Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Proof for God's Non-existance?
pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 211 of 317 (421926)
09-15-2007 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 210 by iceage
09-15-2007 1:09 AM


Re: God's Claim
quote:
Again there is nothing in the Bible that indicates it is of a divine origin! There is no foreknowledge or depth of understanding of physical reality, no consistent philosophy or theology (major theological concepts like heaven, hell, salvation, Satan evolve though out), no consistent ethical framework, etc.
The Scriptures are more than mere books as some would have you believe. It is the cornerstone of our civilization and highly unique. It was stated long ago by a famous philosopher that the existence of the Bible, is the greatest item the human race has ever possessed. Every attempt to belittle it... should be considered a crime against humanity.
Pretentious people will loosely claim that the bible is nothing more than a book of legends, however it has proven on many fronts to be historically accurate. Taking for example, the Israelite King David. Until recently, our knowledge of his existence was solely through the Bible. Although mainline historians accepted him as an authentic figure, skeptics dismissed him as a legend invented by the Jewish people. However, in 1993 archaeologists uncovered remnants of the house of David in the ruins of the ancient Israelite city of Dan. Inscriptions were was part of a shattered monument from ninth century BCE, commemorating the victory over the Israelites.
Researchers who worked decades in Palestine, conveyed that the discovery established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition of the value of the Bible as a source of history. Again, we might ask, Unlike epics and legends, the ancient book proves to be historically accurate.
Though archaeology, astronomy, history, and other fields of knowledge support the Bible, it's divine qualities do not rest on such confirmation alone. Among the many proofs that the Bible is God’s inspired gift to man, no greater evidence can be presented than the fulfillment of its prophecies.
The book of Daniel describes a vision of a struggle between a ram and a goat with a conspicuous horn. The goat prevailed but its horn was broken. In its place four horns came up. The account described the standing for the kings of Media and Persia. And the goat stood for the king of Greece. It foretold of the first king and four kingdoms from his nation that would stand up, but not with his power.
The writing of the book of Daniel was completed in about 536 BCE. The Macedonian King Alexander the Great(born 180 years later), conquered the Persian Empire. He was the great horn between the eyes of the goat. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, upon entering Jerusalem before his victory over Persia, Alexander was shown the book of Daniel. It concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. What is more, in textbooks on world history, you can read of the course that Alexander’s empire took after his death in 323 BCE.
Four generals eventually took over his empire, and by 301 BCE, the four horns that stood up divided the domain into four sections. Once again, we have every reason to wonder... how could a book so vividly and accurately foretell what would take place some 200 years later?
This is but a few of hundreds of accounts that the scriptures provide us with to conclude the validity of its claims. The point of it being, it is anything but a simple compilation of books. The fact alone that it holds more records than any other literary works places it in a class of its own.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by iceage, posted 09-15-2007 1:09 AM iceage has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by iceage, posted 09-15-2007 2:33 AM pbee has not replied
 Message 213 by anglagard, posted 09-15-2007 3:38 AM pbee has not replied
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2007 4:47 AM pbee has replied

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5915 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 212 of 317 (421939)
09-15-2007 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by pbee
09-15-2007 1:48 AM


