Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Even if there were no reasonable mechanism by which C-14 could be present in diamonds, and even if radiometric dating was wildly inaccurate, those facts would still not be evidence for the Biblical Creation story as neither directly indicates "Yes, the Earth is 5,700 to 10,000 years old." This is also why I'm often left aghast as creationists trot out their doubt with respect to the veracity of radiometric dating.

The trouble is you are trying to tar theists with dogmas professed by a number of fringe church members. The problem here are Bible literalists. Bible literalism was always a problem, its why people wanted the all conquering Jesus Son of David to arse kick the Romans out of Judea. By Bible literalism says that is what he was supposed to do, its not how He intended it though. Fro that reason I dont like the term 'intelligent design' because its nothing new, a non literalist creation has long been understood by thinking Christian theists, its just Creationism nothing has changed. If I beleive in a seven day advent; what does that mean? It means prior to the existance of man God ceated the earth in 'seven days'. However how long is a day to a God for whome time is measured differently.

For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.--Psalm 90:4
But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.--2 Peter 3:8

Even the thousand years is not an indicative figure as in poetic Hebrew the word thousand means 'a lot'. Also we do not actually understand what 'creation' means anyway, and that includes the theologians. If God created cats what happened, did he set in motion events leading to cats, design cats, forsee cats, agree to cats appearing, make cats, take legal responsibility for the existance of cats or whatever. Who creates an automobile? The man on the assemby line, the car designer, the plant manager, the owner of the plant? There is too much that cannot be understood God only asks us to beleive He had an active part in the process somewhere, and still does today. This is a good reason not to like intelligent design, it tries to earmark Gods part in creation wherin it is arrogant of us to assume we can fathom an infinite God. We have the choice to believe or not and no growth in human knowledge is going to take that choice away. In fact it is rather evident of itself that for all our knowledge we are faced with the same conclusions regarding the existance of a creator god that a medieval man does, the only real difference is that the political dynamic of the choice has changed, not its fundamental nature.

Assuming 'creationists' beleive the world was made in 4004BC, is like assuming 'evolutionists' beleive Nazi eugenics with one race being superior because of skull size. That was genuine evolutionary science, just as hardcore bible literalists are genuine creation theologists, but both share a total lack of credibility. However creationists do not largely try to debunk evolutionists as apologists for eugenics as a cheap rhetorical trick, we credit you with more sense than that by default. Its time people stopped assuming any creationist they meet is liable to beleive that God turned up one week and created the world out of nothing some six millenia ago. I have been to a few churches and hob nobbed theologically with three denominations do not know anyone who believes that, nor did they do so before 'intelligent design' was coined, that gak might be popular in the Bible belt, but I doubt it. There overphotographed hardened nutcases with placards are so few, just as the Westboro baptists are so few, yet the Christians are so many. So why the assumption we beleive as they do?

Orlanth wrote:
The trouble with the evolution vs creartionism argument is the 'vs'. The idea that the two have any competition is a fabrication by atheists who wish to hijack the scientific debate.

I think its unfair to presume that the dialogue between evolution and creationism is nothing more than an atheist fabrication. At least in the US the people who set the two at odds stand in both camps. The famous court case over the inclusion of creationism in science class should attest to that.

Orlanth wrote:
Where you err is in the idea that evolution disproves creation...

It definitely contradicts certain kinds of creationism.

Orlanth wrote:
For evidence for God you have too look elsewhere, He doesn't sign recepts for his work as creator, but does as saviour. Take an old bible, you could take a Bible pruinted yestersay but just esablish in your herad that it is the same book as existed for centuries. This book in the Deuteronomy cross referencee with Isiah predicts the division and restoration of Israel. By the Hebrew calender the Jews were to be exiled from their land for a specified time. This time occured on sacking of Jersusalem by the Persians and expired TO THE DAY in 1948 at the Declaration of the State of Israel. This is a big enough event that it cannot be brushed off as having not existed. I can point out how this can be proved through Bible verses if you like.

I believe that you mean to refer to Ezekiel, not Isaiah. I also believe that the derivation of certain prophecy requires a selective reading of the Old Testament. I won't go over each piece of text contributing to the 2,484 solar year punishment, but I will deal with two.

1)

Ezekiel 4:1-6 wrote:
"You also, son of man, take a clay tablet and lay it before you, and portray on it a city, Jerusalem. 2 Lay siege against it, build a siege wall against it, and heap up a mound against it; set camps against it also, and place battering rams against it all around. 3 Moreover take for yourself an iron plate, and set it as an iron wall between you and the city. Set your face against it, and it shall be besieged, and you shall lay siege against it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel. 4 "Lie also on your left side, and lay the iniquity of the house of Israel upon it. According to the number of the days that you lie on it, you shall bear their iniquity. 5 For I have laid on you the years of their iniquity, according to the number of the days, three hundred and ninety days; so you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Israel. 6 And when you have completed them, lie again on your right side; then you shall bear the iniquity of the house of Judah forty days. I have laid on you a day for each year.

This passage deals specifically with punishment to be born by Ezekiel, but makes no direct comment on the suffering to be born by the people of Israel. Certain translations do, of course, specifically consider the punishment of the Houses of Israel and Judah (never before discussed as separate entities) as tacit to the punishment of Ezekiel, but not all of them. Notably, the NKJV (from which the above originates) considers only the iniquities (sins) of Judah and Israel, not their punishment.

2)

Ezekiel 4:9-17 wrote:
9 "Also take for yourself wheat, barley, beans, lentils, millet, and spelt; put them into one vessel, and make bread of them for yourself. During the number of days that you lie on your side, three hundred and ninety days, you shall eat it. 10 And your food which you eat shall be by weight, twenty shekels a day; from time to time you shall eat it.

The days of suffering allocated to Ezkiel on in representation of the sins of the House of Judah have mysteriously vanished from consideration; at least in any independent sense.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:
The trouble is you are trying to tar theists with dogmas professed by a number of fringe church members.

Not at all, I never stated that all theists believe in the Biblical Creation story. I never even stated that all Christians do. I stated that creationists believe a certain thing, where the word 'creationists' was a short form comment for young Earth creationists. I should have been more precise, but I've also said very clearly that no amount of presently available science can necessarily preclude the presence of some form of God.

Orlanth wrote:
The problem here are Bible literalists. Bible literalism was always a problem, its why people wanted the all conquering Jesus Son of David to arse kick the Romans out of Judea. By Bible literalism says that is what he was supposed to do, its not how He intended it though.

Sure, I'll buy that. My nominal position is that any metaphysical belief which can be brought into agreement with observable reality can be considered valid. Considering the creative ability of man, its pretty difficult to place your beliefs on the outside of that demarcation criterion. In fact, I'd argue that its really only possible in those instances in which one tries to do so.

Arrgh, just lost this post so I have to start again.

Albatross wrote:
But since you mentioned that the prediction occurred AFTER the event, well you got me! I'm convinced! I mean, there is so much wrong with your argument here that I honestly don't know where to begin. Predicting an event that has already happened is not a miracle, nor is it the work of god. If you know the start date, the end date, and you have an agenda, you can manipulate the evidence to make it fit.

Unfair, becauise the events were not nudged a days or two but are a matter of public record.

Albatross wrote:
Also, you didn't address the fact that I said the prediction could really have been set out by the original writers of the Torah, but could just be a coincidence. Is that really any less likely?

Much less likely. So much in science can also be coincidental, but when ther odd lengthen you start to accept that a pattern or a likelyhood emerges. Take weather prediction as an example, we cannot predict weather with any accuracy over more than a few days to give a prediction of rain or shine with the acuracy of a single day. To make a political prediction millenia in advance to come true to a single day is without parallel in predictions. also it was a process of prediction, the restoration of Israel is a sequence of timed events occuring on schedule some in history the last recently. So the prediction is cross referenced as part of a larger ongoing event with the first scheduled return occuring with the rebuilding of th Temple, the second with the rebuilding of Jerusalem..

Albatross wrote:
I'm not even going to touch the whole 'atheism is faith' nonsense. Again.

Nonsense, or you just dont like hearing it? So are you claiming your atheism is scientific? If this is the case theology would be a science too. In any event we would have to rewrite the definition of scientific thought to encompass faith choices one way or another for this to stick. Perhaps this would not be a bad thing as there is more pet belief within science than many in the scientific community would like to admit. We all follow our paradigms in this and other topics, too few people are actually truly open minded.

Albatross wrote:
Again, nationalism didn't exist when the Torah was written, so it's likely that any reference to Israel would be calling it the Kingdom of Israel, would it not? And it isn't, is it? You can say 'Jesus is the permanent king', but Israel is not a monarchy, politically speaking. If the wording of this 'prophecy' mentions the Kingdom of Israel then it is inaccurate. Any reference to the State of Israel would scream 'fraud' to me.

You are perpared to scream 'fraud' at evidence you havent seen yet? This is not how a reasoned scientific attitude ought to work. You would be better off with atheism by faith.
The prediction refers to the return of the Jews to self-governing statehood. This occured in stages and in different forms. Please remember that early Hebrew society was a form of judicial republic before it was a kingdom anyway, so no kingdom is implied in the related verses.

Albatross wrote:
But the entireity of Israeli territory isn't under Jewish rule, meaning that it is not entirely a Jewish state.

It need not be before that date there had been no Jewish state since Titus Caesar. However your comment does lead to a supporting point though. When the Israelites first moved into the promised land under Joshua they officially entered on one day but the conquest of the land took generations, eventually stalled as indicated in Judges chapter 1. Philistia was destroyed by the Babylonians when Jerusalem fell. Wheras Philistia was to remain whenever there was a Jewish state because of Israels sin in accordinace with the prophesy in the book of Judges. When Israel was formed Philistia returned also. The Gaza strip is modern day Philistia.

