There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[Subduction Zone]

All that's needed to calculate the probability of winning the lottery, is the amount of balls in each draw, and the range of numbers to choose from. Once you know that, and the size of the maximum payout, you can make an objective decision about the relative value of your cash investment in a ticket, against the potential reward. There is absolutely nothing subjective about any of that. Buying a lottery ticket is rank bad value, and not a decision you could possibly justify using reason alone. How is it that you Sheldon, with your avowed passion for reason, are unable to see this?

The lottery is never an investment. At least no one with a huge payoff. It takes a huge amount of available cash to turn it into an investment. That did happen once in the US. A group of investors got together and started following state lotteries all around the US. When they found one that Had acquired a value So that buying every possible ticket would still give a payout greater than the investment they did just that. They tried to buy all of the tickets. They did not quite succeed at getting all of the tickets because there was a bit of a breakdown in one buying operation, but they were "lucky" they did manage to win with the huge number of tickets that they had bought. I think that they ignored one possibility. That is there was a good chance that someone else could have won too. That would have cut their winnings in half.

But as I pointed out, buying a lottery ticket for me, which is about three or four a year max, is merely cheap entertainment. A slot machine can be addictive. They are programmed to pay out regularly, not enough to make up for your investment, but just enough to keep a person putting money into the beast. The people behind those have human psychology down to an art form.

Aah, found the story about the investors. They managed to buy 5/7 of all possible tickets and won. If they took the monthly pay out they still "lost". I am not sure if a discounted one time payout was possible. That would have likely have been a win if they could do that:

Virginia lottery figure spells out role of Australian investors - UPI Archives

 

[RestlessSoul]

The lottery is never an investment. At least no one with a huge payoff. It takes a huge amount of available cash to turn it into an investment. That did happen once in the US. A group of investors got together and started following state lotteries all around the US. When they found one that Had acquired a value So that buying every possible ticket would still give a payout greater than the investment they did just that. They tried to buy all of the tickets. They did not quite succeed at getting all of the tickets because there was a bit of a breakdown in one buying operation, but they were "lucky" they did manage to win with the huge number of tickets that they had bought. I think that they ignored one possibility. That is there was a good chance that someone else could have won too. That would have cut their winnings in half.

But as I pointed out, buying a lottery ticket for me, which is about three or four a year max, is merely cheap entertainment. A slot machine can be addictive. They are programmed to pay out regularly, not enough to make up for your investment, but just enough to keep a person putting money into the beast. The people behind those have human psychology down to an art form.

Aah, found the story about the investors. They managed to buy 5/7 of all possible tickets and won. If they took the monthly pay out they still "lost". I am not sure if a discounted one time payout was possible. That would have likely have been a win if they could do that:

Virginia lottery figure spells out role of Australian investors - UPI Archives

I’ve met a few characters that made money from arbitrage, on horse racing and football bets mostly. Shady types, but interesting. One thing it isn’t, is easy money. The holy grail for these guys is the “green book” where every outcome is in your favour, but there’s always a catch and an uncovered base, as in the story you quote above. You can take a snapshot of the odds at any given moment, but the odds are always shifting, and the bookies have algorithms now which can spot the punters playing the angles before they’ve had time to get everything on. In the old days a syndicate could jam the phone lines from the racecourse to stop the big bookmakers sending money to the track. But that’s not something you can do more than once. Unless your name happens to be Barney Curley

Barney Curley: the story behind two famous betting coups | Horse Racing News | Racing Post

Betting for fun is fine so long as a) you see the cost of the bet as the cost of the entertainment, and b) you can stop when it stops being fun.

 

[Jolly]

No, the problem with the Bible is that when a literalist realizes that it is far from inerrant is that all of the other flaws in it become obvious to many people that used to be literalists. And these are not "liberal scholars" at least not in the derogatory sense that you seem to be using the phrase. They are just scholars. All they wanted to learn was the truth about that time of history. They did not have an antii-Bible agenda. To a literalist it may seem that way. If you want to try to claim that is anti-Bible then reality is anti-Bible. In fact your overly literalist thinking shows in your attack on the dating of Daniel. You might have skipped around a bit but they did explain why almost all scholars put a date on it of about the the second century BCE. There are patterns that we see in many books of prophecy. Language tips, especially to those that understand the language that the books were written in, usages of that language, and when the "prophecies" are right and when they are suddenly wrong all help to give dates for those books.

As I pointed out, they refused to believe that prophecy was possible, and said to themselves "there is no way Daniel could have known about these events therefore the book must have been written after the fact"

Even if you accept that premise- there are still things that Daniel speaks of happening later. The deviding of Rome as an example. They however ignore it, and make Greece the 5th kingdom.

