The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[Orias]

You are clearly talking rubbish. Zero is still zero.

Equating something which exists with a numerical value of 0 is a fallacy in logical thinking processes - so you'd be wrong i'm afraid.

Nice try, but you're wrong on this one.

All he is saying is zero is still something, there is an equivalency to nothing which consists of something.

your sentence makes no sense to an editor of 30 years. are you sure you know what you are trying to say?

Metaphysical stimulations? you mean "thoughts" ???

Physiological existence? so what you've spelled out here is the following:

"I think, therefore I exist"

Coming from a satanist, you just spoke the logos

time to convert to an abrahamic faith boy

Editor of what?

And it makes sense if you put it together, albeit it requires some effort and abstract reasoning.

As far as what you think I have spelled out...its not entirely inaccurate but I prefer..."I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am".

But really...metaphysical (abstract) stimulations (invigoration) stems from physiological (physical) existence (being). I think its extremely simple actually, so I would just recommend taking what I say for what it is, and nothing more

 

[Orias]

offtopic: what is a frubal?

Its a credit, a way of saying, "I like what you said", helps to give reputation to posters.

 

[Scimitar]

but, zero is still zero ad infinitum.

Look, I close my hand into a fist. I open it, I ask you what is there - you reply "nothing", but then try to tell me "no no, its really something - LOOK"

makes no sense.

As for your interpolation of "I doubt" into the sentence i constructed out of your badly thought out english, you should have mentioned the "I doubt" part first. You see, you can't go adding bits in later out of context.

if we did that, we'd not be in search of truth, but trying to hoodwink each other - and I appreciate truth, not deception.

RE: editor for what? - A: I used to be an editor for a few B2B magazines and one educational institute. SO I can not only read inbetween the lines, but also intent in most cases - and never in those which pose serious scholarship.

I'm now my own boss.


Thank you for explaining the frubal thingy A rep point, good lord. Like I can do my weekly shopping with those

 

[Orias]

but, zero is still zero ad infinitum.

Look, I close my hand into a fist. I open it, I ask you what is there - you reply "nothing", but then try to tell me "no no, its really something - LOOK"

makes no sense.

Strawman here...

If you close your hand into a fist and open it and ask what I see there, I would say your palm...not "nothing".

As for your interpolation of "I doubt" into the sentence i constructed out of your badly thought out english, you should have mentioned the "I doubt" part first. You see, you can't go adding bits in later out of context.

if we did that, we'd not be in search of truth, but trying to hoodwink each other - and I appreciate truth, not deception.

I did (in regard to the highlighted and bolded section of the above), you were the one who first stated (or rather put words into my mouth) that I think, therefore I exist.

I simply responded by saying well thats not entirely inaccurate but I prefer..."I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am".

How do you suppose one finds the truth of things, you think it just appears? You think its just handed to you? Truth arises from deception my friend...its how we learn

Also, I think you mean poorly thought out english, badly thought out english is semantically incorrect to what I believe you are referencing

RE: editor for what? - A: I used to be an editor for a few B2B magazines and one educational institute. SO I can not only read inbetween the lines, but also intent in most cases - and never in those which pose serious scholarship.

And you sad my english is "badly thought out"

I'm not so certain "inbetween" is an actual word.

Serious scholarship...:biglaugh:

I'm now my own boss.

Me too :bat:

Thank you for explaining the frubal thingy A rep point, good lord. Like I can do my weekly shopping with those

You could, or you could gain a sense of confirmation that your interpretation of what others are saying are correct or that something you conjure yourself is reasonable within another persons interpretation or understanding of the OP.

 

[Scimitar]

you knew full well what I meant when I theoretically asked you "what is there?" (in my hand) duh...

seems you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue out of embarrassment or something. Well I'm sorry if that is the case, I did not mean to encircle you in a looped thought process.

I did (in regard to the highlighted and bolded section of the above), you were the one who first stated (or rather put words into my mouth) that I think, therefore I exist.

I simply responded by saying well thats not entirely inaccurate but I prefer..."I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am".

How do you suppose one finds the truth of things, you think it just appears? You think its just handed to you? Truth arises from deception my friend...its how we learn

Also, I think you mean poorly thought out english, badly thought out english is semantically incorrect to what I believe you are referencing

No it's not semantically incorrect, even your use of the word "semantic" begs questioning here. As for this (sheesh) :

And you sad my english is "badly thought out"

I'm not so certain "inbetween" is an actual word.

Serious scholarship...

"inbetween" was a typo. Your sentence was badly written. That's the difference.

