Knowing the mind of God

[creospace]

Who/what is your God then Dave, out of genuine interest?

Many people unknowingly worship false gods of course, possessions for one.

(I've tried very hard to stay out of this thread but I'm failing)

Gary

 

[cjd]

(I've tried very hard to stay out of this thread but I'm failing)

Gary

excellent

 

[Arcadian]

I'll let Steve say it all. I believe in the the power of .....delegation.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Gary wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Who/what is your God then Dave, out of genuine interest?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gary. You are another one that I like and admire, so please don't take this the wrong way:

If you want to join in with a debate, you should read the whole thread to understand what is being debated, and also to get a good idea of the personalities involved in the debate.

However, because its you, I will give you a nutshell description. My God is the universe and is "intelligent" and "living". It is not capable of "miracles" which are not investigatable. It is not conscious of itself and is indifferent to what we say about it.

Dave

 

[cjd]

Scientists can and do believe in god(s) in the same way others do.

There is no conflict at all believing in a non-personal, non-interventionist god because there is no way to prove or disprove it. The ultimate question of how the universe originated seems not to have a testable answer so it becomes a philosophical question. My physics teacher talked about the almighty EMF in the sky (Electro Motive Force).

Scientist also believe in the personal god too but mostly I think they put aside the miracle stuff as story telling allegory or metaphor (so that there is no conflict) but believe in the underlying principles of the religions themselves - 'do as you would be done by' 'love thy neighbour' etc. because it's a good way to live. I think too, that many hedge their bets

I think it would be very difficult to be a fundamentalist religious person and also be a scientist without suffering a mild form of psychosis but many must - us humans have an amzing ability to partition our lives and thoughts.

Just in case you were wondering; I don't believe in any version of a god. I do however believe in life - it's an amazing thing.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Sharon wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I was just about to ask what your God does, Dave! Surely a God by most definitions is omnipotent and can perform miracles or indeed do anything?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well it's omnipotent all-right. So much so that every part of you yourself is part of it.

It can do anything which your "God-given" senses can perceive, and which any set of possible "God-given" senses could ever perceive from now until the end of time (assuming of course, that there is an "end of time").

But there's no need for all that explanation really, "my God can do anything which is possible", that's it, simple!

Sharon wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forgive me if you've covered that several pages back. We need someone to provide an executive summary now.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well you can count me out of the "summary" job! You need a genuine fanatic for that. Ask Steve!

I'm just here for the chuckles at the expense of you believers!

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

How can we disprove something so uncertain and steeped in history?

Easy. Reveal contradictions in the original accounts. Use modern methods to test details from the account (e.g., blood and water). Find a body. Any of these would do. You can't use made-up stories from later centuries though, so we must rely on the integrity of ancient historians.

I assume by this you mean that statistical confidence levels yielded by mathematics are as close to certain as possible within the constraints of the subject matter.

Proof, more from a legal perspective than a scientific one given the context, comes in three parts: (i) prophecies (ii) miracles (iii) resurrection. Taken together, they are compelling. The entire fabric of my faith would be torn apart if any one of these three were disproved. We've had two millenia in which to do that, and now we have new methods and technologies. So far, they've tended to enhance the authenticity of the message.

Almost invariably it is the indoctrinated believers who are trying to convince the non-believers of the existence of God, and that fortune-telling and miracles are real phenomena.

Fortune-telling is an unfortunate choice of words because of the connotation. I've referred throughout to prophecy, which is different and subject to several conditions.

Many believers are even willing to kill non-believers if they don't subscribe to their ridiculous ideas.

A great example of scare-mongering. If ever we meet, you're going to have to watch your back, you scheming infidel.

Proper science is fully transparent and willingly submits itself to open debate and development of its theories. By definition it has no room for dogma.

But it's fair for scientists, medical experts, historians, and other experts to take a shot at written accounts of these events. If the stories don't hold water, millions are wasting their lives - and greatly to be pitied.

Then they will walk away chuckling and saying under their breaths: "forgive them father, for they know not how silly they sound"!

That's OK. I don't mind being viewed as silly. Ultimately, I have to live with my conscience, just like everyone else.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Scientist also believe in the personal god too but mostly I think they put aside the miracle stuff as story telling allegory or metaphor (so that there is no conflict) but believe in the underlying principles of the religions themselves - 'do as you would be done by' 'love thy neighbour' etc. because it's a good way to live. I think too, that many hedge their bets

Without a moral absolute, "love your neighbour" is no better than "hate your neighbour".

