Proof of the Christian God

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
RonE
Scholar
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:27 pm
Location: Alaska

Proof of the Christian God

Post #1

Post by RonE »

In a current topic there was the following post:
Kenisaw wrote:
theStudent wrote: Merely saying something is true does not make it true….
We as humans like to have proof.
Gullible people accept things, because it suits them…
And yet theists continue to claim that a creator being exists and that it made everything, despite repeatedly failing to provide any evidence to substantiate the claim....
I’ve seen other posts in the past on this site where theist claim to have scientific evidence of God. I never seen this actually done, usually their evidence is never presented, if something is presented it is invariably misquoted, or doesn’t say what the presenter claims it does.
So, to help us not be “gullible people�. This topic will be dedicated to theists to provide that which has been claimed but never provided, to my knowledge, real scientific evidence of the Christian god.
First, some definitions and parameters for debate:
1. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support, or counter, a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpreted in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls applied. Wikipedia
2. The scientific hypothesis you will be trying to support with your evidence goes like this: “there is a god as defined in the Christian bible who is omnificent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. and creator of the universe�.
3. This is not a debate about evolution, disproving evolution is not a proof that your god exists. Nor is it about attempting to debunk other scientific hypothesis or theories, unless doing so is direct proof that your god exists, disproving the theory of gravity is not evidence of your god.
4. Please follow the forum rules. “the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.�

The rules for this debate are simple:
1) present your scientific evidence of your god
2) see #1

If you don’t have the evidence, please don’t waste everyone’s time.
If you don't like the OP create one for your own topic.
*"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

benchwarmer
Prodigy
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2337 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Re: Proof of the Christian God

Post #71

Post by benchwarmer »

Ok, I just reread my response earlier and I'm fessing up to some bad math. Doh!
benchwarmer wrote:
For example, using your formula I can derive the following:

Spirit + Soul = Body + Man

What the heck does that mean? :-k
This should have been:

Spirit + Soul = Man - Body

I'm surprised no-one jumped all over that. Should I be hurt nobody reads my posts :)

I should probably be more hurt an engineer can't do simple math. :oops:

User avatar
RonE
Scholar
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:27 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Definition of God and the scientific method

Post #72

Post by RonE »

[Replying to post 67 by polonius.advice]

Let's try this again
Actually no. Any study can be done with scientific methods
(my emphasis)
You don't seem to see the difference between 'science' and using 'scientific methods'. As I posted previously those methods go to the credibility of the data, the way it is collected, checked, stored, proofed, peer reviewed, etc.

So, yes I can create a study and use good scientific methods to build if nothing other than credibility.

How about the Templeton Foundation 2006 study on the effects of prayer? Very credible results, they just didn't prove what they intended.
*"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Here is my evidence

Post #73

Post by KingandPriest »

[Replying to Blastcat]

Warning: This will be a lengthy post including a lot of data and statistics. Providing evidence requires both evidence and explanation.

Though we had to go through a lot of back and forth to get here, lets now take a look at some evidence for the omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the universe and mankind: God as identified in the bible. There is more evidence than what I present here, but this forum is not best place to decipher and scrutinize information.
(note: I am aware that RonE stipulated in point 4 that he does not want to allow the bible to be introduced as a form of scientific evidence, but I find this to be impossible and irrational. He asks for proof of the Christian God as found in the bible and then asks to do so without the same bible that gives believers the most information about the One they believe in.)

Claim/Hypothesis: God as defined in the Christian Bible is real, omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign, creator of the universe and mankind
Sequence of evidence
I. [center]Historical record (undisputed facts only) [/center]

The bible is a collection of books written by various authors throughout history. This is a fact I doubt any will refute. It was once believed that sections of the bible could have been altered to make it match known historical records. Prior to the discovery of the dead sea scrolls (DSS), the earlies copy of the bible dated somewhere in the 10th century AD. This meant it would have been possible for someone to include facts known about Jesus and change old testament scriptures to make them fit. The discovery of the DSS between 1947-1956 debunked this theory and found that the old testament recorded in these historical writings matched the current King James version with 95% accuracy. The only difference was due to spelling differences of certain names of people or cities, and no book Esther. The texts were found in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. The collection of old testament documents in the DSS were dated using various dating methods between 200 BC – AD 26. There were also other writings found which have a greater date range of possible creation, 400 BC – AD 300.

