Split from "energy cannot be created" thread split & retitled by admin

[Beatrice]

Hello, and thank you for your acceptance into the forum.  I noticed a section on atheism and thought I may be able to offer you some answers to some of your topics, being one myself.

This one seems like the recently started, so here is as good a place as any.

All matter appears to have been formed from energy shortly after the big bang, when temperatures were cool enough to allow the forming of matter.  I assume however you are referring to where that energy for that came from, to which the answer is as far as I'm aware, nobody knows.  From a practical outlook, I highly doubt it would be possible to observe any "before" state of our universe.

Kind regards

Bea

[PeteWaldo]

Hi Bea, and welcome to the forum!

Hello, and thank you for your acceptance into the forum.  I noticed a section on atheism and thought I may be able to offer you some answers to some of your topics, being one myself.

Have you ever read the Bible, Bea?
How much time have you spent in the study of scripture, related history, archaeology, and particularly subjects like Bible prophecy?

This one seems like the recently started, so here is as good a place as any.

All matter appears to have been formed from energy shortly after the big bang, when temperatures were cool enough to allow the forming of matter.  I assume however you are referring to where that energy for that came from, to which the answer is as far as I'm aware, nobody knows.

Which is the point of the thread. If your presumption that energy came first were correct, energy can't come from nothing can it?

From a practical outlook, I highly doubt it would be possible to observe any "before" state of our universe.

Kind regards

Bea

Again, welcome to the forum!

[Beatrice]

Thanks for your response.

Have you ever read the Bible, Bea?
How much time have you spent in the study of scripture, related history, archaeology, and particularly subjects like Bible prophecy?

I have read it yes, as well as many other scriptures from other religions.  Admittedly I haven't read a lot about history, archaeology and prophecy, but what I have read has left me unconvinced .

If your presumption that energy came first were correct, energy can't come from nothing can it?

Find a "nothing" to experiment on and it would be a fantastic opportunity to check .  Almost by definition though such a thing could not be observed however, so it is unlikely we will ever know.

[PeteWaldo]

Thanks for your response.

Have you ever read the Bible, Bea?
How much time have you spent in the study of scripture, related history, archaeology, and particularly subjects like Bible prophecy?

I have read it yes, as well as many other scriptures from other religions.  Admittedly I haven't read a lot about history, archaeology and prophecy, but what I have read has left me unconvinced .

That's a shame that you didn't spend more time with Bible prophecy and the mathematical odds against it being an accident.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm
Besides having Jesus dwelling in me, fulfilled Bible prophecy makes the most compelling case for me since I'm not the kind of guy that would settle for pure blind faith, but instead seek to draw conclusions based on consideration of the available evidence.
You don't have to read much of the following link page, on the restoration of Jews to their land, to get the gist of this stunning fulfillment of prophecy, as anticipated by Christians centuries before it was fulfilled:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_christianity.htm
Now consider the nature of the conflict as a result of THE false prophet that was also prophesied:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict
Particularly what constitutes the ONLY unforgivable sin in Islam:
http://www.petewaldo.com/unforgivable_shirk.htm
Finally consider how Daniel prophesied the restoration of Jews to their land, and then to their city, and pinned it right to the year mathematically:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/daniel_prophesied_modern_zionism.htm

If your presumption that energy came first were correct, energy can't come from nothing can it?

Find a "nothing" to experiment on and it would be a fantastic opportunity to check .  Almost by definition though such a thing could not be observed however, so it is unlikely we will ever know.

But don't we already know that everything cannot have come from nothing? Isn't that a physical matter of fact?

[Beatrice]

You can Bing search the first year of Cyrus in Babylon to be 537-536 BC

I'm not quite sure you have the right dates for this one.... when I searched I found multiple sources saying it was 559 BC

http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm

The main issue I have with the prophecies regarding Jesus is that there is very scant evidence that much of it took place outside of the Bible.  Are there any records from his time about his life that were not written by people who worshiped him?

But don't we already know that everything cannot have come from nothing? Isn't that a physical matter of fact?

You would have to examine "nothing" first, and I'm pretty sure such a thing cannot really be observed .  I would assume you are correct, but it really would be impossible to know wouldn't it, at least with our current level of observational technology.

[PeteWaldo]

You can Bing search the first year of Cyrus in Babylon to be 537-536 BC

I'm not quite sure you have the right dates for this one.... when I searched I found multiple sources saying it was 559 BC

Daniel was captive in Babylon from where he was prophesying. He was referring to the first year of Cyrus rule over him as captive in Babylon. If you do a search like - first year cyrus babylon 537 536 - you will find it is considered supportable dating by more than a few, for the first year of Cyrus in Babylon. Please also note that outside of the sites you find in that search that I maintain (as listed in my signature below with the exception of EllisSkolfield.net), none of those sites that are dating it at 536-537, but brother Skolfield's and mine, are grinding the same mathematical ax (that I learned from him).
However most scholars do recognize a year or two leeway in dating of this period.

