The 'best' arguments for atheism and Christianity

[Rational Gaze]

Well, I'm surprised, you will hear people say that they want something falsifiable, and the four kingdoms of Daniel are eminently falsifiable. The Ottomans, and more recently Hitler tried to be a fifth kingdom, and they failed.

Blessings,
Lee

The Four Kingdoms of Daniel are the Babylonians, the Medo-Persians, the Greeks, and the Romans.

[Rational Gaze]

there would be less diversity of religions within the world and it would be more obvious that a particular religion was right rather than them all having a roughly equal lack of evidence for them

Question begging.

there would be obvious miracles that occurred in the world, and the invention of everyone having cellphones and video cameras should mean that youtube should have a hundred thousand compelling videos of miracles happening, and the international media would be able to provide video footage of a person's leg growing back as the shaman prayed over the person.

Question begging.

Religious people who felt they had been 'given a message from God' would be right more often and agree with each other more.

Question begging.

there would be less naturally occurring suffering in the world (disease, earthquakes, etc).

Question begging.

a deity could create the world and the life on it instantly, but everything we know about astronomy and biology tells us that naturalistic processes over billions of years were what formed our galaxy, our solar system, our planet, and evolved life on it.

Question begging.

[Rational Gaze]

The historical-critical methodology of modern historians doesn't accept miracles (the core component of the Jesus story) on the basis that they can't be shown to be true, NOT because of their "own dogmatic commitments".

You've managed to contradict yourself within the same sentence. On the one hand you claim it is not due to dogmatic commitments, whilst simultaneously admitting that rejection of miracles is a dogmatic commitment at the heart of "historical-critical methodology" (whatever that is). But your contention that the assumption that miracles cannot be shown to be true is part of the methodological framework of history is false. You are almost certainly thinking of 'historical Biblical criticism', a term invented out of wholecloth by Ernest Troeltsch. Incidentally, it is widely recognised that Troeltsch claim is evidently unwarranted, given that he provides zero justification or argument for his bare assertions and that it is nothing more than question begging. Moreover, as someone who has actually studied history, it is annoying when historically illiterate know-nothings such as yourself deem to speak authoritatively on the subject. You've been schooled more times than I care to remember, yet, despite our best efforts, your level of understanding of history still remains lower than the ankle-socks of a particularly small beetle, standing in a ditch, in a quarry, in the low country.

[lee_merrill]

What has Europe got to do with it? The Babylonian empire didn't include Europe. It was centred around the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf.

There were lots of Kingdoms that followed the Babylonians which you haven't addressed. The Seljuqs, for instance. The Sasanians.

Can you justifiably exclude them for reasons that don't apply to any of your four?

Here is an excerpt from Daniel's vision of a large statue:

So "partly strong and partly brittle" refers to the remnants of the Roman Empire, and those remnants have persisted to this day. Other kingdoms aren't in view here, what would falsify this prophecy would be a reuniting of the remnants of the Roman empire into another kingdom.

The next step is God's kingdom:



Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

That's why I like to focus on "forever" prophecies, such as "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited," which are falsifiable at any time.

How about Babylon?... such prophecies are unsubstantiated. You see - one of the requirements I listed is that the prophecy be unambiguoously associated with the event it foretells. we will only know if this particular prophecy is fulfilled when...well...never. Because we haven't reach the end of time - so "forever" isn't done yet.

Though I do think the prophecy "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited" is associated with the event of Babylon remaining desolate. This is not sleight of hand, this is a remarkable prophecy that can be falsified at any time, all you would need to do to disprove this prophecy is to rebuild or reinhabit Babylon. Saddam Hussein tried, Alexander the Great tried (he wanted Babylon to be the capital of his empire) and they both failed.

Blessings,
Lee

[Tassman]

Though I do think the prophecy "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited" is associated with the event of Babylon remaining desolate. This is not sleight of hand, this is a remarkable prophecy that can be falsified at any time, all you would need to do to disprove this prophecy is to rebuild or reinhabit Babylon. Saddam Hussein tried, Alexander the Great tried (he wanted Babylon to be the capital of his empire) and they both failed.

These "proven" biblical prophecies remind me of the likes of clairvoyant Jeane Dixon...always remembered for the 'prophecies' that came true, like the assassination of John F Kennedy, and those that didn't come true (the majority) are merely glossed over as of no account.

[carpedm9587]

Though I do think the prophecy "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited" is associated with the event of Babylon remaining desolate. This is not sleight of hand, this is a remarkable prophecy that can be falsified at any time, all you would need to do to disprove this prophecy is to rebuild or reinhabit Babylon. Saddam Hussein tried, Alexander the Great tried (he wanted Babylon to be the capital of his empire) and they both failed.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee - the sleight of hand is "will never be - forever." Sure, it CAN be falsified at any time - and it hasn't. But that does not render the prophecy "true." This prophecy can never be rendered true - because it is based on a claim of infinity. So the best anyone can do is say, "true for now." If such a claim is part of your evidence for belief, then I have to believe your evidence basis is fairly weak. I can tell you this particular prophecy simply says nothing to me.

[Doug Shaver]

These "proven" biblical prophecies remind me of the likes of clairvoyant Jeane Dixon...always remembered for the 'prophecies' that came true, like the assassination of John F Kennedy

Her prophecy of Kennedy's assassination wasn't all that impressive, actually.

In 1956, she predicted that the 1960 presidential election would be won by the Democratic candidate and that the winner would die in office. Could this have been merely a lucky guess?

Why not? When she made the forecast, President Eisenhower was reasonably popular and seemed assured of re-election that year, which meant no incumbent would be running in 1960. The White House would be essentially up for grabs, and so Dixon probably had roughly a 50 percent chance of being correct in her forecast of a Democratic victory.

