Comments by LeeC

301. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #44535 by LeeC on May 25, 2007 at 4:06 am

Hi Q,

Thanks - will do right. I was getting bored and started talking to myself...

I will post any comments I have there.

Lee

302. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #44392 by LeeC on May 24, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Hi Billy

Thanks for this.

Well… I'm sold, sounds better than any prophecy I have heard from the bible.

You know of course if you fire enough prophecies the chances are one will hit the target.

Did the man claim god spoke to him? Was god mentioned anywhere in the prediction – be it the source of the information or the being taking the action?

Does the bible allow for other prophets after the bible?

I'm sure if we looked we could find lots of prophecies that turn out to be true… we will all forget the millions that were wrong.

Since the bible is collection of books over hundreds of years, it is of course possible a selection process occurred – remove the prophecies that were false (obviously not written by god) keep the ones that look good – obviously written by god.

Erm… do we have any evidence of such a selection process? It certainly happen for the NT, why not the OT?

Must go

Lee

303. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #44281 by LeeC on May 24, 2007 at 4:32 am

Hello again Mark,

See what you have done to me... it's all about the bible now.

I'm still trying not to judge the passage you gave me until you have the chance to respond in full. Not easy though…

However, since in your reply to JC you have touched upon some of my questions, (and JC has not responded yet) I will dive in and reply to those that concern me.

Question raised by JC

Please indicate the verse(s) that specifically and independently identify each of the following Tyrian attackers (sequential order not necessary) -

a) Alexander

Your reply

a) Alexander is not named in scripture, nor is it necessary that he should be. If he had been, then probably you'd either:

(1) ask for the name of his deputy as well, or someone else you deemed pertinent (after all, there could be many Alexanders – maybe Ezekiel just got lucky?), then if that was satisfied, you'd want the name of his wife (or his son), etc. etc.

or (2) you'd say that that his name got inserted in the text at some time later, after he did what he was prophesied to do.

How can I be sure you wouldn't? Note that (2) is exactly the sort of response I get when I point out that Cyrus is named in Isaiah, over 150 years before he came on the scene…

Lets break this down a little...

Alexander is not named in scripture, nor is it necessary that he should be.

Of course Alex does not need to be named... you can keep the prophecy nice and vague if you like so any old attack in the next 5,000 years could be pinned to this prophecy.

But such a prophecy is not worth the paper it is written on…

Lets try an example and see if it is helpful?: -

If I could produce a document that I really could prove was written 220 years ago (say 1790 for ease) that stated the following: -

"England will come under a great threat from overseas and its capital city will be attacked with innocent people will dying with great fires"

(I could have throw in some fine houses and walls falling down or something but you get the picture. )

So how good would this prophecy actually have been if written in 1790?

Now this is just an example of a prophecy I made up, but it seems rather a good prophecy as they go – and I will prove it?

Well, I said I could prove it was actually 220 years old, lets assume this is unquestionable - maybe it was written by my Great- Great-Great granddad or something

Do I have a great prophet in the family?

No of course not.

Since for one reason (the reason why I created this example) is that no name was mention and so I cannot place this prophecy to any single event and time. (So this seems to me to be rather similar to the bible prophecy you quoted.)

As for the event itself, what actually does it describe, what could it mean and specify?

Answer: Nothing really that precise I am sure you will agree?

But London has not been attacked from overseas for what – 700 years at the time of writing… so this in itself would make it a great prophecy

However, looking back from the 21st Century, what could we say of it?

It was written at a time between great wars - England has just been fighting America, and the French revolution has recently occurred and this starts all sorts of worries for the British government,

Worried in no small way that such a revolution may occur to their own establishment – add to this that history shows that the Napoleonic wars were just around the corner you can start to believe the worry the general public had.

So it was probably local events that were the basis of the prophecy, and the events prophesied would be for a "near future" in years or 10's of years.

However, London was not actually attacked in this period- so the prophecy is wrong?

But wait... I think my Great etc etc Granddad was a truly great prophet.

So I will give you evidence of his great prophesy being true… in a different time.

150 years after this prophecy was written the Germans were bombing the hell out of London - great fires all over the place - innocent people dying every day. (Walls and fine building falling…)

This was truly a great prophecy then, since this type of warfare never happened before right?

It must be this period, the 1940's... wow what a guy - what a prophecy... this is truly a major event and was prophesied 150 years before the times.

OK he did not mention the Germans or Hitler, but what the hell right - doing so is not necessary, as you have said?

But you should be now be saying, "What rubbish" as I am sure you are. (About the prophecy I hope, and not my argument? Erm – maybe both)

This prophecy was vague enough so I could fit also any event to it – given enough time...

I of course could have moved the event to the First World War - between 1914-1918 when the Germans were dropping bombs on London then. So why not this event?

Such a vague prophecy without names and times is pretty useless, unless of course what is being described is such a clear and precise event and it is then the event itself that can be used to "time-box" the prophecy.

And no, a vague description what you claim is a land bridge is not clear enough for me- although it is an unusual event in history, you have to twist the words to fit the historical events.

I read this verse before I knew about the land bridge and I did not see any mention of the bridge in the passage.

Even now "knowing" it is suppose to be describing a land bridge I still cannot see it, and would have thought any such description should have been clearer.

Conclusion:
Without a name, no time scale has been set – so given enough time, something is more than likely going to "fit the bill" so long as you are vague enough.

God could have given a name.

There may well have been many "Alexanders" as you put it, but I only know of one with the name of "Great". His deeds alone could have been described to make it clear.

This of course did not happen.

ask for the name of his deputy as well, or someone else you deemed pertinent (after all, there could be many Alexanders – maybe Ezekiel just got lucky?), then if that was satisfied, you'd want the name of his wife (or his son), etc. etc.

No... Someone as well known as Alexander the Great would be good enough.

You could describe this person pretty well even if god didn't remember his name by his deeds and where he came from.

Another example?

With the football prophecy that has been used before.

"A team in red from the north will win the FA Cup"

Would be greatly improved (more specific) with a single name like the manager (general) of the team. I do not need to know the whole coaching and playing staff for this improvement.

Of course, this on it's owned would not be good enough, since as it is this particular is still vague.

The more information, the more precise and specific the prophecy - the better the prophecy.

you'd say that that his name got inserted in the text at some time later, after he did what he was prophesied to do.

How can I be sure you wouldn't?

So simple… prove the date it was written, and a period that we know it could not have not been altered.
(An original document that still exists with the whole passage described, scientifically dated before the event is all I need.)

If you cannot prove the writing to be unaltered from a particular time and date, then the prophecy could just as well be a history essay – not prophecy.

This was my first fundamental requirement for prophecy.
We need evidence it was written before the date of the events described.

Without such evidence, the prophecy is like me describing the events of War World II - it would be nice history writing, but not prophecy.

So if you cannot prove the date, it is not then just be the name that would be an issue... but the WHOLE prophecy would be worthless.

because first Nebuchadrezzar, and then, rather later, Alexander & his coalition, completed the job described in those verses, in its entirety.

So if Alexander and his coalition "completed the job" in its entirety... then why is there further re-building on the site?

JC has pointed out several instances of re-building - do you have evidence or reason that none of these events took place? What are your reasons for ignoring such historic evidence?

By the way, I have recently found new and striking evidence in support of that assertion; I will talk about that in a later submission – you're just going to have to wait

I look forward to it... I guess this will answer the previous question.

For the simple reason that Tyre does not exist today at the city site that Nebuchadnezzar besieged and eventually entered. I will produce my evidence in support that, shortly.

So Tyre isn't Tyre anymore? So what was actually destroyed that was never to be rebuild? One of the fine houses?

I will just have to wait for the evidence I guess...

I don't think I'm alone in that: Richard Dawkins himself seems a trifle hesistant on it, in TGD (pp365-7): "most of us are too wimpish"

Wimpish on what?

Sorry I do not have my copy of the book to hand - spreading the gospel and all that.

For the record, since "faith" and "belief" is raised often in such discussions with a theist debating science, I have stated my position on both in the past – they seem reasonably to me.

I have "faith" in the scientific method...

I "believe" the method is the best we have.

To me though, both these words are just that… words.

A theist may have different meaning for them anyway – and I think this is what causes the problem.

My "faith" can be tested and replaced if a better method is found.

How about a faith of a theist?

Time to go.

Lee

304. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #44156 by LeeC on May 23, 2007 at 1:35 pm

Hi Billy,

Sorry for this typo I think I had other things on my mind :-)

I know you are busty and have a lot to write about

Wink Wink - Say no more. say no more. Know what I mean, Know what I mean. Wink Wink.


Hi Mark,

As I said, take you time and good luck with the talk.

Lee

305. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43903 by LeeC on May 23, 2007 at 3:48 am

Hi Billy,

Thanks for this… all day I had the idea of gay flies with lasers on their head.

Dr Evil knows what he is doing of course.


Hi Mark,

Not yet had time to reply to my comments yet?

No problem I will wait…

Your reply is directed at JC, and I really want to jump in on a couple of comments that relate to my own response.

I doubt I will tonight though, rugby is on the telly (my 3rd religion…) so I want to catch the 2nd half.

Maybe tomorrow if JC has not had the chance to reply himself.
(I assume now Mark you do not think I am doing this just so I can copy JC's arguments as my own? I hope you do not need more evidence of my "free thinking"?)

.

So Lee's suggesting that you need to believe the Bible first, before you can understand it (or, circularly, believe it) is not correct. You do need to suspend disbelief in it, for purposes of assessing its claims. But that's just like I had to suppress my doubts about relativity, when first reading a text book on it, or listening to my teacher/lecturers. The modest amount of quantum theory I've gleaned took even more effort, and many aspects of the various interpretations of it are still not entirely digestible, but still….