Now consider the verse textually as well: ".....when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end.". Isn't that exactly what happened when Jews (the only "holy people" in Daniel's day) were restored to their rule over Jerusalem in 1967? They were restored to rule over their land in 1948, and to their city in 1967 to complete the process of ending the shattered strength, or as the KJV puts it ".....shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people....."

Isn't that surprising? Something coming to pass that was prophesied exactly 2500 years in advance?
Let alone how powerfully our method and dating is confirmed by the parallel problem that begins with the first year of Belshazzar:
http://www.zionismchristian.com/daniel_prophesied_modern_zionism.htm#first_year_belshazzar

[PeteWaldo]

http://www.islamandthetruth.com/bible_prophecy.htm

The main issue I have with the prophecies regarding Jesus is that there is very scant evidence that much of it took place outside of the Bible.  Are there any records from his time about his life that were not written by people who worshiped him?

There were even prophecies about His life, written by people that lived many hundreds of years before He was made manifest to the world. Consider the great detail in Psalms 22, regarding the crucifixion of Christ, penned not only before He was born, but long before crucifixion was ever even invented:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm

Isaiah 53 is another Messianic prophecy that has brought many Jews to Christ over the last 2,000 years:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/isaiah_53.htm

We have a forum section dedicated to the historicity of Jesus Christ and Christian apologetics.
Lee Strobel gets into a lot of what you are asking about regarding the historicity of Jesus Christ in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikxb09pyZwM

But don't we already know that everything cannot have come from nothing? Isn't that a physical matter of fact?

You would have to examine "nothing" first, and I'm pretty sure such a thing cannot really be observed .

Isn't that what we observe in space? An empty void/vacuum?

I would assume you are correct, but it really would be impossible to know wouldn't it, at least with our current level of observational technology.

[Beatrice]

Daniel was captive in Babylon from where he was prophesying. He was referring to the first year of Cyrus rule over him as captive in Babylon.

Are you sure?  In the text that I'm reading it, the author clearly calls him "King of Persia", and not of Babylon.  If "King of Babylon" was his correct title for the author to write then why would they not say that?

Even if it was correct, your date seems out by a few years (as I saw you acknowledge) as every source apart from yours seems to indicate it was 539 BC

Regarding the Jesus prophecies, the reason they have failed to convince me is not because the Old and New Testament prophecies fail to match up (which they do), it is that there is not really much evidence from outside sources that they took place in the first place.  Thanks though, interesting reading.

Isn't that what we observe in space? An empty void/vacuum?

Even this is still something. Even if very thinly spread out there is still matter and energy.  Think about it this way, the singularity that went "bang" would have been so dense that it would absorb matter, energy, even time.  It would have been everything in existence with nothing outside it. 

Even if you head outside the solar system you would still receive heat from our sun, and the tiny lights of billions of tiny stars.  Like I said, I'm not sure we could ever truly observe "nothing"

[PeteWaldo]

Daniel was captive in Babylon from where he was prophesying. He was referring to the first year of Cyrus rule over him as captive in Babylon.

Are you sure?  In the text that I'm reading it, the author clearly calls him "King of Persia", and not of Babylon.  If "King of Babylon" was his correct title for the author to write then why would they not say that?

Even if it was correct, your date seems out by a few years (as I saw you acknowledge) as every source apart from yours seems to indicate it was 539 BC

Try the search link again. The following are just a few that I grabbed from the first 3 pages of search results:
(if you don't know how to search a web page, hold down Ctrl and press f, and then in the box that appears at the lower left of your browser enter Cyrus, to search/skim the following links).

"The archeology record indicates that Cyrus enters Babylon the year following his victory, entering the city BC 537, and that after the following year (which would be 536 BC), in 535 BC, Cyrus is crowned king of Babylon in a large display."
http://www.angelfire.com/bc2/Bereans/Myfiles/Chronology/cyrus.html
".....first year of King Cyrus the Persian may not have begun till late in the year 538 B.C. to extend over into the following year of 537 B.C."
http://www.strictlygenteel.co.uk/babylon/babylon18.html
"The Bible shows that the Jews returned to their homeland in the first year of King Cyrus, which would have been 537-B.C.E."
http://www.2001translation.com/587_or_607.htm
"He died 536 b.c., and Cyrus succeeded him; and as the order to rebuild the temple was in the first year of Cyrus, the time referred to in this chapter....."
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/daniel/9-1.htm
"The Persian Empire was founded by Cyrus in 536 BC., after they succeeded the Babylonian Empire. The first king of the Persian Empire was Cyrus, who issued the famous decree for the Jews to return to their homeland to rebuild their Temple."
http://www.bible-history.com/maps/04-persian-empire.html
"Therefore, the ascension year of Cyrus over the province of Babylon was 537/6 B.C., and his first calendar year was 536/5 B.C."
https://www.wake-up.org/Daniel/DanChap5.htm

Why didn't you respond to the first year of Belshazzar, of the confirming parallel problem, as well? These "times" problems, as well as several more math problems assigned to us through prophecy, are explored on the page at this link.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm#first_year_of_belshazzar

Did your comment "...every source apart from yours seems to indicate it was 539 BC..." suggest you were putting effort into being honest enough with yourself to consider the evidence, or instead putting all of your effort into DISbelief, even at the expense of truth?
Would you at this point agree that 537-536 is supportable dating - at least in the opinion of many - for the first year of Cyrus (as likely hundreds or perhaps even thousands of sites attest)?

