njaohnt Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) Coincidences happen to everyone Njaohnt, sinners, saints, pagans, buddhists, serial killers, muslims, jews, atheists, pantheists, mono theists, witches, warlocks, I mean everyone, belief does not enter into it... A miracle is something that cannot have happened via natural means, it does not mean something that happens that was unlikely. Saying that coincidences do not happen to atheists is either stupid or a lie.... I am talking about odd coinsidences, like the one that Jaden talked about. Has anything like that happened to you? The vast majority of the world's children believe in Santa Clause. Do you think that is evidence that Santa Clause is real? God has way more evidence than Santa Clause. Edited July 8, 2012 by njaohnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 God has way more evidence than Santa Clause. Answer the question. You indicated that a large enough quantity of believers makes something true. Now, quit prevaricating and support your assertion. BTW, there is ZERO evidence for deities! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 I am talking about odd coinsidences, like the one that Jaden talked about. Has anything like that happened to you? Yes, many times.... God has way more evidence than Santa Clause. While this is redundant feel free to provide some of that "way more" evidence... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njaohnt Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 (edited) God is never a "best explanation." It's a cop-out... a place holder of the gap until rational and reasonable people provide a valid answer. Same thing as the big bang. What the difference? The big bang cannot be true unless abiogenesis is real (or something like that). That makes it another place holder. Jaden - I know this is very difficult to accept, but it almost certainly was just coincidence. What are you talking about? What makes it almost certain? Answer the question. You indicated that a large enough quantity of believers makes something true. Now, quit prevaricating and support your assertion. Here's the evidence of Santa Clause verses the Christian evidence:There are gifts on Christmas morning --vs-- The earth is here That has nothing to do with the fact that Santa did that. Santa can't go through the chimney(or can he?) Parents have told people that --vs-- the Bible tells us that Our parents are liars. Your cookies are gone on Christmas morning --vs-- Miracles happen Your parents like cookies. Why don't they eat them. Now which one of those seems like more evidence? BTW, there is ZERO evidence for deities! Yes there is. Stop saying this! The vast majority of the world's children believe in Santa Clause. Do you think that is evidence that Santa Clause is real? Yes. Yes, many times.... Examples? While this is redundant feel free to provide some of that "way more" evidence... Miracles are beyond what science can provide for us (usually). Presents can get under a tree easily without Santa. Edited July 8, 2012 by njaohnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Same thing as the big bang. What the difference? The big bang cannot be true unless abiogenesis is real (or something like that). That makes it another place holder. The big bang and abiogenesis has nothing to do with each other... Here's the evidence of Santa Clause verses the Christian evidence:There are gifts on Christmas morning --vs-- The earth is here That has nothing to do with the fact that Santa did that. Santa can't go through the chimney(or can he?) Parents have told people that --vs-- the Bible tells us that Our parents are liars. Your cookies are gone on Christmas morning --vs-- Miracles happen Your parents like cookies. Why don't they eat them. Now which one of those seems like more evidence? You need to clarify this, what you wrote makes no sense. Yes there is. Stop saying this! Then provide the evidence... Yes. the number of people who believe in something ha nothing to do with the reality of it. Examples?Miracles are beyond what science can provide for us (usually). Presents can get under a tree easily without Santa. I once hesitated to go through a green light and in that moment a huge truck roared through the intwersection, if i hadn't hesitated i would be dead right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njaohnt Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 The big bang and abiogenesis has nothing to do with each other... Really... You need to clarify this, what you wrote makes no sense. I'm not sure of what you want me to say. Then provide the evidence... the number of people who believe in something ha nothing to do with the reality of it. I'm not going to reply to this. You know what I will say. We've been here before ... a lot. I once hesitated to go through a green light and in that moment a huge truck roared through the intwersection, if i hadn't hesitated i would be dead right now. There's one! Unfortunately the Christians have more. God does things for the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Really... yes really... I'm not sure of what you want me to say. Something besides word salad that makes no sense would be nice... I'm not going to reply to this. You know what I will say. We've been here before ... a lot.There's one! None the less it doesn't change the point i made. Unfortunately the Christians have more. God does things for the better. Please show evidence that christians have more, I've seen a great many things