I am an atheist thread 2

[Socrates4Jesus]

… “In response, i’d say: 1a), 2a), 3a), 4a), 5a)”

1a) Ok, our basic definitions of biblical prophecy seem to be similar. You seem to agree that the prophecy must be made before the event, or the prophet must not be able to possibly know about the event or fact they are prophesicing about.

…"Phooney:

I think you have done an excellent job of attempting to define the word prophecy. My definition of the word is not as far from yours as i thought."

Thanks! I’ll add other conditions if I think of reasonable ones.

You are no looney, Phooney! Your replies are thoughtful and rational.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…2a) “Your requirement for a date sounds reasonable, but actually is not. The reason for this is that the calendar used by the ancient Jewish people is no longer in existence. How would we know that the date is correct if the calendar does not exist?”

As far as I know, we are aware of the calendar they used. To clarify, I would prefer that they use their own, already codified, calendar. Any indication of the date for fulfillment of the prophecy would be better than none.

“This aside, there are many facts about a prediction besides the exact date when events will take place that a skeptic might attempt to demonstrate as false.”

Agreed, but I included a time requirement as it is very important, for reasons already mentioned.
…

You have to keep in mind that there are varying opinions about just what omnipotence means. Christian Calvinists and Muslims might say that it means that God knows all that is going to happen because he makes all happen exactly according to his plan.

Then there are other Christians, loosely under the umbrella of Arminianism, who say that omnipotence means that God looks down the corridor of time, sees how we will react to his intervention, and plans accordingly. In this conception, of which Evangelicals like myself and Roman Catholics seem to hold alike, we have as much to do with shaping the future as
God does. We are not at the mercy of fate so that nothing we do can change the outcome. We work in cooperation with God, or against God, to shape the future. Under this conception, it is entirely possible that God might not know the exact date, even though he is sure of what the exact outcome will be. God might have looked down the corridor of time and saw the method of Tyre’s destruction without knowing the exact dates.

This does not mean that the prediction that the ancient city would be shoveled into the sea by men is not impressive. As i said before, in all of the known history of the earth, this event has happened only once and only to the city to which Ezekiel predicted this would happen.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…3a) “Must is a strong word. I do not believe this is a requirement”

Indeed it is a strong word, perhaps too strong. However, it is still a valid reason for skepticism, wouldn’t you agree? If people who can fulfill the prophecy KNOW about the prophecy, it can affect their actions. I find self-fulfilling prophecies to be very unconvincing, extremely weak evidence at best. …

A self-fulfilling prophecy is one that the person who makes the prophecy fulfills himself. The prediction of how Alexander the Great would defeat the island city of Tyre by building a causeway out to the island does not constitute a self-fulfilling prophecy, because

(a) Ezekiel himself did not fulfill the prophecy; Alexander the Great did

(b) As you said, there is no known and credible evidence Alexander the Great had any knowledge of Ezekiel’s writings, or would have paid them any attention if he did

 

[Armor_of_God]

I would like a conclusive result - not something where you can **‘move the goalposts’ **later (such as saying if I don’t get a result that I did it wrong, or need to do it longer).

(bold added)

Interesting choice of words, A! Not too long before you posted that, I had been thinking that you were quite the pro at that manoeuvre throughout these threads. Maybe you can get inside my mind, after all!

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…4a) “Yes, i agree that literary techniques have a different purpose, but not necessarily a contradictory one.”

I agree, it isn’t necessarily contradictory. However, regardless of how much ‘nicer’ or “outright beautiful” it might make a piece of writing or speech, in practice it makes a prophecy, vague, non-specific, too open to interpretation.
…

Again, i see no way to interpret these words as anything other than stating that men, rather than some tsunami, will dump all of the remains of the city into the Mediterranean Sea:

They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea.
(Ezekiel 26:12)
The entire passage describes what invading armies will do to the ancient city of Tyre. The pronoun they (not it) is used continuously to describe what these men will do. No giant waves of a tsunami are mentioned at all. Are you saying Ezekiel is using the pronoun they as a personification of the waves of a tsunami?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… But I have already quoted the conflicting passage, also quoting God “when I bring the ocean depths over you and its vast waters cover you” it is not the sentence that says “like”. These theatrical components seem to me to be the kind of bet-hedging that I mentioned earlier. To threaten a coastal city with the ocean “one day” doesn’t impress me. …

I do not see the verse you mention as a contradiction to verse 12 or the rest of the passage. The depths of the Mediterranean Sea are today over the remains of the city, which Alexander’s army and slaves dumped there to create his causeway. This interpretation fits the context of the passage.

There is no need to read into Ezekiel’s words the prediction of a tsunami based on your opinion of how to interpret one verse. Each verse in the passage should be interpreted in such a way as to agree with the other verses in the same passage, otherwise, you are in danger of taking the one verse out of context. The effect is to give it a meaning the author did not intend.

