Don't Argue about the Beggining ...

[KWCrazy]

Many versions of Christianity say that we'll get a chance to repent. Which undermines Pascal's wager somewhat. Not that it needed much undermining...

Don't listen to what anyone says about the Scriptures that aren't backed by the Scriptures themselves. Here's what Jesus said.

Matthew 25:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

There is no second chance and no warning. If you die today having rejected salvation you're damned. The fact that children and babies die should remind you that your next breath is not guaranteed. The fact is, without Jesus you're covered in sin and sin cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Don't believe anyone's claims. Believe the Scriptures. Trust only the Lord.

 

[Oafman]

Don't listen to what anyone says about the Scriptures that aren't backed by the Scriptures themselves. Here's what Jesus said.

.... some things written by men........

There is no second chance and no warning. If you die today having rejected salvation you're damned. The fact that children and babies die should remind you that your next breath is not guaranteed. The fact is, without Jesus you're covered in sin and sin cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Don't believe anyone's claims. Believe the Scriptures. Trust only the Lord.

In the unlikely event that I do find myself before St Peter, I'm confident that he'll be more reasonable than the authors of the scriptures give him credit for.

It matters not ... how charged with punishments the scroll.

 

[Ronald]

Your message is lost to atheists. They have rejected God and turn to SCIENCE for a god. In science they search for a beginning and also an end. It is ironic that they have the same desire to learn of our beginning and end that the Bible speaks to. That is part of our nature. God created us in his image, part of that is to seek him out and see him in the world all around us.

Now the atheists/scientists also look for many ways for the world to end. They currently use the farce of man-made global warming to be the source of all kinds of extreme weather disasters. This is just another way for them to deny God being in control of the weather where he uses natural disasters as a call to the world to repent and turn to him.

In 2 Peter 3 I see fulfilled end time prophecy where people deny God created the world. It has only been in recent times that there is a massive push in the secular world to deny God/promote atheism. Most civilizations in history have at least acknowledged the existence of some god.

Also in Peter's letter is a warning to all that deny the coming of Jesus. It ends with a call to LOOK FORWARD to the coming DAY OF THE LORD and SPEED ITS COMING. I fear many of the posters here do not honor this scripture.

3 Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4 They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5 But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.

11 Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12 as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat.

Your are partially right. If no one described the events in prophecies, then they would just see it as natural disasters: volcanic eruptions, asteroids, earthquakes and nuclear war. They would go for the scientific explanation. But if you warn them prior to the events with a few prophecies and things start to explode, they still may be skeptical but be open to the possibility.
It would then be easy enough to read about the 7 Seals, 7 Trumpets and 7 Bowls. I do believe these guys are visiting a Christian Forum for more than just to bash us. I could be wrong, they could be sent by the enemy.
Like in that movie, The Knowing, Nicolas Cage played a science professor who was an atheist, but he could not deny the prophecy written in numbers in a time capsule when he saw with hair splitting accuracy, devastating events unfold.
If I still can communicate at that time, I will give them more to look at.
Most people would take an even bet on a\the likelihood of a nuclear war with Israel and Iran, so it would be easy to just prophesy about that and to make an educated guess with a time frame. But adding the solar eclipse and blood moons on specific Holy Days to signal the rest of the Great Tribulation events is beyond guessing.
I realize that I won't convince anyone now, that is not the purpose. The purpose is once they read it, it will be in the back of their minds. Like a slap in the face - you don't forget it.

 

[Ronald]

[*]538 BCE Decree of Cyrus allows Jews to return to Jerusalem
[*]520–515 BCE Return by many Jews to Yehud under Zerubbabel and Joshua the High Priest. Foundations of Second Temple laid.
[/LIST]

No, you are. The whole context of Ezek. 37 is speaking of the end times. It starts out with a prophecy concerning the resurrection. God puts skin, flesh and gives live to dead dry bones. DID THAT HAPPEN? NO!
Even if you didn't read the whole chapter and just the verse, you'll notice that it says "all lands" as in many nations - plural, not just Babylon.
Maybe you have one foot in the Partial Preterist camp?

From NASA:

2014 Apr 15: Total Lunar Eclipse
2014 Apr 29: Annular Solar Eclipse
2014 Oct 08: Total Lunar Eclipse
2014 Oct 23: Partial Solar Eclipse
​

I'm aware of the Annular Solar Eclipse that does not fall on a Holy Day and the partial eclipses one on a Holy Day and 10/23/14 not. Your point?

I don't think I have heard anything about peace and safety but the Iran deal:

Iran and six of the world's powers – the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia – agreed on a "first step deal” that is meant to limit advancements in Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing some of the economic sanctions that have deeply hurt Iran's economy.
​

They have six months to comply... and ... do you think they will? They are stalling for more time. So they will allow inspectors into one facility but not the other one. OK. They have a history of lying and deception. They are the number one financial and strategic support of terrorism. So, the new president charms people with a smiley face and plays nice and everyone falls for it?

In a recent interview for his newest book Aftershock, Wiedemer says, “The data is clear, 50% unemployment, a 90% stock market drop, and 100% annual inflation . . . starting in 2012.”

Chapter and page? No, I READ THE BOOK. He said between 2013 and 2015.

http://www.moneynews.com/Outbrain/Trump-Aftershock-American-Economy/2012/11/06/id/462985

Billionaire Tells Americans to Prepare For 'Financial Ruin'

Yes, we know now what it looks like when the Wall Street debt bubble bursts, still waiting for what it will look like when it happens to the Federal Government. He predicted 100% inflation from 2013 to 2014 but I'm not seeing it. We are also supposed to be more dependent on foreign oil but we are having an oil bonanza because of rising prices their drilling more here.

http://www.moneynews.com/Outbrain/Trump-Aftershock-American-Economy/2012/11/06/id/462985
I'm not putting my faith in Weidemer, I just threw his ideas in there to support my premise. He did predict the 2008 recession. There are two bubbles left. China, Japan, Germany, Brazil and many other countries are trading in other currencies and are working on placing the US dollar as the International standard. When it falls, they might come up with one currency for the entire world.

Don't get me wrong, the debt bubble is a disaster waiting to happen. Right now, no one really how that looks until it actually happens.

The government has also been lying about inflation, its more like 11% not 1%. People have seen the prices escalate, the packages get smaller, etc.

I'm unclear how you made the leap from May 1948 to April 2014.

"I see a bad moon arising, I see trouble on the way
I see earthquakes and lightning, I see bad times today,
Well, don't go round tonight, but it's bound to take your life
There's a bad moon on the rise.
I see hurricanes blowing, I know the end is coming soon.
I fear the river's over flowing, hear the voice of rage and ruin ..."Fogerty

That song struck me when I found out about the blood moons, so I did some research. He wrote that song in 1968 about the apocalypse. It came out in 69. He knew about the blood moons too, just didn't have more pieces to the puzzle solved.

You can't take the mark of the beast by accident and the rise of the Antichrist will not happen between the lines of headline news.

Well, people will be forced to take the mark in order to buy or sell. I'd rather starve thank very much.

We have been on the verge of the 7 year Tribulation since Jesus was raised from the dead. We have been living in the 'end times' for 2,000 years.