I'm a scientist through and through but I don't put aside the "miracle stuff" at all. Why not take words at face value first? Put the stories aside if they don't stand up to scrutiny.

I agree that some probably are hedging their bets, especially as death approaches. For some reason, there remains an illogical fear of it.

I think it would be very difficult to be a fundamentalist religious person and also be a scientist without suffering a mild form of psychosis but many must - us humans have an amzing ability to partition our lives and thoughts.

I'm sure that many would share your opinion of my personality, but that's OK. For the record, I am fundamental in my beliefs and I'm also the archetypal scientist (a bit of a mad professor, actually. ). Odd though it must seem, there's no conflict in that at all. In fact, they're in perfect harmony. Partitioning would only prove they are incompatible.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

cgd wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scientists can and do believe in god(s) in the same way others do.

There is no conflict at all believing in a non-personal, non-interventionist god because there is no way to prove or disprove it. The ultimate question of how the universe originated seems not to have a testable answer so it becomes a philosophical question. My physics teacher talked about the almighty EMF in the sky (Electro Motive Force).

Scientist also believe in the personal god too but mostly I think they put aside the miracle stuff as story telling allegory or metaphor (so that there is no conflict) but believe in the underlying principles of the religions themselves - 'do as you would be done by' 'love thy neighbour' etc. because it's a good way to live. I think too, that many hedge their bets

I think it would be very difficult to be a fundamentalist religious person and also be a scientist without suffering a mild form of psychosis but many must - us humans have an amzing ability to partition our lives and thoughts.

Just in case you were wondering; I don't believe in any version of a god. I do however believe in life - it's an amazing thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I don't kow about other Gods, but the one that catholics believe in requires the following. (How many Gods can there be?! )

A fundamental, non-negotiable requirement of a true believer is that they should *naturally* and spontaneously accept that God, miracles, heaven, hell, life after death, etc. are as told. This is the real meaning of "faith" in the religious context, and should be truly felt in the heart, without question or doubt. If at any time a true believer doubts anything he is told by the relevant authorities, then he must seek advice from an official and truly make an effort to repair himself, and must end up 100% restored. It really is a matter of "all or nothing" as far as this God is concerned.

Also, you simply cannot "con" God into believing that you believe in him 100%, without any question and *wholeheartedly*, and thus seek to "hedge your bets" in the hope of avoiding purgatory or hell. He will rumble you straight away. In fact he will be on to your sneaky intentions even before you have thought about them yourself!

And if any catholic clergy-person tells you otherwise, then I would accuse that person of being desperate to collect souls.

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

You need a genuine fanatic for that. Ask Steve!

Whoohoo. I'm confused now about which epithet fits me best: fundie, silly, fanatic, psychotic, ... There's probably a bit of all those in me somewhere. If I could choose one myself, it would be ultimate sceptic, hard though you may find that to believe.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ancient historians have only so many manuscripts to work from.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This statement alone suggests that the existence of your God is inconclusive. You say it as if we should excuse them from the collection of what could be vital for your case.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Often, there are omissions in some version,...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, I'm sorry but that's not acceptable. Some of those "omissions" could be vital for a debate like this.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
...but the versions do not contradict one another (which is what is important). If the ending had changed, we should be concerned, but this isn't the case.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You just cannot say what the ending will be without those "omissions" that you admit to above.

If we want a complete picture from, say, a jig-saw puzzle, then we need *every* piece. For example, if a piece of sky was missing from a 5000-piece landscape jig-saw, we will never know if that piece contained something important, such as a diving bird of prey, in order for us to fully appreciate the artist's message.

Sometimes different versions of an account can seemingly produce the same "ending".

Here's a more objective (and admittedly simplistic) example:

Version 1:
2 x 2 = 4 (The Preaching part 1)
-2 x -2 = 4 (The Preaching part 2)
Practise and interpret...
x^2 = 4
x = sqrt(4)
x = 2 (The End)

Version 2:
2 x 2 = 4 (The Preaching)
Practise and interpret...
x^2 = 4
x = sqrt(4)
x = 2 (The End)

Clearly both "The Ends" are true from the information given. But can you spot how one of the ends is being econimical with the whole truth? This is a very simple example of how differing accounts with seemingly the same end can sometimes be misleading.