I now ask, what is the probability of any historical book of similar length (old testament only) dated from earliest found to 200 BC, being translated into multiple languages, while retaining 95% accuracy, over 1000 years? To find this we must find the probability of each event, and multiply their probabilities.

According to Google’s advanced algorithms there are about 210 million unique books that have been ever been written. Of these, Google says 129M have been published. We know the printing press was not invented until the mid1400s, and paper making is attributed to China around AD 105. If I cut in half the remaining unpublished books by half for those used by the printing press and paper, I am left with about 20M books which could have existed in the world prior to AD 105. Lets say half of this books are of similar length to the old testament.

Now we have 10M/20M books multiplied by number of books translated into multiple languages, 1/100, multiplied by the t-stat value 0.05, 1/1.96, multiplied by time between translation comparisons 1/1000 = (0.5) X (1/100) X (1/1.96) X (1/1000) = 2.5 X 10^-5

So the probability of the old testament being altered as a matter of historical text written before the birth of Jesus is 2.5 in 100,000.

II. [center] Statistical analysis of content found in historical book (Bible) about Jesus [/center]

The above was included only to illustrate that a collection of writings dating about 200 years before the birth of Jesus, included writings that claim to have prophesied his coming with pinpoint accuracy. Now any reasoned person would expect a claim of prophecy to be met with skepticism. I will use the words of famed atheist Douglass Krueger to identify the test one must pass to prove a prophecy is accurate:
� Some criteria are needed in order to distinguish cases of lucky guesses from those of true prophecy. Let us define a genuine prophecy as one that satisfies the following five criteria:
1. The prophecy must be clear, and it must contain sufficient detail to make its fulfillment by a wide variety of possible events unlikely.
2. The event that can fulfill the prophecy must be unusual or unique.
3. The prophecy must be known to have been made before the event that is supposed to be its fulfillment.
4. The event foretold must not be of the sort that could be the result of an educated guess.
5. The event that fulfills the prophecy cannot be staged, or the relevant circumstances manipulated, by those aware of the prophecy in such a way as to intentionally cause the prophecy to be fulfilled."
There are over 300 prophecies in the bible about Jesus. There are 60 prophecies that meet the criteria above about the birth, life and death of Jesus found in the writings dated as early as 200 years before his birth, and as late as 50 years before his birth, BC 50. I will only use 5 as evidence, as using all 60 would make this post a book, and not short enough to reply to.
1. Jesus the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
The average population of Bethlehem from the time of Micah (population estimates based on prb.org data) divided by the average population of the earth during the same period = 7,150/2,000,000,000 or 2.8×10^-5.
2. Jesus the Messiah will enter Jerusalem as a king riding on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9).
One man divided by the number of known kings, who has entered Jerusalem as a ruler, and has entered riding on a donkey? 1/100 = 1×10^-2
3. Jesus the Messiah will die by having His hands and feet pierced (Psalm 22:16).
One man in how many, since the time of David, has been crucified?
About 10,000 estimated crucifixions(about 6000 alone from the Spartacus revolt) divided by 10,000,000 capital executions worldwide = 10K / 10M or 1×10^-4
4. Jesus the Messiah will be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12), and the betrayal money will be used to purchase a potter’s field.
Of the people who have been betrayed, one in how many has been betrayed for exactly 30 pieces of silver? Estimate: 1 in 100 or 1×10^-2
One man in how many, after receiving a bribe for the betrayal of a friend, and then experienced it being used to buy a potter’s field? Estimate: 1 in 1,000 or (1×10^-3)
Totaling 1 in 100,000,000 (1×10^-2) × (1×10-3) =1×10^-5
5. Jesus the Messiah will be born and die within a the span of 483 years of the date a decree is given to allow Jerusalem to be rebuilt (Daniel 9:24-25).
One man in how many, claiming to be the messiah, born within a specific 483-year time period, completing all events written about him, before age 34
1 in 10,000 or 1×10^-4