Albatross wrote:
The man behind 'The Bible Code' was a Hebrew scholar, a fairly respected one as far as I can tell. He isn't any more.

I have no problem with the Bible code predictions or recent proponents of the concept, but do not accept it as Biblical canon. Due to the nature of the Bible the bar for accepting what is written in it is very high, for it is not any ordinary book, it holds great authority. If someone says 'the Bible says this' is holds a lot of clout, so honest theologicans take careful steps to insure any interpretation or translation is done with care. Of course misuse of the bible is rampant thoughout history, but that is no fault of the Bible but of wicked people misusing religion for their own ends. In any case Bible code is not up to those standards and is thus rejected as non canonical for the purposes of discussing the historicity or value of Biblical testimony.
As for 'the man behind the Bible code', he lived in the 13th century. Bible codes as we see them today have been a topic for rabbinic teaching since that time, the recent explosion of the theme has orginated with new computer prograsms which proliferate Bible code analysis and greatly simplify its use.

Albatross wrote:
Stay classy, creationists!
Seriously though, I stand by those 5. I don't think you've managed to refute them in any meaningful way.

If you are going to flat deny that you had to add extra words I never wrote to misinterpret what I did write then I doubt I will be able to convince you of anything.

Albatross wrote:
The problem I have is similar to what dogma outlined: even if the science is correct, it's still a bloody big leap to conclude that 'god did it'!

Same leap as required to say, God was nowhere to be found. In eaither case the leap is faith.

Albatross wrote:
I can accept that they found inconsistencies in rates of decay in different substances, but how do you get from there to 'this means that the creator accelerated the decay rates, probably around the time of the Great Flood and in day two of the Creation Week'? Where's the evidence for ANY of that? The conclusions they draw are mind-blowing. And agenda-driven.

Many theists Christian or otherwise have yet to learn that science is not an enemy is faith, there is no need to protect against it. The battle is an illusion, atheism does not have any science on its side. Science is neutral and unrelated, the evidence for that is plain to see, namely you can add the science you like the choice to beleive in God or not remains the same for the modern physicist or the medieval peasant. The only real difference is in the poltical dynamic not the value of the growth of human knowledge.
When he and other theists like him learn that they do not need to conterst against those who hijack science as a platform for atheism. The sooner they do so, the sooner they can point out that science is not a platform for atheism. This is because the debate is a political dynamic not a sceintific dynamic, this is fuelled when scientific theories, fringe or otherwise are used to back up literal creationism. Taking the Judeo-Christian text as prime example, the Bible is full of apocalyptic poetry, prophetic type, allegorical parables and cautionary tales. Literalism is still adhered to despite the open example that Jesus went against literalism on many occasions by breaking the law, not beating up Romans and all sorts of other things the Mesach apparently should do but didn't do, or did do but apparently shouldn't have done. If Jesus can be so un-literal while 'not removing as jot from the Law' then perhaps all Biblical literalism is subject to suspicion.
I beleive the Bible contains Truth, but how it is true is a matter to be approached with wisdom and caution.

dogma wrote:
I think its unfair to presume that the dialogue between evolution and creationism is nothing more than an atheist fabrication.

It is more thsn but at its heart that is what it is. Darwin was immediately at loggerheads with church bodies because the growing atheist movement in voictorian England siezed evolution as a flagpole for atheism. Darwin himself has become the football just as Einstein has. The personal theology of both men has been brought up as evidence with quotes adhered to from both that claim diametric opposite beliefs to the extent that once must assume they both changed their minds alot or some of the quotes are fabrications. In fact both men were at pains to remain neutral for much of their lives.

Much of the early blame is also to be laid at the church of the time many bishops reacted poorly to Darwins work, which further fuelled its value as an atheistic text at a time when such thinking was becoming excusiably fashionable. In Victorian England the clergy was largely manned by those members of the gentry who were unfit for business, military service or politics. Bishops were the scraping of the upper crust barrel, as they indicated for all to see in the ongoing debates. of the time. Competent clergy was a rarity and possibly also frowned upon, just as it was in New Labour. Appoint useless, stupid and out of touch bishops if you want an easy time with the church. Its good politics, but makes for poor theological leadership. Things have gone downhill since.

dogma wrote:
The famous court case over the inclusion of creationism in science class should attest to that.

I can understand what many Christians are thinking on this subject. The atheist hijacking of science is very frequent phenomena, fuelled by the propogation of fringe science to support Bible literalist dogmas. If there is any question of this look up evolution and creationism videoa on YouTube. They are numerous, hostile to opposing views, assumptive and cyclic. As indicated above the correct approach is to show that science is not a tool of atheism, the idea that it is is a human political arguement not a scientific one. Atheism is publically beleived to be connected to science only by repeated public exposure to the concept, as a weapon in evolution vs creation arguments.
Actually the creationists have it right, but possibly for the wrong motive.

The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.

This is as world of difference from
- There is an alternate theory to evolution which is creationism......

The latter belongs in religious studies classes. The emphasis should be on removing the religion from the science altogether, in this case atheism, by restoring neutrality with a suitable caveat.
I would be interested to know exactly what is taught in public class in the US, it may well be that this was what was proposed but it was interpreted by the press as introducing religion to science classes.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Where you err is in the idea that evolution disproves creation...

It definitely contradicts certain kinds of creationism.

I am taking a mainstream Christian point of view here. This is not unfair, most of the evolution vs creation debates are aimed at Christians, occassionally at Jews. Its interesting thast the same guys wont troll the Moslems in the same way. I wonder why that is. One of the frequent calls of the atheist hijackers is in commentary related to Judeo-Christian religion like 'bible myth' or pointing out an assumed belief a creation process of one week. This is not unusual psychologically, most such people have no beef with Hinduism or Buddhism,l eastern relgions are usually ignored in terms of anti creationist rhetoric. The aim is often clearly Christian (occassionally Jew) bashing rather than esposing any scientific reasoning.

Yes some forms of Judeo-Christian based cult or fringe chuch creation beleifs are unequivocably literalist. The Seventh Day Adventist church is not hiding its beliefs here. The 7DA are whacky fringe though, just a quiet non threastening fringe so they cause no problems. As for the minor quasi-church cults out there, hardcore creationism is the least of your worries. I am more concerned with brainwashing, love bombing, bait and switch and three degree doctrines.

dogma wrote:
I believe that you mean to refer to Ezekiel, not Isaiah. I also believe that the derivation of certain prophecy requires a selective reading of the Old Testament. I won't go over each piece of text contributing to the 2,484 solar year punishment, but I will deal with two.

Nice catch but I am refering to IIRC Isaiah and Jeremiah with the sevenfold increase in punishment in Deuteronomy being the key. Ezekiels ordeal covers a seperate but related issue, I think it might come in under some supporting evidence, but I will have to dig out th book to know dfor sure. I dont remember those details at top of head.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
The trouble is you are trying to tar theists with dogmas professed by a number of fringe church members.

Not at all, I never stated that all theists believe in the Biblical Creation story. I never even stated that all Christians do. I stated that creationists believe a certain thing, where the word 'creationists' was a short form comment for young Earth creationists. I should have been more precise, but I've also said very clearly that no amount of presently available science can necessarily preclude the presence of some form of God.

I am perhaps being a little unfair, my comment was not entirely directed at you but critics of theists in general. It is all too often that I hear 'theists think this' from atheists attempting to score points inan evolution vs creation debate. I think it helps to let the people speak for themselves and critique that rather than put words in their mouths. Every time I mention that I am a creationist people instinctively believe that I beleive in a literal seven day advent, some would immeidately at that point disavow me of any credibility before I said a further word, assuming I had the chance to continue any attempt to say otherwise is also taken as a climb down and therefore psychologically half the battle won from an atheist apologists point of view befreo they get to say a word. Most of the battle is based psychological tooling, not any evidence and the battles are won psychologicaly not on science, this is because the battle itself is illusory there is no contest between Judeo-Christian religion and science in this issue when the religion is understood.

Let me give you an example of this. Our old bugbear Dawkins wants to set up an atheist equivalent of a faith school. I have no problem with that, what I have a problem with is that ghe wants to label these new schools 'free-thinking'. How is atheist thought any more free than theist? the only way to give any credence to this is to hijack science as atheistic. If theistic thought and teaching is unwelcome there or portrayed in a negative light then how is such a school any less dogmatic than a faith school is assumed to be.

generalgrog wrote:@Sebster..This is my opinion only.... regarding atheists in the scientifuc community comes down an excuse to not serve God. Anyway they can find to try and come up with a way to discredit God, the Bible and especially Christianity furthers their own self interest. As far as people who claim to have a faith or claim to be Christians and still hold to certain tenets of scientific doctrine I really don't have an answer, I mean there are creation scientists that are evolutionists, it's a false assumption to think that all creation scientists are young earthers. Again I don't have an answer to why they would choose to believe something that contradicts the Bible...maybe a weak faith..a poor understanding of theology?..I don't know

I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. You supposed an institutional bias towards scientific conclusions that rejected creationist ideas, and I pointed out that such an institutional bias would require there to be predominantly atheists working in science. That isn't the case, atheists are a small minority in the population, and while likely more heavily represented in some scientific fields than in the greater community, they remain a minority. Many, many scientists are Christian. As such, the bias against Christianity that you assume simply doesn't exist. Instead, you have to consider the idea that Creationist Science doesn't get any traction in the wider scientific community because very little of it is science, and the rest is very bad science.