Yes, but the last generation will see all these thing come to pass. three score plus 10 is 70 years.

Well yea, nuclear war with Israel would be positively Apocalyptic, the retaliation would be immediate and devastating. The US only had nukes because the nuclear scientists in Germany were mostly Jewish. They fled Nazi Germany and ended up developing nuclear weapons in New Mexico, a guy named Einstein had told Truman about the potential for such a weapon.

Anyway, an interesting yarn but highly speculative.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I didn't weave this yarn though.

Thanks for your input, Ronald

 

[Ronald]

If I concern myself with the end, won't I have problems with living my life?

Occupy until He comes. But just open your eyes is all I'm suggesting, not drop everything and move to the wilderness and build a bunker!

I have to say that I'm not impressed by prophecy unless it's very specific, explicit and I've verified that it's been done beforehand myself.

Solar and lunar eclipses are specific? How about I show you a verse that's 2500 years old that describes the effects of a nuclear blast?
"And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths." Zech.14:12
A neutron bomb will melt your flesh before you drop to the ground! How's that for specific.

If something as extraordinary as that, sure. But how do I know if I've taken the mark of the beast? And what do I get from taking it?

The mark must be a visible mark or imbedded chip? I'm not sure. But it is also a spiritual mark as well, meaning after a lifetime of opportunities, you've chose to reject Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That seals the deal. That you are asking the question, tells me that your door is partially open. You see, Jesus stands at the door of your heart and knocks and knocks and knocks. If you open it, He'll come in and sup with you -- save you.

I honestly don't think a nuclear war is enough, that could be triggered by human interaction alone and therefore is no indicator of god.

Exactly, it's just the beginning of birth pangs - as scripture states in Matt. 24

What does evolution have to do with the end times btw? You lost me completely at the last section, it seems to have almost nothing to do with the earlier parts (as you seem to speak of more supernatural events before).

That was tongue in cheek ... punctuated equilibrium -- one of the evolutionist constructs. Just an example of how some of them may interpret the end times ... as part of an evolutionary process. Just a joke.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

No. It's not. We do, however, not put as much stock in the quotations from the bible.

Then we wouldn't be atheist, would we?

Why would it be ironic if it's in our nature? There's no need to assume the source of that nature.

Weather wouldn't end the world. Also, the statement you made about god there is leaving much to ask for.
We would like you to demonstrate that there exists a god and we would like you to demonstrate that god controls the weather (yes, the second does not follow from the first).
I, specifically, would like you to demonstrate that god is using the natural disasters to try to convey a message, I'd personally claim that if that's the case, he's using a crappy method.

I'd say that there's a difference in denying and not accepting. I, for one, would change my mind if I were convinced if there is a god. In a heartbeat. So would most people I know.

And here I repeat:
We do not put much stock in the quotations from the bible.

Elendur, my message was not geared towards atheists, but I will respond to some of your points since you were so respectful in them.


Let me explain the irony in atheists/scientists searching for our beginning and end. By doing this, they are following a command from a God that they do not believe in. God made this part of our instinct, part of our nature. Hence the irony.

An example of man's instinct to search out our origin is in adopted children. When they grow older they have a strong desire to find their parents, where they came from. We all want to know how and why we are here. Our source and purpose.

You can not dismiss this as just part of random nature. These instincts are part of an intelligent design. They are not learned knowledge for no learned knowledge has never become instinct knowledge.

You made no comment on this part of my post.

In 2 Peter 3 I see fulfilled end time prophecy where people deny God created the world. It has only been in recent times that there is a massive push in the secular world to deny God/promote atheism. Most civilizations in history have at least acknowledged the existence of some god.
​

You should at least acknowledge that the Bible is unique in predicting 2000 years ago that man will deny the very existence of a God and creator and destroyer. Do you not admit that most civilizations in all of recorded history have worshiped some god?

While prophecies of wars, famines and plagues are not unique for they have been happening throughout time. It would be unexpected 2000 years ago to say that in the future people will stop believing in even the existence of God.

As far as the Bible goes, it is where we learn of God, that he controls the weather. The end of the world will not come from weather although it will certainly be a factor in the prophesied famines, pestilence and diseases. It will not come as a result of man, even with his nuclear weapons. All the nukes of the world would not end all life. The end will only come at God's hand.

I do not expect you to believe the Bible for it takes faith for that. The first part of faith would to at least acknowledge God. What you don't see is that to deny the existence of God takes a faith in science. Science does not hold proofs for all that they say. They propose MANY THEORIES that change every year. Many of which require great leaps in faith to accept.

You ask to be convinced there is a God. I say it is about faith, not proof. I will then ask you to show me proof for what you believe in. I would like to see some dark matter and dark energy that scientist believe to be present even though they can't see or measure it.

Sounds just as unproven as the existence of God.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are mistaken, these prophecies were literally fulfilled when Israel returned from the Babylonian captivity:

• 538 BCE Decree of Cyrus allows Jews to return to Jerusalem
• 520–515 BCE Return by many Jews to Yehud under Zerubbabel and Joshua the High Priest. Foundations of Second Temple laid.

No, you are. The whole context of Ezek. 37 is speaking of the end times. It starts out with a prophecy concerning the resurrection. God puts skin, flesh and gives live to dead dry bones. DID THAT HAPPEN? NO!
Even if you didn't read the whole chapter and just the verse, you'll notice that it says "all lands" as in many nations - plural, not just Babylon.
Maybe you have one foot in the Partial Preterist camp?

Let's get something straight and then maybe we can discuss this like gentlemen, there is nothing 'Preterist' in letting Scripture mean what it says. It most certainly does have a literal fulfillment when Israel returned from the Babylonian captivity. The Valley of Dry Bones is the hope of Israel if you are reading what you are alluding to, all the 8th Century Prophets including Isaiah prophecies the Israel and Judah would be judged and would return to the land of Israel.

One thing is obvious, you never bothered to study the Old Testament.

I'm aware of the Annular Solar Eclipse that does not fall on a Holy Day and the partial eclipses one on a Holy Day and 10/23/14 not. Your point?

I would ask you the same question, what could possible be the point of eclipses, you've tied them to nothing relevant and BTW, plagiarized John Hagee without so much as a citation.

I don't think I have heard anything about peace and safety but the Iran deal:
Iran and six of the world's powers – the United States, France, Britain, Germany, China and Russia – agreed on a "first step deal” that is meant to limit advancements in Iran's nuclear program in exchange for easing some of the economic sanctions that have deeply hurt Iran's economy.

They have six months to comply... and ... do you think they will? They are stalling for more time. So they will allow inspectors into one facility but not the other one. OK. They have a history of lying and deception. They are the number one financial and strategic support of terrorism. So, the new president charms people with a smiley face and plays nice and everyone falls for it?

That doesn't make him the Antichrist and I see nothing in the way of prophetic significance in your allusion to the Iranian nonproliferation deal.

In a recent interview for his newest book Aftershock, Wiedemer says, “The data is clear, 50% unemployment, a 90% stock market drop, and 100% annual inflation . . . starting in 2012.”
Chapter and page? No, I READ THE BOOK. He said between 2013 and 2015.

