetorically, so that the question limits direct replies to those that serve the questioner's agenda. An example of this is the question "Are you still beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife, and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.

The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.

A related fallacy is begging the question also known as 'circular reasoning', in which a premise is included that is likely to be at least as unacceptable to an opponent as the proposed conclusion.

Obviously, arnoldo does not have any idea whatsoever what he is talking about.

spin · 03-05-2008, 07:40 AM

Just to recap, poor deluded sugarhitman started this thread with a crappy claim regarding an unfulfilled prophecy:

"For behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah', says the Lord. 'And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave their fathers, and they shall posses it." Jeremiah 30.

He turned a blind eye to the obviously unfulfilled claim regarding Israel. Jeremiah specifically talks about both Israel and Judah, for that was the state of Palestine ante, divided between Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Sadly of course the lost tribes are still lost and hopefully even sugarhitman with all his biases will not be silly enough to try to negate the fact. Israel ie the population of Israel (not Judah) and their descendants have not returned to Israel. Some of the descendants of Judah have returned. Many remain of their own choice in various countries around the world. No return of Israel and only a partial return of Judah.

Score: prophecy unfulfilled. Nothing fulfilled nothing proven. Yet another fantastic claim by sugarhitman proven empty just like his claims about his god.

And we bid farewell to sugarhitman as he rides off into the sunset.

:wave:

spin

WVIncagold · 03-05-2008, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The fact that Israel has been scattered and restored (the only ancient nation to have done so) and the fact that the battle over the land of Israel and Jerusalem which was foretold right down to very specific details proves without a doubt.....that God does indeed reside in heaven....and no matter how you try...you cannot refute what is transparent.

sugar how about addressing those very important "details" of that prophecy? how about addressing the fact 1) a Muslim building resides on the temple mount ( this is not foretold) fact 2) the temple your talking about will not fit on top the mount there is not enough square footage ( albeit this is rectifiable with land fill but this is not discussed) and fact 3) how are Christians going to get millions of todays Hebrews to begin animal sacrifice again?
These are just three problems you have as a theist when it comes to the details of this prophecy not to mention that the all the lands of Canaan are not within the possession of modern day Jerusalem.

03-05-2008, 07:40 AM	#1129
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Just to recap, poor deluded sugarhitman started this thread with a crappy claim regarding an unfulfilled prophecy: "For behold, the days are coming says the Lord, that I will bring back from captivity My people Israel and Judah', says the Lord. 'And I will cause them to return to the land that I gave their fathers, and they shall posses it." Jeremiah 30. He turned a blind eye to the obviously unfulfilled claim regarding Israel. Jeremiah specifically talks about both Israel and Judah, for that was the state of Palestine ante, divided between Israel in the north and Judah in the south. Sadly of course the lost tribes are still lost and hopefully even sugarhitman with all his biases will not be silly enough to try to negate the fact. Israel ie the population of Israel (not Judah) and their descendants have not returned to Israel. Some of the descendants of Judah have returned. Many remain of their own choice in various countries around the world. No return of Israel and only a partial return of Judah. Score: prophecy unfulfilled. Nothing fulfilled nothing proven. Yet another fantastic claim by sugarhitman proven empty just like his claims about his god. And we bid farewell to sugarhitman as he rides off into the sunset. :wave: spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2008, 08:36 PM	#1125
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	It is a simple matter to reasonably prove that the Partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy. If is isn't, if Jewish and Palestinian history had been reversed, and Hitler and other parties had persecuted Palestinians instead of Jews, the U.N. would have awarded control of Jerusalem to Palestinians, and would also have awarded Palestinians a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like they did the Jews. Christians will have to admit that that would not have happened, in which case they will have admitted that the Partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy. No rational God would make 100% disputable prophecies. 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 necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the vast majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God. Since the New Testament says that Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot intelligently argue that if Jesus had predicted what I said, that that would have unfairly interfered with people’s free will. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have 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. In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies. That is because the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and yet Bible prophecies have needlessly caused lots of confusion. Why does God predict the future? Arnoldo has said that God used prophecy after the fact to strengthen the faith of Jews, but that could not possibly have been the case. If God wanted to strengthen the faith of Jews after the fact, he would have told Ezekiel about Alexander. Even better, he could have told Micah to write that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom as Micah 5:2 indicates, that the messiah would heal people, that the messiah would be crucified and rise from the dead in three days, that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman Governor of Palestine, that Herod would become the Jewish King of Judea, and that Titus would destroy the Jewish Temple in 70 A.D. If Micah had predicted those things, surely more Jews would have accepted Jesus, and more non-Jews as well. It is up to Christians to reasonably prove that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will, and why God has made 100% disputable prophecies, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists. Arnoldo is wasting his time quoting the Bible because even if a God inspired the Bible, he does not have good character according to his own standards. Might does not make right. Right makes right, and there is not any credible evidence that everything that God does is right. If I may digress for a moment, at the Evolution/Creation Forum, arnoldo said that form follows function when in fact function follows form. Nothing can function until it is formed, and it can only function according to how it was formed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.