ISIS

To be fair Matthew 24:5 is pretty bang on. Just watch the religious channels.

5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

But really he is just talking about local stuff


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

The E wrote:

DDHv wrote:If, with all these translation problems, the Bible still has fulfilled prophecies, such as Daniel 12:4

Let me stop you right there. Daniel 12:4? You're using Daniel 12:4 as proof of the bible's prophetic power?

"But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."

Truly, I am overwhelmed by the prophetic power of these words!

"what, people aren't traveling much more, and knowledge isn't increasing faster?"

and those we know now can be fulfilled, such as Matthew 24:21>22 ( a few decades back, LIFE magazine had an article explaining about the known weapons which could wipe out all human life), why should we ignore it?

Matthew 24:21 is not a prophecy.

"For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will.

Now, granted, that sounds like something important and grave, but what is it actually talking about?
Maybe Matthew 24:20 can help?

"But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath.

Oh. It's travel advice. "If you do flee, do not do so in Winter".

Your standards for what constitutes prophecy are abominably low.

"What, we don't now have weapons capable of wiping out humanity?"

There are also many places where great insistence was made that the Bible was wrong, such as with the Hittites, David's kingdom, Solomon's mines and stables, etc. until the archeologists and other scientists found out the facts.

And as we all know, if you can prove a part of something to be true, then the entirety of it must be true!

Oh wait, that's not how anything works.

"Exactly correct. However, most consideration of evidence works like a rope. If a strand thought broken is found to be solid, it weakens the contrary argument. The trend of evidence is important - it is worth while investigating how further knowledge has falsified more arguments on one side of an explanation than the other."

And above all, no one has proposed any reason for the cosmos to have low energy entropy and low information entropy without a creation by power and understanding, as described in the Bible. We know of many ways entropy can increase (availability degrades), but only one has been proposed for it to start low.

Neither do we have evidence to show that an intelligence was behind the creation of the universe.

We have evidence. We also have competing explanations. Don't confuse the two. Evidence cannot prove an explanation, but can support it or falsify it.

Anyone who has really dug into this has looked at some of what has been said on the subject by various philosophers, theologians, logicians, and historians. Each has certain methods of evaluating evidence; some good, some bad, and there is a lot of overlap. I am reading "God's Crime Scene." by J. Warner Wallace, an experienced homicide detective, who is addressing this subject from the judicial pattern of thinking. I don't recall finding this set of methods before. Even those wholly rejecting his conclusions are likely to find the discussions of a detective's thinking methods interesting.

IMHO, picking solid methods for evaluating evidence is the most critical thing for any reality based discussion


Of course, if we are not concerned about reality, method quality doesn't matter.

Two of the worst methods are: Because I've been told so; and because of the way I was raised. Many people use these as their primary methods.

DDHv wrote:Two of the worst methods are: Because I've been told so; and because of the way I was raised. Many people use these as their primary methods.

You know what's also really bad? Overinterpreting the words of some folks who lived and died around 2000 years ago.

You, and by extension christianity as a whole, are claiming that there is hidden meaning in a tenth-hand translation of writings produced some 2000 years ago, edited by a multitude of people over the years.

Well, guess what. I don't believe that the meaning you think is there is actually there. You make grandiose claims about how these phrases predict something happening now, today, when they can just as easily be applied to situations going back hundreds or thousands of years.

That's why I can't take your arguments seriously. They're ultimately founded upon your belief that they're true. Not knowledge in a provable, testable way. Pure belief. The axiomatic understanding that there is a superhuman agency out there that took or takes an active interest in our development.

You cannot prove that axiom (because that's what axioms are). All you have is a circular argument: "The bible contains the will of god, because it says it does".

Here, take these statements of yours:

"Exactly correct. However, most consideration of evidence works like a rope. If a strand thought broken is found to be solid, it weakens the contrary argument. The trend of evidence is important - it is worth while investigating how further knowledge has falsified more arguments on one side of an explanation than the other."

We have evidence. We also have competing explanations. Don't confuse the two. Evidence cannot prove an explanation, but can support it or falsify it.

No. That's bias at work. Let's say I invent a new theory of gravity. It makes some predictions that are very wild indeed, but of course it also has to incorporate the behaviour described by Newton and Einstein et al. Maybe it's even better at predicting things than Einstein's theories are. But does that lend credence to the as yet unproven parts? In some ways it does. But until those parts of the theory can be tested, they remain hypothetical.