[PeteWaldo]

Regarding the Jesus prophecies, the reason they have failed to convince me is not because the Old and New Testament prophecies fail to match up (which they do), it is that there is not really much evidence from outside sources that they took place in the first place.

Didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot? By admitting that the Old and New Testaments match up, you are tacitly admitting that Old Testament prophecy penned centuries before Jesus, is fulfilled, which not only demonstrates the veracity of the prophecy but the historical matter of fact of its fulfillment.
Again I think this video could help you begin to see, the historicity of the execution of Christ as being "indisputable":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikxb09pyZwM

Thanks though, interesting reading.

Isn't that what we observe in space? An empty void/vacuum?

Even this is still something. Even if very thinly spread out there is still matter and energy.

That's the whole point. I had put something like "with the exception of light and energy from stars" but decided it was obvious and removed it. The very mass and energy that you describe was created. It came from nothing, by the hand of the Creator.

Think about it this way, the singularity that went "bang" .........

Back to your failed premise. When there is nothing, there is nothing to go "bang", is there?
Except of course - if that is the way it happened - at the hand of a Creator.

....... would have been so dense that it would absorb matter, energy, even time.  It would have been everything in existence with nothing outside it. 

Even if you head outside the solar system you would still receive heat from our sun, and the tiny lights of billions of tiny stars.

The very things that God created. Like DNA.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2333.0

Like I said, I'm not sure we could ever truly observe "nothing"

[PeteWaldo]

Thanks for your response.

Have you ever read the Bible, Bea?
How much time have you spent in the study of scripture, related history, archaeology, and particularly subjects like Bible prophecy?

I have read it yes, as well as many other scriptures from other religions.

It isn't like reading a novel Bea, as it requires spiritual discernment. A person has to repent and be of and with God before one can fully understand.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Admittedly I haven't read a lot about history, archaeology and prophecy, but what I have read has left me unconvinced .

How many other things are you so firmly decided about, and committed to, while remaining in self-admitted self-imposed relative ignorance to the subject? Putting effort into DISbelief rather than simply considering the evidence, is what I have found to be typical of those with pure blind faith in the religion of atheism, and may be part of the reason that only about 4% of U.S. citizens believe there is no God.

How did Christians know centuries in advance that Jews would be restored to their land?
http://www.zionismchristian.com/zionism_in_christianity.htm
Is it just some strange accident that the tiny little strip of land of Israel, that God gave the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, went from utter desolation of the beginning of the 19th century, to becoming a geopolitical focus of the world today?
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/abomination_of_desolation.htm
Zechariah 12:3  And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.

Are we to believe it is just a coincidence that 1/3 of mankind believe Christ was crucified, died and was resurrected from the dead, who understand we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves.
While a directly opposing 1/4 of mankind is required to DISbelieve the crucifixion of Christ and thus reject His shed blood, and deny and blaspheme the Son of God, as articles of their faith in THE false prophet Muhammad?
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict
Who are also commanded to conquer and ultimately subjugate all of mankind to eventually denying the whole subject of the Gospel and denying the Son of God.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm
That is, to turn the whole world antichrist:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
Who are taught that to confess that Jesus is the Son of God or even pray in Jesus' name would be to commit the single most "heinous" and ONLY UNFORGIVABLE sin in Muhammadanism.
http://www.petewaldo.com/unforgivable_shirk.htm
That Muhammad was as much the opposite of Jesus Christ as the Quran is the Gospel. That specifically counter-Gospel antichrist anti-religion of Islam, is an inversion of Christianity.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm

How do you explain all that? Coincidence?
Is the murder, mayhem and misery that is being perpetrated around the world particularly against Christians, by THE false prophet Muhammad's orthodox followers, just some freaky accident?
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muslim_persecution_of_christians.htm
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muhammad_islam_in_bible_prophecy.htm#the_conflict

Why don't you try reading a little of this book and see if you find it fun to read:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_great_detective.htm

[Beatrice]

It isn't like reading a novel Bea, as it requires spiritual discernment. A person has to repent and be of and with God before one can fully understand.

Surely reading something being claimed as fact is true based on merit and not on the person reading it?  That's like when Muslims claim you have to read the Quran in Arabic. 

How many other things are you so firmly decided about, and committed to, while remaining in self-admitted self-imposed relative ignorance to the subject?

I have not firmly decided anything regarding the existence of any deity.  I have not made any such claim.

Putting effort into DISbelief rather than simply considering the evidence, is what I have found to be typical of those with pure blind faith in the religion of atheism, and may be part of the reason that only about 4% of U.S. citizens believe there is no God.