Re: God's Claim
pbee writes:
Pretentious people will loosely claim that the bible is nothing more than a book of legends, however it has proven on many fronts to be historically accurate.
We are talking about divine origin not historically accurate. Historical accuracy does not equate to divine. The bible has historic elements sure - why is that a surprise? It was produced within a historical context. The Illiad also has historic elements, some of which are still being discovered, but it is the work of a man.
By the way, the Bible is unequivocally proven historically inaccurate on other fronts like Genesis, the flood, the tower of babel, impossible events like the Sun standing still, Shadows moving backwards, etc.
pbee writes:
Though archaeology, astronomy, history, and other fields of knowledge support the Bible, it's divine qualities do not rest on such confirmation alone. Among the many proofs that the Bible is God’s inspired gift to man, no greater evidence can be presented than the fulfillment of its prophecies.
Provide some support from astronomy?
History equals archeology in this sense but again this is expected and not surprising.
Fulfillment of prophecies is purely mental masturbation by those that want to believe it. Just like those who can read their horoscopes and can find "truth" in nonspecific stories and predictions.
And again in other areas these prophecies are undeniably false and overstated. For example, Tyre was never to exist again - yet it does, Egypt was to be desolate for 40 years with stinking reeds for a river - never happened.
Why not prophecies on the structure of the DNA molecule, atomic nature of matter or the organization of the solar system and galaxies?
I would like to discuss Daniel's prophecies but that would be another thread.
pbee writes:
The fact alone that it holds more records than any other literary works places it in a class of its own.
That opinion does not make it divine.
The collection of Shakespeare's works are in a class of its own, Don Quixote was in a class of its own. This distinction does not make these works divine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 1:48 AM pbee has not replied

anglagard
Member (Idle past 837 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 213 of 317 (421946)
09-15-2007 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by pbee
09-15-2007 1:48 AM


Re: God's Claim
pbee writes:
The Scriptures are more than mere books as some would have you believe. It is the cornerstone of our civilization and highly unique.
These assertions are debatable at best.
First, the cornerstone of modern civilization is the rejection of fundamentalism, regardless of source. Just for one tiny example, people like Salk, Jenner, Pasteur, Fleming, Reed, etc. saved millions of lives, and most importantly Norman Borlaug saved billions. Do who do these people owe their existence, those who falsely presume to speak for God (in direct violation of the rules according to the Bible) or those who alleviate human suffering and death?
Second, any given religion, while somewhat unique in content, is not unique in history. Just within the Abrahamic tradition there are three religions Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which are intimately interconnected. These religions have little to do with Hinduism and it's later offshoot Buddhism, nor do they have anything to do with Taoism or the semi-religion Confucianism, all of which have hundreds of millions of adherents. Do you mean by 'our' civilization the exclusion of the majority of the population of Asia? I notice for a bunch of supposedly 'uncivilized' people, they sure are effective in influencing the world, now and in the past.
Though archaeology, astronomy, history, and other fields of knowledge support the Bible, it's divine qualities do not rest on such confirmation alone. Among the many proofs that the Bible is God’s inspired gift to man, no greater evidence can be presented than the fulfillment of its prophecies.
If one is speaking in terms of a literal, as opposed to metaphorical, interpretation of the Bible, there is little to no overall astronomical, chemical, physical, geological, linguistic, biological, medical, fortunetelling, or in many cases even historical or archaeological support for the Bible. In fact there are millions of data points representing hundreds of categories of evidence that such an interpretation is blatantly false. If one looks at the Bible as a metaphorical work, these massive problems disappear as it by definition makes no assertion of scientific fact but rather seeks to guide rather than statically engrave for all time. Therefore, it depends upon which Bible, and how this given Bible is interpreted, to determine to what extent it is either true or false, depending upon the position of one making any assertions of personal infallibility or its opposite, humility, before God.
This is but a few of hundreds of accounts that the scriptures provide us with to conclude the validity of its claims. The point of it being, it is anything but a simple compilation of books. The fact alone that it holds more records than any other literary works places it in a class of its own.
Bunk, the Rig Veda has more 'historical records' and the Principia predicted more cosmic behavior in one minute than the Bible has in all of history.
Perhaps you may want to consider worshiping God instead of worshiping a book, which in the end is, after all, a graven image.
Edited by anglagard, : Clarity again

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 1:48 AM pbee has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 214 of 317 (421950)
09-15-2007 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 209 by pbee
09-14-2007 11:51 PM


Re: God's Claim
pbee writes:
You are absolutely right. Now all you have to do is outclass the other claim by proving you hold authority on matters. That shouldn't be hard to do after all. And I for one, give you the benefit of the doubt.
I could do that. However, I chose not to.
Don't ignore my second statement in my last post.

Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by pbee, posted 09-14-2007 11:51 PM pbee has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 215 of 317 (421953)
09-15-2007 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by pbee
09-15-2007 1:48 AM


Re: God's Claim
quote:
Pretentious people will loosely claim that the bible is nothing more than a book of legends, however it has proven on many fronts to be historically accurate. Taking for example, the Israelite King David. Until recently, our knowledge of his existence was solely through the Bible. Although mainline historians accepted him as an authentic figure, skeptics dismissed him as a legend invented by the Jewish people. However, in 1993 archaeologists uncovered remnants of the house of David in the ruins of the ancient Israelite city of Dan. Inscriptions were was part of a shattered monument from ninth century BCE, commemorating the victory over the Israelites.
There are some substantial errors here. All that was found was a stele - a stone marker - containing a scripture which probably mentions the "House of David" - although this is not at all certain. And this is the sum of the archaeological evidence that David ever existed.
Nevertheless even the majority of skeptics accept - as they always did - David as a legendary figure. One whose achievements have been greatly magnified, but still rooted in history.
quote:
The writing of the book of Daniel was completed in about 536 BCE. The Macedonian King Alexander the Great(born 180 years later), conquered the Persian Empire. He was the great horn between the eyes of the goat. According to the Jewish historian Josephus, upon entering Jerusalem before his victory over Persia, Alexander was shown the book of Daniel. It concluded that the words of Daniel’s prophecy referred to his own military campaign involving Persia. What is more, in textbooks on world history, you can read of the course that Alexander’s empire took after his death in 323 BCE.
The first sentence is false. The dating of Daniel has it completed in 160 BC AFTER most of the events it "predicts". This conclusion os based on the fact that Daniel is NOT accurate about the Babylonian empire nor is it accurate about the end of Antiochus' reign.
quote:
This is but a few of hundreds of accounts that the scriptures provide us with to conclude the validity of its claims. The point of it being, it is anything but a simple compilation of books. The fact alone that it holds more records than any other literary works places it in a class of its own.
Both examples bring out inaccuracies in the Bible. The stories of David are not confirmed and appear to be exaggerated. Even if we assume that the Tel Dan stele does refer to the Hpuse of David and that "David" is a proper name, all it tells us is that the founder of the ruling line of Judah at that time was named "David". Daniel is inaccurate about the Babylonian Empire and is not a useful source for the history of the time when it was supposedly written.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 1:48 AM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 11:39 AM PaulK has replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 216 of 317 (421961)
09-15-2007 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by pbee
09-14-2007 8:35 PM