Same goes for the bible. Yes, you can map certain things in there to historical evidence from other sources. That doesn't tell us anything about the whole god thing though. That will have to be confirmed as well, and so far, the total sum of empirical proof for it is nil. Nothing. Any attempt to do so has failed, despite half a millennium or more of trying.

Now, you claim we have evidence for intelligent, deliberate action shaping our universe. Show it. Show conclusively that the evidence leaves only one explanation. Do that, and I'll happily jump on the bible bandwagon (with a bomb strapped to my chest to blow it up, because fuck living in a world that isn't just randomly cruel but intentionally so).

But you can't do that. You acknowledge it yourself. You are fully aware that the available evidence does not support your theories, yet you keep insisting that they're true.



Religion is good at many things. It offers comfort to a lot of people each and every day, gives them strength, lets them be happy. That's great, admirable even.

But that doesn't mean it has to be more real than a placebo.

Stephen Fry put it beautifully.
https://youtu.be/2-d4otHE-YI

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

It's so funny that I used to think just like this. God never quit on me even when I quit on the World. Have a near death or death experience on your whole reality is changed. Can I prove this to your satisfaction...No! However, this experience has totally changed my life. It's real to me and that's what only matters to me. You have your answers to life and I have mine. Neither side will change their positions because we are a product of our teachings and life experiences. The thing is I learned to love other people unconditionally and that has totally changed my reality. Please, always try to pay it forward and don't break the chain of love. (I know it's corny but it's how I feel!)

Annachie wrote:Stephen Fry put it beautifully.
https://youtu.be/2-d4otHE-YI

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

The E wrote:

DDHv wrote:Two of the worst methods are: Because I've been told so; and because of the way I was raised. Many people use these as their primary methods.

You know what's also really bad? Overinterpreting the words of some folks who lived and died around 2000 years ago.


snip

The axiomatic understanding that there is a superhuman agency out there that took or takes an active interest in our development.

You cannot prove that axiom (because that's what axioms are). All you have is a circular argument: "The bible contains the will of god, because it says it does".

By definition, an axiom cannot be proven. However, it is possible to compare results to reality. Sometimes this produces things that cannot be tested with our current knowledge - I have heard that an expanding universe is evidence for one of the non-euclidean geometries, but don't know enough about it to either agree or disagree

The E wrote:
Here, take these statements of yours:

snip

We have evidence. We also have competing explanations. Don't confuse the two. Evidence cannot prove an explanation, but can support it or falsify it.

No. That's bias at work. Let's say I invent a new theory of gravity. It makes some predictions that are very wild indeed, but of course it also has to incorporate the behaviour described by Newton and Einstein et al. Maybe it's even better at predicting things than Einstein's theories are. But does that lend credence to the as yet unproven parts? In some ways it does. But until those parts of the theory can be tested, they remain hypothetical.

Same goes for the bible. Yes, you can map certain things in there to historical evidence from other sources. That doesn't tell us anything about the whole god thing though. That will have to be confirmed as well, and so far, the total sum of empirical proof for it is nil. Nothing. Any attempt to do so has failed, despite half a millennium or more of trying.

What do you mean by "anything"?

The E wrote:
snip

(with a bomb strapped to my chest to blow it up, because fuck living in a world that isn't just randomly cruel but intentionally so).

But you can't do that. You acknowledge it yourself. You are fully aware that the available evidence does not support your theories, yet you keep insisting that they're true.

I insist that any statement can be tested by comparing it with reality. The most important thing is whether the test methods are good ones. Most people do not use good methods.

How did you come to the conclusion that an intelligent deity could not provide real free will, complete with the possibility of really cruel results at times?

Have you considered that if we had no ability to ruin anything, we would be just robots? Please leave that to the ants, bees, and earthworms! Can anyone live a human life without assuming that their choices are not robotic?

The E wrote:Religion is good at many things. It offers comfort to a lot of people each and every day, gives them strength, lets them be happy. That's great, admirable even.

But that doesn't mean it has to be more real than a placebo.

If it is not real, the rest doesn't matter. If the Bible is not truly God's word, it should be possible to point to at least one specific thing that is provably wrong. This does not mean disagreement with current theories, but facts.

I'm afraid I have more respect for archeologists and experimenters than for many theologians.

ILL has not yet sent the book cthia suggested, but my pragmatic definition of information is: if a minor change in symbolism produces a major change in meaning, it is information. Compare: "Let's eat, John."; with "Let's eat John." If John were not fictional . . ..