OK, 2 things with this.

1.  Is it your claim that ideas are correct based on popularity?  Specifically popularity in the US?
2.  Your claim of 4% appears to have been disputed. 

The CIA data appears too be from 2007, a quick search will reveal that the numbers are a bit higher than that now by the way.  Also of note are the people who responded Buddhist, many of whom are atheist, and those who responded Jewish, as there is a portion of them who identify both a Jewish and atheist.

Are we to believe it is just a coincidence that 1/3 of mankind believe Christ was crucified, died and was resurrected from the dead, who understand we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Again with the popularity angle?

Didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot? By admitting that the Old and New Testaments match up, you are tacitly admitting that Old Testament prophecy penned centuries before Jesus, is fulfilled, which not only demonstrates the veracity of the prophecy but the historical matter of fact of its fulfillment.

Not at all.  They would have to have actually happened, and for there to be evidence to suggest that. 

Ah, I've actually read the book this was based on (I think I was still in school?)

All of his extra-Biblical sources were born well after Jesus was claimed to have been killed?

Josephus wrote his book in the 90's, Tacitus was born in the 50's, Lucien's work is satire, not history, and written more like 100 years after the fact. Mara bar Serapion was written somewhere between the 70's and the third century.  I have to say, for a journalist and lawyer, Lee seems to be quite easily convinced.

He assumed that 2 generations is not enough time to develop mythology?  I'm very surprised he would say that.  Most obvious example is the Mormons.  Joseph Smith had mythology regarding the church and himself while he was still alive, I hardly think that is a good piece of evidence for the church.

Criterion of Embarrassment

This is  just silly now.  His claim is basically that the more ridiculous a claim is the more it is supposed to be true.

Sorry I have to head out for the day, I'll watch the rest of the clip later.

Kind regards, have a nice day.

Bea.

The very mass and energy that you describe was created. It came from nothing, by the hand of the Creator.

And what is your evidence for this?

[PeteWaldo]

It isn't like reading a novel Bea, as it requires spiritual discernment. A person has to repent and be of and with God before one can fully understand.

Surely reading something being claimed as fact is true based on merit and not on the person reading it?

If you revisit the verse you didn't include in your quote, you will see I wasn't expressing a personal opinion. We need God's help for understanding and discernment:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=prayer+before+reading+scripture&qs=n&pq=prayer+before+reading+scripture&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=d2e81fd946c14ce98020f9b5e1c11211&first=1&FORM=PERE

It's the same reason Jesus spoke in parables:

Mark 4:9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear. 10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all [these] things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2306.0

Unless and until you ask Jesus to come into your heart and life, and repent and become born again, you will not be given the ears to hear or eyes to see and understand the mystery of the kingdom of God.

And yes for me it is true based on merit as well, through the very things I have provided links to, that you admitted to not being very educated about. Why did you simply drop the subject of Daniel's math rather than pursue it? I selected that subject as I thought mathematics of prophecy could be a something you might be able to see, in the absence of spiritual discernment. Some thing that might inspire that first spark of cognitive dissonance.

That's like when Muslims claim you have to read the Quran in Arabic.

No it's not like that at all. The Quran was inspired by Satan as confirmed by the fact that it rejects the whole subject of the Gospel, as further evidenced by it commanding its adherents to fight and slay others until they are subjugated to Muhammad's followers (actually Satan).
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm
The reason for the anxiety about translation of the Quran is because as one expert (Gerd Puin quoted in the link) put it of one of the oldest qurans, about 20% of the verses simply don't make sense. If they don't even make sense in Arabic, they obviously cannot be translated.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2576.0

How many other things are you so firmly decided about, and committed to, while remaining in self-admitted self-imposed relative ignorance to the subject?

I have not firmly decided anything regarding the existence of any deity.  I have not made any such claim.

You introduced yourself as:  "I noticed a section on atheism and thought I may be able to offer you some answers to some of your topics, being one myself."

Just grabbing the first quote in a search for the term: 
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

So by claiming you were an atheist, you were automatically taking the above quoted position. Why on earth didn't you label yourself an agnostic, or better, a seeker? When atheists come to internet forums they generally come to specifically preach the absence of a deity. To convince others that there is no such thing as God. Was it unreasonable for me to believe you were any different than any other proselytizing atheist when in the same sentence you said you were here to "offer you some answers"?

Agnostic:
"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

You aren't even as unbelieving as an agnostic if you: ".....have not firmly decided anything regarding the existence of any deity." since even agnostics are decided that "nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God".

In your position I would describe myself as a "seeker", but only if I was actually putting effort into seeking out the truth - wherever it is to be found - based on a consideration of the evidence from both sides. As opposed to pure blind faith in disbelief.

[PeteWaldo]

Putting effort into DISbelief rather than simply considering the evidence, is what I have found to be typical of those with pure blind faith in the religion of atheism, and may be part of the reason that only about 4% of U.S. citizens believe there is no God.

OK, 2 things with this.

