Total posts: 1,720
-->
@PGA2.0
Your source points out the same thing I have: 490 years is wrong (although they come at it from a different way). If prophecy is a logical reason to believe, then failed prophecy is a logical reason not to believe, no?
Created:
One more point here. You said that it was "thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future," yet. Daniel 9:24 gives a period of 490 years.Does Daniel give a period of 490 years ....or does the passage mention 490 unspecified units? It is the latter, yes? In translations where interpreters have provided units of time, the seventy sevens refers to weeks. How is it not a very charitable reading which undersrands years here?
Also, allow me to reiterate, given that the book of Daniel is thought to have been written in the 2nd century BC, the alleged prophecy is wrong no matter what unit of time you apply to the seventy sevens passage.
Long story short - the "prophecy' laid out in Daniel doesn't argue for belief being reasonable.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
One more point here. You said that it was "thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future," yet. Daniel 9:24 gives a period of 490 years.
Does Daniel give a period of 490 years ....or does the passage mention 490 unspecified units? It is the latter, yes? In translations where interpreters have provided units of time, the seventy sevens refers to weeks. How is it not a very charitable reading which undersrands years here?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
My claims are substantiated. Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Are you questioning the authorship date of Revelation or when the NT Canon was agreed upon? There are fairly well accepted date ranges for these events and neither are really disputed by serious scholars.
On the other hand, if you think the author of Revelation could see into the future then that 's your opinion in need of validation. You're confused if you think I need to defend against unsubstantiated insinuations of the supernatural.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
Yes, of course. The author of Revelation had no clue his book would be lashed to others in a future canon. His warning was meant to protect his writing only.That is a delightfully full assertion. Do you have any support for this from credible experts or is it something you came up with all by yourself?
Given that the New Testament canon was not determined until roughly three hundred years after Revelation was written, it's safe to say the writer of revelation had no inkling of a new canon or that his book would be in it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I see some people have done it, but how? I can't figure it out.
I've copy/paste the parts I want to address into my post, highlight it, and click the quotations marks above.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It could be either, but since I don't know to what post you're responding, it is impossible for me to answer which! ;-)
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Tejretics or whiteflame have my vote.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Give me a link to your debate and I will consider it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I would agree our debaters here are much more likely to be in-the-know, but not all of them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
I think most Christians do not know how the NT canon came to be. I know I certainly was unaware when I was a believer.Do Christians even realise that these books that make up the New Testament were decided by humans and a not so called "god".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Yes, of course. The author of Revelation had no clue his book would be lashed to others in a future canon. His warning was meant to protect his writing only.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
Interpolation and redaction were known to exist to the author of Revelation (which I recognize one of the verses above is from) and this was his attempt to keep his writing unchanged.
Created:
Yes, it does lend credence to an early date. - MEHow so? - SKEP1We don't have any early records/data to show your claims are true.
A question (How so?) is not a claim. Do try to answer the question
Then you charged/asserted, without any evidence, that these prophecies were written into the gospels after the fact.
Again, a question is not an assertion, claim, or charge. This is the question I asked:
(1) Were these verses written before the destruction of the temple? If so, how do you know? What do scholars who consider these verses critically make of them and why? [Skep]
Daniel was written written in the 2nd century BC, and the "prophecy" it records is actually history. It is also thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future but of his own. As to the passage from Deuteronomy, it speaks of "towns" (plural). I fail to see how this can be the temple (singular). It seems to me, this passage tells believers they can not get away from the wrath of god (not in the city not in the country) and has nothing to do with 70AD.Again, no support for your claims.Who said that?What evidence do you have?
...and for the record - this is not my claim, but the view of modern scholarship. If you want to reject that, then your debate is not with me.
As to your Deuteronomy defense, I don't find it compelling. "It shall besiege you in all your towns", but only Jerusalem was affected? That is not a match.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I am well aware of what you said in te OP (seeing as I responded to it). You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right. It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.'m offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this. SKEP1Here is what I said in the OP:
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
1) I'm just supporting that it is not just me that says this. It is documented in the early manuscripts available to us. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that this is not my own opinion exclusively.