Dave

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whoohoo. I'm confused now about which epithet fits me best: fundie, silly, fanatic, psychotic, ... There's probably a bit of all those in me somewhere. If I could choose one myself, it would be ultimate sceptic, hard though you may find that to believe.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You know I love you really Steve. C'mon, give us a kiss. C'maaaan don't struggle ... mmmwah ... mmmwah!

Dave

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proof, more from a legal perspective than a scientific one given the context, comes in three parts: (i) prophecies (ii) miracles (iii) resurrection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prove them. Oh for God's sake ... prove them! Steve. These are exactly the things we are asking you to prove! You are allowed to use anything within the known universe, and which can be perceived by the five senses which any human being possesses. How can you prove something with something which itself has to be proved?

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fortune-telling is an unfortunate choice of words because of the connotation. I've referred throughout to prophecy, which is different and subject to several conditions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please, tell me about the conditions which differentiate the sooth-sayings of Blackpool's Gypsy Rose-Lea from your prophets.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A great example of scare-mongering.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

But it's true I tellz you. Name one scientist throughout the ages that would be prepared to kill anyone who didn't believe in his findings.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
But it's fair for scientists, medical experts, historians, and other experts to take a shot at written accounts of these events.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Why shouldn't that be fair? Most scientists and medical experts are not thick-headed, mindless machines who are willing to be programmed with just any old information that believers want to put into their heads. Why shouldn't they ask questions?

*Proper* scientists, that is, I repeat, *proper* scientists will have no qualms whatsoever about letting anyone scrutinise their experimental writings and findings. Why shouldn't the bible be similarly scrutinised?

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If the stories don't hold water, millions are wasting their lives - and greatly to be pitied.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Steve. Just because millions, tens of millions, billions, trillions or zillions of squillions, etc. believe it, doesn't mean it is correct. As a scientist, you should realise this because it can be one of the most powerful and dangerous biasing forces in science. As I said earlier in this thread, beware of conformity. Although it is an "evolutionary" survival mechanism, sometimes it really can lead one astray.

Dave

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Dear believers.

Did you read the thread about some artist promising that he would show *any* business how to increase their profits by 100% if they would send some poor likkle kiddiewinkles some teddy-bears for Christmas? How cute it was!

I played a bit of a joke in that thread, but it is relevant here.

In a similar way as the magician with subtle sleight of hand can fool you into believing that he magically knows which card you have in your hand, I showed how one equals zero. That's right, how...

1 = 0

Surely this is a miracle. How can an orange become nothing before you eat it? Get down on your knees and worship me! The vast majority of people here will confirm that I did nothing algebraically illegal. My working was totally honest, and was completely open to enquiry. In fact, I would estimate that more 99% of people in the world would be quite prepared to throw out algebra and have some new-age mathematicians build a brand new scheme because of this alleged proof!

It really is quite amazing how many people will believe tricks like this.

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ancient historians have only so many manuscripts to work from.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This statement alone suggests that the existence of your God is inconclusive. You say it as if we should excuse them from the collection of what could be vital for your case.

Inconclusive maybe, but nothing we've since learned contradicts the facts. This is important. Again, my faith isn't blind, but it's not a dead cert either. Faith is in the mix. The resulting mix is enough for me to bet my life on.

In addition to that, just look around you for evidence. Despite all the scientific explanations, nothing really explains love, beauty, politics, opinions, and the like. In my case, music is about the only thing that can bring me to tears, but why is that? Why should Elgar's Nimrod variation, in Atlanta's Symphony Hall, have me transfixed and teary-eyed? What about the autumn leaves and the sunsets and watching the ocean from a Cornish cliff? For me, these are unexplainable phenomena that are devalued by claiming some type of mathematical explanation. Beauty is something real.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Often, there are omissions in some version,...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Again, I'm sorry but that's not acceptable. Some of those "omissions" could be vital for a debate like this.

Not at all. When you compare two documents, and contains fewer words than the other, you still have the complete picture. Again, my point is that things would be different if versions contradicted each other, but they don't.