1.  Is it your claim that ideas are correct based on popularity?  Specifically popularity in the US?

Since 19th century pop-eschatology has precluded a near unanimity of the "church" from even considering, that Muhammad could be THE false prophet of the book of Revelation, it should be obvious that we aren't seeking to win any popularity contests here.
http://www.christianeschatology.com/#limitations_futurism_preterism

The fulfillment of prophecy that I have been showing you through links, is not something you can find in a back slidden nicolaitan institutional "church". Yet it is reinforced mathematically and the math is supported textually.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm
Let alone the present day reality of the murder, mayhem and misery perpetrated by Satan's people:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm

2.  Your claim of 4% appears to have been disputed. 

The CIA data appears too be from 2007, a quick search will reveal that the numbers are a bit higher than that now by the way.

You missed the point. I said that the 4% was not the reason, but was the result of widespread ignorance to the things of the Spirit of God. You yourself admitted to being less educated than you could otherwise be, on the very things that make the most compelling case for God.

No question the trend is toward Godlessness through pop-culture and abject ignorance. In Europe and Australia the numbers run more into 25-30% Godless. Which makes an even more compelling case for God, since this apostasy or "falling away" is yet another fulfillment of prophecy:
http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm

And Europe is paying the price as Islam continues its European conquest:

"The proliferation of mosques housed in former churches reflects the rise of Islam as the fastest growing religion in post-Christian Europe."

"As Islam replaces Christianity as the dominant religion in Europe....."
http://www.christianeschatology.com/falling_away_apostasy.htm#apostasy_in_europe

It wouldn't be the first time that God used His enemies to punish His back-slidden people.
While at the same time 6 million Muslims come to Christ every year in Africa alone, with about 40% of those doing so through a dream, vision, or being spoken to directly by Jesus Christ. Many former Imams are Christian pastors.

[PeteWaldo]

Also of note are the people who responded Buddhist, many of whom are atheist, and those who responded Jewish, as there is a portion of them who identify both a Jewish and atheist.

Are we to believe it is just a coincidence that 1/3 of mankind believe Christ was crucified, died and was resurrected from the dead, who understand we are commanded to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Again with the popularity angle?

Again with your partial quoting in your continuing effort to misunderstand. I was comparing 1/3 of mankind that believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ, with 1/4 of mankind that are required to directly oppose the Gospel as an article of their faith in THE false prophet Muhammad.
That doesn't even include other antichrists (like atheists) that aren't compelled to contend against the Gospel as an article of their faith:

1 John 2:22 ..... He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.....
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm

Didn't you just shoot yourself in the foot? By admitting that the Old and New Testaments match up, you are tacitly admitting that Old Testament prophecy penned centuries before Jesus, is fulfilled, which not only demonstrates the veracity of the prophecy but the historical matter of fact of its fulfillment.

Not at all.  They would have to have actually happened, and for there to be evidence to suggest that.

This is what I meant by putting your effort into DISbelief. You ignored the case I made through mathematics, and ignore the stunning fulfillment of prophecy of Jews restored to their land. Just as you recognize the Messianic prophecies, yet then suggest they weren't fulfilled. This even as so many atheists and agnostics don't deny Jesus was crucified, because the evidence is too compelling to deny.

Ah, I've actually read the book this was based on (I think I was still in school?)

All of his extra-Biblical sources were born well after Jesus was claimed to have been killed?

Josephus wrote his book in the 90's, Tacitus was born in the 50's, Lucien's work is satire, not history, and written more like 100 years after the fact. Mara bar Serapion was written somewhere between the 70's and the third century. I have to say, for a journalist and lawyer, Lee seems to be quite easily convinced.

Your comment suggests Lee is the only person that has actually bothered to consider the evidence and then make an informed decision. Muslims tend to attack the messenger in efforts to run and hide from the message too. But there's no shortage of such messengers.

"Randall Niles was the definitive skeptic, critic, and cynic. Forged in the fires of Georgetown, Oxford, and Berkeley, Randall's peers knew him as a "practicing atheist." Then, in what seemed to be overnight, people witnessed a dramatic shift in his life. Go on a journey with Randall as he poses questions, explores assumptions, and challenges his long-held preconceptions about life, purpose, and meaning.
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/

[PeteWaldo]

He assumed that 2 generations is not enough time to develop mythology?  I'm very surprised he would say that.  Most obvious example is the Mormons.  Joseph Smith had mythology regarding the church and himself while he was still alive, I hardly think that is a good piece of evidence for the church.

Joseph Smith wasn't in the first or second generation after the cross, but didn't come along until the 19th century. Let alone that he was inspired by a shimmering apparition that called itself the angel "Maroni".

2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.

And once again it is a "good piece of evidence" in the case for God:

2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4  And they shall turn away [their] ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/traditional_framework.htm#cults

2Co 11:4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.

Criterion of Embarrassment

This is  just silly now.  His claim is basically that the more ridiculous a claim is the more it is supposed to be true.

Sorry I have to head out for the day, I'll watch the rest of the clip later.

