Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Phantasman]

We're not quite in agreement.

By faith, I mean unjustified belief. I realize that justified belief is also called faith, as when somebody says that they have faith that their car will start the next time they need it to just as it did the last two hundred times it was tested. To avoid confusion, I don't use the word faith to refer to justified belief.

So faith - unjustified belief - does not mean belief in the unseen since justified belief in the unseen exists. I'll illustrate:

I believe that you were conceived by your parents, that you gestated in your mother's womb, eventually were born, took a first breath, and some years later learned to read and write English. I didn't witness any of that (and neither did you except perhaps the later stuff), yet we are both pretty certain that it happened, and justifiably so. We use the evidence available today to do that. That's how we know about the past - using the present. Even our memories of the past are present memories of it.

Is it possible that you are just software that convincingly imitates a human being? Yes, but I am still justified in believing that you are much more likely to be another person sitting somewhere with the history I outlined generating RF posts in the usual manner.

Regarding the Big Bang, one can be reasonably certain that the universe began expanding from a highly condensed state some 13.8 billions years ago in the manner described by the Standard Model based on what is still observable today. The reason that we can say with confidence that the theory is correct in the main is the two high quality, confirmed prophesies generated by the theory - Big Bang nucleosynthesis ratios and the Cosmic Microwave Background. You can't make highly specific and previously unexpected predictions like that without a correct understanding of what's what.

So no, one doesn't have to have faith to believe the Big Bang occurred. Nor does he have to witness it.

I'm sure that you would agree that to be able to predict the precise time of a solar eclipse and how it will appear from various viewing locations as the eclipse evolves from start to finish, one must have a correct theory of planetary motion. And if that same theory tells you that a solar eclipse occurred some specific time in the past before there were witnesses that could tell us about it, it's a good bet that it did.

I see. Yes you have a valid point from the explanation provided.

So let me ask this. IF, scientists found, without doubt, Noah's Ark, how would this change your view?

A question I ask Christians is "if science, undeniably found the bones of Jesus, would you still believe as you do?".

So another question that comes into view is "is the spiritual real?", or as you so reasonably defined, is it faith or justified faith. Did the physical create the spiritual, or the spiritual create the physical?

Since the physical dies, (atomic decay), can we have faith and hope in a spiritual unending perfect existence? What justifies the faith? The mind that can conceive it?

We start moving into a different process of thought. Does prayer (spiritual meditation) that produces an unseen, unexplained result that worked, justified? There are stories everywhere of testimony of faith. People that told they would die by a doctor at a certain time and didn't. Diseases that disappeared. My wife was told that she had a lump in her breast that was probably cancer. The doctors said that through the MRI, either way, the lump had to be removed and sent to see if it was benign or not. We prayed the few weeks before the surgery. When she went in, the lump could not be found. The doctor showed us the MRI of it's existence.

Now one can say mistake, false reading, anything they want, But when it happens to you, more than a few times with other problems, your faith becomes increased no matter if it's justified or not. Lot's of people have been drawn to the spiritual path through experiences like this.

Just because you would need justified faith to believe doesn't mean it may not happen. Sometimes simple faith creates the justified faith one seeks. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Audie]

I see. Yes you have a valid point from the explanation provided.

So let me ask this. IF, scientists found, without doubt, Noah's Ark, how would this change your view?

As for me, absolutely.

So let me ask you this: If scientists found, without doubt, the evidence* showing that there was no world wide flood, would you change your view?

*
hint: this has in fact been found, times over.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I will certainly admit to worshiping an evil God (!), but you should understand that we both hold subjective moral views of what good and evil are. Of course, you will reject my saying "God exists, He is self-evident in my life," while insisting my God is evil simply because "He doesn't align with the moral facts I find self-evident." You have confused clear biblical-derived truths like "we hold certain truths self-evident, that we are endowed by a Creator," with "my self-evident trumps your self-evident," which is quite a heavy double standard to carry.

