• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The "something can't come from nothing" argument

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Ezekiel 29:
"8 “‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I will bring a sword against you and kill both man and beast. 9 Egypt will become a desolate wasteland. Then they will know that I am the Lord.
“‘Because you said, “The Nile is mine; I made it,” 10 therefore I am against you and against your streams, and I will make the land of Egypt a ruin and a desolate waste from Migdol to Aswan, as far as the border of Cush.[b] 11 The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it; no one will live there for forty years. 12 I will make the land of Egypt desolate among devastated lands, and her cities will lie desolate forty years among ruined cities. And I will disperse the Egyptians among the nations and scatter them through the countries."

When will this happen?
Why is it no matter how many prophecies I supply you select another? I am totally unfamiliar with this one. Here is something to "chew" on until I have time to investigate.

and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate; partly by a civil war, and partly by a foreign enemy; especially those parts of it which were the seat of war:

from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia; or the tower of Seveneh; according to Herodotus (i), Syene was a city of Thebais, where he was told were two mountains, which gave rise to the Nile. Pliny (k) says it was six hundred twenty five miles from Alexandria; and it is by him, as well as Strabo (l), placed under the tropic of Cancer; who both say, in the summer solstice, at noon, no shadow is cast there; to which the poet Lucan (m) refers, It is now called Essuaen; which city, as Mr. Norden (n) says, who lately travelled in those parts, is situated on the eastern shore of the Nile; and he relates that there remain still some marks of the place where the ancient city stood; as to the rest, it is so covered with earth, that there is nothing but rubbish, from which, in some places, one would judge that there were formerly magnificent buildings here. The utter destruction of which, with the rest of Egypt prophesied of, appears to have been fulfilled. This place is famous for being the place of the banishment of Juvenal the poet, where he died, being eighty years of age. The tower of Syene, Jerom says, remained to his days, and was subject to the Roman government, where are the cataracts of the Nile; and to which place, from our sea, he says, the Nile is navigable: but, according to Pliny. (o), Syene itself was on the border of Ethiopia; and so say Pausanias (p) and Solinus (q): and, according to Seneca (r), it was the extreme part of Egypt. So Josephus (s) says the south border of Egypt is Syene, which separates it from Ethiopia; and that between Pelusium (the entrance of Egypt) and Syene are two hundred and fifty miles. It lay between Egypt and Ethiopia, so that it might seem doubtful to which it belonged. It seems better therefore to take "Migdol", rendered a "tower", for the proper name of a place, as the Septuagint do; and such a place there was in Egypt, Jeremiah 44:1, a town on the Red sea, Exodus 14:2, so that the one was on the border of Egypt on one side, and the other on the other: and the words may be rendered (t), "from Migdol to Syene, even to the border of Ethiopia"; from one end of it to the other: it denotes the utter desolation of the country, from one end to the other. Unless by Cush, rendered "Ethiopia", is meant Arabia, as it often is, and is thought by some to be intended here; which was on the northern border of Egypt, as Syene was, a city in Thebais, near to Ethiopia, on the southern border of it; so that this describes Egypt from south to north; but the former account seems best.

(i) Euterpe, sive l. 2. c. 28. (k) Nat. Hist. l. 2. c. 73. (l) Geograph. l. 2. p. 65, 78. (m) "Umbras nusquan flectente", Syene. Pharsal. l. 2. v. 587. (n) Travels in Egypt and Nubis, vol. 1. p. 143. vol. 2. p. 97, 103. (o) Nat. Hist. l. 5. c. 9. (p) Arcadica, sive l. 8. p. 518. (q) Polyhistor, c. 45. (r) Apud Servium in Virgil. Aeneid. l. 6. p. 1011. (s) De Bello Jud. l. 5. c. 10. sect. 5. (t) See Prideaux's Connexion, part 1. B. 2. p. 93. So the words are rendered by Hillerus, Onomast. Sacr. p. 672. who observes, that Syene is now called by the Arabs "Asuan", from the Ethiopic word "Wasou", which signifies to terminate or finish, this being the border of Ethiopia.
Ezekiel 29 Gill's Exposition
 

technomage

Finding my own way
They are only problems if you desire to find problems.