Kind regards, have a nice day.

Bea.

The very mass and energy that you describe was created. It came from nothing, by the hand of the Creator.

And what is your evidence for this?

That they exist. That everything didn't come from nothing.

Rom 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Rather than devoting your effort to further indoctrinating yourself into DISbelief, why don't you instead put a little effort into learning a little more about those things that you admitted to not knowing much about, rather than continuing to argue through ignorance? I left more than enough links to get you started.

Why don't we revisit the odds against the math of Daniel's prophetic dreams being an accident, along with the miracle of the fulfillment of prophesy of the restoration of Jews to their land, after being scattered among the Gentile nations for 3500 years.
Do you believe that tiny little strip of land becoming a geopolitical focus of the world is nothing more than an accident?
http://www.zionismchristian.com/daniel_prophesied_modern_zionism.htm

[Beatrice]

You introduced yourself as:  "I noticed a section on atheism and thought I may be able to offer you some answers to some of your topics, being one myself."

Just grabbing the first quote in a search for the term: 
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

So by claiming you were an atheist, you were automatically making the above quoted claim. Why on earth didn't you label yourself an agnostic, or seeker? When atheists come to internet forums they generally come to specifically preach the absence of a deity. To convince others that there is no such thing as God. Was it unreasonable for me to believe you were any different than any other proselytizing atheist when in the same sentence you said you were here to "offer you some answers"?

Agnostic:
"a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God."

You aren't even as unbelieving as an agnostic if you: "I have not firmly decided anything regarding the existence of any deity." since even agnostics are decided that "nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God".

Common misunderstanding on the terms actually.

Theism - believes in a deity.
Atheism-  does not believe in a deity.

Gnostic-  Claims to have knowledge
Agnostic - Does not claim to have knowledge.

I personally am an agnostic atheist, someone who does not make a claim that there are no deities, but who does not think any exist based upon the current evidence.  To suggest something does NOT exist is quite the claim, and anyone who claims to be gnostic about such absolute matters has quite the Burden of proof to fulfil.

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms 

Rather than devoting your effort to further indoctrinating yourself into DISbelief, why don't you instead put a little effort into learning a little more about those things that you admitted to not knowing much about, rather than continuing to argue through ignorance? I left more than enough links to get you started.

I will continue to read the links and watch the clips as I get time to, and thank you for them.  But I have legitimate criticisms of what you have provided me with so far, and I remain unconvinced that they point to the existence of a deity.

Your comment suggests Lee is the only person that has actually bothered to consider the evidence and then make an informed decision. Muslims tend to attack the messenger in efforts to run and hide from the message too. But there's no shortage of such messengers.

Regardless of where he got his information, he is being rather dishonest.  Listening to him without actually checking his claim I can see why that would be easy to believe, but for all his evidence of a historical resurrection, he leaves out a tonne of relevant information, most notably that none of the authors were contemporaries of when Jesus was supposed to have been killed and resurrected.

Also, his claims that myths take a long time to appear is utterly ridiculous, and his "criterion of embarrassment" is one of the silliest arguments of reasoning that I have heard.  I think there is a case for a historical Jesus existing, but then why does he have to make up ludicrous evidence to try and support it, and rely on sources written hundreds of years after the fact?

Perhaps you didn't know this but Joseph Smith wasn't in the first or second generation after the cross, but didn't come along until the 19th century. Let alone that he was inspired by a shimmering apparition that called itself the angel "Maroni"

My point was addressing the fact that mythology indeed can spring up quickly.  I think his claims are ludicrous, but the fact remains that people believed them within his lifetime  and died for their beliefs, which was one of Strobel's pieces of evidence for the resurrection being true.

That they exist. That everything didn't come from nothing.

Again I am curious as to why you would claim this.  The very concept of "nothing" is not something that can be even studied, assuming we are referring to the same aspect of nothingness. 

Also, as per the Big Bang Theory, the universe didn't come from nothing, it came from a singularity.  As to where THAT came from, my honest answer is I don't know. 

have a nice day

Bea

[PeteWaldo]

Sorry, I didn't notice you had logged in and posted, as I continued to edit (soften) and embellish the posts.
You have a great day yourself Bea!

[PeteWaldo]

Common misunderstanding on the terms actually.

Theism - believes in a deity.
Atheism-  does not believe in a deity.

Gnostic-  Claims to have knowledge
Agnostic - Does not claim to have knowledge.

I personally am an agnostic atheist, someone who does not make a claim that there are no deities, but who does not think any exist based upon the current evidence.  To suggest something does NOT exist is quite the claim, and anyone who claims to be gnostic about such absolute matters has quite the Burden of proof to fulfil.

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms 

Which is why I suggested that neither term applies that well to your later self-description - particularly not atheist.

[PeteWaldo]

The main issue I have with the prophecies regarding Jesus is that there is very scant evidence that much of it took place outside of the Bible.  Are there any records from his time about his life that were not written by people who worshiped him?