Version 1:
2 x 2 = 4 (The Preaching part 1)
-2 x -2 = 4 (The Preaching part 2)
Practise and interpret...
x^2 = 4
x = sqrt(4)
x = 2 (The End)

Version 2:
2 x 2 = 4 (The Preaching)
Practise and interpret...
x^2 = 4
x = sqrt(4)
x = 2 (The End)

Agreed, and it's a delight to have four gospels because they indeed do present things from multiple perspectives:

1) Matthew was a Jew and wrote in light of known prophecies.
2) Mark wrote Peter's first-hand account.
3) Luke was a physician and writes with the precision of a doctor.
4) John explained a lot of meaning behind events.

Taken together, they provide a wonderful multi-dimensional view of what happened. I'm amazed that more people don't read and enjoy them as literature, because there are few such four-dimensional documents in existence.

(By the way, since you love maths like I do, what - consistent with Fermat's Principle - is the only positive integer in the entire set of all integers that lies between a square and a cube? )

 

[Cornish Steve]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proof, more from a legal perspective than a scientific one given the context, comes in three parts: (i) prophecies (ii) miracles (iii) resurrection.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prove them. Oh for God's sake ... prove them! Steve. These are exactly the things we are asking you to prove! You are allowed to use anything within the known universe, and which can be perceived by the five senses which any human being possesses. How can you prove something with something which itself has to be proved?

I've tried my best to show that you can test the credibility of prophecies. I've quoted many examples, but you choose to dismiss them all. I challenge you to revisit them, test them, and explain why they are not credible? If you think about it, consistently predicting the future is an awesome feat. We're talking about 100 percent accuracy, not lucky guesses and shoe-horning.

Please, tell me about the conditions which differentiate the sooth-sayings of Blackpool's Gypsy Rose-Lea from your prophets.

It's the difference between astronomy and astrology. One can be examined and explained and is predictable. The other involves chance and personal interpretation. The toughest condition is for them all to come true - with complete predictability. Often, the timeframes are not known (although I quoted one in which timeframe is exact), but the context is known. No one knew in advance that 1948 would be the year that Israel became a sovereign nation, but the fact that they would was prophesied millenia ago.

Why shouldn't that be fair? Why shouldn't the bible be similarly scrutinised?

It should. I think you misread my statement.

Just because millions, tens of millions, billions, trillions or zillions of squillions, etc. believe it, doesn't mean it is correct. As a scientist, you should realise this because it can be one of the most powerful and dangerous biasing forces in science. As I said earlier in this thread, beware of conformity.

I agree completely - and you should know by now that I'm not a comformist. On the other hand, it would be folly to ignore something that relates to such important issues.

 

[creospace]

If you want to join in with a debate, you should read the whole thread to understand what is being debated, and also to get a good idea of the personalities involved in the debate.

None taken

I'm not interested in this deabte, I am however interested in people, what they say , and their lives.

Simple as that, thanks for your interesting answer. Are you in a community of/with similar thinkers?

 

[Cornish Steve]

I played a bit of a joke in that thread, but it is relevant here.

In a similar way as the magician with subtle sleight of hand can fool you into believing that he magically knows which card you have in your hand, I showed how one equals zero. That's right, how...

1 = 0

Surely this is a miracle. How can an orange become nothing before you eat it? Get down on your knees and worship me! The vast majority of people here will confirm that I did nothing algebraically illegal. My working was totally honest, and was completely open to enquiry. In fact, I would estimate that more 99% of people in the world would be quite prepared to throw out algebra and have some new-age mathematicians build a brand new scheme because of this alleged proof!

It really is quite amazing how many people will believe tricks like this.

Dave

Division by zero on two sides of an equation is legal algebraically?

A friend of mine is a professor of mathematics at Cambridge, and he knows a bunch of really neat puzzles. They are a lot of fun.

 

[cjd]

I've tried my best to show that you can test the credibility of prophecies. I've quoted many examples, but you choose to dismiss them all. I challenge you to revisit them, test them, and explain why they are not credible? If you think about it, consistently predicting the future is an awesome feat. We're talking about 100 percent accuracy, not lucky guesses and shoe-horning.

So far you have presented the Daniel prophecy as your evidence and it took me less than 10 minutes to show that it is unreliable; even the experts can't agree what it means and go so far as to say that:

Few hold that the weeks in question are sets of 7 days. Some Christians have proposed such theories, but no such theory has gained any degree of acceptance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

You of course know better.

To say this prophecy is 100% accurate is , well, to be friendly, an error.