happen that were unlikely and so do people of all other religions or non religious people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 The big bang cannot be true unless abiogenesis is real (or something like that). That makes it another place holder. Your first sentence is so silly that it doesn't warrant intelligent response. On the other part, I said that god is not an answer, it's a cop-out. It's a placeholder used until more rational reasonable answers are put forth, but "goddidit" is not an answer to anything. The big bang is a hypothesis based on a metric shitload of evidence showing cosmic expansion and increasing density the farther back we look. It is not related to abiogenesis, and it is not equivalent to the non-answer that is "goddidit." It is not a place holder nor a gap filler. I know you are young. IIRC, you stated once that you were about 13. You have a lot to learn. That is okay. We all do. But please, recognize that when you say things and people correct you, it doesn't mean you should merely repeat yourself and keep saying it. It means you should pause, consider their counter argument, reflect on whether or not it defeats your own argument, and adjust your thinking or the defense of your position accordingly. God is unlikely. I know you believe that god is real, and that's fine, but that is a belief... not a fact. The more you keep coming to places such as this as stating that "god is real" as if it's some fact, the more you will be challenged, and criticized, and corrected. Yes, pretty much every post you make looks like that picture of that lady covering her ears and going "lalalala... I can't hear you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 the Bible tells us that The bible is nothing but a collection of hearsay written by storytellers through the ages. It is not evidence of anything but the existence of storytellers. Why don't you try presenting some of that other "way more" evidence you think you have? We're waiting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njaohnt Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 The bible is nothing but a collection of hearsay written by storytellers through the ages. It is not evidence of anything but the existence of storytellers. Why don't you try presenting some of that other "way more" evidence you think you have? We're waiting... Are your parents telling you that the Santa is real more evidence than the Bible saying that God is real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Are your parents telling you that the Santa is real more evidence than the Bible saying that God is real? I would say the two are pretty much the same evidence... nothing more than what some one else believes.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njaohnt Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I would say the two are pretty much the same evidence... nothing more than what some one else believes.. I'm sure that your parents have said (or have no longer denied) that Santa is false. The Bible never said that God is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doG Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 Are your parents telling you that the Santa is real more evidence than the Bible saying that God is real? No, neither is evidence at all. There is NO evidence for Santa Claus and NO evidence for any god(s). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I'm sure that your parents have said (or have no longer denied) that Santa is false. The Bible never said that God is false. Why is "the bible never said god was false" have any meaning what so ever? BTW, I was never told santa was real... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njaohnt Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Why is "the bible never said god was false" have any meaning what so ever?The Santa Clause theory proves itself wrong whereas God does not. BTW, I was never told santa was real... Neither was I, but just go along with "the vast majority of children" as if you were one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 The Santa Clause theory proves itself wrong whereas God does not. How so? Please elaborate how God is different than Santa Claus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 I'm sure that your parents have said (or have no longer denied) that Santa is false. The Bible never said that God is false. I we go by this logic, you must believe in Harry Potter, because the Harry Potter books never said Harry Potter does not exist. ~mooey 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaden Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Mooeypoo, is it correct that you have read the original Hebrew bible? Is it your opinion that Genesis chapter 1 (or the Hebrew equivalent) could support the idea of old earth creationism? I have read that the word translated as day in the bible is 'yom', which could also mean any unspecified period of time. I ask this because OE creation makes a lot more sense (from a scientific perspective) than YE creation. Popularity alone is irrelevant to the validity of a claim. If millions of people thought the tooth fairy was real, that would not mean the tooth fairy actually is. The same applies to your god(s). Agreed. I was just pointing out that it must at least seem reasonable to most people. This is not a miracle, it is a coincidence no matter how many times you assert the contrary. I have already explained why it could not be a coincidence. If you wish to convince me