Debate with Darfius
07 Mar '05 16:071 editHowdy, Pawn
First, I claimed that, if Daniel had in fact predicted the future, and had attributed the ability to do so to God, this would still not automatically imply, on its own, that God existed, or that God was the cause of his precognition. I think this lack of implication is obvious: there could be an alternative explanation. You seem to think there could NOT be an alternative explanation. But I'm afraid, whatever you think, there could be one, and that you are obviously wrong in thinking there could not be. As regards the relative plausibility of that alternative explanation, compared to the God explanation, this is something that could be debated.
I never said there could not be an alternative explanation. However, you are saying that it doesn't imply that God exists. That would be saying precognition to such a specific degree is common, which we both know to be untrue. With that being the case, it does imply that a supernatural cause was behind it. And at the very least, the God theory is 1st among equals as to what was the cause.
My more general point, that experiencing X does not make you an expert on what caused X, is not something that you have yet offered a coherent counterargument against. So I will take it as established unless you can offer one in due course.
Indeed, the experience itself doesn't make you an expert, but one must look at context. Daniel was a fervent man of God. He shaped his diet and prayer life around what would be pleasing to God. When he had a dream he couldn't understand, he went without food for 21 days and prayed fervently to God for an interpretation. After this period, he received an interpretation. He says he visibly saw an angel, or messenger from God (Gabriel, who is mentioned in other places in the Bible). Relative to everyone else, Daniel appears to be quite the expert.
Non-specific prophecies? That would include, for a start, most things allegedly predicted by the highly symbolic Book of Revelation. Not to mention the fig tree "referring" to Israel in 1948.
Pretty general. I wish you had provided a specific verse you had problems with. What appears symbollic is usually only so because you do not interpret Scripture with Scripture and instead use Webster's, which is ill-advised, at best.
I agree that, with respect to the Luke 9:27 prediction, the Kingdom of God *may* have referred to the vision the disciples were about to have.
Good enough for me.
However, as regards Luke 21:25 to 21:32, and Mark I think it is perfectly clear that Jesus is saying that the generation to which the disciples belonged would not pass away before the end times would be at hand. But that generation did pass away, and we are still here 2000 years later. You would have to invent a highly misleading interpretation of "this generation" to think otherwise.
Why would you come to this conclusion? The disciples asked when the end of the world and Jesus' 2nd coming would be. He gave them an answer that included signs in the moon and sun, roaring seas, and why wouldn't He say "your generation" rather than "this generation?" I think it's apparent that He meant the generation that saw the signs He mentioned.
I am going to quit the debate here, as I'll be taking a break from RHP shortly. I think that both of us have had the opportunity to make our respective cases at reasonable length, happily without insulting one another. Hopefully other people will find it useful. I leave it to you to provide the final rebuttal to my points.
Indeed, it's been a pleasure debating with a scholar and a gentleman.
Regards,
Darfius
First, I claimed that, if Daniel had in fact predicted the future, and had attributed the ability to do so to God, this would still not automatically imply, on its own, that God existed, or that God was the cause of his precognition. I think this lack of implication is obvious: there could be an alternative explanation. You seem to think there could NOT be an alternative explanation. But I'm afraid, whatever you think, there could be one, and that you are obviously wrong in thinking there could not be. As regards the relative plausibility of that alternative explanation, compared to the God explanation, this is something that could be debated.
I never said there could not be an alternative explanation. However, you are saying that it doesn't imply that God exists. That would be saying precognition to such a specific degree is common, which we both know to be untrue. With that being the case, it does imply that a supernatural cause was behind it. And at the very least, the God theory is 1st among equals as to what was the cause.
My more general point, that experiencing X does not make you an expert on what caused X, is not something that you have yet offered a coherent counterargument against. So I will take it as established unless you can offer one in due course.
Indeed, the experience itself doesn't make you an expert, but one must look at context. Daniel was a fervent man of God. He shaped his diet and prayer life around what would be pleasing to God. When he had a dream he couldn't understand, he went without food for 21 days and prayed fervently to God for an interpretation. After this period, he received an interpretation. He says he visibly saw an angel, or messenger from God (Gabriel, who is mentioned in other places in the Bible). Relative to everyone else, Daniel appears to be quite the expert.
Non-specific prophecies? That would include, for a start, most things allegedly predicted by the highly symbolic Book of Revelation. Not to mention the fig tree "referring" to Israel in 1948.
Pretty general. I wish you had provided a specific verse you had problems with. What appears symbollic is usually only so because you do not interpret Scripture with Scripture and instead use Webster's, which is ill-advised, at best.
I agree that, with respect to the Luke 9:27 prediction, the Kingdom of God *may* have referred to the vision the disciples were about to have.
Good enough for me.
However, as regards Luke 21:25 to 21:32, and Mark I think it is perfectly clear that Jesus is saying that the generation to which the disciples belonged would not pass away before the end times would be at hand. But that generation did pass away, and we are still here 2000 years later. You would have to invent a highly misleading interpretation of "this generation" to think otherwise.
Why would you come to this conclusion? The disciples asked when the end of the world and Jesus' 2nd coming would be. He gave them an answer that included signs in the moon and sun, roaring seas, and why wouldn't He say "your generation" rather than "this generation?" I think it's apparent that He meant the generation that saw the signs He mentioned.
I am going to quit the debate here, as I'll be taking a break from RHP shortly. I think that both of us have had the opportunity to make our respective cases at reasonable length, happily without insulting one another. Hopefully other people will find it useful. I leave it to you to provide the final rebuttal to my points.
Indeed, it's been a pleasure debating with a scholar and a gentleman.
Regards,
Darfius
Back to Top