Re: God's Claim
quote:
Enough evading and babbling already, what about the evidence? Is anyone ever going to step up and acknowledge it, or are we going to continue finding ways to dance around it? The truth is quite obvious.... You have nothing! it's a bluff. People will talk out of their asses as though they possess some wild card or truth all the while, they have nothing.
You need to remove the plank from your own eye.
quote:
I brought you plenty to substantiate, look around you.
I see. You stated in Message 181: God made a claim. He created all things, therefore all things are accounted for. This is the evidence, now it's up to us to disprove it.
God made a claim. But you didn't produce the actual claim made by God.
God created all things... Paul is the only one who makes that statement. (Eph 3:9, Col 1:16)
So your contention is that God created everything around me. I just have to look around. Although you are using created in the past tense. Aside from the dirt nothing around me is older than 500 years.
God did not create darkness.
God did not create diamonds.
God did not create volcanoes.
God did not create plastics.
God did not create string.
God did not create weaving.
God did not create my one of a kind art.
quote:
He created the heavens and the earth.
Now you've changed the "claim". Did God claim to create all things or not?
quote:
So I ask quite simply, can anyone actually contradict this claim? Is anyone actually willing to evaluate the evidence that we do indeed exists and our origin remains a mystery? It's not so complicated is it?
Now you say that our existence is the evidence and our lack of knowledge is the proof.
That's why I asked for the actual source of the claim.
Due to their lack of knowledge, many ancients believed that God caused earthquakes. Now we know otherwise.
Due to their lack of knowledge, many ancients believed that disease, blindness, etc. or misfortune were God's punishment for sin. Now we know otherwise. Even the author of Job knew otherwise.
Lack of knowledge isn't proof. It's just lack of knowledge.
quote:
The original poster asked to evaluate each piece of evidence and determine if the evidence is any good or not.
Actually the originator wanted the Atheist evidence evaluated. Message 1
I would like any Atheists to post their proof of God's non-existence in this thread. Then, we can evaluate each piece of evidence just like for Theists, and determine if the evidence is any good or not.
My point in asking for substantiation for the claim goes back to my premise that gods are fictional characters. Paul is an ancient author.
The Christian God should not be dependent on authors, etc. to determine what he says or does since he supposedly exists in the present.
Even if we conceded that the mystery of our existence is proof that supreme beings existed, it isn't proof that gods exist today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by pbee, posted 09-14-2007 8:35 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 12:05 PM purpledawn has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 217 of 317 (421975)
09-15-2007 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by pbee
09-14-2007 10:51 PM


Re: God's Claim
The entity claims that His works are proof of His existence.
I'm sorry but that is simply false.
The story says that the entity makes claims. Outside the story, what evidence even exists that the entity exists?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by pbee, posted 09-14-2007 10:51 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 11:56 AM jar has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 218 of 317 (421982)
09-15-2007 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by PaulK
09-15-2007 4:47 AM