Just combining these 5, we arrive at an astounding unlikely probability of 2.8×10^-20 of all these prophesied events occurring in life of one person. This means the probability of these prophesies being true each would require a great deal of luck, but for them all to coincide is near mathematical impossibility. If we combine this with the probability of where these prophesies were recorded, in the Bible, we would find a ridiculous probability of 7×10^-25 chance of all of these events being a coincidence. That’s 7 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Please remember this is only 5, out of 60 prophecies which would meet the qualifications as outlined by Krueger. Bringing in all 300 prophecies would push the probability so far, that most would say it is impossible.

Another way of stating this is that a Christian can assert with 95% confidence that the old testament spoke about Jesus at least 50-200 years before he was born, and described his life in detail down to 0.00000000000000000000000007 level accuracy. There is no other book in history which has even come close to performing this level of prophecy.

III. [center] Jesus is God in the flesh [/center]
You may have wondered by now, what does this prove. My summary is that the old testament portion of the bible is a historical book that at a minimum included writings about Jesus 50-200 years before he was alive on Earth. So far, this doesn’t seem to prove anything about God, but the key here is that Christians hold that Jesus is God in the flesh. We believe that God took on the form of a human being, and symbolically turned off a portion of his omnipotence, omnipresence so He could fix the broken relationship between God and mankind. The prophetic claims made in the bible are supernaturally accurate, unless you hold that making a prediction with the above level accuracy to be a normal event.

So if the prophecies about Jesus are highly if not supernaturally accurate, then what does that say about the authors of such a text. If they claim this prophecy was done by their own will, these would be the greatest mathematical minds in the world. Instead the writers of these prophesies claim that the information was given to them by a supernatural, omnipotent, omnipresent God. It is this God who told them His plan, and that He was getting ready to do something that would not only change the world forever, but be His greatest display of Godliness. Something so supernatural, that it would seem impossible even to those who believe He exists. God telling humans that He was going to become a man, is the craziest thing ever postulated, but only an all-powerful God would be able to do this.

The evidence for this can only be found in the miracles Jesus did and the fact that he is not dead, but resurrected from the grave. I will set this aside, as the evidence is mostly historical records from non-biblical witnesses, and RonE has desired to exclude eye witness testimony,

---------------------
The following points are not evidence in an empirical sense, but serve to give some insight into why we Christians believe what we believe.

IV. [center] The laws of our world or universe do not and cannot apply to God [/center]
I pose this question, can God be a true God and be limited by the laws of physics? The definition of omnipotence below would logically bring us to a being who is not and cannot be limited by physical laws, mathematical rules, astronomical principles, etc.
omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything
Miracles are what believers use as proof that the laws of our universe cannot apply to God. When a miracle takes place that defies all logic, explanation or even the laws of nature/physics, the thought that some person or force with power greater than nature must have intervened.

V. [center] God of the bible is not visible in our dimension but we perceive His existence through His signature[/center]

Apple, Inc. wants everyone to use their products. To do this they make their product available and advertise. So there are clues that an iPhone, iPod or MacBook exist in the form of billboards, tv commercials and the like. It is highly unlikely that the CEO will come to your home, or go door to door to make you buy its products. You may call this a violation your personal free will, privacy, and whatever laws you think apply. Instead, Apple sends out advertisements informing you that its product exists and lets you choose for yourself.