(I will try and complete your sentence)
… the experimental evidence confirms the theory. No matter how crazy I personally think it is.

I still stand by my statement; you require god to believe in the bible, and then the bible can be used to prove god.

This was after all the reasoning you put to me on why I could not understand/accept the 6,000-year-old universe and the many issues with Noah and the ark.

You said something like the understanding was based on believing in god/bible and this is why I could not accept your answer (at least this is how I remember it – sorry if I misunderstood.)

I did "suspend disbelief" when I read the chapter of the bible you gave me…

I thought, "OK… lets assume god does exist, lets see what the good book says to confirm this assumption…"

This is easy for a scientist to do… making crazy assumptions is what we do.

As you have stated by mentioning Quantum Mechanics (QM), and General Relativity (GM) in your reply.

I am more than capable of suspending my belief in "common sense" and what I "know must happen"… since if I brought in my "everyday experience and baggage" and try and understand either QM or GR I just couldn't.

The difference is though, although I can make crazy assumptions to explore any theory, if the evidence, experiments and results (call it what you like) do not present themselves confirming the assumptions, then the assumptions are truly crazy (and useless) and must be thrown away. (Are you able to explore the bible as a neutral? Suspend belief and read it?)

This is why I have kept QM and GR, they are backed up by a hell of a lot of repeatable evidence, and are still put to new tests everyday and they pass in the areas we agree they are valid (you know this of course)

I know their limitations, and I know science is looking to replace them – just as we did with Newton's laws and the Thomson "plum pudding model" of the atom.

So, in summary, I did "suspend my disbelief", read the chapter with the assumption god existed (you may of course doubt this – I cannot prove it to you) however I saw nothing but vague descriptions that can be assigned to almost any battle, no evidence to back up your claims, and a lot of questions.

I am of course waiting for you reply to my questions before I pass final judgement – it is the evidence that could confirm or deny this prophecy and hence the bible.

No pressure…

Lee

PS

Good luck with the talk… I wish I could be there (not sure if you would really want me there in the Q&A at the end but you seem a good sport)

While you are there, mention this thread – you never know, you may get some help from fellow theists and so free up sometime for yourself.

Must go… 2nd half is kicking off. State of Origin in case anyone is interested.

306. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43594 by LeeC on May 22, 2007 at 4:57 am

Hi Billy,

Whatever the meaning of the word "lay" is, it certainly isn't a land bridge.

Oh no I am debating words now!!!!

Have to go... been here long enough.


Lee

307. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43588 by LeeC on May 22, 2007 at 4:41 am

RE: 1166. Comment #42759 by J.C. Samuelson on May 19

Hi JC,

It seems like an age since I replied to you... bible debates of the depth Mark requires take time.

I am trying to catch up, but you have already posted a HUGE reply since I started drafting this.

Oh well.

I'm still not sure why I was required to enter into the debate on Ezekiel, since I still feel you and Billy have said enough - and I am sure also if I go through my questions/arguments they will not be so different to yours - just not as knowledgeable, which was my point I was trying to make to Mark.

However, Mark is only member of team theist at the moment, so I maybe I should be part of the debate, and not create new ones for Mark. (I think I understand now Mark if you are reading this)

Anyway, I am easily bored and feel my attention wanders… and with you, Billy and myself all hitting Mark with questions about Ezekiel I reckon he wished he had not raised the subject.

Sorry for borrowing some of your thunder.

Borrow away... I have a lot of thunder to give - plenty to go around.

Don't worry. I type for a living, since I work in the IT industry, so if I have a clear idea of what to write it goes pretty quick

So do I, but it's not so much the typing, the fingers are good at that - my problem is that sometimes my fingers type what they want to and not what the mind says... it is very strange sometimes some of the words I actually write, I think sometimes "type in tongues"

You come across as a very rational, logical thinker.

Thanks - this is due to my lack of imagination. This is why when I read a passage in the bible I normally read what is there, and not what I am suppose to read. It is so clear to the theist...

Oh my. You're right and I stand corrected. You are very long-winded. ;-D

>

And it has been getting worse I'm afraid, as you may have noticed. I should stick to short and to the point. However it is not easy when I am given a whole chapter full of... what's the word I am thinking of... "divine creativity?" - damn, that is two words, but it wasn't the first word that came to mind.

Or maybe they would be perpetual virgins

Interesting... and god could do it of course - he's great god is.
BTW - My wife has read your reply, and told me I chose wisely with the beer, fighting and eating – safe – besides the Vikings knew what they were talking about, that's a heaven that would not be boring. The heaven from the bible seems so dull in comparison. All those harps and white robes...

But as you and I agree, evidence is secondary to faith, and the theist can't afford to say the Bible might be wrong and still maintain their faith in it.

Yep - who needs evidence when you have god, he can break or bend any rule - including making the universe look like god doesn't exist. "
God: "and for my next trick… creative complex life that looks like it evolved… I will even place fossils in all the right places – this will test their faith."

It's funny how many theists do admit the bible is wrong or at least merely "descriptive" in so many areas. For example many theists believe in evolution and in doing so are admitting the Adam and Eve story is just that - a story. Mark is certainly not one of those, and I admire him for it, in a way. Certainly better than believing in "some" of the bible and still saying it was all written by god. Now that really doesn't make sense.

And isn't the theist forgetting that the bible is just a collection of books and stories selected by man. It is possible that god did write some books, but these might have disagreed with these "great men's" own views and were unselected and lost to history.

So god may have written a bible, but not the one selected by man. Possible. Since the bible we have today is not very consistent and suggests it was written by men, and put together by men.

This is one of the many reasons why I said I would not debate the bible (and you can see I am true to my word?) it does not disprove god. However, it was only Theo who debated on these lines.

What ever happened to Theo? Hope he doesn't doubt his faith in anyway.

. It requires opening your mind to faith first, then you can "see" the truth of the Bible. Because we humans are predisposed to irrational beliefs, it is all-too-easy for someone to latch on to something that's appealing to our nature on a certain level; a God who loves us and cares for us, because we know we're not perfect and have made a lot of mistakes and done bad things.

Amen brother...

erm - are we not turning into a religion?

If so, we are just a bunch of "cults" the lot of us.

Sorry... bad English humour.

Noah is a perfect example. Here's the thing (you may have already brought it up, or someone else): Theists deny evolution, but simultaneously assert that the whole human population, with all its diversity (e.g., Polynesian, Hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, Indo-European, etc.) occurred within a very, very short time span (about 3000 years) from the seed of Noah (all Middle Eastern). Then you have the whole problem with dinosaurs, marsupials, artic animals, plants (Mark seems to think a grass seed is the same thing as living grass in a reply to you some posts back) and much, much more. Then, of course, there's the fossil record which theists try to explain in flood terms, but really can't. Not without accusing scientists (sometimes Christians) of blatant dishonesty regarding the geologic column, or by blatant misrepresentation of the facts

The Noah debate ended almost as quick as it started (but are we blowing life back into it?)

We all have questions about it - even Mark (in that he could not answer a few of my points at all, hence I take this as a question, not that Mark is actually questioning the bible – just cannot answer bits of the Noah story.)

If we look back on some of Mark's answers, I pointed out that some of them are touching very closely to evolution as a solution- in fact I would argue it was evolution, stopping at one simple final step to be a full blown evolution theory.

Mark suggested that animals may have changed (evolved) into the variety of species we have today so Noah only needed to take a small number of unique animals that will change (evolve) over time (so just like taking only the wolf so later we can still get the Jack Russell or whatever dog we want by selective breeding) - but stopped at accepting that such a changing (evolving) animal may reach a point when it can no longer reproduce with its former family group/members, and became a unique species. (I could question the time scale for this – 6,000 years – but that would just be sad and not letting a dead debate end.)

Not sure if this is a true definition of the evolution process though, maybe Billy could step in on this one. I remember Billy pointed out a long time ago experiments with blow (fruit?) flies, that evolved to a point they could not reproduce with its former family tree members. (Notice the non-techie talk... I have not got a clue about biology - maybe this is why Mark asked me how the brain works... I am of course the best person to answer this – with Bert the Hamster of course... )

Unfortunately, I cannot remember the post and page number.

I do not recall any theist replying to this evidence? Could be wrong on that.

Now, how can one read the English translation, acknowledge its mistakes, yet still insist that it's of supernatural origin? Truly dizzying logic involved, I'm sure.

Have faith Brother, have faith.

How can remake the world in the image of the 1st century? I know! We'll teach kids to ignore evidence, to not ask probing questions. At least not those that question God.

It's funny - you are not allowed to sell cigarettes to children under 18 - in case they get addicted to them. They should wait until they are adults, old enough and educated enough to decide with their knowledge gained in their lifetime, listening to both sides of the argument from science and peers as to whether smoking is a good idea.

Not so with religion - teach them young - brainwash them early.

You cannot sell alcohol to children in case they enjoy the taste and the mind changing experience it has on their worldview...

Not so with religion - teach them young - teach them not to question god.

You cannot sell and allow a child to see pornographic material in case they like what they see and it affects their mind (and make them go blind)

Not so with religion - teach them young - and you have them for life.

The list goes on... and on...

There are reasons why we have these laws to protect our children, children need adult protection. They all too easily accept the views of an adult, a teacher or a parent - our childish brain is just wired that way. Don't ask questions, believe me, trust me.

Once it is in the brain of a child it is hard to get out... especially when religion won't let itself out that easy. Is religion a virus? I could not say... but we should protect our children until they are old enough to decide for themselves.

