bfniii

sigh. more "skeptics" making unsupported generalizations.



but i have provided a REASON why it is not pertinent to the issues i am discussing. you're creating a strawman by mischaracterizing my responses.



still no specifics.



still no specifics

bfniii

there were specific points in the article that were germane to topic of the suffering servant. interestingly enough, none of them referred to the nation of israel or king uzziah. jack, predictably, tried to discredit the source instead of respond to the points. that's a pretty classic ad hominem.

bfniii

i'm not trying. i am doing. i'm not letting you dupe me into your repetitions that i've already responded to. i'm also not letting you dupe me into doing your homework for you. if you have a problem with the ontological argument, then make it.



you do? then you can explain why you can't google "ontological argument". if you still can't, keep an eye on doug shaver. it appears that we're about to get into it.

bfniii

the introduction to ezekiel in the fully revised NIV study bible states:

"since the book of ezekiel contains more dates than any other OT prophetic book, it's prophecies can be dated with considerable precision. in addition, modern scholarship, using archaeology (babylonian annals on cuneiform tablets) and astronomy (accurate dating of eclipses referred to in ancient archives), provides precise modern calendar equivalents." [emphasis mine]

it appears that johnny's original assertion (by way of farrell till) is disputed. *gasp*

i take that back. johnny's OP was much more assertive. he claimed that it couldn't be dated before he backpeddaled into a more neutral position.

Johnny Skeptic

Consider the first paragraphs from the following articles:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/on...cal-arguments/

Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world - e.g., from reason alone. In other words, ontological arguments are arguments from nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises to the conclusion that God exists.

Johnny: Typical of ontological arguments, the paragraph mentions God’s existence, NOT his nature.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/de...s-ontological/

Descartes' ontological (or a priori) argument is both one of the most fascinating and poorly understood aspects of his philosophy. Fascination with the argument stems from the effort to prove God's existence from simple but powerful premises. Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. Ironically, the simplicity of the argument has also produced several misreadings, exacerbated in part by Descartes' failure to formulate a single version.

Johnny: Typical of ontological arguments, the paragraph deals with God’s existence, NOT his nature.

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

In theology and the philosophy of religion, an ontological argument for the existence of God is an argument that God's existence can be proved a priori, that is, by intuition and reason alone. In the context of the Abrahamic religions, it was first proposed by the medieval philosopher Anselm of Canterbury in his Proslogion, and important variations have been developed by philosophers such as René Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, Norman Malcolm, Charles Hartshorne, and Alvin Plantinga. A modal logic version of the argument was devised by mathematican Kurt Gödel. The ontological argument has been controversial in philosophy and many philosophers have famously criticized or opposed it, including Anselm's contemporary Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, Thomas Aquinas, David Hume, Immanuel Kant and Gottlob Frege. Some of these opponents have preferred to rely on cosmological arguments for the existence of God instead.

Typical of ontological arguments, the paragraph deals with God’s existence, NOT his nature.

If you have some specific sources that deal with the nature of God, then please quote them. I just conducted about an hour of research at the Internet, and I did not find one single article that dealt with the nature of God. I will not do any more of your homework for you. If you will not quote any of your sources, I will assume that you do not have any confidence in them.

If intelligent design is a given, it is your task to provide credible evidence that there is a necessary correlation between the ability to convert energy into matter and morality. Do you preclude a reasonable possibility that an advanced alien race has the ability to convert energy into matter. If so, why? If not, then if an advanced alien race has the ability to convert energy into matter, must they by necessity be moral?

Doug Shaver

Just what do you think it means to reword something?

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

reword
1a. To change the wording of. b. To state or express again in different words.

Paul wrote X, and according to you he was saying Y. Unless Y is a statement using the same words in the same sequence as X, it is a rewording of X.

Now, if I agree that Y means the same thing as X, then we have no problem. But according to you, it is the same thing, but no rewording can be the same thing as the original statement. It can be considered equivalent if it means the same thing, but it cannot be the same thing. And it is up to you to demonstrate the equivalence.

Doug Shaver

It defines God in terms of an undefined quality called greatness. It assumes existence to be a measure of greatness, whatever greatness is.

Since I was referring to how God was portrayed in the Bible, I guess it better be, eh?

I will give you the examples you implicitly ask for, but if you will indulge me, I'd appreciate your answering a couple of preliminary questions first.

One: Do you really have no idea what I'm talking about? Do you really have no clue about any incident reported in the Bible that a reasonable person might construe as a genocide either committed by God or committed by his followers on his explicit orders?

If you will answer that question sincerely, then I'll give you the second, and if we get through that then I'll give you chapter and verse of what I'm referring to.

bfniii

this is an incomplete explanation



"supremely perfect being". keep an eye on that phrase.



this is quite incomplete. it's really more about the history of the argument than the argument itself.



yes you did, but only very briefly. the ontological argument is about perfection. existence is one of the logical outworkings of the argument.



you are the one who apparently doesn't know anything about the argument. you are the one who needs to do homework. i think you should work on being able to restate the argument, then we can critique it.



you can think whatever you want. until you can formulate a response to the argument, then i'll assume you have no confidence in yourself.

bfniii

ah. now i see. you are operating from the hidden assumption that you are capable of seeing that i am saying Y instead of X. well, i'm saying X. not Y.



i would think that since the foundation of christianity is represented by that verse, it is obvious that there is a DIRECT correlation.

bfniii

not exactly. greatness is not accurate.



in my experience, these "incidents" are usually misrepresented by people who are masquerading as skeptics.