That's from his infomercial hyping up his book. If you read it then why aren't you offering anything substantive from it? This is the name of the article:

Billionaire Tells Americans to Prepare For 'Financial Ruin'

Notice how my source material is quoted, cited and linked? You should try it some time!

Yes, we know now what it looks like when the Wall Street debt bubble bursts, still waiting for what it will look like when it happens to the Federal Government. He predicted 100% inflation from 2013 to 2014 but I'm not seeing it. We are also supposed to be more dependent on foreign oil but we are having an oil bonanza because of rising prices their drilling more here.

I'm not putting my faith in Weidemer, I just threw his ideas in there to support my premise. He did predict the 2008 recession. There are two bubbles left. China, Japan, Germany, Brazil and many other countries are trading in other currencies and are working on placing the US dollar as the International standard. When it falls, they might come up with one currency for the entire world.

It would be a slick trick if they could do it, how you're getting prophetic significance from that remains a mystery, at least to me.

Don't get me wrong, the debt bubble is a disaster waiting to happen. Right now, no one really how that looks until it actually happens.
The government has also been lying about inflation, its more like 11% not 1%. People have seen the prices escalate, the packages get smaller, etc.

The government is lying to us, not exactly an earth shaking revelation. What is more I think a good gage of inflation is the price at the pump and the grocery store. I think people would notice an 11% spike.

I'm unclear how you made the leap from May 1948 to April 2014.

"I see a bad moon arising, I see trouble on the way
I see earthquakes and lightning, I see bad times today,
Well, don't go round tonight, but it's bound to take your life
There's a bad moon on the rise.
I see hurricanes blowing, I know the end is coming soon.
I fear the river's over flowing, hear the voice of rage and ruin ..."Fogerty

Credence Clearwater Revival....seriously?

That song struck me when I found out about the blood moons, so I did some research. He wrote that song in 1968 about the apocalypse. It came out in 69. He knew about the blood moons too, just didn't have more pieces to the puzzle solved.

No John Fogerty is a prophetic oracle...are you being serious here or are you kidding me.

We have been on the verge of the 7 year Tribulation since Jesus was raised from the dead. We have been living in the 'end times' for 2,000 years.

Yes, but the last generation will see all these thing come to pass. three score plus 10 is 70 years.

That's what you call a giant leap of logic.

Now I dabble in end times speculation myself but one thing I do not do is dabble in Preterist heresies. I wanted to make that clear no matter what else we might discuss from here on out.

There is something else you might want to consider, I've been studying the Scriptures my entire adult life and two of my favorite subjects are Apologetics and Eschatology. I've also spent considerable time on the 8th century prophets and in case you didn't know it, Israel returning to the land from the Babylonian captivity is a major milestone in redemptive history. To say nothing of the fact that it's inextricably linked to the eschatology of the Old and New Testament.

I think you might want to start citing your sources and studying the Scriptures a little more seriously.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Don't listen to what anyone says about the Scriptures that aren't backed by the Scriptures themselves. Here's what Jesus said.

Matthew 25:
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

There is no second chance and no warning. If you die today having rejected salvation you're damned. The fact that children and babies die should remind you that your next breath is not guaranteed. The fact is, without Jesus you're covered in sin and sin cannot enter the kingdom of Heaven. Don't believe anyone's claims. Believe the Scriptures. Trust only the Lord.

About that passage, notice Jesus is speaking to professing Christians who didn't know how to treat actual believers. God takes that personally. That's all I had, I just wanted to mention it in passing.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Elendur]

Occupy until He comes. But just open your eyes is all I'm suggesting, not drop everything and move to the wilderness and build a bunker!

Ok.

Solar and lunar eclipses are specific? How about I show you a verse that's 2500 years old that describes the effects of a nuclear blast?
"And this shall be the plague with which the Lord will strike all the people who fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh shall dissolve while they stand on their feet, Their eyes shall dissolve in their sockets, And their tongues shall dissolve in their mouths." Zech.14:12
A neutron bomb will melt your flesh before you drop to the ground! How's that for specific.

And how would it differentiate between those who fought against Jerusalem and those who not?
Also, I'd say that there would be few with intact eye sockets for the eyes to melt in, likewise with the mouths.

The mark must be a visible mark or imbedded chip? I'm not sure. But it is also a spiritual mark as well, meaning after a lifetime of opportunities, you've chose to reject Jesus as your Lord and Savior. That seals the deal. That you are asking the question, tells me that your door is partially open. You see, Jesus stands at the door of your heart and knocks and knocks and knocks. If you open it, He'll come in and sup with you -- save you.

You know, I've tried, but heard/felt nothing. I'm trying my best to stay honest to myself (working actively on that every day) and I cannot say that I've ever experienced anything that could be linked to either a god or something similar.

Exactly, it's just the beginning of birth pangs - as scripture states in Matt. 24

Ok,

That was tongue in cheek ... punctuated equilibrium -- one of the evolutionist constructs. Just an example of how some of them may interpret the end times ... as part of an evolutionary process. Just a joke.

Ok well, it's always easy to miss those things.

 

[Elendur]

Elendur, my message was not geared towards atheists, but I will respond to some of your points since you were so respectful in them.

Glad that you found them respectful.

Let me explain the irony in atheists/scientists searching for our beginning and end. By doing this, they are following a command from a God that they do not believe in. God made this part of our instinct, part of our nature. Hence the irony.

An example of man's instinct to search out our origin is in adopted children. When they grow older they have a strong desire to find their parents, where they came from. We all want to know how and why we are here. Our source and purpose.

You can not dismiss this as just part of random nature. These instincts are part of an intelligent design. They are not learned knowledge for no learned knowledge has never become instinct knowledge.

I can tell you that the irony is completely based within your certainty that god exists and that he did instill those instincts in humans.
It's completely lost (not as in not understood) on those who're not. Myself included.

As for the curiosity, I do not see how that cannot be an extension of the natural curiosity. The same with our need to belong.

You made no comment on this part of my post.

In 2 Peter 3 I see fulfilled end time prophecy where people deny God created the world. It has only been in recent times that there is a massive push in the secular world to deny God/promote atheism. Most civilizations in history have at least acknowledged the existence of some god.
​

My bad, I reacted by reflex to the changed color and numbering within the paragraphs. Usually that means that they're quoting passages from the bible and I'm wholly uninterested in the bible, what I've read (which is a fair amount) has either been against my personal values (morally speaking) or taken as facts when it needs a lot of corroboration before up to the minimum standard of evidence.
Or worse, cherry picked.

You should at least acknowledge that the Bible is unique in predicting 2000 years ago that man will deny the very existence of a God and creator and destroyer. Do you not admit that most civilizations in all of recorded history have worshiped some god?

There's quite some problems with this section.
I'm not convinced that it's written in it's final form 2000 years ago (not that I've spent the time investigating this myself, I've never seen the need to).
Even if it was, the prediction of people denying (to which you could include doubters, such as myself, if you'd widen the definition) it is as near a certainty as you could possibly come. I.e. not impressive. (Unless you'd claim that everyone would deny god, then I'd be impressed).
But there's one more problem, no timetable. If you've read probability theory you'll understand that infinite time pushes a possible, though improbable, event into certainty.
But sure, most civilizations have had god worshiping in one for or another.

