Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[SkepticThinker]

Thanks for raising these issues. Often, when preaching, I mention Nostradamus. His prophecies were vague, even so, less than 1% of his prophecies have come to pass, vaguely.

What a coincidence.

This guy here says that Nostradamus made at least 10 predictions that came true:
10 Nostradamus Predictions That Actually Came TRUE

This guy lists some more ... apparently Nostradamus predicted that Donald Trump would become President of the US! :
10 Nostradamus Predictions That Actually Came TRUE

It's almost like it's totally up to interpretation!

One set of prophecies you and I have been discussing goes like this:

1. The Jews will be in diaspora 2,520 years
2. They will scatter to many nations
3. They will be a blessing in each nation
4. They will be persecuted, at times awfully, in each nation
5. They will in a single day receive their land
6. Enemies will surround them as they do

There are many more points that could be added, but we have fairly specific prophecies here that touch a several-million member people group, as well as many of the Gentile nations.

There are verses besides Isaiah 66 in play, but the fact is, unlike many nations that arose over time, as borders flexed and wars raged and monarchs reigned and fought, the U.N. declared Israel to exist at 12:01 AM, May 15, 1948. Within 24 hours, six Arab nations declared war. Numerous prophecies follow, including Jewish victory against vastly superior forces.

I went back and forth with belief in God and skepticism for years, but studying prophecies led me to trust Christ and become a Christian believer, to answer your question.

I'm curious how you demonstrate #3?

And again, to say that people who are being persecuted at the time of writing, will continue to be persecuted, isn't all that prophetic to me. It's an observation that could be made that doesn't require any divine knowledge or insight. Not to mention the fact that so many different groups claim the "holy lands" for themselves, and all of those lands happen to fall in pretty much the same area. Again, it's not all that surprising that when one group lays claim to it, other groups that think it belongs to them would have a problem with that.

Every country that became a country "received their land" in a single day.

Bible verses matter here. You keep telling me that the prophecy is spot on (it's not). How can we know that without quoting the verses in question? How do I know you're not just cramming your beliefs into it to make it work out the way you want?

Thank you for answering my question. Perhaps you could answer my other question that I've asked twice now, which was:
Let's say all the prophecies turned out exactly as claimed, as you believe. What conclusion(s) do you draw from that, and why?

I guess you conclude that the God of the Bible is real? I just don't know why.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You didn't like the first link I posted, but clearly ignored the second link where I explained the date.

Did you ever stop to think of how common it is for skeptics to misunderstand Bible interpretation? I see that the sinners who died by the sword had another factor in play, they were also the ones who said "Disaster will not overtake or meet us," in the (future) day when Messiah comes to restore the ruins of David's structures.

The Holocaust? And you want me to fix my dates?

Perhaps you are misinterpreting the text. How could we ever really know anyway?

 

[SkepticThinker]

My self-evident claim for Christ has not been substantiated to you, but it has been to me, therefore, "self-evident" as opposed to "evident, even to skeptics, deniers and former religionists."

That might be good enough for you. But what good is it to anyone else?

The veil of ignorance is a good reference, yes, for the empathy we employ to hear women who say, "No means no" and "Rape causes me untoward pain and harm." Yes!

Now, demonstrate using empirical, testable, falsifiable, observable, documented facts and evidence, how causing someone pain is "wrong". You already said "rape is subjectively wrong" when you said "morals are subjective". After all, my sharing Christian concepts with you may cause you pain, but I feel this pain is for your greater good, so I continue. Sometimes, causing pain is good. "No pain, no gain" is what the gym folks teach.

I think what you actually meant to say is "causing someone a certain intolerable amount of pain is wrong," meaning you would now need to show facts proving how we measure pain and what "too much pain" is and what laboratory instruments we can use to measure pain, which is, at some level, metaphysical. Pain can even be illusory.

After all, just today you told me atheist morality is "superior" to Christian morality. Arrogant, but if it's also true, prove it with some facts. Thanks!

Why do you keep ignoring the method I laid out?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You can demonstrate why your morals are superior? Of necessity, you'd have to show everyone using falsifiable, testable facts what "better" and "worse" morals are.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry over your post. I got it! I'll pray.

I can. My morals are based on well being, logic, empathy, rationality, reasoning and the progress of mankind over the millennia.

Yours are supposedly dictated from an invisible being that you can't demonstrate the existence of. Your method is not really a method at all, it's simply a list of dictates that you have to believe are moral in nature because the invisible being says so in a really old book.