You can talk about the use of language, but it is important to understand that scribes who copied the texts could well have updated the language as they did so- we see exactly that process today as new updated translations emerge in new English.

Ergo setting the date based on a assumption about prophecy and the use of language is only one hypothesis for dating the texts- conservative scholars as pointed out in the discussion do not agree with a later date for the text.

I find the textual arguments simplistic. And certainly see for the scriptures that Daniel references Rome not Greece.

 

[Jolly]

Peter Hitchens actually tackles the question does God exist here.

 

[Sheldon]

Okay Sheldon, you keep paying the Mug Tax if it gives you some sort of irrational satisfaction.

Which particular principle of logic are you claiming my argument violated? Or is this the usual rhetorical use of irrational, that theists use when someone dares disagree with their subjective opinion?

Bear in mind though, that the U.K. lottery returns around 45% of the take in prize money. Fruit machines generally return over 70%, and they’re poor value too.

Wow, what a spectacularly irrelevant point. Poor value is your subjective opinion remember, I am content to risk £5 a week, some people are more tight fisted.

 

[Sheldon]

It's rather a difference of perspective on the nature of the scriptures.

What is?

People like yourself welcome simplistic notions that are easy to attack and discredit as it lends assistance to your agenda.

Care to evidence any of those blanket assumptions, I'm guessing not, as that doesn't seem to be your bag, judging from the histrionics about evidence so far.

It's another form of the invented conflict between religion and science- which doesn't actually exist, ultimately they are different subjects using different tools to answer different questions.

It was you who started making blanket assertions about science not me. Science is the study of the natural physical world and universe, so if claims are made that provide data for science to study great, none existence, imaginary and unfalsifiable claims are of course outside of its purview.

"You cant get an ought from an is" science can not tell you anything about how you should live or what you ought to do with the knowledge science offers.

What marvellous knack you have for straw men.

That people like yourself seek to impose your opinion over everyone else-

This is a debate forum, maybe if you look debate up in a dictionary that would help?

and arrogantly see that opinion as superior,

Irony overload, from the man reeling opinions left and right, and insisting he doesn't need evidence before others will lend them any credence.

speaks more about your own ignorance then it does about any truth with regards to that opinion.

Fitting you should end with vapid ad hominem, since that seems to be the extent of the bluster and bombast you have posted. Feeling better now you've got that off your chest?

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I pointed out, they refused to believe that prophecy was possible, and said to themselves "there is no way Daniel could have known about these events therefore the book must have been written after the fact"

Even if you accept that premise- there are still things that Daniel speaks of happening later. The deviding of Rome as an example. They however ignore it, and make Greece the 5th kingdom.

You can talk about the use of language, but it is important to understand that scribes who copied the texts could well have updated the language as they did so- we see exactly that process today as new updated translations emerge in new English.

Ergo setting the date based on a assumption about prophecy and the use of language is only one hypothesis for dating the texts- conservative scholars as pointed out in the discussion do not agree with a later date for the text.

I find the textual arguments simplistic. And certainly see for the scriptures that Daniel references Rome not Greece.

No, they did not "refuse to believe the prophecy was possible". Why make false claims about others? Do you know that the Bible tells you not to do that? These were very strong believers. It was the evidence that made them change their minds.

And no, the "dividing of Rome" is simply a reinterpretation after the fact. I do not know of any valid biblical prophecies. Overly vague ones are automatically failed prophecy. And your interpretation of that particular prophecy is going to be different from that of others. That prophecy is simply too vague to qualify as "true prophecy" and the prophecies that are precise are shown to be either history written as prophecy, which is what much of Daniel is. or a clearly failed prophecy, such as the Tyre prophecy.

And now you are using "apologetics" That is literally apologizing for the errors in the Bible. I know, I know, it actually is supposed to mean something else, but the fact is that is exactly what apologetics is. A "well it could have" is not a refutation. It is the pattern of these verses that tell us that they were written much more recently than some believe.

And yes, you have the belief that it applied to Rome. Other Christians have other beliefs That only tells us that this is a failed prophecy. It is no different from the work of Nostradamus. He learned from the Bible how to make prophecies that are "fulfilled". Make it vague enough . Have bad things happen to some leaders, which is historically quite common, and bingo! If enough of the background facts can be worked into the vague prophecy it appears to have been fulfilled.

 

[Sheldon]

Peter Hitchens actually tackles the question does God exist here.

