Personal experience argument
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-07-2015, 05:42 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
[I'd still like you to answer my other question though: was god unable to create a world in which evil could not arise while also maintaining free will or did he simply choose not to? Is he incompetent as a designer or is he simply a malicious one?
[/quote]

[waves hand frantically] Pick me, pick me, I know the answer! It's a trick question: god is incompetent and malicious. Smile (and He's picked quite the spokespeople to represent his POV in this thread…)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes julep's post
21-07-2015, 07:21 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
(20-07-2015 10:06 AM)jennybee Wrote:  
(20-07-2015 09:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I can accept your logic here and I'm familiar with both false prophets and proper exegesis of prophetic scripture. Except that it's reasonable to say "Whoa! A simple, direct calculation--including specifically-worded prophecies--provides the Spring 1948 date, which date represents an extraordinary, unique event in human history, a displaced people group returning to their homeland after two millennia."

What prophecies/passages are you referring to?


The Prophecy ... Ezekiel 4:4-6



"Then God said to Ezekiel,

'Now lie on your left side for 390 days

to show Israel will be punished for 390 years

by captivity and doom.

Each day you lie there represents

a year of punishment ahead for Israel.

Afterwards, turn over and lay on your right side

for 40 days, to signify the years of Judah's punishment.

Each day will represent one year . . .'"

(Ezekiel 4:4-6)





This Is A Mathematical Bible Prophecy . . .



Although a little obscure (and sophisticated) this is one of the most fascinating prophecies found in the Bible.



Here, we find God telling Ezekiel that each day he (Ezekiel) lies on his side will represent one year of punishment for the nation Israel (Israel + Judah) because of their iniquities (sins) against God . . .



So, we have:



390 days Judgment against the 10 northern tribes 'Israel'

+ 40 days Judgment against the 2 southern tribes 'Judah'

= 430 years Judgment against the nation of Israel





The Fulfillment of the Prophetic Judgment Begins . . .



In 606 B.C. Israel (Judah) was taken into captivity by Babylon for exactly 70 years ...



430 years of judgment determined against nation Israel

- 70 years fulfilled during the Babylonian captivity

= 360 years remaining in judgment against the nation of Israel







The Mystery of 360 Years . . .



There should have been a total of 360 years left in judgment against Israel after their release from Babylonian captivity by the Persian general Cyrus, exactly 70 years after the Babylonian captivity began (just as the prophet Jeremiah had prophesied before the captivity) ... but where was the remaining 360 year judgment in Israel's history??!!





The 7X Factor of God's Judgment . . .



Bible scholars could not find any specific captivity or dispersion that fulfilled these 360 years left in the judgment until a close look in the book of Leviticus revealed a startling prophetic warning ...



"And after all this, if you do not obey Me,

then I (God) will punish you seven times more for your sins."

(Leviticus 26:18)



"Then, if you walk contrary to Me,

and are not willing to obey Me,

I (God) will bring on you seven times more plagues,

according to your sins."

(Leviticus 26:21)



"And after all this,

if you do not obey Me,

but walk contrary to Me,

then I (God) also will walk contrary to you in fury;

and I, even I will chastise you seven times for your sins.:

(Leviticus 26:27-28)



"I (God) will scatter you among the nations

and draw a sword after you;

your Land shall be desolate

and your cities waste."

(Leviticus 26:33)





The 7X factor of God's judgment against nation Israel. God warned Israel if they continued in their disobedience He would multiply their judgment by seven times! Remember, as noted throughout these prophetic studies, God says what He means and He means what He says!





Prophecy Fulfilled . . .



Now, let's apply the 7X factor to the remaining 360 years of judgment against nation Israel in this remarkable mathematical prophecy . . .



360 Remaining years of judgment

x 7 The prophetic '7X' factor

= 2,520 Years of judgment remained against nation Israel





God gave the Jews the most sophisticated calendar on Earth. It is both a Lunar and a Solar calendar. The Jewish calendar uses a 360 day lunar (and prophetic) year and then adds a 'Leap Month' on specific years to accurately coincide with the Solar cycle we use on our 'Julian' calendar ...



The Bible uses 360 day years for prophecies and expects us to add the appropriate 'leap months' on schedule. So, the easiest way to unravel this prophecy is to first convert this prophecy into days ...