If that really is your main issue in rejecting His existence and/or crucifixion, a group that not only does not worship Him but has one of the biggest axes to grind against Him, doesn't even accept the unhistorical pop-suggestion that He didn't exist or wasn't crucified:
http://www.bing.com/search?q=jews+believe+jesus+was+crucified&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=jews+believe+jesus+was+crucified&sc=2-32&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=9fec41da84ee4ab8b43e3373c101499f

Why do you suppose it is that Jews haven't spent the last nearly 2,000 years trying to rewrite history and campaign against the existence and crucifixion of Jesus?

But let's stop all this skipping around and ignoring posts (if I failed to respond to a point you made please direct me, as I have utmost respect for the time you choose to invest in posting) and focus on Daniel's prophetic math. Unless I missed it, so far your response to the prophetic math was a wish to disbelieve that 537-536 is supportable dating for the first year of Cyrus in Babylon, and a desire to disbelieve that Cyrus was considered the king of Babylon.

http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17835#msg17835
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17839#msg17839
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy.htm

[Beatrice]

Which is why I suggested that neither term applies that well to your later self-description - particularly not atheist.

I am unsure if deities can exist, and I personally do not believe any of them exist based on the evidence.  I am an agnostic atheist.  If you prefer to label me something else that is fine, as long as it is accurate.

If that really is your main issue in rejecting His existence and/or crucifixion, a group that not only does not worship Him but has one of the biggest axes to grind against Him, doesn't even accept the unhistorical pop-suggestion that He didn't exist or wasn't crucified

Yes, that a man named Yeshu was executed (assuming you are referring to the Talmud).  I have much less trouble believing this, as it isn't an extraordinary claim, and is repeated by Mara bar Serapion.  However neither of them have anything to say about the either the divinity of Jesus, or any claim to the supernatural, which are really the things that matter, and if true, are claims that historians of the time would take note of (mass feeding, healing, resurrection, sudden darkness etc.).  Also the Talmud was written hundreds of years later.

If these miraculous things did occur, then why did nobody write about them outside of those people who worshipped him?

Why do you suppose it is that Jews haven't spent the last nearly 2,000 years trying to rewrite history and campaign against the existence and crucifixion of Jesus?

I don't think it is the existence and crucifixion of Jesus that is hotly disputed.  If anything, that is all I've seen that there is a case for.

But let's stop all this skipping around and ignoring posts (if I failed to respond to a point you made please direct me, as I have utmost respect for the time you choose to invest in posting) and focus on Daniel's prophetic math. Unless I missed it, so far your response to the prophetic math was a wish to disbelieve that 537-536 is supportable dating for the first year of Cyrus in Babylon, and a desire to disbelieve that Cyrus was considered the king of Babylon.

I thought I mentioned this before, but that is ok.  I have several problems with that prophecy.

I did not dispute that Cyrus was the king of Babylon, indeed he was.  As a conquerer he had a great deal of titles it seems, up to and including "King of the Four Corners of the World".  The main issue is that he is not referred to as such in the passage, but rather Cyrus of Persia.  Now I understand that for your dates to work out you have to assume he was referring to his reign as king of Babylon, but if that is the case then why does the text say King of Persia?

If the book is being claimed as historical fact then why does it refer to him by an incorrect title?

Apologies if I have ignored posts, there is a lot to read and I don't get a great deal of spare time to respond.

[PeteWaldo]

Which is why I suggested that neither term applies that well to your later self-description - particularly not atheist.

I am unsure if deities can exist, and I personally do not believe any of them exist based on the evidence.  I am an agnostic atheist.  If you prefer to label me something else that is fine, as long as it is accurate.

If that really is your main issue in rejecting His existence and/or crucifixion, a group that not only does not worship Him but has one of the biggest axes to grind against Him, doesn't even accept the unhistorical pop-suggestion that He didn't exist or wasn't crucified

Yes, that a man named Yeshu was executed (assuming you are referring to the Talmud).  I have much less trouble believing this, as it isn't an extraordinary claim, and is repeated by Mara bar Serapion.  However neither of them have anything to say about the either the divinity of Jesus, or any claim to the supernatural, which are really the things that matter, and if true, are claims that historians of the time would take note of (mass feeding, healing, resurrection, sudden darkness etc.).  Also the Talmud was written hundreds of years later.

If these miraculous things did occur, then why did nobody write about them outside of those people who worshipped him?

Why do you suppose it is that Jews haven't spent the last nearly 2,000 years trying to rewrite history and campaign against the existence and crucifixion of Jesus?

I don't think it is the existence and crucifixion of Jesus that is hotly disputed.  If anything, that is all I've seen that there is a case for.

But let's stop all this skipping around and ignoring posts (if I failed to respond to a point you made please direct me, as I have utmost respect for the time you choose to invest in posting) and focus on Daniel's prophetic math. Unless I missed it, so far your response to the prophetic math was a wish to disbelieve that 537-536 is supportable dating for the first year of Cyrus in Babylon, and a desire to disbelieve that Cyrus was considered the king of Babylon.