While prophecies of wars, famines and plagues are not unique for they have been happening throughout time. It would be unexpected 2000 years ago to say that in the future people will stop believing in even the existence of God.

Wait, you think wars, famines and plagues are vague, but deniers/doubters are not?
Don't forget that within that group (i.e. the wider definition of deniers) is also religious people not believing in your god.

As far as the Bible goes, it is where we learn of God, that he controls the weather. The end of the world will not come from weather although it will certainly be a factor in the prophesied famines, pestilence and diseases. It will not come as a result of man, even with his nuclear weapons. All the nukes of the world would not end all life. The end will only come at God's hand.

Great. I'll be surprised for sure, but there'll be some part in me that will be happy (I love mystic stuff and find a purely physical universe a tad depressing).

I do not expect you to believe the Bible for it takes faith for that. The first part of faith would to at least acknowledge God. What you don't see is that to deny the existence of God takes a faith in science. Science does not hold proofs for all that they say. They propose MANY THEORIES that change every year. Many of which require great leaps in faith to accept.

1. Proofs are for mathematics.
2. Theories are held tentatively, that they change is something positive. It represents that there's been an improvement of the understanding (or description) of the problem in question.
3. Define faith.

The only way I'll agree with you that science takes faith is if you revert it back into the widest definition, a definition not used in everyday life when mentioning faith (and hardly ever applicable). In fact, faith as the most widely accepted definition is the exact opposite of what science is based on, but I'll get to that (and conclusively show it) after you've defined faith.

You ask to be convinced there is a God. I say it is about faith, not proof. I will then ask you to show me proof for what you believe in. I would like to see some dark matter and dark energy that scientist believe to be present even though they can't see or measure it.

Sounds just as unproven as the existence of God.

I'd ask of you to not ask for proof, unless you're asking a mathematician (like me) about math.
Evidence is the correct term, but unfortunately I'm no physicist, so I won't be able to address any specific wants you'd have there.

I'm quite surprised that you'd take the split stance that you need only provide faith whilst the other side need to provide evidence though (note that I've assumed that you've meant evidence and not proof, since I've seen a lot of people make that mistake). I, and I mean this strictly by definition and not derogatory, think it seems hypocritical.

 

[Ronald]

Let's get something straight and then maybe we can discuss this like gentlemen, there is nothing 'Preterist' in letting Scripture mean what it says.

Didn't mean to insult you.

It most certainly does have a literal fulfillment when Israel returned from the Babylonian captivity.

I disagree. God putting on sinews (tendons), flesh and skin on bones and breathing life into them clearly describes the RESURRECTION. He specifically says he opens up graves takes out the bones and gives them life. If you can't see that, you are probably misinterpreting much of eschatology. Some people are gifted in certain areas. This is not one of yours. When some people read prophetic scripture and it doesn't work with their theology, they say it's symbolic.

One thing is obvious, you never bothered to study the Old Testament.

I've studied plenty, have written a book about the end times and the nature of hell, so you are barking up the wrong tree.

I would ask you the same question, what could possible be the point of eclipses, you've tied them to nothing relevant and BTW, plagiarized John Hagee without so much as a citation.

A friend told me a month ago about the blood moons. He said to check out NASA's dates and another guy, Mark Blitz.
The scriptures were written before Hagee was born. When something is true, I'm in agreement. Hagee is a Pre-tribber, I don't listen to him. It doesn't matter who or how many are in agreement with this, if it is a sign from God -we give God the glory. I am not trying to glorify myself. All good things, including prophecy comes from God. I cite scripture only -- no one contrived the truth.
It's typical to attack a person when you have no substantial argument. That's what liberals do --are you one of those? I don't care to argue with you, you should just move on and wait and see. Scoff at me later.

Credence Clearwater Revival....seriously?

A little song and dance for you, I have fun with this. Tongue in cheek and occasionally sarcasm.

There is something else you might want to consider, I've been studying the Scriptures my entire adult life and two of my favorite subjects are Apologetics and Eschatology.

Good, you should brother. I just have to disagree about Ezek. 37 -many scholars would.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

As for the curiosity, I do not see how that cannot be an extension of the natural curiosity. The same with our need to belong.

What you seem to ignore though is the concept of an intelligent design to nature. You can't just explain away instincts in nature as just natural. That would be a circular argument. Science tries to show with the theory of natural selection a progression of life. This is a concept of learned/adapted characteristics. This can not explain instincts. No where do we have an example of a learned knowledge being passed through to a next generation to become instinctual knowledge.

My premise is that since recorded history people and animals have acted a certain way. Man contains certain knowledge and desires since the very first one. The strongest two are to reproduce and believe in god. This is one example of our intelligent design.

There's quite some problems with this section.
I'm not convinced that it's written in it's final form 2000 years ago ...
Even if it was, the prediction of people denying (to which you could include doubters, such as myself, if you'd widen the definition) it is as near a certainty as you could possibly come. I.e. not impressive. (Unless you'd claim that everyone would deny god, then I'd be impressed).
But there's one more problem, no timetable. If you've read probability theory you'll understand that infinite time pushes a possible, though improbable, event into certainty.
But sure, most civilizations have had god worshiping in one for or another.

You argument over the time frame is irrelevant. We have documented copies of the Bible with my quoted prophecy of people denying God hundreds of years before the mass adoption of atheism. If you think that is not special, show me another prophetic book that makes a similar claim. The reason I used this prophecy as I pointed out is that the more common prophecy of wars, famines, plagues are natural, but mine is unnatural.

My premise is that it is just as unnatural to deny God as it is for animals to stop reproducing. You do not grasp how strongly natural laws bind the world. Without them life would end. Would you be impressed with a prophecy that life would cease to reproduce?

The use of probability theory is tenable at best when applied to billions of years. It is a very big stretch to use it for something that occurs in recorded history that is only thousands of years old.

I am glad you do acknowledge that the majority of people have believed in god. This partly acknowledges it to be a natural law.

Wait, you think wars, famines and plagues are vague, but deniers/doubters are not?
Don't forget that within that group (i.e. the wider definition of deniers) is also religious people not believing in your god.

I am haveing a hard time with this argument. Are you saying because there are multiple religions, there is no God? Not a very good argument in my mind.

Great. I'll be surprised for sure, but there'll be some part in me that will be happy (I love mystic stuff and find a purely physical universe a tad depressing).

You are right here. It is depressing to be alone; to not have purpose; to not know why truth, justice and good prevail. This morality comes from religion, which exists because God exists.

1. Proofs are for mathematics.
2. Theories are held tentatively, that they change is something positive. It represents that there's been an improvement of the understanding (or description) of the problem in question.
3. Define faith.

The only way I'll agree with you that science takes faith is if you revert it back into the widest definition, a definition not used in everyday life when mentioning faith (and hardly ever applicable). In fact, faith as the most widely accepted definition is the exact opposite of what science is based on, but I'll get to that (and conclusively show it) after you've defined faith.