For example, your double standard relates to things like saying the Bible condones rape (which it doesn't in my understanding of the Bible), while never quite being able to say why rape is wrong other than that "hurting other people must be wrong on a self-evident basis", than "shoring up" your position with some pseudo-theological evolutionary position, "Humans are like ants and bees and live for their collective good, so rape isn't okay, like it is for many in the animal and insect kingdoms".

Uh-huh.

My views are supported by evidence. Yours aren't. That is why my views beat your views. And you simply do not understand morality. All morals are subjective. Even the morals of the Bible are subjective. Atheists realize this. We also can see that there is always room for improvement. That is why atheistic morals are constantly improving and the "morals of the Bible" are very slow to change and must be dragged kicking and screaming out of the bronze age. By the way, no moral claims are "self evident" If that were the case there would be no debate. It is merely nice rhetoric

 

[Subduction Zone]

I see. Yes you have a valid point from the explanation provided.

So let me ask this. IF, scientists found, without doubt, Noah's Ark, how would this change your view?

Yes. But since the evidence clearly states that it never happened why do Christians still believe that myth?

A question I ask Christians is "if science, undeniably found the bones of Jesus, would you still believe as you do?".

So another question that comes into view is "is the spiritual real?", or as you so reasonably defined, is it faith or justified faith. Did the physical create the spiritual, or the spiritual create the physical?

Since the physical dies, (atomic decay), can we have faith and hope in a spiritual unending perfect existence? What justifies the faith? The mind that can conceive it?

We start moving into a different process of thought. Does prayer (spiritual meditation) that produces an unseen, unexplained result that worked, justified? There are stories everywhere of testimony of faith. People that told they would die by a doctor at a certain time and didn't. Diseases that disappeared. My wife was told that she had a lump in her breast that was probably cancer. The doctors said that through the MRI, either way, the lump had to be removed and sent to see if it was benign or not. We prayed the few weeks before the surgery. When she went in, the lump could not be found. The doctor showed us the MRI of it's existence.

But prayer when tested does not work. If it worked reliably that would be evidence for your claims. And lumps are no necessarily cancer. If it was not cancer there would have been nothing miraculous about its cure. This is not evidence for your beliefs. If cancer was found and she recovered without any medication then you might have a claim. As it is you only have confirmation bias.

Now one can say mistake, false reading, anything they want, But when it happens to you, more than a few times with other problems, your faith becomes increased no matter if it's justified or not. Lot's of people have been drawn to the spiritual path through experiences like this.

Just because you would need justified faith to believe doesn't mean it may not happen. Sometimes simple faith creates the justified faith one seeks. That's all I'm saying.

Again, mere confirmation bias. Actual studies indicate that there is no effect.

 

[Phantasman]

As for me, absolutely.

So let me ask you this: If scientists found, without doubt, the evidence* showing that there was no world wide flood, would you change your view?

*
hint: this has in fact been found, times over.

I already believe that there wasn't a (water) flood, nor an Ark.

"And he (the chief archon) repented for everything which had come into being through him. This time he planned to bring a flood upon the work of man. But the greatness of the light of the foreknowledge informed Noah, and he proclaimed (it) to all the offspring which are the sons of men. But those who were strangers to him did not listen to him. It is not as Moses said, 'They hid themselves in an ark' (Gn 7: 7), but they hid themselves in a place, not only Noah, but also many other people from the immovable race. They went into a place and hid themselves in a luminous cloud. And he (Noah) recognized his authority, and she who belongs to the light was with him, having shone on them because he (the chief archon) had brought darkness upon the whole earth. -Secret Book of John

Same with Adam and Eve and Eden. I do not see it as Moses wrote it. Jesus says that Moses did not get his knowledge from God (heaven).

The orthodox has latched onto the OT to justify Jesus teachings. Even though Jesus said that they were following a liar and murderer. (John 8).

I see gnosis as Christs true teachings. Spiritual, not fairy tails. Christ killed no one, and his miracles were on people. The other (god) was a murderer and his miracles on things seen to cause fear (to follow). There is a difference, if you choose to see it.