that it was only a coincidence, then you must explain how it possibly could be. So far, on this topic, you have only made statements with no explanations. Furthermore, even if I stipulated that it was a miracle, it is still not evidence of any god. How could a miracle occur if there is no God? Either way, you here asserting that god gave instructions to your grandfather, or your grandfather asserting that he received instructions from god are not valid evidence of any such being. The purpose of this thread is not to give observable evidence, it is to justify a personal belief in God. I don't expect you to necessarily believe me or my grandparents, but I do. My larger point is that you're being quite hypocritical and applying nasty double standards. You reject the multiple lines of research supporting abiogenesis, I don't reject the research itself - it's just that despite the research, there is still no evidence to support this theory. It also has many flaws, some of which I have explained. and dismiss out of hand the copious evidence for the big bang model Do you even read my posts before replying to them? I never said that I reject the big bang model. In fact, I explained in the very post that you are replying to that I do not. yet you're willing to accept as proof of god the fact that your grandpappy changed lanes while driving one day and avoided a car wreck. If you read posts 531 and 542, you will see that there is more to it than that. Also, this is not the only reason for my belief. It is only one of many. If you don't see the flaw in this approach then I suspect nothing I say will ever change your mind. Please explain how you believe my logic is flawed. You ignore the hundreds of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible, you ignore the millions who have experienced Gods presence, and you claim that some amino acids found in space are proof of the chemical evolution of life (unless, of course, you believe that there is better evidence than this.) And then you say that I am the one who is "being quite hypocritical and applying nasty double standards." And as for changing my mind, if you wish to do that, then you will need to start explaining and supporting your opinions instead of just stating them. And you would also need to refute the evidence I have given, especially the prophecies I listed in post 542. What would it require for you to believe in God's existence? This is untrue. It is not a requirement that "something must have caused the beginning." Nothing can happen without a cause. Also, even if something did, not clearly understanding it yet does not ipso facto mean god(s) did it. This is true. However, the Judeo-Christian God has much supporting evidence, and if this God is real then we already know the cause of the Big Bang. No other theory has any evidence. Finally, even if god(s) did it, then the question remains open as to "what created god, then?" Your logic is so broken it's painfully simple to show you being wrong. I suspect that like most believers that you may come back and say that god doesn't need a cause. Well, then you've just broken your own demands for cause... you're giving a free pass to the concept of god(s) because you WANT to believe in them, yet won't give an equivalent free pass to the big bang itself. Hypocrisy and double standards continue. The difference between God and the Big Bang is that the big bang was an event. Something happened, and therefore there must be a cause. God never 'happened,' he is eternal. There was never an event, and therefore no cause is required. If the universe was eternal, then I would have no problem accepting that it does not need a cause. However, we know that this is not the case. For a moment Jaden consider this, you claim that there is little or no evidence for abiogenesis, while this is simply not true and the fact is that there is a huge amount of evidence for abiogenesis, If there is so much evidence for abiogenesis, then why can't you show me any? I have given plenty of evidence for God in previous posts. The links you gave did not contain any evidence. You are hanging your "religious hat" on the idea that there is no natural explanation for abiogenesis and that means that there has to be a god to have created the first cell, what if indeed there is a break through and next week a scientist shows that life can be not only made in a test tube but that the process is so easy that it could have occurred on the early earth no problem what so ever. Are you honest enough to say this confirms there is no god? How would that confirm there is no god? It would certainly eliminate that particular reason for my belief, but I would still have many more. Abiogenenesis does not "appear to be impossible" the only thing that may seem near to impossible is to explore the events that lead up to the formation of the first life, since we have only partial knowledge about the conditions on earth billions of years ago. What events could possibly produce homochirality in amino acids? scientists would reject that as an explenation since it is already assumed that any actual mechanism of line of development which leads from chemical evolution to biological evolution, must be understood in the terms of material development What if that assumption is wrong? Evolution on the other hand has massive evidence, and already refutes the idea that God created unchangeable species, as species DO change over long evolutionary periods. Where in the Bible does it say that God created unchangeable species? Evolution is a fact of nature; life adapts, but how does this disprove God? BTW, there is ZERO evidence for deities! While this is redundant feel free to provide some of that "way more" evidence... I have given evidence earlier in this thread. The bible contains a huge number of prophecies which have been fulfilled throughout history. I listed some of these in an earlier post (#542). No-one in this thread has, as of yet, attempted to nullify this evidence. It seems they prefer to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iggy Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 How could a miracle occur if there is no God? You're saying Gandalf couldn't speak magic without God's permission? Elrond wouldn't have the gift of foresight if not for a God? Absurd! What book have you been reading? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iNow Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Jaden - As I feared, conversation with you on this topic does not appear to be even close to a valuable use of my time. No matter what I say, and no matter how completely I demolish your position, you will ignore it and continue believing what you do. In short, what you claim are miracles are not, and your so-called "prophecies" also are not. You are also making the positive assertion that something cannot come from nothing without supporting it. Like others, you'll almost certainly say, "Oh yeah!! Well, what can?" What you'd be forgetting, though is that it's your assertion, not mine. You prove it. It's not up to me to disprove. Until then... Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Mooeypoo, is it correct that you have read the original Hebrew bible? Yeah, I studied how to read and analyze the Old Testament in biblical hebrew for 10 years in school. I can't say I'm an expert by any means, but I can read it and have studied it. Is it your opinion that Genesis chapter 1 (or the Hebrew equivalent) could support the idea of old earth creationism? I have read that the word translated as day in the bible is 'yom', which could also mean any unspecified period of time. I ask this because OE creation makes a lot more sense (from a scientific perspective) than YE creation. Eh, well, if you don't treat the bible as literal, then anything can mean anything. It's true that lengths of time in the bible are weirdly illogical; people live way too long in years and the creation is done way too short in days. Some religious folk decided that the days are actually much longer during CREATION time, but are much much faster during the rest of the time to explain how people lived for 400+ years. Literally, it means "day". Figuratively, it means what you figure it to be... and yet, it seems to not quite be consistent with the rest of the bible. ~mooey I have given evidence earlier in this thread. The bible contains a huge number of prophecies which have been fulfilled throughout history. I listed some of these in an earlier post (#542). No-one in this thread has, as of yet, attempted to nullify this evidence. It seems they prefer to ignore it. It also contains huge amount of prophecy that was not fulfilled. And the prophecies that WERE fulfilled are really very vague, so they're a bit of a stretch. You can find out that things are fulfilled after the fact any time, really, because then you fit the story to the real even that happened. The real magic would be if prophecies would be perfectly accurate *and* come true. Wouldn't this be what you'd expect of an omnipotent omniscient god? Why make it vague when you want to prophesize something you know for a fact will happen? It's not very impressive... ~mooey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaden Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) You're saying Gandalf couldn't speak magic without God's permission? The mighty Gandalf is an exception, of course Absurd! What book have you been reading? Lately, the Wheel of Time series. It's quite good, even if a bit slow paced. Jaden - As I feared, conversation with you on this topic does not appear to be even close to a valuable use of my time. That would depend on what you're trying to achieve. If your only goal is to try and prove me wrong, then your not doing a very good job of it. No matter what I say, and no matter how completely I demolish your position, you will ignore it and continue believing what you do. I won't ignore anything you say. If someone makes a claim and they try to support it, I will investigate. For example, when Moontanman referred me to a list of videos which supposedly contained evidence for abiogenesis, I spent many hours watching them. I am not so stubborn that I won't admit when I have been proven wrong. It's just that you havn't done so, no matter how much you insist that you have. In short, what you claim are miracles are not, and your so called "prophecies" also are not. Again, you are making unsupported claims. I have given up on trying to convince you that the miracle I explained is in fact a miracle, so unless you can explain your position, lets just agree to disagree on that point. As for the prophecies though, I checked every single one that i listed. They have been fulfilled, and you saying that they haven't isn't going to change that. All of them are supported by historians and archaeologists. You are also making the positive assertion that something cannot come from nothing without supporting it. Like others, you'll almost certainly say, "Oh yeah!! Well, what can?" What you'd be