And Christians who follow science that contradicts the bible do so because they can accept the truth of the book without requiring every single piece of the text to be literally true. You can believe in a loving God who sent his Son to die for your sins without needing the Earth to be created in 6,000 years.

generalgrog wrote:Also I'm not sure why you have a problem with people bringing up the word theory. Why is that such a problem? Macro evolution is a theory, it cannot be proven, it is not a fact or a law. What's the problem? How is that "purposely misleading people"?

Speciation has been observed. Fruitflies seperated from main population and taken through scientific testing were found, several years later, to no longer be able to breed with the main population.

In science "theory" refers to a collected body of work. A scientist will form hypothesis, test it and report his findings. These findings will go under peer review, and then the findings published. This is added to other similar works to form a combined body of knowledge known as a theory. Similarly, there is the theory of gravity.

Orlanth wrote:The trouble with the evolution vs creartionism argument is the 'vs'. The idea that the two have any competition is a fabrication by atheists who wish to hijack the scientific debate.

Well, hijacked by both atheists and biblical literalists. After all, there aren't any atheists lobbying to get Godless science taught as an alternative in religious classes.

But I agree with what you're saying, there simply isn't a "vs" in the debate. Science does not support a godless universe, it doesn't even bother with the question. Nor does faith require the rejection of any scientific findings.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The trouble with the evolution vs creartionism argument is the 'vs'. The idea that the two have any competition is a fabrication by atheists who wish to hijack the scientific debate.

Well, hijacked by both atheists and biblical literalists. After all, there aren't any atheists lobbying to get Godless science taught as an alternative in religious classes.

I agree in principle but disagree on application. Biblical literalists do hijack science but they are fringe theists hijacking fringe sceince that supports literalist theology. Mainstream atheists informed or otherwise hijack mainstream science. After all this position is pretty well established in the doctrines of YouTube atheist zealots and university intellectual flagships for atheism both. Informed theists may agree with the science without infering that it has no validity as an atheistic argument.

sebster wrote:
But I agree with what you're saying, there simply isn't a "vs" in the debate. Science does not support a godless universe, it doesn't even bother with the question. Nor does faith require the rejection of any scientific findings.

As the 'vs' is a human application for partisan gain, it cannot be dealt with as a scientific arguement to be challenged, but as a rhetorical tool to be disarmed. The disarming can come from observation that an increase in knowledge of itself does not ensure a decrease in faith.

sebster wrote:I'm not sure you understood what I was saying. You supposed an institutional bias towards scientific conclusions that rejected creationist ideas, and I pointed out that such an institutional bias would require there to be predominantly atheists working in science. That isn't the case, atheists are a small minority in the population, and while likely more heavily represented in some scientific fields than in the greater community, they remain a minority.

If we are literally talking about atheists here, 1.6% of the whole, and frankly I would be very surprised if actual atheists (not agnostics) made up any type of majority within the sciences. The numbers on that issue are particularly fuzzy, but there seems to be a smaller part of the worlds population of scientists that are actively religious. Dunno anything specific, the statistics are all over the place, but something like 25% religious scientists, seems like a safe guess.

While many scientists are clearly agnostic, I would be surprised if more than a third were in fact atheists. At any rate, the numbers are highly unlikely to correlate to the 75% or so of the population within the U.S. that are specifically christian, whatever denomination they may be. 3/4 of the U.S. (or more) is actively religious, and christian to boot; you're simply not going to find those numbers amongst people that critically analyze information professionally.

Many, many scientists are Christian. As such, the bias against Christianity that you assume simply doesn't exist. Instead, you have to consider the idea that Creationist Science doesn't get any traction in the wider scientific community because very little of it is science, and the rest is very bad science.

After a certain point it seems to be an issue of just not getting the same things out of the same book. God doesn't have to be, if he already is.

And Christians who follow science that contradicts the bible do so because they can accept the truth of the book without requiring every single piece of the text to be literally true. You can believe in a loving God who sent his Son to die for your sins without needing the Earth to be created in 6,000 years.

I believe in bubbles but I don't expect them to answer all of my questions... oddly enough they have answered quite a few as it is.

Speciation has been observed. Fruitflies seperated from main population and taken through scientific testing were found, several years later, to no longer be able to breed with the main population.

In science "theory" refers to a collected body of work. A scientist will form hypothesis, test it and report his findings. These findings will go under peer review, and then the findings published. This is added to other similar works to form a combined body of knowledge known as a theory. Similarly, there is the theory of gravity.

Observation, Question, Hypothesis, Prediction, Test and repeat. Compile, organize, test and repeat, O/Q/H/P/T+r, test and repeat.

Understand.

Orlanth wrote:
The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.

This is as world of difference from
- There is an alternate theory to evolution which is creationism......

We're pretty much on the same page then. Really, our only point of difference is going to be whether or not atheism constitutes religion in the same sense that Christianity does, but that's another thread.

Orlanth wrote:
I would be interested to know exactly what is taught in public class in the US, it may well be that this was what was proposed but it was interpreted by the press as introducing religion to science classes.

In Illinois creationism isn't given mention in science class, it may be different in other places, but I doubt it given the highly standardized nature of accepted texts. To wit the intention has generally been to "teach the controversy" implying that the desire is the presentation of evolution and creationism as mutually exclusive theories.

Orlanth wrote:
Its interesting thast the same guys wont troll the Moslems in the same way. I wonder why that is.

I think that the main reason for that is the general absence of Muslims of the conversation, and nominal ignorance with respect to what Muslims actually believe. To some extent I also think this is because the Muslim creation myth is far less important to Islam than the Biblical analogue is to Christianity. Islam doesn't have a concept which is analogous to original sin, and therefore the parts of the Koran which deal with the mythic past are of little importance to matters of practical worship. As such, you're far more likely to find that even the most conservative Muslims will be open to the concept that the 6 day creation referenced in the Koran is a matter of allegory, or imprecision. It also helps that the word for 'day' in the Koran is often used to reference an indeterminate period of time.

Orlanth wrote:
Nice catch but I am refering to IIRC Isaiah and Jeremiah with the sevenfold increase in punishment in Deuteronomy being the key. Ezekiels ordeal covers a seperate but related issue, I think it might come in under some supporting evidence, but I will have to dig out th book to know dfor sure. I dont remember those details at top of head.

I don't remember the specific prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, I'll have to dig out my Bible study books.

Orlanth wrote:
Let me give you an example of this. Our old bugbear Dawkins wants to set up an atheist equivalent of a faith school. I have no problem with that, what I have a problem with is that ghe wants to label these new schools 'free-thinking'. How is atheist thought any more free than theist? the only way to give any credence to this is to hijack science as atheistic. If theistic thought and teaching is unwelcome there or portrayed in a negative light then how is such a school any less dogmatic than a faith school is assumed to be.

Yeah, we're fully on the same page with respect to the issues of consistency of message that many of the more militant atheists face.

You know, I was going to mention Atheism since everyone was talking about how "god created us" but it looks as if I've been beaten to it.

TBH, comparing us to animals, such as chimps, is like comparing the strength of a aluminum can to a steel beam.

I'll just leave this here, since this thread has gone fairly off-topic.

generalgrog wrote:Believe me I know the way macro evolution is theorized to work, remember I wasn't raised up in Church and used to be a hardcore macro-evolutionist myself(as well as an atheist).
But a few things I noticed in your post, and please do not take this as me being insulting because I certainly don't intend it that way. You used a few terms like "imagine" and "possibly" and "perhaps". All of those words are philosophical words not necessarily scientific.

I used these words for several reasons - I was not sure of your scientific background so I was attempting to be as accessible as possible in the way I posted, I was putting forward a very general case and attempting to get you to visualise the process and how it would work when changes in environment affect the way in which an organism lives and functions. If you really want a scientific example of how species change over time check out the works of scientific discourse on Galapagos finches. They will tell you in detail the changes these birds have undergone due to the new environments they faced.

I'm not insulted by you picking up on the above, as I said, I was not sure of your background, so I felt a more narrative based story approach was the best way to go.

Also in order for macro evolution to work you need a massive amount of time, and that time void is filled very cleverly by radioisotope dating methods, which unfortunately I believe to be flawed. Not necessarily flawed from the technical aspects, but flawed from the standpoint of where the conclusions are based. If you start with a foundation that says radioactive decay rates have always been the same as they are now, then of course everything appears to make sense because we are in the now. But if you start from a foundation of saying, well we weren't around "in the beginning" so it's possible that we don't have the whole story. Then you can allow yourself the possibility that modern uniformitarianism could be wrong and maybe there is another answer, of course I believe the answer to be that The Creator created the earth the universe and all living things.

GG

I think that Dogma and the others pretty much covered this one, so I will leave it.

I also want to say that I admire your continued participation in this thread - I know what it is like posting solo to defend your views against a thread full of people who don't share your views on something

Karon wrote:TBH, comparing us to animals, such as chimps, is like comparing the strength of a aluminum can to a steel beam.

Oddly enough you pretty much answered your own question, if you had one in the first place.

Both aluminum and steel are pretty recent developments when taken in the context of what we were using before, which could be considered tin and iron for their given uses at the time. The important bit is how we are comparing them, and in what context we do so.

Anyway, I'll just leave this here...

Orlanth wrote:
Here you are relying on the fallacy that the existance of God is at loggerheads with "everything we know about time, space, life, the universe and everything", some forms of atheist would just to prefer to assume that is so and hijack science to say something it does not. There is nothing far fetched about beleiving in God

Orlanth, i must say, i find you a most agreeable chap with regards to pretty much everything else, im just at the polar opposite regarding your religious views!