Science WAS based on independent, repeatable experiments that result in predicted behavior. Much the same as a mathematical proof. Remember cold fusion. Science disproved that one.

Present day "science" deals so much with ideas that could never be proved in such ways, hence they call them theories. The problem is that theories get passed off to an unsuspecting public as truths/proven, for example the Big Bang, evolution as the source of life and global warming.

The fact that theories change is eternal. Man can not know all. The problem is that they are presented as truths before they so often are tossed away by a new theory. There will always be new theories because science has now become a big business. They will endless create new theories for there own self preservation. So much money is currently being expended on researching pure science with no applied use for it. CERN, the worlds most expensive science experiment.

Faith is easy to define. Believe what is not seen/proven. Do you understand how I apply faith to current day "science"? Much of today's "science" is unproven. This betrays the old definition of science.

I'd ask of you to not ask for proof, unless you're asking a mathematician (like me) about math.
Evidence is the correct term, but unfortunately I'm no physicist, so I won't be able to address any specific wants you'd have there.

I'm quite surprised that you'd take the split stance that you need only provide faith whilst the other side need to provide evidence though (note that I've assumed that you've meant evidence and not proof, since I've seen a lot of people make that mistake). I, and I mean this strictly by definition and not derogatory, think it seems hypocritical.

I ask of you and science what you ask of me. You asked to be convinced of God's existence. There are many pieces of evidence for God. What you really seek is proof, definition being "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." I merely asked for the same to be applied to your beliefs for our existence. Is that not fair?

I asked this question not to enlighten me, because I know you can not prove what you hold as true, just as I can not prove what I believe. The reason for my belief is faith. What you don't acknowledge is what you believe is also unproven, therefore held by faith.

Do you see why I think atheists are hypocritical?


I do commend you for being skeptical. I am myself skeptical of everything, including what churches say, but not the Bible. The Bible is the ONE truth I have in this world.

What I ask of you is if you are going to be skeptical of religion than be just as skeptical to science or whatever alternative you choose. If you are being fair, you will understand it is also by faith you also believe what you do.

 

[Elendur]

What you seem to ignore though is the concept of an intelligent design to nature. You can't just explain away instincts in nature as just natural. That would be a circular argument. Science tries to show with the theory of natural selection a progression of life. This is a concept of learned/adapted characteristics. This can not explain instincts. No where do we have an example of a learned knowledge being passed through to a next generation to become instinctual knowledge.

My premise is that since recorded history people and animals have acted a certain way. Man contains certain knowledge and desires since the very first one. The strongest two are to reproduce and believe in god. This is one example of our intelligent design.

Could you explain how instincts in nature would be circular?

You argument over the time frame is irrelevant. We have documented copies of the Bible with my quoted prophecy of people denying God hundreds of years before the mass adoption of atheism. If you think that is not special, show me another prophetic book that makes a similar claim. The reason I used this prophecy as I pointed out is that the more common prophecy of wars, famines, plagues are natural, but mine is unnatural.

My premise is that it is just as unnatural to deny God as it is for animals to stop reproducing. You do not grasp how strongly natural laws bind the world. Without them life would end. Would you be impressed with a prophecy that life would cease to reproduce?

I don't understand why you'd choose that as a premise. Also, you did not comment upon which definition you were using of deniers.
And I'm never impressed by prophecies, I'm impressed if they come true (and it's specific/narrow, can't stress that enough).

I'll go for a stroll down the logic lane here:
1. Assume that all people believe in god.
2. The prophecy would be false, because there would be no deniers.
3. It would not matter that the prophecy would be false, because no one would deny it.

4. Assume that not all people believe in god.
5. The prophecy would be true, because there would be deniers.
6. Convert the deniers through the prophecy.
7. See points 1-3.

I don't see how they had anything to lose with that prophecy.

The use of probability theory is tenable at best when applied to billions of years. It is a very big stretch to use it for something that occurs in recorded history that is only thousands of years old.

Probability theory is exactly what we'd need to apply.
If they didn't specify any timespan in which the events might unfold, we need to use the total amount of time available (in this case, the time of existence of people denying and people not) in our calculations.
That it happened quite early does not reduce the time we need to use.

I am glad you do acknowledge that the majority of people have believed in god. This partly acknowledges it to be a natural law.

Even if it'd be a natural law, it'd not show that there exists a god.

I am haveing a hard time with this argument. Are you saying because there are multiple religions, there is no God? Not a very good argument in my mind.

No. That was not my point. I merely pointed out that not all religious people believe in your god (nor necessarily a god). A wide definition of "denier" would include those people as well, as they'd deny your god but support their own (or none at all).

You are right here. It is depressing to be alone; to not have purpose; to not know why truth, justice and good prevail. This morality comes from religion, which exists because God exists.

That was not what I meant, I just think that physics alone makes the universe into a less interesting sandbox. A god or something similar would be more fun.

Science WAS based on independent, repeatable experiments that result in predicted behavior. Much the same as a mathematical proof. Remember cold fusion. Science disproved that one.

*Grrrrk*
Mathematical proofs are not based on independent repeatable experiments!
My goodness, that'd be depressing!

No. No. No. Mathematical results are called proofs because they follow from strict definitions, assumptions and logical rules. Nothing else. They're so much better than anyone ever, EVER, would be able to replicate within the natural world.

This is why we're dealing with proofs within math.
This is why we're dealing with evidence within science.
It's an entirely different dimension of certainty.

Present day "science" deals so much with ideas that could never be proved in such ways, hence they call them theories. The problem is that theories get passed off to an unsuspecting public as truths/proven, for example the Big Bang, evolution as the source of life and global warming.

It seems that you've fallen for the old "it's just a theory". A theory is the best anyone'll ever call anything within science. It's a hypothesis that has been tried and survived.

It's not theory as you'd use it in the everyday sense:
"My theory of what happened is that he fell before he reached the banana peel."
Its as good as it gets, it doesn't go higher. In fact, what most people call theories in everyday sense are hypotheses. I.e. my example should be:
"My hypothesis of what happened is that he fell before he reached the banana peel."

The fact that theories change is eternal. Man can not know all. The problem is that they are presented as truths before they so often are tossed away by a new theory. There will always be new theories because science has now become a big business. They will endless create new theories for there own self preservation. So much money is currently being expended on researching pure science with no applied use for it. CERN, the worlds most expensive science experiment.

1. A changed/scrapped theory means that we've improved upon the understanding, explanation or description of a problem. Which is a good thing.
2. That they're presented as truths is entirely the fault of lack of education, the results of science are tentatively held until shown wrong or replaced by more accurate results.
3. How do you know that there's no applied use for it? (Hint, that's what they said about electricity).

Faith is easy to define. Believe what is not seen/proven. Do you understand how I apply faith to current day "science"? Much of today's "science" is unproven. This betrays the old definition of science.

I'd really like to go more into depth here with you, because I love definitions and their weight in discussions (although they're often overlooked).
I disagree with your definition of faith.
"Believe what is not seen/proven".

Blind people do not see.
Nothing of the natural world can be proven.
Therefore blind people take everything on faith.
Per your definition.

To me, that's a problematic definition.

