The Tyre prophecy

[Agnostic75]

2. You say that people predict stock markets but they are predictions based on massive trends studied over years they are an example of what I said could not be done. Namely a prediction without any currently known indications like an island sinking in a hundred years from now, not one that is on top of a vent sinking a month from now. Besides stocks have only two options and both frequently occur. They go up or down, half of all predictions would be right regardless. That is not a parallel and you well know it.

The island never sunk, and verse 19 might be a metaphor. There were lots of indications that Nebuchadnezzar was gong to attack the mainland settlement.

3. You say others have made similar predictions. Where are they? You did not give an example. The most famous is Nostradamus and they are so arbitrary and generalized I could fit most into a hundred events. The same people and same standards that utterly reject him show biblical prophecy as valid. Who else do you refer to Casey, Baha'u'llah, who?

I do not recall saying that anyone else made similar predictions, but I did say that some other people of Ezekiel's time, and geographic area had the capacity to make the predictions that he made.

4. You object that they would not have written them down. True if they were not inspired.

First of all, Ezekiel was not inspired.

Second, capacity is the main issue, not supposed inspiration. In order for your arguments to be valid, you must show that it is probable that no other slave had the capacity to accurately guess what Ezekiel guessed, and you have not done that. If other slaves had the capacity to accurately guess what Ezekiel guessed, and without divine inspiration, your arguments are obviously not valid since some other people would have been able to guess what Ezekiel guessed without being divinely inspired.

I doubt that William Lane Craig, or Ravi Zacharias would make an argument that it is probable that no slave other than Ezekiel knew about Nebuchadnezzar's plans to attack the mainland settlement since they would know that that would be speculative, and subjective.

Wikipedia says that Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement during the same year that one of your sources says that Ezekiel wrote chapter 26. If both claims are true, then there is not any credible evidence that Ezekiel wrote chapter 26 before Nebuchadnezzar attacked the mainland settlement.

Very few historians would be impressed with an ancient prediction that the island fortress would be largely destroyed within 1700 years.

I don't write mine down because God did not give them to me.

First of all, God did not give Ezekiel the Tyre prophecy.

Second, quite obviously, writing something down does not necessarily reasonably prove that it was divinely inspired.

Third, accurately predicting the future does not necessarily reasonably prove that the prediction was divinely inspired.

Fourth, as I already told you, capacity is the main issue, not divine inspiration.

However if someone actually had the power to predict similar events regardless of it's source there is every motivation to do so. Book deals, TV, notoriety are but the start.

That is irrelevant since we are only discussing the Tyre prophecy. Quite obviously, there was not any motivation for other people of Ezekiel's time to predict that the island fortress would be largely damaged within 1700 years, and it is probable that many Babylonians predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement.

So your not off the hook by any means and I ain't budging until you back up what you claim. I was extremely generous in my terms and just by probability I bet I could do it and if you do I will drop this line of argumentation but not until then.

You do not need to be generous since it is plausible if not probable that some other people of Ezekiel's time, and geographic area, had the capacity to predict what he predicted.

 

[Agnostic75]

Anything that disguises it's self as something else has a very important difference from what it pretends to be. It isn't what it pretends to be and given enough data and methods for examining it the truth will surely come clear.

Not if God is an evil imposter, and is omnipotent, and omniscient. By definition, any being who was omnipotent, and omniscient, would be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive, including fallible, imperfect humans.

Satan may fool some for a bit but God has given us ways to see what his true nature is.

You are very slow sometimes. If God is an evil imposter, it is obvious that he would not give humans ways to see what his true nature is if he did not want to.

Satan does not gain anything if he permanently assumed God's role.

Who said anything about permanently? If God is evil, and global warming destroys all human life on earth, Satan might leave the earth, and that would be the end of humans.

If he is darkness pretending to be light then his darkness must break through at points or he is doing himself no good. For example hundreds (maybe thousands) of kids who have played with a Ouija board. It requires a person to request a spirit guide. In countless cases these spirits bring help and true knowledge with them, so the person desires them and trusts them. Once fully established in virtually every case these spirits start tearing apart the person's life and will attempt to destroy them in the end.

There is not any credible evidence that real spirits are involved with Ouija boards. In addition, there is not any credible evidence that the person's life will always get worse. It is common knowledge that many people have been very pleased with their consultations with mediums, and that many good things happened to them.

Wikipedia says:

Ouija - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Following its commercial introduction by businessman Elijah Bond on July 1, 1890, the Ouija board was regarded as a harmless parlor game unrelated to the occult until American Spiritualist Pearl Curran popularized its use as a divining tool during World War I.

Mainstream religions and some occultists have associated use of a Ouija board with the concept of demonic possession, and view the use of the board as a spiritual threat and have cautioned their followers not to use an Ouija board.

Despite being criticized by the scientific community and deemed demonic by Christians, Ouija remains popular among many people.

Most religious criticism of the Ouija board has come from Christians, primarily evangelicals in the United States.