Gosh, you're making a mess of this aren't you?

You could, or you could gain a sense of confirmation that your interpretation of what others are saying are correct or that something you conjure yourself is reasonable within another persons interpretation or understanding of the OP.

Confrimation bias of a different kind?

Pats on my back are really not my thing

 

[Orias]

you knew full well what I meant when I theoretically asked you "what is there?" (in my hand) duh...

I know you committed a logical fallacy and thats it, because I never tried to change my answer, I've stuck with...nothing is something from the beginning.

seems you are deliberately trying to confuse the issue out of embarrassment or something. Well I'm sorry if that is the case, I did not mean to encircle you in a looped thought process.

Nope, I'm just tying you up Most of the stuff on the forum has been recycled, repackaged and presented as new material when in reality its all the same.

Like I said, revolution is the way of the universe (and by revolution I mean every definition within the word).

No it's not semantically incorrect, even your use of the word "semantic" begs questioning here. As for this (sheesh) :

It should bring question into being, but your obviously not asking enough :drool:

"inbetween" was a typo. Your sentence was badly written. That's the difference.

Gosh, you're making a mess of this aren't you?

I'm not entirely sure you're even aware of whats happening

Confrimation bias of a different kind?

Pats on my back are really not my thing

Confirmation, yes, bias, not really.

And thats fine, I'm not about getting pat on the back either. I like to learn the hard way, and thats why I have been trolling you, you appear to be the same

 

[Ouroboros]

No...really.

My postings do only the one thing you can't do.
I take science right up to the 'point' of choice.

So what do the laws of motion have to do with choice? You're jumping between concepts without fully explaining what/how/where/when/why you're doing it.

At that 'point' it should be obvious.
Spirit first.
Separate of substance.
Creator... THEN.... the creation.

Ad nauseum.

Something caused the singularity and the universe to came of it.

Sure. But not "spirit". It's an outdated and in my opinion faulty label.

But you...have to make the choice to believe.

And you have to make the choice to understand.

 

[Ouroboros]

It's a science problem.
Science can take you to the 'point' of creation but cannot cross the line drawn and claim to understand.

You have completely ignored anything I've said...

I'm putting you back on ignore.

 

[Thief]

Thank you.

Next?

 

[1robin]

Ironically in the context of this exchange, you are the one being over-literal. By "picture" I meant "conceive of".

That would be strange. In this context my literalism comes from an expectation of yours. Your side loves to concentrate on the meanings of words instead of the reality they represent. I was assuming you were following suit. However you suggest you were not so I will re-calibrate. I can't conceive of a lack. Beings have parameters that can be imagined. Non-being has no properties at all. No length, no width, smell, diffraction index. Nothing. Nothing is not a thing to be pictured it the lack of any such things. Maybe if you can explain why this is important I could give a more meaningful response. For now as Aristotle said: Nothing is what rocks dream about.

It does not make the text incomprehensible. Read literally, the text makes perfect sense: it foretells a military ruler of Israel who will defeat the Assyrians; it just happens to be mistaken, that's all.

No that is not all. That would be all if your level of interest is only to find the first spot by which you can yell foul and reject the whole. Any one interested in the truth of that matter would know the surface has not even been scratched yet. That Assyrian is used many times symbolically as enemy (whether literal or figurative), that triumph in this case may very well mean spiritual instead of physical triumph, it may refer to eventually prevailing not having total victory tomorrow. I am not an expert on these verses and after backing up 4 levels did not see the specific verses you refer to. If you can post the specific verses again and I will show you that 95% of your work was left undone if a responsible conclusion was the goal.

Circularity again: you are using the conclusion that the text refers to Christ to justify the textual interpretation leading to that conclusion.
Only the pre-conceived meanings brought by apologists are rendered nonsensical. In the Micah case, the literal interpretation makes perfect (if mistaken) sense.

It is the only interpretation that makes an otherwise emphatically rational text, remain consistent. This is not over reaching of any kind, it is what is used to interpret every historical text ever read. It makes absolutely no sense, and is perfectly inconsistent with Christ to suggest he came to lead an armed rebellion or to conquer by the literal sword. That is about the worst possible interpretation. Christ not only did none of those tings, his mission was the exact opposite, and half his discourse's were in complete rejection of armed rebellion. There is no record of him ever handling a literal sword of any-kind. The only instance where his men wielded one, they were reprimanded and the damage rectified.

So let's concentrate on those.

I have offered up quite a few. They were consistently rejected and the most obscure and ambiguous prophecy given in it's place.

