Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2013, 09:28 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
(10-08-2013 09:07 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  Mathematics aside, the argument is essentially:
1. If prophecy is invalid, no statement about the future will hold true
2. The book of Daniel includes six statements that the author of the argument considers to hold true
3. Therefore god (or more precisely, therefore any explanation other than the statements being true prophesy is reasonably excluded)

Now we know that (1) is false. We can make statements about the future that are reasonably likely to hold true without the aid of prophesy. We can make very general statements that can be interpreted as true no matter the actual outcome. We can make statements that utilise real world knowledge in order to ensure their chance of being true is maximised.

(2) also has deep problems. Which statements does the author hold true? Why should we consider them unlikely in the absence of actual prophesy? Moreover, this is an old book we are reading and we don't know exactly who wrote it and when. Is it possible that the author placed words in the mouth of one of the characters in their book that seemed prophetic but actually only described events that had happened prior to the authorship of the book. It's hard to be specific without seeing what these supposed 6 "certainly true, certainly unpredictable without prophesy statements" actually are.

(3) The propositions intended to support this conclusion are highly questionable, but so is the leap of logic even if we were to assume those propositions as true. Therefore God? Therefore prophesy? What do we mean by God? What do we mean by prophesy? It is reasonable to expect further evidence that either God or prophesy exist, and the mechanisms by which they operate.


This method reminds me of something...

step 1: collect underpants
step 2: ???
step 3: Profit (prophet Smile)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 09:54 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
See the "dating" section in the link below.
There is a good list of all the errors, somewhere on TTA with respect to this text.
Not sure where it is. (It's in one of the Pleasy threads). Please link if you know where it is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Dan...and_dating

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 10:16 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
Quote:Bearing false witness is to accuse someone falsely of breaching commandments. To equate it with lying and then equate lying to storytelling to claim the authors certainly wouldn't have said anything we might consider untrue is tenuous at best.

If you're going to take a "scientific truths" approach to apologetics then you should review the truths found in the Koran and in other documents. The truths found in the Bible are no more convincing or less convincing than comparable alternatives.

I've read Exodus, the whole thing. Is that enough "context"? There is nothing in the Torah to substantiate what you wrote. Is this something you've picked up from Talmud or a tradition somewhere? Please cite your reference.

Further, there are hundreds of verses in the scriptures saying things like, "Hear now the word of the Lord" or "These are the commandments of God." It would be bearing false witness based on your definition to lie about a commandment of God, right? You can parse the HB and leave only those passages where the writers say "These are the commandments/words/statutes of the Lord" and we'd still have a good third of the HB to read as witnessed to be true.

Thanks for telling me I should review the scientific accuracies of other holy books. I have. I can point out inaccuracies in them if that assists you in your wisdom search. The Bible still has amazing items inside, but that's a tangent that BB mentioned. I'm still pressing this issue of not bearing false witness. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 11:15 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
(20-08-2013 10:16 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Bearing false witness is to accuse someone falsely of breaching commandments. To equate it with lying and then equate lying to storytelling to claim the authors certainly wouldn't have said anything we might consider untrue is tenuous at best.

If you're going to take a "scientific truths" approach to apologetics then you should review the truths found in the Koran and in other documents. The truths found in the Bible are no more convincing or less convincing than comparable alternatives.

I've read Exodus, the whole thing. Is that enough "context"? There is nothing in the Torah to substantiate what you wrote. Is this something you've picked up from Talmud or a tradition somewhere? Please cite your reference.

Further, there are hundreds of verses in the scriptures saying things like, "Hear now the word of the Lord" or "These are the commandments of God." It would be bearing false witness based on your definition to lie about a commandment of God, right? You can parse the HB and leave only those passages where the writers say "These are the commandments/words/statutes of the Lord" and we'd still have a good third of the HB to read as witnessed to be true.

Thanks for telling me I should review the scientific accuracies of other holy books. I have. I can point out inaccuracies in them if that assists you in your wisdom search. The Bible still has amazing items inside, but that's a tangent that BB mentioned. I'm still pressing this issue of not bearing false witness. Thanks.

