Autonemesis

Then it was your choice to behave that way, wasn't it? WASN'T IT? Answer that question with a "yes" or "no" before you go on, and maybe you can recover a little credibility. I am just trying to help you.

Ted Hoffman

Mageth, thanks a lot for helping Douglas out. Douglas, you oughta read more carefully.

And just to confirm: Douglas, are you serious? (I mean, do you mean to say those "reasons" you listed are compelling?

Theli

Douglas J. Bender...

Please specify.

I'm not familiar with this.
Any examples?

I'm pretty sure the witnesses was reliable, atleast some of them. But does that make their observations reliable?
Their observations are based on prior knowledge for identification. If the prior knowledge is false, then naturally the conclution of the observations will be.
Remember, people used to think the earth was flat. Even smart, reliable ones.

Fine tuning assumes "life as we know it" to be a desirable outcome of big bang. To assume that such a desire existed before us (and was most likely to cause life) is to assume god's existence in advance.
I had this discussion before with Tercel, but he never replied to this counter-argument. I hope you do.

Evolutionary theory just like life is evolving. It's always making small changes whenever new bones are discovered. I wouldn't read too much into this. Can you provide an example?

This is not really an argument for god's existence, but ok.
1. God's supposed rationality seems very weak to me.
2. Everything is not random. If everything was random, there wouldn't be planets, stars or humans.
3. There is a moral standard wich most people follow (religious or not religious) that pretty much boils down to not hurting eachother.
Of course humans cannot be constantly following a moral code, no matter who or what created it. That's why we have laws.
I don't see what more an incomprehensible, invisible, indifferent, never showing himself (except as coffe stains, and faces in the clouds) god who has candy in one hand and a whip in the other could bring to this picture.

I'll be waiting.

Thanks for the examples. I hope I'm not too late to reply, soon all the other atheists will swarm on you like locusts.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

Mageth,

Obviously, considered as a whole, they're not "single". But I was offering a choice of one (or more, if desired) - considered singly, they are "single".

Oh, and they are, each in their own right, "very compelling", and none have been refuted here, there, or anywhere, in the slightest. Particularly, the prophecies which result in exact years are conclusive proof.

In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

"Kind" Bud,

Before I answer you with a "yes" or "no", I'd like you to answer me a question, with a "yes" or "no" - if you do (and it's a legitimate answer), then I'll answer yours. Answer this question: Do you agree that I have merely "mirrored" the behaviors and attitudes of many of the atheists who post here? Yes or no, please.


In Christ,

Douglas

Douglas J. Bender

IntenSity,
AbSolutely.


In Christ,

Douglas

Mageth

Obviously, considered as a whole, they're not "single". But I was offering a choice of one (or more, if desired) - considered singly, they are "single".

In other words, lacking a "killer," you chose the shotgun approach hoping one would hit the target.

Oh, and they are, each in their own right, "very compelling", and none have been refuted here, there, or anywhere, in the slightest.

Look above at Theli's post for a start. I've seen every one of those refuted many times here at II alone. I'm sure you have as well. You might disagree with those refutations, but saying they haven't been refuted doesn't make it so.

Particularly, the prophecies which result in exact years are conclusive proof.

If you have such, even one, why didn't you just post it in the first place in response to the "one very compelling" request?

Pomp

Theli,

Quote:

- The "Biblical Equations".

I'm not familiar with this.
Any examples?

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000404" target="_blank">Here's the current Biblical Equations thread.</a> The first post contains the equations themselves and a link to one of the several previous threads in which they were discussed.

Autonemesis

No.

[ July 01, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

Douglas J. Bender

I already gave a general specification ( ) for a few of them - one is found in Daniel 9, in the "70 Weeks Prophecy", and is based on the command to "restore and build Jerusalem" being given sometime in mid-March of 445 B.C. (straightforward reasoning from Scripture and historians gives this date [see, for example, Nehemiah 2]). Then, 62+7 Weeks (from Daniel 9) = 69 Weeks, and in the context, a "week" is obviously 7 years. So, 69x7 = 483 years from mid-March of 445 B.C. "until Messiah the Prince" (would be born, arrive in Jerusalem as the Messiah, or be killed).

Now, this is a prophecy, and there are strong indications that God used years of 360 days in length ("Biblical" years) in making prophecies. But, 483 "Biblical" years from mid-March of 445 B.C. gives a date in mid-April of 32 A.D., and most historians agree that Jesus was crucified (and had arrived in Jerusalem four days prior to His crucifixion, presenting Himself as the Messiah) sometime in mid-April of 32 A.D..

Ezekiel 4 indicates that there would be 390 years of judgment upon Israel, and 40 years upon Judah (again, "Biblical" years). Total, this would be 430 years of judgment (Ezekiel, total, lay on his side [one or the other] for 430 days). Jeremiah prophesied, and Daniel confirmed, that God would allow the people of Israel and Judah to return to the land of Israel after 70 years of captivity in Babylon, but the Bible is clear (Ezra) that only a very small percentage (around 42,000 total) returned when given the opportunity, thus effectively rejecting their covenant with God (which was tied to the "Promised Land").