I fear not. Once one puts aside preconceptions (either the preconceptions of believers or of those who oppose religious belief), one may simply follow the evidence. If it had been a prophecy, it would have had an accurate account of Antiochus' decline and death ... yet it does not. Therefore it is not a prophecy (or, if it is, then under the standards of Deut 18:22 it is the writings of a false prophet).

Thus it is by Biblical standards that we must reject the passage as prophecy, not because of any supposed "naturalistic bias," as your linked argument alleges.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Why is it no matter how many prophecies I supply you select another?
Because you select only those you think can be made to seem fulfilled.
I am totally unfamiliar with this one. Here is something to "chew" on until I have time to investigate.
I will wait. Remember, it says no one will live in Egypt for forty years and "The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it". Since this has never happened in the history of Egypt, it must refer to the future. Right?

Here is another one by the way: "Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan..." Which day would that be? There's never been a time when five cities in Egypt spoke the language of Canaan and the language is now extinct...
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I fear not. Once one puts aside preconceptions (either the preconceptions of believers or of those who oppose religious belief), one may simply follow the evidence. If it had been a prophecy, it would have had an accurate account of Antiochus' decline and death ... yet it does not. Therefore it is not a prophecy (or, if it is, then under the standards of Deut 18:22 it is the writings of a false prophet).

Thus it is by Biblical standards that we must reject the passage as prophecy, not because of any supposed "naturalistic bias," as your linked argument alleges.
Prophecies (not that you can categorize predictions away to begin with) do not contain any pre-required inclusions or details. They may include or exclude as much detail as they want. You can't say that a prediction about WW2 would have mentioned the Sabre 24 cylinder 2500 horsepower aspirated engine. That is silly. A prediction must only include some future detail, and if we are lucky history can verify that detail. That prophecy came from a site I copied. Are you saying it incorrectly predicted Antiochus' death? However I would rather discuss whether it is accurate not what category you will allow it to be termed as.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
A woman. Her name was Mary.

Who caused Mary?

God.

Infinite recursion...
Alright ignored or not I just can't let this go. Not a single verse anywhere in the Bible even hints Mary caused God. This is an attempt to evade not resolve. It may however explain how ignoring became an issue in the first place.
 

technomage

Finding my own way
Prophecies (not that you can categorize predictions away to begin with) do not contain any pre-required inclusions or details.
But if they _do_ include a detail, and that detail is false, then you have a false prophecy.

Q.E.D.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
thana said:
God wasn't created. God is a being that has always been. Something that wasn't born, But something that has always existed.
That's just something you believe in. And you can believe in anything you want. It has nothing to do with reality.

Unless, you provide evidences that god is forever, always has been, never have been born, then your belief is based on nothing more than your blind faith, and on primitive and superstitious belief on books (bible) of nothing than faiths.

Seriously, do you believe that either serpent or donkey can talk with human voices? It takes faith or over-active imagination to believe in such nonsense, but it is perfectly acceptable to accept them as nothing more fable, stories with moral messages or meaning.

Jesus spoke and taught in parables all the time. And these parables relate to no specific people, time or place, just stories that teach his listeners, values and moral. His parables are not meant to be taken as historical.

The Genesis creation (Gen. 1), the Adam and Eve story (2 & 3), the Flood, and the Babel stories, should all be taken as spiritual truth, and their values are found in the meanings that can be learnt from (like Jesus' parables), and not as historical or scientific facts.