Easy, perhaps - certainly for your side of the debate. More relevant? We are discussing Genesis 16:12, I believe:

I have never seen a person emphatically interested in resolution and truth that sought ambiguity. You have consistently rejected my offerings which allow fairly clear conclusions to be reached and have insisted we only discuss the most ambiguous of information. It would take a volume of works to hash out Western verses ANE and modern middle eastern violence levels and what is responsible for them. This can't be done in a forum. Why are you insisting on what can't be done be concentrated upon. What can be done is to compare the texts that drive these regions and see which justify violence in general. Yet this is exactly what you want do. It seems you desire ambiguity and prefer it to resolution.

I see no mention of texts there.

That was averse from the most popular book in human history. I did not realize I had to link the bible.
That was not a paraphrase or based on a text. It was the text.

Well, killing lots of people and taking their land must run it close. Yes, Arabs did that; but Christendom left them standing...

The only relevant issue is concerning the texts that inspire much of this killing and taking of land. That is where the discussion needs to center but the one place you will not join me at.

Over history? I doubt this is easily quantifiable, but I think it credible that more Jews have suffered at the hands of European Christians than at the hands of Arabs.

It was not the Christians who led five countries to attack them in 1948 and have done so ever since. If you mean Hitler and the holocaust that was over 3 years at most. Arab atrocities go back over a thousand. There has been injustice done to the Jews by both camps but there is no denying that prophecy accurately describes history. Even if Christians had plagued the Jews more than the Arabs (and that is not something I would believe) that would not affect the accuracy of that prophecy one bit. The only condition necessary for fulfillment is an above average level of contention between the sons of Ismael and the sons of Isaac. That we have in spades, whether you take every diversionary off ramp you can find or not.

 

[Scimitar]

I have been trolling you, you appear to be the same

I am not trolling. Just attempting to get into some dialogue with you. But now that your intentions are clear, I will give you your space.

Thank you for being honest with me,

God bless you.

Mossi

 

[Orias]

I am not trolling. Just attempting to get into some dialogue with you. But now that your intentions are clear, I will give you your space.

Thank you for being honest with me,

God bless you.

Mossi

Not what I meant, I'm not about getting pat on the back either, I like to learn the hard way and I assume you are the same.

 

[johnhanks]

That would be strange. In this context my literalism comes from an expectation of yours. Your side loves to concentrate on the meanings of words instead of the reality they represent. I was assuming you were following suit. However you suggest you were not so I will re-calibrate. I can't conceive of a lack. Beings have parameters that can be imagined. Non-being has no properties at all. No length, no width, smell, diffraction index. Nothing. Nothing is not a thing to be pictured it the lack of any such things. Maybe if you can explain why this is important I could give a more meaningful response.

I was interested because we have no empirical reason to suppose there has ever existed such a state as "nothing". We can have no experience of it, we cannot imagine it, language does not even permit us to describe it. So when you say "once there was nothing" that is an unsupportable assertion.

No that is not all. That would be all if your level of interest is only to find the first spot by which you can yell foul and reject the whole. Any one interested in the truth of that matter would know the surface has not even been scratched yet. That Assyrian is used many times symbolically as enemy (whether literal or figurative)...

Can you cite these other uses for me?

... that triumph in this case may very well mean spiritual instead of physical triumph...

May very well? But why should it, unless you have a pre-conceived agenda in mind?

I am not an expert on these verses and after backing up 4 levels did not see the specific verses you refer to. If you can post the specific verses again and I will show you that 95% of your work was left undone if a responsible conclusion was the goal.

The verses aren't hard to find - Micah ch.5 verses 2-6. Who, by the way, is to decide what is a "responsible conclusion"?

It makes absolutely no sense, and is perfectly inconsistent with Christ to suggest he came to lead an armed rebellion or to conquer by the literal sword. That is about the worst possible interpretation. Christ not only did none of those tings, his mission was the exact opposite, and half his discourse's were in complete rejection of armed rebellion. There is no record of him ever handling a literal sword of any-kind. The only instance where his men wielded one, they were reprimanded and the damage rectified.

You're still not getting it. I'm not suggesting the Micah author is foreseeing an armed and belligerent Jesus - I'm suggesting the passage isn't about Jesus at all, except in the minds of those who come to it with that pre-conceived idea. Take away the pre-conceived idea and there is nothing in Micah that matches the Jesus described in the NT.

I have offered up quite a few. They were consistently rejected and the most obscure and ambiguous prophecy given in it's place.