It is reasonable to believe that it is not your opinion alone, but that doesn't change the fact that it is circular logical and unreasonable.
2) Skeptical, your authority is circular logic too. Why do you believe what you believe regarding the Bible?
Evidence and reason. I don't assume the Bible is nonsensical in important ways - it is demonstrable. "God is love" AND allows slavery? God is merciful AND commands genocide? Etc. etc. etc. In each case, only one of these things can be true - not both. The Bible is broken.
Just like you don't find my view meaningful.
You mean your view that non believers are in some way less human than you? Yes. I find that extremely distasteful. However, I realize that you (most likely) have a basic desire to preserve human life. I feel (reasonably) certain you would not walk by a drowning child - and this has absolutely nothing to do with your belief in god and everything to do with the inherent value of humanity built into most every human by our evolutionary heritage. You once told me I borrow from the Christian worldview, but the opposite is true. Protecting human life is intrinsic - yet you assign this to the god of the Bible ignoring every passage which shows "God" (if he existed) is not interested in humanity but merely a portion of it.
In other words, a moral code with the god of the Bible as a basis could not (and would not) be concerned with all of humanity. It would be more concerned with protecting the 'righteous' rather than the wronged, the believer rather than the innocent, or the in-group rather than the ostracized.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
This is circular logic, Peter. Essentially, you accept the Bible as true because the Bible says it is.That is its [the Bible] teaching. There are thousands of statements that are attributed to God. Whether you believe it or not depends on what you base your ultimate authority,
Mere assertions! (^8They can't.
The answers have been provided to you many times. I get that you don't find them meaningful, but that doesn't change the fact that non believers can answer the questions without the need to appeal to a god. That's another subject, so I'll leave it there.
For your information: Certainty
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If the destruction had already happened and the Olivet discourse was being presented as prophecy, then it stands to reason the author would not record the destruction of the temple as part tense.What I said was nowhere in the NT are we told of the (that) ALREADY DESTRUCTION.
The fact that it happened does not lend credence to an early or late date for the [...] Olivet DiscourseYes, it does lend credence to an early date.
How so?
I'm offering you to put forth evidence if you think my claims are unreasonable
I'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this.
I will have to give you a number of OT passages that tell the reader otherwise
Daniel was written written in the 2nd century BC, and the "prophecy" it records is actually history. It is also thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future but of his own. As to the passage from Deuteronomy, it speaks of "towns" (plural). I fail to see how this can be the temple (singular). It seems to me, this passage tells believers they can not get away from the wrath of god (not in the city not in the country) and has nothing to do with 70AD.
Created:
The Bible reveals this Being that is beyond nature/the natural. Is that unreasonable?
I don't think the Bible *reveals* a being beyond nature. To think that it does is to accept the Bible as claim and evidence. That is unreasonable.
[...] from a naturalistic worldview, they can't warrant a sensible explanation for existence, for life from inanimate matter, plus energy over time. They can't demonstrate via science how from mindless matter comes conscious beings. They can't explain the purpose and MEANING they continually find in a supposedly meaningless universe. They don't have the grounds of morality. They can't explain why the necessary ingredients for science - the uniformity of nature (hence natural laws/constants) can operate by unintentional chance happenstance.
Actually, they can, but you don't like the answers. ;-)
They don't have the grounds for certainty.
They don't have grounds for *absolute* certainty, but reasonable certainty works just fine. ;-)
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Nowhere in the NT are we ever told of the already destruction.
The Olivet Discourse describes the destruction of the temple, yes?
If you dispute the NT was written after the fact, or prophecy inserted after the fact, then provide proof/evidence that this was done.
I've not made a claim - you have. Can you show the Olivet discourse was recorded before the destruction of the temple?
we have ancient manuscripts that record these prophecies
What manuscripts? What prophecies?
