INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Many creationists do not know very much about biology, and accept the story of Adam and Eve primarily by faith. Do you object to that?

Yes, I object to all ignorance. Even though ignorance is a necessity I do not approve of it.

Does that mean that you recommend that all Christian laymen who are creationists, and do not know very much about biology, should give up creationism, and be agnostic about it until they learn a lot about biology?

You implied that you object to your own ignorance about biology, and you disagree with the Bible since all that it requires for people to accept the story of Adam and Eve as being literally true is simple faith, not a lot of knowledge about biology. When African natives who live in remote jungle regions accept Christianity, and the story of Adam and Eve, few if any of them know a lot about biology, and few Christians would criticize their lack of knowledge about biology. You are implying that Christians who are creationist laymen should question their rejection of common descent. You are also implying that Christian laymen who accept the stories of the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus should question their acceptance of the stories, and any other stories that require a good deal of academic knowledge to adequately understand. Or, the Bible is right when it says that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," which is all that it took for several thousand people to become saved when they heard a brief, simple sermon by Peter. You would make a very poor missionary if you went around emphasizing academic credentials instead of letting the Bible speak simply for itself. For the past 2,000 years, the vast majority of people did not know very much about science.

Probably not even 10% of Christians would be able to adequately refute Dr. Richard Carrier's article on the formation of the New Testament Canon at http://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html, and Dr. Bart Ehrman's book that is titled "Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are," and adequately discuss the writings of the early church fathers.

Today, far more people know the basics of science than in the past, but even so, from a biblical perspective, the best approach by far for Christians to use is to let the Bible speak simply for itself. By questioning common descent from a scientific perspective, you are helping skepticism since many people will conclude that if common descent is true, the Bible is false. Evangelical Christian geologist Davis Young said:

The maintenance of modern creationism and Flood geology not only is useless apologetically with unbelieving scientists, it is harmful. Although many who have no scientific training have been swayed by creationist arguments, the unbelieving scientist will reason that a Christianity that believes in such nonsense must be a religion not worthy of his interest.......Modern creationism in this sense is apologetically and evangelistically ineffective. It could even be a hindrance to the gospel.

Another possible danger is that in presenting the gospel to the lost and in defending God's truth we ourselves will seem to be false. It is time for Christian people to recognize that the defense of this modern, young-Earth, Flood-geology creationism is simply not truthful. It is simply not in accord with the facts that God has given.

(Christianity and the Age of the Earth, Thousand Oaks, CA: Artisan Sales, 1988, 163)

As far as most experts are concerned, creationism is in the same boat with the global flood theory, and the young earth theory since according to one study, 99.86% of American experts reject creationism, and accept common descent, and most of those experts also probably reject the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

You once basically said that a plausible theory is that God gave two early humans a soul, and a spirit, but that you do not accept that theory. Which do you believe is more probably true, creationism, meaning that Adam and Eve were the first humans, with no genetic predecessors, or common descent, and why?

 

[Agnostic75]

Me saying you were like hearding cats is not boastful or arrogant. It was true. I have also said that you would become IMO a formidable debater if you left out all the personal commentary, assumptions about motivation, appeals to the irrelevant, and redundancy. You are competent but not disciplined about debate. I have no right to demand you become so but do have the right to point out where it is lacking, and there is nothing arrogant about it (as there is about your assumptions about my motivations).

In the thread on the Tyre prophecy at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/154618-tyre-prophecy-25.html, I demolished you, as my seven most recent replies to you reasonably prove. Many of my arguments in those posts are not redundant, and you have not replied to them. I can give you some examples if you wish, but you do not want me to do that since you do not want people to read your invalid arguments in that thread. The same goes for the thread on homosexuality, and it will probably happen a number of times in this thread. I sometimes repeat arguments, but only when you have not adequately replied to them. You seem to think that just because you reply to some of my arguments that that means that you have adequately discussed them, but that is often not the case.

It has now become clear that you will never allow yourself to lose a debate since when you get into trouble, you start making up false excuses instead of replying to my posts. You did that in the thread on homosexuality, you are now doing it regarding the thread on the Tyre prophecy, and you have become evasive in this thread.

 

[Agnostic75]

If I was to thoroughly do what you have suggested in just this one post, that would require all the time I have for today, and even if I did so and proved the case as absolutely as I have about homosexuality you would still not accept it as such.

For the benefit of new readers, I will summarize why you easily lost the debates on homosexuality. After you lost many debates in the main thread on homosexuality, and refused to reply to many of my arguments that you falsely claimed were redundant (I can provide you with some post numbers if you wish), all that you wanted to discuss is the following:

Argument 1

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Item 1 is true, but it does not justify your main solution, which is abstinence for all homosexuals, which is an utterly absurd claim, and a claim that all major medical organizations disagree with, including the CDC.