.

 

[Phantasman]

Yes. But since the evidence clearly states that it never happened why do Christians still believe that myth?



But prayer when tested does not work. If it worked reliably that would be evidence for your claims. And lumps are no necessarily cancer. If it was not cancer there would have been nothing miraculous about its cure. This is not evidence for your beliefs. If cancer was found and she recovered without any medication then you might have a claim. As it is you only have confirmation bias.




Again, mere confirmation bias. Actual studies indicate that there is no effect.

You only speak for you. You can call all people who don't believe as you do idiots, wrong, delusional, crazy, anything you want. It's just your personal perspective. There is no bad or good, right or wrong. I don't see myths, but I do try to see the message one tries to convey. I don't believe the flood and Ark. Nor Jonah and the whale. These "myths" were created to try to justify a message. Most of them faith. But I see much faith in the myths misplaced. The OT is the revealing of the false god. The liar. The imperfect creator who wants to be God.

I do not believe Jesus is a myth. Or Paul. Or apostles. So through much study, I have removed the OT (just as Marcion did) and the spiritual aspect of what Jesus taught rises to a more believable level. You don't have to be Christian to experience power of faith. Even Voodoo has man unexplained instances that defies science logic. As well as many other cultural religions.

 

[corynski]

Are all theists delusional lunatics then? Are you judgemental?

Delusional? Quite likely...... Lunatics? Not likely......

 

[Subduction Zone]

You only speak for you. You can call all people who don't believe as you do idiots, wrong, delusional, crazy, anything you want. It's just your personal perspective. There is no bad or good, right or wrong. I don't see myths, but I do try to see the message one tries to convey. I don't believe the flood and Ark. Nor Jonah and the whale. These "myths" were created to try to justify a message. Most of them faith. But I see much faith in the myths misplaced. The OT is the revealing of the false god. The liar. The imperfect creator who wants to be God.

I do not believe Jesus is a myth. Or Paul. Or apostles. So through much study, I have removed the OT (just as Marcion did) and the spiritual aspect of what Jesus taught rises to a more believable level. You don't have to be Christian to experience power of faith. Even Voodoo has man unexplained instances that defies science logic. As well as many other cultural religions.

Even Voodoo is explained when investigate thoroughly. But I am glad to hear that you do not believe the obvious myths of the Bible. Yes, there could be a valid lesson to be learned from the myths of Genesis. I frequently point out that not all Christians, in fact probably most, do not deny reality in that way. The literalists will claim that you are not a "true Christian", an accusation I would never make.

And though there probably was a real person named Jesus, though I believe that the miraculous stories about him are on the order of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer. No one doubts that Lincoln existed. I doubt if very many at all take the movie seriously.

 

[gnostic]

I don't understand:

1. The Bible gives prophetic dates
2. We confirm the first date of 537 BCE via archaeology and history (secular)
3. We confirm Israel's date of 1948 CE by looking at textbooks or newspapers/microfiche

We have thus used two secular sources to affirm the truth of Bible prophecy.

You are still evading Jonathan’s question, of where you getting this imaginary number “1948” from the bible.

Where are the relevant passage(s) that indicates the year “1948”?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I see. Yes you have a valid point from the explanation provided.

So let me ask this. IF, scientists found, without doubt, Noah's Ark, how would this change your view?

A question I ask Christians is "if science, undeniably found the bones of Jesus, would you still believe as you do?".

So another question that comes into view is "is the spiritual real?", or as you so reasonably defined, is it faith or justified faith. Did the physical create the spiritual, or the spiritual create the physical?

Since the physical dies, (atomic decay), can we have faith and hope in a spiritual unending perfect existence? What justifies the faith? The mind that can conceive it?