forgetting, though is that it's your assertion, not mine. You prove it. It's not up to me to disprove. Until then... Enjoy. It is an observation. Science is about observations, and so far I have yet to see anything happen without a cause. You could also call it logic. It seems illogical for anything to happen without a reason. Some religious folk decided that the days are actually much longer during CREATION time, but are much much faster during the rest of the time to explain how people lived for 400+ years. Literally, it means "day". Figuratively, it means what you figure it to be... and yet, it seems to not quite be consistent with the rest of the bible. Thanks mooey. It also contains huge amount of prophecy that was not fulfilled. Yes, I'm aware of this. Prophecy though, was not intended to be a prediction of the future. It was more of a warning to the nations - change their ways, or suffer the wrath of God. Jeremiah 18 verses 7-10 show this: If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted,and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. If you view prophecies as warnings rather than as predictions, it makes perfect sense that they would not always be fulfilled. And the prophecies that WERE fulfilled are really very vague, so they're a bit of a stretch. Many of them are, but many more are quite specific. I listed a few of these specific prophecies which have been fulfilled in an earlier post, but I'll re-create the list here for convenience: Amos 9: 7-15. Outlines the destruction of the nation Israel, but says that its people will not be totally destroyed. They will instead be scattered "among all the nations." During this time the walls and ruins of Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Then a time will come when the people will be brought back from exile, and never again be "uprooted" from their land. Jeremiah 25: 8-14. Israel and its surrounding nations will be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar and the "peoples of the north." They will serve Babylon for seventy years. After the seventy years, Babylon will be punished for its crimes, and then they themselves shall be defeated and made to serve other nations. The Babylonian empire will be destroyed forever. Matthew 24: 1-2. The temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed completely. Not even one stone will be left upon another. Luke 19: 41-44. Jesus says that because the people of Jerusalem have rejected Him, the city will be surrounded by enemies and destroyed. Daniel 9: 24-26. At the time this prophecy was written, many of the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. Jerusalem and its temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians. Daniel says that the people will return to Jerusalem and rebuild. Later an 'Anointed One' (Jesus) will come, but will be rejected and killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing. Then a ruler will come with his armies and again destroy Jerusalem and the temple (as in Luke 19 41-44.) Micah 3: 12. Jerusalem will be destroyed, the temple hill will become a mound overgrown with thickets, and Mt Zion will be ploughed like a field. Nahum 3. The city of Nineveh will be destroyed with fire (verse 15) and many casualties (verse 3,) and never recover (verse 19.) Their guards will flee like a swarm of locusts in the sun (verse 17.) Nahum 1: 10. The people of Nineveh will be drunk when they are defeated. Matthew 24:14. The gospel will be preached in every nation of the world. Luke 21: 33. The words of Jesus will never be forgotten. You can find out that things are fulfilled after the fact any time, really, because then you fit the story to the real even that happened. The real magic would be if prophecies would be perfectly accurate *and* come true. Wouldn't this be what you'd expect of an omnipotent omniscient god? Why make it vague when you want to prophesize something you know for a fact will happen? It's not very impressive... Some of them are very accurate. But not all of them will be, because they are dependent on the response of the people involved (as shown by Jeremiah 18.) Edited July 13, 2012 by Jaden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Jaden, I apologize for not reading through the whole thread. Had a thought though, and a response to your most recent few. Seems there are "reasons" to believe that abiogenisis is rather miraculous, that is, "not easy" to explain or reproduce, without retreating to some super intelligent agent orchestrating it. However, in the absence of any explaination for, or evidence of, such a magic force, and in the presence of life, one could also realistically endeavor to explain abiogenisis without magic, or an omniscient agent, and simply believe in a magnificantly complex universe that we have managed to emerge from. Not wrong to believe in such a universe, seems apparent, but wrong to ascribe ones own judgements and values to a source other than a magnificant and complex universe. There is no vehical, through which the magnificant and complex universe could or would tell somebody to change lanes, or predict the fall of a nation. Except the "human" vehical, which itself is capable of making such judgements. Regards, TAR2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mooeypoo Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Yes, I'm aware of this. Prophecy though, was not intended to be a prediction of the future. It was more of a warning to the nations - change their ways, or suffer the wrath of God. Jeremiah 