Item 2 is quite obviously false regarding homosexuals who are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for at least five years, and much more so regarding those who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

Long term abstinence has serious health risks, and having safe sex provides significant health benefits, but even if that was not the case, what I said in the previous paragraph would still be true.

As I have previously proven, you have no moral ground to recommend that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since you said that some other high risk groups should not practice abstinence.

You made so many utterly absurd arguments in the main thread on homosexuality that almost anyone who takes the time to read all of your posts in that thread will conclude that you are being evasive, and are making up false excuses why you withdrew from that thread. Perhaps I will review that thread and repost some of my arguments that you refused to reply to that were not repeats of previous arguments that I made.

 

[Agnostic75]

No sensible skeptic would be concerned if he cannot adequately reply to any of your arguments about common descent since you would not be able to adequately reply to arguments that experts made if you had some discussions with them.

This is irrelevant.

Your lack of knowledge about biology is relevant since you are questioning common descent, and you would easily lose debates, or discussions with experts, and you know that you would. No reasonable person would take the word of an amateur like you over the word of the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts.

Douglas Theobald, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of biochemistry at the University of Colorado at Boulder. His contact information, which you will probably not use since you do not want to embarrass yourself by corresponding with experts, is as follows:

Email: [email protected]
Office telephone: 781-736-2303

At 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent, Theobald has a well-known article that is titled "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution." Please provide a detailed critique of the article, and state where you think Theobald made some mistakes. Since you will probably not contact him, with your permission, I will send him some of the comments that you have already made in this thread, and some of the comments that you might make regarding his article, and post his replies.

Currently I do not have the time.

Then you do not have the time to adequately question common descent since there is a large, and diverse body of scientific evidence that supports it, and it is all important.

You do not have the ability to adequately refute the article. Anyone who has read your posts about common descent in this thread, and has read even a small part of the article, knows that you cannot adequately refute it based upon you own limited knowledge of biology.

[Miller's] argument does noting to show that IC in general or even the example of the flagellum is false. Even if he is right it does neither.

On the contrary, you do not understand most of the article, which would be impossible for most amateurs. Please summarize what you said, at least for new readers, and I will send your comments to Dr. Theobald, ask him for his opinions of your comments, and post his replies if he will give me his permission to do so. It is comical that you would even discuss the article at all since you admittedly do not know very much about biology. Why won't you discuss the article with some experts? Obviously, because you know that you would embarrass yourself. Please be honest and admit that you at least partly question common descent because of faith, and biblical literalism.

Rather than claim that you adequately refuted Miller's article, why don't you summarize what you said?

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: Please reply to my posts 3639, 3640, and 3641. We have discussed those issues before, but you have not adequately replied to a number of my most recent arguments.

 

[Agnostic75]

Your having a different argument than I am. My position is that the theory of evolution as it is today is not reliable enough, not understood enough, and even if true not to be considered a challenge to faith. I do not really care specifically about total descent, partial descent, or no descent, specifically.

Yes you do since you have made a number of arguments in this thread that question common descent, arguments that had only to do with science, and nothing to do with the Bible, such as when you made some entirely scientific comments about Ken Miller's article, and mentioned a Christian website that has lots of scientific objections to common descent. I posted the following arguments about common descent from Michael Behe:

http://books.google.com/books?id=zm...age&q=behe evolution chimps vitamin c&f=false

Quote:

Michael Behe

"When two lineages share what appears to be an arbitrary genetic accident, the case for common descent becomes compelling, just as the case for plagiarism becomes overpowering when one writer makes the same unusual misspellings of another, within a copy of the same words. That sort of evidence is seen in the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. For example, both humans and chimps have a copy of a broken gene that in other mammals makes vitamin C. As a result, neither humans nor chimps can make their own vitamin C. If an ancestor of the two species originally sustained the mutation and then passed it to both descendant species, that would neatly explain the situation. More compelling evidence for the shared ancestry of humans and other primates comes from their hemoglobin - not just their working hemoglobin, but a broken hemoglobin gene too."

How do you explain that, and the rest of page 71, and pages 72-74? Why don't you buy the book and critique all of it, and show where you are right, and Behe is wrong?

You were happy to try to bluff your way through Ken Miller's article without any mention of faith, what little you actually said about the article, but since you knew that you could not adequately refute what Michael Behe said, you evasively said that even if evolution is true, it would not challenge faith. This thread proves that you are interested in discussing common descent in entirely scientific terms unless you get into trouble, and then you become evasive, and make up false, or misleading excuses for why you refuse to discuss an issue any more. Earlier in this thread, you said that you were careful not to question theistic evolution even though you knew that you questioned it when you previously said that all of macroevolution has problems, and quoted some creationist websites that object to common descent from a scientific perspective, not just from a creationist perspective. Do you think that your skeptic opponents are so stupid, and ignorant that they will not check up on what you say?