So, 70 years had been "meted out", thus 430-70 = 360 years remained; since Israel and Judah as a whole ("nationally") did NOT repent and return when given the opportunity, Leviticus 26 comes into play, where God says that if, after being punished, the people did not repent, He would punish them 7 times more for their sins which remained. Thus, from the time of the return, there would then be 360x7 = 2520 "Biblical" years of punishment remaining for the people of Israel and Judah, "as a whole"/"nationally". This punishment had to do, from the start of the 430 year period, with them being scattered from the land of Israel - the end of that punishment would thus be their regathering to, and reestablishment (as a nation) in, the land of Israel.

Israel was taken captive to Babylon, according to historians, around (let's assume exactly) mid July or so of 606 B.C.; the Babylonians captured and destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple around (let's again assume exactly) mid August of 587 B.C. (again, according to historians). The total period of punishment upon the people "as a whole"/"nationally" (their "exile" as a nation from the land of Israel) was 70 years, plus the extended 2520 years, totalling 2590 "Biblical" years.

Well, going from July 15, 606 B.C. "forward" 2590 "Biblical" years (and considering a "Tropical" year to be, and to have been, 365.242189 days long, on average) arrives at a date right around May 3, 1948 A.D., and from August 15, 587 B.C., doing the same arrives at a date right around June 4, 1967 A.D.. Obviously, the original historical dates could have been July 26, 606 B.C. and August 18, 587 B.C., which would then result in the modern dates in Israel's history of May 14, 1948 A.D. (when Israel officially declared itself a nation again) and June 7, 1967 A.D. (when Israel regained control of the Temple Mount).

Take your pick of three or four threads devoted to the same here at Infidels (two might be "archived"). The most recent one is not descriptive enough (it's titled, "Douglas J. Bender, I'm calling you out!!!", or something to this effect, and is in the "Existence of God" section), but there is another one, in "Rants, Raves, and Preaching", which I think is still "active", though it might be several pages back, or it might now be closed. I believe it's titled, "The Biblical Equations".

True. But that's where each testimony needs to be "tested". There are some which are not explainable by any known "naturalistic" means. I'll give you one personal example (and I could quote you two from the front page [one, at least, the other apparently being from the front page of the "religion" section] of the local paper which have been printed within the last 6 or 7 years]).

The morning after I had seriously considered devoting my life to bringing the Gospel to Romanian orphans (very seriously), I found a burned-out section of a newspaper headline at the bottom of the stairs to my 2nd floor apartment (I was the only one who used the stairs, by the way, as it was just a house with one apartment on the second floor). The side facing up had only the following words on it (it was burned right around these words, with no parts of other letters appearing): "GO FOR IT". Of course, one could just say, "Ahh, that's just coincidence"; but if they did, they'd be willfully blind.

And that provides a fine insight into how so many "smart, reliable" people currently think evolution is a "fact, Fact, FACT!".

No it doesn't. Not particularly. It's just an observation that the universe is "fine-tuned" for particular life forms.

I believe I just did. Essentially, the observation that the universe is "fine-tuned" to allow life, particularly human life, is just that - an observation. It does not depend upon assuming God's (or a god's) existence, nor any pre-existing "desire".

Well, if that's true, then a few years down the road, "evolutionary theory" might be a completely different "creature", and might even require positing a "Designer", and that evolution is limited to micro-evolution. Strange that "facts" might "evolve" into "falsehoods".

Always?

The "Cambrian Explosion". No conclusive fossil evidence for "macroevolution" (a series of small changes resulting in different species, etcetera). Very little even possibly speculative "evidence" for same. Considering the vastness of time, and the VASTNESS of changes in and within species, over the supposed "history" of life, one would think that there would be some clear fossil evidence along the lines of "Hey, look, the entire series of species variation and ancestry of this line of different species is contained in this strata right here. Cooool." Or something like this.

Not directly, but indirectly.

You mean, you think God might exist, but that He is irrational and moody?

According to standard ("Metaphysical Naturalism") evolutionary theory, every "change" is based upon something that IS random. Same thing with physics, I believe. They all just propose some non-random mechanisms which operate on these random processes/bases.

So? What if there happens to be a particular group of people whose "moral standard" is based on thievery, murder, etcetera? Who would we be to judge them as being "wrong" or "evil"? That's my point - without a God, morality becomes completely subjective. And, why can't I determine my own morality, if there is no obective morality? Does morality boil down to "might makes right"? What if the Germans had won the war, had gone on to conquer the entire world, and had slaughtered all who opposed them or who gave an appearance of possibly opposing them (a kind of "Brave New World" scenario, sort of)? Would that have meant that because the majority of people left on Earth believed it was "moral" to murder Jews, that it was therefore moral to do so?

Sorry, I don't quite follow.

To make sure people don't constantly follow a moral code, no matter who or what created it?

You've been reading too many comic books, it seems. God isn't as you portray Him - He does say, though, in essence, "Look, here's what is 'moral'. Do what is right, and you will be rewarded, as is just and fair; do what is wrong, and you will be punished, also as is just and fair. Any questions or comments? Theli?"

In Christ,

Douglas