2,520 years

x 360 days

= 907,200 days of judgment remained against nation Israel after the Babylonian captivity





Now, to convert the 907,200 days found in this prophecy into our 365.25 day solar (Julian) years (the .25 adjusts for leap years) . . .



907,200 days ÷ 365.25 days = 2,483.78 years of God's judgment remained





With this information, let's look at this remarkable prophecy again . . .



606 B.C Israel taken into Babylonian captivity

- 70 Years for 70 years

= 536 B.C. End of first 70 years of judgment

+ 2483 Years Now add the 2,483 years remaining in this judgment

+ 1 Year Add 1 year because there is no "0" B.C. or A.D.

= 1948 AD! End of judgment against nation Israel





Israel Back in Her Land as a Nation . . . in 1948!



Judah (Israel) was taken into captivity by the Babylonians in 606 B.C. They were released from captivity 70 years later by the Persians in 536 A.D., exactly as the prophet Jeremiah had prophesied, but their land was still under the control of the Persians. The Persians were later conquered by the Greeks, and the land of Israel remained under Greek control. The Greeks were then conquered by Rome and the land of Israel remained under Roman control. After failed rebellions against Rome around 70 A.D. and another around 100 years later, the Romans removed the Jews from the land of Israel, dispersed them around the world and then renamed the land 'Palestine' after the enemies of Israel. Then, after 2,500 years, and for the first time since the Babylonian captivity in 606 B.C., the world watched as Israel once again appeared on the world map as a sovereign nation, on May 14, 1948 ... exactly when the Bible said it would!





"Thus says the Lord God:

'Surely I will take the children of Israel

from among the nations,

wherever they have gone,

and will gather them from every side

and bring them into their own land."

(Ezekiel 37:21) ['Nations' (plural)...this is not their return from Babylon]





JERUSALEM ...



JERUSALEM ... What makes this mathematical Bible prophecy even MORE remarkable is if you take this same prophetic timeline which starts on the year of Babylon's conquest of the nation Israel and ends with Israel once again raised as a nation in 1948 ... now ... shift the exact same prophetic timeline to start on the year when Babylon returned and destroyed Jerusalem (19 years later) ... and (remarkably) this prophetic timeline's "end-point" now falls on the exact year Israel once again took sovereign control over Jerusalem in 1967 (after the "Six Day War.)

For a more precise study of this remarkable prophetic fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy in 1948 and 1967 read here ... Ezekiel's 430 day prophecy - Detailing the length of the "Desolations of Jerusalem" and the "Servitude of the Nation"- (Chuck Missler K-House Bible study)

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 07:23 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
(21-07-2015 05:42 AM)julep Wrote:  [I'd still like you to answer my other question though: was god unable to create a world in which evil could not arise while also maintaining free will or did he simply choose not to? Is he incompetent as a designer or is he simply a malicious one?

[waves hand frantically] Pick me, pick me, I know the answer! It's a trick question: god is incompetent and malicious. Smile (and He's picked quite the spokespeople to represent his POV in this thread…)
[/quote]

We should start with the creation itself, is man fallible or infallible? How do you create someone with the ability to do good AND the ability to do evil and have them not do evil while maintaining their free will?

Because if I only choose good or good, I'm perfect. I'm a god.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
(21-07-2015 07:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  We should start with the creation itself, is man fallible or infallible? How do you create someone with the ability to do good AND the ability to do evil and have them not do evil while maintaining their free will?

Because if I only choose good or good, I'm perfect. I'm a god.

So God's not omnipotent?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 08:35 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
And on the eighth day God created the little blue pill to cure his omnipotence????


Did I hear that right????

...

heh

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 08:35 AM (This post was last modified: 21-07-2015 08:48 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Personal experience argument
(21-07-2015 07:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  We should start with the creation itself, is man fallible or infallible? How do you create someone with the ability to do good AND the ability to do evil and have them not do evil while maintaining their free will?

Because if I only choose good or good, I'm perfect. I'm a god.

So Adam was a God until Eve was created?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
(21-07-2015 07:23 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 05:42 AM)julep Wrote:  [I'd still like you to answer my other question though: was god unable to create a world in which evil could not arise while also maintaining free will or did he simply choose not to? Is he incompetent as a designer or is he simply a malicious one?