My position is that there is nothing KNOWN about evolution that challenges faith.

According to even the majority of Christian experts, common descent successfully challenges, and adequately refutes the story of Adam and Eve as believed by millions of American Christians. It is obviously not necessary for Christians to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally, but as you know, many Christians, mostly conservative Christians believe that the story is literally true, and that some of them would give up Christianity, or become liberal Christians if they one day believed that the story of Adam and Eve was not literally true. I once had some discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day believed that the Bible is not inerrant, he would give up Christianity. There are a lot of biblical literalists, and they believe that biblical literalism is very important.

There are good reasons to question all Old Testament supernatural claims, such as the flood. How do you interpret the flood story? Did a floor occur? If so, was it global, or localized? In your opinion, did the Exodus, and the Ten Plagues occur?

 

[Agnostic75]

You threw Craig in there for some reason. Craig brings up a consensus of professional opinion if it is relevant.......

We are discussing common descent. Do you think that a 99.86% consensus of American experts who accept common descent is relevant to the subject of common descent?

.......and has conceded a consensus even when it was not in his favor.......

Regarding cases where Craig has appealed to a consensus when it was in his favor, I have appealed to a consensus that is in my favor, which you, and Craig would surely do if 99.86% of experts accepted intelligent design. As it is, 99.86% of American experts accept common descent.

.......but this seems to be an unrelated point.

Craig appealing to a consensus when it agrees with his arguments is related to my appealing to a consensus when it agrees with my arguments.

An article at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secula...lliam-lane-craig-christian-theisms-hired-gun/ shows that Craig is know for appealing to authority, and to consensus, but in this thread, you criticized me a lot for doing that, and in spite of the fact that you have done that. You said that a consensus can be wrong, which is true, but you have appealed to a consensus, and so have many if not the majority of conservative Christians who have Internet, or public debates. Surely all consensuses regarding various issues are not the same. Acceptance of evolution by experts has grown considerably since Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species" in 1859. That was over 150 years ago, and lots of additional supporting research for common descent has happened since then in the opinions of most experts.

We can either trust the present, and the future of science to experts, or to layman. I would rather trust the future of science to experts. Quite naturally, experts write science textbooks, not laymen, and medical experts do surgery, not laymen, and expert witnesses are often asked to testify at court trials regarding complex scientific issues, not laymen. Regarding science, people can either 1) trust their own judgment, 2) trust the judgment of experts, 2) trust a religious book, which millions of people do, or 4) trust a combination of the preceding choices. Regarding common descent, surely the vast majority of people do not know enough about it to question it from an entirely scientific perspective.

Science experts are sometimes wrong, but they are the best that we have, and they have often been right when laymen were wrong.

 

[1robin]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

There is simply no stopping this, is there?

 

[1robin]

Does that mean that you recommend that all Christian laymen who are creationists, and do not know very much about biology, should give up creationism, and be agnostic about it until they learn a lot about biology?

I agree with the principle you base that on in general but not in this case. There is no loss whatever in taking creationism on faith, nor gain in taking evolution as a whole on faith, or in not deciding at all. There is no cost nor gain here in denying creation so personally I would not suggest it. I personally remain uncertain about either but have no basis to suggest anyone else should deny one or accept the other. If this were another issue (maybe medicine or something) I might suggest the opposite. Actually there is a potential loss in denying without knowing that creation was true but I do not want to get a Pascal's wager started.

You implied that you object to your own ignorance about biology, and you disagree with the Bible since all that it requires for people to accept the story of Adam and Eve as being literally true is simple faith, not a lot of knowledge about biology. When African natives who live in remote jungle regions accept Christianity, and the story of Adam and Eve, few if any of them know a lot about biology, and few Christians would criticize their lack of knowledge about biology. You are implying that Christians who are creationist laymen should question their rejection of common descent. You are also implying that Christian laymen who accept the stories of the Ten Plagues, and the Exodus should question their acceptance of the stories, and any other stories that require a good deal of academic knowledge to adequately understand. Or, the Bible is right when it says that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God," which is all that it took for several thousand people to become saved when they heard a brief, simple sermon by Peter. You would make a very poor missionary if you went around emphasizing academic credentials instead of letting the Bible speak simply for itself. For the past 2,000 years, the vast majority of people did not know very much about science.

1. I regret all ignorance.
2. I do accept the Adam and Eve verses. I may not accept some traditional interpretations but I certainly do not reject the scriptures.
3. I suggest everyone question everything until they no longer can but act on the best information they have but with discretion. IOW I may die for my faith but I won't make you die for it.
4. No one has ever been saved by the verses you mentioned.
5. Most laymen aver simplify the definitions of faith in the bible as you are here.