I have a son who is 18 months old.. a little angel (and monster) all rolled into one. I had so much pressure from family and outsiders to christen him, why? To get him into church of course.

At the moment, I have resisted... it is not easy.

If when he is 15 or 16 years old and if he wants to be Christened or whatever they do, then great, I will drive him to the church myself, since at this age he can start to question for himself... OK, he is still not an adult at this age, but he would have been educated to think, and if he thinks the church is right - then great.

OK... I'm off the parent soapbox now.

…and rest...deep breaths

It is astonishing how the lie that Jesus' companions wrote the books of the New Testament has persisted.

You just have to see when the books were written, after the death of Jesus, some so long after the death of Jesus it is like saying Will Shakespeare had it right about Richard III - it must be true it's in a book - dates and battles all happened. Why would he lie to us?

Erm... let me see now - Bill had his own agenda - nothing too serious - he just wanted to entertain, but more importantly he did not want to get his head cut off by saying that the current monarch had no right to be monarch (actually - since William was not a noble, it probably would have been the classic hung, drawn and quartered - nice)

It's a shame William did not go into prophecy (that I am aware of) since his complete works seem rather similar to the bible in so many ways. We are not even sure if he wrote them or he himself existed... this has to be the new religion of the 21st Century. "To be or not to be..." inspired.

And don't forget that about 30 million are atheists. A small percentage, but generally concentrated around cities

Really? Maybe it is not so bad then... they just have to get the loony theists out of politics. How can you trust any long term planning by a theist who believes the world is going to end within the next 60 years or so.

Why stop polluting the planet - god will fix it right? I personally think god will not be happy with the big hole in the roof we have over us... God: "OK, who is the idiot who broke the ozone layer? Come on, I know who you are?"

I look forward to the first atheist president? Maybe after Armageddon...

Nah, I understand. My preference in sports runs more to those involving ice & snow, though. Hockey and skiing mostly. Not much to watch in the warmer months, though.

Surprisingly they have winter sports in Australia... it surprised me at least. No ice hockey team though... I do not know if Melbourne actually has an ice rink?

Have a good weekend (though Lee is already in the second half of his as of this writing, it being a day ahead down under, right?)!

I did thanks, ManU got beat - shame about the cricket it was a draw - only the English I think could invent a game that is played over 5 days and you get a draw?

And yes I think Melbourne is +10 hours Greenwich Mean Time, so you guys in the states are way behind... It's funny on News Year's day watching the rest of the world celebrate and thinking... "That was so last year!!"

So there is NO CLEAR INDICATION that this indicates a specific reference to Alexander's mole. Ezekiel never says: "And I will/Javanites will scrape your timber and rock into the sea, building a bridge for their siege engines to knock down your walls, etc. etc. so on and so forth..."

I wish I could have been so brief... I think we take it in turns to write 3,000 word essays sometimes.

The following was JC's reply to Mark:

What I do assert is that your faith is just that, faith! You use the Bible to confirm your faith in God, and you see God's fingerprints on the Bible. What you see is what you find. To be fair, you could assert the same about me.

Can this really be asserted back onto the atheist... I suppose it can in very small areas.
(Mentioned before: The start of the universe. The start of the first life - maybe Mark could show more. The brain development question he posed to me (and not Billy – could he be singling out the weakest link again?) I think this is answered with evolution.)

There are unknowns and we do not know the complete answers to so much.
I think we do have "faith" in the scientific method... but it has explained so much of what we see in the physical world. I do not mind that.

I do not however have faith in a being, without any evidence, but my desire for it to be true.




Mark,

Your reply to JC

It fitted exactly. What Alexander did matched precisely to the peculiar and extraordinary, unique things that Ezekiel predicted. But Ezekiel did it first, before it happened. I am merely observing the precise match of prediction to event,

Erm... I have just written an essay disagreeing to this view-point so will not add more here, it is a place holder.

I am more interested how you brought Einstein into the equation...

just like looking back at the records of the Eddington eclipse expedition that verified Einstein's theory of relativity. The prediction was known - the theory was published, yet how could one know it was true? By seeing it actually work out in the predicted way. Einstein had set out his stall, and it stood or fell by the results of the measurement - he was very nervous about what Eddington would find.

Do I now look back on that experiment and say that actually the theory said nothing specific at all, and that Eddington's observations just happened to fit the theory, but lots of other things could too, since the theory had a few variables that weren't tied down? Of course not. Yet that is the equivalent of what you're saying about Ezekiel.

Was Einstein nervous? Possibly - it was only a theory at that time without experimental evidence.

Ezekiel set out his stall as effectively, and in even more risky complexity and detail than Einstein did his...

I challenge you to read General Relativity (GR) and tell me it is not complex?

As for "risky" – Einstein's theory has withstood tests he could not have dreamt of – quite literally out of this world.

Anyway, I now want to bring in JC's response here so I do not repeat what has been said ...

Just a quick recap from you first Mark:-

For all JCS has jumped in to respond to my request of you, before you had a chance yourself, I would be grateful if you would actually still attempt to do - for yourself, not leaning on the thinking of others

Hope you do not think I am only copying JC's response because I am unable to comment myself on this subject matter?

I do not "lean" on the thinking of others... I learn from the thinking of others, this is how knowledge improves...

"If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

This is a group debate after all... I really wish we had more theists on the debate to explore more subjects and maybe they could help you on your journey.

Bitter? me? Never!

You know me... all in good fun, all in good fun.

From JC

Although I understand your point - that a prediction was made and proved true later - the two predictions, Einstein's and Ezekiel's, are of a different character. Einstein's predictions were very easily falsified. Not so with Ezekiel. As far as I know, Ezekiel's prophecy could only be a failure if Nebuchadnezzar was ever the only one to attack Tyre. As long as someone - anyone - attacked Tyre successfully over the following 2,594 years until today, an apologetic could be offered to support the book as prophecy.

Yep - I agree here with JC. Einstein had a simple black and white test - no gravitational bending of the light and he would be wrong - game over. Not much room for a debate.

How the debate could have gone...

Einstein: "I think a heavy mass will bend light - so with the sun it will bend light this much"
Eddington: "Sorry my German friend, not only did you lose the war - you are also wrong. No bending of the light - the stars are still in the same place..."
Einstein: "I wish to debate this with you - you maybe wrong"
Eddington: "Nope - measured it twice, and so did some of my friends - end of debate"
Einstein: "Damn - back to the patent office for me come Monday - curse you... you English dog"

End of debate.

Not bad... Einstein was right though, and the debate against GR lasted about as long as my fictional tale above. A very simple debate.

And you know what... Einstein never claimed to be a god, or that god spoke to him? Amazing really.

Ezekiel made a different claim/prediction- and the debate still goes on and on and on...

From JC:

That, my friend, is a truly audacious claim. Lee can probably answer directly to the point, but Einstein had to specifically identify what phenomenon would be observed and specifically how to identify it

And he did and I just mentioned one (roughly)... the bending of the light (I also brought in some history for free - it was seen as a great event that is was an Englishman who proved a German correct so soon after the great war. two for one special deal)


Also, in case it was said "Well, Einstein knew about this problem (?), some astronomer told him and so he just fixed his equations to answer this single problem."

Erm... firstly I do not think any astronomer before GR ever thought about bending light, and secondly there are other tests and experiments Einstein probably did not know about. Remember Einstein was not an astronomer, so why would he know about all the issues in astronomy at the time.

The orbit of Mercury was also "solved" with Einstein's GR - this almost certainly was not known by Einstein. (Could still be debated though.)
**UPDATE No Debate. My mistake, it is assumed Einstein did know about the problem with the orbit of Mercury, it had been know for sometime (I knew this much). However, I gave other examples later that he could not possibly have known. Another good one that will develop in the coming years will be binary neutron star systems – watch this space? Could GR be proved wrong? UPDATE**

How about this one? If you place a satellite into orbit around the Earth and have a very precise clock - the timing of its signals to Earth and back will not be as expected using just Newtonian mechanics. Special Relativity of course could help explain the time differences at high velocity (apart from it cannot in this instance- it is called "special" because all the equations are for a constant velocity - if you are in orbit you are changing direction around the Earth, and therefore changing your velocity)

Also, you have to take into account the large mass called Earth right next to your satellite.

I doubt Einstein wrote his equations to be measured in the way (unless he was a prophet of course?)

And just one more for fun.... gravitational lensing by galaxies...this was not known about before Einstein, but has been observed later... (We did not even know about other galaxies until after GR)

I could go on and on.

Any one of these experiments could have falsified Einstein's theory, however every one proves the theory right (on this large scale).

So how actually does Ezekiel compare? I said I would not comment until you reply to my earlier posts Mark, so I won't – but I have at least shown several tests GR has successfully passed.

How about some examples from you for Ezekiel that cannot be debated.

Thats if you think you can truly compare Ezekiel to GR… and I will repeat – Einstein did not claim to have any divine inspiration and no one is debating GR today are they?

Do you need me to say more?


Nearly catching up... this prophecy debate has really got me side tracked.

Still loads more to write, but time is running short and I think this post is long enough for now.

Lee

308. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43572 by LeeC on May 22, 2007 at 3:35 am

Hi JC,

Just logged on, and so I want to finish a reply I am drafting to you or I never will with all this Ezekiel stuff. I will read your "short" post shortly.

Also thanks for reading my last post – I just re-read myself, I was certainly tired when I wrote it… so many typos – hope you could cut through to the meaning. It was just too long.


Hi Mark,

Just a quick question… since you are now being hit from all sides on the Ezekiel stuff.