One of the first mentions of the automatic writing method used in the Ouija board is found in China around 1100 AD, in historical documents of the Song Dynasty. The method was known as fuji (扶&#20073, "planchette writing". The use of planchette writing as an ostensible means of contacting the dead and the spirit-world continued, and, albeit under special rituals and supervisions, was a central practice of the Quanzhen School, until it was forbidden by the Qing Dynasty. Several entire scriptures of the Daozang are supposedly works of automatic planchette writing. Similar methods of mediumistic spirit writing have been widely practiced in ancient India, Greece, Rome, and medieval Europe.

So science has rejected Ouija boards, and it is mainly evangelical Christians who claim that evil spirits are involved with Ouija boards, and the ancient Chinese used Ouija boards to contact the dead, not necessarily implying that bad things always happened when they contacted the dead.

Regarding Pearl Curran, elsewhere, Wikipedia says:

Patience Worth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Psychologists and skeptics who have studied Curran's writings are in agreement that Patience was a fictitious creation of Curran.

If evil spirits exist, and are sometimes involved with Ouija boards, that would not help your arguments at all since we are debating whether or not it is plausible that God is an evil imposter, not whether or not other evil spirits exist. If evil spirits exist, that would not necessarily prove whether or not God is an evil imposter.

We have some unsettled issues in the thread on indisputable evidence for the existence of God, specifically whether or not God provides reasonable evidence to everyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable, whether or not God has free will, and homosexuality. You made a false claim that I had not adequately refute your two primary arguments on homosexuality, but I proved that I did, and I will soon show new readers, and old readers where I did. You cannot get away with making a provably false claim. You withdrew from the primary thread on homosexuality because you know that you were in trouble, and you definitely refused to reply to a number of my arguments. Replies from you are not necessary in order for me to show readers that you sometimes make bogus arguments, and sometimes conveniently refuse to reply to posts.

You have made a number of bogus arguments in this thread. I recently mentioned some of them, but you conveniently refused to discuss them. One excuse that you have used in various threads when you get into trouble is to claim that the issue was not important. If an issue is not important, why do you waste your time discussing it, especially since you said that you are frequently busy. Why did you say that Carthage founded Tyre, when it was Tyre that founded Carthage? Why did you claim that the only reason that Alexander attacked the island fortress was because the Tyrians hung his messengers when Arrian says that Alexander was already furious with the Tyrians before they hung his messengers? Why did you make an issue out of the island being covered by water when you know that it was not covered by water within your bogus time frame, which was only until Alexander defeated the island fortress, and there is no way that the island looked anything like a bare rock after Alexander defeated the island fortress, and there is no way that at that time the island was only useful for the spreading of nets? This is similar to your general lack of knowledge on the topic of homosexuality since you made many uniformed blunders in the main thread on homosexuality. You also showed a lack of knowledge on the topic of macroevolution. I did not argue for or against macroevolution based upon my own personal knowledge of it, but you sometimes questioned it based upon your own personal knowledge of it. You did claim that some of your opinions were based upon what some creationist experts said, but why did not matter since one study showed that 99.86% of American experts accept macroevolution?

Does God require that all prospective Christians all over the world be walking encyclopedias? If not, what does God require that they know, or believe? You have brought up physics, biology, and biblical textual criticism, and you have debated those issues a lot. How much does God require prospective Christians to know about those vast fields of knowledge? In another thread, you said that you object to all ignorance, but you also said that there is no need for Christian creationists who know very little about biology to give up accepting creationism since there are not any risks for Christians who accept creationism. So you do not actually object to ignorance, or it you do, you do so selectively, and only when skeptics are ignorant. And, following your line of reasoning, there is nothing wrong with Christians accepting the global flood theory, the young earth theory, and many other crazy theories as long as those Christians will have eternal life. Of course, there are other risks involved regarding Christians who accept crazy theories since it drive many prospective Christians away from Christianity. Davis Young is an evangelical Christian geologist. He rejects the global flood theory, and has said that Christians who accept it sometimes drive prospective Christians away from Christianity. The same is sometimes true of Christians who accept creationism.

Please reply to my previous three posts.

 

[1robin]

I already adequately refuted that. I said:



Please note:

"All that I need to do is to reasonably prove that many people other than Ezekiel, who lived in his time, and geographic area had the capacity to predict what he predicted if they were interested in doing so, and I did that."



You have accused me a number of times in various threads of repeating my arguments, and you are repeating arguments that I have adequately refuted more than once. In my post 314, I said:



In my post 316, I said:



What were the dates of the earthquakes that you were referring to?

In my post 312, I said:



Do you still claim that the prophecy was fulfilled just after Alexander defeated the island fortress?