Probably not even 10% of Christians would be able to adequately refute Dr. Richard Carrier's article on the formation of the New Testament Canon at The Formation of the New Testament Canon, and Dr. Bart Ehrman's book that is titled "Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are," and adequately discuss the writings of the early church fathers.

I am not having debates by proxy. Here neither one of us is in the debate you mention. Is there no bounds to the inappropriateness of what you will use?

Today, far more people know the basics of science than in the past, but even so, from a biblical perspective, the best approach by far for Christians to use is to let the Bible speak simply for itself. By questioning common descent from a scientific perspective, you are helping skepticism since many people will conclude that if common descent is true, the Bible is false. Evangelical Christian geologist Davis Young said



As far as most experts are concerned, creationism is in the same boat with the global flood theory, and the young earth theory since according to one study, 99.86% of American experts reject creationism, and accept common descent, and most of those experts also probably reject the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

I usually do accept them but do not equate expert opinion with truth. If I had I would have been misled about most things depending on when I was born and much regardless. Your oversimplifying by throwing differing doctrines, differing traditions, and different evidence into any single category. Not even creationist has a common definition or category. Your guilty of the very composition fallacy you accused me of but on an epic scale. You complain of fire crackers while launching thermonuclear weapons.

You once basically said that a plausible theory is that God gave two early humans a soul, and a spirit, but that you do not accept that theory. Which do you believe is more probably true, creationism, meaning that Adam and Eve were the first humans, with no genetic predecessors, or common descent, and why?

I can't suggest you do so and wouldn't but we would both be much better off if you would read a book called the science of God by Schroeder. It is brilliant among many great ones like it. He goes all the way back to Maimonides to cover the traditional harmony with ancient biblical verses and modern science in extreme detail. Yes I said that was a popular interpretation. No I did not say I reject it. I said I have no firm position about it and regard the issue as not resolvable nor necessary.

I believe what is classified as humans lived for far longer than 6000 years. However I have no reason to think the classification is anything but arbitrary. What I and most throughout history have considered what makes us human is the soul, self awareness, and extreme intelligence. I see no reason to arbitrarily change it or to even need taxonomy for theology to begin with. The only firm position I have is that Adam and Eve were the first of an original type of being. I do not know what that excludes but believe it to include the soul. You have to understand that the genetic details are so much less relevant to me that I have not spent that much time investigating them. BTW 6000 years is a guesstimate made based on extremely unreliable genealogies. Unreliable in only the specific ways that make them terrible for gauging ages. I use 6000 as a ballpark. No one knows specifics nor needs to.

 

[1robin]

In the thread on the Tyre prophecy at http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/154618-tyre-prophecy-25.html, I demolished you, as my seven most recent replies to you reasonably prove. Many of my arguments in those posts are not redundant, and you have not replied to them. I can give you some examples if you wish, but you do not want me to do that since you do not want people to read your invalid arguments in that thread. The same goes for the thread on homosexuality, and it will probably happen a number of times in this thread. I sometimes repeat arguments, but only when you have not adequately replied to them. You seem to think that just because you reply to some of my arguments that that means that you have adequately discussed them, but that is often not the case.

It has now become clear that you will never allow yourself to lose a debate since when you get into trouble, you start making up false excuses instead of replying to my posts. You did that in the thread on homosexuality, you are now doing it regarding the thread on the Tyre prophecy, and you have become evasive in this thread.

Here we have another reason to justify my growing exacerbation with you.

We have:
1. Redundancy.
2. I have little time and you apparently have it without end.
3. You spend a great deal of time condemning what you spend the rest of time using.
4. You make constant proxy argumentation.
5. Personal commentary.

Now I can add:

6. Constant claims to victory without any justification. I would have let you claim to have been unconvinced by my argument or unsatisfied easily, even though I disagree. However claiming victory with no justification in that and even worse the homosexual thread just leaves my numb and more discouraged concerning you.

All that is left is general politeness, a very occasional good point, and the fact your here. Not much.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

So out of well over 122K comments...no indisputable rational evidence have been put forth...Am I correct?.....

 

[Agnostic75]

Constant claims to victory without any justification.

That is false. Consider the following:

Argument 1

You claimed that Alexander would not have attacked the island fortress if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers, but I provided quotes from Arrian that showed that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers.

Argument 2

You never provided any evidence that reasonably proves that it is not plausible that Ezekiel learned about Nebuchadnezzar's intentions to attack the mainland settlement by ordinary means.

Argument 3

What evidence do you have that Alexander made the island look like a bare rock?

The final act that brought down the fortress is well known. It was battering rams at all points seaward and catapults from the causeway. What was left was a bare rock with a pile of stones on it. The stones were cleared because historical records show it was used to spread fishing nets upon and the stones have been found used as building material in structures many miles away. It is now a complete bare rock sitting under the Mediterranean. What you see above land is what accumulated upon the causeway. If you were there and looked you would see bare rock covered by a few feet of water.

