Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To add to this, we also have the problem where the evidence supports two or more arguments. An example is the link between gospel Jesus and OT passages. Are the OT passages really prophecies about Jesus (supernatural) or was gospel Jesus invented out of the OT (natural).
The first point to consider is that people suffer from cognitive bias, and are more likely to believe the evidence supports their world view, even when it does not. So some Christians will argue for the first and ignore, or not even think about, the second.
The second is the balance of evidence. Which is more likely? We live in a natural world, and we know many Christians invented their own stories about Jesus, or changing the stories to what we have now. This increases the chances that the story of Jesus is mostly fiction invented out of the OT. So the Christians need to provide evidence for the supernatural Jesus that is not wishful thinking or ad hoc excuses.
We may be going off topic a bit. but maybe not, as it is comparing Method. Now setting aside bias, the believer method is to find arguments as to why the prophecies are true and that is usually coincidence that can't be just coincidence.
Atheism has it much easier. Some prophecies are simply wrong (Babylon was not destroyed) and (as I argue with the nativity test case) show one wrong and it starts to unravel the others.
When we get to the Jesus prophecies it isn't quite so clear 0cut but the evidence is still telling.
The Virgin prophecy is a misreading (like the parable of the two Corinthians...sorry, I mean two donkeys), the 'prophecy' of Caiaphas (in John) hardly seems credible, and the prophecies of Judas are mistranslated and cobbled together bits to fit the story (1). That is the clue to the method. The massacre prophecy is nothing to do with killing children, and the event itself seems unhistorical for sure. This also suggests that the spear thrust (which is given the Lie by the synoptics, particularly Luke) was either constructed to scotch any suggestion that Jesus wasn't dead and the prophecy fitted to it or (less likely) that the prophecy dictated the crucifixion account.
This I think not only provides a mechanism for how prophecies are faked and some evidence that faked is exactly what they are. And with these precedents in place it does suggest that the prophecy of the destruction of the temple must be later than the event
As against this, The Believers can only (apart from denying everything ) harp on the ones that coincidentally look too much of a coincidence. The state of Israel being a favorite.
(1) it's a lot to set out but I can do so if needed, but anyone comparing Matth 27 9 and Acts 1.20 with the quotes in the OT will see what a Marmadillo's brunch they made of it.
To add to this, we also have the problem where the evidence supports two or more arguments. An example is the link between gospel Jesus and OT passages. Are the OT passages really prophecies about Jesus (supernatural) or was gospel Jesus invented out of the OT (natural).
The first point to consider is that people suffer from cognitive bias, and are more likely to believe the evidence supports their world view, even when it does not. So some Christians will argue for the first and ignore, or not even think about, the second.
The second is the balance of evidence. Which is more likely? We live in a natural world, and we know many Christians invented their own stories about Jesus, or changing the stories to what we have now. This increases the chances that the story of Jesus is mostly fiction invented out of the OT. So the Christians need to provide evidence for the supernatural Jesus that is not wishful thinking or ad hoc excuses.
It has long seemed to me that in terms of both tone and substance, the old and new testaments are starkly clashing. I look at the ot and see a book filled with hate, retribution, revenge, murder, etc. I look at the nt and see a book more aligned with love and forgiveness. And it has almost seemed to me as if the writers of the nt said we're gonna make a new start, but we have to make some connections to the ot or lose the old crowd completely. The trouble is, stark changes in a philosophy usually cause drastic upheaval and confusion.
"something more, not more mysticism" is, by far, more scientifically sound starting point than "anti-religionist" in these discussions about god.
No, it’s an awkward slogan without any meaning. It’s a substitution of one form of mysticism with another. Wooism has the same faults as deism. Just another form of claims with no evidence. In fact, kind of worse, since the assertions and claims are foggy-brained and vague, like believing in ghosts and other nonsense like that. And, repeating a hackneyed slogan in nearly every post does not make it any less ridiculous.