As Christians, we have testimony from eyewitnesses and artifacts (i.e., Josephus; the destruction of the city) that state these things will happen/happened. What evidence do you have that state otherwise, from an early date?
The destruction of the temple is not in dispute. The fact that it happened does not lend credence to an early or late date for the gospels in which the Olivet Discourse is found.
What evidence do you have these OT documents were written after the fact (i.e., the destruction of city and temple and punishment on this OT people)?
I don't assume the destruction of the the temple in 70AD was a judgement from a god or that it was predicted in the OT as you do. Without those assumptions, the question is a non sequitur.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I agree, and getting sick of this silly strawman and worthless statement. It's basically a cheap shot at Theists.
There is functionally no difference between 'prophesy' and 'magic'.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
What is this "force beyond scientific understanding" of which you speak and why must we label it as "supernatural". Supernatural refers to something above nature, and if there is a force science doesn't understand, it is still an unwarranted leap to say this alleged force is above nature and not natural.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have included that scenario in the argument if he chooses to address it. See below:1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple.
You are avoiding your burden. If you believe prophecy is fulfilled, then you necessarily need to establish the verses (where this alleged prophecy is found) were written before the events they are said to predict.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I think you're get ahead of yourself.
1) Were these verses written before the destruction of the temple? If so, how do you know? What do scholars who consider these verses critically make of them and why?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Kant's noumena is the perfect example of a truly objective reality. Kant points out that no matter how much we intuitively believe we can infer the nature of nourmena from phenomena, any such inference is an astronomical epistemological leap of faith.I would be more than happy to explain/explore this further if you are so inclined.
It may be beyond me, but I'm interested. If we can only know and share phenomenal reality, then why should noumena be considered important ...or (for that matter) objective reality.
I also have a logical proof of this if you're interested [infinity].
I don't think I have anything more to add on this, so I'll pay attention to your conversation with Outplayz.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Atheists ostensibly reject superstitious fairy-tales and religious beliefs because they are logically impossible/unknowable and unverifiable and unfalsifiable and categorically outside the scope of scientific exploration.
I do consider this statement to be false. Atheists don't always reject the supernatural. Some believe in the supernatural..just not gods. Secondly, they don't always reject the supernatural because of their understanding of science. They might object on logical grounds and physical evidence is unimportant. Lastly, they don't always "reject" these things. They may simply not believe. Any conclusion drawn from this premise is dubious.
Free will: As an atheist, I don't believe in it. If another consciousness were to be dropped into my body and live my life from start to finish I've no reason to think they would choose different paths and every reason to think the experiences of my life would inform their decisions and mould their personality to be exactly like mine. I believe Sam Harris rejects free will as well (and I probably was influenced by his argument).
Objective reality: I'm not sure I understand this term as you do. It seems we have a reality that we share. I see no reason to doubt this.
Infinity: I don't understand your objection here. "Infinity" is not an actual size or number, but a a place marker for something bigger than we can measure, understand, or imagine. I do believe such things exist. I don't know that infinity can be understood in a strictly literal sense though (eg. A literal infinite universe makes no sense to me)
Created:
Posted in:
Limitations of a tool is not the same thing as a flaw in a tool. A ruler cannot measure light years, but this limitation does not affect the accurate measurements it can make of a penci. Whatsmore, we can verify this measurements with other tools such as a tape measure. In context, carbon dating has a different application than U/Pb dating. Both are valid in the proper context, both are corroborated by other dating methods, and all tell us fossils were laid down at vastly different times.
If you'd like to talk more specifically about dating methods, we can, but I'll need you to provide more than vague references to unnamed scientists poo-pooing specific results. What I can say is that tools can be misunderstood and misused, but, again, this in no way diminishes their validity.
And lastly, as already mentioned, even without dating methods fossils have been deposited in a way not indicative of a global flood. For example, you will not find a dinosaur in the same strata as a human; you will not find modern vertebrates in the Pre-Cambrian. This is not an interpretation problem - it is direct observation contrary to the typical results of a flood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The contradiction is unmistakable, but I certainly cannot force you to address or clarify anything.