Alexander's ships banged away at the walls for quite some time before it was taken.

The causeway was certainly complete. He rolled a huge siege tower across it to the walls and jumped from it onto the fortress.

The final act that brought down the fortress is well known, but not by you. We were discussing Alexander, but he did not make the island look like a bare rock. The fortress was rebuilt, and was not completely destroyed until 1291 A.D. Even some conservative Christian experts know that. I quoted a distinguished expert named John A. Bloom in my post 235, and I referred to an article by him about the Tyre prophecy at Is Fulfilled Prophecy of Value for Scholarly Apologetics? - bethinking.org. As I told you, he is a distinguished Christian professor at Biola University, which is where William Lane Craig teaches, and he has a Ph.D. in physics, and an M.A. in theology. I quote Dr. Bloom as follows:

From Arrian's descriptions it is very clear that Alexander did not level the island fortress, in fact, he had Tyre rebuilt. Tyre remained an important trading and manufacturing center that was fought over by Alexander's immediate successors, the Ptolemies and the Seleucids.

You did not reply to that post, and it was not redundant since that was the first time that I mentioned Dr. Bloom.

I also quoted Dr. Bloom from the same article in my post 239 as follows:

Tyre served as a major trading and manufacturing center throughout the Byzantine and Muslim periods. During the Crusades, Tyre remained strong and well-fortified, surviving a siege by Saladin in 1187-88 A.D. Finally, in 1291 A.D., the last wave of the nations crashed against Tyre. The Mamluks from Egypt took Tyre, massacred the citizens or sold them into slavery, and destroyed the city as part of their 'scorched-earth' policy to thwart any attempt by the Crusaders to return.

You did not reply to that post, and what I quoted from Dr. Bloom in that post regarding the final destruction of the fortress in 1291 A.D. was not redundant since that was the first time that I mentioned that date.

Dr. Bloom believes that God inspired the Tyre prophecy, but his knowledge of basic history, that is easily accessible even to many amateurs, is far superior to yours.

In my post 252, which you did not reply to, and which was not redundant, I quoted another Christian as follows:

The Mamelukes, after taking the city from the Crusaders near the close of the 13th century, dismantled the city so it would not again be used as a fort by so-called Christian Crusaders from Europe against Islam.

[God] will cause the waters of the Mediterranean to wash over the site of Tyre till the accumulated millennia of rubble are washed away, and it is suitable only for the spreading of nets between tides. This has never fully happened. Oh yes, a small part of New Tyre on its western edge is under water. We saw it clearly in 1957. But the major part of the Phoenician city is covered by sand and the accumulated rubble of later buildings, roads and burial grounds. A significant part lies today beneath the modern Arab town.

This prophecy, much misunderstood, is not the challenge to the skeptic we assumed. It is a prophecy yet to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ when He brings peace to the world!

Hoeh agrees with Dr. Bloom, and with Arrian, and with any other sensible person who has even a basic knowledge of the history of Tyre. You claimed that most of the island is underwater, but Hoeh has been there, and saw for himself that most of the island is not underwater, and is covered by modern buildings. In my post 252, which you did not reply to, and which was not redundant, I provide modern archaeological proof that most of the island is not underwater, and is covered by modern buildings.

Ezekiel claimed that the island would become covered by water. That did not happen. Ezekiel also claimed that the island would become uninhabited. That did not happen.

In my post 235, using the ancient source Diodorus Siculus, I showed that Antigonus, who was one of Alexander's generals who fought with some of Alexander's other generals for his empire after he died, set siege to the island fortress for a year and three months.

In my post 212, I quoted an article from the Ancient History Encyclopedia that says that the fortress was breached from ships. The article does not mention anything about the fortress being breached from the causeway, only from ships.

Regarding Alexander's attacks on the island fortress, I extensively quoted Arrian from a detailed article at Alexander the Great - Siege of Tyre. Contrary to what you claimed, Alexander jumped on the walls from a ship, not from a siege engine on the causeway.

Also, I quoted the following from the article:

As the Tyrians were no longer able to gain any assistance from their ships, the Macedonians brought their engines right up to the wall. When they were brought along the mole they achieved nothing worthy of mention because of the strength of the wall, so they brought some of the ships that carried engines up to that part of the wall which faced towards Sidon.

That shows that contrary to what you claimed, Alexander did not make the island look like a bare rock since the wall that faced the causeway was largely undamaged.

No one suggests Alexander did not beat the walls into rubble over time and leave the place a ruin upon a bare rock so I will not bother sourcing that.

That is either a deliberate lie, or ignorance of basic history that is even accessible to many amateurs. Not one single reputable historical source agrees with what you said, and you did not quote any reputable historical sources that agree with what you said. The only major damage to the fortress was some breaches to the walls, and Arrian shows that once some breaches were made, Alexander's forces quickly defeated the Tyrians.

