"I’m saying GOD doesn’t exist!"

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#614 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Anybody can read this recipe and follow it if they are crazy enough to do it.

“Shoot for the stars”

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

#615 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Exactly, they thought, but they were wrong. People also thought some of Rome's buildings were going to stand too, but there's only ruins left.

“Darwin died for your sins”

Since: Aug 08

Nunya

#616 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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
Oh look here, Jeff can post quotes! That's very nice, pumpkin. Now run along while the grownups talk.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#617 Apr 6, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
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
So what? This is how things are. Live with it, I do.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#618 Apr 7, 2013
Jeff wrote:
<quoted text>
What a ridiculous concept. Nothing creating something. Even to make it sound like its plausible is nuts.
So, you admit that it's nothing more than incredulity. Argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy. That's your entire point? A logical fallacy? I guess that's the best we can expect out of you. At least you admitted it.

“What, me worry?”

Since: Mar 09

I'm a racist caricature!

#619 Apr 7, 2013
Jeff...if you weren't religious, would you be raping, killing, and stealing?

Please answer the question.
LGK

London, UK

#620 Apr 7, 2013
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
OK, I've read that last paragraph more than once. It's saying amongst other things, "intentio was used for what contemporary philosophers and logicians nowadays call a 'concept'..." My basic point all along has been that it (intentionality, intentio & now 'concept') does not happen without a mind. It's obvious that minds & only minds intend but if you want to remove this additional fact, I'm quite happy with that, my basic point remains.

Do you agree that however we define it, it cannot exist other than with a mind somewhere along the line? I see one of the examples given above is the concept of a dog. Can this concept exist without a mind?
LGK

London, UK

#622 Apr 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
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.”
<quoted text>
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
<quoted text>
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
ONE accurate prediction can validate veracity of that prediction. The point is not how many, it's is it accurate?.[I am not talking about guesses, I am talking about predictions or prophecy]. It's a fallacy & one-dimensional thinking that there needs to be multiple predictions. The fallacy is not based on evidence but blind faith in statistics. Statics are as good (or as bad) as the assumptions behind them -garbage in, garbage out. You have falsely assumed that in order for a prediction to be accurate, it needs to have been made many times. No, this is naive.

You also naively assume that when people talk about future events, they must be guessing. Really? Do you actually KNOW that they are guessing? The answer is obviously not but what's happened is this: You have prior suppositions based on unsubstantiated sweeping generalisations eg Sam Harris' that "faith of religion is belief on insufficient evidence." This of course is complete nonsense and you have accepted it on more blind faith than it alleges.

So far we've not looked at a single Bible prophecy but instead you have erected 101 barriers, none based on knowledge of the facts, why prophecy - whatever it is - must be false! Bruce Calvert calls this "believing without thinking" (about the specific evidence) to use your quote.

Now before turning to Bible prophecy, let me start with a secular source as an illustration of concept. Please google Wreck of The Titan on Wikipedia & see what you can make of it.
LGK

London, UK

#623 Apr 7, 2013
janeebee wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You missed a simple point. God made beings with free-will which necessarily has the capability to choose (otherwise it's not free) to bring about imperfections. A related concept is constrained optimisation.

Am I saying God is constrained!!! He cannot lie, steal, cheat, covet etc, ect. QED
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#624 Apr 7, 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".
Correct!

“No historian would say that the destruction [of the Temple] was due to a ‘natural catastrophe’.

However my point was that in Mark 13 Jesus seems to be prophesying a natural catastrophe with earthquakes, famine and the stars falling from the sky. None of that happened.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#625 Apr 7, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
OK, I've read that last paragraph more than once. It's saying amongst other things, "intentio was used for what contemporary philosophers and logicians nowadays call a 'concept'..." My basic point all along has been that it (intentionality, intentio & now 'concept') does not happen without a mind. It's obvious that minds & only minds intend but if you want to remove this additional fact, I'm quite happy with that, my basic point remains. Do you agree that however we define it, it cannot exist other than with a mind somewhere along the line?
I agree the word "intentionality" applies to concepts and applies only to minds. However, I do not take it as an absolute this actually happens. Intentionality is itself a concept and AFAIAA has not been proven to happen.
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
I see one of the examples given above is the concept of a dog. Can this concept exist without a mind?
Obviously a concept cannot exist without a mind. However, there is no need for a concept of a dog (or any physical thing) to have existed in order for the creature we conteptualise as dog (or any other living thing) to exist.
Big Al