 

[Altfish]

My understanding is the Bible requirement for Heaven is simple: Trust Jesus.

To miss Heaven for Hell is to: Distrust Jesus.

You wrote, "God's justice is selfish, unjust." I find His mercy is unfair instead. He'd let a mass murderer in for trusting Jesus! You, however, feel clearly that a "bad enough" person should miss Heaven and spend eternity in perdition. My guess is your double standard includes the idea that you personally should get into Heaven because you're "good enough".

Please tell me what good you or I should do to earn eternal, blessed life!

No, I've stated before, Heaven sounds an absolutely awful place. I would definitely not want to be sent there for eternity. Can you imagine some of the horrible people you'd have to meet, Ugh!!
I don't believe in Jesus never mind 'trust' him. So I'm frazzled before I start.

 

[Altfish]

Weird,

I, on the other hand, feel it is capricious and arbitrary.

I wouldn't dispute that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

So, you do not have any "objective" evidence that rape is wrong, other than an ad populum argument.

There is no objective evidence that anything is wrong. The objective evidence is that rape damages people. It terrifies them, may be violent, and steals a persons ability to consent or not. That is called objective evidence because it's plain for all to see.

The moral judgments regarding such things are subjective, even if they are the same for all moral agents. They cannot be demonstrated, just stated.

This is the unbridgeable chasm between what is true, and what is right or good. We can't get from one to the other. We have to bring both to the process of rational ethics, which tells us how to construct a society and how to live our lives according to core beliefs that simply cannot be derived. My core beliefs include the utilitarian precept that the highest good is that which facilitates the most satisfaction and least suffering in the world. The idea is neither true or false.

Once we decide what is good, which is the output of our moral faculty, the conscience, we subject it to the reasoning faculty, or what is true - what works - to achieve that end.

I asked if you can prove anything is objectively true, so I can show how we can apply the same standards of evidence for Jesus Christ.

I can, but only with objects and their processes, properties, and relationships. The key part of the word objective is object. We conceive of a conscious agent as subject, and the source of its perceptions of the world outside of the mind as the object. The object when apprehended is evidence because it is evident.

This is the fundamental difference between objective truth and subjective truth. Subjective truth wont be the same for all observers. The apple falls from the tree and we each take a bite. One of us likes it, the other doesn't.

It can be said that it is objectively true that an apple fell from the tree and was tasted by two people. Anybody else present would interpret what they saw in that way. It may be true that one liked the apple and one didn't, but the observers can only report what they were told by the tasters. The subjective truth is known only to them, and doesn't necessarily apply to any other potential taster.

So, when you use the qualifier objectively before the word true, you ought to be discussing something that all observers can experience and confirm is true.

This is why I consider the phrase objective morals a reference to nothing real. There is no rule out there to be for right or wrong behavior. The rules are all in the heads of sentient moral agents (subjects) and nowhere else.

Peter says in 1 Peter that OT prophecy is a more reliable source used to verify Jesus's truth than walking with Jesus for years as an eyewitness?

Words are just evidence that the words were written or spoken. They are not evidence that anything else is true about the world.

One needs to consult external reality to determine the truth content about a statement purporting to be making a factual statement about it.

I say now that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. Is that true or not? You can't tell from the words, can you? To confirm or disconfirm the truth of those words, you'd need physical evidence. Walking with me from my front door to the pier will answer the question for you in a way that no number of words could.

Even when you use biblical prophecy, you can't call it fulfilled (true) without consulting physical reality.

 

[ArtieE]

This is why I consider the phrase objective morals a reference to nothing real. There is no rule out there to be for right or wrong behavior. The rules are all in the heads of sentient moral agents (subjects) and nowhere else.

Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Evolution and Functionally Objective Morality - The Gemsbok

Did you see this piece as a contradiction? If so, I don't:

"From this perspective, one will be able to observe that although morality, both for the individual and for society, might not be literally objective, this does not mean that it must be purely subjective; it may be functionally objective."

Literally objective is the same a objective.

Functionally objective in this context is what I have called subjective - existing only in minds. Even obtaining 100% consensus from all moral agents doesn't make a moral precept objectively real.

 

[Phantasman]

But you aware that Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 15 that the gospel is proved by OT prophecy? Or that Peter says in 1 Peter that OT prophecy is a more reliable source used to verify Jesus's truth than walking with Jesus for years as an eyewitness?