In my post 304, I said:



Apparently, you did not even read what the Bible commentaries say. Here it is:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

"When I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and the great waters shall cover thee: the waters of the sea shall rush in and overflow the city, the walls of it being broken down; just as the old world, and the cities of it, were overflowed with the deluge, to which the allusion may be; whether this was literally accomplished on Tyre is not certain; perhaps it is to be taken in a figurative sense, and to be understood of the large army of the Chaldeans that should come up against it, and overpower it. So the Targum,

"when I shall bring up against them an army of people, who are many as the waters of the deep, and many people shall cover thee; see Revelation 17:15.''

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

"Great waters—appropriate metaphor of the Babylonian hosts, which literally, by breaking down insular Tyre's ramparts, caused the sea to "cover" part of her."

So at least one Bible commentary says that the verse is a metaphor, and another is not reasonably certain one way or the other.

At any rate, there is little doubt that earthquakes did not severely damage the island before Alexander left Tyre, which means that according to your bogus time frame, earthquakes are not an issue, and neither is the issue of the majority of the island becoming covered by water. In addition, you have not provided any credible evidence that earthquakes ever caused the majority of the island to become covered by water, but it wouldn't matter if you did unless you could reasonably prove that verse 19 is not a metaphor, and I doubt that you could.

Quite naturally, the building of the causeway would have made the island less likely to become largely covered by water, which makes it understandable that even one of your own sources shows that today, the former island is about the same size as the ancient island was.

Ok, so it is a big fat no. You can't do it so your trying to invent reasons to rationalize that away. Fine I give up, but I knew the answer before I asked anyway. You did not do what you said Ezekiel did despite me giving you massive, gargantuan, and enormous advantages in every way possible.


I have an idea. I am burned out on Tyre and you seem to be saying the same things over and over. Would you like to switch to another prophecy and debate it?

 

[Agnostic75]

Ok, so it is a big fat no. You can't do it so your trying to invent reasons to rationalize that away. Fine I give up, but I knew the answer before I asked anyway. You did not do what you said Ezekiel did despite me giving you massive, gargantuan, and enormous advantages in every way possible.

Do what, predict the obvious? No reasonable person would ask me today to do what hundreds, or thousands of people of Ezekiel's time could have done if they had wanted to write it down, but they had no interest in stating the obvious. It was probably widely known that Nebuchadnezzar was planning to attack the mainland settlement. If it was probable, and it certainly would have been once Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon, and headed towards Tyre, then it was also probable that many people in Babylon predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement since it was probable that he would. So, it is probable that many people already did what you asked me to do.

If you can find similar circumstances today regarding Nebuchadnezzar, and the mainland settlement, I will be happy to predict that the attacker will severely damage a fortress.

In addition, if you can find similar circumstances today regarding the island fortress, I will be happy to predict that it will be largely damaged within 1700 years.

You easily lost the debates since Ezekiel did not predict anything that was difficult to guess at. No sensible historian would be impressed with a prediction that an ancient fortress would be largely damaged within 1700 years. In addition, you easily lost the debates since you claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress. I told you that if that is true, the prophecy definitely failed since at that time, the island did not look anything like a bare rock, as was useful for far more things than just the spreading of nets. The island certainly was not covered with water at that time, so that argument was utterly absurd. So I provided reasonable proof that according to your time frame, the prophecy failed for at least three reasons.

You are asking me to make predictions since you know that you have not provided any credible evidence that Ezekiel predicted anything that was so difficult to predict that God must have given it to him. Any reasonable person knows that you asking me to make predictions does not relieve you of the responsibility of providing reasonable evidence that God inspired the Tyre prophecy. Please state what you believe is the most impressive prediction that Ezekiel made in chapter 26.

I have an idea. I am burned out on Tyre and you seem to be saying the same things over and over. Would you like to switch to another prophecy and debate it?

I will be happy to debate any Bible prophecy with you that I think I am familiar enough with to debate. Which prophecy do you have in mind? Regardless of how much time you want to waste debating prophecy, my argument about the possibility that God is an evil imposter, and can predict the future, is valid. My argument that God does not have free will is also valid. The Bible implies that God has free will. Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

[1robin]

Do what, predict the obvious? No reasonable person would ask me today to do what hundreds, or thousands of people of Ezekiel's time could have done if they had wanted to write it down, but they had no interest in stating the obvious. It was probably widely known that Nebuchadnezzar was planning to attack the mainland settlement. If it was probable, and it certainly would have been once Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon, and headed towards Tyre, then it was also probable that many people in Babylon predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would severely damage the mainland settlement since it was probable that he would. So, it is probable that many people already did what you asked me to do.

If you can find similar circumstances today regarding Nebuchadnezzar, and the mainland settlement, I will be happy to predict that the attacker will severely damage a fortress.

In addition, if you can find similar circumstances today regarding the island fortress, I will be happy to predict that it will be largely damaged within 1700 years.

You easily lost the debates since Ezekiel did not predict anything that was difficult to guess at. No sensible historian would be impressed with a prediction that an ancient fortress would be largely damaged within 1700 years. In addition, you easily lost the debates since you claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress. I told you that if that is true, the prophecy definitely failed since at that time, the island did not look anything like a bare rock, as was useful for far more things than just the spreading of nets. The island certainly was not covered with water at that time, so that argument was utterly absurd. So I provided reasonable proof that according to your time frame, the prophecy failed for at least three reasons.