I think those Christians (some, if not all) are missing the points of the Genesis narratives when treating them (through literal interpretations) as history or science.
 

johnhanks

Well-Known Member
This thread is about another example. Nothing has no potential of any kind yet we had nothing at one point...
How do you know this, exactly?
(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted...
The problems with the Daniel author's "prophesies" are amply discussed elsewhere on this forum; they are also usefully summarised here.
(2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.
"Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah. Furthermore, the "ruler" foreseen by Micah
...shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land ... And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian...
I've read the New Testament several times, but I can never find the bit where Jesus lays waste to Assyria. Apologists' attempts to identify this "ruler in Israel" with Jesus are precisely what I mean when I refer to reliance on special pleading and metaphor.
(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).
The author of Matthew was a notorious retrofitter.
(4) Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution.
I've read your Zecharaih and Psalms references, and find no mention at all of hanging people up on a cross to die. For you to call them "perfect depictions" of crucifixion is yet another excellent example of apologists' special pleading.

I'll address the rest as and when I have time.

Why did you [refer to Mohamed and Islam], there was no mention or either in the prophecy as I quoted it?
Because, obviously, you had made the claim that the prophecy as you quoted it referred expressly to Mohamed and Islam.
Do you deny either Arabs in general claim Ismael as an ancestor...
No.
... or that the middle east has not been a cauldron of misery?
Your temporal chauvinism is showing here. For much of our Dark and Middle Ages, when Christian Europe could accurately have been called a cauldron of misery, the Middle East was a cradle of learning and enlightenment. A scholar in AD 1000 would have been hard pressed to interpret Genesis 16 as a prophecy of Arab misery; why should a reader in AD 2014 see it differently?
 
Last edited:

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Cause and effect supports the first Cause.

Spirit first....substance afterwards.

Only under the assumption that cause and effect are universal.
If god is uncaused then obviously cause and effect is not universal and thus the universe can be uncaused.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
If your trying to say god or spirit is 'nothing' your probably on to something.

Yeah...it is a paradox.

Science would have you believe 'nothing' will move until 'Something' moves it.
This is a law of motion (all I've done is add some punctuation.)

Kinda hard to say 'I AM!' ....but never an Echo....or a reply.
Even a denial could work!

But to say God is not a person......renders all of prayer....useless.
There would be 'nothing' listening.
 

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Yeah...it is a paradox.

Science would have you believe 'nothing' will move until 'Something' moves it.
This is a law of motion (all I've done is add some punctuation.)

I'm afraid that you are speaking of the science of more than a century ago - classical (or Newtonian) physics. According to quantum physics cause and effect as you describe it are not universal.

So no, science would not have you believe that, and has not for more than a century.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Because you select only those you think can be made to seem fulfilled.I will wait. Remember, it says no one will live in Egypt for forty years and "The foot of neither man nor beast will pass through it". Since this has never happened in the history of Egypt, it must refer to the future. Right?
I picked mine at random and in accordance with what you asked for or based on what I discussed most recently. The alternate ones you select instead do not meet what you said you wanted.

Here is another one by the way: "Isaiah 19:18 In that day shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan..." Which day would that be? There's never been a time when five cities in Egypt spoke the language of Canaan and the language is now extinct...
Reasons to believe your not really interested in seeing if prophecy is true are starting to mount.

1. You are not selecting them in accordance with what you said you wanted.
2. You asked me to provide them but never use one I mention.
3. You select from the most ambiguous possible. If I am interested in a texts accuracy I start with it's clearest claims that have verification possible. If you are only interested in plausible denial you select the most ambiguous and least verifiable. The latter is what your doing.
4. Even when I supply an explanation for the alternate prophecies you provide it is ignored and another ambiguous prophecy selected.

That is textbook for what a person with a pre-determined preference would do.
As far as Isaiah goes:
Pulpit Commentary