I assume since you really wanted me in on this debate that this single passage in Ezekiel is, in your opinion, one of the better prophecies of the bible?

Would you also agree if this single prophecy could be proved more than likely false and very unlikely to be true, that this would also put into doubt other prophecies in the bible? More false statements that true statements for example – since this would be by definition be a poor prophecy, and not worthy of an all powerful god.

This has to be the case for a theist who believes the bible is 100% the word of god?

Of course, as I have said before, disproving the bible does not disprove god, so you can still keep the faith but it does make it more interesting.

This means it could be a debate worth debating…

Thanks

Now onto a long reply to JC to catch up with what has been happening.

See ya

Lee

309. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43305 by LeeC on May 21, 2007 at 4:57 am

PART 2... and it is a big one. Hope the coffee is hot.

Just remember Mark - you ask me to do this!!!



OK... so this is prophecy, so lets read the bible source again and see what it could mean to me.

I will try and read it as a neutral Mark, and as if I know nothing about the history of the time (which is pretty much true)

However you did give me the news article into the debate as evidence (your only source of evidence you have shown me) so I will refer to it when required so see how the prophecy is working.

Also, I will need to ask questions along the way to understand the passage - I hope you will be able to help me out on this.

(Another way the passage could be read is as a neutral who KNOWS the history of the time - JC has done good job of this I feel, certainly better than I could - unless you want to wait those 10 years for me to learn the history of the period at bible school?

And of course, another way to read the passage is to first believe in god and therefore the prophecy has to be true, since everything in the bible is true... I do not see much value in doing this in a debate - it proves nothing. )

So lets move on...

The text is taken from the web site you gave me, I assume you think this is the best translation of the account.
(Another assumption at this point is that it does not matter which translation is used for the test - after all it was written by god so all versions will mean the same - right? Otherwise no Christian could follow that version of the bible)

Sorry if this is sounding "scientific" with all my "assumptions" and "tests" it is just how I read evidence when it is presented to me like this.

One final pause of thought before I continue, I have to repeat the most important part of all prophecy - evidence when it was written - in full - before the events they describe.

If anything was written after the event, if would invalidate the whole prophecy - I'm sure Mark you would agree to this statement?

This fact is so obvious I assume you have this evidence already, I have previously requested for this, but I have not given you much time before making this reply - so I am replying further without any such evidence - but I have made the assumption you will provide it to continue the debate- if you can not supply it however - all bets are off and I will be very disappointed that you have brought me into a debate without any evidence.

Another important piece of evidence I requested is evidence that this type of activity (attacking a city state?) was actually unlikely in the first place and so give the prophecy some value... as an earlier post (from Steve?) has stated, just saying a "team from the north wearing red will win the FA cup" is a very poor prophecy, it is certainly going to happen at some point

(OK - not last weekend, they wore blue, but the year before it was red - and I have 270 years for a team in red to win the cup again if the timescale on this prophecy is my time-window.)

OK... I have avoided this for long enough... onto the passage.

I hope Mark it is worth the wait for you… you had to twist my arm a little bit for me to do it.

Ezekiel 26

1And it came to pass in the eleventh year, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

I have no idea when the 11th year was... this is important to know.

Mark, can you please confirm this date for me?
(This follows on from my request on evidence for when the text was actually written)

2Son of man, because that Tyrus hath said against Jerusalem, Aha, she is broken that was the gates of the people: she is turned unto me: I shall be replenished, now she is laid waste:

Sorry - is Tyrus a person or a place? It's a place right? So how did a city "hath said against Jerusalem?" Doesn't matter, it is only words.

I said I would look stupid if I joined this debate, but you wanted to laugh at me, so here I am... debating something I know nothing about.

So Tyrus has done something bad against Jerusalem... OK - what is this "evil deed" breaking a garden "gate of the people"?

Must be more than this, and it is rather important. It means we can look into history for this offence, and see if indeed it was the reason why Alexander the Great attacked the city.

Any ideas Mark?

Or has Tyrus already done this offence at the time of the writing?

If so, this would be a rubbish prophecy, since you told me this was written 270 years before the actually event. So if Tyrus made an offence, and it took 270 years for "revenge" then god is pretty weak at his vengeance and his estimates when it was going to happen.

3Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.

And if god is against you – what chance do you have!!!

Erm... "Many nations"??? Couldn't god give us a clue here... it is a little vague - and you know I do not like vague prophecy, since it is almost certainly going to happen at some point as already stated.

and what actually does "as the sea causeth his waves to come up" mean?

The moon causes high tides, does this mean it will be at high tide this vengeful event?

The waves are always coming up (and down) that is what the waves of the sea do...

Maybe this part isn't important? Then why is it mention in the prophecy... just giving as many meaningless words and phrases as possible so one may be of value in years to come as evidence of it prophecy fulfilled?

This would be classic "bad" prophecy.

4And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.

Oh... now it gets interesting... war, battle and things...

erm, still pretty meaningless though, after all, this could be said about almost any battle, so how did it fair to actual events?

I would be more surprised if none of these statements were true...

However, any evidence that "her towers" were broken down, and walls destroyed?

Come to think it though, is it possible to conquer a walled city without doing that... siege is another way, but and even then, after a siege the conquer still sometimes breaks the walls etc etc just for fun and to ensure it has no defence against future battles, and so does not "raise again" as a threat.

English history is full of this stuff - most of the English castles were actually destroyed by Oliver Cromwell... not in battle or siege, just by good old fashioned gunpowder after the end of the English civil war

(I hate how I have to precede the civil war with English... it is as if the only civil war in the world was the American civil war - sorry JC, a hint of anti-American globalism came through there.)

So "scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock."... This sounds good. We must have evidence for this?

No soil, just bare rock... this is good stuff.

Mark, please can you provide evidence for the location being bare rock where the city once stood?

5It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.

oh... and that the site is now THE location for fishing in the area...

6And her daughters which are in the field shall be slain by the sword; and they shall know that I am the LORD.

yeah yeah... more killing. Sounds just like a Hollywood movie... meaningless.

Any old battle could fit this description.

7For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

Ah… Now we are getting somewhere...

"Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon..." this must be Alexander the great in disguised right? Since this must all point to Alexander the great? Did he come from Babylon? I didn't know that he did... I thought it was Greece or something?

Or is it another person... did a Nebuchadrezzar, king of Babylon actually exist. In which case, why did you tell me it was Alexander the great? Edging your bets? If so, this would again make it poor prophecy.

So Mark, More evidence request time again. Prove to me that Alexander the Great was from Babylon and was known to others at the time as Nebuchadrezzar? If not, this prophecy is false - since you claim it was Alexander the great... no
mention of Nebuchadrezzar by the scientists on the dig they talk of Alexander.

Erm… quick search on the name Nebuchadrezzar – gives me 605 BC-562 ?

It also says this chap was attacking a place called Tyre at around 587 BC – isn't this around the time Ezekiel was written? You have not said confirmed this to me

I find this very interesting… isn't it more likely that the prophecy was talking about events to happen very soon… within months or a few years… not 270 years later as you have claimed.

And I quote: -

"Now please read Ezekiel 26:1-14 again, verse 12 in particular. Ezekiel was spot on, over 270 years before it happened. He knew because Yahweh told him."

Now I'm no biblical scholar – but things are not looking good here for this prophecy.

Of course, I've have not completed the whole passage… Oh – and please – this is still an independent response – I merely used the web search to get some historical background – I am not using anyone else's views here but my own.

The dates and people I just mentioned could be wrong, so I will not let it cloud my judgement.

So lets move on…

8He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

More killing of the sword... nothing useful there.

"he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee"... now this is interesting. Someone makes a fort and creates a mount for it?

Not really sure what "cast a mount against thee" could mean... it could be where he is building his fort?

William the conqueror did this sort of stuff after his invasion of England post 1066 and all that. Is this what it is talking about?

Or could it be again, just more meaningless words... fire enough words, one is going to hit. However, the more you use, the less impressive it is if one does it.

9And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

Excellent... "engines of war" siege weapons... these are used to attack all walled cities at the time, so nothing very predictive here.

"With axes shall break down they towers"... well, there are several ways you could break down a tower... axes on stone is not normally the one I would chose... however, if the towers are known to be wooden then of course you would use a axe... hence no prophecy…

Can you prove to be that the towers were stone and brought down with axes?

10By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

11With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

yeah, yeah... more general stuff, the usual stuff here - meaningless at best, firing a hundred predictions to hit a target at worse.

12And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

Oh... goody, goody. We are at the best bit right? You have shown me proof of this right? It was Alexander the Great building the land bridge?

Lets expand a little bit on your "proof" with the news article. (Ignoring the date issue and Alexander not actually being named.)

Firstly, where is the mention of this land bridge? There isn't any I can see?

Stealing and breaking down walls is pretty normal stuff... I gave you an example from the War of the Roses... so this part of the prophecy is vague and is pretty much guarantee to happen.

"destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water" is again pretty vague, it does NOT mention that the actions of throwing the timber and stones into the water was in order to build a land bridge.
(or laying them down carefully I think you have since said– a bridge is a bridge and a land bridge should have been noticed by God in his prophecy.)

In fact, the very absence of such a statement about the bridge makes this part of the prophecy very telling, and gives me more reason to doubt it.

Besides - correct me if I am wrong here.

Alexander the Great was trying to get to the island right? So he has not actually got into the city to "destroy thy pleasant houses etc etc" So the land bridge is clearly not being talked about here. Alexander can only "destroy they pleasant houses etc etc" once in the city, after building the land bridge, and after crossing the water.