You are asking me to make predictions since you know that you have not provided any credible evidence that Ezekiel predicted anything that was so difficult to predict that God must have given it to him. Any reasonable person knows that you asking me to make predictions does not relieve you of the responsibility of providing reasonable evidence that God inspired the Tyre prophecy. Please state what you believe is the most impressive prediction that Ezekiel made in chapter 26.



I will be happy to debate any Bible prophecy with you that I think I am familiar enough with to debate. Which prophecy do you have in mind? Regardless of how much time you want to waste debating prophecy, my argument about the possibility that God is an evil imposter, and can predict the future, is valid. My argument that God does not have free will is also valid. The Bible implies that God has free will. Therefore, the God of the Bible does not exist.

I have always been interested in the prophecy about Israel never again being thrown out of their land after they had been returned to it. This could be a dead end because I'm am not sure if the prophecy applies to modern Israel so it may be a short debate but I figured we could learn something in the process because I know little about this one in particular.

I think the primary scripture where this issue is founded is:

New International Version
I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them," says the LORD your God.

Some possible additional verse are:

…14"Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. 15"I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God.

Isaiah 60:21
Then all your people will be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor.


Now first we need to see if these or possible other verses speak to the same events. Then if the events they speak to are modern day events. Then finally if they have been proven accurate.

So I will let you start if you want. This one is not one I would bring to defend prophecy but it is one that I have always wanted to get to the bottom of.





As far as your God is evil concept. It seems on the surface to be a valid idea but one that is far les likely than it's opposite but I think the thing self destructs because whatever God is would ultimately be right. This is kind of circular but no less logical. God is the most transcendent being possible and would be the final judge concerning what is right and wrong and by divine command theory his actions would always be right. His actions would always be consistent with moral fact because his nature determines moral fact. So your objection kind of eats it's self but would be the less evidenced conclusion even if it did not. Faith is not about proven certainties but about best conclusions. In fact that is what most of life is about. You get the best evidence you have and make the best conclusion from it.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have always been interested in the prophecy about Israel never again being thrown out of their land after they had been returned to it. This could be a dead end because I'm am not sure if the prophecy applies to modern Israel so it may be a short debate but I figured we could learn something in the process because I know little about this one in particular.

I think the primary scripture where this issue is founded is:

New International Version
I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them," says the LORD your God.

Some possible additional verse are:

…14"Also I will restore the captivity of My people Israel, And they will rebuild the ruined cities and live in them; They will also plant vineyards and drink their wine, And make gardens and eat their fruit. 15"I will also plant them on their land, And they will not again be rooted out from their land Which I have given them," Says the LORD your God.

Isaiah 60:21
Then all your people will be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendor.

Now first we need to see if these or possible other verses speak to the same events. Then if the events they speak to are modern day events. Then finally if they have been proven accurate.

So I will let you start if you want. This one is not one I would bring to defend prophecy but it is one that I have always wanted to get to the bottom of.

I will be happy to comment on that, but not until you have replied to all of my previous post. I am tired of you getting evasive, and falsely claiming that you have won debates when you know that you have lost them. In my previous post, I provided reasonable evidence that according to your time frame, the prophecy failed for at least three reasons. If you are honest, you will admit that your time frame is wrong, and change it to 1291 A.D., like some Christian have done, including some of your own sources, and John A. Bloom, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is one of William Lane Craig's colleagues at Biola University.

When we have finished this thread, I would rather discuss a prophecy that you would use to defend Bible prophecy.

As far as your God is evil concept. It seems on the surface to be a valid idea but one that is far les likely than it's opposite but I think the thing self destructs because whatever God is would ultimately be right.

That is irrelevant to my claim, which is that it is reasonably possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter.

This is kind of circular but no less logical. God is the most transcendent being possible and would be the final judge concerning what is right and wrong and by divine command theory his actions would always be right.

Same as before.

His actions would always be consistent with moral fact because his nature determines moral fact. So your objection kind of eats itself but would be the less evidenced conclusion even if it did not.

Same as before.

It is quite obvious that whether God is who the Bible says he is, or an imposter, he would approve of his own nature, and actions, and would define what is moral, but that has nothing to do with whether or not the God of the Bible is an imposter.

If good, and evil supernatural beings exist, there is no logic that says that the most powerful being is not an imposter.

Regarding "but one that is far les likely than it's opposite," based upon what evidence? Since our debates often take many months, you should not expect to resolve this debate in a few days.

 

[1robin]

I will be happy to comment on that, but not until you have replied to all of my previous post. I am tired of you getting evasive, and falsely claiming that you have won debates when you know that you have lost them. In my previous post, I provided reasonable evidence that according to your time frame, the prophecy failed for at least three reasons.