We start moving into a different process of thought. Does prayer (spiritual meditation) that produces an unseen, unexplained result that worked, justified? There are stories everywhere of testimony of faith. People that told they would die by a doctor at a certain time and didn't. Diseases that disappeared. My wife was told that she had a lump in her breast that was probably cancer. The doctors said that through the MRI, either way, the lump had to be removed and sent to see if it was benign or not. We prayed the few weeks before the surgery. When she went in, the lump could not be found. The doctor showed us the MRI of it's existence.

Now one can say mistake, false reading, anything they want, But when it happens to you, more than a few times with other problems, your faith becomes increased no matter if it's justified or not. Lot's of people have been drawn to the spiritual path through experiences like this.

Just because you would need justified faith to believe doesn't mean it may not happen. Sometimes simple faith creates the justified faith one seeks. That's all I'm saying.

I once had a lump in my breast that I thought could be cancerous. When I presented it to the doctor, she felt it too. The lump has since disappeared. I did not pray for the lump to disappear; it disappeared all on its own. What do you make of that in light of your above comments?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Objectively, atheists in the USA are better educated, have a lower divorce rate and stay out of jail better than the "christians". Probably some other metrics would show the same pattern.

Education is of course not about morality, but withal, the atheists seem to show more class.

You of course would not know how much I've given
to charity, but I would be absolutely astonished if it were even a tenth.

Funnily enough, me too, I would likewise be astonished if it were even 10% that you give.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your supporting source is a website called "End-Times-Bible-Prophecy"... Does it really surprise anyone that their "research" matches their conclusion?

The initial problem still exists. It still hinges on the same flaw - you're starting with your conclusion, supporting it a number of zany ways, and then saying "AHA! The Bible predicted this specific event just as I said it would!"

Think I'm just being cantankerous?

Your quote, showing that you don't see the problem...
"I thought the same thing, until I realized the prophecy research was carried out AFTER 1948..."
-BilliardsBall

"Without an exact starting date, it's more accurate to count backward 907,200 days from the day of Israel's restoration. Israel declared its status as an independent nation on May 14, 1948."
-End-Times-Biblical-Prophecy

They are, literally, beginning with their conclusion and then supporting it as needed. That's not how research works.

You know, I WOULD agree, however, what happened was this:

1. Atheists said "Ezekiel prophecy is a no go"
2. Christians were reading the Bible and saw the Leviticus "seven times", after 1948, sure
3. Christians applied it to the Ezekiel prophecy, which added to 1948, and said, Whoa!

Now, the actual conclusion they began with, which research after bore out, was "God always tells the truth and atheists can't be right that this prophecy was an epic fail." In other words, atheists tend to read one verse, and miss context or a verse to confer with.

If Christians saw 1948 before that date we could argue about a self-fulfilled prophecy.

What I don't see you arguing against, but would be pleased to argue with you, is how the sole prophecy of Israel's length of diaspora, when put through the seven times hopper, comes out to May 15, 1948. Your argument would certainly sway me if the prophecies together pointed to a diaspora of about 2,000 years or "sometime in the 20th century" rather than 2,520 biblical years unto a specific day.

I mean, you can say other things in this vein, like "Sure, Israel is a Jewish state, and then people read into the Bible that Israel would be won back by Jewish forces," but again, the consistent Bible record is that is exactly what would occur.

You don't really see any logical flaw by disdaining that after atheists seized upon a particular passage, pointing out the diaspora return date was wrong, someone noticed the seven times prophecy, comes out to May 15, 1948?! And then they picked up an old newspaper to see the very hand of God!

Here's what happens when you Google May 15, 1948: may 15, 1948 - Google Search

Here are more prophecies: 10 Prophecies Fulfilled in 1948

 

[BilliardsBall]

Wow, you really know how to twist peoples' words around.

That people who were being persecuted predicted that they would continue to be persecuted isn't all that surprising to me.


Of course it was self-fulfilled. Human beings created the nation of Israel as we now know it. There was no magic involved and I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating that God had a hand in it. I don't think it's all that shocking that someone predicted something they wanted to happen, like in my sandwich example.

