"I’m saying GOD doesn’t exist!"
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#588 Apr 6, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
He is uninterested, because there ISN'T ANY.
Read "Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?" by Tim Callahan
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Prophecy-Fulfillm...
From the Amazon description:
"Tim Callahan has done the rational thing and examined hundreds of verses from the Bible claimed to be "prophecy" to see if they meet four simple tests:
1) Is it true, false, or too vague to be specifically interpreted?
2) If true, was it written before or after the fact?
3) If written before the fact, was its fullfillment something that could be logically predicted based on the knowledge of the time?
4) Was the prophecy directly or deliberately fulfilled by someone with knowledge of the prophecy?
There is not a single "Bible prophecy" that meets these four tests.
What are his credentials? Does he have a credential in biblical studies?
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#589 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What are his credentials? Does he have a credential in biblical studies?
He doesn't NEED one. He meticulously analyzes all of your 300 silly supposed "prophecies" using the four criteria above.

Do you disagree with any of the four criteria above?

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#590 Apr 6, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Great stuff. Now you will agree that if anything, anything at all - doesn't matter what or where - has aboutness, ofness or representation, the link between the object & what it's about or represents arose by intention. Next is that only minds can intend - rocks, bare molecules etc cannot intend. Behind every intention is a mind.
So should we find representation in nature we must conclude it was created by a mind, no exceptions or exemptions. An acorn is not the oak tree but a representation of it, mouse DNA is not the mouse but a representation of it, the chain with 120 amino acids that fold into Haemoglobin is not Haemoglobin but a representation of it, a map of Washington is not Washington etc, etc.
I have issues with your description of intentionality. According to the quote below it's about the mind and representations formed within the mind.

"Intentionality is a philosophical concept defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs."[1] The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and has nothing to do with intention."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
If we are consistent we must conclude an acorn,
Do trees have minds?
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA & amino acid chain in the body were created by an intention ie a mind. We can speculate whose mind created mouse DNA, the DNA doesn't tell us that but obviously it came about somewhere along the line from a mind. Agreed?
The first life on earth would not have had a mind. We evolved from it. So no, I do not agree.

http://tinyurl.com/ch5f23r
LGK

Thornton Heath, UK

#591 Apr 6, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
One accurate guess does not validate the existence of a supernatural ability to predict the future.
“The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.”- Francis Bacon
No-one has said how many prophesies are involved.

You have put enough red-herrings we can justifiably say you don't want to look at any prophecy. It's not that you have specific knowledge that Bible prophesies are false, you object to the IDEA of them being true. It would not matter what any prophecy said, you would reject it regardless. Your mind is pretty well made up no matter what.

I find it useful to clarify the basis of objections, is it the facts / evidence or is it something else. Here it's not the facts or evidence, no amount of evidence will make any difference. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I'm right on the money.
LGK

Thornton Heath, UK

#592 Apr 6, 2013
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
I have issues with your description of intentionality. According to the quote below it's about the mind and representations formed within the mind.
"Intentionality is a philosophical concept defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as "the power of minds to be about, to represent, or to stand for, things, properties and states of affairs."[1] The term refers to the ability of the mind to form representations and has nothing to do with intention."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality
<quoted text>
Do trees have minds?
<quoted text>
The first life on earth would not have had a mind. We evolved from it. So no, I do not agree.
http://tinyurl.com/ch5f23r
It's easy to show that representation & intent are inextricably linked. Just ask the question can a representation be made without being intended? There no examples or exceptions & this is not an opinion.

The acorn does not of course have a mind & nowhere has been said that it does. Your objection is very common & I've never worked out why, I have however found an easy answer. Does your post have a mind? The answer is obviously no, it's not got a mind but is the product of one. Both your post & the acorn have representation though & that's exactly my point, minds & only minds can create representation. Therefore the original acorn, like your post came from a mind.

The 1st life on earth would similarly not have a mind, no-one is saying it had. Neither would it have been necessary. What's being said is that if it had the property of representation (aboutness etc) in any of it's components, that representation was produced by a mind. The only question is did that first life or any of its parts have the property of representation? If it did then what created it stands to reason.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#596 Apr 6, 2013
St Black Pope wrote:
<quoted text>No originals? Are you sure or are you repeating nonsense that you heard? Of course you have not touched on the errors and contradictions, since they do not exist and you are simply wishing to be validated by consensus without facts.
Sure, your kind also claims that the lives of us Christians are myths and legends. Compared to yours, perhaps it would appear as such.
point us to where the originals exist.... go ahead... and show us the authors, Einstein....