As for the victor's dying in office, there was a superstition in those days that any president elected in a year divisible by 20 was fated to die in office. It had happened ever since William Henry Harrison, who won the 1840 election, died shortly after his inauguration. The pattern continued with Lincoln (winner in 1860), Garfield (1880), McKinley (1900), Harding (1920), and Roosevelt (1940). Anyone who was the least bit inclined to believe in omens surely expected that whoever won the presidency in 1960 was doomed. Dixon was hardly being adventurous, then, in her prediction.

But was she merely guessing, or did she actually know something? We know this about what she knew: During the 1960 campaign between Kennedy and Richard Nixon, she predicted that Kennedy would lose the election. This flatly contradicted her alleged prophecy of four years earlier.

Now, she did not predict, in 1956, that John F. Kennedy would win the 1960 presidential election and that he would die in office, but she did say, in 1956, that a Democrat would do these things. We have seen that this did not require extraordinary prescience. It required only a lucky guess. One could have polled the American electorate in 1956 and asked them two questions: (1) Which party will win the presidency in 1960? and (2) Will the victor die in office? and the result would have been thousands of individual predictions that a Democrat would win and would die in office. America would have been a nation of prophets.

To be credited with supernatural insight, a purported prophet must be so specific as not only to rule out guesswork, but to eliminate the possibility that any event other than the one that actually occurred would have fulfilled the prophecy. Dixon's 1956 prophecy would have been fulfilled no matter which Democrat had been elected president in 1960, and if that Democrat had died in office, no matter how he died. She did not predict the election of a senator from Massachusetts or from any other state, and she did not predict an assassination. She predicted only that the 1960 presidential winner would be a Democrat and would die in office. That prediction did not require any prophetic insight.

[Roy]

There were lots of Kingdoms that followed the Babylonians which you haven't addressed. The Seljuqs, for instance. The Sasanians.

Can you justifiably exclude them for reasons that don't apply to any of your four?

Here is an excerpt from Daniel's vision of a large statue:

So "partly strong and partly brittle" refers to the remnants of the Roman Empire, and those remnants have persisted to this day.

What remnants would those be? There isn't a lot of the Roman Empire that hasn't been conquered at some time or other.

Other kingdoms aren't in view here, what would falsify this prophecy would be a reuniting of the remnants of the Roman empire into another kingdom.

Again, what remnants are you talking about? Also I disagree that the fragments would need to reunite; them being part of a larger empire that conquers them would suffice.

But ultimately, your answer is effectively "no".

[lee_merrill]

Lee - the sleight of hand is "will never be - forever." Sure, it CAN be falsified at any time - and it hasn't.

And notably Alexander the Great and Saddam Hussein have tried to rebuild Babylon, and they failed.

But that does not render the prophecy "true." This prophecy can never be rendered true - because it is based on a claim of infinity. So the best anyone can do is say, "true for now."

Well, as long as the earth stands.

If such a claim is part of your evidence for belief, then I have to believe your evidence basis is fairly weak. I can tell you this particular prophecy simply says nothing to me.

This says a lot to me, for people who should have been able to rebuild or reinhabit Babylon have tried, and failed. We don't need to argue about this, though, all you need to do to falsify this Scripture is to reinhabit Babylon. Though I don't recommend that you attempt this, it seems there is Someone preventing this from happening.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

What remnants would those be? There isn't a lot of the Roman Empire that hasn't been conquered at some time or other.Again, what remnants are you talking about?

Well, mainly Europe and parts of the Middle East.

Also I disagree that the fragments would need to reunite; them being part of a larger empire that conquers them would suffice.

Good point, yes, I agree.

But ultimately, your answer is effectively "no".

Well, they haven't been reunited or reconquered. So far the prophecy is holding up! And the next stage will be the establishing of God's kingdom.

Blessings,
Lee

[carpedm9587]

And notably Alexander the Great and Saddam Hussein have tried to rebuild Babylon, and they failed.

Which, IMO, tells us nothing with respect to the "prophecy."

Well, as long as the earth stands.

So.. about 4 billion years...

This says a lot to me, for people who should have been able to rebuild or reinhabit Babylon have tried, and failed. We don't need to argue about this, though, all you need to do to falsify this Scripture is to reinhabit Babylon. Though I don't recommend that you attempt this, it seems there is Someone preventing this from happening

.

Lee - if it speaks to you - so be it. From my perspective, you've fallen into the "prophecy trap," but you clearly see it differently. For me - this prophecy and its current status say nothing to me.

Blessings,
Lee

Heathen hugs
Michel

[rogue06]

And notably Alexander the Great and Saddam Hussein have tried to rebuild Babylon, and they failed.

Wait. What? Babylon was still standing in Alexander's day. It was the capital of the Persian Empire which he just defeated. In fact that was where he died. No need to rebuild it.

Or am I taking your statement too literally?

[rogue06]

Heathen hugs
Michel

Argh! Cooties!

[carpedm9587]

Wait. What? Babylon was still standing in Alexander's day. It was the capital of the Persian Empire which he just defeated. In fact that was where he died. No need to rebuild it.

Or am I taking your statement too literally?

Your comment got me wondering. There is also the question of what constitutes "rebuilding." The ruins of the ancient city are here (https://www.google.com/maps/place/An...1!4d44.4211293), and a rather extensive tourist area has been developed around them. It is also nestled in an area that is now part agrarian and the rather extensively built up area designated as Hillah.

So at what point does one say, "yeah - that's 'built-up' enough to qualify?"

This is the problem with prophecies, IMO. There is just too much room for fudging and interpretation.