 

[_A]

“By the way, if you and your friend don’t see more complexity in a human than in an amoeba…notwithstanding your (1) naive measure, than go for it”

Using your own position as your “opponent’s” strawman position. Interesting.

I just wanted to thnak you for a few wonderful posts here, phooney. Learning things is one if the side benefits of discussions like this. I for one appreciate all the efforts you put into your writing here.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Then it follows that if some negative thing happens, that proves that the god you had me pray to is evil, right?
It also follows that if I don’t pray, but something good happens, that good things happen without prayer…?
I think you have some holes in your test criteria…care to be more explicit in the rules? I mean so that we can see if there is something really to this. I would like a conclusive result - not something where you can ‘move the goalposts’ later (such as saying if I don’t get a result that I did it wrong, or need to do it longer).

OK, I think it’s time for a brief summary/synopsis of what has led us to this little proposal.

It all started when…

(NOTE: some paraphrasing…)

You said: You wanted some evidence of faith.

I said: I believed that much of the evidence of faith was in good works of the faithful. I gave some examples.

You said: Whatever. Tell me one thing that the faithful can do that those without faith cannot.

I said: The faithful can pray for someone’s eternal soul.

You said: Whatever. My prayers (without faith) would be just as effective as yours (you with faith). There would be no measurable difference. You asked if I would like to test this.

I said: A, I’m afraid we have a bit of a paradox here. The definition of pray is: speak to God in worship; enter into spiritual communion with God; offer worship. Praying assumes some kind of real relationship. Praying requires faith. A, how can a person pray if they don’t believe in God, let alone a loving God? How can a person pray if they don’t believe in prayer? How can a person pray for someone’s eternal soul if they don’t believe in an eternal soul?

I asked, what would be the point, with no common ground?

Apples and oranges, A.

You said: Whatever. There would be no measurable difference between my prayers and your prayers.

I said: Please refer again to the definition of “pray”. However, due to your persistence (persistence does pay off!), I also said, “OK, A, let’s pray a novena for each other.”

You said: I want more details.Then you started going all scientific on me, trying to mould it into something that it really can’t be because we are operating under different suppositions, you and I.

Yes, my dear A, this whole proposal has been to humor you, as I am certain you have been humoring me. Thanks - you’re a good sport!

What our little dialogue has shown is:

a) There is something that the faithful can do that those without
faith cannot.
b) A person cannot pray for someone’s eternal soul if they don’t
believe in God, prayer, or the eternal soul.

So, I thank you for helping to prove my points so nicely, A.

**I must stress **that although I have been humoring you, I was not joking around about anything I said about God, love, healing, or my promises of prayer for you. I don’t fool around with those things.

 

[ontologysue]

@ontologysue

“No, they’re not. 2 + 2 = 4 is a mathematical truth, it is not dependent on any experiment or verification in the material realm. The concept of an isosoles triangle exists, it is not material, nor does it depend on anything material.”

You’d have to go back to the beginnings of mathematics for this, early humans taking a rock, adding another rock and getting 2 rocks. Every time. Such things are accepted mathematical truth only because it is so easily empirically verified. All the kids basic math books (that I ever saw anyway) started out with pictures of 1 apple, 2 oranges, 3 pears, etc. 1 apple plus 1 apple is 2 apples. An isosoles triangle is an isosoles triangle only if the measureable lengths of two of the sides are equal. Sure the concept, or rather the definition, itself isn’t what I would call material, but it is an abstraction of the material. Taking such simple things as mathematical truths allowed us to build on them, without having to refer to physical items, instead referring to those things that were already proven, and getting more and more complicated. Mathematics starts with counting, and you count “things”.

“A tautology, ie., either it’s raining outside or it’s not–that’s true whether there’s any such thing as rain. You don’t even need to go look out your window to know if that’s true.”

So?

“This all seems a little confusing to me. I never said “goddidit” to fill in the gaps in our current understanding of language. You put those words in my mouth.”

Terribly sorry. I wasn’t sure how else to take your words in post #295 in this thread:

“Personally, I think the existence of language and consciousness, which scientists still find inexplicable, are more pursuasive indicators of an Infinite Intelligence, who, (perfect ‘personhood’) IS Being Itself, ie God.”

This was what I was going off, I didn’t intend to put words in your mouth.

 

[_A]

I disagree that there is nobody behind the binary code.

What I mean by this is that, if the designers had only on/off switches available to them, they would be forced to use the binary number base. If they had somehow had three-position switches, they would have certainly used trinary. If their switches had 10 positions, they would have used decimal.
The limits of the hardware are what dictated the use of binary. I admit that it looks like a choice made by a designer, but really it is just the only arrangement that was possible.

Before i give the relevance of this to our discussion, it is important that you and i agree on a definition. I’d define binary code as:

a series of alternating numbers that is arranged in a specific order the result of which is something that shows intelligence, purpose and design.
Do you agree with this definition, my good A?

No, because they could have easily been arranged by utility, rather than design.
I would say that binary code shows intelligence no more than decimal code.

 

[_A]

Then we have something in common! I spent six years working in homes for developmentally disabled adults, where i is was spit on, had feces thrown at me, was hit, kicked, scratched and still (after a decade) have the scars on my hand where i was bit. One of my coworkers had her teeth knocked out by a resident who butted her with his head and another had is finger bit off and surgically reattached.

But lets return to the less shocking, hypothetical scenario i mentioned!



Lets say i was the one who caught the big fish and my reaction was this:

I forgave the man who returned the fish to me and told no one about his crime, but i turned the man into the police who refused to return the fish. Both men committed the same crime of theft, but i treated them differently, because one repented and the other did not.

Would you say i was justified in my actions?

No, I wouldn’t. If you witness a crime, yet do nothing to bring the criminal to justice, you are aiding him or her in crime.
While it may be laudable that one of the theives apologized, the decision about what kind of punishment should be meted out is up to the justice system, not **one **vigilante.

 

[_A]

Another question A: Do you have any friends or family members who are VERY devout theists? If so how do you handle the topic of religion when it’s brought up? Thanks in advance

My Mom, and sister are firm believers (their own words ) but they haven’t been to church in years. I have a good friend who I recently discovered is a strong theist, and we just talked about it for several hours.
I will admit, though, I had to quite strongly disagree with him on a few points, and risked, every time, having our friendship (of about 15 years) dismissed.
The thing is, being honest about my beliefs is so important to me, I would risk those relationships, rather than be dishonest.
One way that I have described it is that if I pretended to believe when I did not, it would be blasphemy, or at least a clear lie to all those around me.
It is really tough for many to turn away from a theistic belief because it can mean losing your family. I have a friend in the southern states who has this type of problem.
The best that I can say is that I will be your friend, even if you don’t believe in a god.
That and also, your family may come around.

 

[ontologysue]

@Phooney,

Well, Phooney, you’re wrong. No early human did anything to empirically prove these logical truths, ie., 2+2=4. Any Logic course would make this abundantly clear.

A tautology is true by nature of its form.

The example I gave, “it’s either raining outside or it’s not,” does not require that a human ever existed! It is a logical truth in and of itself. I could say “either the unicorn eats hay or it doesn’t!” That has never been observed, yet the tautology is true by nature of it’s form. It’s first semester Logic.

 

[_A]

No.

Healing can come through suffering.

So unless I miss my guess, you are saying that whatever result one gets from prayer, that is proof of the god you worship?

 

[_A]

(bold added)

Interesting choice of words, A! Not too long before you posted that, I had been thinking that you were quite the pro at that manoeuvre throughout these threads. Maybe you can get inside my mind, after all!

I have ‘moved goalposts’? Where did you see this?

 

[phooney]

@ontologysue

Two plus two equals four or it doesn’t.

Now we have a tautology.

 

[_A]

a) There is something that the faithful can do that those without
faith cannot.

Baloney. I can recite prayers as well as any theist. Even though I don’t believe, it will have the same result. If you can name something clear and verifiable that you can accomplish by prayer, I can do the same by simply mimicking you. Prayer does nothing special.

b) A person cannot pray for someone’s eternal soul if they don’t
believe in God, prayer, or the eternal soul.

Well, they can still recite the words in a hollow, meaningless fashion. I am simply saying that the end result is the same. If you say you have some benefit that I do not, that is just your opinion. Why not demonstrate that your prayer actually has an effect? Are you afraid that it will be obvious that prayer has no more effect than meditation with no god in mind?

Prayer has no discernible effect on the real world.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Lacking in morals, offhand. If you want to state those core values more specifically, I can answer more specifically.

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, who consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are abundant for us, so also our consolation is abundant throught Christ. If we are being afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation; if we are being consoled, it is for your consolation, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we are also suffering. Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our consolation.”

(2 Cor 1:3-7)

 

[_A]

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all consolation, who consoles us in all our affliction, so that we may be able to console those who are in any affliction with the consolation with which we ourselves are consoled by God. For just as the sufferings of Christ are abundant for us, so also our consolation is abundant throught Christ. If we are being afflicted, it is for your consolation and salvation; if we are being consoled, it is for your consolation, which you experience when you patiently endure the same sufferings that we are also suffering. Our hope for you is unshaken; for we know that as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our consolation.”

(2 Cor 1:3-7)

Poetry doesn’t make your god moral.

 

[Armor_of_God]

Lacking in morals, offhand. If you want to state those core values more specifically, I can answer more specifically.

“So then, putting away falsehood, let all of us speak the truth to our neighbors, for we are members of one another. Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and do not make room for the devil. Thieves must give up stealing; rather let them labor and work honestly with their own hands, so as to have something to share with the needy. Let no evil talk come out of your mouths, but only what is useful for building up, as there is need, so that your words may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with which you were marked with a seal for the day of redemption. Put away from you all bitterness and wrath and anger and wrangling and slander, together with all malice, and be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you. Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children, and live in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.”

(Eph 4: 24-32, Eph 5: 1-2)