Since no human being can foretell the future, the concept of a prophecy is incoherent. There is no evidence for prophecies, so we should treat them the same way we do other forms of mysticism. As a pleasant fiction. Same as miracle claims. Fiction.
I shall be interested to see whether you get some clarification on this. I'll lay bets that Arach will keep it nice and vague so that the equivocation won't be exposed.
In this instance, Trans, I believe Arach already provided the clarification I needed to grasp the point (whether I agree with it or not). I think this one is a simple (again, if anything can ever be simple?) matter of communication. To wit:
If we define/understand "The Universe" to include all of it's component parts as separable entities, down to the level of individual humans living on one of its many orbiting rocks (Planet Earth), then one can plausibly say "the Universe cares for you." This is shorthand for "one tiny little fragment of the Universe probably loves you, even if its just your Mum!"
At least that's how I understand it. Have said, I will likely continue to think of (and discuss) "the Universe" as a huge collection of inanimate rocks, none of which cares for me.
In this instance, Trans, I believe Arach already provided the clarification I needed to grasp the point (whether I agree with it or not). I think this one is a simple (again, if anything can ever be simple?) matter of communication. To wit:
If we define/understand "The Universe" to include all of it's component parts as separable entities, down to the level of individual humans living on one of its many orbiting rocks (Planet Earth), then one can plausibly say "the Universe cares for you." This is shorthand for "one tiny little fragment of the Universe probably loves you, even if its just your Mum!"
At least that's how I understand it. Have said, I will likely continue to think of (and discuss) "the Universe" as a huge collection of inanimate rocks, none of which cares for me.
That clarifies it for you does it? If somebody told me that the earth loves me and is looking out for me and pointed to my immediate relatives, that wouldn't clarify a damn' thing.
In this instance, Trans, I believe Arach already provided the clarification I needed to grasp the point (whether I agree with it or not). I think this one is a simple (again, if anything can ever be simple?) matter of communication. To wit:
If we define/understand "The Universe" to include all of it's component parts as separable entities, down to the level of individual humans living on one of its many orbiting rocks (Planet Earth), then one can plausibly say "the Universe cares for you." This is shorthand for "one tiny little fragment of the Universe probably loves you, even if its just your Mum!"
At least that's how I understand it. Have said, I will likely continue to think of (and discuss) "the Universe" as a huge collection of inanimate rocks, none of which cares for me.
A human cell is intelligent. Because it is a part of an intelligent being. Absurd. An attribute of something contained within another cannot logically be inferred to the whole. To impute feelings to the universe because humans have feelings is incoherent.
And I’m pretty sure that’s not what he meant. It appears he actually meant that the universe exhibits emotions. Wooism. Nonsense.
A human cell is intelligent. Because it is a part of an intelligent being. Absurd. An attribute of something contained within another cannot logically be inferred to the whole. To impute feelings to the universe because humans have feelings is incoherent. And I’m pretty sure that’s not what he meant. It appears he actually meant that the universe exhibits emotions. Wooism. Nonsense.
so then identify the part of the human that makes it "an intelligent being"
specifically what is it called and what part of the human body is it and where is it located
and "emotion" where specifically in the human body does "emotion" reside, name the part and its location
are you saying that plants and rocks and animals are not intelligent? and do not respond to emotion?
are you saying that the planet is not intelligent, and does not respond to emotion?
Last edited by Tzaphkiel; 02-09-2020 at 10:35 AM..
That clarifies it for you does it? If somebody told me that the earth loves me and is looking out for me and pointed to my immediate relatives, that wouldn't clarify a damn' thing.
I'm not saying I agree with it, or plan to integrate it into my own thoughts or arguments. Only that I (think I....) understand the point being made. Arach (and perhaps others in this thread) seem to be defining and discussing Big Things like the universe and planet earth in a way that is different from the way I define and discuss them. I hadn't grasped that until now, so will have to gain my "clarity" (such as it is) in small installments!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) harp on the ones that coincidentally look too much of a coincidence. The state of Israel being a favorite.