In the same way we use the pyramids and accompanying hieroglyphs as evidence that ancient Egyptian civilization existed, God has given us clues of His existence. These clues or advertisements are found in: (i)the complexity of nature itself, (ii)signatures of intelligent design, (iii)the impossibility of our universe existing without divine intervention, (iv)an innate sense within all humans that God exists, (v)miracles and (vi)the revealed word of God through the Bible.

Each of these clues serve as an advertisement that God exists. Jesus is the ultimate form of that advertisement as God in the flesh. The next question you may ask is why would God an all-knowing God use clues and advertisements instead of just showing Himself to each human individually. Two words: Faith and Freewill. The bible indicates that God values faith/belief above all else. We are also aware that every human has freewill. If humans truly have freewill, then they have the choice whether to believe in God or not. So if God, forced himself on all mankind, that would violate freewill and it we wouldn’t have to use faith or believe. There is more to it than that, but for the sake of time and space, I will end here.

Sources
1. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omnipotent
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
3. http://atheistscholar.org/Atheism/WhatisAtheism.aspx
4. http://www.prb.org/Publications/Article ... Earth.aspx
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_books
6. http://mashable.com/2010/08/05/number-o ... _cNmNMeEqJ

User avatar
KingandPriest
Sage
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:15 pm
Location: South Florida

Hypothesis and belief

Post #74

Post by KingandPriest »

[Replying to post 64 by rikuoamero]

Hello Rikoamero,

Simple question for you. At its core what is a hypothesis?

Some may say its a theory, or an educated guess. One dictionary says its a theory or an idea that is unproven.

What is the difference between a belief and a hypothesis?

But even if I were to keep digging at those words which are in the definition of hypothesis, you would find an inclination towards a belief about an event, place person or thing. So when I say Newton believed in a force, I do so with a full understanding of what a hypothesis really is.

Due to the lack of credibility associated with the word believe, most scientist would rather say, they have a hypothesis, but if you read the actual writings of any scientist prior to the last 200 years, you will find the word believe all over the place. Changing a word to suit ones comfort does not change what people are actually doing when making a decision.

When a person does not have a job, they can call themselves unemployed, in-between, jobless, without gainful employment, inactive, etc. But none of these semantic changes to their dialect changes the fact that they are currently not employed by an employer.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Hypothesis and belief

Post #75

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 74 by KingandPriest]
But none of these semantic changes to their dialect changes the fact that they are currently not employed by an employer.
This does not change the fact that you are advocating for a confirmation bias, advocating for a positive belief in the X that one seeks to prove.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

polonius
Prodigy
Posts: 3904
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 3:03 pm
Location: Oregon
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Definition of God and the scientific method

Post #76

Post by polonius »

[Replying to RonE]
You don't seem to see the difference between 'science' and using 'scientific methods'. As I posted previously those methods go to the credibility of the data, the way it is collected, checked, stored, proofed, peer reviewed, etc.

So, yes I can create a study and use good scientific methods to build if nothing other than credibility.

How about the Templeton Foundation 2006 study on the effects of prayer? Very credible results, they just didn't prove what they intended.
RESPONSE:

So you what to apply a scientific method to an area which does not limit entities to only matter and energy as does science? Doesn't that make an a priori judgement that only matter and energy exists? :-s
. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support, or counter, a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpreted in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls applied. Wikipedia
So you want to apply a logic system limited to matter and energy to an entity or entities which may not be solely matter and energy? That might be scientific, but it isn't logical. :?

User avatar
RonE
Scholar
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:27 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Definition of God and the scientific method

Post #77

Post by RonE »

[Replying to post 76 by polonius.advice]
polonius.advice wrote: [Replying to RonE]
You don't seem to see the difference between 'science' and using 'scientific methods'. As I posted previously those methods go to the credibility of the data, the way it is collected, checked, stored, proofed, peer reviewed, etc.

So, yes I can create a study and use good scientific methods to build if nothing other than credibility.