Also compare: God made the universe cruel, and God made the universe to allow creatures to choose cruelty.

PS, I can't speak to the methods used by the researchers, but

P & S wave tomography of the mantle beneath the United States. Geophysical Research Letters 41:6342-6349, Schmandt, B.; and Fan-chi Lin 2014

62 mile thick slabs of brittle, dense rock descending into the mantle from subduction zones may not be evidence of Noah's flood. OTOH, they are reported to be cooler than the surrounding mantle. Does anyone have any understanding of how they could determine the temperatures at approximately 400 miles depth

DDHv wrote:By definition, an axiom cannot be proven. However, it is possible to compare results to reality. Sometimes this produces things that cannot be tested with our current knowledge - I have heard that an expanding universe is evidence for one of the non-euclidean geometries, but don't know enough about it to either agree or disagree

Which such comparison has convinced you that the bible is full of truth?

What do you mean by "anything"?

...

Really?

Things like the existence of god. Or that he has a will that is actually and actively shaping our existence. The things in the Bible that are verifiable do not allow us to make any firm statement about those things.

I insist that any statement can be tested by comparing it with reality. The most important thing is whether the test methods are good ones. Most people do not use good methods.

What is a good method to determine the presence or absence of a deity?

How did you come to the conclusion that an intelligent deity could not provide real free will, complete with the possibility of really cruel results at times?

God, as defined by the bible, renders free will illusionary by his mere existence. If he does, as is claimed, possess absolute knowledge of everything we do, then every single thing we do is effectively preordained and thus not actually an expression of free will.

Secondly, free will is a remarkably iffy concept that may not actually exist. There is some fascinating philosophical debate surrounding it.

Have you considered that if we had no ability to ruin anything, we would be just robots? Please leave that to the ants, bees, and earthworms! Can anyone live a human life without assuming that their choices are not robotic?

On a very fundamental level, I believe in a completely physical universe, one that is at least theoretically completely mappable and understandable, without any external influences.
If that is true, then it follows that every interaction on every scale is fundamentally predictable in advance; free will, then, is an illusion concocted by processes in our brain that are ultimately not under our control.

So, from my POV, we definitely are robots.

If it is not real, the rest doesn't matter. If the Bible is not truly God's word, it should be possible to point to at least one specific thing that is provably wrong. This does not mean disagreement with current theories, but facts.

The universe was created in seven days. There is a point in the history of homo sapiens sapiens during which the Earth was covered in water. Christ's miracles happened.

Those things are all presented as facts in the bible. They are either provably wrong, or impossible to substantiate. (Yes, I know that some people have posited that the "7 days" of the bible are not actually days but epochs of varying length. I am sorry, but that's a pretty blatant ex post facto reinterpretation)

ILL has not yet sent the book cthia suggested, but my pragmatic definition of information is: if a minor change in symbolism produces a major change in meaning, it is information. Compare: "Let's eat, John."; with "Let's eat John." If John were not fictional . . ..

Also compare: God made the universe cruel, and God made the universe to allow creatures to choose cruelty.

So either God is a vindictive, sociopathic child playing with an anthill or God is a experimenter running an elaborate simulation.

Which interpretation would you prefer?

The E wrote:
snip

What is a good method to determine the presence or absence of a deity?

The existence of things that cannot be explained from inside the box. Such as free will, the laws of thermodynamics and other information in physics, human creativity, miracles, unselfish love, even the existence of playfulness in humans and many animals. I've read about how much otters enjoy play. So do I.

The E wrote:
God, as defined by the bible, renders free will illusionary by his mere existence. If he does, as is claimed, possess absolute knowledge of everything we do, then every single thing we do is effectively preordained and thus not actually an expression of free will.

Secondly, free will is a remarkably iffy concept that may not actually exist. There is some fascinating philosophical debate surrounding it.

If you are going to use the Bible's definition, please use it correctly. For example, do a search for the places where God says, "IF you XXX, then YYY." The God of the Bible believes in free will, with consequences.

The E wrote:
On a very fundamental level, I believe in a completely physical universe, one that is at least theoretically completely mappable and understandable, without any external influences.
If that is true, then it follows that every interaction on every scale is fundamentally predictable in advance; free will, then, is an illusion concocted by processes in our brain that are ultimately not under our control.

So, from my POV, we definitely are robots.