Re: God's Claim
Of course your going to contest. This is after all the purpose of this thread. However, your case rides on the combination of ignorance and chosen facts. For example, the archaeological findings of the Tel Dan Stele brought new light to the biblical account of King David. The response was not met with open arms by all, how could it? doctrines and beliefs run high on either sides of the fence. We are looking at nations of people who have served decades under the foundations of such doctrines. Best case scenario, the scriptures and evidence demonstrate *plausibility. The rest is up to the people to decide.
You can read more on the details of the findings here: http://www.formerthings.com/kingdavid.htm
As you will see, we are not only looking at a simple piece of rock as some would contest.
As for Daniels writings, The Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that the book of Daniel was once generally considered to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. The encyclopedia claims that in reality, however, Daniel was written in a later time of national crisis when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It dated the book between 167 and 164 BCE. This same work asserts that the writer of the book of Daniel does not prophesy the future but simply presents events that were past history to him as prophecies of future happenings.
Criticism of the book of Daniel started back in the third century CE. with a philosopher named Porphyry. Like many in the Roman Empire, Porphyry felt threatened by the influence of Christianity. He wrote 15 books to undermine this new religion. The 12th was directed against the book of Daniel. Porphyry pronounced that the book was a forgery, written by a Jew in the second century BCE. In the view of higher critics and rationalists, prophecy and the foretelling of future events was impossible. So Daniel became a favorite among targets. In effect, he and his book were put on trial in court. Critics claimed to have ample proof that the book was written, not by Daniel during the Jewish exile in Babylon, but by someone else centuries later. Such attacks became so profuse that one author even wrote a defense and called it Daniel.
We have much at stake here. We are not just talking about the reputation of this ancient book but also the future that is involved. If the book of Daniel is a fraud, its promises for mankind’s future would end up as hollow words at best. But if it contains genuine prophecies then everything changes.
Taking for example, the charges made by the Encyclopedia Americana, stating that many of the historical details of the earlier periods(Babylonian exile) have been badly garbled in Daniel. But is this really the case?
Daniel wrote that Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, was ruling as king in Babylon when the city was overthrown(Daniel 5:1, 11, 18, 22, 30). Critics long assailed this point, since Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible. Instead, ancient historians identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last of the Babylonian kings. It was charged early on that Belshazzar was obviously a figment of the writer’s imagination. However, in 1854 some small clay cylinders were unearthed in the ruins of the ancient Babylonian city of Ur in what is now southern Iraq. These cuneiform documents from King Nabonidus included a prayer for Bel-sar-ussur, my eldest son. Even the critics reluctantly agreed that this would of been the Belshazzar of the book of Daniel.
Yet, some remained unsatisfied, after all... we are contemplating the discreditation of entire nations and beliefs. Some claimed that the find proved nothing, they charged that the son in the inscription could have been a child, whereas Daniel presents him as a reigning king. Shortly after these remarks were published, more cuneiform tablets were unearthed that referred to Belshazzar as having secretaries and a household staff. No child, this! Finally, other tablets clinched the matter, reporting that Nabonidus was away from Babylon for years at a time. These tablets also showed that during these periods, he entrusted the kingship of Babylon to his eldest son(Belshazzar). At such times, Belshazzar was, in effect, king with his father.
Yet still unsatisfied... critics complain that the Bible calls Belshazzar, not the son of Nabonidus, but the son of Nebuchadnezzar. They insisted that Daniel does not even hint at the existence of Nabonidus. However, both objections collapsed upon examination. Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for grandfather or grandson(son of) can mean "grandson of" or even "descendant of".
Further, the scriptural account did allow for Belshazzar to be identified as the son of Nabonidus. When terrified by the ominous handwriting on the wall, the desperate Belshazzar offers the third place in the kingdom to anyone who can decipher the words(Daniel 5:7). The offer implies that the first and second places were already occupied. In fact, they were”by Nabonidus and by his son, Belshazzar.
So Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar is not evidence of badly garbled history. On the contrary, Daniel offers us a more detailed view of the Babylonian monarchy than such ancient secular historians as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossus. Why was Daniel able to record facts that they missed? Because he was there in Babylon. His book is the work of an eyewitness, not of an impostor of later centuries.
quote:
The first sentence is false. The dating of Daniel has it completed in 160 BC AFTER most of the events it "predicts". This conclusion os based on the fact that Daniel is NOT accurate about the Babylonian empire nor is it accurate about the end of Antiochus' reign.
The writing of the book of Daniel was completed in about 536 BCE. It was written in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, a few Greek and Persian words. Such a mixture of languages is not unheard of in the scripture. The Bible book of Ezra too was written in Hebrew and Aramaic. Yet, some critics insist that the writer of Daniel used these languages in a way that proves he was writing at a date later than 536 BCE. One critic was widely known for saying that the use of Greek words in Daniel demanded a late date of composition. He asserted that the Hebrew supports and the Aramaic at least permits such a late date even one as recent as in the second century BCE.
However, not all scholars agree. Some authorities have said that Daniel's Hebrew was similar to that of Ezekiel and Ezra and unlike that found in later works such as Ecclesiasticus. As for Daniel's use of Aramaic, lets consider two documents found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. They too were in Aramaic and dated from the first and second centuries BCE. not long after the supposed forgery of Daniel. But scholars noted a profound difference between the Aramaic in these documents and that found in Daniel. Thus, it is accepted that the book of Daniel must be centuries older than its critics claimed.
As for the *problematic Greek words in Daniel, some of these have been discovered to be Persian, and not Greek after all! The only words still thought to be Greek are the names of a few musical instruments. Does the presence of these three words really demand that Daniel be assigned a late date? No they do not. Archaeologists found that Greek culture was influential centuries before Greece became a world power. Furthermore, if the book of Daniel had been composed during the second century BCE., when Greek culture and language were all pervasive, would it contain only three Greek words? Hardly... It would likely contain far more than that. So the linguistic evidence really does supports the authenticity of Daniel after all.
quote:
Both examples bring out inaccuracies in the Bible. The stories of David are not confirmed and appear to be exaggerated. Even if we assume that the Tel Dan stele does refer to the Hpuse of David and that "David" is a proper name, all it tells us is that the founder of the ruling line of Judah at that time was named "David". Daniel is inaccurate about the Babylonian Empire and is not a useful source for the history of the time when it was supposedly written.
As I said earlier, it can be no other way. Even if we would of exhumed a corps with a sign saying "King David was here", we would be dealing with charges of fraud, inaccuracy and the likes. This is the nature of the beast. No matter what we unearth or discovery, we will(must) always face free choice in matters. Behold the power of human nature!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2007 4:47 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by PaulK, posted 09-15-2007 12:35 PM pbee has not replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 219 of 317 (421984)
09-15-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by jar
09-15-2007 11:03 AM