I thought I mentioned this before, but that is ok.  I have several problems with that prophecy.

I did not dispute that Cyrus was the king of Babylon, indeed he was.  As a conquerer he had a great deal of titles it seems, up to and including "King of the Four Corners of the World".  The main issue is that he is not referred to as such in the passage, but rather Cyrus of Persia.  Now I understand that for your dates to work out you have to assume he was referring to his reign as king of Babylon, but if that is the case then why does the text say King of Persia?

Because Babylon was located within the Persian empire.

http://www.beholdthebeast.com/johns_eight_beasts.htm



You see what I mean about where you put your effort? Even though you recognize he was known as the king of Babylon, because he was the king of the Persian empire, somehow that just isn't good enough because it doesn't advance your desire to disbelieve. While I just grabbed them at random while only seeking out the dating, I am confident you will find no shortage of corroboration of it being about the first year of Cyrus in Babylon in those sites that are far more detailed on the subject - that are not making the mathematical case - of which I grabbed only a handful for you when you earlier wished to disbelieve my dating was unique to me.

Since reason has become a casualty, perhaps the subject in broader and more current terms might help. Do you have any opinions regarding Israel or Zionism?

If the book is being claimed as historical fact then why does it refer to him by an incorrect title?

Apologies if I have ignored posts, there is a lot to read and I don't get a great deal of spare time to respond.

[Beatrice]

You see what I mean about where you put your effort? Even though you recognize he was known as the king of Babylon, because he was the king of the Persian empire, somehow that just isn't good enough because it doesn't advance your desire to disbelieve.

I think you misunderstand me Pete.   

The passage states

In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel

Now I understand that both the King of Persia was also the King Of Babylon (and a bunch of other King of such-and-such), but those titles are obviously not interchangeable.

The first year of the reign of Cyrus the King of Persia was 599 BC
The first year of the reign of Cyrus  the King of Media was 550 BC
The first year of the reign of Cyrus  the King of Lydia was 574 BC
and of course the first year of Cyrus  the King of Babylon was 539 BC

Does this make sense to you?

[PeteWaldo]

You see what I mean about where you put your effort? Even though you recognize he was known as the king of Babylon, because he was the king of the Persian empire, somehow that just isn't good enough because it doesn't advance your desire to disbelieve.

I think you misunderstand me Pete.   

The passage states

In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a message was revealed to Daniel

Now I understand that both the King of Persia was also the King Of Babylon (and a bunch of other King of such-and-such), but those titles are obviously not interchangeable.

The first year of the reign of Cyrus the King of Persia was 599 BC
The first year of the reign of Cyrus  the King of Media was 550 BC
The first year of the reign of Cyrus  the King of Lydia was 574 BC
and of course the first year of Cyrus  the King of Babylon was 539 BC

Does this make sense to you?

Yes it does, as I already explained. You keep wishing this were about me, but your argument is with everyone who recognizes the same dating.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4643.msg17839#msg17839

Now as you point out there are others who consider other dating but since 537-536 BC for Cyrus works out so perfectly to 1967, the year that ended the shattering of the strength of the holy people, or brought an end to the scattered power of Jews over Jerusalem when they regained control of their city, I have no doubt the dating that so many of us recognize is correct.
Particularly since it is confirmed by the first year of Belshazzar which is commonly dated at 553-552 BC, which works out to 1948, when Jews were initially delivered out of Satan's hand and 2500 years of being scattered among and persecuted by Satan via gentile ruled kingdoms.
Two parallel problems that work out over a span of 2500 years to perfectly pin two dates.

If you claimed to be heavily studied in this particular area of scripture and history it might be one thing. But your unwillingness to simply accept the dating from sources besides myself that do present themselves as being studied in this area, and simply move on from there, demonstrated that further discussion on this subject will not be fruitful except perhaps for the benefit of those that read this thread after us who we can leave consideration of the reasonableness or lack thereof of our respective positions to discern. That's why I had already moved on to the broader topic about which I hope you can indulge me.

Do you have any opinions regarding Israel or Zionism?

[Beatrice]

Yes it does, as I already explained. You keep wishing this were about me, but your argument is with everyone who recognizes the same dating.

Nobody has disputed the first year of the reign of Cyrus King of Persia as far as I am aware.  Neither do I

I have no doubt the dating that so many of us recognize is correct.

No doubt, despite the fact there are completely legitimate claims regarding the date?  How is that even possible?  There are multiple dates proposed, and you have provided zero evidence that your date is the correct one?

Two parallel problems that work out over a span of 2500 years to perfectly pin two dates.

They really aren't.  Either the title given to Cyrus the Great is incorrect in the book of Daniel is incorrect, or your starting date cannot be correct.

Now as you point out there are others who consider other dating but since 537-536 BC for Cyrus works out so perfectly to 1967

You don't work out historical dates this way.  There is no historical justification you have provided for the year you have given.  Do you have any sources that show where that date came from?

Do you have any opinions regarding Israel or Zionism?

Regarding what exactly?