[waves hand frantically] Pick me, pick me, I know the answer! It's a trick question: god is incompetent and malicious. Smile (and He's picked quite the spokespeople to represent his POV in this thread…)

We should start with the creation itself, is man fallible or infallible? How do you create someone with the ability to do good AND the ability to do evil and have them not do evil while maintaining their free will?

Because if I only choose good or good, I'm perfect. I'm a god.
[/quote]

Why does a creator define "good" for his creations as obedience to and worship of him? In a human, being that needy is considered a character flaw.
Why would an omniscient and benevolent creator construct humans at all, if the creator knows that not some, but every single one, of those humans will choose evil, and that large numbers of them will never jump through the hoops the creator sets up to be "saved" for eternity?
What need is there for creatures in the universe to have free will, except to bolster the ego of god?
The god of your imagination cannot be simultaneously omniscient and benevolent, nor can he be simultaneously omnipotent and benevolent. He could be omniscient and/or omnipotent, but in that case, he is not benevolent. At least not towards any of his creations with free will. I therefore reject that your god is good or worthy of worship.

But: there's no god, so the above is only of academic interest.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 08:59 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
(21-07-2015 04:54 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(21-07-2015 12:29 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Oh yeah, I forgot. Free will was introduced right before the "evolutionary gap" which was actually an evolutionary jump.

What "evolutionary gap" is that? And please support whatever you claim it is with some evidence. Drinking Beverage
Human Origins

Human Evolution - Genus Homo - Lost in a Million-Year Gap, Solid Clues to Human Origins

By JOHN NOBLE WILFORD

SEPTEMBER 18, 2007

Sometimes the maturity of a field of science can be measured by the heft of its ambition in the face of the next daunting unknown, the mystery yet to be cracked.

Neurobiology probes the circuitry of the brain for the secrets of behaviors and thoughts that make humans human. High-energy physics seeks and may be on the verge of finding the so-called God particle, the Higgs boson thought to endow elementary particles with their mass. Cosmology is confounded by dark matter and dark energy, the pervasive but unidentified stuff that shapes the universe and accelerates its expansion.

In the study of human origins, paleoanthropology stares in frustration back to a dark age from three million to less than two million years ago. The missing mass in this case is the unfound fossils to document just when and under what circumstances our own genus Homo emerged.

The origin of Homo is one of the most intriguing and intractable mysteries in human evolution. New findings only remind scientists that answers to so many of their questions about early Homo probably lie buried in the million-year dark age.



A Homo habilis, the species thought to be first in direct human lineage.

HUMAN ORIGINS PROGRAM / SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

It is known that primitive hominids — human ancestors and their close kin — walked upright across the plains of Africa at this time. They were presumably larger members of the genus Australopithecus, the best known of which was the Lucy species, Australopithecus afarensis, that had thrived up to three million years ago.

At about 2.6 million years ago, some clever hominids were knapping stone tools. Then, or some time later, scientists suspect, the first Homo appeared, but there is no confirmed evidence of this step.

Subsequent finds, from a time beginning after 1.9 million years ago, revealed an early Homo identified as Homo habilis, the “handy man,” a species with a somewhat larger brain and a more humanlike face, teeth and stature than the apelike australopithecines.

Habilis was generally accorded an important place as the first of the species, preceding the more advanced Homo erectus and, ultimately, modern humans — Homo sapiens. But certainty has been elusive. A report last month in the journal Nature renewed debate over the habilis’s place in human evolution.



A 2.3-million-year-old jaw, right, from Ethiopia is the likeliest candidate for a Homo from that period.

W. KIMBEL / INSTITUTE OF HUMAN ORIGINS

William H. Kimbel, a paleoanthropologist at the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University, said that the million-year period “has long been the source of frustrating gaps” in the hominid fossil record. “It’s not that sites containing rocks this age are particularly rare, or that the time period in eastern Africa has not been searched by several groups,” Dr. Kimbel said. “The problem is that the fossil yield has thus far been low or poorly preserved, compared to the time periods on either side of this interval.”

A succession of recent discoveries has extended evidence of hominids reaching back from three million to beyond six million years ago, close to the estimated time of the divergence of the human and chimpanzee lineages. The hominid trail from two million years forward has been fairly well worked, by fossil hunters as well as geneticists and archaeologists tracking migrations out of Africa and across Eurasia. Researchers have determined that anatomically modern Homo sapiens emerged in Africa less than 200,000 years ago.