Wow, the lesser intellect of the Hitchens family, scraping the bottom of the barrel there. I once read a two page rant by PH in a tabloid, declaring that Dyslexia didn't exist, but was some sort of nefarious and fraudulent invention by doctors. The man is a relentless buffoon.

 

[Jolly]

What is?

My opinion on the nature of scripture compared to theirs

Care to evidence any of those blanket assumptions,

Your replies on this thread offers plenty.

I'm guessing not, as that doesn't seem to be your bag, judging from the histrionics about evidence so far.
It was you who started making blanket assertions about science not me. Science is the study of the natural physical world and universe, so if claims are made that provide data for science to study great, none existence, imaginary and unfalsifiable claims are of course outside of its purview.
What marvellous knack you have for straw men.
This is a debate forum, maybe if you look debate up in a dictionary that would help?

I am very aware- the position you come from- its world view, as I have stated repeatedly is simplistic. You however are overly confident in that world view- eevn though science has at its foundation completely flawed assumptions about the nature of reality.

Irony overload, from the man reeling opinions left and right, and insisting he doesn't need evidence before others will lend them any credence.

Again you dont get my point, you rummage arround in your head set, and think you have some greater grasp of the truth, I'm simply saying your confidence is misplaced, but I can also understand that leaving that box isnt easy when you have built an entire world view around it.

Fitting you should end with vapid ad hominem, since that seems to be the extent of the bluster and bombast you have posted. Feeling better now you've got that off your chest?

Not really, I feel more of a concern for your ability to have more open mind.

 

[Jolly]

Wow, the lesser intellect of the Hitchens family, scraping the bottom of the barrel there. I once read a two page rant by PH in a tabloid, declaring that Dyslexia didn't exist, but was some sort of nefarious and fraudulent invention by doctors. The man is a relentless buffoon.

As they say if you have to resort to insult you have lost the argument.

 

[Sheldon]

Betting for fun is fine so long as a) you see the cost of the bet as the cost of the entertainment, and b) you can stop when it stops being fun.

And my lottery tickets satisfy both criteria.

 

[Sheldon]

Your replies on this thread offers plenty.

Quote even one, and explain how it evidences your petulant rant?

 

[Jolly]

No, they did not "refuse to believe the prophecy was possible". Why make false claims about others?

PAY ATTENTION- I was not speaking about the two Stuident who had the discussion!

I was speaking about the liberal scholars they studied. SEE THE DIFFERENCE!

Do you know that the Bible tells you not to do that? These were very strong believers. It was the evidence that made them change their minds.

And no, the "dividing of Rome" is simply a reinterpretation after the fact.

Hardly Rome devided into east and west around 200 years after these scholars suggest the text was written. Which is why they try and cram everything into Greece.

I do not know of any valid biblical prophecies.

Try Jesus many will come saying I am he.

There have been soo many people that have come.and claimed they are jesus come back its overly fulfilled.

Clearly in the future liberal scholars will say the gospels must have been written in 2022

Overly vague ones are automatically failed prophecy. And your interpretation of that particular prophecy is going to be different from that of others. That prophecy is simply too vague to qualify as "true prophecy" and the prophecies that are precise are shown to be either history written as prophecy, which is what much of Daniel is. or a clearly failed prophecy, such as the Tyre prophecy.

Much of Daniel's prophesy cant have come true yet because it deals with the end of days and the judgement

And now you are using "apologetics" That is literally apologizing for the errors in the Bible. I know, I know, it actually is supposed to mean something else, but the fact is that is exactly what apologetics is. A "well it could have" is not a refutation. It is the pattern of these verses that tell us that they were written much more recently than some believe.

Not at all I was discussing hypothesis related to the dating of the text, conservative scholars do not accept the later date.

And yes, you have the belief that it applied to Rome. Other Christians have other beliefs That only tells us that this is a failed prophecy. It is no different from the work of Nostradamus. He learned from the Bible how to make prophecies that are "fulfilled". Make it vague enough . Have bad things happen to some leaders, which is historically quite common, and bingo! If enough of the background facts can be worked into the vague prophecy it appears to have been fulfilled.

Daniel's prophecy of the statue is not vague, the 5th kingdom clearly describes the mixing of seed from all over the world exactly what we see today.

The only reason we are having this discussion is because liberal scholars- decided that it wasnt possible for Daniel to have been able to see the future and therefore the texts must have been written after the fact- even tho their later dating still does not account for rome. They were lead by that premise and forced all evidence to comply with it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As they say if you have to resort to insult you have lost the argument.

That would be true, if his claim was not obviously correct. Did you see the debate that Peter had with his brother? It was embarrassing.