So you should appreciate all the more my invitation to concentrate in future on the other kind - preferably here.

I have never seen a person emphatically interested in resolution and truth that sought ambiguity. You have consistently rejected my offerings which allow fairly clear conclusions to be reached and have insisted we only discuss the most ambiguous of information. It would take a volume of works to hash out Western verses ANE and modern middle eastern violence levels and what is responsible for them. This can't be done in a forum. Why are you insisting on what can't be done be concentrated upon. What can be done is to compare the texts that drive these regions and see which justify violence in general.

This is like a drunk looking for his money fifty yards from where he dropped it because the light's better there. Yes, it may be easier (and more convenient for you) to compare texts; but the verse in question was about what Ishmael (and supposedly his descendants) would do, not write.

It was not the Christians who led five countries to attack them in 1948 and have done so ever since. If you mean Hitler and the holocaust that was over 3 years at most.

No, I was thinking of pogroms, massacres and expulsions over many centuries. (And even if you insist that events in the last century somehow matter more - temporal chauvinism again - are you really waving away 6 million deaths as though they were insignificant compared to what the Arabs have done since 1948?)

I have now done what I said I would not do, and continued to post on a topic quite alien to this thread and utterly irrelevant to the Evolution/Creationism forum. Can I request once again that we continue this discussion in the thread I started in Biblical Debates?

 

[Scimitar]

@Orias

I like to read, and to sit with people who have put the time into the study. In my local library i sit with two priests, a pastor and an Imam. On occasion, we've all been there together and discussed religious theology, and history as well as the comparatives.

Myself? Well, as I said, I like to read. As I get older (almost 40 now), I often find myself contemplating the deeper questions. And so, in order to learn what others have said and why they said those things, I read.

being a logistician, I can appreciate method, and that's where I feel I excel above my peers. Due to this natural affinity with logical process, I have found the studies of comparatives to be naturally understood by myself. And in the course of contemplating the comparatives, I find that through deep contemplation of scripture and logical thought process that all three abrahamic faiths share the very same root. Monotheism. Christianity has somewhat strayed from the monotheistic path though.

When I've presented my findings to the people i sit in my local library with, they were genuinely impressed by the dots i had connected, and one priest actually joined the ACW initiative because of this.

I don't like to discuss and debate for the sake of it. No. I like to do these things in order to progres ourselves in making choices.

Why else would anyone want to discuss religion or ideas if they weren't thinking of finding a better path? unless some are proselytising... and I'm not here for that.

Tell me, what is your "the hard way" ?

I'd like to know more, if you could indulge me please

 

[1robin]

Entertaining as our exchange on biblical prophecy has been, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pretend it has anything to do with the "something can't come from nothing" argument (even less with Evolution vs. Creationism). Accordingly I have started a thread in the Biblical Debates section of Scriptural Debates, and hope you will agree to continue the discussion there. I do not intend to make any more posts on biblical prophecy in this thread.

No problem. I will see if I can find time to take a look at the other thread.

 

[Orias]

Tell me, what is your "the hard way" ?

Well, someone can tell me this is what something is, but I prefer to look for myself, research for myself, put into my own words and divulge that way.

In other words, when I'm putting the vacuum cleaner together, I don't read the manual.

I figured you would have known what I meant when I said..."I like to learn the hard way, and thats why I'm trolling you, you appear to be the same".

(Not that you appear to be trolling me, but that you like to learn the hard way).

As far as the Abrahamic faiths and being monotheistic....well I would generally disagree there but that is off topic.

 

[1robin]

Blimey Robin, you sure are are hard work! Of course I’m not saying ‘everything is composed of eternal stuff’! What I said could not possibly be plainer:

Who says blimey? I am debating maybe ten people currently and at least three of them are prolific, with one being a computer I suspect. I also have been busier in my lab than normal. I am keeping up as best I can. You seemed to object to things coming into existence. At least pointing out we have never seen that happen would point to that position. That only leaves eternal stuff that changes form.

Let me back up and start again.
1. Things exist.
2. These things require causes and explanations that nature is not known to contain.
3. They do not have and can not have an infinite regression of causation or explanation. To have something is to know that a first uncaused cause exists.
4. I submit God is by far the best explanation for this cause.
5. BTW there have been things known to come into existence. In the quantum if no where else things come into being. They however do not do so without cause or explanation.