But you and i have argued about this numerous times, so i will simply stay out of the realms of Science as its the same old back and forth, and just ask you the same thing i brought up earlier, you seem to be far more well versed on this whole debate than most Creationists so perhaps you can give me a satisfactory answer.

Exactly how would you explain the infinite regress? I have never heard a good answer and i figure if anyone can come up with one it will be you.

As i said earlier, discounting everything else that has been covered it seems very simple to me. Either you CAN get complexity from simplicity or you cannot.

If you can, then Creationists have no argument at all. Even without all of the evidence, it just makes more sense that this is the case.

And if you cant, then surely you cant have a God? By definition, a being that can do "magic" and make everything IS complex, so he would absolutely HAVE to have a maker wouldnt he?

The only thing people say is "oh God is outside of normal Science" or "God can just make himself because he is God" and other such nonsense. I have always maintained that ID/Creationism just makes no sense to me because it counters its own argument! If everything complex MUST have a creator, then is God not complex?

mattyrm wrote:
Exactly how would you explain the infinite regress? I have never heard a good answer and i figure if anyone can come up with one it will be you.

I dont know what 'infinite regress' is, or as likely don't know that concept under that name. I will try and provide an answer for you but at the moment I cannot. A belief in an absense or presence of God can be formulated without absorbing all the evidence, if the evidence concerned is Life and The Universe then it is likely we will all run into knowledge blindspots sooner or later.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
But since you mentioned that the prediction occurred AFTER the event, well you got me! I'm convinced! I mean, there is so much wrong with your argument here that I honestly don't know where to begin. Predicting an event that has already happened is not a miracle, nor is it the work of god. If you know the start date, the end date, and you have an agenda, you can manipulate the evidence to make it fit.

Unfair, becauise the events were not nudged a days or two but are a matter of public record.

What I'm saying is that if the man who deciphered the prophecy knew the dates involved beforehand, he could find apropriate passages to cross-reference to make them look like a prophecy. I think this is the strongest case against it, to be honest.

Albatross wrote:
Also, you didn't address the fact that I said the prediction could really have been set out by the original writers of the Torah, but could just be a coincidence. Is that really any less likely?

Much less likely. So much in science can also be coincidental, but when ther odd lengthen you start to accept that a pattern or a likelyhood emerges. Take weather prediction as an example, we cannot predict weather with any accuracy over more than a few days to give a prediction of rain or shine with the acuracy of a single day. To make a political prediction millenia in advance to come true to a single day is without parallel in predictions. also it was a process of prediction, the restoration of Israel is a sequence of timed events occuring on schedule some in history the last recently. So the prediction is cross referenced as part of a larger ongoing event with the first scheduled return occuring with the rebuilding of th Temple, the second with the rebuilding of Jerusalem..

Yes, it's unlikely. But as we now know, it also doesn't matter because it wasn't predicted before the fact.

Albatross wrote:
I'm not even going to touch the whole 'atheism is faith' nonsense. Again.

Nonsense, or you just dont like hearing it? So are you claiming your atheism is scientific? If this is the case theology would be a science too. In any event we would have to rewrite the definition of scientific thought to encompass faith choices one way or another for this to stick. Perhaps this would not be a bad thing as there is more pet belief within science than many in the scientific community would like to admit. We all follow our paradigms in this and other topics, too few people are actually truly open minded.

It's your comfort-blanket, Orlanth. You are obviously a very intelligent bloke with an enquiring mind. Such people encounter difficulty in maintaining their faith, especially because the same people tend to more readily accept the validity of the scientific process. With this in mind, you are acutely aware of the baselessness of some of the things you believe. Claiming that atheism is religion makes you feel better because you can tell yourself that there is parity between the levels of dogma adhered to by both 'sides' (I don't really consider myself part of some monolithic atheist block, I'm just a bloke who doesn't observe religion because I don't see the point...), but there actually isn't. There aren't any requirements save one: not being a theist.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Again, nationalism didn't exist when the Torah was written, so it's likely that any reference to Israel would be calling it the Kingdom of Israel, would it not? And it isn't, is it? You can say 'Jesus is the permanent king', but Israel is not a monarchy, politically speaking. If the wording of this 'prophecy' mentions the Kingdom of Israel then it is inaccurate. Any reference to the State of Israel would scream 'fraud' to me.

You are perpared to scream 'fraud' at evidence you havent seen yet? This is not how a reasoned scientific attitude ought to work. You would be better off with atheism by faith.
The prediction refers to the return of the Jews to self-governing statehood. This occured in stages and in different forms. Please remember that early Hebrew society was a form of judicial republic before it was a kingdom anyway, so no kingdom is implied in the related verses.

But think about it - there was no such thing as a nation-state then, meaning that someone would not only have to predict the creation of Israel, but also the concept of nationhood. Again, you haven't presented any evidence - I'm just going on what you have said so far. I know none of the specifics, all I have is your word that this 'prophecy' even exists.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
But the entireity of Israeli territory isn't under Jewish rule, meaning that it is not entirely a Jewish state.

It need not be before that date there had been no Jewish state since Titus Caesar. However your comment does lead to a supporting point though. When the Israelites first moved into the promised land under Joshua they officially entered on one day but the conquest of the land took generations, eventually stalled as indicated in Judges chapter 1. Philistia was destroyed by the Babylonians when Jerusalem fell. Wheras Philistia was to remain whenever there was a Jewish state because of Israels sin in accordinace with the prophesy in the book of Judges. When Israel was formed Philistia returned also. The Gaza strip is modern day Philistia.

Were the Philistines (Y/N?) muslim? What does the prophecy say about building settlements on their land?

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
Stay classy, creationists!
Seriously though, I stand by those 5. I don't think you've managed to refute them in any meaningful way.

If you are going to flat deny that you had to add extra words I never wrote to misinterpret what I did write then I doubt I will be able to convince you of anything.

What do you mean? I was jibing you about the ill-advised 'Jewish Bankers' thing.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
The problem I have is similar to what dogma outlined: even if the science is correct, it's still a bloody big leap to conclude that 'god did it'!

Same leap as required to say, God was nowhere to be found. In eaither case the leap is faith.

That's a very strange viewpoint. Very strange.

People don't say 'I ate a sandwich. God was nowhere to be found', they say 'I ate a sandwich. It was tasty.'

There is absolutely no reason to draw any religious conclusions from any scientific data you gather, unless you have a pre-existing agenda. Your assumption that most scientists are atheist is leading you to conclude that all experiments and theories have the ultimate objective of disproving god. Wrong. The information is an end in and of itself in many cases. The information should be followed down 'the rabbit-hole' - one should go where the facts lead. That's the only honest way to approach science.

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:
I can accept that they found inconsistencies in rates of decay in different substances, but how do you get from there to 'this means that the creator accelerated the decay rates, probably around the time of the Great Flood and in day two of the Creation Week'? Where's the evidence for ANY of that? The conclusions they draw are mind-blowing. And agenda-driven.

Many theists Christian or otherwise have yet to learn that science is not an enemy is faith, there is no need to protect against it. The battle is an illusion, atheism does not have any science on its side.

Perhaps. I happen to disagree. The science that atheism has on it's side is the science that directly contradicts the version of events that takes place in the Bible, Torah, Qu'raan and so on. That religionists have decided to start moving the goal-posts with increasing rapidity correlates quite nicely with increased human scientific understanding.

Orlanth wrote:I can understand what many Christians are thinking on this subject. The atheist hijacking of science is very frequent phenomena, fuelled by the propogation of fringe science to support Bible literalist dogmas. If there is any question of this look up evolution and creationism videoa on YouTube. They are numerous, hostile to opposing views, assumptive and cyclic. As indicated above the correct approach is to show that science is not a tool of atheism, the idea that it is is a human political arguement not a scientific one. Atheism is publically beleived to be connected to science only by repeated public exposure to the concept, as a weapon in evolution vs creation arguments.
Actually the creationists have it right, but possibly for the wrong motive.

The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.

This is as world of difference from
- There is an alternate theory to evolution which is creationism......

The latter belongs in religious studies classes. The emphasis should be on removing the religion from the science altogether, in this case atheism, by restoring neutrality with a suitable caveat.
I would be interested to know exactly what is taught in public class in the US, it may well be that this was what was proposed but it was interpreted by the press as introducing religion to science classes.

I'm confused by this. Are you advocating that some aspect of the "correct counterpoint" should be present in in science classes?

Many theists Christian or otherwise have yet to learn that science is not an enemy is faith, there is no need to protect against it. The battle is an illusion, atheism does not have any science on its side.

I'm also confused by this. While atheism has no science on its side in the fight against deism, such as the fight is, it has a decent amount on its side against the idea of an interventionist god.

Orlanth wrote:I agree in principle but disagree on application. Biblical literalists do hijack science but they are fringe theists hijacking fringe sceince that supports literalist theology. Mainstream atheists informed or otherwise hijack mainstream science. After all this position is pretty well established in the doctrines of YouTube atheist zealots and university intellectual flagships for atheism both. Informed theists may agree with the science without infering that it has no validity as an atheistic argument.

Hang on, what? Are you somehow claiming that the crazies on youtube and university atheist clubs have some kind of impact on mainstream science?

Look, there are strong and frequently successful campaigns to get creationists onto school boards in the US. That is a real thing, and a troubling one. A guy on youtube is just one of thousands upon thousands of annoying video bloggers.