 

[Jolly]

That would be true, if his claim was not obviously correct. Did you see the debate that Peter had with his brother? It was embarrassing.

No, never saw it, ofcourse Peter Hitchens only recently decided to become a believer in God.

Really don't see how one bad debate shows anything.

I notice none of you actually challenge his argument. Which doesn't suprise me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

PAY ATTENTION- I was not speaking about the two Stuident who had the discussion!

I was speaking about the liberal scholars they studied. SEE THE DIFFERENCE!

LOL! I love it when someone that is not paying attention tells the other to "PAY ATTENTION". Didn't you just berate someone else for using what you perceived as an ad hom? By your standards you already lost the debate.

Hardly Rome devided into east and west around 200 years after these scholars suggest the text was written. Which is why they try and cram everything into Greece.

No, they do not claim that Daniel was written about the same time as Matthew and Luke were. You might want to recheck your dates.

Try Jesus many will come saying I am he.

There have been soo many people that have come.and claimed they are jesus come back its overly fulfilled.

Clearly in the future liberal scholars will say the gospels must have been written in 2022

That is not even a prophecy. And no, there are very very few people that claim that Jesus came back. Who do you think made that claim? If you say that there were at least 500 I will be laughing and telling you about my Canadian girlfriend.

Much of Daniel's prophesy cant have come true yet because it deals with the end of days and the judgement

In your opinion. Again, that of other Christians is different from yours and their interpretation is just as valid. Or should I say just as bogus. The fact that multiple interpretations are possible makes this a failed prophecy. It is too bad that you do not appear to understand that.

Not at all I was discussing hypothesis related to the dating of the text, conservative scholars do not accept the later date.

Because the older date has been shown to be almost surely wrong. Even

Daniel's prophecy of the statue is not vague, the 5th kingdom clearly describes the mixing of seed from all over the world exactly what we see today.

Sorry, that claim is refuted by the countless Christians that will disagree with your interpretation.

The only reason we are having this discussion is because liberal scholars- decided that it wasnt possible for Daniel to have been able to see the future and therefore the texts must have been written after the fact- even tho their later dating still does not account for rome. They were lead by that premise and forced all evidence to comply with it.

Ooh, there you go losing the debate by using ad hom again. And with a false claim at that. No, there is no evidence that they "decided that it wasnt<sic> possible". They saw a pattern and analyzed it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, never saw it, ofcourse Peter Hitchens only recently decided to become a believer in God.

Really don't see how one bad debate shows anything.

I notice none of you actually challenge his argument. Which doesn't suprise me.

Ooh, you just admitted that Peter's beliefs are irrational. The debate shows that Peter was not nearly as sharp as his brother. Also his "return" to Christianity appears to have been quite a while ago.

 

[Sheldon]

Seriously get out the litte box you live in.

speaks more about your own ignorance

As they say if you have to resort to insult you have lost the argument.

 

[Sheldon]

LOL! I love it when someone that is not paying attention tells the other to "PAY ATTENTION". Didn't you just berate someone else for using what you perceived as an ad hom? By your standards you already lost the debate.





No, they do not claim that Daniel was written about the same time as Matthew and Luke were. You might want to recheck your dates.




That is not even a prophecy. And no, there are very very few people that claim that Jesus came back. Who do you think made that claim? If you say that there were at least 500 I will be laughing and telling you about my Canadian girlfriend.


In your opinion. Again, that of other Christians is different from yours and their interpretation is just as valid. Or should I say just as bogus. The fact that multiple interpretations are possible makes this a failed prophecy. It is too bad that you do not appear to understand that.



Because the older date has been shown to be almost surely wrong. Even





Sorry, that claim is refuted by the countless Christians that will disagree with your interpretation.



Ooh, there you go losing the debate by using ad hom again. And with a false claim at that. No, there is no evidence that they "decided that it wasnt<sic> possible". They saw a pattern and analyzed it.

These claims follow the same flawed rationale, X was predicted, X was unlikely to happen, X then happened, therefore it required divine intervention. As if unlikely events are not predicted to high degree of accuracy all the time, the lottery for example. Even if they could establish a highly unlikely claim came true exactly as predicted, it takes an irrational bias to assume a deity must be the cause. Note that many religions make these exact kind of claims for different deities as well.

The kind of rationale that finds the guff about Nostradamus compelling.

 

[Sheldon]

PearlSeeker said: ↑
She's not saying that.

I’ve asked for clarification so why not just clarify the 2 different testimonies. Or reconcile them both.

Most certainly not.

Clarified.