I am not going back through several dozen posts which said the same thing as the dozen before that. I have not been the one who has been crowing about victories constantly. That was you, not me. I debate to my own satisfaction. I learned long ago that no one changes their mind or admits anything beyond a minor point here and there have they been wrong about. I don't expect anything to be conceded so I don't even think of terms like victory. However you have been claiming victories every few posts. I will make one offer. You can select anything you can fit into a single post and I will respond to it in detail but I will not go through every previous post I missed. I have not been evading anything except boredom. I have only been reading the first few sentences of your recent posts to see if you answered my question or not. I am bored to death with this issue not intimidated by anything you have said. I will admit your argumentation here has been better than on any other subject but I am bored not intimidated. Again 1 post with anything in it you want and I will respond to it all.

When we have finished this thread, I would rather discuss a prophecy that you would use to defend Bible prophecy.

Not that I care either way but not a single thing you have ever done in this forum is consistent with agnosticism. Anyway we are done with this subject with the exception of one final post of your choosing. I will move on to another prophecy that is far more certain but I am no longer discussing Tyre beyond the point I mentioned.

You are not making any sense. If good, and evil supernatural beings exist, there is no logic that says that the most powerful being is not an evil imposter.

Forget evil and good for a minute. Those are things you arbitrarily assign to something based on opinion. Your opinion has no relevance in judging God what so ever. Think morally true or morally false. God morally acts consistent with his nature. What his nature is determines what is morally true. So necessarily God can't act in a way that is morally false. So if you think of good as morally true then he could not help but be good as he (not you) determines what is good based on his (not your) nature. Your attempting to indict a judge in a court where is the judge without having an external legal standard capable of judging him. Think of going into a court where God is the judge and God wrote the laws and try him, what would be your case. Your standards are inadmissible and irrelevant, no external standard exists to judge God by, he transcends them all. The court is stacked, you can't win. The accusation it's self is meaningless.

Regarding "but one that is far les likely than it's opposite," based upon what evidence? Since our debates often take many months, you should not expect to resolve this debate in a few days.

I can give many lines of evidence. Even atheists who deny God have moral systems of good which line up with God's actions if the context is included. If you could boil down what is universal in human moral experience God would closely reflect that good. By the principle of identity a thing is what it acts like unless compelling evidence exists to think otherwise. We value self sacrifice as among the greatest good, God provided the greatest example of that. We value love, God displays love beyond any human capacity. Even the acts of God you would object to are not the random acts of evil you wish they were but have justifications that context validates.

But this is an irrational argument anyway. No matter what anyone says about anything you can always invent a scenario in which it would not be true. I can give one that invalidates them all. You may be in a vat and being fed everything you think is true. No one thinks like this, everyone including scientists and evidence experts treats things as they appear to be unless compelled to do so and that is the operating principle officially validated in philosophy and no one profits by violating it.

 

[Agnostic75]

Not that I care either way but not a single thing you have ever done in this forum is consistent with agnosticism.

We have already discussed this. I told you that I am agnostic about the existence of an unknown God, and atheist about the existence of the God of the Bible. I am more accurately an atheist/agnostic, but you know that many people who are atheist/agnostic refer to themselves as agnostics.

I will move on to another prophecy that is far more certain but I am no longer discussing Tyre beyond the point I mentioned.

That is fine since the Tyre prophecy is a poor example of a fulfilled prophecy.

Forget evil and good for a minute.

That is fine. My position is simply that it is reasonably possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter.

Your opinion has no relevance in judging God what so ever.

Your opinion that God is not an imposter has no relevance to whether or not he is an imposter. What you need are arguments that show that it is probable that God is not an imposter.

Think morally true or morally false.

God would determine what is moral whether or not he is an imposter.

God morally acts consistent with his nature.

I agree, if God is an imposter, he would act consistent with his nature. When he sometimes did things that people liked, that would be consistent with his deceptive nature.

You could not mention even one example of anything that has happened that would be impossible for a God who is an imposter.

 

[Agnostic75]

Ok, so it is a big fat no. You can't do it so your trying to invent reasons to rationalize that away. Fine I give up, but I knew the answer before I asked anyway. You did not do what you said Ezekiel did despite me giving you massive, gargantuan, and enormous advantages in every way possible.

Been there, done that. I said:

If you can find similar circumstances today regarding Nebuchadnezzar, and the mainland settlement, I will be happy to predict that the attacker will severely damage a fortress.

In addition, if you can find similar circumstances today regarding the island fortress, I will be happy to predict that it will be largely damaged within 1700 years.

As I showed, I will be happy to do what Ezekiel did if you will provide some circumstances that are similar to the mainland settlement, and the island fortress. If you cannot provide any, then your argument was obviously a big fat blunder, and you have made lots of provable blunders in this thread.