I have posted many errors in every field of science and math... are you jerking off or you can't read?

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#597 Apr 6, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
It's easy to show that representation & intent are inextricably linked. Just ask the question can a representation be made without being intended? There no examples or exceptions & this is not an opinion. The acorn does not of course have a mind & nowhere has been said that it does. Your objection is very common & I've never worked out why, I have however found an easy answer. Does your post have a mind? The answer is obviously no, it's not got a mind but is the product of one. Both your post & the acorn have representation though & that's exactly my point, minds & only minds can create representation. Therefore the original acorn, like your post came from a mind. The 1st life on earth would similarly not have a mind, no-one is saying it had. Neither would it have been necessary. What's being said is that if it had the property of representation (aboutness etc) in any of it's components, that representation was produced by a mind. The only question is did that first life or any of its parts have the property of representation? If it did then what created it stands to reason.
According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, intentionality does not have anything to do with intention. Also, I am unable to find any mention of real world objects having the properties of intentionality or representation. According to them "intentionality" is about concepts and how we think.

"Why is intentionality so-called? For reasons soon to be explained, in its philosophical usage, the meaning of the word ‘intentionality’ should not be confused with the ordinary meaning of the word ‘intention.’"

"In medieval logic and philosophy, the Latin word intentio was used for what contemporary philosophers and logicians nowadays call a ‘concept’ or an ‘intension’: something that can be both true of non-mental things and properties—things and properties lying outside the mind—and present to the mind. On the assumption that a concept is itself something mental, an intentio may also be true of mental things. For example, the concept of a dog, which is a first-level intentio, applies to individual dogs or to the property of being a dog. It also falls under various higher-level concepts that apply to it, such as being a concept, being mental, etc. If so, then while the first-level concept is true of non-mental things, the higher-level concepts may be true of something mental. Notice that on this way of thinking, concepts that are true of mental things are presumably logically more complex than concepts that are true of non-mental things."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intentional...
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#599 Apr 6, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
No-one has said how many prophesies are involved.
You wrote…

“…if Stalin prophesied collapse of the Wall before he died in 1953 & it collapsed in 1991, you can definitely say Stalin's prophecy was accurate.”

Hence my statement…

“One accurate guess does not validate the existence of a supernatural ability to predict the future.”
LGK wrote:
You have put enough red-herrings we can justifiably say you don't want to look at any prophecy. It's not that you have specific knowledge that Bible prophesies are false, you object to the IDEA of them being true. It would not matter what any prophecy said, you would reject it regardless. Your mind is pretty well made up no matter what.
My mind is pretty well made up that I am not going to accept hindsight bias as confirmation of accurate supernatural prophecy from the Bible the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita.

As I previously wrote when you (or anyone else) can make a statistically significant number of predictions of events that have not yet occurred from reading the Bible we can talk about Bible prophecy as a real phenomenon until then all you have to talk about is hindsight bias. That’s not a red herring that’s unbiased rational thinking.

"Believing is easier than thinking. Hence so many more believers than thinkers." ~Bruce Calvert
LGK wrote:
I find it useful to clarify the basis of objections, is it the facts / evidence or is it something else. Here it's not the facts or evidence, no amount of evidence will make any difference. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I'm right on the money.
I once believed the fantastic stories of the Bible just as sincerely as you do but then I started to think about them in a rational manner. Faith is required; they do not stand up to rational examination.

"Being unable to reason is not a positive character trait outside religion." - Dewey Henize

“The faith of religion is belief on insufficient evidence.”- Sam Harris
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#602 Apr 6, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
He is uninterested, because there ISN'T ANY.
Read "Bible Prophecy: Failure or Fulfillment?" by Tim Callahan
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Prophecy-Fulfillm...
From the Amazon description:
"Tim Callahan has done the rational thing and examined hundreds of verses from the Bible claimed to be "prophecy" to see if they meet four simple tests:
1) Is it true, false, or too vague to be specifically interpreted?
2) If true, was it written before or after the fact?
3) If written before the fact, was its fullfillment something that could be logically predicted based on the knowledge of the time?
4) Was the prophecy directly or deliberately fulfilled by someone with knowledge of the prophecy?
There is not a single "Bible prophecy" that meets these four tests.
Let's focus on #4. Here are 10:
1) He will enter Jerusalem riding a donkey (the colt of an ass)(Zechariah 9:9). Fulfillment: Matt. 21:5; Luke 19:32-37.