You need to cast the same critical eye on your book as you do on all others.
Anything else is intellectually dishonest.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2013, 12:08 PM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
Quote:You need to cast the same critical eye on your book as you do on all others.
Anything else is intellectually dishonest.

How many times do you think I've read the Bible? How many hundreds of times do you think I've researched a question about the Bible (or doubt or contradiction or etc.)? I've looked at the Bible more critically than any other text because it makes extraordinary claims that demand extraordinary proof.

Or are you saying that it's dishonest not to assume every other writer (I'm a published author) is dishonest? If you think it's honest for someone to assume other writers are dishonest, from where did you learn to place such a low trust value on others?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-08-2013, 08:01 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
So let's follow this argument you are making, PJ

1. A book says "don't use the law to kill your neighbours by falsely accusing them of offences to God".
2. The authors of the book seem to take it seriously
3. Therefore the book cannot contain any false statements. For example, the book cannot use storytelling techniques that put a description of current events into the mouths of one of their characters to imply that the character is a person of great wisdom and foresight, or knowledge of God's will.

I'm not following your reasoning. Would care to state it more clearly?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 09:31 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
Sure.

My syllogism was based on your prior post, which said "don't lie about the commandments of God". Now you're going further to say it says "don't use the law to kill your neighbours by falsely accusing them of offences to God". Do you have a verse or reference for this?

Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-08-2013, 05:52 PM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
(20-08-2013 10:16 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Bearing false witness is to accuse someone falsely of breaching commandments. To equate it with lying and then equate lying to storytelling to claim the authors certainly wouldn't have said anything we might consider untrue is tenuous at best..
Further, there are hundreds of verses in the scriptures saying things like, "Hear now the word of the Lord" or "These are the commandments of God." It would be bearing false witness based on your definition to lie about a commandment of God, right? You can parse the HB and leave only those passages where the writers say "These are the commandments/words/statutes of the Lord" and we'd still have a good third of the HB to read as witnessed to be true.
(21-08-2013 08:01 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  1. A book says "don't use the law to kill your neighbours by falsely accusing them of offences to God".
2. The authors of the book seem to take it seriously
3. Therefore the book cannot contain any false statements. For example, the book cannot use storytelling techniques that put a description of current events into the mouths of one of their characters to imply that the character is a person of great wisdom and foresight, or knowledge of God's will.
I'm not following your reasoning. Would care to state it more clearly?
(22-08-2013 09:31 AM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  My syllogism was based on your prior post, which said "don't lie about the commandments of God". Now you're going further to say it says "don't use the law to kill your neighbours by falsely accusing them of offences to God". Do you have a verse or reference for this?

You're quoting yourself. You are not quoting me. I've quoted my statements above for your reference.

Are you needing me to explain what bearing false witness means? I thought you said you had read Exodus. Here's an excerpt from chapter 23 which is the chapter where the "bearing false witness" language comes from:
1 “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness.
2 “Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, 3 and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.

For more information, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_..._neighbour

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-08-2013, 08:22 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
Quote:1 “Do not spread false reports. Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness.
2 “Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, 3 and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.

So, we have:

*Do not spread false tales (Don't write false things and say "this is the word of the Lord"--the scriptures must contain only truth)

*Do not perjure in court/honor justice (don't speak falsely in Christ's show trial before His execution)

*Do not follow the whims of a crowd (just because you are incited by the Pharisees, agree with Pilate that He's innocent and don't ask for His crucifixion)

*Do not help a guilty person by being a malicious witness (when Christ is condemned for sin because He became sin for us, don't try to end the cross and end salvation)

*Do not show favoritism in justice to the poor (let the humble and poor Christ die)

That does really help me. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-08-2013, 05:58 AM
RE: Einstein Method, Book of Daniel
I don't understand where you're taking this, PJ. At the moment your argument is the same as a Muslim guy who call into The Atheist Experience a few weeks ago, which was that we know the Koran is correct because Mohammed never lied. I feel crazy even asking this, but is that really your argument here that authors who care about not committing perjury would never use any artistic technique in their writing that might obscure the literal truth of a matter or might be based on incorrect or biased information?

Ok, when the only response I can formulate is "are you kidding me?" I think it's time for me take a step back away from this thread Wink

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: