makerowner

It was irrelevant to the Daniel thread this was in at the time. In any case, this 'prophecy' is certainly not historical fact, because the only record we have of it being made was after it had already been fulfilled.

itsamysteryhuh

Of course. Just wanted your statement to be more fair.



There are quite a few possible answers (which can be right or wrong, but may only be speculated upon) to each of your questions, but none will prove or disprove the existence of God.

Examples of things you can use to find answers that still don't prove or disprove the existence of God are below.

1. Cause of hurricanes: http://www.weatherquestions.com/What...hurricanes.htm

2. People normally know when/if a hurricane is coming, yet they still choose to live where they occur frequently.

3. Women in the population: http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/...htm#population (Women and Population heading).

4. God would have the ultimate ("omni") knowledge as to what prayers should or should not be answered.

5. The difference between God and man (includes men and women) = God doesn't think he's man.

The list of possible answers could be speculated upon quite a bit, but getting the true answer to each of your questions is going to be rather difficult when the data is limited (ie, why God does or does not do something, make something different than it is, etc.), which results in begging the question (asking questions over and over again that don't prove or disprove anything... except that you can ask questions).

Johnny Skeptic

That is true since you cannot even prove that you tangibly exist, but I am not arguing against the existence of God, only against the existence of the God of the Bible.

But proof is not the issue since our means of checking things out are limited. The issue is probability, meaning how probable is it that the God of the Bible exists? In my opinion, the odds against the existence of the God of the Bible are astronomical.

It is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that every year, God predictably changes a lot more women’s hearts than he does men’s hearts, which would mean that he discriminates against men. A God would not have any interest in a person's sex.

It is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that every year, a
much lower percentage of elderly skeptics accept God than the percentage of younger skeptics who accept him, which means that God discriminates against elderly skeptics. In addition, it is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that every year, a much higher percentage of younger Christians give up Christianity than elderly Christians, which means that God discriminates against younger Christians. A God would not have any interest in a person's age.

A God who had strange ways would not be as predictable as the God of the Bible is.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, the preceding evidence would not be strange at all, and in fact, would be expected. It would be counterproductive for a God who supposedly wants people to believe that he exists to frequently mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

It is a question of how probable it is that a God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, but often goes out of his way to try to convince them that he does not exist by frequently mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist, and by discriminating against men, elderly skeptics, and younger Christians. In my opinion, no rational man who was aware of my arguments before he chose his worldview would become a Christian. Religious beliefs are probably determined by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period.

If another supposed God showed up, and claimed that he was the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, and created a new planet in order to demonstrate that he is powerful, and took over control of the earth, and asked you to accept him, what would you do? If you would accept him, if he left the earth and another supposed God showed up and asked you to accept him, what would you do?

Are you male or female?

makerowner

That's not what Begging the question means.

Johnny Skeptic

That is true since you cannot even prove that you tangibly exist, but I am not arguing against the existence of God, only against the existence of the God of the Bible.

But proof is not the issue since our means of checking things out are limited. The issue is probability, meaning how probable is it that the God of the Bible exists? In my opinion, the odds that the God of the Bible does not exist are astronomical.

It is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that every year, God predictably changes a lot more women’s hearts than he does men’s hearts, which would mean that he discriminates against men. A God would not have any interest in a person's sex.

It is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that every year, a
much lower percentage of elderly skeptics accept God than the percentage of younger skeptics who accept him, which means that God discriminates against elderly skeptics. In addition, it is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that every year, a much higher percentage of younger Christians give up Christianity than elderly Christians, which means that God discriminates against younger Christians. A God would not have any interest in a person's age.

A God who had strange ways would not be as predictable as the God of the Bible is.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, the preceding evidence would not be strange at all, and in fact, would be expected. It would be counterproductive for a God who supposedly wants people to believe that he exists to frequently mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

It is a question of how probable it is that a God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, but often goes out of his way to try to convince them that he does not exist by frequently mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist, and by discriminating against men, elderly skeptics, and younger Christians. In my opinion, no rational man who was aware of my arguments before he chose his worldview would become a Christian. Religious beliefs are probably determined by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period.

If another supposed God showed up, and claimed that he was the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, and created a new planet in order to demonstrate that he is powerful, and took over control of the earth, and asked you to accept him, what would you do? If you would accept him, if he left the earth and another supposed God showed up and asked you to accept him, what would you do?

Are you male or female?

itsamysteryhuh

Not exactly, but it seems Johnny Skeptic is assuming he knows more than he actually does about the questions he's asking, so... (:huh. Either way, Johnny Skeptic is engaged in the one referred to as a fallacy of many questions. :thumbs:


Since it's opinions we seem to be dealing with here, it's my opinion that the odds against us being put together so well and floating around safely (and with oxygen!) on a rock in space are astronomical... yet, here we are.

Johnny Skeptic

What do you mean? It seems to me that you assume that you know more than you actually know about the God of the Bible.

You either did not read what I posted, or you did not understand what I posted, or you read and understood what I posted are are trying to be evasive. You said:

I replied:

Besides that, I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

I said:

Now is there anything in those arguments that even remotely argues against "the odds against us being put together so well and floating around safely (and with oxygen!) on a rock in space are astronomical... yet, here we are."? Of course there isn't. Now then, will you please reply to my arguments.

Huguenot

This is hilarious.

You don't have an "agrument".

You have only your nihilistic conjecture from a curmudgeon! You're no "skeptic" as anyone knows by reading your threads.

LOL

Johnny Skeptic

Is that declaration supposed to be a rebuttal, or would you like to discuss my arguments? Postering and personal comments do not impress undecided readers. They want to read pertinent arguments from both sides.

A web definition for the word "nihilist" is "someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief." According to that definition, you are wrong on two counts. First of all, I do not reject all theories of morality. Second of all, since I am an agnostic, I do not reject all theories of religous belief, but I do reject belief in the God of the Bible.

Regarding "You're no 'skeptic' as anyone knows by reading your threads," you are wrong again. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "skepticism" as follows:

"1: an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object

"2 a: the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b: the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics

"3: doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)"

According to those definitions, I am a skeptic.

Just in case you wish to discuss some of my arguments, here are some of them:

itsamysteryhuh

No, I do not know more than I actually know. I'm only offering an alternative view.



You either did not read what I posted, or you did not understand what I posted, or you read and understood what I posted are are trying to be evasive. You said:



I replied:



Besides that, I am an agnostic, not an atheist.

I said:

Now is there anything in those arguments that even remotely argues against "the odds against us being put together so well and floating around safely (and with oxygen!) on a rock in space are astronomical... yet, here we are."? Of course there isn't. Now then, will you please reply to my arguments.[/QUOTE]



I already provided you with some possible answers (cause-of-hurricanes link, women-in-the-population link, etc.). But possible answers can go on and on, so it's basically a futile attempt to provide you with them since they will not lead to the true answers to your fallacious questions.

For example, what if, instead of the percentage of women, it was the percentage of men who accept God? Regardless, one percentage is going to always be higher anyway.

*NOTE: You assume God created hurricane Katrina, but don't account for the possibility that Katrina could just be one potential result of creating a world like ours.