Grand Rapids, MN

#626 Apr 7, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
ONE accurate prediction can validate veracity of that prediction. The point is not how many, it's is it accurate?.[I am not talking about guesses, I am talking about predictions or prophecy]. It's a fallacy & one-dimensional thinking that there needs to be multiple predictions. The fallacy is not based on evidence but blind faith in statistics. Statics are as good (or as bad) as the assumptions behind them -garbage in, garbage out. You have falsely assumed that in order for a prediction to be accurate, it needs to have been made many times. No, this is naive.
That’s your problem you think that hitting a bulls eye one time makes a person a marksman.
LGK wrote:
You also naively assume that when people talk about future events, they must be guessing. Really? Do you actually KNOW that they are guessing? The answer is obviously not but what's happened is this: You have prior suppositions based on unsubstantiated sweeping generalisations eg Sam Harris' that "faith of religion is belief on insufficient evidence." This of course is complete nonsense and you have accepted it on more blind faith than it alleges.
You are apparently unaware of the fact that many people throughout history and in recent times have claimed the supernatural ability to prophesy future events and have been proved wrong. I’m sure you don’t accept all of the claimed fulfilled prophesies of the Quran as valid.
LGK wrote:
So far we've not looked at a single Bible prophecy but instead you have erected 101 barriers, none based on knowledge of the facts, why prophecy - whatever it is - must be false! Bruce Calvert calls this "believing without thinking" (about the specific evidence) to use your quote.
How many prophecies of the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita have you studied? You reject them out of hand because of your religious bias. I reject the prophesies of all religious books not on the basis of any religious bias but on the basis of a rational conclusion. The fact that there has never been any scientific confirmation of a supernatural ability in any human being to accurately predict future events, leads me to the rational conclusion that the claimed prophecy of religious books is not valid, and any seeming accuracy is due to hindsight bias. I like any other person who tries to think rationally am open to scientific evidence to the contrary.
LGK wrote:
Now before turning to Bible prophecy, let me start with a secular source as an illustration of concept. Please google Wreck of The Titan on Wikipedia & see what you can make of it.
I haven’t read the book but I’m sure there are dissimilarities as well as similarities. You see the similarities in things but not the dissimilarities. It’s just as Francis Bacon said 500 years ago…

“The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.”
LGK

London, UK

#627 Apr 7, 2013
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree the word "intentionality" applies to concepts and applies only to minds. However, I do not take it as an absolute this actually happens. Intentionality is itself a concept and AFAIAA has not been proven to happen.
<quoted text>
Obviously a concept cannot exist without a mind. However, there is no need for a concept of a dog (or any physical thing) to have existed in order for the creature we conteptualise as dog (or any other living thing) to exist.
I've googled AFAIAAA & not got much joy, all I seem to get is somebody trying to sell me something. Can you please briefly explain what it is before I give a full response?

Whilst we wait, there is an absolute need for the concept of a dog (but not anything) to have existed in order for the creature we conceptualise as a dog to exist. The symbolic form always precedes the embodiment. We shall return to this & toss it around.

Roland_Deschain

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

UK

#628 Apr 7, 2013
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
I've googled AFAIAAA & not got much joy, all I seem to get is somebody trying to sell me something. Can you please briefly explain what it is before I give a full response?

It was "AFAIAA" - "as far as I am aware".

[QUOTE who="LGK "]<quoted text>
Whilst we wait, there is an absolute need for the concept of a dog (but not anything) to have existed in order for the creature we conceptualise as a dog to exist.
No.

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#629 Apr 7, 2013
you want to look at some failed prophecies....

Isaiah's Failed Prophecies
The prophet Isaiah, for instance, foretold the drying up of all the waters of the Egypt, and the destruction of all land used for plantation due to this drying up of the River Nile.
Isaiah 19:5-7
And the waters of the Nile will be dried up, and the river will be parched and dry; and its canal will become foul, and the branches of Egypt's Nile will diminish and dry up, reeds and rushes will rot away. There will be bare places by the Nile, on the brink of the Nile, and all that is sown by the Nile will dry up, be driven away, and be no more.
This part of Isaiah, widely accepted by scholars to be written around the eighth century BC, is about 2750 years old. And in all this period of two and three quarters millennia, this prophecy has yet to be fulfilled! Moreover it is clear from the context that Isaiah prophecy was meant for the Egypt of his time. For it was with that Egypt that Isaiah and his people had a grievance against, and the prophecy was a warning to them. Obviously this is a clear example of an unfulfilled prophecy.[1]
In a similar vein, Isaiah predicted the complete and utter destruction of Damascus.
Isaiah 17:1-2
An oracle concerning Damascus. See, Damascus will cease to be a city, and will become a heap of ruins. Her towns will be deserted forever...
As we noted above, it is now almost three millennia since that prophecy and Damascus remains a vibrant city to this day. While Damascus had been overran many times in its past, it is still around. Thus the prophecy that says Damascus will cease to be a city forever is obviously false.[2]
Isaiah also spoke of a prophecy God made to Ahaz, the King of Judah that he would not be harmed by his enemies:
Isaiah 7:1-7
In the days of Ahaz,...king of Judah, Rezin the king of Syria and Pekah the son of Remaliah the king of Israel came up to Jerusalem to wage war against it, but they could not conquer it...And the Lord said to Isaiah “Go forth to meet Ahaz...and say to him,‘Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint...at the fierce anger of Rezin...and the son of Remaliah. Because Syria...and the son of Remaliah has devised evil against you saying “Let us go up against Judah and terrify it and let us conquer it for ourselves...” thus says the Lord God:“It shall not stand and it shall not come to pass...”
Yet according to II Chronicles, Syria and Pekah did conquer Judah!
II Chronicles 28:1, 5-6
Ahaz was 20 years old when he began his reign...[T]he Lord God gave him into the hand of the king of Syria, who defeated him and took captive a great number of his people...He was also given into the hand of the king of Israel who defeated him with great slaughter. For Pekah the son of Remaliah slew a hundred and twenty thousand in Judah in one day...

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#630 Apr 7, 2013
Ezekial's Failed Prophecies on Tyre and Egypt
Ezekiel made a prophecy that, at the time he wrote, seems most likely to be fulfilled. The prophet was writing, in 587BC, at the time when Nebuchadnezzar was laying siege on Tyre. With such a powerful army like Nebuchadnezzar’s, it was not surprising that Ezekiel prophesied the fall of Tyre to the Babylonian king.

Ezekiel 26:7-14
For thus says the Lord: "Behold I will bring upon Tyre from the north Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, and with horsemen and a hosts of many soldiers. He will slay with the sword your daughters on the mainland; he will set up a seige wall against you. He will direct the shock of his battering rams against your walls, and with his axes he will break down your towers...With the hoofs os his horses he will trample all your streets; he will slay your people with the sword and your mighty pillar will fall to the ground...they will break down your walls and destroy your pleasant houses... I will make you a bare rock...you shall never be rebuilt, for I have spoken," says the Lord God.

The whole passage clearly prophesied the sack and complete destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. However, the vivid description of the sack and fall of Tyre never happened. After a siege of thirteen years, until 573BC, Nebuchadnezzar lifted his siege on Tyre and had to arrive at a compromised agreement.[3] Thus Nebuchadnezzar did not destroy Tyre. Tyre was destroyed by Alexander the Great, 240 years later. And furthermore, despite the prophet, the city of Tyre was eventually rebuilt.[4].
im on gods side

Blountville, TN

#631 Apr 7, 2013
you fool
Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#632 Apr 7, 2013
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
Great post. Great explanation. And once again proving how little of their own language so many American Xtians dont comprehend.

Context...its what's for dinner!
LGK

London, UK

#633 Apr 7, 2013
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
That’s your problem you think that hitting a bulls eye one time makes a person a marksman.
<quoted text>
You are apparently unaware of the fact that many people throughout history and in recent times have claimed the supernatural ability to prophesy future events and have been proved wrong. I’m sure you don’t accept all of the claimed fulfilled prophesies of the Quran as valid.
<quoted text>
How many prophecies of the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita have you studied? You reject them out of hand because of your religious bias. I reject the prophesies of all religious books not on the basis of any religious bias but on the basis of a rational conclusion. The fact that there has never been any scientific confirmation of a supernatural ability in any human being to accurately predict future events, leads me to the rational conclusion that the claimed prophecy of religious books is not valid, and any seeming accuracy is due to hindsight bias. I like any other person who tries to think rationally am open to scientific evidence to the contrary.
<quoted text>
I haven’t read the book but I’m sure there are dissimilarities as well as similarities. You see the similarities in things but not the dissimilarities. It’s just as Francis Bacon said 500 years ago…
“The root of all superstition is that men observe when a thing hits, but not when it misses.”
I don't care that through out history people have wrongly claimed supernatural ability. I'm not talking about them or that nonsense. Kindly do not refer to it again. I also don't care what the Quran says or doesn't, I've never read it. If it talks about prophecy, it's up to Muslims to show the accuracy thereof. They in turn will be right or wrong on merit of their evidence but not presuppositions either way.

No-one is talking about supernatural human abilities except yourself. This is a strawman. It's also an oxymoron, humans are not supernatural. It's also an oxymoron to say science can confirm or disconfirm the supernatural. Operations science only works under natural conditions, of course it won't work under any supernatural conditions - whatever it is you mean by them.

Having dispelled of more smoke screens & red-herrings lets get back down to earth. Yes there are similarities and dissimilarities between Wreck of The Titan & the Titanic, but it's the similarities that count. How do you account them, guesses?

PS
Naturalism is a superstition. It's not that anyone has proved there is no supernatural but they have arbitrarily proclaimed there isn't then faithfully believed their proclamations. We digress.
LGK

London, UK

#634 Apr 7, 2013
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
What is AFAIAAA?

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
ASK THE LORD of THE SPIRIT REALM 57 min TheLordsAnointed 6
Evidence Against God 2 hr Atheistgirl 3,885
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 3 hr Big Al 1,356
Why do you really believe in a god? 3 hr Big Al 629
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 4 hr Knowledge- 8,287
Spirit bodies. 4 hr Ozzmius 39
GS, defend this defamation of my character with... (Oct '12) 5 hr GodSmacked 968
More from around the web