What I use, is:
Evidence:
An observation in support of a claim.

Faith:
To believe in a claim without evidence.

Of course, if you feel as if those definitions are lacking, please improve upon them

I ask of you and science what you ask of me. You asked to be convinced of God's existence. There are many pieces of evidence for God. What you really seek is proof, definition being "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth." I merely asked for the same to be applied to your beliefs for our existence. Is that not fair?

I asked this question not to enlighten me, because I know you can not prove what you hold as true, just as I can not prove what I believe. The reason for my belief is faith. What you don't acknowledge is what you believe is also unproven, therefore held by faith.

Do you see why I think atheists are hypocritical?

Indeed, I see why you'd think that if you've got that basis. But if I'm allowed to go into a deeper discussion of the definition of faith (and perhaps proof?) with you, I think I'll be able to convince you that you've gotten some of these (not all, note this) things wrong.
I think you're entirely correct, for example, that I, and everyone else, should apply the same standard to everything.

I do commend you for being skeptical. I am myself skeptical of everything, including what churches say, but not the Bible. The Bible is the ONE truth I have in this world.

What I ask of you is if you are going to be skeptical of religion than be just as skeptical to science or whatever alternative you choose. If you are being fair, you will understand it is also by faith you also believe what you do.

I agree with everything you've written in these segments (except for the belief in the bible part). This applies even though I suspect that we're working with different definitions regarding faith, but I assume that you might be exaggerating what I hold as beliefs.


Thank you so much for this discussion, I've been here on this forum for about two years and you might very well be one of the most interesting persons I've debated/conversed with. I've spent most of my time in the Physics/Life science section and you've got an entirely different view of things, and method of expression, than most there.
I've already gotten some things from this discussion that is entirely new to me, and this is the sole purpose to why I'm on this forum. (And honestly, you gave me a tear in my eye, from happiness, but lets blame that on bad lighting in here )

I'll see whether I can find an old post of mine. But I don't promise anything

Edit:
Hmm... I thought I had gone more into depth, but I'm a few steps short of showing that science does not rely on faith (as per my definition) and the only relevant part is a very small part. But here it is anyways (mostly for me, if I'd need to recap on how I've thought):
http://www.christianforums.com/t7775767-14/#post64253396

 

[Ronald]

OK


And how would it differentiate between those who fought against Jerusalem and those who not?

In the end times, scripture states that all nations that go against Israel will be destroyed.
"And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curse you: and all the people on earth will be blessed through you."Gen.12:3
Meaning the Messiah will come out of Israel and bless the world.
"It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." Zech. 12:9

Also, I'd say that there would be few with intact eye sockets for the eyes to melt in, likewise with the mouths.

A neutron bomb just incinerates protein/ flesh --It may be the bones are left in tact, meaning sockets also in tact.

You know, I've tried, but heard/felt nothing. I'm trying my best to stay honest to myself (working actively on that every day) and I cannot say that I've ever experienced anything that could be linked to either a god or something similar.

Faith comes by the WORD. It's supernatural, it penetrates, it is living. Approach it in humility (like a child), pray and ask God for truth and understanding and He'll give it to you. Start with the book of John.

 

[Elendur]

In the end times, scripture states that all nations that go against Israel will be destroyed.
"And I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curse you: and all the people on earth will be blessed through you."Gen.12:3
Meaning the Messiah will come out of Israel and bless the world.
"It shall be in that day that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem." Zech. 12:9

Nations aren't people. How would the bombs differentiate between those who fought and those who did not?

A neutron bomb just incinerates protein/ flesh --It may be the bones are left in tact, meaning sockets also in tact.

So there's no blast? I'm by no means educated in weapon technology, but gathered from this article, and please do correct me if I've misunderstood or picked a bad source;
What Is a Neutron Bomb?
we can read:
"Although military targets may be fortified, civilian structures are destroyed by a relatively mild blast."

Faith comes by the WORD. It's supernatural, it penetrates, it is living. Approach it in humility (like a child), pray and ask God for truth and understanding and He'll give it to you. Start with the book of John.

I've done that, with the exception for the book, and so far nothing.

In fact, I've gotten more results with introspecting than I've gotten from praying. A whole lot more. It may be a saying which is worn out, but if god wants me to be a believer, he knows what it'll take.

 

[Ronald]

So there's no blast? I'm by no means educated in weapon technology, but gathered from this article, and please do correct me if I've misunderstood or picked a bad source;

Depends on the size, if megaton then it can destroy structures as well. It has a lower output then other thermonuclear weapons. The concept behind it was to kill life and leave everything else in tack.

In fact, I've gotten more results with introspecting than I've gotten from praying. A whole lot more. It may be a saying which is worn out, but if god wants me to be a believer, he knows what it'll take

And the coming tribulation may just work for you?

Take care, Ronald

 

[Elendur]

Depends on the size, if megaton then it can destroy structures as well. It has a lower output then other thermonuclear weapons. The concept behind it was to kill life and leave everything else in tack.

Hm, didn't know that. Though according to that article, it seems to not apply to non-reinforced structures.

And the coming tribulation may just work for you?

Take care, Ronald

If I'm able to identify it as such, probably.
Thanks for the discussion

Cheers and take care yourself.

 

[genetheking]

There's not much time for that! Concern yourself with the ending!


"Noah", the new movie is coming out on March 28. Go see it. Maybe Hollywood can change your mind. Nah ... probably not.

But let me give you something to test. I won't take millions of years, just a few. Let's say God really exists and He gave us signs that His plan for this world is about to reach it's climax, meaning the end times were going to come soon. One of those signs were that the Jews would be gathered from throughout the world after being scattered in 70 A.D. and brought back to their home, Israel. Oh, you have to look it up. (see Jer.16:15; Ezek. 37:21) That prophecy was fulfilled in 1948, when Israel became a nation and then they recaptured Jerusalem in 1967 to seal the deal.
And then he said their would be wars, rumors of wars, famines, earthquakes, pestilence but these would be the beginning of birth pangs. The gospel would be preached to the whole world and THEN the end would come. We are right at that time in history.
Let me give you another sign. "The sun shall be turned into darkness and the moon into blood, before the coming of the great and awesome day of the Lord." Act 2:20 (see also Rev. 6:12) Let me help with the interpretation of that. It is a solar eclipse followed by a lunar (blood moon) eclipse.

Soon to appear are Four Blood Moon eclipses accompanied by a Solar Eclipse -- all falling on Jewish Holy Days. This is not a coincidence, it happened in 1948 and 1967 as well. They are a sign of war and judgment.
On April 15, 2014 the 1st Blood Moon will appear during the Passover week. The Feast of Unleavened Bread falls on that day.
On Oct. 08, 2014 the 2nd Blood Moon appears on the Feast of Tabernacles.
On March 20, 2015 a Solar Eclipse will appear on Nisan 1, the Religious New Year.
On April 3, 2015 the 3rd Blood Moon (also a super moon) will fall again on the Passover week/ Feast of Unleavened Bread.
On Sept. 28, 2015 the 4th Blood Moon appears on the Feast of Tabernacles.