How about the Templeton Foundation 2006 study on the effects of prayer? Very credible results, they just didn't prove what they intended.
RESPONSE:

So you what to apply a scientific method to an area which does not limit entities to only matter and energy as does science? Doesn't that make an a priori judgement that only matter and energy exists? :-s
. Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support, or counter, a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpreted in accordance with scientific methods. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls applied. Wikipedia
So you want to apply a logic system limited to matter and energy to an entity or entities which may not be solely matter and energy? That might be scientific, but it isn't logical. :?
That would be your claim, that your god is supernatural. It is not my claim that the entity you worship is supernatural. What I am asking you to present is credible evidence for that which you worship so that we might reasonably evaluate your claim.

I have given, above, just one possible way you might attempt to provide this evidence.

If that isn't clear let me try this: The christian god is said to interact with his creation. One way he does so is to answer prayers. We might expect that with millions of people asking their god to intervene we could see a statistical impact. This study, done with good scientific methodologies, did not find such an impact. So think of other things your god is said to do and try to find a study, or do your own, that makes a case for that topic. There are of course lots of trashy surveys that have been done without proper controls, you should review them carefully... because I and others on this site will peer review your work.
*"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Here is my evidence

Post #78

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 73 by KingandPriest]


KingandPriest wrote:
Warning: This will be a lengthy post including a lot of data and statistics. Providing evidence requires both evidence and explanation.

I read it all.. but I wont be responding to everything. It's just too long for my taste these days. When I started... wow. I wrote just too much. I thought that I was being fair.. replying to EVERYTHING.

I'm changing my tactics...
Some people might be chuckling because my reply here is LONG .... TLDR.
KingandPriest wrote:
Though we had to go through a lot of back and forth to get here, lets now take a look at some evidence for the omnipotent, omniscient, creator of the universe and mankind: God as identified in the bible.
Evidence is what we want.
Good.

We don't get enough of that.

KingandPriest wrote:
(note: I am aware that RonE stipulated in point 4 that he does not want to allow the bible to be introduced as a form of scientific evidence, but I find this to be impossible and irrational. He asks for proof of the Christian God as found in the bible and then asks to do so without the same bible that gives believers the most information about the One they believe in.)

You don't seem to understand that a claim can't be used as evidence FOR THAT CLAIM. The Bible has STORIES.

The question is... ARE THE STORIES TRUE? And what is the EVIDENCE that the stories are true. How can you POSSIBLY expect that re-telling the stories will PROVE that the stories are true. The stories MIGHT be CONSISTENT and even LOGICALLY VALID.... that's debatable, BUT ... are they TRUE?

Sometimes, I despair that apologetics messes with people's ability to REASON WELL. It seems that I spend AN INORDINATE amount of time having to explain what TRUTH means. Among OTHER words.

You go on:
KingandPriest wrote:
Claim/Hypothesis: God as defined in the Christian Bible is real, omnipotent, omniscient, sovereign, creator of the universe and mankind
Sequence of evidence
I. [center]Historical record (undisputed facts only) [/center]

The bible is a collection of books written by various authors throughout history. This is a fact I doubt any will refute.
OK, I agree.
KingandPriest wrote:
I now ask, what is the probability of any historical book of similar length (old testament only) dated from earliest found to 200 BC, being translated into multiple languages, while retaining 95% accuracy, over 1000 years? To find this we must find the probability of each event, and multiply their probabilities.
But I don't CARE right now about other books. What is the probability of the BIBLE being accurate?

We KNOW that the Bible was translated.. how many times? We can only guess when it comes to the OT. We KNOW that we usually lose something in translation. How "accurate" is our version of the OT that we have now compared to the ORIGINALS.. no idea. We HAVE no originals. WHO WROTE the originals or the translations? No idea.

Are the OT stories about God TRUE?
That's what what we are debating.