‘No things in the physical world, automobiles, computers, tables and chairs or human and animal life begin to exist as if there was nothing there in the first place. [/B]

Not a single thing you mentioned above comes into being as if nothing existed. They all can be traced to pre-existing stuff. I will state it more generally. No matter how thin or fat you subdivide nature it does not contain the explanation for it's own existence. I was not talking about chairs or automobiles that are simply a rearrangement of matter that preexisted them. I was talking about what you would see if you started reverse engineering everything. You would keep chasing causes and explanations back until about 18 billions years ago science would run out and something non-natural would be necessary. I am talking about the ultimate cause of reality it's self not the cause of my aquarium or computer. Every atom in the universe has an ultimate cause that nature cannot provide.

Lets hypothetically say we existed and observed reality 18 billion years ago. According to the most prevalent cosmology we would see nothing. No time, no matter, no space. Nothing. Then in a microsecond a singularity appeared and in it was all the matter and the potential for time and space we would observe today. That event requires an explanation and a cause that it nor anything it produced contains.

Everything in the material world is composed of pre-existent matter and matter is subject to movement and mutation; so nothing in the material world begins to exist but simply changes form.Therefore if* the world as a whole, as an existent thing, needs a cause and God is existent, then God is caused. And remember I have shown that there are no special conditions that remove God from being subject to and dependent on the contingent principle of causation.

That is not a comprehensive explanation. You may claim science can explain the causation of what preceded a car. I would agree. You cannot ever say that same natural explanation traced back will ever produce a single ultimate explanation. You say above that nothing in the material world begins to exist (this is absolutely and completely wrong, but let's pretend it's true for the heck of it). That would by necessity require that what composes the natural world is eternal. You can't have it both ways. Either a singularity began to exist and with it all matter, time, and space, or things have always existed. Your claims seem to have no fixed position. Some require eternal existence and some do not. For the sake of time and simplicity simply state which one of those propositions you affirm.

1. A material world that began to exist a finite time ago.
2. A universe that contains stuff that always existed and only changes form.

*But as the premise that everything in the world begins to exist and requires a cause for its existence is false, then the premise cannot demonstrate that the world beginning to exist as a whole requires a cause for its existence.

It is the conclusion most justified by cosmology. Cosmology has only one universe with a finite lifespan. It began to exist. Science fiction has posited many other theories but none of them are evidenced enough to be more than a hypothetical "well maybe X". The only way you can get out of a need for God is to posit something that requires more faith given less evidence that God does. There is infinitely more evidence and justification for believing God exists than for BELIEVING multiverses exist. If you deny a material reality that has a beginning then you are far deeper in the faith arena than I am. Not only is there only evidence for a single finite universe, there are many reasons to think a eternal universe would be impossible anyway. However I would be happy at this time to get you to state a consistent opinion. You balked at my suggesting you have a position that requires an eternal material world and then stated that is exactly what you believe in. I no longer know what claim I am to evaluate.

In sum there are two, and only two, conclusions: 1) that God himself is subject to causation, which is self-contradictory, or 2) that the world is uncaused, which is not self-contradictory. Both conclusions make God an impossible concept.

If you state anything about a universe or world that requires no causation then you are firmly in the faith camp, at it's deepest end as well. It is also not on any level a reasoned determination that if the world must have X then God must have X. God is independent of the world and so is not bound by what is true of the world. Things that exist in time, space, and physical domains have properties that have nothing to do with supernatural entities. Time can't be eternal because you can't cross a infinite expanse to arrive at this moment. It had to begin. Matter can't be eternal because an infinite number of physical arrangements is impossible to traverse. I must have had a beginning. Space "as far as we can know" is not infinite. I must hear Hawking and the rest mention the edge of space every time I hear them speak. God is not bound by a single limitation the world has. If you wish to believe the universe is infinite that is fine with me, but call it what it is a belief, not an argument.

1. Everything ever observed is consistent with the claim that all things have causes.
2. The world has no cause.

This IS a contradiction. Unless again your in the rarified air of a universe that did not begin to exist. That is such an unjustifiable claim you will find that I keep forgetting you hold it.

‘Moral truths’ imply no contradiction by their denial, and philosophical principles are concepts, not existents.

The test for reality is not non-contradiction. Everything that is not contradictory is not true. This is a mistaken application. The test says that anything that logically contradicts is not true. It does not say that anything that lacks contradiction is. Philosophy is a tool to HELP find truth. It is not the only tests or basis for truths that exist. The denial of morality would contradict with the apprehension of the human race in general. Almost every one detects an objective moral realm. To deny it is a contradiction. It is not absolute but it is meaningful and in the opposite direction of your claims.