But let's say that this was a prophecy that was actually predicted to a "T" and then fulfilled to a "T." At most, that would demonstrate that some person somewhere at some time was able to predict one thing that was going to happen. It doesn't provide an explanation as to how that person was able to do it. And it doesn't get you to "he was able to predict the future because God exists and provided him with the details."

The Jewish people "who were being persecuted and continued to be" were persecuted in EVERY nation in diaspora for 2,520 years. THAT's the Bible prediction under discussion.

The 1948 thing could have been self-fulfilled, indeed zionists and Christians involved knew some of the prophecies, but didn't know the date until after. And how did the U.N. "self-fulfill" the exact date in their discussions and resolutions?!

And if this was predicted to a T, you have the 1948 prophecy and the persecution prophecy and the Israel will remain separate from the Gentiles and return to their ancestral land prophecy, etc.

And who said "God provides the details to prophecy fulfillers?" Not me. God says specifically in the Bible, "Watch as I quote X and it occurs." That's why people take late dates for Bible writings wherever possible. Archaeology shows early dates, and we see prophecies of Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes, Rome, Europe, Israel, et al MANY times in the Bible.

You and I haven't even discussed how Daniel predicted the date for Christ's crucifixion, whether you take a Christian date for Daniel of 6th century BCE or a revisionist date of the 3rd century BCE. And if you take the revisionist date, you ALSO have Daniel predicting the Maccabean war, naming the players, events, resolution...

In part, I'm a "believer" because there are so many prophecies, hundreds and hundreds, proven true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is not anti-Semitic to say that biblical prophecy is not convincing. To be anti-Semitic, a comment needs to disparage Jews.

We've previously discussed the criteria for high quality prophecy. Among other things, high quality prophecy needs to be specific, detailed and unambiguous. The scriptures from Leviticus and Ezekiel (if I recall correctly) don't rise to that level. If they had, you would have been able to predict the year 1948 from them before 1948. The fact that somebody had to search the entire Bible for passages that could be massaged into generating the result of 1948 disqualifies it as predicting that date.

Also to be high quality, the prophecy needs to predict something unexpected, unlikely or unique, and something that was not self-fulfilling and could not have been contrived or easily guessed.

Contrast biblical prophecy with scientific prophecy, which is high quality. Consider the predictions made about the Higgs boson, something which could not have been easily guessed, is unique, and which included specific predictions about the energy level which would be needed to find it, and what its charge, spin, and parity would be.

Or consider the prediction that the gravity of the sun would bend distant starlight grazing past its edge would distort the apparent location of the originating star by a specific amount in a specific direction, something also unexpected and confirmed in detail.



That is our job. Either you're seeing something that isn't there, or we're not seeing something that is. We should decide which it is.

I have a reliable method for that, and it tells me that the person claiming to see or otherwise experience God is experiencing his own mind. I've shared this with you before:

Spoiler: the reliable method

How do we decide which is correct when one group of people tells us that they had a sensory experience of some type, and another group of people in similar circumstance say that they have not?

How about if I found myself in a world in which people told me that they could see red and green, but I couldn't. How could I decide whether it was me that could not see something that existed, or if they were seeing things or perpetrating a hoax?

Easily. I test them. I ask somebody to put a red sock in my left hand and a green one in my right hand, socks that look identical to me and are thus indistinguishable. Then I interview a number of people not in communication with one another who claim to be able to discern red from green, and ask them to tell me which sock appears red and which appears green to them.

When I get the same answer from them all, I know that they can see something I can't. When they're unable to come to a consensus and more or less half tell me that the sock in my left hand is red and the other half tell me it's green, or that both are red or green, I know that they are not seeing any more than I do.

Those are the kinds of answers I get from people that tell me about God, and why I don't believe them. I think that they are telling the truth as they understand it, but they are only experiencing their own minds and projecting some of its content onto external reality.