Of course – there will be houses and stuff on the mainland – but this prophecy is talking about the city – not some town hamlet near the city.

So god forgot to mention this land bridge altogether, and just talked about destroying stuff.? Big deal – I have said it a hundred times now I am sure – this the sort of stuff that happens when a conquering army enters a walled city?

I think your "most important" verse is actually the weakest - however it is the weakest because it is the only one you have given me evidence for (directly to me - since I am ignoring all other posts on the subject - remember you do not want JC and Billy's response tainting mine so I have not re-read them)

So please tell me where I am wrong on this - more evidence?

13And I will cause the noise of thy songs to cease; and the sound of thy harps shall be no more heard.

yeah, yeah... more general stuff, been here before… see above.

14And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD.

Another interesting one... you can give me evidence for this one can't you Mark?

A place to spread nets upon... erm - fishing I guess? So evidence that after Alexander the Great it became a great place of fishing.

"thou shalt be built no more, for I the LORD have spoken it." - This is the easy bit for you Mark? All you have to do is prove to me that after Alexander the great no further building occurred on the site.

Of course, if I had any proof of building after Alexander the great - then the prophecy has been shown false... Erm, may history is not that great on the area so I will have to do some research - or somebody else in the group could help me out? JC?

You know… I still get the feeling that the name mentioned in the passage isn't Alexander you know…

15Thus saith the Lord GOD to Tyrus; Shall not the isles shake at the sound of thy fall, when the wounded cry, when the slaughter is made in the midst of thee?

So there was an earthquake?

The "isles shake"??? I do not think Alexander the Great had any explosives, so it is the only means I know how the "isles" could "shake"... so more room to give some evidence Mark on this clear and precise prophecy... you are right enough - he had made quite a few predictions and some you should be able to provide evidence for. It would have to be a big Earthquake... and maybe Alexander himself may have written it down. Since it was so key to the victory... or maybe you have evidence that Alexander the Great did not have any "historians/chroniclers" writing anything down? The Greeks may not be known for their writing, so maybe we only have the bible for this source of evidence? I think I joke of course.

16Then all the princes of the sea shall come down from their thrones, and lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments: they shall clothe themselves with trembling; they shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee.

Which princes? Looks like we are being general again... Mark, can you name any princes of the see this is referring to and where Alexander The great was ever named as a "prince of the sea"

"lay away their robes, and put off their broidered garments:" Nope... no idea what this could really mean other than the stated... they take off their clothes? Big deal on its own... any evidence this actually happened?

"hey shall sit upon the ground, and shall tremble at every moment, and be astonished at thee" - Cold was it? Any record of this being a cold day? Or were they trembling at god? Excellent... so you can point me to the records where it stated Alexander was scared in anyway during his battle?

17And they shall take up a lamentation for thee, and say to thee, How art thou destroyed, that wast inhabited of seafaring men, the renowned city, which wast strong in the sea, she and her inhabitants, which cause their terror to be on all that haunt it!

Any record/evidence for this? Do we have a "lamentation" (Not a word I am use to "an act or expression of grief or sorrow?")

Such a big event surely would have been recorded? So, please point me to it?

18Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that are in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.

I guess this means that other island states would be worried at what happened? Of course there will be written record of such fear... maybe Alexander himself boasted that everyone was now in fear.

19For thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall make thee a desolate city, like the cities that are not inhabited; when I shall bring up the deep upon thee, and great waters shall cover thee;

Any evidence for this flood?

20When I shall bring thee down with them that descend into the pit, with the people of old time, and shall set thee in the low parts of the earth, in places desolate of old, with them that go down to the pit, that thou be not inhabited; and I shall set glory in the land of the living;

I think he is just making it up as he goes… consider the lily.

I'm getting tired.

21I will make thee a terror, and thou shalt be no more: though thou be sought for, yet shalt thou never be found again, saith the Lord GOD.

Funny... reading all this, step by step.

This claims it will be all "god's work" since it is god who is "angry" right... so of course Alexander The Great would have given thanks to god right? Erm.. I didn't know Alexander The Great was a Jew - you learn something new everyday.


Mark… there you go.

I done it…the whole passage.

I look forward to your answers. I will try not to judge any further the prophecy until I have read your counter replay.

Sorry if the grammar was poor… it was a lot to read. (and I can confirm it was… just fixed a couple of silly ones… I can not be bothered to do them all – call it art?)

Although, it is not looking good for our mate Alex.

See Ya

Lee

310. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43304 by LeeC on May 21, 2007 at 4:55 am

PART 1

Hi Mark,

First off…

I do apologise - I read

... I will start my 10 year journey reading Ezekiel... .

and interpreted it as I implied in my comment. But I had failed to connect it with your earlier mention of "spending the next 10 years in bible school", to see that you meant it a different way.

No need… I am thick skinned and the hamster in my head is slow sometimes… I can be "short" too, it comes about spending a large time on a reply… it happens.

One more thing… I hope you appreciate that I was hoping to be reading the verses JC gave me with regards to the NT laws replacing the OT… not had chance to do this with all the Ezekiel stuff you have me reading.

It's funny really; you are keeping me from reading more of the bible? Strange position to be in one would have thought for a theist?

And there are only so many hours in the day, so I hope I am not wasting them on replying and adding more words (and my ignorance) to the debate. I believed others have said enough on the subject with little response, so all I am doing is adding to it.

However, you have me started now, so I hope JC forgives the lack of response from me.

OK… on with my reply.

I again read the passage you gave me, "Ezekiel 26 (King James Version)" and have was drafting a response… and realised something.

I hope I am not falling for an old theist joke no one has explained to me? You really do believe this news article is evidence don't you? It is not just an interesting news story?

Time will tell… you did said "as I assert, and have provided that link as evidence for" so it would be a cruel joke.

Anyway – I trust you Mark…

So on with the debate?

I have to admit, now I started it I am enjoying this little mini-debate. Well – I think I will when you actually have time to respond - I never would have thought I would be debating bible philosophy.

End of Part 1 - time for a coffee break anyone?

311. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43303 by LeeC on May 21, 2007 at 4:53 am

Hi Mark,

I will post in two parts... my response became rather long.

Lee

312. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #43084 by LeeC on May 20, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Hi JC,

A quick thanks, because I have to leave for work.

You've presented some very good questions that deserve answers. I am certain that Mark would agree to at least that much

I have even more to say soon… I read the passage again last night. Very interesting.

. I suspect that he has an answer to your 8,000 year question, though

I doubt it… it is just another dating method they got wrong will be the reply - if any.

That is not an answer that is an opinion. A poor one if not backed up with reason and evidence…

Have to go.

Lee

313. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42899 by LeeC on May 20, 2007 at 4:43 am

Hi Mark,

Just read the verse…

And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.

And the news report…

''The causeway would have been built of timber - for which Phoenicia was renowned throughout the ancient world - stone and rubble." The team was able to work out how Tyre was first formed as an island, when sea levels rose around 8,000 years ago. After 6,000 BC, a slowing down of the rises in sea-level and the dissipation of wave energy by Tyre led to the natural growth of a spit of sediment linking the island to the coastline."

Bert is getting tired now…

He is wondering how this team knew the sea levels rose around 8,000 years ago. Didn't you say the bible stated the universe was 6,000 years old?

Oops… I am reading the wrong part of the passage again… damn.

Maybe you wanted me to read the timber part?

I will try it again… and make Bert run really, really fast in his wheel.

He will run like the wind on this one…

OK… forgetting all that has already been written on the subject by others, this is just Bert and me here…

Independently… as you requested.

Reading the verse you pointed me to, it sounds like a description of a battle…

Erm… is that it?

This cannot be all you want me to read is it? No read between the lines… that's it.
What is it you said again…

Exactly why, with respect to this passage and its precise fulfillment (as I assert, and have provided that link as evidence for), am I so much in error to consider Ezekiel a prophet of God?

Now please read Ezekiel 26:1-14 again, verse 12 in particular. Ezekiel was spot on, over 270 years before it happened. He knew because Yahweh told him.

OK… I will give you it is a description of a battle.

Is there a reason it does not say Alexander the Great? Not famous enough for god to remember his name?

Anyway, probably just me…

OK… first question, and time for some evidence before I go much further.

When was the book written?

You say 270 years before the battle… excellent.

So of course you can point me to an original document that has been scientifically dated by independent scientists giving us a year for the book.

This document is X years old, and therefore written before battle Y.

You expected me to ask this question, so I assume you already have this answer for me, but this is how my thought process goes… so I will go step by step

I assume since you are so proud of this verse that you have such evidence, but I would still like to see it.

OK… while I am waiting for hard facts…

The passage just sounds like any other battle… is it rather general.

English medieval history is also my thing, so lets just pick a battle at random – 1st Battle of St Albans 1455 :
"When the Duke of York and the earls heard this answer although the town was strongly barred and arrayed for defence, they and their men violently broke down houses and fences on the east side of the town and entered St Peter's street, slayed all that resisted them… The northern troops following the duke plunder the town of St Albans."

Notice the use of a name… very useful that.

This is of course not a prophecy, merely a report on a battle… this is what happens in battles. Nothing I think has changed in the "battles of old"

If your passage was written before the date of the actual battle then it is interesting… but it not a great prophecy.

Why… because it is just describing a general battle as I hope I have shown… it quotes so many little details, one may always be right by chance.
What were the likely chances of such a battle taking place in the first place?
OK… you have me interested now…. You have my attention.

However, today I am in a funny mood… I do not want to pass it off as "just another poor example of prophecy" not today - today I want to believe… I want it to be true…
I want this to be true… so please help me prove it; so I assume you have all the evidence?