G. Philip Rightmire, a specialist in habilis and erectus research at Harvard, said searches into the mystery period had yielded mostly the remains of various species of Australopithecus, the genus that came to a dead end around one million years ago.

Bones were found in 2.5-million-year-old sediments associated with some of the earliest known stone tools, used to butcher animals. A coincidence, or evidence of the first toolmaking species? Hard to tell.



A model with a jaw of A. afarensis, the Lucy species.

MICHAEL STRAVATO / ASSOCIATED PRESS

A skull and other fossils, uncovered by a team led by the Ethiopian anthropologist Berhane Asfaw, were named the new species Australopithecus garhi. The researchers said the specimen had the projecting apelike face, small braincase and limb bones suggesting descent from the much earlier Lucy species. But if this was a candidate ancestor of early Homo, “a lot of evolution had to take place rather quickly” to complete the transition, a scientist said at the time.

With one possible exception, no fossils that are conclusively Homo have appeared in that period, Dr. Rightmire said. “That suggests there was not much Homo around then,” he said.

Nevertheless, Tim D. White of the University of California, Berkeley, one of the most experienced hunters of hominid fossils, said that his teams and several others were “pushing hard” to explore sites in Ethiopia and Kenya that may produce evidence of earlier Homo origins. Prospects are uncertain. Some prominent sites of previous hominid discoveries are underlain with lava flows and other geological barriers to digging into the deeper past.

At present, most paleoanthropologists think a solitary upper jaw represents the likeliest candidate for a Homo from that period. The find, reported in 1996 by a team led by Dr. Kimbel, was made in the Hadar badlands of Ethiopia, near the site of the much earlier Lucy skeleton and on a surface with a scattering of stone tools. The 2.3-million-year-old jaw was tentatively assigned to the genus Homo.



An H. erectus skull

RADU SIGHETI / REUTERS

Dr. Kimbel remains cautious. “The Hadar jaw could represent a population of early Homo that was specifically in the ancestry of habilis,” he said. “Or it could represent a stem population from which ultimately descended all of the Homo species currently known from after two million years ago.”

Alan Walker, a professor of biological anthropology at Pennsylvania State University who studies hominid anatomy, agreed that the jaw was apparently “the earliest direct evidence” of Homo. It shows that the individual had the short face and squared-off palate of Homo, but with teeth that were larger and more primitive. The only other traces of possible Homo presence before two million years ago are some loose teeth from the Omo basin in Ethiopia and some fossil fragments from Kenya and Malawi. The recent Nature report on two new fossils, a 1.44-million-year-old habilis and a 1.55-million-year-old erectus, underscored the uncertainties about early Homo, even after the dark age.

The lead authors, Fred Spoor of University College London and Meave G. Leakey of the National Museums of Kenya, emphasized in the article and in a news release that their findings challenged the view that habilis and erectus evolved one after the other in a linear succession. Their research showed that the two overlapped for almost half a million years and, as they speculated to the media, both species could have had their origins well before two million years ago, possibly from a common ancestor.

Eric Delson, a paleoanthropologist at the American Museum of Natural History and the City University of New York, said that was possible. “It’s always difficult to know what is the earliest specimen of any lineage,” Dr. Delson added. “One always finds something older and older.”

A significant insight from the report, he said, may be the recognition that “there’s more diversity of species in this time period than we expected.”

Several scientists, notably Dr. White of Berkeley, took issue with the interpretation seeming to imply that evidence for the two species overlapping in time and exhibiting variable sizes was new. That, he said, had been recognized for a couple of decades.

Dr. Kimbel, who was not involved in the new research, defended the authors, saying that they had not “meant to imply that habilis could not have been ancestral to erectus, presumably on the basis of their being contemporaneous at Turkana,” the site in Kenya where the fossils were found.

Susan C. Anton, an anthropologist at New York University who was a member of the Spoor-Leakey team, said, “My money is still on habilis as the potential ancestor, but there is a lot of room for additional knowledge, given the dearth of fossils.”

Other scientists tended to agree but noted that habilis had been clouded with doubt. The first habilis fossils were collected in the early 1960s in the Olduvai Gorge of Tanzania by Louis Leakey, patriarch of the fossil-hunting family and Meave Leakey’s father-in-law.