Are you implying that our rights come from God? If God has always been around, why did it take so many centuries to obtain these rights? Where were they in the Middle Ages? Why weren't they in the Bible? Why do so many people still not have these rights? Why did they have to be enumerated by men, fought for by men, defended by men, enforced by men, interpreted by men, and amended by men? What part did a god play in any of that?

I have a pretty good idea why God references made it into a declaration to rebel against the king. Imagine trying to manufacture the support for a revolution from Bible believing people whose Bibles contain this passage:

• "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."- Romans 13:1-2

Good questions, all.

I'm most concerned about your 1948 statement, that someone had to "comb the Bible". They didn't. There is one passage of diaspora length, prophesied, and one passage describing a seven times punishment that someone considered as time rather than severity of punishment. This is unambiguous in terms of Bible passages on non-Jewish issues which have prophecies that literally use the word "time" and "times" to talk about duration of time.

Second, I hear what you're saying about different God reports. I do, however, I recognize a kind God who tailors individual experiences, hides Himself from skeptics (making it just easy enough for those who want Him to find Him while frustrating skeptics in their pseudo-searches for god), and I also am aware that charlatans exist and counterfeiting demons and antichrists. HOWEVER, I also find that born agains have REMARKABLY similar testimonies as well as similar spiritual gifts, both described in the scriptures.

You also have some very reasonable questions about rights. While I could say, "See Adam and Eve" or something else trite, I'd encourage you to ask God, after all, when Christians asked God about justice, they resolved to become abolitionists and so forth. Good stuff there.

And YES, Romans explains that the American Revolution was absolutely not the correct move to make--but sometimes God blesses sinners, too...

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think you are assuming too much from someone who does not believe in heaven or hell.
But paedophiles repented or not should not get a pass to what you describe as utopia; having said that hell is far too bad for anyone however heinous their crimes

What is the measure you are using to decide who should not go to Heaven and who should not go to Hell? Because if you tell me, "I just feel this kind of justice is correct," I must reply, "I just feel like God exists and Jesus Christ is real."

 

[BilliardsBall]

The bible is not a basis for morality, morality is a human trait, not a Christian trait. Christianity in millennia past have hijacked morality, modified the concept to suit themselves and exclude everyone who does not have a god on their shoulder telling them what is right and wrong. Is it moral to steal a way of life, the source of civilisation and deny it to those you dont like?

Without human morality civilisation would not exist, humans would be just another group of plains animals alone and struggling for existence.

Re your number 2, i did not say atheist were more immoral than christian, those are words twisted words, what i said was that in my experience atheists tend to be more moral than Christians. How moral does that make you to distort another's words just to score god points? This is a point i have highlighted before with prison population statistics.

Re your number 3, you know those are not words i used, you have fabricated them to suit your own sensibilities. Thus showing you fail the morality of being honest test.

Not doing so well at this Christian morality are you?

Also to me, morality is not subjective, they are objective mores and way of life.

I deny god or gods for a very good objective reason, there is no physical evidence of gods and never has been. The bible says your god committed genocide and child murder, he condones mass murder, theft, slavery, rape and subjugation, is this a good guide to moral superiority? Is demanding that i ditch my morality and adopt the morality of a genocidal god a moral thing to do?

So you say that not following the word of a genocidal god means i have double standards??? How do you figure that projection?

It doesn't matter what proportion of your income you gave to charity, you brought up charity and i blew your claim out of the water with factual reports. So be honest, have you actually donated your entire wealth to charity as JC suggested.... Which begs the question how did you pay for your computing device and internet connections. Do i sense double standards here?

I apologize if I misquoted you, but I remembered you writing you feel certain things and so know they're true. (That's okay, all people have certain feelings they rely upon, and you never tell your husband, "Prove you love me with facts. Enough about my feelings and your feelings!")

Which is it? Do you have facts that prove your moral choices are indeed moral, or is it a subjective morality that you feel?

I never said that "not following a genocidal god," nor "not following a non-genocidal god," is a double standard. To rephrase, what I said was, "It's a double standard to tell me you feel certain morality is right, while it is impossible for someone to feel the presence of Jesus Christ."