Also, if you know how things truly are, why are you unable/unwilling to show others how you know these things?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
To be clear, you said the "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is greater than all of this (the multiverse], existed before, willl exist after, and is eternal." By this view, "Ultimate reality" and reality are not synonymous.
Now you've changed your story saying the 'ultimate reality is a reality that is most real or true'. Not only is this contradictory to your previous explanation, but it does not answer the question it set to answer, which was:
Without observation, how do you know these things to be true? How could anyone (without observation) know anything about what might or might not of existed before or after existence as we know it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is not contingent on observation or postulation.
Hmmm, okay...
Without observation, how do you know these things to be true?The Supreme and Ultimate Reality existed before the universe, is greater than the universe, and will exist long after the universe. If there is even a multiverse, The Supreme and Ultimate Reality is greater than all of this, existed before, willl exist after, and is eternal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
First off, your analogy does not describe what we find. Shaking a hypothetical container of sediment and organisms does not yield rabbits (for example) only in the shallowest layers without fail. This is a significant problem for your explanation.
Secondly, fossilization is rare, but with billions of life forms "rare" is not a problem. Fossils are snap shots of moments in time and, as already mentioned, we know when these fossils lived by many corroborating methods of dating. You would need to show the dating methods significantly flawed before they can be dismissed.
Long story short: the fossil evidence does not match what we would expect to find from a global flood.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
What is your world-view?
I think it safe to say the answer to this question is a lot more complicated than the question! Short answer: empiricism.
How did the universe come into existence?
I don't know, and I don't think you or anyone else does either.
Is there any purpose to existence?
I dont believe existence has any purpose other than what we give it.
Why do you believe what you believe?
I guess it depends on the belief, but in general, I accept what the evidence shows to true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Nothing I can explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
The fossils are not organized by complexity since even the simplest life forms are incredibly complex.
Unless you wish to argue multicellular organisms are less complex than single-celled organisms, we should agree on the fact that less complex fossils will be found in deepest (as well as shallowest) strata while more complex forms (and artifacts such as footprints, burrows, pottery, etc.) are found with increasing frequency as we move from deep to shallow (and not at all in the oldest, deepest layers). Additionally, the diversity of life decreases as we explore older, deeper strata.
How could a flood do this?
What's more problematic is that fossils caused by a global flood would all be the same age and several corroborating types of radiometric dating (as well as ice cores, dendrochronology, etc.) show this not to be the case.
Created:
Posted in:
Economic Left/Right: -3.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.69
Created:
Atheism is not a neutral position IMO so I would say agnostic if any.
Created:
-->
@linate
atheist means to reject god.
Atheist is one who does not believe in a god. Agnostic is one who has insufficient knowledge to know if a god exists. These terms can overlap.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Given the ambiguity and or incoherence of the term "god", the question of the existence of such a being is meaningless.
[...]does an atheist have to dispbelieve in reality because Mopac calls reality a god?
No, of course not! Reality exists. Calling it "ultimate reality" is nothing more than an attempt to build unevidenced things/beings into what is evident and verifiable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
This will not be a topic to debate the [...] validity of the bible,
In that case, you should not call this a Bible study.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
Floods are not known to organize much less organize by complexity. If you were to find a human fossil in the same strata as a dinosaur fossil then a flood could be considered. However, we dont find this. What we find is simpler organisms in lower/older strata and more complex organisms in shallower/younger strata. A flood does not explain this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Let's call it an experiment... ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
Created:
Posted in:
I know you are wrong because ...
...of something that is not evidence.
Your beliefs and intuitions may seem compelling to you, but they mean nothing to anyone not inside your head.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
Words: FREE SPEECH!
Actions: You're free to speak (and think) as you like...so long as it doesn't challenge our religious beliefs.
Created: