Gooch's dad

And here's a nice refutation of that BS:

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

As I just pointed out to you in my last post, you need to substantiate that the gospel accounts are exact eyewitness accounts. Otherwise, it certainly seems obvious to most bible scholars that they are not eyewitness accounts, and are heavily embroidered accounts that try to 'fit' the Jesus story into dubious OT prophecies.

Autonemesis

Let me turn this on its head: if the scientists have not waited 10 to the power of 1050 years, how do they know it takes that long for a protein to assemble randomly?

You cannot sneak that crap past us so easily.

Need I remind you that selective pressures tend to eliminate the protein combinations that serve no purpose or that actually harm the cell, and tend to propagate the ones that perform a useful function? This narrows the odds a LOT. Biochemistry is NOT the study of random combinations of organic material.

What is the control case? How do you calculate the odds of a successful prophecy without examining at least as many FAILED prophecies? (And if you have only as many failed prophecies as successful ones, that implies the odds of success are 1 in 2, not 1 in 10 to the 57th power). What are the failure cases that were studied to contribute to this conclusion of yours? Your conclusion cannot be accepted until we see your controls: the failed prophecies.

Autonemesis

I have this picture of a Babylonian scribe, furiously chiseling into his tablet as the water rises:

*clink* *clank*
...water rising...
*chink* *clunk*
...not much time left...
*dink* *chunk*
...this will be my last chip...

Jack the Bodiless

Fascinating, yes. That's one way of describing it...

From the article:
Strange that, with "thousands" of minute details to choose from, the author chooses two that don't cause any problems whatsoever. There are zillions of stars in the Universe, and the compatibility of enzymes and amino acids is the result of evolution.
And Isaac Asimov was an atheist. Looks like an out-of-context quote. The truth of the matter, as Asimov would surely agree, is that insulin is a product of evolution and its configuration is non-random as a result.
Once per second? In every single ocean on every single Earthlike planet in the Universe? That is a ludicrously low estimate! And why pick insulin? We have no idea just how many molecules would have sufficed. Experiment has shown that polynucleotides have a natural tendency to catalyze the formation of other polynucleotides. That's what evolution needs: ANY self-replicating polynucleotide.
Yet again, the two exmples given pose no problem. Organic molecules are common, and MANY stars incorporate supernova-produced material.
Hoyle and Wickramasinghe had no idea what the odds were. Biologists are suggesting ONE self-replicating polunucleotide: so how does this magically become a plurality of "functional proteins"?
Ross was wrong. According to science, the Genesis creation sequence is inaccurate.
As previously mentioned, this is a lie.
1 is false, as already mentioned. The reference to John is particularly amusing, because John was arguing that Jesus SHOULD have been born in Bethlehem, but the crowd rejected him because he was NOT born in Bethlehem, but in the Galilee area: John 7:52, "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet". This is typical of the blinkered vision of apologists: they don't bother to read what the author is saying.

2 There is no proof that Jesus WAS preceded by a messenger. That's just what the STORY says.

3 There is no proof that Jesus DID enter Jerusalem on a donkey. That's just what the STORY says.

4 Psalms 41:9 and 55:12-14 are not Messianic prophecies. The AUTHOR is betrayed by a friend.

5 There is no proof of this. Furthermore, Matthew names the wrong prophet!

6 There is no proof of this.

7 There is no proof of this.

8 IIRC, "they pierced my hands and my feet" in Psalms is a mistranslation. Zechariah refers only to "me whom they have pierced" (and the guy he was talking about would strike horses blind), and Isaiah makes no mention of crucifixion either.

In a book the size of the Bible, surely there should be SOME correct prophecies? So why did they pick such poor examples? Because the Bible is notoriously BAD at prophecy.
Baloney. For several reasons.

Firstly, as already mentioned, there is no good reason to assume that Jesus DID fulfil those "prophecies". Secondly, the calculation doesn't take into account the failure rate of prophecies: no attempt is made to allow for failed prophecies. Thirdly, even if we assume there was a 50% chance of a prophecy being right or wrong AND all eight were right AND this was a representative sample, the number would be 2 to the eighth power, not ten to the seventeenth power.
This statement is false. There aren't 300 prophecies about Jesus (we have already seen some examples of out-of-context quotes claimed as prophecies), and many Biblical prophecies failed.

The Jews are well aware of this. That's why they aren't Christians.

Mageth

I'm returning to something Magus posted on the first page of this thread:

Well there is plenty of evidence, its just not the kind you want. You rely on faith for everything else you do and take in life. You weren't there during Roman or Greek or Nepoleans days so you take faith the the historical books written by eyewitness accounts or of the person themselves to be factual. Same with religion.

The "rely on faith" argument was thoroughly demolished in the preceeding posts.

I don't "take faith" in any historical book. Typically, I rely on scholarly evaluation of those books (e.g. comparison with archaeological evidence and other historical texts) to determine how much confidence to place in their accuracy. As has been thoroughly described in this thread, the Bible has been examined as or more thoroughly than any other book describing supposedly historical accounts. And has, for many if not most of its more critical historical elements, been found sorely lacking. Its innacuracy starts, interestingly, in its first two chapters. We've known conclusively that the Genesis account of 6-day creation is a myth since at least 1859 (when Darwin published his Origin of Species. We knew the earth was not "young" as is claimed by some people's interpretation of the Bible even longer.

How do you know who discovered America? Columbus because everyone told you he did? How do you know Julius Ceasar ruled Rome? Because people of the time wrote down what he did? Everything we do is based on faith. Christians faith is just more in depth.

The "rely on faith" argument was thoroughly demolished in the posts preceeding yours on the first page, and further addressed after that. You have not overcome the objections to your "faith" claim in any of those posts.

And no im neither Atheist nor Agnostic.

Yes, you are an atheist - you are an atheist about all gods except the one you choose to believe in.

I said im willing to give the benefit of the doubt with some near improbable chance that all Christians are wrong. However its a very very very small chance to me so its almost negligable - but since part of what i believe about God is taken completely on Faith ( the other part being accounts of the Bible that i can't take as anything more than a true account) i don't really worry about that slim chance of being found wrong.

Well, there has been plenty of evidence presented on this thread that the bible is not a "true account", its just not the kind you want. Or rather, your faith prohibits you from facing the implications of that evidence.

God exists based on my own experience with divine intervention, the Bible, and my own feelings of his presence.

Since your Biblical evidence has been shown sorely lacking, I can only assume you'll soon resort to bombarding us with your divine intervention experiences and/or your feelings of his presence.

Note that there are Muslims, Hindus, and people of other religions that would undoubtedly make similar statements. So this is just about useless as evidence that your favored god exists.

I don't believe im wrong just like you don't either. But my faith is completely devoted to God so i don't even consider the possibility in other gods, but thats not to say there isn't a slim slim chance that they do exist since i don't know everything.

And i will never be agnostic/atheist because i didn't know God when i was younger and it was a miserable existance. Once i found God - i felt like i was in a different world.

Bully for you. And the world is full of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. who would no doubt share a similar testimony to the personal transformation they've experienced through their particular religion. So obviously it's religion, not any god claimed by the religion, that works to transform some people.

Note that you're atheistic in regards to those other gods. I was a theists when younger until I learned that one must not be afraid to examine every belief, no matter how precious or deeply-felt. Doing so led me to realize that there is scant or no evidence that any gods exist, and in particular that the so-called evidence for the bibllical god I'd been presented with all my life (e.g. the fulfilled prophecies you seem to be so enamored of) is largely if not wholly a construct of apologists interested in justifying and defending their faith. Therefore, I'm now atheistic just like you - exept my atheism extends to one more god than yours does.

Mageth

Originally posted by Magus55
Um, the Babylons wrote on a tablet describing the flood of Noah. I'm very sure that they could have written down the flood as it was happening up until the writer was killed, and the tablet remains as one of the few relics left over before the flood.

This has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a while.

"One of the few relics left over [from] before the flood"? There's massive archaeological evidence from many different civilizations worldwide that predate the supposed time of the supposed worldwide flood.

Here's a description of the Gilgamesh tablets.

Note that the person busy chiselling away while the water was rising had time to concoct pre-flood prophecies, an account of events surrounding and during the flood including the building of an ark, and even a bit of what happened after the flood; indeed, an entire mythology surrounding the flood. Further, IIRC, most scholars agree that this Babylonian account was written prior to the Genesis account.

Luiseach

Excellent idea, Diana...if there were a literary analysis forum available, it would also do rather well there...I tend to view the Bible as a form of literature, rather than as a naturalistic representation of 'reality.' I wonder what Magus would make of my definition?

The discussion has moved along quite a bit since I was participating last night (that bloody time difference dontchaknow), but I see that quite a few people have pointed out some inconsistencies in the biblical text for you, Magus, which is the direction in which the conversation was starting to turn anyway.

However, I just want to point out that when I provided that short article for your perusal, in which the author draws attention to major discrepancies between biblical claims and historical records, I was hoping you would try to respond to this by acknowledging that there are mistakes in the Bible that have less to do with translational accuracy/inaccuracy, and more to do with blatant differences between what the Bible said happened or would happen, and what actually did happen.

For you to state baldly that no one has found any mistakes in the Bible is, um, just plain wrong. What are we supposed to make of this? Stating something - no matter how often - does not make it true.

Evidence will out.

Edited to add:

P.S.

I went to work today, as I predicted yesterday...am I a prophet?

Mageth

Anyway more evidence to Jesus' prophecy and the existance of God - but we'll exame statistics and probability now.

http://theronnows.com/rational.htm

Quite fascinating even for a believer.

From the link:

Rothman's article was on the anthropic principle, which states essentially that human life is possible only because characteristics of the universe are finely tuned to an astonishing degree of precision. Stephen Hawking, one of the leading theoretical physicists in the world today, said this:
"The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the big bang are enormous... I think clearly there are religious implications whenever you start to discuss the origins of the universe. There must be religious overtones. But I think scientists prefer to shy away from the religious side of it."

A rather interesting quote from Hawking, and one I have had difficulty verifying. Many religious sites quote this as something Hawking supposedly once told a reporter, I reckon to use it as evidence that a premier scientists thinks God must be involved. I'm curious as to what Hawking may have said between "enormous" and "I think", as well as before and after this quote.

Anyway, since the site cites Hawking as an expert on the subject, let's see what he has to say about the fine tuning argument. An article of Hawking's posted on his website titled Life in the Universe clarifies Hawking's position:

Obviously, these are selected excerpts. But reading this essay should clarify Hawking's position of the subject. And if that's not enough, here's a couple of more quotes from Hawking:

Wiploc

This is a lie unless the guy is so truely innocent and shallow that he never thought of a fourth alternative. He doesn't write like an innocent. I think he is a highly polished liar, a montebank. I am not prepared to believe this guy has never even heard of, say, polytheism, or less-than-omnipotent gods. He's lying.



Why would he use this, "rational, logical," language if he's not going to follow thru?



This is the not-drawing-the-line fallacy. He argues that if it is okay to believe something on less than 100% proof, then it must be okay to believe something on 0% proof. Nonsense.



Still the not-drawing-the-line fallacy. If it's okay to believe some things on faith, then it's okay to believe anything on faith. But he wouldn't extend that to devil worship, would he?



That's like saying the rich think if they can quit thinking about poverty they will have gotten rid of the poor. It's stupid. He knows it's wrong, but he says it anyway. He knows atheists won't believe this nonsense, so who's he talking to? He thinks Christians are stupid.