Argument 4

In my post 202, I showed that you do not know some basic, well-known history about Carthage. You claimed that "Phoenicians in Tyre were from Carthage," but I proved that the opposite is true, which is that Carthage was founded by Tyrians, and that Tyre was founded long before Carthage was founded.

You said:

The Phoenicians hung his messengers from the walls. That is also the only thing that made Alexander perform the extreme and complete destruction predicted. He had no intention of doing what Ezekiel said until that freak event occurred.

But I quoted where Arrian said that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers from the walls of the fortress. He was already furious with Tyrians because they told him that he could not enter the city, and plausibly if not probably would have attacked the fortress even if the Tyrians had not hung his messengers. I also quoted Arrian as saying that Alexander told his men that he had strategic, and religious reasons for attacking the fortress. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Even more remarkable it meant that Phoenicia could not rebuild it again..

But as I told you, the Tyre prophecy is only about Tyre, not about any of the other independent Phoenician city-states.

Argument 5

Please reply to my most recent post in the thread on the Tyre prophecy that I made today. That post, together with this post, shows that you are very confused, and are poorly prepared to debate the Tyre prophecy. You were also confused in the thread on homosexuality. An example is that when I asked you for solutions for homosexuality, you said that it was not up to you to provide any solutions, but later you said on a number of occasions that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, and you forgot that in your first post in that thread, you said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

Within a few months, more readers will be aware of how you become evasive when you get into trouble, and make up bogus excuses for why you withdraw from debates.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

My position is that there is nothing KNOWN about evolution that challenges faith.

According to even the majority of Christian experts, common descent successfully challenges, and adequately refutes the story of Adam and Eve as believed by millions of American Christians. It is obviously not necessary for Christians to interpret the story of Adam and Eve literally, but as you know, many Christians, mostly conservative Christians believe that the story is literally true, and that some of them would give up Christianity, or become liberal Christians if they one day believed that the story of Adam and Eve was not literally true. I once had some discussions with a Christian inerrantist who said that if he one day believed that the Bible is not inerrant, he would give up Christianity. There are a lot of biblical literalists, and they believe that biblical literalism is very important.

There are good reasons to question all Old Testament supernatural claims, such as the flood. How do you interpret the flood story? Did a floor occur? If so, was it global, or localized? In your opinion, did the Exodus, and the Ten Plagues occur?

 

[Agnostic75]

No logic indicates that all possible Gods must be good.

In fact logic is exactly what indicates this.

Why is that? Why must all possible Gods always tell the truth?

However what you mean by good and what the philosopher means by it are not the same.

For purposes of these discussions, the main issue is whether or not the God of the Bible is who the Bible says he is. You have not provided reasonable evidence that he is not an imposter.

In divine command theory what God does is good or right because he is also the moral judge.

Then what an evil God does is good or right because he is also the moral judge.

What are great making properties? What can a good God do that an evil God cannot do? If an evil God is omnipotent, he quite naturally would be able to do anything that he wanted to do. For example, he could heal sick people, and predict the future, or do anything else that he wanted to do. He would have a different character than a good God would, but mere humans would not be able to know that.

I do not like the philosophy of great making properties nor divine command theory. I simply had to adopt them as there is no argument against them. If you want an explanation of them Craig or Zacharias would be better than me. I believe I have given you several links to what you requested.

At another forum, you said that evil does not have great making qualities. It is up to you to explain your position, and you did not explain it.

I read Craig's article at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/perfect-being-theology that I quoted, and nothing in it logically precludes the existence of an evil God.

If an imposter God can do things like heal sick people, predict the future, read people's minds, create planets, and create biological life, and is omnipotent, and omniscient, he would be able to successfully pretend to be the God of the Bible.

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?

Before I examine ways how to reject that, on what basis would I think it even remotely true? My awareness or apprehension of God comes from two sources.

1. Theological texts (revealed religion).

2. My conscience which apprehends for example an objective moral realm.

Regarding item 1, quite naturally, an evil, omnipotent, omniscient God would easily be able to inspire the Bible.

Regarding item 2, an evil, omnipotent, omniscient God would easily be able to trick anyone who he wanted to.

Your are asking me to reject my conclusions from both those methods and adopt the possibility of something with no evidence as a reason to assume my faith based on those two areas is faulty.

Not at all. If powerful good, and evil supernatural beings exist, and the leader of one of the groups is a God, no logic requires that the leader be the God of the Bible.

1. The amplification of any uncertainty to arbitrary levels where it can be dismissed.

2. Doing so on the basis of a counter argument that has no evidence, but is simply possible.

3. Ignoring of the reality a claim is about and concentration upon the theoretical.

Regarding item 1, Paul established uncertainty when he said that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. You cannot reasonably prove that Paul knew that it was not God who is masquerading as an angel of light.