As the 'vs' is a human application for partisan gain, it cannot be dealt with as a scientific arguement to be challenged, but as a rhetorical tool to be disarmed. The disarming can come from observation that an increase in knowledge of itself does not ensure a decrease in faith.

No, indeed I can't imagine a God who wouldn't want his children to explore his creation with their eyes wide open.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:If we are literally talking about atheists here, 1.6% of the whole, and frankly I would be very surprised if actual atheists (not agnostics) made up any type of majority within the sciences. The numbers on that issue are particularly fuzzy, but there seems to be a smaller part of the worlds population of scientists that are actively religious. Dunno anything specific, the statistics are all over the place, but something like 25% religious scientists, seems like a safe guess.

I'd be shocked if the number of atheists in science came anywhere near 10%, to be honest. The rest would be some mix of agnostic, mild and strongly religious, with the specific mix depending on the country and the field of science (there's a lot of very unique religious views among astronomers, for instance).

Point is, there is no cabal of athiests trying to suppress creationist science. There is no science to suppress.

dogma wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
Nice catch but I am refering to IIRC Isaiah and Jeremiah with the sevenfold increase in punishment in Deuteronomy being the key. Ezekiels ordeal covers a seperate but related issue, I think it might come in under some supporting evidence, but I will have to dig out th book to know dfor sure. I dont remember those details at top of head.

I don't remember the specific prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah, I'll have to dig out my Bible study books.

Alright, I've gone back through my annotated Bibles (NKJV, NIV, ES, and OSB if anyone is interested), and gotten a little outside help, but I still haven't been able to find the passages you're referring to. Yes, there are prophecies regarding the return of the Jews to Israel, but there are no periods of time mentioned such that we can determine a specific date for their return (unless I missed them). I also understand the seven-fold increase mentioned in Deuteronomy, but that comment is meaningless without an initial number, and starting date, with which to establish punishment. It is these latter two items which find themselves highly susceptible to questioning due to variances in Biblical translation (as I pointed out earlier) and outright omission, as I will deal with now.

First, let us dispense with the idea that the punishment afforded to the houses of Judah and Israel can be considered open to summation. The captivity of Judah and the captivity of Israel are two distinct, historical events involving two distinct, historical powers; namely Assyria (holding Israel) and Babylon (holding Judah). In general, the House of Israel would be considered to encompass the both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, but the fact that the two are explicitly separated calls directly into question the extent to which that can be considered a valid interpretation of prophecy. This is particularly given the presence of later considerations of total sin/punishment in Ezekiel's prophecies which explicitly omit the time ascribed to the House of Judah as an independent element; implying that Judah is to be either considered as a component of the House of Israel (and is therefore singled out for other reasons), or that its punishment is irrelevant to the House of Israel.

Second, because the houses of Judah and Israel are so freely exchanged as either separate, or conflated entities it becomes very difficult to determine a date at which the supposed punishment began. The date required of prophetic veracity is 536 B.C., the year in which Cyrus freed the House of Judah from the Babylonians. However, the House of Israel, as defined by Ezekiel's prophecy had already been free from Assyrian dominion for 132 years.

Which one of these dates are we to consider canonical for the freedom of the Jews? They both present serious problems for the prophecy. If we use the commonly accepted date, 536 B.C., then we are left to wonder why the house of Israel is suddenly being considered as a contiguous whole and so express concern with respect to the veracity of adding the independently assessed punishments of 40 and 390 years (assuming we accept that was indeed the duration of the punishment). If we regard them as independent entities, then per a literal reading the punishment of the House of Israel actually began in the year 434 B.C.; placing the 1948 founding of Israel far off the mark in terms of accuracy.

And that doesn't even get into the Levitical prophecies regarding the supposed peace that would be spread throughout the land of Israel upon the return of the Jews.

Albatross wrote:
What I'm saying is that if the man who deciphered the prophecy knew the dates involved beforehand, he could find apropriate passages to cross-reference to make them look like a prophecy. I think this is the strongest case against it, to be honest.

Sorry. You do not understand the nature of prophesy. There are two types. An open prior prediction or an pre-declared but veiled prediction. as I said the wording is plain text in the bible, if people did not see it they did not see it. This second type of prophesy is refered to a signiture prophesy. God is saying I did that, predictive prophesy is there so that people can act on it. Signiture prophesy is different in that regards.
The real question is why would someone not see the prediction in plain text beforehand, the answer is that they are not supposed to. God reveals his Word, so something in plain text could well vbe overlooked if God chooses it to be so.
In either case a book written over two millenia ago predicted a political event to the day May 14th 1948. There is no strong case against that, there is no case at all.

Albatross wrote:
Yes, it's unlikely. But as we now know, it also doesn't matter because it wasn't predicted before the fact.

Yes it was. Because it was written plain text into the book of Deuteronomy and Isaiah. it was predicted before the event long before the event, but we were blind to see the prediction. let me give you another example of signiture prophesy this time from within the bible. ther Sanhedrin bought a potters field with the money Judas returned to them, the money 30 silver pieces was a slaves ransom. In both cases the amount and the actual use of the funds was written in the bible as prophesy.

Zechariah 11:12-13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

Notice the signiture prophesy. in this case fulfilled by the very priests who denied jesus as Mesach and ordered his execution. Had they been aware of the prophesy they would have paid judas 31 pieces of silver or another amount and when the money was returned would have bought anything other than a potters field. These people wsere not ignorant of biblie texts or messianic prophesy, but they wrre blinded because they were not supposed to see what God had ordained.

Your understandable error is that you dont calculate for the living God behind the words and are treating the words like ordinary mortal words in an ordinary mortal text. You might miss a secular prediction or ignore it until it occurs, but signiture prophesy is a holding back. We have had a long time to work out the dates, but never did until it occured.

Albatross wrote:
It's your comfort-blanket, Orlanth.

I accept your comment on face value. This is in a very real way true, a personal relationship with God is a powerful and intimate relationship, I will not deny that it can indeed should foster a degree of dependency.

But dependency on God has no taint to it. I accept your allegory with caution because it can be twisted. It is similar to the 'religion is a crutch' mentality. Yes religion is a strong support but there is a tendency to assume that those who lean on that support are cripples, or that those who discard religion walk straight and free.
A comfort blanket is something for babies or painfully timid people afraid to face the world, this implies that those who eshew one are stronger and more mature. Neither set of allegories are fair.

King David wrote (for example) Psalm 77:
1 I cried out to God for help;
I cried out to God to hear me.
2 When I was in distress, I sought the Lord;
at night I stretched out untiring hands
and my soul refused to be comforted.
3 I remembered you, O God, and I groaned;
I mused, and my spirit grew faint.

He was also known as a leader of men, a general and a fearsome warrior.

Albatross wrote:
You are obviously a very intelligent bloke with an enquiring mind. Such people encounter difficulty in maintaining their faith, especially because the same people tend to more readily accept the validity of the scientific process.

There are too few decent Bible apologists around, and none I know of whos work matches C.S. Lewis. He struggled with faith, in fact he didnt like Christianity because it provided a simple in fact simplistic solution, but as the deep wsidom behind the simplicity became apparent to him he was 'drawn kicking and screaming into the kingdom of God."
Frankly I had it easy, I was the guy at school to was always being punished for skipping chapel, because I didnt want the bs but I was a misfit anyway. I was a beleiver mind you, but wanted a real faith in a real God, not state church mumbo jumbo and dogma.

Albatross wrote:
With this in mind, you are acutely aware of the baselessness of some of the things you believe. Claiming that atheism is religion makes you feel better because you can tell yourself that there is parity between the levels of dogma adhered to by both 'sides' (I don't really consider myself part of some monolithic atheist block, I'm just a bloke who doesn't observe religion because I don't see the point...), but there actually isn't. There aren't any requirements save one: not being a theist.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. it is good that we are returning to this point ever gsooner in our discussions, it means the cirlce is closing and we are approaching the real issues head on, and with aded politeness and respect each time. I havent planned this, just pointed out my point of view honestly, it is an inevitavble conclusion when we both do the same.
To you (tell me if I have you wrong here) atheism is declaration of intention to abstain from any theistic thought process. Make religion a non issue and live without it.
To me religion is part of everything in that God is part of everything. You either beleive that or choose not to, in either case a faith choice is made. Ignoring relgion is only possible from a point of view of true ignorance, someone unaware that there may or may not be a universal deity may be free from all thoughts on religion. Otherwise a faith choice is mandatory.


Of note there are no societies that are 'free' from religion in this way and those who develop in seperation to humans often show a greater rather than lesser spirituality. From personal observation I do beleive that chidlren pick up on spiritual things far easier than adults. My own church (I rarely attend now) is a mixed age congregation and young children are often present

Albatross wrote:
Again, you haven't presented any evidence - I'm just going on what you have said so far. I know none of the specifics, all I have is your word that this 'prophecy' even exists.

This is good. I know I havent shown the predictions yet, you asked questions even tried to refute it blindly. I am replying to those posts. This is not a trap, though you would have been wiser tgo find out what I was going to post berfore jumping in wioth both feet. Nevertheless its actually useful and in a way healthy.
Presumption is part of human thinking part of where out emotive processes overwhelm our calculative processes. I beleive (this is a secular teaching) that we can improve our mental outlook with two simple mental exercises. The first I showed you in a previous thread. Declaration of Paradigm. By admitting that one is a person with a personal agenda and therefore biased one can minimise ones bias and see more clearly. The alternative is to simply 'attempt to be impartial', which can be difficult because men are not, it also makes it difficult to see ones lack of impartiality withoutv this mental exercise.
The second mental teaching has been inadvertently revealed here. Presumption Analysis. I beleive it is healthy to make immediate presumptions and put them on record somewhere. Again this is to do with a persons inherent bias, but also accounts for a human 'hunch'. By boxing off your presumption you are also preventing yourself from acting on it. So for example if you have a bad first impression of someone, it no longer soils your outlook becuse your negative first impression is 'boxed'. You then review your first impression or presumption with a more refined impression afterwards. Analyse the differences.
Follow these two mental disciplines and you will develop a stronger more keen analytical understanding of what is around you. The first limits your own paradigms bigotry, and we are all bigots one way or another. The second allows us to more keen ly analyse quicker and with a greater degree of accuracy.

Albatross wrote:
Were the Philistines (Y/N?) muslim? What does the prophecy say about building settlements on their land?

No Philistia was destroyed over a thousand years before Islam began.
The prediction I am talking about says nothing, but there is plenty written enselwhere and it doesnt make good reading at face value.
Bible literalism once again. Much of the Zionish hardcore attitude to Palestinians can be stemmed from bible literalism and some very brutal passages in the book of Deuteronomy.

Albatross wrote:
There is absolutely no reason to draw any religious conclusions from any scientific data you gather, unless you have a pre-existing agenda. Your assumption that most scientists are atheist is leading you to conclude that all experiments and theories have the ultimate objective of disproving god. Wrong. The information is an end in and of itself in many cases. The information should be followed down 'the rabbit-hole' - one should go where the facts lead. That's the only honest way to approach science.

This fits your paradigm, you want to divorce religion from science as part of your interpreation of atheism. However some points:
The pre-existing agenda will not stop, the principle problem are atheist hijackers of science. You might want to leave religion behind, let me accept that on face value. However others ideas of leaving religion behind is more proactive boot-in-face and walk off, in the name of Darwin.
Secondly, its too late! Sorry about that. For you the line has already been drawn and a leap for faith taken, not necessarily irreversibly or willingly but taken nonetheless. You are aware of the potential existance of an infinite God and have made some element of choice one way or another on that piece of knowledge, whether temporarily or permenantly and irrgardless of whether you are awaiting any further evidence.
I accept that you adhere to scintific method and prefer to await a scientific conclusion on the existance of God before making a definitive comment on record, but I suggest to you that one might never come, I also suggest to you that a provisional faith based answer is formulating in your mind, or has already formulated, whether you like it or not.

I think this last point explains why some intellectual atheists are angry because the hidden and unwelcomed faith choice is in there, their religion has infected their thoughts and they cannot be free of it and treat religious thought as a blemish on their paradigm preventing a completion of rational thought. The only way out is to eshew all relgious sources, if religion did not exist then a scientific mind can develop free from doubt or faith based assumption where no asumption is welcomed.
Beyond the immediate problem of religion not going quietly there is the problem that this level of purity of thought is rare even within science, too many people adhere to pet theories and scientific cliques. Persdonality has more to do with a theorem being accepted or not than most would prefer to admit.

Albatross wrote:
Perhaps. I happen to disagree. The science that atheism has on it's side is the science that directly contradicts the version of events that takes place in the Bible, Torah, Qu'raan and so on. That religionists have decided to start moving the goal-posts with increasing rapidity correlates quite nicely with increased human scientific understanding.

Some are moving goalposts, and very frequently too, however those are the people who want to pet fringe sceince that backs up fringe theology. I am not interested in that. Besides even if it werre they are only keeping track, theologically connected sceince is not the only science under review, as knowledge expands the questions list gets long and somer of the questions are altered or even removed unanswered.



Huzzah. I have found the book.

I am quoting from The Signiture of God, by Grant R Jeffrey.
I dont agree with all he has to say, some chapters are theological/scientific defences of Bible literalism as described above, but other parts are very interesting.
First after refreshing my memory of the work I must also refresh myself with some humble pie. Yes, dogma the principle passage used is the one mentioned in Ezekiel, but it is still cross references with the sevenfold curse. But that is in Leviticus not Deuteronomy. I will post this later this evening with all the Hebreic numbercrunching too. I might even just copy out the entire section, its short enough to legally count as an extract rather than copyright theft.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.

I'm confused by this. Are you advocating that some aspect of the "correct counterpoint" should be present in in science classes?

Yes I am, if needed to combat the false ideology that evolution = atheism.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Many theists Christian or otherwise have yet to learn that science is not an enemy is faith, there is no need to protect against it. The battle is an illusion, atheism does not have any science on its side.

I'm also confused by this. While atheism has no science on its side in the fight against deism, such as the fight is, it has a decent amount on its side against the idea of an interventionist god.

Perhaps your confusion comes from the word fight as highlighted. There is no fight. Evolutionary science does not have any bearing on honest theology, the two are seperate, on can practice honest science and/or theology in isolation from each other, one need not do so as a personal choice but to espouse this choice should be understood as espousing both science and religion rather than hijacking one as a delivery system for ther other. Thus those who insist on mixing relgion and sceince in any combination will be seen as making both relgious and cientific comments with scrutiny permitted on both.
The principle danger here is to use the mask 'atheism is science' and thus refuse any attempts to critique ones own religious doctrines via theological thinking.

The 'decent amount on its side' is your faith choice speaking.

Orlanth wrote:In either case a book written over two millenia ago predicted a political event to the day May 14th 1948. There is no strong case against that, there is no case at all.

From a plain text reading of your posts, there isn't a case for it either, strong or not.

Please to be with the posting of the prediction.

I just want to say that, although I do respect Orlanth greatly, I disagree with his conclusion that the basic problem is athiests vs Christians. The problem comes down whether or not you believe the Bible for what it says, or don't. If you think the Bible is some sort of myth and legends book similar to D&D deities and demigods and is an allegory, your naturally going to enter into disputations with people that actually believe the Bible, whether your a Christian or not. Notice I didn't invalidate someones faith statement, just that I believe they are in error.

And also disagree with the notion that Biblical literalism is somehow "dangerous". The Bible has to be interpreted through exegesis and alowing the Bible to interpret itself. If you follow proper exegetical procedure you should be able to gleen what is supposed to be taken literally and what isn't.

For example: using 2 Peter 3:8 "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." to try and claim that this means that the creation account isn't to be taken literally is a clear example of how NOT to use exegesis, which leads to a reult of the Bible being taken out of context to support an erroneous position. 2Peter 3:8 has nothing to do with the creation but is a description of how the Lord operates out of time, because he is a spirit.

John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Anyway, I'm trying to dig up my RATE books but they seem to have been buried in a box somewhere. I will try to answer albatross' quetions better, once I find the material. They also go into the Hebrew used in genesis 1 to show that the Hebrew that is used is in a context of literalism/narrative not poetry. Sorry for taking so long to respond.

GG

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:I agree in principle but disagree on application. Biblical literalists do hijack science but they are fringe theists hijacking fringe sceince that supports literalist theology. Mainstream atheists informed or otherwise hijack mainstream science. After all this position is pretty well established in the doctrines of YouTube atheist zealots and university intellectual flagships for atheism both. Informed theists may agree with the science without infering that it has no validity as an atheistic argument.

Hang on, what? Are you somehow claiming that the crazies on youtube and university atheist clubs have some kind of impact on mainstream science?

Yes and no. It does but not through scientific method but though mass of popular opinion. Thus scientific method should be immune to this type of impact but sceince isnt always honest and is subject to pressures as wsith any other human thought process. Atheistic science was mandatory in the Soviet Blok within living memory, it is still prefered in some countries

sebster wrote:
Look, there are strong and frequently successful campaigns to get creationists onto school boards in the US. That is a real thing, and a troubling one. A guy on youtube is just one of thousands upon thousands of annoying video bloggers.

The traditonal 'beleive in the seven days or your a heretic' fanatic shouldn't have hands on acces to the eduction system. However I will not be too judgemental of them. Stern ultra-relgious types often make good school governors as much as they make bad teachers. I would be happy to see hardcore creationists as school governors. Hardcore creationists are also hardcore moralists but not necessarily fanatical in a dangerous sense. A bulldog attitiude may well be good at helping prevent moral decline - a major issue nowadays.

ther Sanhedrin bought a potters field with the money Judas returned to them, the money 30 silver pieces was a slaves ransom. In both cases the amount and the actual use of the funds was written in the bible as prophesy.

Zechariah 11:12-13 And the LORD said to me, "Throw it to the potter"-the handsome price at which they priced me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the LORD to the potter.

Notice the signiture prophesy. in this case fulfilled by the very priests who denied jesus as Mesach and ordered his execution. Had they been aware of the prophesy they would have paid judas 31 pieces of silver or another amount and when the money was returned would have bought anything other than a potters field.

..yes, but please bear in mind that many/most of the texts related to things such as the above were written long after the initial prediction and many Christian scholars are more than happy to admit that certain amounts or numbres refered to over and over again were -- perhaps-- massaged or quoted quite deliberately to invoke or refer to the previously written texts. Or so I was taught when doing my theology A levels and degree.

Now that's not to say that Character X didn't receive Y amount or go somewhere for 40 measurements of time, but it would also be very easy, and fitting with the accepted styles of writing at the times, for people to reference those figures.

But outside of an obviously biased author saying that X amount was given/Y amount of time was spent/whatever there's no possible or plausible collaboration of details being that specific.

Obviously though this doesn't automatically make this ( or any of the rest) false or untrue.


*MOD hat on*

This has been polite enough thus far, we'll see how it goes, standard reminder of forum rules to do with politeness, basic respect for others yadda yadda. If you're not sure if what you're going to say is suitable, it's perhaps best you don't say it..