KingandPriest wrote:
So the probability of the old testament being altered as a matter of historical text written before the birth of Jesus is 2.5 in 100,000.
Are you saying that you don't think that it's very possible that the Bible was altered at any time?.

KingandPriest wrote:
II. [center] Statistical analysis of content found in historical book (Bible) about Jesus [/center]

Now any reasoned person would expect a claim of prophecy to be met with skepticism.
Good.. I believe in skepticism.
Our null hypothesis should be to NOT believe first.
KingandPriest wrote:
I will use the words of famed atheist Douglass Krueger to identify the test one must pass to prove a prophecy is accurate:
� Some criteria are needed in order to distinguish cases of lucky guesses from those of true prophecy. Let us define a genuine prophecy as one that satisfies the following five criteria:
1. The prophecy must be clear, and it must contain sufficient detail to make its fulfillment by a wide variety of possible events unlikely.
2. The event that can fulfill the prophecy must be unusual or unique.
3. The prophecy must be known to have been made before the event that is supposed to be its fulfillment.
4. The event foretold must not be of the sort that could be the result of an educated guess.
5. The event that fulfills the prophecy cannot be staged, or the relevant circumstances manipulated, by those aware of the prophecy in such a way as to intentionally cause the prophecy to be fulfilled."
I can accept that.. and I like it.
I will put that into my notepad.
KingandPriest wrote:
There are over 300 prophecies in the bible about Jesus. There are 60 prophecies that meet the criteria above about the birth, life and death of Jesus found in the writings dated as early as 200 years before his birth, and as late as 50 years before his birth, BC 50.
HOLD ON NOW... When or how was it established that there are 60 prophecies that meet the criteria above?

You are jumping over 5 VERY important steps. As you said, it's reasonable to expect people to be skeptical of any claim. You are making a claim about prophecies. I am skeptical. I await your justification.

So.. I'm only going to be able to accept that "60" "for the sake of the argument" right now.( FTSOTA )

KingandPriest wrote:
I will only use 5 as evidence, as using all 60 would make this post a book, and not short enough to reply to.
I'll play along for now..
But I will reply to only a PART ( the first part ) of your demonstration.. I think it will suffice to establish the kinds of problems that I have with your reasoning.
KingandPriest wrote:
1. Jesus the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2).
Here is one version of Micah 5:2:

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.�


So, it is your contention that a prophecy like the one in Micah 5:2 meets Krueger's 5 criteria.

Let's look at that claim a bit, shall we?

1. The prophecy must be clear, and it must contain sufficient detail to make its fulfillment by a wide variety of possible events unlikely.

Is the prophecy clear?
What does it mean?

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah"

http://www.abarim-publications.com/Mean ... 7W_EDXeJik

Scholars are debating where Ephrathah was.
So, the first line doesn't seem to be clear.. it seems to be ambiguous.


"one who will be ruler over Israel,"



It's not clear in what manner Jesus was a ruler of Israel.
Not clear at all.

"whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times"


What does THAT mean?
MY origins are from of old, from ancient times, too... am I the messiah?

This isn't clear at all...

From what I gather, Micah 5:2 predicts that SOME kind of ruler will come from SOME small clan of Judah.

That's not what I would call very SPECIFIC or CLEAR.
I call that a FAILURE of clarity.

It could be and HAS to be interpreted to mean something specific. I can make up an interpretation and YOU can make up an interpretation, EVERYONE can make up an interpretation, but the text ITSELF isn't clear to ME.

SORRY.
I can't just agree that the prediction is very clear.


2. The event that can fulfill the prophecy must be unusual or unique.


It seems to me that the only thing that is clear about the prophecy is that some "ruler of Israel" ( whatever that means ) is going to come from a clan small among the ( a ) clans of Judah.

What kind of "ruler" are we talking about?
Is this what is meant by "king of the Jews?"

Was Jesus really "king of the Jews" or... called that by believers and people wanting to make fun of him?