Re: God's Claim
quote:
I'm sorry but that is simply false.
The Scriptures proclaims it(Ro 1:20). All the marvels of creation are God’s proof to man of his supremacy and power. Whether mankind contemplates the solar system and the galaxies of the universe, we are receiving evidence of the fact that God exists. "The senseless one has said in his heart there is no God"(Ps. 14:1)
quote:
The story says that the entity makes claims. Outside the story, what evidence even exists that the entity exists?
The evidence that we(His creations) exist. Even without literary influence, humans will seek out God. We have evidence that there is a connection between humans and God.
We can conclude the claim is viable since the evidence is real. To this day we have no clue where we came from(quite obvious). Of course you can choose to dismiss this(rightfully) at your guise, but this does is not dealing with the issue either. It is simply putting it off.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by jar, posted 09-15-2007 11:03 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 09-15-2007 12:01 PM pbee has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 220 of 317 (421986)
09-15-2007 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by pbee
09-15-2007 11:56 AM


Re: God's Claim
The Scriptures proclaims it(Ro 1:20). All the marvels of creation are God’s proof to man of his supremacy and power. Whether mankind contemplates the solar system and the galaxies of the universe, we are receiving evidence of the fact that God exists. "The senseless one has said in his heart there is no God"(Ps. 14:1)
Yes, that is in the story. It is an assertion in the story. It is also irrelevant to the issue. It has nothing to do with either showing your "entity" exists of the that "entity" even made any claims.
The evidence that we(His creations) exist.
Sorry but that is both a circular argument and a nonsense statement.
We can conclude the claim is viable since the evidence is real.
But you have presented no evidence.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 11:56 AM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 12:06 PM jar has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 221 of 317 (421987)
09-15-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by purpledawn
09-15-2007 8:20 AM


Re: God's Claim
quote:
You stated in Message 181: God made a claim. He created all things, therefore all things are accounted for. This is the evidence, now it's up to us to disprove it.
In the beginning God created the heavens the earth. It's quite simple really.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by purpledawn, posted 09-15-2007 8:20 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by purpledawn, posted 09-15-2007 12:28 PM pbee has replied

pbee
Member (Idle past 6028 days)
Posts: 339
Joined: 06-20-2007


Message 222 of 317 (421989)
09-15-2007 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by jar
09-15-2007 12:01 PM


Re: God's Claim
I would of hope for a better comeback. In the face of a lost argument, is this as good as it gets?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by jar, posted 09-15-2007 12:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by jar, posted 09-15-2007 12:32 PM pbee has not replied
 Message 227 by AdminNem, posted 09-15-2007 2:37 PM pbee has not replied

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3457 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 223 of 317 (421992)
09-15-2007 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by pbee
09-15-2007 12:05 PM