Is habilis really one, two, possibly three species? Some scientists are not sure. Did erectus descend from habilis in a single, unbroken lineage, a process called anagenesis? “This is the only option that is no longer on the table,” Dr. Anton said.

Other experts agree that anagenesis has been refuted by recent evidence that erectus and habilis co-existed for a long time in East Africa, although perhaps in separate ecological niches. So could erectus and habilis have sprung from a much earlier common ancestor? No one can say there were no intermediate Homo species before habilis, back in the dark age. Or perhaps some habilis members left Africa earlier and, after an isolation that favors rapid evolutionary change, returned to Africa as erectus, living side by side with the habilis population that had remained behind.

A hominid site far from Africa has thus taken on new significance. In the 1990s, scientists turned up Homo fossils at the village of Dmanisi, in the republic of Georgia. The craniums, resembling fossils from Kenya, confirmed the presence of erectus on the fringes of Europe at least 1.7 million years ago.

The puzzle is, the Dmanisi fossils look like erectus, but are very small, like habilis. A few researchers raise the possibility that a population of habilis evolved into erectus outside Africa, perhaps in or near Georgia.

“There’s nothing to rule out the idea that habilis-like creatures moved into Eurasia prior to 1.8 million years,” said Dr. Rightmire of Harvard. “They may have given rise to erectus, as we see at Dmanisi, and then erectus moved back, joining the surviving habilis there.”

A new report, to be published Thursday in Nature, will review more skeletal evidence of the transitional aspects of the Dmanisi specimens.

But Dr. Anton said the Dmanisi remains were important as examples of size variability within the erectus species and its adaptations to local environments, not for “any special tie to earliest Homo, such as habilis.”

Writing in the Annual Review of Anthropology in 2004, Dr. Anton and Carl C. Swisher III, a geologist at Rutgers University, concluded that the relationships among erectus and various possible nonerectus Homo groups in Africa “currently are quite muddled and require substantial revisitations.”

Even if the mystery of the origins of the genus Homo is a sign of paleoanthropology’s maturing reach into the deep past, it still leaves the redrawing of the human family tree very much a work in progress. Daniel E. Lieberman, a paleoanthropologist at Harvard, said that filling in the tree matters to scientists, and not only out of innate curiosity about human ancestry.

“At a basic level, one wants to know when and where transformations occurred so one can put them into their appropriate evolutionary context,” Dr. Lieberman said.

He said that that could reveal the dietary and environmental causes of species change, leading eventually to modern humans with the ambition to find their origins.

Dr. Lieberman said that he and colleagues “are relentlessly optimistic that we have all the information we need to answer our big questions, but just haven’t figured out the order in which to connect the dots.”

But the real problem, he added, with resignation tempering optimism, “is that the fossil record doesn’t have enough dots.”

Correction: September 21, 2007

A picture caption in Science Times on Tuesday with an article about the lack of a fossil record to document the emergence of the genus Homo described Homo habilis incorrectly. Habilis is the species — not the genus — thought to be first in human lineage.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-07-2015, 08:59 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
(21-07-2015 07:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  The Prophecy ... Ezekiel 4:4-6


"Then God said to Ezekiel,

'Now lie on your left side for 390 days

to show Israel will be punished for 390 years

by captivity and doom.

Each day you lie there represents

a year of punishment ahead for Israel.

Afterwards, turn over and lay on your right side

for 40 days, to signify the years of Judah's punishment.

Each day will represent one year . . .'"

(Ezekiel 4:4-6)





This Is A Mathematical Bible Prophecy . . .

No, it is an absurd forcing of arbitrarily chosen numbers to make a presupposed result.

It is utterly ridiculous, as are you.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
21-07-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Personal experience argument
(21-07-2015 05:42 AM)julep Wrote:  [I'd still like you to answer my other question though: was god unable to create a world in which evil could not arise while also maintaining free will or did he simply choose not to? Is he incompetent as a designer or is he simply a malicious one?

[waves hand frantically] Pick me, pick me, I know the answer! It's a trick question: god is incompetent and malicious. Smile (and He's picked quite the spokespeople to represent his POV in this thread…)
[/quote]
Already answered that. Thanks. And no we wouldn't have free will without chooses. Positive/ negative, good/ bad, yin/ yang, balance.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: