Absolute, Unequivical, or Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

DebatingChristianity.com | Christianity and Apologetics

Absolute, Unequivical, or Beyond Reasonable Doubt?

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 Next

Author: McCulloch
Posted: 11/26 07:37 PM

Confused wrote:

I would accept your standards for prophecy, but it is redundant unless you possess a time machine to go back in history to validate them.

Writings can be dated. Publish your prediction prior to the event. Date your publication. Wait until the event happens. Viola.

Author: bernee51
Posted: 11/26 10:31 PM

McCulloch wrote:

Confused wrote:

I would accept your standards for prophecy, but it is redundant unless you possess a time machine to go back in history to validate them.

Writings can be dated. Publish your prediction prior to the event. Date your publication. Wait until the event happens. Viola.

Christmas is coming. All at christmas pray for "peace and goodwill on earth for all mankind".

If god can come through with that one this christmas and answer those preyers even I would believe.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

Author: Cephus
Posted: 11/26 10:56 PM

McCulloch wrote:

Writings can be dated. Publish your prediction prior to the event. Date your publication. Wait until the event happens. Viola.

But of course, that kind of thing never happened with any Biblical prophecy. Unfortunately, the so-called prophecies were widely known at the time, it's well known that the Gospel writers took some of the so-called prophecies out of context in an attempt to prove that Jesus was the messiah.

Nostradamus had a lot more details in his prophecies, but even so, they are still vague and open to a wide range of interpretation.

Author: Jester
Posted: 11/27 04:15 AM

McCulloch wrote:

Re: Miracles - events with a supernatural cause. The definition is not difficult. Determining if an event has a natural or supernatural cause could be.

Difficult indeed. It seems that most would believe one of two things: that nothing has a supernatural cause, or that everything does. I personally disagree with the majority of Christians in that I believe that all things have both forms of causes (and multiple factors involved in each (regardless of proof- I marvel at the moments in which I am told that this is overly simplistic).

McCulloch wrote:

Raise a few dead people (dead more than a month). Record a speech that whoever hears it will hear it in their own language. Stop the sun in the sky for a few hours.

This would very likely convince many, though I wonder how many would propose a natural theory for these events if they occurred- particularly if they became regular events (otherwise, those who did not witness them would strongly doubt their occurrence). Given my theology, I would expect that one such proposed theory could be correct.

McCulloch wrote:

Bring lasting peace to the middle east.

That would take an act of God, wouldn’t it?

McCulloch wrote:

Re: Prophesy - The problem with Jesus alleged prophesies is that no one can verify that he actually said them before the events took place. The biographies of Jesus which include these prophesies were all written (or could have been written) after the events.

Understandable (I’d debate the point, but it is off topic, after all). What is your opinion of the Old Testament references to “the anointed one”?

McCulloch wrote:

How is this for a standard of fulfilled prophesy?

must be made prior to the event
must be specific and unambiguous regarding details, such as time and place of the event
must have been understood to be a prophesy when made
must have been fulfilled in every detail

This works, for the purposes of this debate (a fulfilled prophecy that becomes a matter of evidence). I would add that a different standard could be used for those who are convinced already. Beyond that, however, I would agree with this.

McCulloch wrote:

Re: Love God. This would be the same God who said, "If you love me, obey my commandments"?

Originally, I found this statement hard to swallow. The better I understand it, however, the better I like it. This seems to be the perfect balance between a judgmental, legalistic religion and using forgiveness as an excuse to behave in any manner we please. It is a remarkable philosophical solution.

Re: Absolute, Unequivical, or Beyond Reasonable Doubt?
Author: Jester
Posted: 11/27 04:25 AM

Cephus wrote:

If you have proof, then belief is irrelevant. It's silly to believe in gravity, you know, for a fact, that it exists.

It is an old truism that we humans have no proof of anything. We don’t absolutely know that reality is not simply some form of dream or illusion. As such, everything is a judgment call: It seems more plausible that gravity and the physical world exists than that it doesn’t. As such, we believe in it regardless of the fact that we don’t have absolute proof.

Cephus wrote:

Faith and belief are a poor substitute

I agree, but only if said faith and belief are illogical. If not, then I would defend them. Belief, in the fullest sense of the word, is found in every human. Most people have faith that the physical world is real, that science is a legitimate form of study, that 1+1=2, and so forth. Faith/belief in these things, I would argue, is quite rational. This debate is discussing the standards by which we categorize belief as reasonable or not (i.e. what events/proofs would have to happen before we had a belief in God or a belief that God does not exist?).

Cephus wrote:

However, if you'd like to know what it would take for me to put some belief in the possibility of a god (not necessarily even the Christian version), it would be solid, objective evidence combined with a logical, rational argument that stands up to scrutiny. Christianity has neither, hence I will not believe it.

It shouldn't be hard to demonstrate, the evidence simply isn't there.

Hypothetically, what evidence would have to exist for you to believe it?

Author: Jester
Posted: 11/27 04:32 AM

bernee51 wrote:

Wouldn’t that contradict God’s willingness to let people make their own decisions? Simply forcing us to behave seems well outside the Biblical view of God.

Absolute, unequivical ....................
Author: klatu
Posted: 11/27 04:59 AM

The following is from a ebook review the web, from a new interpretation of the moral teaching of Christ. I quote:

'Using a synthesis of scriptural material from the Old and New Testaments, the Apocrypha , The Dead Sea Scrolls,The Nag Hammadi Library, and some of the worlds great poetry, it describes and teaches a single moral LAW, a single moral principle and offers its own proof; one in which the reality of God responds to an act of perfect faith with a direct, individual intervention into the natural world; making a correction to human nature by a change in natural law, altering biology, consciousness and human ethical perception; providing new, primary insight and understanding of the human condition.'

However improbable, someone has decided to challenge the whole of religious history. And having downloaded and studied the material, it doesn't read like a hoax but exactly what is says it is! History may have moved the goalposts? Check these links: http://www.energon.uklinux.net
http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com

Author: McCulloch
Posted: 11/27 05:15 AM

bernee51 wrote:

Christmas is coming. All at Christmas pray for "peace and goodwill on earth for all mankind".

If God can come through with that one this Christmas and answer those prayers even I would believe.

I'm not going to hold my breath.

But it wouldn't be fulfilled prophesy, or even answered prayer. How many Christmases have they been praying in vain for "peace and goodwill on earth for all mankind"?

Author: Confused
Posted: 11/27 05:32 AM

Jester wrote:

bernee51 wrote:

Wouldn’t that contradict God’s willingness to let people make their own decisions? Simply forcing us to behave seems well outside the Biblical view of God.

And therein lies the problem with your whole issue. For God to demonstrate even one instance to mankind in todays society in which we couldn't ignore or refute it, then it would negate faith. I do believe God wants praise based on faith, not fact. So should one come and do anything suggested here by myself, McCulloch, Bernee, etc.. then I would likely be more skeptical of the wolf in sheeps clothing. So I guess ultimately, there is no way. It is either by blind faith or by false doctrine.

Absolute, unequivical...
Author: klatu
Posted: 11/27 06:09 AM

Most of this discussion appears to be founded upon a wrong conception of faith. We have been conditioned by religion, history and culture to accept, contrary to scriptures, a God that does nothing, and that testable proof negates faith, but on the contrary, if that proof is the promise of new understanding, then it requires both faith and humility to search it out, test and discover it, raising our minds to a greater understanding and even a greater faith. Change the paradigm of faith with its self imposed limitations and the impossible becomes possible. Why Christian tradition doesn't have such a path of faith to offer is the bigger question???