Regarding item 2, the only evidence that I need is that no logic requires that a God be good.

Regarding item 3, your claim that God is who he says he is theoretical.

I said:

If God is an evil God who is pretending to be a good God, how would you be able to know that?.

Please answer the question.

 

[Agnostic75]

Today, far more people know the basics of science than in the past, but even so, from a biblical perspective, the best approach by far for Christians to use is to let the Bible speak simply for itself. By questioning common descent from a scientific perspective, you are helping skepticism since many people will conclude that if common descent is true, the Bible is false.

As far as most experts are concerned, creationism is in the same boat with the global flood theory, and the young earth theory since according to one study, 99.86% of American experts reject creationism, and accept common descent, and most of those experts also probably reject the global flood theory, and the young earth theory.

I usually do accept them.......

Why don't you accept the opinions of a large consensus of experts who accept common descent?

.......but do not equate expert opinion with truth.

Most experts, including the majority of Christian experts, believe that common descent is true. I am not aware of any good reasons to reject their opinions, and most people do not know enough about biology to reject their opinions.

If I had I would have been misled about most things depending on when I was born and much regardless.

But many people who have rejected the opinions of the majority of experts have been wrong. As I told you, the majority of experts are sometimes wrong, but they are the best that we have. I also told you that experts write textbooks, not laymen.

You have criticized me for appealing to authority, and to consensus, but my post 3667, I showed that William Lane Craig is known for appealing to authority, and to consensus, and I told you that you have appealed to authority, that many other conservative Christians have appealed to authority, and that if the vast majority of experts accepted creationism, William Lane Craig, and you would probably use that as evidence to support creationism.

Your oversimplifying by throwing differing doctrines, differing traditions, and different evidence into any single category. Not even creationist has a common definition or category.

You know very well that many millions of American Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and did not have any genetic predecessors, and reject common descent. There are of course other kinds of creationists, but you know that the former kind are who I am referring to.

You are guilty of the very composition fallacy you accused me of on an epic scale.

Obviously not. A composition fallacy is judging all of a group based upon parts of a group. As I said:

"You know very well that many millions of American Christians believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and did not have any genetic predecessors, and reject common descent. There are of course other kinds of creationists, but you know that the former kind are who I am referring to."

You certainly know that any discussion about common descent and creationists refers only to creationists who oppose common descent, not to all people who call themselves creationists. I quite obviously did not make a composition fallacy since I did not say, or imply that all people who call themselves creationists oppose common descent. Even if I did, I would still have used the same argument that the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts, accept common descent.

Regarding homosexuality, you definitely made a composition fallacy since you made an absurd claim that all homosexuals should practice abstinence, even those who have been monogamous for many years. All major medical organizations disagree with that, including the CDC. In the thread on homosexuality, you sometimes did not even remember what you said. When I asked you for solutions to homosexuality, you said that it was not up to you to provide any solutions, but I showed that in your very first post in that thread, you recommended that all homosexuals should practice abstinence.

1. Homosexuality produces massive increases in suffering, death, and cost.

2. It has no justification what so ever that compensates for its cost.

Item 1 is true, but it does not justify your main solution, which is abstinence for all homosexuals, which is an utterly absurd claim, and a claim that all major medical organizations disagree with, including the CDC.

Item 2 is quite obviously a composition fallacy since it do not apply to homosexuals who are strongly committed to monogamy, and have been monogamous for at least five years, and much more so regarding those who have been monogamous for at least ten years.

Long term abstinence has serious health risks, and having safe sex provides significant health benefits.

You unfairly said that all homosexuals should practice abstinence since you said that some other high risk groups should not practice abstinence, and since you have said that any deaths at all is too many, which would have to include deaths from women over 45 years of age who have sex, a group that you said should not practice abstinence.

You said:

I believe that genetics are not significantly influential concerning homosexuality.

I posted lots of scientific evidence in at least two threads that reasonably proves that genetics is a significantly influential part of homosexuality, and you refused to reply at all to many of my arguments, including my argument that the majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. If homosexuality was primarily caused by environment, that would not be the case.

You said that you would provide sources for your claim if you were asked to. I asked you several times to provide some sources, but you refused to provide any.

In some thread, you claimed that there are successful reparative clinics all over the world, but I told you that Alan Chambers, the founder and past president of the recently disbanded ex-gay organization Exodus International, which was the largest ex-gay organization in the world by far, admitted that he lied about changing his sexual identity, and said that 99% of gay people who came to his organization for help failed to change their sexual identity. As far as I recall, I asked you for the names of some of those supposedly successful ex-gay organizations, and you refused to provide any.