Here he's trying word magic. If god exists, that means I'm wrong; it doesn't mean I'm not an atheist.

Taste the converse of his argument: "You only think you're a
Christian. God doesn't really exist, so you're really an atheist and you just don't know it." Stupid, right? Stupid and wrong.



Most atheists don't believe in souls. He knows that.



If it's so simple, why doesn't he get cogent?



Absurd falsehood. Is he pretending he never heard of quantum mechanics, never talked to a physicist? I don't think so. I think he is directing his talk specifically at Christians, whom he believes to be gullible and uneducated. He's not arguing from personal incredulity; he's arguing from audience incredulity.


This from the same guy who says we can't really know whether general Custer existed. Right.



Bald assertion. No reason to believe it.



Pick one only.



The bible tells us lots of contradictory stuff. Therefore it cannot be true or reliable.



Not drawing the line. "If I can believe in reasonable stuff, then isn't it okay to believe in unreasonable stuff?

You know he doesn't have a good argument. People with good arguments don't use bad arguments. If he had a good argument, he'd be telling us how good it was rather than analogising it other unsubstantiated beliefs that one holds in desperate need.



Bald assertion. Contrary to lots of bible stories. (Noah's flood, for instance.)



You aren't going to make me go look up a conflicting bible text are you? You know they exist.



This makes no more sense that me saying I don't believe in Christians. You would recognize that as absurd, wouldn't you?



By his standards, then, Christians cannot exist either. We are all agnostics.



Wrong. For the statement to be true, there must be no god. This guy cannot do (or isn't interested in doing) simple logic.

If I said, "I am certain that there is no god in the entire universe," then for that to be true I would have to be certain that there was no god in the entire universe. But for, "There is no god," to be true, there only needs to be no god. Does this author really not understand this, or does he just think Christians don't understand it?



An atheist is one who believes there is no god. Atheists exist.

Christians don't know everything, do they? And yet Chrstians exist, right? So this guys argument is transparently stupid, right?



That's fair. That's what atheism is.



That's right, just like you can't be perfectly sure there is no tooth fairy.



Wrong. Words mean what words mean. He has invented a new meaning, a worthless meaning (because if it really was the meaning of the word "atheist" then there would be no atheists, and we would need a new word to describe all the people who disbelieve in god). Since his meaning is never called for, the word is available for use as meaning what people really mean when they say it.



There's plenty of overlap in the words, but he's still lying.



Well oh yeah! If I said, "Christians are assholes," I would be arguing on his level. I hope this isn't the part you found persuasive.



This is a claim that there are good reasons to believe. Note, however, that he has not come foreward with these good reasons. If they really existed, wouldn't he tell us what they are?
crc

Mageth

Vorko, the NT was no written based on prophecy. Sorry but you can't plan Jesus' birth, death, and ressurection prophecies ahead of time.

The point is, the NT writers had access to the OT texts. Decades after Jesus (may have) lived, the NT writers easily could have, and in my opinion did, write fictional events into the accounts of Jesus' birth, life, and death to make Jesus' life seem to fulfill supposed OT prophecies. There are many flaws and contradictions in their accounts that indicate this is indeed the case. The two different lineages of Jesus and the misinterpretation of "young girl" as "virgin" are just two of them.

The statistics are right in front of you - Sorry its still a mathematical impossibility for God not to exist and Jesus not to be God. You just live in denial.

And the so-called statistics are seriosly flawed, as has been pointed out to you over and over. And your conclusion here contradicts your earlier statements such as "...but since part of what i believe about God is taken completely on Faith ( the other part being accounts of the Bible that i can't take as anything more than a true account) i don't really worry about that slim chance of being found wrong." If it was true that it is a "mathematical impossibility for God not to exist and Jesus not to be God", or even if you merely believe it to be true, then "faith" would have nothing to do with your belief.