So now I need to know more…

You claim this is true prophecy… excellent – excellent.

Tell me more…tell me more

However, I need evidence… old habits die hard – but you knew this, and so I know you have all the information to hand.

But let's take this step by step…

I have given you my first request… a scientifically dated document – or the best reason you have for stating it was written 270 years before the battle.

Then I need to know why it was so unlikely that this place was ever going to be attacked in say, the next 500 years after writing such a passage.

Some could say it was always going to happen couldn't they?

Please tell me why I should not be thinking like this…

Any medieval writer could have written for instance that Calais was going to be attacked… or that there was to be a great war between England and France - it just something that happens all the time.

One last thing… why doesn't the passage mention any dates or real attackers' names?
Surely god knew all this…? This troubles me… tell me why it shouldn't?

Oh no… I am beginning to doubt again…

A general battle, in a general time, in an area where battles happen all the time?

I need evidence fast to stop this doubt….

Thanks in advance.

Lee

314. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42864 by LeeC on May 20, 2007 at 3:11 am

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the reply

You made me smile…

Use your own mind, somehow functioning within that brain of yours. (How does that happen?…

Simple…

I have a little hamster running around in a little wheel inside my head.

I called him Bert, but he is really called William.

He likes his wheel, but he doesn't like it if I shake my head up and down because he falls off.

If I open my mind too much he may escape, and his wife Cheryl will be so upset…

At your professed rate of reading - 10 years for the book of Ezekiel - that one verse would take you about 12 hours: you are evidently just too modest.)

I said ten years to learn the whole bible, with background history, but it is not really important, time certainly isn't to a theist now is it?


I have both your links open now, so I will start reading them as soon as I finish this post.

(Of course Bert may be tired, he has had a busy day today but I will shake my head if he doesn't run around on his wheel…)

Surely you are you able to demonstrate to me that you are more than just a collection of dust, or would you prefer that that be all you are?

Actually, I know I am made up of dust… stardust.

Unless you can explain to me a better way all the heavy nuclei formed? I only know of supernovae explosions… could be wrong though.

As for all that I am…

As a great philosophiser once said "I am what, I am, and that's all that I am… I am Popeye the sailor man"

Back soon.

Lee

315. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42818 by LeeC on May 19, 2007 at 9:44 pm

I am merely observing the precise match of prediction to event, just like looking back at the records of the Eddington eclipse expedition that verified Einstein's theory of relativity. The prediction was known - the theory was published, yet how could one know it was true? By seeing it actually work out in the predicted way. Einstein had set out his stall, and it stood or fell by the results of the measurement – he was very nervous about what Eddington would find.

Do I now look back on that experiment and say that actually the theory said nothing specific at all, and that Eddington's observations just happened to fit the theory, but lots of other things could too, since the theory had a few variables that weren't tied down? Of course not

Goody, Goody… science.

I promise to come back to this as you know I would

Time has run out on me… and I have not had chance to read most of the new posts today.

See Ya

Lee

316. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42815 by LeeC on May 19, 2007 at 9:39 pm

Hi Mark,

I am sorry, it seems that I am not focusing my attention on the important issues of the bible. Only so many hours in the day and all that.

You have so far refused to respond independently about my points from the Bible, deferring to JCS and Billy. (That seems rather timid to me, I must say.)

Lee,

For all JCS has jumped in to respond to my request of you, before you had a chance yourself, I would be grateful if you would actually still attempt to do - for yourself, not leaning on the thinking of others - what I ask. Are you independently-minded enough to have a go?

I am sorry again, and truly honoured that you would value my opinions so strongly on this matter, above those of our learned friends JC and Billy.

But I must point just a few things out first… I have answered many questions you have raised about the bible, and I think of every question you have given to me, I have feel I have given 3 back to you? (Only an estimate you understand – please do not bean count)

I have responded to the bible - so I have to take issue with your assertions against me – I responded even though I am no scholar on material, I have not spent my life reading it and debating it as a matter of life and death (and after life I guess?)

Which could lead this debate down another path (this is not avoiding the original question, just creating new ones), it should be possible for someone who has as much knowledge as you to point out the errors of my logic or reasoning when I read the bible – any area of the bible. - It is after all, written by god and so is 100% true?

I have chosen two areas in the past… the age of the universe and Noah's ark – however you have not been able to point out the errors in my logic and reasoning, only that you do not feel these areas are worth a debate and that I need to believe in god first before I can understand the bible and so back to the circular logic and the prophecies I guess. (Another area I have discussed – chosen by you - was the book of Daniel.)

So where actually have I made a mistake in my understanding and reading of the bible in these two subject areas?

For a simple-minded fool like myself I freely admit that I could read the bible and make mistakes? So please help me on these errors.

I have not seen you point out any mistakes – other than that I am using scientific method to understand the bible and god, and that my reading and understanding of the bible is different to yours. And for good reasons… you have faith in god and I do not.

You read the bible in the way that you do and interpret as you do, so it fits your required outcome "I know god exists, and I see it here and here in the bible"

I read the bible stating "I do not know if god exists or not, lets look for evidence in the bible… some words here, some words there…" they do not make any sense on their own unless you already "know" what they are suppose to mean – i.e. it is proof of god of course?

I do not see this as a mistake on my part – just a difference of opinion – since there are no definite answers in the bible – other than a few historical references (well rather a lot really – but the bible is not claimed to be a history book now is it? Neither is it seen as a science book, I have pointed out where the bible "breaks the laws of physics" but you are happy with this.)

So what actually is the bible? A book where I should get my morals? – Don't make me laugh again, the bible is an evil book and you know it… you just will not admit it to yourself. The "twisting of facts" again so it matches your ideal worldview.

I am moving off the point now, so back your main point.

Am I refusing to answer your questions on the bible?

Lets look for evidence shall we? (I know you do not like the scientific process, but sometimes it helps to understand the world.)

I have been debating the bible with you for months now… erm March I believe - let me see now - post 878 is one where I questioned Daniel and prophecy.
(How do you get those funky hyper-links I see you use?)

So am I refusing to respond?

No… tired of responding on the same subject matter and hearing the same answers? – Well, I did say I wanted to move the debate on a bit – you got very upset and annoyed at me and accused me of not answering your questions?

Lets look at some more evidence, more recently, after you first accused me of not responding to the bible… so what was your last post you directed at me was?

1129 - I think

You wrote: -

On seeing or not seeing "prophecy" in Daniel: I suggest reading chapter 2. You will see at v25, Daniel says to the king (using KJV since you're OK with it)

I responded in 1137

Avoiding debating on the bible? again no!

Did I miss your response to this?
Are you avoiding me?
Maybe I am just not worthy of a response any more?
This I feel would be a little rude since I was responding directly to a question you made to me?

OK – so this last response was still on the book of Daniel – since you did tell me to read it remember?

So why nothing on Ezekiel? Your main point of issue with me.

Well, I wanted to move the debate on as I have said many, many times now.
Also, I've not had the chance to actually read the book properly yet (I actually read the wrong chapter by mistake and it made no sense what so ever to the debate I was reading) …
(Which I do apologise for – I have also been reading Noah and the flood recently as you know, and I have since asked JC for references in the New Testament as you may also have noticed… all evidence I freely admit to me avoiding the bible debate??? I wish I had time to read all the books I want to… at the moment I still have about 4 or 5 books on the go, I do not remember the last time I finished a book it is getting so bad.)

Do you want me to respond without reading the chapters you refer to?

What type of answer do you expect for me to give?
(Reading JC's summary and question on Ezekiel I suspect my responses will not be very different, just lacking much of the knowledge JC has on the area.)

However, there are other reasons why I have not responded yet on Ezekiel – independently as you put it.

So, firstly (?), others are stating opinions, answers and questions that, when I read, I agree with them. So at best I would be merely repeating what has already been said.

Does this add any value to the debate?

Secondly, for me to give such a strong response back to you as Billy and JC have done would require me to spend the next 10 years in bible school – reading both the biblical history and the of course the book itself. This is a long time.

Are you willing to wait?

I am sure it will be a great response from me, and will be worth the wait… or would you then just chose a different book for me to discuss once I give you a response– remember Daniel? It seems a different book is chosen to be debated before the last book has been proven true or false? What was the conclusion to the Daniel prophecies, I missed it? So now who is moving the debate to avoid answering?

Thirdly – well, I have responded many times on the bible as I have already mentioned, so I thought you would forgive me for not responding to one point. However, if it means that much and is the final definitive proof of the existence of god, then I HAVE to read it… I will be missing out if I didn't – so I will come back to this.

Erm… however, can it really be so? If it was so clear, so definitive, so precise, why have we had a debate on the subject for so long…. I know you hate me to refer you to JC or Billy, but if they can question the book in such depth, then can it really be true? Of course, I need to see it for myself…

On a different line of thought, are you interested in my response the most because it would be the weakest argument on this group?

Why not ask me an evolution question while you are at it… ignore Billy who has two biology degrees, he knows what he is talking about… lets ask the fool who does not have a GCSE in the subject (JC – this a high school qualification taken in the UK in case you didn't know). Of course, such a fool as Lee would know all the correct logic and reasoning behind evolution and will be able to point us to all the scientific evidence to back up his stance?

This would be stupid… and I hope it is not the only reason why you want a response from me. I hope it is merely that you value my input, and do not want me to miss out on this valuable debate?

All this said, it does not mean my response would be wrong, but it will have the most holes and gaps in both the logical and historical argument.