When is the 6 months deal with Iran over? April 2014.
When did Kerry say his goal was for a Palestinian Peace agreement? By the end of April 2014 "...When the say peace and safety, sudden destruction comes upon them .."1 Thes. 5:3 .
When did Weidemer, (the economist who predicted the recent recession), say in his book AFTERSHOCK, that the US dollar would crash? By 2015.
What is one generation? 70 years. 70+1948=2018
The Great Tribulation is 3 1/2 years long. Since the UN recognized Israel as a state in Nov.1947, yet it became official in May 1948, then that date would be more accurate when you subtract 3 1/2 years --you come to April 2014.

If you find yourself in the midst of this end time period, would you abandon your belief in evolution for the belief in God? Wouldn't the prophecies be proof to you? And finally, If you see Jesus descend from heaven (and "every eye will see Him"), then what? Well, it might be too late if you already took the mark of the Beast, which means you chose wrong and it will be over for you!

So folks, looks like the climax of history is on the horizon. Your arguments of creation and evolution will shortly be null and void. These are tangible signs. Maybe you haven't noticed the unraveling in the Middle East: Tunisia, Yemen, Egypt, Libya, Syria, or Iran producing nukes. Btw, that's also another prophecy: "three horns are plucked and one little horn emerges.."Dan. 7:8 This means three key leaders removed from office. Mubarak, Kaddafi and they're working on Assad. Or maybe Osama was a horn? Nevertheless, the stage is being set.
God did not intend us to live in a sinful world for eons without end. He has a finite plan, and you will now see the climax of that plan, His wrath. Get ready.

If a nuclear war occurs with Israel, would you begin to consider taking God's word seriously? If not, what would it take? If the world experienced a Great Tribulation period spoken of in Daniel 12; Ezek 37, 38; Joel 2; Revelation 6-19, where more than half of people on earth die, would that get your attention? Or maybe you'd think that this was the supreme punctuated equilibrium taking place before us? "We will now evolve to an advanced form ..." No, this will be punctuated fire. In this lake of punctuated fire, there will be no beneficial mutations surviving these events!

Please, I beg you, stop trying to place dates on when Jesus is coming again---that is dangerous. With the whole red blood moon thing ,your taking the verse totally out of context.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

Could you explain how instincts in nature would be circular?

I said your argument was circular; that nature is as it is because that is how nature is. I said that the learned knowledge can’t become instinctual knowledge, that things in nature has always been of a certain intelligent design, including instincts.

I don't understand why you'd choose that as a premise. Also, you did not comment upon which definition you were using of deniers.

I used that premise because the laws of nature rule nature. It would not be a law if it was easily broken. That fact that men and women continue to reproduce is an unbroken law of nature. Why would one think that to end?

I don’t need to define deny because I have quoted the whole original prophecy. People that deny God/Atheists are just a short way of referencing the fulfilled words in the prophecy.

I'll go for a stroll down the logic lane here:
1. Assume that all people believe in god.
2. The prophecy would be false, because there would be no deniers.
3. It would not matter that the prophecy would be false, because no one would deny it.

4. Assume that not all people believe in god.
5. The prophecy would be true, because there would be deniers.
6. Convert the deniers through the prophecy.
7. See points 1-3.

You assume in your logical argument that the natural world is a closed system. What you don’t realize is that there is a supernatural world; God and Satan that fight for our souls. It is the unnatural that brings the unnatural thought into man’s mind that there is no God.

Probability theory is exactly what we'd need to apply.
If they didn't specify any timespan in which the events might unfold, we need to use the total amount of time available (in this case, the time of existence of people denying and people not) in our calculations.
That it happened quite early does not reduce the time we need to use.

In an ordered world all possibilities are not possible and a monkey with a typewriter will never write a work of Shakespeare. Probability theory is the crutch of those who can’t defend an argument. It depends on randomness. This world is not random but follows certain natural laws.

Even if it'd be a natural law, it'd not show that there exists a god.

Again, you ask for proof when I say it is not about proof. Do acknowledge it as a piece of evidence though, since you like evidence so much.

That was not what I meant, I just think that physics alone makes the universe into a less interesting sandbox. A god or something similar would be more fun.

I am glad something in the back of your mind is telling you that there is something more than meets the eye to this world.

*Grrrrk*
Mathematical proofs are not based on independent repeatable experiments!
My goodness, that'd be depressing!

No. No. No. Mathematical results are called proofs because they follow from strict definitions, assumptions and logical rules. Nothing else. They're so much better than anyone ever, EVER, would be able to replicate within the natural world.

This is why we're dealing with proofs within math.
This is why we're dealing with evidence within science.
It's an entirely different dimension of certainty.


It seems that you've fallen for the old "it's just a theory". A theory is the best anyone'll ever call anything within science. It's a hypothesis that has been tried and survived.

It's not theory as you'd use it in the everyday sense:
"My theory of what happened is that he fell before he reached the banana peel."
Its as good as it gets, it doesn't go higher. In fact, what most people call theories in everyday sense are hypotheses. I.e. my example should be:
"My hypothesis of what happened is that he fell before he reached the banana peel."

Scientific theories become laws after a clear definition is made followed by independent and repeatable experiments arriving in the same predicted result. This is so similar to mathematical proofs. Your belief that a theory is the best there is in science is wrong. Scientific laws while not called “proven” in the scientific world are much better than your average theory. My point is that so much research science is devoted to the colloquial “unprovable” scientific theories. For one to put all theories in the same level, I find deceiving.

2. That they're presented as truths is entirely the fault of lack of education, the results of science are tentatively held until shown wrong or replaced by more accurate results.

Certain scientific theories are taught as truths in the educational system. It is an intentional deceit BY the educated people. It IS NOT because they lack in education.

I'd really like to go more into depth here with you, because I love definitions and their weight in discussions (although they're often overlooked).
I disagree with your definition of faith.
"Believe what is not seen/proven".

Blind people do not see.
Nothing of the natural world can be proven.
Therefore blind people take everything on faith.
Per your definition.

To me, that's a problematic definition.

What I use, is:
Evidence:
An observation in support of a claim.

Faith:
To believe in a claim without evidence.

Of course, if you feel as if those definitions are lacking, please improve upon them

If you look closely at my definition of proof you will see we are close to agreement on what faith is, but you should know better than insinuate that faith is without evidence. The negation of “evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true” does not mean WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Do you see what I mean? Do you see that your argument is blind? And you are wrong that nothing in the natural world can be proven. You should appreciate Pi and Euler’s Formula and how they relate to the world.

Thank you so much for this discussion, I've been here on this forum for about two years and you might very well be one of the most interesting persons I've debated/conversed with. I've spent most of my time in the Physics/Life science section and you've got an entirely different view of things, and method of expression, than most there.
I've already gotten some things from this discussion that is entirely new to me, and this is the sole purpose to why I'm on this forum. (And honestly, you gave me a tear in my eye, from happiness, but lets blame that on bad lighting in here )

I was trained as an engineer and I analyse what I learn from the Bible in a very methodical way. But, I believe that the Bible is completely true and everything contained in it is congruent because of faith. I have even seen evidence of God in supernatural interactions in my life. Praise God for those signs. They are very rare.