You will need to show me Paul's words saying such. The chapter doesn't say anything like that since the prophets never knew the gospel (given by the Spirit) since they never knew the Spirit (capital S). They all died for that reason, and couldn't be saved until "Christ" was created (through Jesus).

Hebrews is another book that pushes the orthodox view of catholic thought. Probably written by an emerging catholic sympathizer.

John 10:
7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Going before the time Jesus came to seek spiritual truth means nothing. Jesus brought the truth.

 

[ArtieE]

Did you see this piece as a contradiction? If so, I don't:

"From this perspective, one will be able to observe that although morality, both for the individual and for society, might not be literally objective, this does not mean that it must be purely subjective; it may be functionally objective."

Literally objective is the same a objective.

Literally objective is literally objective. Functionally objective means it isn't purely subjective but works as if it is literally objective. It's a third option between literally objective and purely subjective.

Functionally objective in this context is what I have called subjective - existing only in minds. Even obtaining 100% consensus from all moral agents doesn't make a moral precept objectively real.

What is beneficial for the well-being and survival of a society isn't subjective. You might be of the subjective opinion that it would be moral and good for the society if everybody murdered each other but you would be functionally objectively wrong.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There is no objective evidence that anything is wrong. The objective evidence is that rape damages people. It terrifies them, may be violent, and steals a persons ability to consent or not. That is called objective evidence because it's plain for all to see.

The moral judgments regarding such things are subjective, even if they are the same for all moral agents. They cannot be demonstrated, just stated.

This is the unbridgeable chasm between what is true, and what is right or good. We can't get from one to the other. We have to bring both to the process of rational ethics, which tells us how to construct a society and how to live our lives according to core beliefs that simply cannot be derived. My core beliefs include the utilitarian precept that the highest good is that which facilitates the most satisfaction and least suffering in the world. The idea is neither true or false.

Once we decide what is good, which is the output of our moral faculty, the conscience, we subject it to the reasoning faculty, or what is true - what works - to achieve that end.



I can, but only with objects and their processes, properties, and relationships. The key part of the word objective is object. We conceive of a conscious agent as subject, and the source of its perceptions of the world outside of the mind as the object. The object when apprehended is evidence because it is evident.

This is the fundamental difference between objective truth and subjective truth. Subjective truth wont be the same for all observers. The apple falls from the tree and we each take a bite. One of us likes it, the other doesn't.

It can be said that it is objectively true that an apple fell from the tree and was tasted by two people. Anybody else present would interpret what they saw in that way. It may be true that one liked the apple and one didn't, but the observers can only report what they were told by the tasters. The subjective truth is known only to them, and doesn't necessarily apply to any other potential taster.

So, when you use the qualifier objectively before the word true, you ought to be discussing something that all observers can experience and confirm is true.

This is why I consider the phrase objective morals a reference to nothing real. There is no rule out there to be for right or wrong behavior. The rules are all in the heads of sentient moral agents (subjects) and nowhere else.



Words are just evidence that the words were written or spoken. They are not evidence that anything else is true about the world.

One needs to consult external reality to determine the truth content about a statement purporting to be making a factual statement about it.

I say now that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier. Is that true or not? You can't tell from the words, can you? To confirm or disconfirm the truth of those words, you'd need physical evidence. Walking with me from my front door to the pier will answer the question for you in a way that no number of words could.

Even when you use biblical prophecy, you can't call it fulfilled (true) without consulting physical reality.

Thank you! A sound and reasoned answer.

No moral certitude can be said to be objective. Morals must be self-evident to the moralist at some level. It is self-evident to me that God exists.

And yes, to see biblical prophecy fulfilled, we must have physical evidence in reality. Yes.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, I've stated before, Heaven sounds an absolutely awful place. I would definitely not want to be sent there for eternity. Can you imagine some of the horrible people you'd have to meet, Ugh!!
I don't believe in Jesus never mind 'trust' him. So I'm frazzled before I start.

You'd have to meet every young child who has ever passed. You'd have to meet most of the scientists who've ever lived. You'd have to meet people who care about you, and likely, many of your ancestors.

Your flippant answer underscores the obvious, too, you'd rather be with Hitler and paedophiles. Good show... not!