But just to be clear about your position, it would be important here if you could tell us HOW Jesus was "a ruler of Judah".

If Jesus was some kind of an actual RULER.. political or military.. that might work. But if all we are talking about is how a man from SOMEWHERE small is going to be a SPIRITUAL leader of some JEWS.. I guess every small town has their share of preachers who preach. Who knows how MANY people were claiming to be messiahs back then?

Today, we have places in the States where there is a church on EVERY street corner.. and I have driven through some of them. One town, one crossroad... 4 or 5 churches... honestly. Each and every one of them has a spiritual "ruler".

Is a spiritual leader or "ruler" UNCOMMON at all?
Were messiahs UNCOMMON at the time?

In what way does the prediction talk about the UNIQUENESS of the ruler?
How are we to DISTINGUISH a "ruler of Judah" from another.. what are the CHARACTERISTICS of that ruler we should be looking out for? I don't think that Micah 5:2 SAYS anything about what would be UNIQUE about the ruler, OTHER than coming from a small part of Judah. How many small clans of Judah WERE there back then?

One? Or MANY?
Were small clans UNCOMMON and UNIQUE?

So, I'm having trouble with criteria 2, as well.
These are just samples, I don't want to write a book.

Neither do you.
I suggest that you try YOUR BEST argument with the BEST evidence.
Try the one you think would be MOST LIKELY acceptable... I LOVE being able to agree.. you started out with something that I could not really refute...

THAT'S the kind of thing I'm looking for.
If I can agree with everything.. bingo.. your job is done.

A big problem with your proof is that it's too much of a good thing.
Try to stick to YOUR VERY BEST ONE....In my mind, because of the medium ... small is better. It took me a LONG time to figure that one out. Slow learner here.


:)

User avatar
RonE
Scholar
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:27 pm
Location: Alaska

Re: Here is my evidence

Post #79

Post by RonE »

[Replying to post 73 by KingandPriest]
(note: I am aware that RonE stipulated in point 4 that he does not want to allow the bible to be introduced as a form of scientific evidence, but I find this to be impossible and irrational.
The C&A sub-forum rules state:
7. For debates purely on theology with the assumption that the Bible is an authoritative source, please consider posting in the Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma subforum.


If you choose to debate in this sub-forum you are REQUIRED to honor the Guidelines. Notice specifically that the Bible can be used ONLY to show what the bible says and what Christianity says. It cannot be used to prove that a statement or story is true.
*"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Definition of God and the scientific method

Post #80

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 76 by polonius.advice]

S.P.E.L.L. it O.U.T.

polonius.advice wrote:
So you what to apply a scientific method to an area which does not limit entities to only matter and energy as does science?

If you have a method that can prove that a phenomenon exists without resorting to science, explain how the method works, and then use it on your claim.

So far, we have not been given a methodology that is even COMPREHENSIBLE... it seems to boil down to faith. It takes faith in order to get faith. But if you have faith.. you already have it.

I know that's a caricature of the "religious method"... if there IS such a thing.. but if I am not GIVEN more than that... I can't help but conclude that's all there is in the way of religious methodology.

And we KNOW that science really works. And we know why it works. And we can spell it out,. And we can point to the vast amount of KNOWLEDGE about the real world that we have gained by using the scientific method. We know how using the scientific method improves everybodie's lives.

The only REAL test for a method is if it WORKS. Well, science WORKS.

Now, what KIND of methodology are YOU proposing, if you are going to reject the scientific method?

SPELL IT OUT.... we don't KNOW what method you are talking about.

polonius.advice wrote:
Doesn't that make an a priori judgement that only matter and energy exists? :-s
I don't think that anyone concerned about theorhetical physics finds it USEFUL to have any kind of "a priori" judgements.

Why make premature conclusions?
And by the way.. the good ones DON'T do that.

( that's one of the ways we KNOW that they are good )

:)

Post Reply