Oh, and if you do want to join in, then please take the time to read through was has gone on before so we don't wind up going round and round in circles over the same points. If you're new here or to this debate most of this ground has been gobe over many, many, many times before by, frankly, better minds than ours and yet here we all are still. Astonishing.

*takes off MOD hat and puts on optimist one again*

extract from chapter eight of The Signiture of God by Grant R Jeffreys.

ISRAEL'S RETURN TO THE HOLY LAND

Israel's relationship to the Holy Land is a major focus of biblical prophesy both fulfilled and unfulfilled. God prophesied precisely when Israel would return to the Promised Land after her citizens went into exile in the first two captivities, the Egyptian and Babylonian. The Egyptian captivity was prophesied to last exactly 430 years and it is significant that it ended precisely to the day when the 430-year captivity ended. 'and it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years; even the self same day; it came to pass, that all the hosts of the lord went out from the land of Egypt' (Exodus 12:41). The prophet Jeremiah predicted the exaxct duration of the captivity of the Jewish exiles in Babylon would last 70 years. 'And this whole land shall be a desolation and an astonishment, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon for seventy years' (Jeremiah 25:11). The Babylonian army conquered Israel in the spring of 606BC. Both secular history and the Bible reveal that, as predicted, tyhe Babylonain Captivity ended exactly 70 years alter in the spring of 536BC, in the Jewish month of Nisan, when the Persian King Cyrus freed the Jews to return to their land (Ezra 1:3).
The three major Jewish prophets, Daniel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, were all alive at this time. naturally, the prophet Ezekiel was aware of the prophet Jeremiah's prophecy that the Jews could return from Babylon after 70 years in 536 BC. However God gave him a new revelation that looked much further into the future revealing how long it would be until the Jewish people would finally re-establisdh their nation in the last days. The prediction began with God's declaration that 'this shall be a sign to the house of Israel' (Ezekiel 4:3). The full prediction is found in Ezekiel 4:3-6:

3 Then take an iron pan, place it as an iron wall between you and the city and turn your face toward it. It will be under siege, and you shall besiege it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel.
4 "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. [a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel.
6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.

in this passagethe prophet Ezekiel clearly declares that this prophesy would be 'a sign to the house of Israel' and that each day represents one biblical year. The prediction revealed that Israel would be punished for a combined period of 430 years 9390 years plus another 40 years). The beginning point of the world wide captivity occurred in the spring of 536BC, at the end of the seventy years of predicted captivity in Babylon (Jeremiah 25:11). However in th month of Nisan, 536BC only a small remenant of the Jews from the nation of Judah chose to leave their homes in babylon and return to Jerusalem. the Jewish exiles who remebered their former homes in Israel were now over 70 years old. Their children who had been born in Babylon naturally haf little connection or attachment to the former home of their parents. The vast majority were quite happy to remain in ther pagan Persian empire as colonists rather than migrate six hundred miles to rebuild the devastated colony of Israel. God decreed to Ezekiel a period of punishment of 430 years for Israel's and judah;s sin. However when we deduct the 70 years of punishment the Jews had endured during the 70-year Babylonian captivity, which ended in 536BC, there still remained as total of 360 years of further punishment beyond the year 536BC. When we examione the history of that period we note that the Jews did not return to establish an independent country at the end of either 360 or of 430 years of additional punishment. In light of the precision of Ezekilens prophecy, it was difficult to understand why nothing occurred at that time to fulfil the detailed prediction.
Both the Bible and history reveal that Israel did not repent of its sins at the end of the seventy-year captivity in babylon. in fact, the Scripturesrecord in ther books of Ezra and Nehemiah that the minority of fifty thousand who chose to retugn with Ezra to the Promised Land did so with little faith. the vast majority of the Jews remained in pagan babylon. they failed to repent of their disobedience, which was the reason god sent them into captivity in the first place....
i discovered the solution to the mystery of the duration of Israel's worldwide dispersion and return in a divine principle that God revealed to Moses in Leviticus 26. in this chapter the Lord established promses and punishments for Israel based on her obedience and her disobedience to His commands. God declared to Israel four times in this passage that if, after being punished for her sins, she still did not repent, the punishemnts previously specified would be multiplied by seven (the number of completion).....Since the majority of Israel refused to repent of her sin after the Babylonian Captivity ended, the period of 360 years of further punishment declared by Ezekiel 4:3-6 was multiplied seven times. This meant the Jews would remain without an indendent nation for another 2,520 biblical years from 536BC, the beginning point of the prediction.

THE BIBLICAL YEAR OF 360 DAYS

The period of punishment was to last 2,520 biblical years rather than 2,520 calender years. The reaon was that the Bible always used the ancient Jewish caldender composed of 360 days, making up a biblical year in both the historical and prophetic passages. the true length of the Jewish biblical prophetic year was only 360 days because it was a lunar-solar year composed of twelve months of 30 days each. The modern solar year of 365.25 days was unknown to the ancient nations of the Old Testament.... Moses delares in Genesis that the period of 150 days when the flood waters were at their height lasted precisely five months from the seventeenth day odf the second month to the seventeenth dats of the seventh month, proving that each month consisted of thirty days. Sir Isaac Newton relates that:

all nations before the just length of the solar years was known, reckoned months by the course of the moon, and years by the return of winter and summer, spring and autumn, and in making calenders for their festivals, they reckoned thirty days to a lunar month, and twelve lunat months to a year, taking the nearest round numbers, when came the division of the ecliptic into 360 degrees.
G.C. lewsis astonomy of the Ancients Ch1, Sect 7.

Therefore if we wish to understand the precise times involved in the fulfillment of prophecy, we need to calculate using the same biblical lunar-solar year of 360 days which the prophets used. Both the prophet Daniel and John, in the Book of Revelations clearly used a biblical year as 360 days. the failure to understand the true length of the bivblical year as 360 days has prevented some prophesy students from clearly understanding many prophecies which contain a precise time element. This 360-day prophetic year is also borne out in the Book of Revelations where John's vision refers to the future Great Tribulation period.

Therefore Ezekiels prophecy of the 430 years declared that the end of Israels punishment and her final restoration to the land would be accimplished in 2,520 biblical years of 260 days each which totals precisely 907,200 days. To convert this period into our calender year of 365.25 days we simply divide... to reach a total of 2,438.8 of our modern calender years.... In these calculations we must keep in mind that there was one year between 1BC and 1AD. There was no year Zero.

TO CALCULATE WHEN EZEKIEL PROPHESIED THE JEWS WOULD BECOME A NATION AGAIN

1. The Babylonaian captivity ended in the spring of 536BC.
Beginning 14th Nisan 536BC (536.4BC)

2. The duration of Israels captivity from Ezekiel 4:3-6 x7 907,200 days

3. Total to 1947 15th May.

4. Adjust for there being no year Zero. +365 days

5. The Rebirth of Israel 15th May 1948.

On the afternoon of 14th May 1948 the Jews proclaimed the Independence of the reborn state of Israel.... At midnight, as the 15th May began the British Mandate offically ended and Israel became an indendent nation.




Note to readers. Now complete. My own notes below.

1. The book doesnt go into the full detail of when in the spring on 536BC the captivity bagan which was rather sloppy of the author IMHO. I added 14th Nisan in italics which IIRC is the date.

2. While the Jews declared their independence on the 14th May and list it as their foundation day the British Mandate was valid until midnight of the 15th. This also follows at while the mandate expired on the 15th the 15th alao began at dusk of the 14th as the Hebrew religious day begins at dusk and not at midnight.

3. Article edited to remove needless repetition.

Orlanth wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
The correct counterpoint should be:
- addendum to science class. Some people think that the teaching you have received (evolution science) is evidence of atheism. However evolution of itself makes no comment on the existence or non existence of any deity or eliminates the possibility that a deity or religious entity had an influence on the process of evolution.

I'm confused by this. Are you advocating that some aspect of the "correct counterpoint" should be present in in science classes?

Yes I am, if needed to combat the false ideology that evolution = atheism.

...What.

No science teacher in the history of western public schooling, in the process of teaching students about evolution, has ever taught that evolution is proof of atheism. At least, so far as I know. If this holds true, why would this be any less biased towards religion than what you're trying to remove? (disregarding that atheism is not a religion)

Orlanth wrote:Perhaps your confusion comes from the word fight as highlighted...

Let me argue against this in three seperate portions.

Perhaps your confusion comes from the word fight as highlighted. There is no fight. Evolutionary science does not have any bearing on honest theology, the two are seperate, on can practice honest science and/or theology in isolation from each other, one need not do so as a personal choice but to espouse this choice should be understood as espousing both science and religion rather than hijacking one as a delivery system for ther other. Thus those who insist on mixing relgion and sceince in any combination will be seen as making both relgious and cientific comments with scrutiny permitted on both.

If we aren't talking about an interventionist god; rather, a god that has its role restricted to, say, universe creation, then yes, you're correct: science and theology are entirely separate, and never the two shall meet.

However, as you may have seen, I wasn't talking about a non-interventionist god. I was, explicitly, referring to an interventionist god, or one that interferes in the affairs of the universe. If there exists an interventionist god, then there will be evidence of that interference. On the other hand, if there is no evidence of interference where interference is expected...

Briefly, it makes no sense to rule out science and the products of science in a dialogue on the subject of an interventionist god because the effects of such a god on the universe would be best scrutinised by science, for lack of a more coherent phrase.

The principle danger here is to use the mask 'atheism is science' and thus refuse any attempts to critique ones own religious doctrines via theological thinking.