Your POV is understood. You insist on a closed universe. Where, in the box, is a reason for the beginning of that universe? You do not live your life without making choices, and I hope you don't live it without at least some creativity, unselfish love, and play. Have you considered that in a totally deterministic universe no thought can be relied on to fit that, rather than be a random chemical result?

The E wrote:
The universe was created in seven days. There is a point in the history of homo sapiens sapiens during which the Earth was covered in water. Christ's miracles happened.

Those things are all presented as facts in the bible. They are either provably wrong, or impossible to substantiate. (Yes, I know that some people have posited that the "7 days" of the bible are not actually days but epochs of varying length. I am sorry, but that's a pretty blatant ex post facto reinterpretation)

IF there is no entry from outside, THEN no miracle is possible. Point to a proof of error that is based on facts, not current theories, please. The statement that there is error is commonly made, but so far, no one has been able to show me exactly where and back it up with fact.

I can't see the days = epochs idea either. There are too many facts against it. At least two theories, consistent with present physics, exist that would allow a literal seven days, if outside intervention is not ruled out. I present for outside intervention, in addition to the existence of the universe as is, the finding of chariot parts like those of Mosiac Egypt in the Gulf of Aquaba tongue of the Red Sea;

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/if-yo ... And+Think+

; the discovery of cooler pieces of crust below subduction zones; the fact that humans dominate the earth and its life; the existence of a society that travels much and has rapidly increasing knowledge; the fact that you think it wrong, not just a chance result, that we should believe in a God who did not make us robots.

The E wrote:

So either God is a vindictive, sociopathic child playing with an anthill or God is a experimenter running an elaborate simulation.

Which interpretation would you prefer?

I think God often rates our importance above what we do, except for those who puff themselves up. I wonder, do they really believe themselves?

Have you considered the possibility that God wants us to actually make real choices with real results, even when it means He needs to step in at a great personal cost so He can forgive and still be totally honest

DDHv wrote:If the Bible is not truly God's word, it should be possible to point to at least one specific thing that is provably wrong. This does not mean disagreement with current theories, but facts.

If you WANT facts, you´re going to have to research seriously yourself, because there are no small and simple factoids that can be delivered with a few sentences.

You also need to realise that it is essentially impossible to PROVE a negative.
Thus, proving beyond any doubt that something claimed in the bible or whatever IS wrong, is extremely hard. It is however quite possible to show that the bible is figuratively speaking, full of crap.
That even if it DID happen, it did NOT happen as described in the bible. And in many cases, that the probability of it ever happening is lower than the probability that we make contact with intelligent aliens tomorrow.

Start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historici ... istoricity
In the United States the biblical archaeology movement, under the influence of Albright, counter-attacked, arguing that the broad outline within the framing narratives was also true, so that while scholars could not realistically expect to prove or disprove individual episodes from the life of Abraham and the other patriarchs, these were real individuals who could be placed in a context proven from the archaeological record. But as more discoveries were made, and anticipated finds failed to materialise, it became apparent that archaeology did not in fact support the claims made by Albright and his followers. Today, only a minority of scholars continue to work within this framework, mainly for reasons of religious conviction.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Historicity

The archaeological data do not accord with what could be expected from the Bible's exodus story: there is no evidence that the Israelites ever lived in Ancient Egypt, the Sinai Peninsula shows almost no sign of any occupation at all for the entire 2nd millennium BCE, and even Kadesh-Barnea, where the Israelites are said to have spent 38 years, was uninhabited prior to the establishment of the Israelite monarchy.


The 600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people.[22] Marching ten abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line 150 miles long.[23] The entire Egyptian population in 1250 BCE is estimated to have been around 3 to 3.5 million,[24][22] and no evidence has been found that Egypt ever suffered the demographic and economic catastrophe such a loss of population would represent, nor that the Sinai desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their herds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historicity


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_E ... istoricity
Berlin quotes a series of scholars who suggest that the author of Esther did not mean for the book to be considered as a historical writing, but intentionally wrote it to be a historical novella.[25] The genre of novellas under which Esther falls was common during both the Persian and Hellenistic periods to which scholars have dated the book of Esther.