And I do see your argument that without morality, society falls, and I agree. Did you know that is a main reason the Bible gives for God promoting human morality? See, the Bible is logical.

And you and I have not talked specific charity percentages, but I must ask, "If I give 100% of all I have, does that make me more moral? How do you know?" and "I know Christians who've given 100% of what they have, does that make Jesus Christ more real to you?"

Thank you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Jewish people "who were being persecuted and continued to be" were persecuted in EVERY nation in diaspora for 2,520 years. THAT's the Bible prediction under discussion.

The 1948 thing could have been self-fulfilled, indeed zionists and Christians involved knew some of the prophecies, but didn't know the date until after. And how did the U.N. "self-fulfill" the exact date in their discussions and resolutions?!

Like I said, it's easy to make the details fit when you attempt to cram them in, AFTER THE FACT. Nostradamus' "prophecies" can also be convincing, when viewed in the same light.

And if this was predicted to a T, you have the 1948 prophecy and the persecution prophecy and the Israel will remain separate from the Gentiles and return to their ancestral land prophecy, etc.

If I'm being bullied and I make the claim I am going to continue to be bullied, is that a prophecy? Or is it an observation and conclusion of the facts that are going on around me?

And who said "God provides the details to prophecy fulfillers?" Not me.

What is it that you are suggesting then, exactly?

God says specifically in the Bible, "Watch as I quote X and it occurs." That's why people take late dates for Bible writings wherever possible.

Okay so God does "provide the details to prophecy fulfillers" then? You just said above that "He" doesn't.

Archaeology shows early dates, and we see prophecies of Alexander the Great, Antiochus Epiphanes, Rome, Europe, Israel, et al MANY times in the Bible.

Do you latch onto Nostradamus' prophecies so quickly and willingly as well? He supposedly predicted all kinds of things long before they happened. Or so say the people who perform all kinds of mental gymnastics to make his prophecies work out too. When things are stately vaguely enough without exact details, it's not all that difficult to cram them into any pre-made "prophecies" you want. It's funny how none of these supposed prophecies actually provide any dates, though you continually claim that they have predicted exact dates. They'd be a lot more convincing if they said something like "Israel will become a sovereign nation on May 14, 1948." It's all just counting back numbers from arbitrary places, which again, makes it a whole lot easier to get what you want out of the stories.

I don't recall you providing a Bible verse for this yet (if you have, I apologize).
Are you referring to Isaiah 66:8?

"Who has ever heard of such a thing? Who has ever seen such things? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children."

If it is, I've got to say, that's pretty weak. And talk about vague!

You and I haven't even discussed how Daniel predicted the date for Christ's crucifixion, whether you take a Christian date for Daniel of 6th century BCE or a revisionist date of the 3rd century BCE. And if you take the revisionist date, you ALSO have Daniel predicting the Maccabean war, naming the players, events, resolution...

How vague are those prophecies, I wonder.

In part, I'm a "believer" because there are so many prophecies, hundreds and hundreds, proven true.

Oh so you didn't believe in God before you researched those "prophecies?"

You pretty much ignored my point earlier, so I'll ask this way:
Let's say all the prophecies turned out exactly as claimed, as you believe. What conclusion(s) do you draw from that, and why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You know, I WOULD agree, however, what happened was this:

1. Atheists said "Ezekiel prophecy is a no go"
2. Christians were reading the Bible and saw the Leviticus "seven times", after 1948, sure
3. Christians applied it to the Ezekiel prophecy, which added to 1948, and said, Whoa!

Now, the actual conclusion they began with, which research after bore out, was "God always tells the truth and atheists can't be right that this prophecy was an epic fail." In other words, atheists tend to read one verse, and miss context or a verse to confer with.

If Christians saw 1948 before that date we could argue about a self-fulfilled prophecy.