Atheism is simply the position of possessing non-belief in deity/ies. It is not a religion. It is not a religious doctrine. It requires no more faith than a position of non-belief in the ancient gods of Greece.* So... I'm not really seeing your point. There is no logical proof of god. There is also no logical proof of not-god.** Theological thinking is therefore, at best, mildly irrelevent to the fundamental question of: Is there a god.***

*Agnosticism, incidentally, is not such a position of belief/non-belief on the subject of god/s. Agnosticism is a statement of belief in the limits of knowledge. Either you believe in god/s, or you don't. Whether you think it's possible to know definitively is irrelevant to whether or not you do or do not believe.
** Except in modal logic, and possibly in other forms of logic as well maybe? The one in modal logic specifically is unconvincing for reasons that I won't go into here.
***Though it may be more relevent when it comes to deciding what kind of god may or may not exist having decided that god may exist; I don't know, I am not a practicing theologian.

The 'decent amount on its side' is your faith choice speaking.

Way to assume that I didn't research with an open mind before making a choice about what I believe, Orlanth. I don't believe in an interventionist god because there is little or no reliable, verifiable evidence of anything that, so far as I can see, points to the existence of one being more likely than not, whilst there is a comparatively large amount of reliable and verifiable evidence against that same idea.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
No science teacher in the history of western public schooling, in the process of teaching students about evolution, has ever taught that evolution is proof of atheism. At least, so far as I know. If this holds true, why would this be any less biased towards religion than what you're trying to remove? (disregarding that atheism is not a religion)

The assumption that evolution = atheism comes largely from elsewhere. The point is this fallacy needs addressing one way or another. However you may be supriseed what gets taught in aschools nowadays, though I speak from a Uk perspective where there is a lot of dogma as legacy of thirteen years of New Labour dogmas.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
If we aren't talking about an interventionist god; rather, a god that has its role restricted to, say, universe creation, then yes, you're correct: science and theology are entirely separate, and never the two shall meet.

The two do meet according to theists but the subjects remain seperate.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
However, as you may have seen, I wasn't talking about a non-interventionist god. I was, explicitly, referring to an interventionist god, or one that interferes in the affairs of the universe. If there exists an interventionist god, then there will be evidence of that interference. On the other hand, if there is no evidence of interference where interference is expected...

God only leaves the evidence behind he wants to. Some will chose to find it, others will chose not to.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Atheism is simply the position of possessing non-belief in deity/ies. It is not a religion. It is not a religious doctrine.

Covered elsewhere but essentially as the existance or non existence of God is not a given emperical fact and decision on this subject requires a faith choice, willingly taken or not.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Way to assume that I didn't research with an open mind before making a choice about what I believe, Orlanth. I don't believe in an interventionist god because there is little or no reliable, verifiable evidence of anything that, so far as I can see, points to the existence of one being more likely than not, whilst there is a comparatively large amount of reliable and verifiable evidence against that same idea.

That is your choice to believe Tzoo. Some follow a diametrically opposite view and can see the hand of God 'everywhere'. Neither premise is sceintific and neither premise precludes the adherent from practicing honest science.

Let me give you an example here. Observe the Sun and the Moon. From the persepctive of an animal upon the surface of the Terra, Sol and Luna both appear the same size, so much so that a total eclipse of the local star from Terra will leave the coronoa visble but mask the star entirely. We do not know how many earthlike planets there are in the galaxy, or how many have similar sized satellites, but astonomers do think tyhat the Terra-Luna relationship is likely to be unusual even omiting the special place of Terra as a cradle of life. In any even if the distances were different or either Sol or Luna biggers or smaller the size similarity would not exist as seen from the surface of Terra. I suspect stallar eclipses from a planets surface as seen from the surface of Terra are relatively rare, and possibly expectionally rare. Thus two bodies in space utterly unralted in size of detail but the most significant objects in the sky from the perspective of the surface of the earth have aquired a close poetic balance.
You have every opportunity to consider this an astonomical quirk, a pure coincidence, or just not consider it at all because we are used to the phenomena.
But there is room for someone else, such as myself, to suggest that it was intended to be that way.

Orlanth wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:However, as you may have seen, I wasn't talking about a non-interventionist god. I was, explicitly, referring to an interventionist god, or one that interferes in the affairs of the universe. If there exists an interventionist god, then there will be evidence of that interference. On the other hand, if there is no evidence of interference where interference is expected...

God only leaves the evidence behind he wants to. Some will chose to find it, others will chose not to.

The only way to come to this conclusion reasonably is to presuppose the existence of god. It is not convincing to those who do not agree with that presupposition.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Atheism is simply the position of possessing non-belief in deity/ies. It is not a religion. It is not a religious doctrine.

Covered elsewhere but essentially as the existance or non existence of God is not a given emperical fact and decision on this subject requires a faith choice, willingly taken or not.

So you agree then that not believing in ancient greek gods is a religion, yes?

Let me give you an example here. Observe the Sun and the Moon. From the persepctive of an animal upon the surface of the Terra, Sol and Luna both appear the same size, so much so that a total eclipse of the local star from Terra will leave the coronoa visble but mask the star entirely. We do not know how many earthlike planets there are in the galaxy, or how many have similar sized satellites, but astonomers do think tyhat the Terra-Luna relationship is likely to be unusual even omiting the special place of Terra as a cradle of life. In any even if the distances were different or either Sol or Luna biggers or smaller the size similarity would not exist as seen from the surface of Terra. I suspect stallar eclipses from a planets surface as seen from the surface of Terra are relatively rare, and possibly expectionally rare. Thus two bodies in space utterly unralted in size of detail but the most significant objects in the sky from the perspective of the surface of the earth have aquired a close poetic balance.
You have every opportunity to consider this an astonomical quirk, a pure coincidence, or just not consider it at all because we are used to the phenomena.
But there is room for someone else, such as myself, to suggest that it was intended to be that way.

This is basically the kind of thing that I meant when I... apparently didn't explicitly say that god never acts in any way that isn't indistinguishable from natural causes from an objective viewpoint.

I've been reading thread and decided to throw in my two cents: irreducible complexity and C-14 dating.

The idea of irreducible complexity is supported and, I think, best conceptualized by the arch. Take any one stone away and it ceases to be an arch. Irreducibly complex right? Any engineer will explain that the sides were built up with scaffolds and when the keystone was placed the scaffolds were removed. Things like the wing and eye can likewise be 'built' and any intermediate steps later removed.

And Carbon 14 is an example of science correcting its tools. Measuring the radioactive half-life is mathematically correct. We can measure what radioisotope we have, count the half life back and we have the number of years it's been decaying. ANY radioisotope. Like the radioactive molten iron/nickel core of the earth, or the fusion of the sun. Hydrogen into helium, and helium into carbon and ever higher. The radiation produces stable and measurable wavelengths of energy that gives half-life and again age.

Further, it would be rather damning evidence of a higher power if the universe's background radiation weren't constant but variable. Showing some constant had changed would be a massive footprint of 'Goddidit'.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote: So you agree then that not believing in ancient greek gods is a religion, yes?

Of course it is.

And my hobbies are not collecting stamps, not birdwatching, not trainspotting, not coin collecting, not playing hockey, not learning Spanish, not cooking, not knitting, not , not not not not not not........

You are defined by all of the thousands of things that you are not, not what you are!

Everyone knows that..

Right?!

I predict that every few months this subject will come back come back up and all that has been said now will be said again.

Ahtman wrote:I predict that every few months this subject will come back come back up and all that has been said now will be said again.

Maybe if it didnt always get insta locked, then we wouldnt have to start it up again!

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
*Agnosticism, incidentally, is not such a position of belief/non-belief on the subject of god/s. Agnosticism is a statement of belief in the limits of knowledge. Either you believe in god/s, or you don't. Whether you think it's possible to know definitively is irrelevant to whether or not you do or do not believe.

There are various ways to interrelate the two such that a position of perpetual uncertainty with respect to belief becomes tenable (ie. I don't believe in God now, but I believed in God yesterday, and I may believe in God tomorrow), but that mostly involves ternary logic (and to a lesser extent, K-logic) which is probably outside the range of this format.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
***Though it may be more relevent when it comes to deciding what kind of god may or may not exist having decided that god may exist; I don't know, I am not a practicing theologian.

That's generally how it all plays out. Philosophy decides what is, or is not, while theology discusses the divine (or emotional) significance of what is, or is not.

Orlanth wrote:
3 Then take an iron pan, place it as an iron wall between you and the city and turn your face toward it. It will be under siege, and you shall besiege it. This will be a sign to the house of Israel.
4 "Then lie on your left side and put the sin of the house of Israel upon yourself. [a] You are to bear their sin for the number of days you lie on your side. 5 I have assigned you the same number of days as the years of their sin. So for 390 days you will bear the sin of the house of Israel.
6 "After you have finished this, lie down again, this time on your right side, and bear the sin of the house of Judah. I have assigned you 40 days, a day for each year.

in this passage the prophet Ezekiel clearly declares that this prophesy would be 'a sign to the house of Israel' and that each day represents one biblical year. The prediction revealed that Israel would be punished for a combined period of 430 years (390 years plus another 40 years).

I apologize in advance, but that's a ridiculous interpretation (not that its yours, but you seem to believe that its sound). The passage clearly indicates (see bold) that the punishment is recorded in days, as representative of years of sin. I have seen translations which support the position presented here, but this particular version does not at all point to the offered conclusion. In fact, based on this particular version of the selection, I would conclude that the total punishment of the Jews was to amount to 70 years, and only 70 years, as prophesied by Isaiah.