Both JC and Billy have given you difficult questions to answer (well, they seem difficult to me) and if I gave you more questions – I am sure you will be kind enough to answer mine first… since they will be the easiest to do, right? – they would not take too much research - but this may still mean you not having the time to respond to the more fundamental questions raised by JC and Billy.

Could this be just another way to avoid the tough questions others have given you?

I have given you many questions on the bible to think about and respond to, and you have not given me satisfactory answers to them either – but I do not let this stop the debate… I just move on, and may choose to come back to them later (and have.)

And in conclusion (of a sorts, because it seems it will not end here)

I will do you a deal… lets discuss the dating of the 6,000 year old universe and Noah's flood, and I will start my 10 year journey reading Ezekiel? Which chapter against was it again Ezekiel 26?

It will be fun…

Of course, you could just respond to JC and Billy on the matter first, and we can discuss other areas of the bible - so much to cover.


Lee

317. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42725 by LeeC on May 19, 2007 at 7:23 am

I'm being sad – up late watching cricket and waiting for the FA cup final.

Sorry – but man can not live on bread alone and all that.

Anyway, whilst I'm waiting for kick off – just thought I would write a quick post – nothing too deep since it is late here (and with my bread I've had a little red wine – if it is good enough for the Catholics, it is good enough for me.)

I think first off I should apologise to both Q and Mark – it seems this last week I have kicked-off two mini-debates… sorry if this has "wasted" debating time on the prophecies.

I think the bible is a very interesting book with much that should be discussed, and the knowledge the writers have on this web site is amazing… I really value everyone's input – especial Mark and Theo's of late – it can not be easy for them to keep coming back to what is really an atheist web-site and post their ideas. I appreciate it – (so many thank you this week – is it the Oscars or something?)

I enjoy the debates; I love the learning, and if in a small way I help someone on their beliefs then that is great.

Billy,

It definately is a team effort, and I am learning a lot from mark and JC about the bible, and my knowledge of astrophysics is improving too.

It's a great team… we should take it abroad and take on the opposition somewhere… the bible, biology, physics all covered – who wants to take on philosophy – I vote for JC – and surely chemistry is important though - anyone?

I agree with JC that we probably have enough to focus on in this debate, but thought I would throw my tuppence worth in about the law.

Which debate are we talking about? I seemed to have messed things up a little on the focus of the debate.

Oops…

However, I am sure Mark will be happy that we are at least discussing the bible… Theo will not be happy though – but I fear he has given up on us – it has been a while.

Another confession is I still can not believe I am debating the bible – I said I wouldn't when I joined the thread but I have been converted by all you guys… what have you done to me??? It doesn't make sense either – atheists have me actually wanting to read the bible?

Anyway - since I am now "hooked" on the debate I have to admit that one of the many things that has troubled me with the bible is that when you point out the evils of the bible, the Christian just replies "Well, that is the old testament, the new testament does away with all that evil stuff…"

But does it really?

And on whose authority – it's seems Jesus should be the driver on the new philosophy, but it is Paul that seems to dictates the way Christians behave?

Makes you think…

Anyway… back to the true religion of cricket and football

(Sorry JC – I guess I may need to explain this too you one day?)

Lee

Update:

WI 191-5
ManU 0 – 0 Chelsea

318. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42700 by LeeC on May 19, 2007 at 4:58 am

Hi JC

Thanks for the reply and even more thanks for the bible links – I look forward to reading them.

I think I share your view with Paul Vs Jesus debate, but more on this later…

I am worried on a few levels though… firstly that you can write so much in a lunch hour, and secondly you can quote all these pages from the bible on your lunch hour, and lastly you put some of my comments to the logic test – this scares me the most, how will my logic hold out? If it fails I will change it.

However thanks again.

I note also the change in debating style in post 1158.

Ask questions, demand answers… like it. We should all do it; it is not for us to disprove the bible or god, since it is not us who are making such a grand claim.

If the theists are right and can prove it, then great, if not I will stick with what has been tested and proven – science.

On an old point:-

you have a gift for brevity and humor that I don't have

I have been given a couple of hours to prove to you I can be anything but brief…

Sorry everyone…

I'm too serious. That flew right by me. I like it, though. Now that I can see it. Thanks! :)

Well I didn't actually make my joke clear – hence it was a private joke – not anymore of course.
Hope you do not mind.

Science does not claim divine inspiration/authorship for its theories or hypotheses. Thus, the skeptic can afford to admit when science doesn't have an answer. The theist depends on his/her holy book having been divinely inspired/authored. Thus, the theist can afford no such luxury.

Put simply, the fact that God is supposed to have written the Bible is grounds for our demand that its teachings (be they prophetic, moral, or otherwise) be perfectly clear.

You are right. Theists cannot afford the luxury to say that god does not know the answer, but they never say this, as you know. What they say is that it is "god's will" or "god's plan" and "who are we to question god"

For a sceptic this is not good enough and we want to know the answers. So science pushes forward to find the answers.

At this point I always find it strange that the theist will argue against science and say "Ah – but science doesn't tell you why does it?" and they are very pleased with themselves for this clever thinking.

My reply would be firstly that science doesn't have to, it is not its job, and secondly, I ask the theist the same "why" question and they can only answer the same old way - "god's will" or "god's plan" and "who are we to question god" – sounds familiar?
They have no real answer… then of course they turn to the bible (or some other holy book) and point to this and that for their reason.

1000 virgins or a huge feast with all the food and beer you could ever want and lots of fighting or life after death in heaven or here on earth - whatever cooks your biscuit really.

I personally like the idea of the beer and eating (I could not say the first one, because my wife would kill me and therefore it would be a living hell.)

The problem though is any such holy book should be very clear and precise since it is written by god himself (I am getting bored of using this phrase, but I do not have time to think of a better one for now.)

However it is full of holes, mistakes and personal views (i.e. Paul vs Jesus debate – I will get onto this at some point.)

It is almost sad how the theist has to twist their worldview to make the holy book fit reality.

A 6,000 year old universe? – Don't make me laugh; we have too much evidence that shows otherwise.
So the theist is forced to twist physics, twist common sense to make a 6,000-year-old universe in their mind so it fits the bible – but isn't it easier to just say - "Maybe the bible is wrong on this point"?

Mark has turned this point back onto me on more than one occasion and said that I am too closed-minded and cannot accept I am wrong…

I find this interesting…

Over 300 years of thought and reasoning. Repeated experiments. Theories being tested, falsified, rejected or refined. New theories created with new predictions, further tests, more observations, more experiments, more rejections, better theories…

Erm – put it like that, maybe it is me who is wrong?

I am too stuck in my ways, I hold onto my theories too strongly?

I have never said that a theory is wrong; I have never changed my mind and moved to a new theory.

I have always stated my theory was complete…

Science has a long history of not changing its mind, killing and fighting people who hold a different view. Burning or torturing those who disagree with its view. Destroying whole cities just because someone does not believe in their science.

Science also has these mad laws that do not make sense that force you to eat certain foods, or not to work on certain days or stoning to death anyone who questions science's law.

Science even teaches this rubbish to children so they grow up with the same crazy ideas. They never teach them anything else like Judaism, Buddhism or the bible. Science never teaches their children that they should think for themselves and question everything. That they should use reason.

You know what – maybe I should just throw it all in the bin.

Science is evil…

Maybe some people in the desert 4,000 years ago had it right all along – god told them so, and god is never wrong you know.

Just a minute… have I got that right?

I'm sure I got something wrong with that little rant?

It is similar with Noah – hence I tried to bring it into the debate (how stupid of me?)

If it was just one problem maybe you could overlook it (and still say god wrote it?) but when the facts start to stack against you, it is time to choose a different solution.

Although, this is a scientific approach – so lets just have faith shall we and say that I just do not understand god's will (there it is again – I said it again – I'm only making it worse for myself? )

Oops… I think I got off track here a little… gone a little crazy - I will take the pills and calm down. Sorry

So back on track…

Science has a better solution as to how the universe and life evolved (we struggle on the starting point, but hey-ho, we can make a good guess).

It is simpler, testable, and observable… although we freely admit it is anything but complete.

Or should we follow a holy book that although claims to the "complete answer to everything", it has not actually been able to answer anything when you put it to the test; it merely creates more questions than answers.

Of course, this is another point where the theist will state it does not have to answer "how" in the same way that science does not answer "why" – but I would disagree.

The bible is the book of reason, science is the book of nature or something like that.

However, science does not, has not claimed to be the full complete answer to everything. The theist with their holy book does just that.

Everything in the holy book MUST be true if written by god; if it isn't then the writer is not a god of any worth (i.e. probably just a man). Another option is god is a joker and likes to play games… and trick us by placing "falsehoods" in the bible to test our faith.

The last point obviously is not the case, if god had a sense of humour he could have placed fossils out of place on the time-line… that would be funny. Man thinks he has the solution and reason to discard god, but "whoops" some fossils are all mixed up on the time-line. Evolution false…

No, the bible's mistakes are man-made.

On to ID…?

If life could only come about by creative fiat, then what of the universe? It is infinitely more complex and vast, with as many moving parts and appearances of "design" as any organism. So, when they attack evolution and propose a creative agent, they simultaneously must address physics, astrophysics, cosmology, astronomy, etc. ID has the same problems as its predecessor (creationism) in that respect. For it is an umbrella theory, one that encompasses all of "creation."

I really have not read the small print on ID, so I do not know what they are actually claiming; it seems that they are just another form of creationism.

Are they claiming a god created the universe or just talking about life in general?

At the moment at least ID is only focusing on evolution. Maybe it is just one problem at a time so to speak… and it has to be their first battle.
Since it is possible to have ID for the life on earth and still have a "random" formation of the solar system, galaxy, and universe. Such a "being" would not be a real "god" by any normal definition of a god; merely that this persons technology is more advanced than ours.