 

[Cornish Steve]

So far you have presented the Daniel prophecy as your evidence and it took me less than 10 minutes to show that it is unreliable.

I could search for a few minutes on Google, look at a Wikipedia entry, and proclaim all kinds of things to be unreliable. Let's get serious here! If you take that one example at face value, it is clear, credible, and 100 percent accurate.

But then again, as we've both said before, it's easier just to look for answers that match our preconceived ideas and purposes; there's enough data out there to keep us all happy for centuries. If we do that, though, the whole discussion will just deteriorate into a pointless slanging match - and, really, I don't want to do that.

Few hold that the weeks in question are sets of 7 days. Some Christians have proposed such theories, but no such theory has gained any degree of acceptance.

You of course know better.

I don't follow. I agree that they are not sets of seven days. As the majority holds, and consistent with the context, they are sets of seven years.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Division by zero on two sides of an equation is legal algebraically?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I have just as much right, if not more right, if not a perfect right, to argue that the algebra is correct, just as you have seen it right to assert that SHB means a set of seven years. Even if you were to prove that, there are plenty of other things that you need to prove. We could start another thread about it; bring your professor of mathematics friend along for support if you like!

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

it's easier just to look for answers that match our preconceived ideas and purposes

Sorry to quote my own response. It's not an ego trip, really.

Let's say that someone came out with a prophecy in 1900: "In three and fifty decades from the next general election, the final great leader of Western society will walk into the British parliament building." Do you agree that the scenario is similar to Daniel's?

Now, citizens in 420 years' time speak only Esperanto (a wild prediction, admittedly) and don't know English. They look at the available manuscript and are puzzled by the word decade - whether it means 10 years, 10 months, or 10 days. This means there are three different interpretations. Others don't understand English from the period and are confused by 'three and fifty' and take it to mean 35. Now there are six interpretations. All six are posted on Wikipedia (it's survives five centuries!) and there are arguments about which of the six interpretations is right. There are majority and minority opinions.

Now, what are the odds of the prophecy being accurate? Will the British parliament building still exist after 530 years? Will the British parliament itself still exist? Will Britain as a country still exist? Will Western society still exist? The odds of these things alone might be very small. There are six potential dates, but four can be ruled out because Western society continued beyond the first four dates. Still, let's assume 6 days out of 53 decades. This is still less than 1 in 32,000. Combine these two odds together and you get either an accurate prophecy or a remarkable coincidence.

I could point out other factors that might reduce the odds even more: Instead of Britain, let's say that it was Yugoslavia, which no longer exists today (because Jerusalem didn't exist when the prophecy was given). Hopefully, though, the point is clear. Even if I accept your premise that there are three or four different interpretations, the chance of even one of them coming true is still very remote. If it does come true on one of those dates, wouldn't you still be impressed?

 

[Cornish Steve]

I have just as much right, if not more right, if not a perfect right, to argue that the algebra is correct, just as you have seen it right to assert that SHB means a set of seven years. Even if you were to prove that, there are plenty of other things that you need to prove. We could start another thread about it; bring your professor of mathematics friend along for support if you like!

Now you know that's not true. You are promoting a cheap trick, whereas I'm taking something at face value and searching for the honest intent of an author. You can't make a genuine masterpiece a fake just by displaying it on the same wall as a fraudulent rip-off. You'd be attempting guilt by artificial association!

 

[Mortime Business Software]

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm taking something at face value and searching for the honest intent of an author.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you. That's really what it's all about in the end isn't it? Searching. Why do you have to search? Why do you have solve riddles for something which you assert is meant to be so precise? Surely in those days they knew what "days" were. Even if they didn't have a word for it, they could have specified the time in sunsets or sunrises or something.

So when are you going to get back to me about the possible words which can be constructed around SHB then?

Dave

 

[Cornish Steve]

Thank you. That's really what it's all about in the end isn't it? Searching. Why do you have to search? Why do you have solve riddles for something which you assert is meant to be so precise? Surely in those days they knew what "days" were. Even if they didn't have a word for it, they could have specified the time in sunsets or sunrises or something.

I must be really bad at explaining this - sorry! Ancient Hebrew is different from modern English. What may appear ambiguous to us was not so ambiguous to them. So, we have to understand what the author really meant. Common usage for the word in question was either days or years.