18 verses 7-10 show this: If at any time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be uprooted, torn down and destroyed,and if that nation I warned repents of its evil, then I will relent and not inflict on it the disaster I had planned.And if at another time I announce that a nation or kingdom is to be built up and planted,and if it does evil in my sight and does not obey me, then I will reconsider the good I had intended to do for it. If you view prophecies as warnings rather than as predictions, it makes perfect sense that they would not always be fulfilled. But you used prophecies as proof of God, didn't you? If that's the case, then the lack of consistency is something you need to address if this really is evidence. That's what I meant. Either you view prophecies as prophecies, or you view them as warnings. You can't eat the cake and leave it whole. If I tell you that there's going to be a massive robbery in a big bank tomorrow, then it's a win-win situation according to you, isn't it? I mean, if there is a robbery, I just gave you a prophecy that was proven true. If there isn't, then it's because it was a warning for you to behave better and since you have, I made sure it won't happen. There's a reason why science requires falsifiable evidence. You can't ever test anything if it's a win-win no matter what. How do I know if those are really prophecy-warnings, only some of them happening because god changed his mind due to people's behavior, OR if those are actually anecdotal rather random (something guesstimated for good reason) "prophecies", only some of them happening because of luck, retrospectively fitting events to the vague ones, and having some of those said by people who knew how to analyze the conditions of current events. One means god did it, one means man did it. How do you prove either way with a "win-win" no matter what type of explanation? See what I mean? Many of them are, but many more are quite specific. I listed a few of these specific prophecies which have been fulfilled in an earlier post, but I'll re-create the list here for convenience: Okay, a couple of things here: First, I woud expect a book that is given by the omniscient God to have *all* of the prophecies accurate. Wouldn't you? I see no reason why some would be vague if God already knows them and sends someone to prophecize them on purpose. It doesn't make sense to me. Second, we should take into account that some prophecies are just obvious enough "odds-wise" to come true. When you watch political scientists on TV, they "prophesize" things. Some come true, some even quite accurately. They don't get their inspiration from a deity, they just know the situation and make educated guesses. If I tell you "There's going to be an earth quake tomorrow!" I have great odds of success because there's an earthquake *every day*. If I say "there's going to be an earthquake of magnitude 7.2 at coordinates X and Y", and I am right, then either I made it happen, or I have some information others do not have (like better technology/detection/etc), or have some damn good divine inspiration. (Yes, I know I'm falling into the false dichotomy here, doing that just for the point). Do you see what I mean? I'd be completely bored with the first, and yet completely impressed with the latter. Third, let's take a quick look at these examples: Amos 9: 7-15. Outlines the destruction of the nation Israel, but says that its people will not be totally destroyed. They will instead be scattered "among all the nations." During this time the walls and ruins of Jerusalem will be rebuilt. Then a time will come when the people will be brought back from exile, and never again be "uprooted" from their land. Here's the chapter in Hebrew/English parallel: http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt1509.htm First off, this is about the fifth time God threatens this in the bible. Israelites were really bad kids, he was quite often upset with them and this threat of scattering them all over is not the first. Second, this happened right after the Israelites were conquered and the first temple ruined and destroyed. It was a known and common practice to take the existing people in such conquered land and dismantle them, sending them away everywhere else -- to prevent uprising in the land that was just conquered. Even if this was a prophecy, it's not very impressive. Third, the temple was rebuilt and the Israelites still were not returned. So, was god wrong, or did he expect the temple to be ruined again? And if so, well, it's been more than 2000 years after the destruction of the second temple, and STILL we have a "problem" with the jews being scattered all over and not just coming back to Israel. In fact, according to the bible, the land of Israel stretches "מהפרת עד החידקל" - from "Pratt" to "Hidekel", two rivers on opposite ends. One is around Iraq, the other in the middle of Egypt. Until this day ultra-religious jews believe that when the Messiah comes, the third temple is built, Israel will stretch all the way between these points. Quite honestly, that sounds ridiculous, but even so, regardless, it was not fulfilled. We can quibble on adding a "yet" here, but this can't be included in the fulfilled prophecies. It happened more than once, it was OBVIOUSLY going to happen at the time Amos spoke to the people (war time, conquered, byebye land, regular occurrence) and the final stage did not happen. Next: Jeremiah 25: 8-14. Israel and its surrounding nations will be defeated by