On a side note: Do you understand what Christians among many find so dangerous about atheistic view points like this. To deny the objective quality is to deny the absolute wrong or right of certain actions. While the argument is not dismissible do you have any idea how dangerous it is. You setting up exactly what Dostoevsky meant buy without God all things are permissible. Can you not see that a Stalin or Mao who was simply looking for an excuse to murder their own people would easily find it in the idea that murder is not objectively wrong, it is only socially unfashionable. Whether you agree or not you must be able to see the devastating stakes involved with your view points.

It is all very simple.

I said: ‘All existent things are caused’

You replied: ‘That’s not true. Only things that begin to exist require a cause.’

So I’m saying to you if it is not true that all existent things are caused then give me an example of anything existent that is uncaused?

I have already done so with someone. Here it goes again. God, morals, mathematics, natural law, certain constants and philosophical principles show no dependence on the natural. They govern the natural but have no known natural source.

God as a the Christian concept can fully exist without ever having need of a cause. Would 2 + 2 not = 4 if the universe disappeared? Would murder be any less wrong if there was only one person alive? Would truths requiring non contradictory properties be less true if the universe was missing?

Well I’m sorry but I really have no idea what it is you are saying, or how it’s supposed to address what I’ve said.

It was not important enough to bother straightening out.

Once and for all please state exactly what you think "world's" history is. You keep confusing me.

 

[1robin]

I was interested because we have no empirical reason to suppose there has ever existed such a state as "nothing". We can have no experience of it, we cannot imagine it, language does not even permit us to describe it. So when you say "once there was nothing" that is an unsupportable assertion.

That is not how that particular investigation goes. We do have not only evidence but also philosophical principles that all indicate nothing natural can be eternal. The maximum life span normally assigned to all known matter, space, and time is less than 20 billion years. That is a long time but not even a patch compared to infinity. Now if we have (and we certainly do) to claim that everything that composes the natural universe we have evidence of existing is finite. A prior nothing is a simplistic extrapolation form it. Nothing has no properties to detect, no physical size to measure, no time to exist within. Nothing commences when measuring everything ends. You can't have a picture of nothing, you cannot have a weight for it, a test of any kind. What you can have is the limits of something.

Can you cite these other uses for me?

It won't help but why not. Asshur and Assyria are used interchangeably. They are both used to symbolize many things including spiritual Babylon, reasoning, natural knowledge, etc.. Here is one example but there are many at that link.

Asshur, Assyria
That Asshur is reasoning, is evident from the signification of Asshur or Assyria in the Word, where it is constantly taken for the things which pertain to reason, in both senses; namely, for what is of reason, and for reasonings. By reason and rational things are properly meant things that are true; and by reasoning and reasonings, those which are false. Because Asshur signifies reason and reasoning, it is very frequently connected with Egypt, which signifies memory-knowledges; for reason and reasoning are from such knowledges. That Asshur signifies reasoning is evident in Isaiah:--

Woe unto Asshur, the rod of Mine anger, he thinketh not right, neither doth his heart meditate right, he hath said, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom, because I am intelligent (Isaiah 10:6, 7, 13),

where Asshur denotes reasoning, of whom it is therefore predicated that he neither thinketh nor doth meditate right; and it is said, by his own wisdom, because he is intelligent.

[2] In Ezekiel:--

Two women, the daughters of one mother, committed whoredom In Egypt; they committed whoredom in their youth. The one committed whoredom, and doted on her lovers, on Asshur (the Assyrians) her neighbors, who were clothed in blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses. The sons of Babel came to her, and they defiled her with their whoredom (Ezekiel 23:2, 3, 5, 6, 17).

Here Egypt denotes memory-knowledges; Asshur, reasoning; and the sons of Babel, falsities from cupidities.
Spiritual Meaning of Asshur, Assyria

May very well? But why should it, unless you have a pre-conceived agenda in mind?

Oh I don't know. Maybe because it fits in with the over all narrative and the other meaning mangles it. Because it makes a coherent whole where the other meaning fails. Because in similar situations this reading always makes sense and the other does not. If There exists two possible readings for a verse then it is simply a choice of which one has the most justification. There are rigors rules for doing this that have existed for over a thousand years. Other tests are reading the conclusion of commentators. If they all choose a certain reading and all dismiss another for good cause then any contentions about the alternate reading are suspicious. If they fall unevenly in both camps then some caution is required. If they fall evenly between the two then serious study and prayer is required. I saw not one that adopted you reading.