Hmm... I thought I had gone more into depth, but I'm a few steps short of showing that science does not rely on faith (as per my definition) and the only relevant part is a very small part. But here it is anyways (mostly for me, if I'd need to recap on how I've thought):
http://www.christianforums.com/t7775767-14/#post64253396

Sorry, but I think all your truth tables, mathematical logic arguments, theorems and attempts for proof are fruitless endeavors. Belief in God is based on faith. What you have to acknowledge is that you also hold some beliefs in faith.


My hope is to give a skeptic doubt.

 

[Elendur]

(I hope you do forgive me for this long post, I am enjoying this discussion far too much to be inexact and excessively short in my response)

I said your argument was circular; that nature is as it is because that is how nature is. I said that the learned knowledge can’t become instinctual knowledge, that things in nature has always been of a certain intelligent design, including instincts.

That isn't my argument. My argument is:
We observe instincts in nature.
We observe how new situations may lead to unexpected results when instincts are applied.

As you see, I haven't used any premise regarding to whether the origins are natural or not.

To expand on my original proposition, in post #30:
Curiosity and need to belong are instincts observed in nature.

How are we to conclude that they have not lead to us investigating whether there's a beginning to everything or a god? (As I have interpreted your stance)

I used that premise because the laws of nature rule nature. It would not be a law if it was easily broken. That fact that men and women continue to reproduce is an unbroken law of nature. Why would one think that to end?

I'll quote you here, post #32:
"My premise is that it is just as unnatural to deny God as it is for animals to stop reproducing."
Within this premise you've inexplicitly premised the existence of god. And I see no connection to laws of nature, they're kind of produced by science as descriptions of 'rules' that are unbreakable. Which doesn't seem to be the case here.

I don’t need to define deny because I have quoted the whole original prophecy. People that deny God/Atheists are just a short way of referencing the fulfilled words in the prophecy.

I agree with you that the burden of definition does not fall on you, however when we cannot put that burden upon the original author, it leaves open several possible interpretations of the prophecy. If one would use the prophecy, one would need to specify which interpretation one subscribes to (i.e. effectively choosing definitions).
You'd include unbelievers (i.e. atheists) within the definition of deniers, as inferred from your use of words. This is not the exclusive interpretation possible. I'd argue that an unbeliever is not someone who's a denier, since the act of denying is not equal to not being convinced.

You assume in your logical argument that the natural world is a closed system. What you don’t realize is that there is a supernatural world; God and Satan that fight for our souls. It is the unnatural that brings the unnatural thought into man’s mind that there is no God.

I don't understand what you're meaning with a "closed system" with regards to my argument, the only application, of that terminology, I'm aware of is within physics and I did not even come close to using any physics.
Could you expand on this?

In an ordered world all possibilities are not possible and a monkey with a typewriter will never write a work of Shakespeare. Probability theory is the crutch of those who can’t defend an argument. It depends on randomness. This world is not random but follows certain natural laws.

Further down, you write that you've trained as an engineer, I'll assume that you've got some training with mathematics and probability theory.
Surely you do know that randomness can be expressed within bounds?
That randomness can be described?
In a multitude of ways?

Again, you ask for proof when I say it is not about proof. Do acknowledge it as a piece of evidence though, since you like evidence so much.

I did not ask for proof. If I do, I'll be explicit about it and actually mention proof.
But sure, I'd argue that it falls within the same category of evidence as books.
And as it stands it would remain weak until we would refine the hypothesis (i.e. the law).

I am glad something in the back of your mind is telling you that there is something more than meets the eye to this world.

Scientific theories become laws after a clear definition is made followed by independent and repeatable experiments arriving in the same predicted result. This is so similar to mathematical proofs. Your belief that a theory is the best there is in science is wrong. Scientific laws while not called “proven” in the scientific world are much better than your average theory. My point is that so much research science is devoted to the colloquial “unprovable” scientific theories. For one to put all theories in the same level, I find deceiving.

Laws are different from theories or hypotheses because they do not offer explanations for the observations, just descriptions.
Hypotheses and theories do not fulfill the same purpose as laws, as they posit explanations as an additional element apart from the observational description. Within the group of constructs that posits both a description and explanation are the four elements: Hypothesis, theory, conjecture and theorem.
Where the theory and hypothesis are both dealing with evidence and theories are tested hypotheses.
Where conjectures are guesses which haven't been proven wrong and theorems are results that have been proven right.

Also not that it's important to not think that media use the correct terms, they are much more likely to want to impress by changing seemingly innocent things, such as hypothesis to theory (as it carries more weight and seems less technical), and by that change the meaning of what is said.

Certain scientific theories are taught as truths in the educational system. It is an intentional deceit BY the educated people. It IS NOT because they lack in education.

I have not been exposed to this practice, so I hope you'll forgive me for being hard to convince of this.
With the exception of the approach to mathematics in early grades, I've, for all 16 years in school, been educated with the method of informing:
"This is what modern science have found to be as close to reality as currently possible."
(Paraphrasing of course, try to say that to a first grader, they'd start to cry halfway through)
We've always been encouraged to ask why and eventually, if we'd not grow weary of the answers, we'd land in either "I don't know, I'll see if I can find out" or "This seems to be how things are best explained/described right now" (i.e. possibly landing within the physical laws we mentioned earlier). Assuming we actually asked a teacher who wanted to delve deeper with the student, there was some who would state "I don't know, but you're a bit young for that".

If you look closely at my definition of proof you will see we are close to agreement on what faith is, but you should know better than insinuate that faith is without evidence. The negation of “evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true” does not mean WITHOUT EVIDENCE.
Do you see what I mean? Do you see that your argument is blind? And you are wrong that nothing in the natural world can be proven. You should appreciate Pi and Euler’s Formula and how they relate to the world.

You're correct, I did indeed define faith overly strict. Sorry about that, I'll try again:

Faith:
To believe in a claim without sufficient evidence.

I know that this will introduce the subjective limit of sufficient, but I'd argue that it'd be possible to bone out what the limit is by checking whether one would accept claims of similar strength (as I assume that the person in question would not be a hypocrite who'd reject other claims of the same strength but accept one specific, implying that he/she would not admit to accepting the exception on faith).
And I'm all for personal freedom in where one would set the bar.

And as for how everything in the universe is unprovable, how would you demonstrate that you're not a brain in a vat? Or me, for that matter?
It's just basic philosophy, epistemology.

I was trained as an engineer and I analyse what I learn from the Bible in a very methodical way. But, I believe that the Bible is completely true and everything contained in it is congruent because of faith. I have even seen evidence of God in supernatural interactions in my life. Praise God for those signs. They are very rare.

I honestly hope I'll see something that will convince me someday.

Sorry, but I think all your truth tables, mathematical logic arguments, theorems and attempts for proof are fruitless endeavors. Belief in God is based on faith. What you have to acknowledge is that you also hold some beliefs in faith.

And the point that I'm trying to convey is that, yes to a degree it's true, however possibly not to the extent that one would expect.
But we will see that when/if we reach that point in discussion

My hope is to give a skeptic doubt.

I always doubt

Thank you again for this extremely interesting and entertaining (in a very good way) discussion