Re: God's Claim
Yes it is quite simple. What you have quoted is not a claim by God. It is a statement made by the author of the story.
The issue at hand deals with whether God currently exists. At the most the scriptures you allude to lead one to examine if a god existed, which would take time since we are billions of years from the supposed event.
But as I've said before, Christians claim a god exists today. The fact that references to evidence for a god are in the past, is very good clue that a god does not exist today.
But you have no claim from a god, you have claims by men.
We should not have to look to the past to tell if a god exists today.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 12:05 PM pbee has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 2:40 PM purpledawn has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 224 of 317 (421993)
09-15-2007 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by pbee
09-15-2007 12:06 PM


Re: God's Claim
There is not much more I can say. So far you have presented no evidence that either the "entity" exists or that the "entity" made a claim.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 12:06 PM pbee has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 225 of 317 (421994)
09-15-2007 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by pbee
09-15-2007 11:39 AM


Re: God's Claim
quote:
This is after all the purpose of this thread. However, your case rides on the combination of ignorance and chosen facts.
No, it rests on knowing things that you don't want known. That's not ignorance.
quote:
You can read more on the details of the findings here: Loading...
As you will see, we are not only looking at a simple piece of rock as some would contest.
There's nothing there that contradicts my point.
quote:
As for Daniels writings, The Encyclopedia Britannica acknowledges that the book of Daniel was once generally considered to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. The encyclopedia claims that in reality, however, Daniel was written in a later time of national crisis when the Jews were suffering severe persecution under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It dated the book between 167 and 164 BCE. This same work asserts that the writer of the book of Daniel does not prophesy the future but simply presents events that were past history to him as prophecies of future happenings.
WHich is the view of mainstream scholars. So your assertion that the Book of Daniel was completed far earlier is one that has been rejected by informed experts.
quote:
We have much at stake here. We are not just talking about the reputation of this ancient book but also the future that is involved. If the book of Daniel is a fraud, its promises for mankind’s future would end up as hollow words at best. But if it contains genuine prophecies then everything changes.
Unfortuantely for you it says nothing about out future. The time of Antiochus is Daniel's "End Times". The Book of Daniel promises nothing to us.
quote:
Daniel wrote that Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, was ruling as king in Babylon when the city was overthrown(Daniel 5:1, 11, 18, 22, 30). Critics long assailed this point, since Belshazzar's name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible. Instead, ancient historians identified Nabonidus, a successor to Nebuchadnezzar, as the last of the Babylonian kings.
And they were correct. The historical Belshazzar was never King. Nabonidus - who Daniel does not even mention - was the last ruler.
And pardon me if I don't trust your assertions about what the critics said. Christian apologists have a tendancy to misrepresent - or even fabricate - the positions of anyone who disagrees with them. So bear in mind that if you are using apologetic sources they are highly unreliable.
quote:
Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for grandfather or grandson(son of) can mean "grandson of" or even "descendant of".
Where is the evidence that Nabonidus married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, that Belshazzar was a child of this woman - and that the author of Daniel intended to reprsesent the relationship as anything more than a straightforward father-son relationship ? After all Nabonidus is not mentioned by Daniel although he reigned for 16 years.
quote:
So Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar is not evidence of badly garbled history. On the contrary, Daniel offers us a more detailed view of the Babylonian monarchy than such ancient secular historians as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossus. Why was Daniel able to record facts that they missed? Because he was there in Babylon. His book is the work of an eyewitness, not of an impostor of later centuries.
You must be joking. Leaving out Nabonidus is hardly a mark of a detailed account !
And let us note that you provide not one solid piece of evidence for an early dating. All you have is conflicting opinions.
quote:
As I said earlier, it can be no other way. Even if we would of exhumed a corps with a sign saying "King David was here", we would be dealing with charges of fraud, inaccuracy and the likes. This is the nature of the beast. No matter what we unearth or discovery, we will(must) always face free choice in matters. Behold the power of human nature!
You're right it can' be any other way. THose determined to prove the accuracy of the Bible will twist, distort and misrepresent the evidence to "prove" their beliefs. Well I'm not falling for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by pbee, posted 09-15-2007 11:39 AM pbee has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024