You easily lost the debates since you claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress, and that after that, there was no Phoenician presence at the island. If that is true, the prophecy definitely failed for the following reasons:

1. The island did not look anything like a bare rock at that time. Alexander left the fortress largely undamaged, and Arrain says that very little damage was done to the wall that faced the causeway, and Arrian implies that no breaches were made from the causeway. There is no way that a largely undamaged fortress can look like a bare rock that has been scraped clean.

2. The island was useful for much more than just the spreading of nets since the fortress was rebuilt. Since nets were spread before, and after Alexander defeated the island fortress, Ezekiel must have meant that the island would be useful only for the spreading of nets, which did not happen until 1291 A.D., when the fortress was completely destroyed.

3. The island was certainly not largely covered with water at that time, and probably not even 25%, especially since the causeway would have helped to prevent erosion.

4. No recorded earthquakes occurred by that time.

So there is proof that you made at least four blunders, and you made some other blunders. If you are honest, you will admit that I am right, and that your time frame is wrong. Even some of your own sources show that you are wrong. You certainly know that a good deal of the island was not covered by water at that time, and that no recorded earthquakes had occurred by that time.

Your evasiveness does not work since even many conservative Christians who accept the Tyre prophecy would say that I won the debate if your time frame is true, and would disapprove of your refusal to admit that you are wrong.

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[1robin]

We have already discussed this. I told you that I am agnostic about the existence of an unknown God, and atheist about the existence of the God of the Bible. I am more accurately an atheist/agnostic, but you know that many people who are atheist/agnostic refer to themselves as agnostics.

Seems like you may have said something to this effect so I will keep that in mind from here on in.

That is fine since the Tyre prophecy is a poor example of a fulfilled prophecy.

This is exactly what I mean. It is not me but you who keep up this victory dance stuff.

That is fine. My position is simply that it is reasonably possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter.

I can only agree that it is not impossible in theory, I guess.

Your opinion that God is not an imposter has no relevance to whether or not he is an imposter. What you need are arguments that show that it is probable that God is not an imposter.

I already gave at least a few including the fact that ta thing is always taken to be what it claims to be in law until sufficient evidence exists to deny it. The same with document laws. In philosophy a thing is considered to be what it's characteristics point until sufficient reason exists to deny it. Quasi-universal intuitions can suggest or to conclusions even if individual intuition is virtually invalid. God lines up with what most people believe to be good, in fact the greatest good. So I am justifiable in thinking he is good until you show otherwise. Besides official principles these are how you, I, and almost everyone acts in every other situation.

God would determine what is moral whether or not he is an imposter.

I don't see how God can be imposter. How could God not be God. It is different for us because we are not the source of truth for anything. We do not set the standards he does.

I agree, if God is an imposter, he would act consistent with his nature. When he sometimes did things that people liked, that would be consistent with his deceptive nature.

But God being an imposter would make being an imposter morally true. He can't be wrong because he is the standard for truth. It really helps if you drop your opinion of what is god or evil and think true or false.

You could not mention even one example of anything that has happened that would be impossible for a God who is an imposter.

You didn't ask me to. God could not act inconsistently with his moral nature. Good could not be morally false. If he was an imposter then him being one would make it morally true to be one and thereby objectively good. If you think of good as true.

It is sort of like saying that we should believe a brain that only values survival is telling us the truth in that it is that kind of brain. If true we should not believe it. If false it could not be true. Or saying that there is no such thing as truth. If true then it is false and should not have been stated and if false it should not have been stated to begin with. I is kind of a self defeating paradox. Ask Craig he likes that kind of thing.

 

[1robin]

Been there, done that. I said:



As I showed, I will be happy to do what Ezekiel did if you will provide some circumstances that are similar to the mainland settlement, and the island fortress. You know that you cannot do that, and that is why you conveniently refused to reply to what I said.

You easily lost the debates since you claimed that the time limit was only until Alexander defeated the fortress, and that after that, there was no Phoenician presence at the island. If that is true, the prophecy definitely failed for the following reasons:

1. The island did not look anything like a bare rock at that time. Alexander left the fortress largely undamaged, and Arrain says that very little damage was done to the wall that faced the causeway, and Arrian implies that no breaches were made from the causeway. There is no way that a largely undamaged fortress can look like a bare rock that has been scraped clean.

2. The island was useful for much more than just the spreading of nets since the fortress was rebuilt. Since nets were spread before, and after Alexander defeated the island fortress, Ezekiel must have meant that the island would be useful only for the spreading of nets, which did not happen until 1291 A.D., when the fortress was completely destroyed.

3. The island was certainly not largely covered with water at that time, and probably not even 25%, especially since the causeway would have helped to prevent erosion.

4. No recorded earthquakes occurred by that time.

So there is proof that you made at least four blunders, and you made some other blunders. If you are honest, you will admit that I am right, and that your time frame is wrong. Even some of your own sources show that you are wrong. You certainly know that a good deal of the island was not covered by water at that time, and that no recorded earthquakes had occurred by that time.