Nebuchadnezzar and the "peoples of the north." They will serve Babylon for seventy years. After the seventy years, Babylon will be punished for its crimes, and then they themselves shall be defeated and made to serve other nations. The Babylonian empire will be destroyed forever. Jeremiah 25: http://www.mechon-ma...p/pt/pt1125.htm Yea, this connects to waht I said above, see? It's not the firts time God threatens (and acts on) punishing the Israelites in this manner. Slavery and being sent off the land. This is because that's how things worked in warfare back 2500 years ago -- when you conquered the land, you dispersed the people and turned them to slaves. You did that to have slaves, of course ,but also to prevent uprising by dismantling the nation you just conquered. That's how it worked. In fact, half the laws in the bible are due to these type of actions that were done during wars and the Israelites were trying to separate themselves from. In any case, who is to say this wasn't written right after it actually happened, Jaden? We don't have a good date on this, and it won't be the first time the bible is telling a story that already happened. The biblical stories were not originally written, they passed from father to son orally for quite a long time. When people discussed the events of Nebuchadrezzar (which were historically true, more or less) they added the fact that it was God's work. You may (and probably do) disagree with me, but my point is that you can't actually prove otherwise, and since you claim this is an accurate prophecy, and I claim the only reason it's so accurate is because it was written after the fact (or, at best, while it was happening) then I can't consider this a valid prophecy. But that's the point here, isn't it? We see the meaning of "Evidence" quite differently. I am looking for something that contains irrefutable evidence. Heck, at the very least, contains *strong* corroboration. I'll take that. But you can't give that in the aspect of the prophecy, which is why no one in this forum who goes by scientific logic can accept it as evidence. For instance, the idea that King Solomon built the old Jerusalem is relatively well established. It's established because we have multiple evidence from multiple sources, including digs and archeological finds from multiple places talking about Solomon and his great feat of building. And we also HAVE many of those buildings uncovered in the digs and they corroborate some of the historical claims. However, the idea that Solomon did this because God exists and told him so is something that is *not* well established. As far as history knows, Solomon was a king and built his great city after conquering (or re-conquering, depending how far back and forward you go) the land. Do you see what I mean in terms of the evidence and the claims? Matthew 24: 1-2. The temple in Jerusalem will be destroyed completely. Not even one stone will be left upon another. That's plain false. We have the western wall ("The Wailing Wall" / "The Kotel" / etc) of the temple standing, and some partially destroyed rooms and corridors. In fact, that's one of the biggest issues in the Israeli/Palestine conflict, since a mosque was built on top of those temple ruins during the time the Turks ruled the land. That prophecy is false. Luke 19: 41-44. Jesus says that because the people of Jerusalem have rejected Him, the city will be surrounded by enemies and destroyed. Skipping this one for the plain reason that I don't know much about the new testament. I will point out, however, that Jesus' time was AFTER the first temple and BEFORE the second temple ruined. It's not a big surprise to predict something that happened before. Daniel 9: 24-26. At the time this prophecy was written, many of the Jews were in captivity in Babylon. Jerusalem and its temple had been destroyed by the Babylonians. Daniel says that the people will return to Jerusalem and rebuild. Later an 'Anointed One' (Jesus) will come, but will be rejected and killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing. Then a ruler will come with his armies and again destroy Jerusalem and the temple (as in Luke 19 41-44.) We can argue about the 'anointed one' (in fact, jews DO argue about that that it's not Jesus, but rather the Messiah the Jews believe in. Also, seeing as Jerusalem was not really rebuilt (no third temple, seeing as there's a mosque on where it is supposed to go) that would either be a false prophecy, or evidence that Jesus isn't the anointed one ... Anyways, I think you see my point. If you insist, I can keep going over the rest of these prophecies, but they're not as accurate as you make them seem.. Either they're SUPER accurate but didn't happen yet (in which case they're not true prophecies yet) OR they're not accurate. Can't have both. ~mooey 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) There is also the fact the Jesus is not mentioned in any historical records or writings other than the new testament. Quite few things that happened at the time of the crucifixion, earth quakes, three hours of darkness, the walking dead saints are not mentioned in any of the writings or records of the time. the first mention of Jesus and his miracles or christians wasn't until almost 100 years later and that is almost certainly inserted in those writings a couple hundred years later by christians who are notorious for lying to support their religion. Edited July 13, 2012 by Moontanman 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now