Let's assume an element of doubt in this and other prophecies:

A) Choosing the right place of birth. The prophecy was Bethlehem Ephrathah (because there were two Bethlehems). This was a small, insignificant town, so let's say the odds of someone being born there were 1 in 1,000. Little doubt about interpretation there.

B) He would be descended from the line of Judah. There were 12 tribes, so this one's easy: 1 in 12.

C) The slaughter of infants. How many children are born at a time when the local ruler orders all infants to be killed? Shall we say 1 in 1,000? Is that fair?

D) Let's take the prophecy about entering Jerusalem on a specific date. With two meanings of 'seven' and with four possible edicts and a prophecy 173,880 days in advance, let's say that's 1 in 20,000. That incorporates the level of doubt you imply - which is fair.

E) How about the amount for which he was betrayed? What's the chance of choosing 30 pieces of silver? Shall we be safe and say 1 in 30?

F) Now there's the form of death. What percentage of people were killed by crucifixion or other forms of hanging? Let's say 1 in 10,000.

G) Next there's casting lots for someone's clothes. How often does this happen to people killed in this way. 1 in 10, maybe (because it's conditional on the form of death, so I don't want to exaggerate).

H) What percentage of victims of crucifixion have their legs broken? In this case, it was 2 out of 3, but this was because of timing. Maybe the usual odds of not having legs broken were 90%.

I) What about being buried in a borrowed tomb? I don't know how often this occurred, but let's say 1 in 10.

Forget many of the other big prophecies because you'd question them: from the kingly line of David, a virgin birth, born in humble surroundings, a bright star (probably a comet), restoring sight to the blind, entering Jerusalem on a donkey, resurrection, specific numbers of days and nights he was dead, and so on. Just to be safe, we can leave them out of the equation. What are the combined odds of just these nine predictions all being right?

1/1000 x 1/12 x 1/1000 x 1/20000 x 1/30 x 1/1000 x 1/10 x 9/10 x 1/10 = 1.25E-18.

In other words, 1 in 800,000,000,000,000,000 (one in eight hundred thousand trillion). This is millions of times more than the number of people who have ever walked this planet, so it minimises the chance of identifying the wrong person quite nicely.

Given the enormity of the claims of Jesus (he claimed to be God himself in human form), wouldn't you raise an eyebrow if the odds were just one in a million? What about one in a billion? Or one in a trillion? What's even more staggering is that he didn't contradict a single one of them. Even if you know about all of them in advance and arrange with Roman soldiers to kill you by crucifixion and so on, chances are you'd never get them all right. You can't choose your parents or where you're born, for example. (I can just see a Monty Python movie on this: "No, Judas, you fool. I told you THIRTY pieces of silver, not FORTY!")

On top of all this, you have comments from people at the time: a prophetess when he was born, a centurion guard when he died, etc. Then there's the detail that the heavy curtain shielding the so-called Holy of Holies from humankind in the temple was torn in two, which had enormous implications. Plus there's purpose behind the earthquake and the darkness. I'm leaving out all these implications from the equation because they're difficult to quantify.

To me, with my logical mind, I'm confident that, from the combined prophecies contained in ancient Jewish scriptures, I can identify the messiah predicted in them - even with the level of doubt cast by some scholars on their exact meaning and the additional level of doubt you'd like to add for good measure. There are no riddles and no fantasies here; I'm just looking at available data and assigning reasonable probabilities.

 

[SillyJokes]

Hmmm, the odds of me sitting here reading this are probably about the same given all the people in my ancestry who had to survive to adulthood in order to reproduce me let alone the chances of ending up in this village when I born hundreds of miles away etc etc. The odds on anything happening must be astronomical.

I'm feel sure that Jesus did exist. He did influence people enough to get his religion going. How he did this is what I would question but I dont' actually want to talk about it. I don't think he was the son of god, I don't think there is a god so he can't be, by my interpretation.

I see religion as a behavioural meme which is successful.

I just wondered what is it about Christianity that has given it so much success? Obviously Jesus did have a profound effect, but if the Romans didn't take it up, would it have just fizzled out? There have been many many major belief systems which have since gone under. - or gone extinct like Thor, Ra and Zeus. But at one time people really believed in them, lived by them and died by them.

Could Christianity disappear too?

Incidentally any prophesy made in recent years would not have the same problems of interpretation as the ancient's ones. We are unlikely to think the 'decade' means anything other than 10 years because of the supporting documentation available. The prophesy is more likely to be lost than the millions of dictionaries pinted so far.