The verses aren't hard to find - Micah ch.5 verses 2-6. Who, by the way, is to decide what is a "responsible conclusion"?

Reason, logic, consistency, etc..... I can find all the verse I want on about any subject but if your contending with specific verses I require them alone.

You're still not getting it. I'm not suggesting the Micah author is foreseeing an armed and belligerent Jesus - I'm suggesting the passage isn't about Jesus at all, except in the minds of those who come to it with that pre-conceived idea. Take away the pre-conceived idea and there is nothing in Micah that matches the Jesus described in the NT.

I have reviewed and did not find the specific verse you refer to. I will need it before I can comment further. I remember you contending with the symbology of the sword and my comments dealt with Jesus as yours had. I did not know that was now your contention. Reasons to believe this passage is about Jesus are:

1. It was a commentary that concerned David's house or descendants. That rules out 99.999999999% of humanity and leaves Jesus as the best candidate.
2. The office of mediator and his eternal existence are alluded to in these passages. That rules out everyone except Jesus.
3. It says he will stand in the strength of the Lord and the majesty of God. That rules out virtually all mortal men.
4. It also mentions the time frame. Israel is made low and at that time has a son. Now Israel was occupied by Rome and it's most famous son is Jesus.

I can go on for quite a while explaining why most interpretations if not all agree with mine but the above should at least show you what it is I am referring to. We are not left blindly guessing at what God meant most of the time.

So you should appreciate all the more my invitation to concentrate in future on the other kind - preferably here.

I do appreciate it, I just do not trust it. I have already mentioned Tyre. I picked it because I am familiar with it as it is one of the ones many atheists like to pick on and also because it has been discussed in detail in the forum. We can start there. You can either add to the thread about Tyre or you can tell me here what part of it you disagree with.

This is like a drunk looking for his money fifty yards from where he dropped it because the light's better there. Yes, it may be easier (and more convenient for you) to compare texts; but the verse in question was about what Ishmael (and supposedly his descendants) would do, not write.

A funny analogy but not very accurate. I am looking exactly where answers are to be found and where they are most efficiently concluded. Since my point and reality would suggest that Islam's problems come from Islam's texts, and since your point would require Christianity's problems to come from Christianity's texts what better place to look. I am not interested in a cultural debate but only in a theological debate. The prophecy we are discussing is theological, the motivations are theological, and my point is based in theology. That is where in this case where the drunk dropped his money. BTW what was the necessity for your analogy to be drunk?

No, I was thinking of pogroms, massacres and expulsions over many centuries. (And even if you insist that events in the last century somehow matter more - temporal chauvinism again - are you really waving away 6 million deaths as though they were insignificant compared to what the Arabs have done since 1948?)

That is a god point and illustrate why I want to discuss theology. The holocaust was the result of one man and a few cohorts. It was Hitler and his minions not the Christian German people, nor even the army that killed 6 million people. So your using the number of deaths when they only indicate the madness of a very few people. Muhammad killed far fewer yet his violence was A: Committed by far more people complicity. B: Was the direct result of theological zeal not the bi product of a man's madness. C: Took place over a far longer period. D: Islam has for most of it's history not been technologically capable of institutionalized genocide, and did it's killing the old and inefficient way. Etc.... If we are discussing the impact of theological ideals then your point is absurdly over weighted. If we are discussing cultural events then it may not be, but this is a theological issue. The bible claimed Ishmael's sons would cause a greater than average amount of trouble to the sons of Isaac over time. The death toll of one madman is incomparable to a thousand years of relentless violence even if the numbers are less. We are not discussing which side is the most capable. We are discussing which side reflects that prophecy. BTW you would have to show Hitler was a son of Isaac to even bring him into a discussion.

I have now done what I said I would not do, and continued to post on a topic quite alien to this thread and utterly irrelevant to the Evolution/Creationism forum. Can I request once again that we continue this discussion in the thread I started in Biblical Debates?

You told me what you were going to do. It is not my responsibility if you violate that. I will try and see that other thread but it is not a high priority. You may not reply again here without any fault concerning me, but I cannot guaranty what I will do as my time is not always my own.

 

[shawn001]

@Orias

I like to read, and to sit with people who have put the time into the study. In my local library i sit with two priests, a pastor and an Imam. On occasion, we've all been there together and discussed religious theology, and history as well as the comparatives.

Myself? Well, as I said, I like to read. As I get older (almost 40 now), I often find myself contemplating the deeper questions. And so, in order to learn what others have said and why they said those things, I read.

being a logistician, I can appreciate method, and that's where I feel I excel above my peers. Due to this natural affinity with logical process, I have found the studies of comparatives to be naturally understood by myself. And in the course of contemplating the comparatives, I find that through deep contemplation of scripture and logical thought process that all three abrahamic faiths share the very same root. Monotheism. Christianity has somewhat strayed from the monotheistic path though.

When I've presented my findings to the people i sit in my local library with, they were genuinely impressed by the dots i had connected, and one priest actually joined the ACW initiative because of this.

I don't like to discuss and debate for the sake of it. No. I like to do these things in order to progres ourselves in making choices.

Why else would anyone want to discuss religion or ideas if they weren't thinking of finding a better path? unless some are proselytising... and I'm not here for that.

Tell me, what is your "the hard way" ?

I'd like to know more, if you could indulge me please

Just to know on the beginnings of monotheism.

A Zoroastrian is an adherent to Zoroastrianism, the first monotheistic religion, that is based on the teachings and philosophies of Zoroaster.


Zoroastrianism is a religion and philosophy based on the teachings of prophet Zoroaster (or Zarathustra - Persian). The term Zoroastrianism is, in general usage, essentially synonymous with Mazdaism, i.e. the worship of Ahura Mazda, exalted by Zoroaster (Zarathustra) as the supreme divine authority. Along with Hinduism, Zoroastrianism is considered to be among the oldest religions in the world.


Zoroastrianism is the ancient, pre-Islamic religion of Persia (modern Iran). It survives there in isolated areas but more prosperously in India, where the descendants of Zoroastrian Persian immigrants are known as Parsis, or Parsees. In India the religion is called Parsiism.

Founded by the Iranian prophet and reformer Zoroaster in the 6th century BC, Zoroastrianism contains both monotheistic and dualistic features. Its concepts of one God, judgment, heaven and hell likely influenced the major Western religons of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.



<dt>Date founded: </dt><dd>c.6th cent. BC </dd><dt>Place founded: </dt><dd>Ancient Persia</dd><dt>Founder: </dt><dd>Zarathustra (Zoroaster)



Zarathustra (in Greek, Zoroaster) was a Persian prophet who at the age of 30 believed he had seen visions of God, whom he called Ahura Mazda, the creator of all that is good and who alone is worthy of worship. This was a departure from previous Indo-Persian polytheism, and Zarathustra has been termed the first non-biblical monotheist. There is disagreement among scholars as to exactly when and where Zarathustra lived, but most agree that he lived in eastern Iran around the sixth century BC.


Beliefs
The Zoroastrian concept of God incorporates both monotheism and dualism. In his visions, Zarathustra was taken up to heaven, where Ahura Mazda revealed that he had an opponent, Aura Mainyu, the spirit and promoter of evil. Ahura Mazda charged Zarathustra with the task of inviting all human beings to choose between him (good) and Aura Mainyu (evil).



Though Zoroastrianism was never as aggressively monotheistic as Judaism or Islam, it does represent an original attempt at unifying under the worship of one supreme god a polytheistic religion comparable to those of the ancient Greeks, Latins, Indians, and other early peoples.

Its other salient feature, namely dualism, was never understood in an absolute, rigorous fashion. Good and Evil fight an unequal battle in which the former is assured of triumph. God's omnipotence is thus only temporarily limited.


Zoroaster taught that man must enlist in this cosmic struggle because of his capacity of free choice. Thus Zoroastrianism is a highly ethical religion in which the choice of good over evil has almost cosmic importance. Zarathustra taught that humans are free to choose between right and wrong, truth and lie, and light and dark, and that their choices would affect their eternity destiny.



The Zoroastrian afterlife is determined by the balance of the good and evil deeds, words, and thoughts of the whole life. For those whose good deeds outweight the bad, heaven awaits. Those who did more evil than good go to hell (which has several levels corresponding to degrees of wickedness). There is an intermediate stage for those whose deeds weight out equally.


Zoroaster invoked saviors who, like the dawns of new days, would come to the world. He hoped himself to be one of them. After his death, the belief in coming saviors developed. He also incorporated belief in angels and demons.


Zoroaster's ideas of ethical monotheism, heaven, hell, angelology, the resurrection of the body, and the messiah figure were influential on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, though to what extent is not known for certain.

Zoroastrianism - ReligionFacts

 

[shawn001]

When cosmologists and theoretical physicists use the word "nothing" now they have been saying Nothing, meaning the vacuum of empty space isn't empty after all and is therefore NOT no-thing. It is something.