What I don't see you arguing against, but would be pleased to argue with you, is how the sole prophecy of Israel's length of diaspora, when put through the seven times hopper, comes out to May 15, 1948. Your argument would certainly sway me if the prophecies together pointed to a diaspora of about 2,000 years or "sometime in the 20th century" rather than 2,520 biblical years unto a specific day.

I mean, you can say other things in this vein, like "Sure, Israel is a Jewish state, and then people read into the Bible that Israel would be won back by Jewish forces," but again, the consistent Bible record is that is exactly what would occur.

You don't really see any logical flaw by disdaining that after atheists seized upon a particular passage, pointing out the diaspora return date was wrong, someone noticed the seven times prophecy, comes out to May 15, 1948?! And then they picked up an old newspaper to see the very hand of God!

Here's what happens when you Google May 15, 1948: may 15, 1948 - Google Search

Here are more prophecies: 10 Prophecies Fulfilled in 1948

Still no explanation of the 1948 date. And let's look at the Amos prophecy first. To see if a prophecy has "come true" or not one must look at the entire prophecy. One key proviso to that prophecy was in Amos 9 10 and 11:

10 All the sinners among my people
will die by the sword,
all those who say,
‘Disaster will not overtake or meet us.

11 “In that day

“I will restore David’s fallen shelter
I will repair its broken walls
and restore its ruins and will rebuild it as it used to be,

Are you saying that all sinning Jews died by the sword? That all of the Jews that survived the holocaust were sinless? I would seriously doubt that claim.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I apologize if I misquoted you, but I remembered you writing you feel certain things and so know they're true. (That's okay, all people have certain feelings they rely upon, and you never tell your husband, "Prove you love me with facts. Enough about my feelings and your feelings!")

Which is it? Do you have facts that prove your moral choices are indeed moral, or is it a subjective morality that you feel?

I never said that "not following a genocidal god," nor "not following a non-genocidal god," is a double standard. To rephrase, what I said was, "It's a double standard to tell me you feel certain morality is right, while it is impossible for someone to feel the presence of Jesus Christ."

And I do see your argument that without morality, society falls, and I agree. Did you know that is a main reason the Bible gives for God promoting human morality? See, the Bible is logical.

And you and I have not talked specific charity percentages, but I must ask, "If I give 100% of all I have, does that make me more moral? How do you know?" and "I know Christians who've given 100% of what they have, does that make Jesus Christ more real to you?"

Thank you.

You do not seem to understand that all morality is subjective. Even yours. There is nothing wrong with subjective morality as long as it is consistent. Atheist subjective morality tends to be far superior to Christian subjective morality. Both have room for improvement, but atheist morality is self correcting where Christian morality tends to resist correction.

 

[ChristineM]

I apologize if I misquoted you, but I remembered you writing you feel certain things and so know they're true. (That's okay, all people have certain feelings they rely upon, and you never tell your husband, "Prove you love me with facts. Enough about my feelings and your feelings!")

Which is it? Do you have facts that prove your moral choices are indeed moral, or is it a subjective morality that you feel?

I never said that "not following a genocidal god," nor "not following a non-genocidal god," is a double standard. To rephrase, what I said was, "It's a double standard to tell me you feel certain morality is right, while it is impossible for someone to feel the presence of Jesus Christ."

And I do see your argument that without morality, society falls, and I agree. Did you know that is a main reason the Bible gives for God promoting human morality? See, the Bible is logical.

And you and I have not talked specific charity percentages, but I must ask, "If I give 100% of all I have, does that make me more moral? How do you know?" and "I know Christians who've given 100% of what they have, does that make Jesus Christ more real to you?"

Thank you.

And again you are misquoting me. I have never said i accept my feelings as true. Feelings are subject to manipulation by events, past and present.

Yes there are facts that theft and murder and rape and slavery are wrong, its called he law.

Show me objective evidence of JC

Stolen from much older civilisations, far older than the Bible so so dont pretend the bible invented morality

So you avoid the question. Fair enough if you are too embarrassed to answer