 

[creospace]

I'm feel sure that Jesus did exist. He did influence people enough to get his religion going.

He didn't start a religion, he offered a new way of life, a better way of life. We sadly have turned it into a religion.

I see religion as a behavioural meme which is successful.

I think I see it the same in light of my first comment.

Could Christianity disappear too?

At the current rate in the UK then probably yes. The church need to wake up and smell the coffee. There is a great number of people who are calling for change or in fact are offering a change. I'm part of that group and it's only really at discussion level at the moment but it acknowledges change has to come. Church has to start listening instead of telling etc etc - far too long to explain here.

The uk site is www.emergent-uk.org (when it works) or us site http://www.emergentvillage.org/

The worldwide discussion is here http://www.amahoro.info/

 

[cjd]

I could search for a few minutes on Google, look at a Wikipedia entry, and proclaim all kinds of things to be unreliable. Let's get serious here! If you take that one example at face value, it is clear, credible, and 100 percent accurate.

But then again, as we've both said before, it's easier just to look for answers that match our preconceived ideas and purposes; there's enough data out there to keep us all happy for centuries. If we do that, though, the whole discussion will just deteriorate into a pointless slanging match - and, really, I don't want to do that.

I agree that it's inconvenient that I can summon up evidence to contradict your argument at the click of a button without understanding a word of it. That's just tough but it works both ways - everybody is an expert on the construction of bacterial flagella it seems ;-)

The evidence from the wiki of the Daniel prophecy is not just from a wild card - I deliberately haven't posted individual views - that wiki summarises the views of all the biblical scholars that have studied them. It's clear from that, that your particular interpretation is just one of many and none of them can be proven one way or the other.

Prophesies and miracles are NEVER non-controversial but it would be easy to make them so (Make an amputee's leg grow back, predict an earthquake in 8 days time etc). My skeptical mind says that there is a reason why they are always fuzzy - and that's because they're bunkum.

 

[Birmingham]

Could Christianity disappear too?

humans will continue the ancestral rituals. the names may change though

 

[Top Hat]

A friend of mine is a professor of mathematics at Cambridge, and he knows a bunch of really neat puzzles. They are a lot of fun.

Steve, I love math puzzels can you start some threads

I think there's a lot more lurkers on this thread than we realise

 

[cjd]

Steve,
I think there's a lot more lurkers on this thread than we realise

Luckily that's an assertion that has evidence

Posts = 189 (plus this one)
Views = 1693

Case proven M'lud.

 

[SillyJokes]

Ah, but that's only 9 views per post, so not that many.

 

[dagr]

Can we please stop debating about higher powers, God, etc., for a few hours - there's currently a storm warning here in the Paris area and all sorts of weird stuff is flying past my window. We're having trouble keeping our eyes off the tree next to the office building as it looks as if it might go.

Thank you for your cooperation. ;-)

 

[cjd]

^^^ Is that a prophecy?

 

[creospace]

I think there's a lot more lurkers on this thread than we realise

Because so many of us are interested in the meaning of life, what's it all about, spirituality etc

 

[dagr]

Because so many of us are interested in the meaning of life, what's it all about, spirituality etc

Well, if that's what it's all about you should have said so. I had the answer written down on the back of an envelope somewhere. I'll see if I can find it. (It wasn't "42").

 

[Cornish Steve]

Steve, I love math puzzels can you start some threads

I worked with this guy over 20 years ago when he was a temporary grad student. I thought I knew some clever puzzles, but they were really amateurish compared to his. I remember one based on geometry that was very clever. It revolved around a picture in which an angle appeared to be acute but, if you thought about it carefully, it had to be obtuse.

I'll send him an email and see if he'll quote one or two for us to chew over.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Hmmm, the odds of me sitting here reading this are probably about the same given all the people in my ancestry who had to survive to adulthood in order to reproduce me let alone the chances of ending up in this village when I born hundreds of miles away etc etc. The odds on anything happening must be astronomical.

Very true. What we need to make that amazing, though, is for someone to have written the following on December 8, 1506:

"Five centuries from today, a court jester accompanied by a monocled aristocrat within earshot of horseless carriages travelling rapidly in circles will attend their one hundredth nativity." Now that's precision for you!