(I think in Star Trek II or something they created life on a planet… terraforming - this would be ID – hey I am a physicist - of course I watched Star Trek – it's all true I tell you!!!)

As I said before though, to me it sounds like an unscientific joke.

What's not funny about it though is they are teaching it to kids who will grow up to be teachers and politicians. Worse still they actually want it taught in the science class… NO, NO, and NO!!!!

Only science in the science class - thank you. They do not put science in religious classes, so lets not put religion in science class – simple. (Unless they want science in the religious classes… that would be fun!!!)

I am all for religious education though, in fact I would encourage it. I would come so close as to think it should be law… but it has to be EVERY major religion or none at all.

You can keep your Roman Catholic or Anglican schools, but you must teach all religions. And one of the exam questions can be something like, "which religion is right and why?"
Like all my "original" ideas, I find that someone else has beaten me to it though, a chap called Dan Dennett got there before me to name but one.

There are some lectures/talks to download at the following link if you are interested in his philosophy. He is a big fan of Richard Dawkins and uses memes to explain a lot.

http://www.reitstoen.com/dennett.php

I find it a quick way to get a flavour of a book sometimes. Very interesting his views on religion – he likes to ask why do we have religion?

And now… drum roll….

Onto the bible and my question about the NT laws replacing the OT ones…

It doesn't say so in exactly those words, but there are verses that suggest it. However, there is some controversy as to how exactly this is supposed to work in practice, particularly since Paul was the one who wrote the ones usually quoted

Again… thanks for this; I will now read them for myself.

It is so hard to find anything in the bible when you want it – hope you do not think I was just using you as a human index, I am also interested in your views.

Mark is only interested in prophecy at the moment and does not have the time to respond to other questions.

It is Paul I have the problem with, and I am glad you also had the same questions – it means I was on the right track.

"Paul vs Jesus"

Who's the Boss, Paul or Jesus? It seemed to me that if Jesus was God (as I then believed), anything he said overruled Paul and the other Apostles. So, it occurred to me that it didn't matter at all how many times Paul repeated his "warm fuzzy" version of salvation; what mattered was what Jesus said. After all, Paul was not an Apostle until after Jesus was crucified, and never travelled with him or received his teachings while he was alive. Indeed, even if Paul was present during Jesus' public ministry, there is some question concerning whether he would have understood the teachings (the usual apologetic being that he understood later because that's what God wanted). Why? In Matt. 13:10-17, Jesus explains to the Disciples that he uses parables because only those people to whom God permits understanding will understand. In other words, those that understand are blessed, and those that don't, well, aren't.

It does seem to an outsider like me that it is Paul who has decided what it means to be a Christian and the words and ideas of Jesus and those close to him have been lost somewhere, diluted and only quoted when they fit Paul's idea.

What about the people who really did know Jesus?

All the books are written a long time after Jesus' death – which has always seemed odd to me – where are the books written by the people who knew him best?

Did such books preach a different story?

Was Jesus more Jewish than the new Christians wanted so they re-wrote all the books? (And the writing of the books so Jesus fitted into OT prophecy is another long story. Twisting truths again)

More importantly – why didn't Jesus write something down so we would truly know the word of god… ??

Did Jesus write something, but Paul didn't like it?

I am glad you mentioned James though, (his brother?) surely he knew what Jesus really meant but it is Paul's view that we hear and follow (well, some follow anyway).

Paul did not know Jesus did he, and so at best I think he can only claim "I may not have known Jesus in the flesh, but I did met the spiritual Jesus on this road somewhere… and he told me everything, so forget what you think you knew about Jesus when he was alive – forget James, he is only his brother by birth and knew him all his life, so he is not important, listen to what I have to say because I have met the real Jesus"

Enough said for now… I have reading to do - thanks.

Do you like it down there?

It is nice looking up at the world… the blood rushes to your head.

Oz is good; I'm in Melbourne so it is raining at the moment. Which is good, we need it – it's just not much fun.

It is not perfect, but where is? Better than London… too many people there.

I worked in San Francisco some time ago, my only taste of America.

Not sure I would like to live there for life… a country where such a large percentage believe in a 6,000 year old Earth worries me – they are not thinking.

I have already mentioned before a story of mine when an American Roman Catholic tried to convert me to his faith at around 1am after some heavy drinking… if a bar is not safe from god, where is?

Hope this proves I can be anything but brief sometimes…

Lee

319. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42675 by LeeC on May 19, 2007 at 3:21 am

Hi Slartibartfast,

Thanks for the link...

I went straight to the "science and history"

Had to laugh...

"God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."

God purposefully designed a system that ensures the suffering and death of all his creatures, parasite and host, predator and prey.

320. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42649 by LeeC on May 18, 2007 at 10:23 pm

JC,

Just about to log off, when I noticed your post.

Questions, questions, question….

And you want answers:-

that is equally unequivocal, and that the supernatural aspects you believe are there are apparent to anyone reading it for the first time with no belief in God

Erm… I referred to just this is my reply 1137.

You need to believe in god first to believe the evidence of god in the bible… rather circular.

faith in God, who confirms the Bible, that confirms God, who confirms the Bible, that confirms God, who confirms the Bible, that confirms God, who confirms the Bible....you get the point.

Yep… that's the problem.

Uh oh. 13 questions. Unlucky. I'm going to go rub my magic rabbits foot, cuddle with Mr. Mojo, and flagellate myself until I've purged the demons from my evil, twisted skeptical mind.

and you say you have no humour?


Have to go now… the little one is waking up and I am being called.

Lee

BTW

I am in the middle of writing a reply to your post in 1154 which I am grateful for.

It's a long one so needs proof reading, so will post it later tonight.

321. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42339 by LeeC on May 18, 2007 at 5:02 am

Hi JCS,

"(a field trip is what it's called here in the States - I can't remember where you said you were from - or if you did"

I'm from England, but living "down-under" at the mo - hence the silly post times and me going to bed when everyone is coming on line.

Lee

322. The God of the Bible is No Delusion!

Comment #42335 by LeeC on May 18, 2007 at 4:57 am

Hi JC(S)

JC :"we're not worthy!"
That's JCS of course :-)


Actually, that's true!

Sorry JCS, it was/is a bad private joke on my part.

The true big JC is of course Jesus Christ (our lord and saviour) and therefore I thought it funny that JC is proving god "unlikely" (some would say false)

"Bad joke... no laugh" as my old PE teacher use to say.

Although I like the sound of JC myself…

You guys are able to state your case without having to go to the lengths I feel I have to go to in order to make my points.

Not sure about that... I feel I do go on a bit myself. I try to answer every point when really I should group them together and respond in general... I am still learning these debating skills.

I need to learn from you guys!!

And I want to learn from you all too.

My biology is schoolboy level at best hence I love reading Billy's responses to Theo on that area.
Since Theo is able to question the gaps in my knowledge and I have to go "Good question... I have to think about that." - Yet Billy can just reply "What rubbish - here is example A, B and C now go away and think about"

I like to think I can do something similar on the Astrophysics side, but this area of science has also many "gaps" so sometimes I have to be vague on some areas.

Luckily history is on my side here, and where we once had a gap, we now have knowledge, so in a lot of areas I am quite happy that either our theories are good, ok or will get better.

But let's not forget about the "Big" question - how did the universe begin - the theists still always try and get us on that one... but I just point out that a theory that can explain quite well the universe from 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the big bang is pretty good. It certainly does not leave much time for god to do anything "major".

As for the bible, well since I have never believed in god, the bible has never formed a large part of my life and so I only know a few areas... although it is still enough for me to see problems in the book, but a theist just tells me I need to read more and then I will find the answers.

So for me, it is great that you ex-believers can say "No, I know the bible very well - read it from cover to cover - and it still does not make sense. Here is example X,Y and Z"

So this is where I like to learn from you guys…

Saves me a lot of time and reading.

It will not comfort you to know that Michael Behe, the best known (to the public) of ID scientists, admitted that astrology would come under his definition of science during his testimony in Kitzmiller v. Dover in 2005. But maybe you already knew that?

If there ever was a clearer sign that ID enthusiasts are not doing science (or rather, that they are doing old, out-moded and superceded science), I have not heard it.

I do not follow ID much; thankfully I do not have too - yet.

So it's started already - the attack on physics... well good luck to them? We can fight them into a very tiny corner of an unknown. They have between 0 seconds and 0.000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds to fit their god into... it doesn't leave much time.

Any such public debate should be fun... they won't even understand the questions - so I guess they will try and make fun of it...

ID: "You do not know if light is a particle or a wave - how dumb are you?"
Physicist: "but using the theory we can make testable predictions correct to the 1 billionth decimal place -maybe better... how about your god theory? Found any "proof" yet that you would like for us to test for you?"

It was only a matter of time that they turned their attention to cosmology. Since ID fails if the universe doesn't have a designer (the most god has at the moment with physics is the job of setting the universal constants and giving a bucket of energy - then sitting back on a job well done - but we have some "theories" that do away with that as well)

So ID has two theories of science it needs to "disprove" - Life and the Universe.

At the moment these "people" are targeting "life" and evolution - probably for two reasons -
1. These people think they can understand animals better than stars.
2. The theory is not built on hundreds of other testable theories.

However, if they are failing on evolution (or people are getting bored) then they will move onto the next.

Astrology is not a science, but maybe the ID "folk" are just getting confused again…

It looks like we agree - that gnomes are stealing our socks. ;) Actually, I think we do agree on every point.

I think so... I did say I would not be adding much to your