This still does not establish the existence of "nothing" - merely the non-existence of our particular space-time.
Our particular space time is the only known natural reality that exists. If it is removed there exists nothing else known to counter the nothing I submitted. Now if you want to posit some other natural reality beyond this one then on what basis do you contend with my faith since that your view requires far more? BTW this is not some apologetic claim or Christian tradition. I get this solely from secular science.
If you will recall, this exchange started with my remarks on apologists' reliance on metaphor and allusion when interpreting biblical prophecies. What I bolded was very much to my point.
You have not demonstrated this, you have only claimed it. I saw nothing in what you bolded that violated any acceptable biblical exegesis. The bible does not allow that much wiggle room but it does allow in many cases for a deeper than surface interpretation. Until you show a mistake, the claim it exists is futile. Interpretation exists as it should. This is not a fault until your show it is.
Having time constraints similar to your own, I
addressed numbers 1 - 4 of the examples you provided
here. Not my fault if you chose to lead with your weakest suit.
Lead? I have been debating prophecy in this forum for years. Linking to your objections does not validate your objections. Is there any I have not countered? There are many grey areas concerning prophecy but I recall some of your objections were among the most black and white of them and did not add up to any significant problems of any kind. Some might have been stronger. I can't remember. I am getting you and another poster confused I think.
More to the point, why should you, other than to make a duff prophecy look true? You claimed that sword meaning word was a common usage; a much commoner usage is sword meaning long sharp metal blade with a handle on one end. Why not take this one?
Some interpretations resolve themselves. The sword is among these. Jesus was a peaceful prophet that never ever used violence even when prompted to by his followers. On what basis am I to interpret that man meant he was bringing a literal sword when he always refused to actually employ one? We are not left in a 50/50 here hopelessly adrift, especially not in this type of case. It is very very easy and reasonable to see what sword means in almost every place it is used in the bible. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to interpret 2000 detailed prophecies in to having been fulfilled if they were not. That simply isn't an option on anything remotely possible at that scale. Which is why very serious scholars simultaneously reject Nostradamus and accept biblical prophecy.
A necessity for apologists, certainly; otherwise these are failed prophecies. The words appeared in your post, without link or quotation marks. Whose words should I have taken them for?
Interpretation is necessary for any text. Some more than others. Theological works on the heavy end. You keep shoving apologists into an interpretation category. That is fine so far, but then without justification you condemn that category. This is where you go horribly wrong. Interpretation is not wrong until shown to be, it is a necessity. However, again I say it is impossible to get that many false prophecies to pass anyone's muster simply by intentionally flawed interpretation. There are 350 for Christ alone. How can you interpret 350 detailed prophecies into fulfillment? Where is the parallel in history?
It's a phrase
used elsewhere; odd that such a widely read person as yourself hasn't come across it.
I will dodge the taunt as well as the waste of our limited time here.
On the contrary, they are very desirable. You simply selected your "specifics" very carefully to shore up a very shaky supposed prophecy, while ignoring specifics such as Arab culture's rescuing of much classical literature and other achievements of the
Islamic golden age. We could also mention that several present-day Middle Eastern nations are wealthy and peaceful.
As I have stated it would be very hard to convince you of which side has been more tyrannical and militant, as well as not the most relevant issue. It would however be far more simplistic to debate which belief system is conducive to that violence. Deal or not?
As to
you must be aware that the Turks are not Arabs, that the crusades had broader causes than just persecution of pilgrims, and that between 3 and 4 you skip over some eight centuries separating the crusades from the car bombs - centuries in which Christian Europe was hardly ever at peace.
It is certainly debatable what the underlying causes of the Crusades were, and most of the were unjustifiable. However Turkish attacks are what actually spurred them on initially more than any other cause. I did not intend to link Turks with Arabs emphatically. I have never really firmed up who the Turks are. They are kind of an enigma to me. I did intend to link the Arabs by their own claims with Ishmael however. Where did that claim go?
I have rarely claimed this, but your posts deserve more time than I have. You IMO do not carry any of your points in totality but do make cases difficult enough to require significant time to resolve. I will try and devote more time to them and less to others very soon.