 

[cjd]

There were a couple of things on the news today that got me thinking. Stuff that I once just thought was remarkable and interesting now has another dimension as I have now been sensitised - 'how would a creationist deal with that?'

This afternoon there was some discussion about cjd, mad cow desease (sic) Scientists are trying to establish how many people are now at risk of dying from it from blood transfusions.

This desease managed to cross the species barrier from cows to man. To do it it had to modify itself (evolve). The same as AIDS and Bird Flu.

How does a creationist explain that? I thought all organisms where put on earth by god fully formed? I must be missing a big chunk of their argument somewhere.

 

[Mortime Business Software]

I've had to post this message in two parts because the forum software will not accept its character length.

PART 1:

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I must be really bad at explaining this - sorry! Ancient Hebrew is different from modern English. What may appear ambiguous to us was not so ambiguous to them. So, we have to understand what the author really meant. Common usage for the word in question was either days or years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You said in a previous post that words in the Hebrew language skip vowels. If this is so, then wouldn't the word SHABUA be written as SHB? You admit that you're not an expert in Hebrew, so how can you assert that SHB means either days or weeks without knowing for sure if there are any other words that can be constructed around SHB? For all we know at the moment, there could be many more entities, abstract or real, which could used.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A) Choosing the right place of birth. The prophecy was Bethlehem Ephrathah (because there were two Bethlehems). This was a small, insignificant town, so let's say the odds of someone being born there were 1 in 1,000.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Didn't Joseph and Mary travel to Bethlehem from Nazareth for a census or something? How do you know that they didn't know about the prophecy, and that they intentionally set out to fullfil it? Surely there must have been a buzz amongst all the believers at the time. I could argue that the probability was exactly 1 if Joseph and Mary deliberately set out to have their baby in Bethlehem. How many other elligible couples travelled to Bethlehem around that time in the hope of having their newborn obtain the title of Messiah?

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
B) He would be descended from the line of Judah. There were 12 tribes, so this one's easy: 1 in 12.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How many expectant couples were in the Judah tribe at the time? How many couples in that tribe might have actually planned their entry into the lottery nine months before the event? Again, I could argue that the probability of a child being born in the Judah tribe is very close to 1. Of course this depends on the population of the tribe, but news of the upcoming event would surely have been well known and could therefore have caused a mating frenzy within the tribe.

Steve wrote:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
C) The slaughter of infants. How many children are born at a time when the local ruler orders all infants to be killed? Shall we say 1 in 1,000? Is that fair?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I googled on this one. I found this...

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/matthew.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Faking a prophecy of Herod's (fictional) 'Massacre of the Innocents':

Here Matthew switches his source to 'Jeremiah', whose commentary is actually on the 6th century BC Babylonian captivity. At verse 31.15 the oracle says:

"This is what Jehovah has said, 'In Ramah a voice is being heard, lamentation and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping over her sons. She has refused to be comforted over her sons, because they are no more.' "

Are Rachel's sons 'no more'? No, they are in Babylon and what's more God himself assures Rachel that they will be back in the very next verses:

"Hold back your voice from weeping, and your eyes from tears ... they will certainly return from the land of the enemy. And there exists a hope for your future ... and the sons will certainly return to their own territory." (31.15,17)

Lifting the sage's words for his own story, Matthew juxtapositions Herod's 'crime' with the convenient 'Babylonian' wailing:

"Herod ... sent out and had all the boys in Bethlehem and in all its districts done away with, from two years of age and under ... Then that was fulfilled which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying: 'A voice was being heard in Ramah, weeping and much wailing; it was Rachel weeping for her children and she was unwilling to take comfort, because they are no more.' " (2.16-18)

Predictably, neither Josephus nor any other source mentions the mass killing – and yet they detailed Herod's real crimes are at great length.

So cavalier is Matthew with his 'quotations' from the prophets that he even wrongly attributes one quote: in referring to Judas's "thirty pieces of silver" (27.3,10) he maintains that the prophecy of 'Jeremiah' had been fulfilled – and yet it is 'Zechariah' (11.12-13) who used the phrase!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Is this why you don't cite the actual prophecies in your messages? This is the first time I've bothered to search for an answer. Everything else has been from my own thoughts. Now I cannot help thinking that you are deliberately avoiding citing original writings because you need to give us your own interpretations in order to try and con us. I can only conclude that to try and put a probability on this is nonsensical, and therefore it is not applicable.

Dave