Verses 18-22. - THE TURNING OF EGYPT TO JEHOVAH. The chastisement of the Egyptians shall be followed, after a while, by a great change. Influences from Canaan shall penetrate Egypt (ver. 18), an altar shall be raised in her midst to Jehovah (ver. 19), and she herself shall cry to him for succor (ver. 20) and be delivered (ver. 20). Egypt shall even become a part of Jehovah's kingdom, shall "know him," and serve him with sacrifice and oblation (ver. 21), and perform her vows to Jehovah, and have her supplications heard by him, and be converted and healed (ver. 22). Verse 18. - In that day. Not really the day of vengeance, but that which, in the prophet's mind, is most closely connected with it - the day of restitution - whereof he has spoken perpetually (Isaiah 1:25-27; Isaiah 2:2-4; Isaiah 4:2-6; Isaiah 6:13, etc.). The two are parts of one scheme of things, and belong in the prophet's mind to one time. Shall five cities in the land of Egypt speak the language of Canaan. It is quite true, as Mr. Cheyne remarks, that the Eastern Delta was from a very early date continually more and more Semitized by an influx of settlers from Palestine, and that Egyptian literature bears strong marks of this linguistic influence. But this is scarcely what the prophet intends to speak about. He is not interested in philology. What he means is that there will be an appreciable influx into Egypt of Palestinian ideas, thoughts, and sentiments. "Five" is probably used as a "round" number. The first manifest fulfillment of the prophecy was at the foundation of Alexandria, when the Jews were encouraged to become settlers by the concession of important privileges (Josephus, 'Contr. Ap.,' 2:4), and where they ultimately became the predominant element in the population, amounting, according to Philo ('In Flaec.,' § 6), to nearly a million souls. The next great Palestinian influx was under Ptolemy YI. (Philometor), when Onias fled from Palestine with a number of his partisans, and obtained permission to erect a Jewish temple near Heliopelis. The site of this temple is probably marked by the ruins at Tel-el-Yahoudeh ('Quarterly Statement' of Palest. Expl. Fund for July, 1880, pp. 137-139). It seems to have been a center to a number of Jewish communities in the neighborhood. In this double way Jehovah became known to Egypt before Christianity. A Christian Church was early established in Alexandria, possibly by St. Mark. Swear to the Lord of hosts; i.e. "swear fidelity to him." One shall be called, The city of destruction. Some manuscripts read 'Ir-ha-Kheres, "City of the Sun," for 'Ir-ha-heres, "City of Destruction," in which case the reference would be plainly to Heliopelis, which was in the immediate neighborhood of Tel-el-Yahoudeh, and which in the Ptolemaic period may well have fallen under Jewish influence. Even if 'Ir-ha-heres stand as the true reading, the name may still have been given with allusion to Heliopolis, the prophet intending to say, "That city which was known as the City of the Sun-God shall become known as the City of Destruction of the Sun-God and of idolatrous worship generally." That Heliopolis did actually fall under Jewish influence in the Ptolemaic period appears from a remarkable passage of Polyhistor, who says of the Exodus and the passage of the Red Sea, "The Memphites say that Moses, being well acquainted with the district, watched the ebb of the tide, and so led the people across the dry bed of the sea; but they of Heliopolis affirm that the king, at the head of a vast force, and having the sacred animals also with him, pursued after the Jews, because they were carrying away with them the riches which they had borrowed from the Egyptians. Then, "they say," the voice of God commanded Moses to smite the sea with his rod, and divide it; and Moses, when he heard, touched the water with it, and so the sea parted asunder, and the host marched through on dry ground." Such an account of the Exodus would scarcely have been given by Egyptians unless they were three parts Hebraized.
Isaiah 19:18 In that day five cities in Egypt will speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD Almighty. One of them will be called the City of the Sun.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
But if they _do_ include a detail, and that detail is false, then you have a false prophecy.

Q.E.D.
If understood correctly and not a scribal error, yes. That is why I asked what it is your claiming. Are you claiming something is absent or something is wrong?
 

technomage

Finding my own way
If understood correctly and not a scribal error, yes. That is why I asked what it is your claiming. Are you claiming something is absent or something is wrong?
Daniel 11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Although the Wikipedia article is an oversimplification, it clearly demonstrates that Daniel was wrong concerning his prophecy that Antiochus would conquer Egypt (Dan 11-40-45). He did no such thing--indeed, when Egypt threatened him, he turned his armies in a different direction entirely.

He who has an ear, and all that....
 
Top