As a practical matter, you know that not even 10% of homosexuals are going to practice abstinence for life, let alone all homosexuals. So, it is more a matter of what heterosexuals' attitudes about homosexuals should be rather than debating whether or not all homosexuals should practice abstinence. From a secular perspective, in your opinion, what should heterosexuals' attitudes about homosexuals be? Should their attitudes be different from their attitudes about the many millions of people who have preventable cases of heart disease, and obesity? Should heterosexual employers, and heterosexual hotel owners discriminate against homosexuals? Should schools and colleges discriminate against homosexual teachers? How do you want heterosexuals to treat homosexuals?

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Probably not even 10% of Christians would be able to adequately refute Dr. Richard Carrier's article on the formation of the New Testament Canon at http://infidels.org/library/modern/r...r/NTcanon.html, and Dr. Bart Ehrman's book that is titled "Forged: Writing in the Name of God--Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are," and adequately discuss the writings of the early church fathers.

I am not having debates by proxy. Here neither one of us is in the debate you mention.

My comments were valid since they apply to the vast majority of Christians. The majority of Christians accept the Bible based primarily on faith, not largely on expertise in biblical textual criticism, history, science, and philosophy.

I regret all ignorance.

Then you regret your own ignorance of biology, and the ignorance of the majority of creationists, who do not personally know enough about common descent to object to it based upon their own personal knowledge of biology.

You once basically said that a plausible theory is that God gave two early humans a soul, and a spirit, but that you do not accept that theory. Which do you believe is more probably true, creationism, meaning that Adam and Eve were the first humans, with no genetic predecessors, or common descent, and why?

I can't suggest you do so and wouldn't but we would both be much better off if you would read a book called the science of God by Schroeder. It is brilliant among many great ones like it. He goes all the way back to Maimonides to cover the traditional harmony with ancient biblical verses and modern science in extreme detail.

First of all, I will not read the book since you refused to read, and critique Dr. Douglas Theobald's article on 29+ evidences for macroevolution, because you refused to read, and critique Richard Carrier's article on the New Testament Canon, and because you even refused to comment on some briefs comments that I quoted from Michael Behe,

Second, a skeptic wrote a review of the book at http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/review-s.html. He says:

"he [Schroeder] has assembled material which presents genuine challenges to nontheists."

I am an agnostic, not a nontheist. Even if I was an atheist, I would not read the book for the reasons that I stated. As I have told you, even if one day most scientists said that creationism is true, I would still be an agnostic. If you one day believed that common descent is true, you would probably still be a Christian. So, our discussions about common descent do not have anything to do with your and my worldview, but with people whose world view, or faith could be influenced by whether or not common descent is true.

You have tried to claim that I am an atheist since I reject all religious books, but I cannot be a naturalist unless I accept naturalism, and I do not accept, or reject it. I am an atheist regarding all religious books, but not regarding the possibility that an unknown God exists.

Oppy also says:

A third example is provided by Schroeder's repeated insistence--e.g., at pp. 19, 51, 52, 58--that he only appeals to 'scientific opinions appearing in leading science journals' and to 'peer-reviewed data accepted in physics laboratories of leading universities.'

Now isn't that interesting?, you criticized me for appealing to authority, and to consensus, even though you and William Lane Craig have done that, and now we know that Schroeder does too. If Schroeder is consistent, he accepts common descent since most experts accept it, unless he believes that he has sufficient scientific expertise to question it. We know that William Lane Craig is not consistent since he questions common descent even though he if not nearly as expert in biology, and he even basically admits that he is not nearly an expert in biology.

If you are interested, Oppy also has an article at http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/davies.html that is titled "Professor William Craig's Criticisms of Critiques of Kalam Cosmological Arguments By Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, And Adolf Grünbaum (1995)"

Oppy has an impressive, and varied academic background at http://infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/oppy-vitae.html.

 

[Thief]

My comments were valid since they apply to the vast majority of Christians. The majority of Christians accept the Bible based primarily on faith, not largely upon expertise in biblical textual criticism, history, science, and philosophy.



Then you regret your own ignorance of biology, and the ignorance of the majority of creationists, who do not personally know enough about common descent to object to it based upon their own personal knowledge of biology.

So then...what about the few that have an education?.....and faith.

 

[Agnostic75]

So then...what about the few that have an education?.....and faith.

They have sufficient grounds to question common descent from a scientific perspective, but the vast majority of other experts would still disagree with them, and the vast majority of laymen do not have any good scientific reasons to disagree with a large consensus of experts who accept common descent.

At the Dover trial, Judge Jones E. Jones III, who is a Christian, and a Republican, and was appointed by a Republican president, said:

"ID [intelligent design] has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research."

By "intelligent design," Jones was not talking about the origin of life, but the kind of intelligent design that Dr. Ken Miller, who is a Christian theistic evolutionist, discusses in an article at The Flagellum Unspun. Miller testified at the Dover trial for the plaintiffs.