Your evasiveness does not work since even many conservative Christians who accept the Tyre prophecy would say that I won the debate if your time frame is true, and would disapprove of your refusal to admit that you are wrong.

Please reply to my previous post.

For pity sake you already responded to this post. Is this your finale post I promised to respond to? If so you sure went out with a whimper. If you confirm it is then I will give a detailed response as promised but no more than that.

 

[Agnostic75]

If you confirm it is then I will give a detailed response as promised but no more than that.

Confirm what? If you will reply to my post 329, I will not ask you to reply to any of my posts before that post, but I would certainly reply to your reply to my post 329.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[1robin]

Confirm what? If you will reply to my post 329, I will not ask you to reply to any of my posts before that post, but I would certainly reply to your reply to my post 329.

Deal. I will do so, you can respond at that will conclude the never ending Tyre debate. It will have to be tomorrow and you may remind me if I forget.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of unnecessary post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Deal. I will do so, you can respond and that will conclude the never ending Tyre debate. It will have to be tomorrow and you may remind me if I forget.

You will need to remind yourself if you are interested in replying to my post 329.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Deal. I will do so, you can respond and that will conclude the never ending Tyre debate. It will have to be tomorrow and you may remind me if I forget.

I have changed my mind since your request was deceptive. You know that I have a large advantage in this thread, and that you have made many blunders, so you are trying to limit discussions about your blunders to my post 329, which you did not reply to. I will not agree to that, nor should I since that helps you, not me. I have spent a lot of time on this thread, including conducting a lot of research. I am not going to abandon all of that time and research just to make it easy for you to not have to discuss your many blunders other than the ones that I mentioned in my post 329. You can refuse to reply to my post 329 if you wish, or to any of my other posts, but if you do, I will frequently remind people, especially new people, of my post 329, and some of my other posts from time to time, and more people will know that you are evasive, and that you have made many blunders.

It would not be possible to adequately discuss my post 329 without sometimes referring to some of my previous posts since my post 329 is based upon some of my previous posts, and some of those posts have good, and relevant additional information which you know make my post 329 even better. For example, in one of my previous posts, I showed that some Bible commentaries say that verse 19 is a metaphor. Obviously, if verse 19 is a metaphor, your arguments about the island being largely, or even partly covered by water are irrelevant. Also you never provided any valid evidence that says that earthquakes covered a good deal, or any of the island with water, but that doesn't matter since no recorded earthquakes occurred within your time frame.

There was no need for a deal since you could have just replied to all of my post 329, and then left the thread, but you wanted to make a deal with me so you would not have discuss some of your other blunders that are not in my post 329, and you did not want to discuss some of my other posts which I used for some of my arguments in my post 329. Few people ever make deals before they leave a thread. They typically make a few explanatory comments, and then leave the thread, or leave without making any comments.

If you are smart, and honest, you will admit that your time frame is wrong, and agree with some of your own sources, and John A. Bloom,, Ph.D., physics, M.A., theology, who is a colleague of William Lane Craig at Biola University, who say that the prophecy was not completely fulfilled until 1291 A.D., when the fortress was finally completely destroyed. However, that would still not reasonably prove that God inspired the Tyre prophecy.

In my post 329, I provided reasonable proof that according to your time frame, which even some of your own sources reject, including Paul Ferguson, Ph.D., who you praised, the prophecy failed for at least four reasons. If you are honest, you will admit that my arguments are valid. You know that after Alexander defeated the island fortress, a lot of the island was not covered by water, and that the island was useful for far more than just the spreading of nets, and that the earthquakes that you mentioned had not occurred by that time.

In one of my posts, I asked you what part of the Tyre prophecy impresses you the most. You did not reply to that request. Would you like to reply to it now?

That is fine since the Tyre prophecy is a poor example of a fulfilled prophecy.

This is exactly what I mean. It is not me but you who keep up this victory dance stuff.

But you know that the Tyre prophecy has lots of problems that you did not know about when you started making posts in this thread. That is why you recently said:

"I will move on to another prophecy that is far more certain."

In part of your post 119, you said:

I can keep this up for quite a while but it would be like herding cats. This ought to be interesting.

Your recent claim regarding my victory dance is an example of hypocrisy since what you said about herding cats was an example of a victory dance. At that time, you were arrogant, and boastful, and had already assumed that you had won the debates so far, and that you would continue to win them in the future. As it turned out, you embarrassed yourself on many occasions. You recently became overconfident again as follows:

Ok, so it is a big fat no. You can't do it so your trying to invent reasons to rationalize that away. Fine I give up, but I knew the answer before I asked anyway. You did not do what you said Ezekiel did despite me giving you massive, gargantuan, and enormous advantages in every way possible.

I replied:

If you can find similar circumstances today regarding Nebuchadnezzar, and the mainland settlement, I will be happy to predict that the attacker will severely damage a fortress.

In addition, if you can find similar circumstances today regarding the island fortress, I will be happy to predict that it will be largely damaged within 1700 years.