2) He will be hated for no reason (Psalm 69:4). Fulfillment: John 15:25.

3) He will be betrayed (Psalm 41:9). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10.

4) More specifically, He will be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10; 26:47-48.

5) The price of his betrayal will be thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10.

6) The betrayal money will be cast onto the floor (Zech. 11:13). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:5.

7) More specifically, it will be cast onto the floor of the Temple (Zech. 11:13). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10.

8) The betrayal money will be used to buy a potter's field (Zech. 11:13). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:6-10.

9) He will not open his mouth to defend himself (Isaiah 53:7). Fulfillment: Matthew 27:12.

10) He will be beaten and spat upon (Isaiah 50:6). Fulfillment: Matthew 26:67; 27:26-30.

Since: Dec 09

Chicago, IL

#603 Apr 6, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Check Isaiah 43:7 for your "why" question.
Your next point is not hard to resolve:
Premise 1: If God is perfect he does not do imperfect things.
Premise 2: But imperfect things exist
Conclusion: Therefore God did not make imperfect things.
Premise 1: If God is perfect he does not do imperfect things. TRUE
Premise 2: But imperfect things exist. TRUE
Conclusion: Therefore God did not make imperfect things. TRUE. AND FALSE.

If God doesn't make imperfect things, and He makes ALL things, then imperfect things must somehow be perfect - perfectly imperfect?: imperfectly perfect?- whatever.....
Point being, you have yet to arrive at the truth, so wherein does it lie? Perhaps in the answers to all the questions raised by your premises!
WHY DO imperfect things exist? What purpose could they serve? Does our existence begin at birth? Are we imperfect BECAUSE we're human? Etc,,...
One thing is certain: We can't come to know what we don't, by being informed by what we already know, or think we do.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#604 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think these are prophecies? Where are the specifics for this prophecies?
I don’t think the verse I quoted from the Quran is a supernatural prediction of the future any more than any verse from the Bible is a supernatural prediction of the future. In either case hindsight bias is required.
Jeff wrote:
Th OT made some very specific predictions about Christ that in no way could be faked.
Jesus is never mentioned in the Old Testament. Jews of course do not accept the idea that any of the Old Testament passages refer to Jesus. All you and other Christians do is retro-fit your beliefs into Old Testament passages – hindsight bias.
Jeff wrote:
Isaiah 53 is one such example of a specific prophecy about Christ.
Isaiah 53 makes no specific mention of Jesus or Christ. Jewish interpretation describes the “servant of the Lord” as the Nation of Israel itself. Jewish interpretations point to Isaiah 41:8 “Israel is my Servant… whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham…”
Jeff wrote:
The destruction of the temple by Christ was literally fulfilled in 70 ad.
In Mark 13 Jesus seems to say that the Temple will be destroyed, although not when or how. He also says there will be “earthquakes in various places, and famines”(Mark 13-8), and that “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.”(Mark 13-24, 25). It sounds to me more like he is talking about some great natural catastrophe (which did not occur) rather than just the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#605 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
You can live your life anyway you want and you can tell yourself it has meaning. The problem is that it doesn't. Its a hopeless life. What will you do when you lose a loved one and realize that you will never see them again?
You just can't help projecting your pathetic world view onto others, can you? Just because you are unable to live your life to the fullest doesn't mean the rest of us can't. Sorry but you have no say so in whether somebody's life is meaningful or not. That must put a bur in your ass.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#606 Apr 6, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t think the verse I quoted from the Quran is a supernatural prediction of the future any more than any verse from the Bible is a supernatural prediction of the future. In either case hindsight bias is required.
<quoted text>
Jesus is never mentioned in the Old Testament. Jews of course do not accept the idea that any of the Old Testament passages refer to Jesus. All you and other Christians do is retro-fit your beliefs into Old Testament passages – hindsight bias.
<quoted text>
Isaiah 53 makes no specific mention of Jesus or Christ. Jewish interpretation describes the “servant of the Lord” as the Nation of Israel itself. Jewish interpretations point to Isaiah 41:8 “Israel is my Servant… whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham…”
<quoted text>
In Mark 13 Jesus seems to say that the Temple will be destroyed, although not when or how. He also says there will be “earthquakes in various places, and famines”(Mark 13-8), and that “the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.”(Mark 13-24, 25). It sounds to me more like he is talking about some great natural catastrophe (which did not occur) rather than just the destruction of the Temple by the Romans.
Notice how specific Jesus prediction was for the temple: "2 And Jesus said to him,“Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.” Mark 13