There are certain elements of the book of Esther that are historically accurate. The story told in the book of Esther takes place during the rule of Ahasuerus, who has been identified as the 5th-century Persian king Xerxes I (reigned 486–465 BCE). The author also displays an accurate knowledge of Persian customs and palaces.[22] However, according to Coogan, considerable historical inaccuracies remain throughout the text, supporting the view that the book of Esther is to be read as a historical novella which tells a story describing historical events but is not necessarily historical fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_ ... estament_2
Of those who accept that there are inconsistencies, scholars such as Raymond Brown have examined contradictions in the Gospels, particularly in the infancy narratives of Christ.[78] W. D. Davies and E. P. Sanders claim that: “on many points, especially about Jesus’ early life, the evangelists were ignorant … they simply did not know, and, guided by rumour, hope or supposition, did the best they could”.[79] More critical scholars see the nativity stories either as completely fictional accounts,[80] or at least constructed from traditions that predate the Gospels.

Internal consistency within the synoptic gospels has been analysed by many scholars. A well-known example is the nativity narratives found in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 1:1-6 ) and the Gospel of Luke (Luke 3:32-34 ). Each gives a genealogy of Jesus, but the names, and even the number of generations, differ between the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism

DDHv wrote:The existence of things that cannot be explained from inside the box. Such as free will, the laws of thermodynamics and other information in physics, human creativity, miracles, unselfish love, even the existence of playfulness in humans and many animals. I've read about how much otters enjoy play. So do I.

Why do you believe that none of this is explainable without invoking something not contained within the physical universe?

If you are going to use the Bible's definition, please use it correctly. For example, do a search for the places where God says, "IF you XXX, then YYY." The God of the Bible believes in free will, with consequences.

No. The authors of the bible did.

As I've explained in my previous post, I do not believe free will (as an ultimately acausal force) actually exists. Everything we do arises from interactions of ever-increasing complexity which ultimately derive from the basic interactions between the fundamental particles of the universe.

Your POV is understood. You insist on a closed universe. Where, in the box, is a reason for the beginning of that universe? You do not live your life without making choices, and I hope you don't live it without at least some creativity, unselfish love, and play. Have you considered that in a totally deterministic universe no thought can be relied on to fit that, rather than be a random chemical result?

You apparently have difficulty understanding my point of view. Of course we make choices and have thoughts and all that. But the question is: Is there an acausal element to this? By which I mean, is there a single action we can do that does not, can not, have a cause explainable by the mechanisms that are at work within us?

IF there is no entry from outside, THEN no miracle is possible. Point to a proof of error that is based on facts, not current theories, please. The statement that there is error is commonly made, but so far, no one has been able to show me exactly where and back it up with fact.

Do you have archeological evidence to support the idea that the miracles as mentioned in the bible happened? Do you have archeological evidence showing that the biblical flood happened as described? Tenshinai already posted a few instances where archeology utterly failed to support the bible.

I can't see the days = epochs idea either. There are too many facts against it. At least two theories, consistent with present physics, exist that would allow a literal seven days, if outside intervention is not ruled out.

Name one. I seriously do wish to know how you can get from the Big Bang to a universe inhabitable by humans in a mere seven days without completely violating several laws of physics.

I present for outside intervention, in addition to the existence of the universe as is,

You're using the existence of the universe as proof that god is real?

Why am I taking you seriously again?

the finding of chariot parts like those of Mosiac Egypt in the Gulf of Aquaba tongue of the Red Sea;

To quote the article: "Are chariot wheels found on the floor of the red sea that date back to 1400 BCE enough to prove that the red sea actually split and the Israelites and the Egyptians actually passed through on dry land as the bible relates?"

The answer, as with any rhetorical question like that, is "No".

the discovery of cooler pieces of crust below subduction zones;

Which book of the bible mentioned this?

the fact that humans dominate the earth and its life;

what

the existence of a society that travels much and has rapidly increasing knowledge;

what

Hang on, do you claim that this is somehow proof of supernatural intervention on our behalf now.

the fact that you think it wrong, not just a chance result, that we should believe in a God who did not make us robots.

Please walk me through the line of proof that goes from "The E is a skeptic and believes in a completely physical universe" to "god is real".

I think God often rates our importance above what we do, except for those who puff themselves up. I wonder, do they really believe themselves?

Have you considered the possibility that God wants us to actually make real choices with real results, even when it means He needs to step in at a great personal cost so He can forgive and still be totally honest

What great personal cost is that again? To whom is this god of yours accountable in order for some, any, action of his to carry a cost?


Here's something I would like you to do. Track down Peter Watts' novel "Blindsight". It's available for free off of his website. Please read it, and pay special attention to its ruminations on the existence and value of free will. I would like to hear your thoughts.