 

[BilliardsBall]

So still fixated on rape? Prison is objective, get over your wet dream

And you have used the rape hooey more than than a Jesus argument with me on rf and another forum. I can only consider facts

Repeating: I'm not stuck on rape. I asked if you can prove anything is objectively true, so I can show how we can apply the same standards of evidence for Jesus Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And the difference between evidence and evidence is what?

And i know well that at least some is fraudulent, some is impossible, some is hearsay which is not evidence hence the qualification of objective.

I also know there is evidence that jesus was the illegitimate child of a Roman soldier and that he didn't meet the criteria of massiah

Please provide that evidence now.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I can. My morals are based on well being, logic, empathy, rationality, reasoning and the progress of mankind over the millennia.

Yours are supposedly dictated from an invisible being that you can't demonstrate the existence of. Your method is not really a method at all, it's simply a list of dictates that you have to believe are moral in nature because the invisible being says so in a really old book.

If I took what you said is true (which is counter to what you said earlier, since we agreed morals are subjective and I add the list you gave to my Bible study), you still are yet to prove how your morals are superior. Waiting . . .

 

[BilliardsBall]

What a coincidence.

This guy here says that Nostradamus made at least 10 predictions that came true:
10 Nostradamus Predictions That Actually Came TRUE

This guy lists some more ... apparently Nostradamus predicted that Donald Trump would become President of the US! :
10 Nostradamus Predictions That Actually Came TRUE

It's almost like it's totally up to interpretation!


I'm curious how you demonstrate #3?

And again, to say that people who are being persecuted at the time of writing, will continue to be persecuted, isn't all that prophetic to me. It's an observation that could be made that doesn't require any divine knowledge or insight. Not to mention the fact that so many different groups claim the "holy lands" for themselves, and all of those lands happen to fall in pretty much the same area. Again, it's not all that surprising that when one group lays claim to it, other groups that think it belongs to them would have a problem with that.

Every country that became a country "received their land" in a single day.

Bible verses matter here. You keep telling me that the prophecy is spot on (it's not). How can we know that without quoting the verses in question? How do I know you're not just cramming your beliefs into it to make it work out the way you want?

Thank you for answering my question. Perhaps you could answer my other question that I've asked twice now, which was:
Let's say all the prophecies turned out exactly as claimed, as you believe. What conclusion(s) do you draw from that, and why?

I guess you conclude that the God of the Bible is real? I just don't know why.

You must not realize that if Nostradamus had 20 (vague!) predictions come to pass, he is less than 1% accurate. Your question is more to the point: what if all the prophecies turned out to be true? Then we would realize God is 100% prescient, a super-being.

I'm curious how you demonstrate #3?

For one example, Jews are 1/4 of 1% of the world's population, yet win 12% of Nobel stem prizes. They outperform Gentiles 48:1 or more. Entire books have been written about the Jewish accomplishments in every field of human endeavor despite lacking a nation of their own, and experiencing persecution everywhere.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think you need to read the post again. The question had to do with whether or not I can know if someone feels love towards me. (Your exact words were, “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!").

We love with feelings, obviously. When questioning the feelings of another person toward me, there are facts I can gather to ascertain that those feelings are actually genuine. As noted, I can see that my husband does nice things for me, tells me he loves me and treats me with respect and dignity. If he told me he loved me but hit me everyday and told me I’m worthless, I’d have good reason to doubt that he actually loves me, wouldn’t you say? Or should I just pretend he loves me anyway because it makes me feel good to think that somebody loves me?



I can demonstrate to you that my husband exists. You have yet to demonstrate the existence of any god(s) on this thread.

Hold the phone! Please prove your husband exists.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You will need to show me Paul's words saying such. The chapter doesn't say anything like that since the prophets never knew the gospel (given by the Spirit) since they never knew the Spirit (capital S). They all died for that reason, and couldn't be saved until "Christ" was created (through Jesus).

Hebrews is another book that pushes the orthodox view of catholic thought. Probably written by an emerging catholic sympathizer.

John 10:
7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Going before the time Jesus came to seek spiritual truth means nothing. Jesus brought the truth.

You did not know that Paul says in 1 Cor 15 that Christ died for our sin "according to the scriptures"?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If I took what you said is true (which is counter to what you said earlier, since we agreed morals are subjective and I add the list you gave to my Bible study), you still are yet to prove how your morals are superior. Waiting . . .

It's exactly the same thing I was saying earlier. I've been saying the same thing the whole time.

I just explained how my moral system is superior in the very post you just responded to. You don't even have a moral system. You have only dictates.