According to my understanding of this event this is exactly what happened. No historian would say that the destruction was due to a "natural catastrophe".
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#607 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how specific Jesus prediction was for the temple: "2 And Jesus said to him,“Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.” Mark 13
According to my understanding of this event this is exactly what happened. No historian would say that the destruction was due to a "natural catastrophe".
We've discussed this before on another thread. Apparently, you haven't learned anything.

It's EASY to make Jesus "predict" the Temple destruction in stories written AFTER the Temples destruction.

Wake the fvck up!

Likewise all of the things you list as prophecies -- written AFTER Jesus died by people had a vested interest in making Jesus SEEM to be "fulfilling prophecy." In a couple of places, the evangelists even hint broadly that that's what they are doing. LOL

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#608 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice how specific Jesus prediction was for the temple: "2 And Jesus said to him,“Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left upon another which will not be torn down.” Mark 13
According to my understanding of this event this is exactly what happened. No historian would say that the destruction was due to a "natural catastrophe".
Anybody can predict a building isn't going to be standing in the future. No surprise.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#609 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's focus on #4. H
No, focus on ALL FOUR of Callahan's reasoned, logical requirements for "fulfilled prophecy."

Each of your supposed "prophecies" must adhere to ALL FOUR conditions in order to be rationally accepted as true.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#610 Apr 6, 2013
madscot wrote:
<quoted text>
You just can't help projecting your pathetic world view onto others, can you? Just because you are unable to live your life to the fullest doesn't mean the rest of us can't. Sorry but you have no say so in whether somebody's life is meaningful or not. That must put a bur in your ass.
Dawkins hits the nail on the head when he writes about the meaninglessness of life:
“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
&#8213; Richard Dawkins, River Out Of Eden: A Darwinian View Of Life
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#611 Apr 6, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
We've discussed this before on another thread. Apparently, you haven't learned anything.
It's EASY to make Jesus "predict" the Temple destruction in stories written AFTER the Temples destruction.
Wake the fvck up!
Likewise all of the things you list as prophecies -- written AFTER Jesus died by people had a vested interest in making Jesus SEEM to be "fulfilling prophecy." In a couple of places, the evangelists even hint broadly that that's what they are doing. LOL
No. Mark was written at the latest in the mid 60's because he wrote down what Peter told him to. Peter died @ 64. You need to get your head screwed on right before you make so many lame comments. Its embarrassing.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#612 Apr 6, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
No, focus on ALL FOUR of Callahan's reasoned, logical requirements for "fulfilled prophecy."
Each of your supposed "prophecies" must adhere to ALL FOUR conditions in order to be rationally accepted as true.
No need to. I already proved that those prophecies are true. Its up to him to show they are not.
Jeff

San Jose, CA

#613 Apr 6, 2013
Earth Child 1 wrote:
<quoted text>Anybody can predict a building isn't going to be standing in the future. No surprise.
The ancient Jews expect it to stand for a very long time. Some of the walls of the temple were several feet thick and thought to be impenetrable.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
SUPER SERVERs 9 hr Neo Neo Neo 11
What religion was Enoch, Noah, and Abraham? (Oct '12) 10 hr Dumbofluck 1,578
False Teachings of Jews that defy their Holy Sc... 10 hr Dumbofluck 72
Believers are not to judge non-believers. (Dec '11) 21 hr bead50 70
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 21 hr Barmsweb 2,328
judgment coming to america 21 hr Barmsweb 117
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 21 hr Barmsweb 1,364
More from around the web