When I said that, you quickly lost interest in that absurd approach.

One of your main problems in many debates is that you overestimate your debating ability, and your knowledge of issues. You have made many comments in many threads that were not valid that I did not bother to comment on. How much knowledge does the Bible require that prospective Christians have? Does God require that all prospective Christians all over the world be walking encyclopedias? If not, what does God require that they know, or believe? You have brought up physics, biology, and biblical textual criticism, and you have debated those issues a lot. How much does God require prospective Christians to know about those vast fields of knowledge? In another thread, you said that you object to all ignorance, but you also said that there is no need for Christian creationists who know very little about biology to give up accepting creationism since there are not any risks for Christians who accept creationism. So you do not actually object to ignorance, or if you do, you do so primarily when skeptics are ignorant. Following your line of reasoning, there is nothing wrong with Christians accepting the global flood theory, the young earth theory, and many other crazy theories as long as those Christians will have eternal life. Of course, there are other risks involved regarding Christians who accept crazy theories since it drive many prospective Christians away from Christianity. Davis Young is an evangelical Christian geologist. He rejects the global flood theory, and has said that Christians who accept it sometimes drive prospective Christians away from Christianity. The same is sometimes true of Christians who accept creationism.

 

[Agnostic75]

I agree, if God is an imposter, he would act consistent with his nature. When he sometimes did things that people liked, that would be consistent with his deceptive nature.

But God being an imposter would make being an imposter morally true. He can't be wrong because he is the standard for truth. It really helps if you drop your opinion of what is god or evil and think true or false.

I already did. You said:

"Forget evil and good for a minute."

I replied:

"That is fine. My position is simply that it is reasonably possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter."

You could not mention even one example of anything that has happened that would be impossible for a God who is an imposter.

You didn't ask me to.

I never said that I did ask you, only that you would not be able to, and as it turned out you were not able to. I asked you the same question in another thread, and you were evasive, and changed the subject. You were evasive since you know that an omnipotent, omniscient God who was an imposter would be able to perform miracles, and predict the future, etc.

God could not act inconsistently with his moral nature.

I agree, if God is, or is not an imposter, he could not act inconsistently with his moral nature, but that does not help resolve the issue of whether or not God is an imposter.

My arguments are not strange at all since you already believe that good and evil supernatural beings exist, and that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. I merely proposed that it is reasonably possible that God is doing what you believe Satan already does, and is an imposter. It is more probable that God is an imposter than it is that he is who the Bible says he is. For example, a loving God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and without creating the virus in animals that became the AIDS virus after it was transferred from animals to humans. You can claim that I cannot speak for God if you wish, but what I said is logical, and intuitive as far as good character, and kindness are concerned. A loving God would not treat humans, and innocent animals like the God of the Bible treats them.

Good could not be morally false.

You said that God "can't be wrong because he is the standard for truth." I agree, but that would be true whether or not God is an imposter.

If he was an imposter then him being one would make it morally true to be one and thereby and thereby objectively good.

That is true, but it does not reasonably disprove my premise, which is that it is reasonably possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter.

If you think of good as true.

I define true as what is factual. What is good is irrelevant to my premise, which is that it is reasonably possible that the God of the Bible is an imposter.

If God determines what is good, that would be true whether or not he is an imposter.

It is sort of like saying that we should believe a brain that only values survival is telling us the truth in that it is that kind of brain. If true we should not believe it. If false it could not be true. Or saying that there is no such thing as truth. If true then it is false and should not have been stated and if false it should not have been stated to begin with. I is kind of a self defeating paradox. Ask Craig he likes that kind of thing.

I do not have any idea what you are talking about. Please state what you said more clearly.

I have three main arguments that reasonably prove that the God of the Bible does not exist, or is an imposter. First of all, there is my post 3639 at http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...le-rational-proof-god-exists-existed-364.html, which argues that since the God of the Bible does not have free will, he cannot exist since no loving God would ask people to love a being who does not have free will. As I told you, without choice, morality has no meaning. We debated that issue for a while, but none of your arguments were valid, and you withdrew from that debate.

Second, there is my post 3640 on the same page, which reasonably proves that God does not provide a reasonable amount of evidence for everyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable. By implication, that proves that the God of the Bible does not exist since the Bible implies that God is fair. We debated that issue for a while, but none of your arguments were valid, and you withdrew from that debate. I proved that geography often determines why people believe what they believe. You said that the human heart determines what people believe, but that was just a game of semantics since what I obviously meant was the geography often determines why the human heart chooses what to believe.

Third, there are my arguments in this thread about the possibility that the God of the Bible is an imposter. If the God of the Bible is an imposter, then the God of the Bible does not exist. It is more probable that God is an imposter than it is that the God of the Bible exists.

We need to discuss all three of those issues a lot more. If you refuse to do so, I will not discuss any other issues with you except for the Tyre prophecy. I suggest that we discuss these issues in the other thread since we already discussed them in that thread.

Please reply to my previous post.